ATTENTION FELLOW CONSERVATIVES & LIBERTARIANS!!! If you want to know how serious the GOP presidential candidates are about cutting federal spending, please go to the FoxNews/Google GOP Debate YouTube page and under the text questions for the "Govn't Spending & Budget" category VOTE UP any questions about ELIMINATING BASELINE BUDGETING!!!
Under the Baseline Budgeting accounting method, cuts are only scored as cuts in the rate of growth.
@MrConservative608 True 'dat! However, with a modest GDP growth rate, those cuts can reduce the deficit/debt. Any "Cut" in federal spending is a good thing. May not be ideal, but a good thing nonetheless.
This are the death thoes of your discredited system. Compared to other western countries, you don't have any room for these type of spending cuts without threatening social instability - your unemployment rate is already 50% higher than Europe, and you don't have any safety net for the unemployed. You could cut, of course, the trillions of dollars you to hand out in corporation subsidy and the military, which is currently being used to lay waste to the lives of innocent people across the planet.
cato institute - researching novel new ways of accelerating the destruction of the environment, fucking of the middle class and making the richest 2% richer.
Baseline Budgeting. Look it up. That is why we will NEVER have real cuts but simply reductions in the rate of growth.
I vote Republican but I am ashamed that even the most conservative of electable candidates for any office in Washington D.C. cannot really cut the budget in any meaningful way.
Wasn't this why people were so mad at Enron? Funny, when the federal government gets creative with mathematics, no one is outraged.
@efishunter You're missing the point, and I think that's deliberate, given your other big government apologist comments on this video. Look at the online US Debt Clock. We're drowning in debt. The problem keeps getting worse. Including unfunded entitlements (example: government stole your money promising to pay it back as Social Security but spent it instead), each taxpayer is now on the hook for over a MILLION DOLLARS. We can't repay this debt. Go ahead. Try to apologize for that.
@MrCactopuss Thank you for volunteering to go over to Afghanistan and get rid of Al Qaida all by yourself, then going over to Iraq to stabilize that country so we can take those wars off the books.
However, both wars cost us a total of $633.7 billion and out of an annual budget of $3.55 trillion, it is 17.9% of our spending.
@MrCactopuss That would save approximately $125b per year. What to do with the $1trillion plus deficit per year, much less, the out of control "Mandatory" spending increases each year? You may or may not realize that the interest alone on our national debt is more than the annual war budget.
It takes government legislator math to call a small cut to a much larger spending hike a "cut" in government spending.
My state legislators play the same word games, and the city council is starting to tell the same lies... as government at all levels gets bigger and bigger.
Remember "It's the economy, stupid", as the Bill Clinton campaign slogan that identified the real problem of the day? This year, the election slogan should be, "It's the government, stupid!"
The Right created this debt and they want the middle class and poor to pay for the reduction in taxes on the wealthest of us. Give me a break. Where is the common ground? It is not possible to balance the budget without increasing the tax rate to what it use to be when most of us still had jobs during the Clinton admin.
@genevievevan No, everyone created this debt. Both Bush and Obama and the past many republicrats have been creating this debt for a long time, it's no one's fault specifically, it's more of everyone's fault.
It's just like a one party systme. The Dems and the GOP have been bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. They blow money like drunken sailors and the taxpayer gets screwed again and again. Vote them all out next go around.
@czubspenx The two party system is more like a duopoly. Akin to Coke and Pepsi. Each have their loyal followers and fans, but in the end you get similar if not directly exchangeable end products. In the coke pepsi case, brown sugar water. In the party case, big government and less freedom and liberty. Personally, I align myself as being more of a libertarian, but there is one glaring problem with Libertarianism. We don't believe that we can force or coerce others to think like we do.
This should also tell you that the talk of government defaulting is also a big lie by the Liberals. They want you to think government will collapse and they are your saviors. Just more scare tactics; same as they used before passing the worthless Stimulus Bill.
Write or call your reps today and tell them not to raise the debt ceiling until they have a balanced budget amendment. It is time to cut up Congresses credit card.
MrConservative608 needs to re-look his constitutional history. Many of the writers of the constitution were anti slavery. Unfortunately it took almost 60 years to abolish it completely. It is a LIBERAL play book statement...heard it over and over again now recently. Stay in the present...
The Cato Institute are nothing but whores for the rich. Massive tax raises on the richest americans are in order and are appropriate. Fuck all you dumbasses who have been brainwashed by these low life cretin Koch Brothers. Daddy died rich and left them lots of money even where he was taxed at 70%. Hell, Koch Brothers are so fucking greedy they were swindling their 2 other billionaire brothers.
This is why the Ryan Budget plan is full of fail. It's a step in the right direction, but doesn't do nearly enough and will not solve our interrelated debt and currency devaluation problem.
I'd rather hit a brick wall in a geo going 20 than 80 any day. So even if the rest of America thinks like you and doesn't even want to try to completely stop collapse, we should at least put on the brakes as hard as possible. Maybe even start throwing crap out the windows to lighten the load when we do hit. Less mass = less kinetic energy = more probable chance of survival.
@wakawl B.S. If we get serious and start kicking the idiots out of office and explain to the older generations that what they are doing is tantamount to a parent using their child's credit to get a new mortgage, car loan, or credit card; we might just be able to head this situation off.
Social security can only "invest" in government bonds. That means that all soc. sec. taxes are loaned to the federal government balooning the budget from what it would otherwise be. Then, to pay back the money to the soc. sec. beneficiaries, the federal government has to repay those bonds with tax dollars plus interest. They take it from you both ways and we wonder why we are in debt as a nation.
Many people talk about Washington spending more than it takes in and that's true and relevent. However, Washington needs to see the $ flowing in reduced, which would seriously reduce its power. With all that money, no wonder it's the monster it is. In this day and age, Washington exist mostly to redistribute income from one class of citizens to another. It's sad & pathetic.
Why can't all liberals move to Canada? They loath the United States anyway. Liberals, please go to Canada where you can run that country into the ground with this kind of budgeting BS.
@MrConservative608 Uh, yeah I agree. They can take the conservative Neocons with them. Don't try to make the budget issue a 'liberal' problem. Defense spending is ludicrous, and follows almost no checks and balances. We know liberals spend like Saudi Princes. The breakdown came when 'Conservatives' joined in the fray.
@Brajabu74 About DOD (Dept. of Defense), I would join any libertarian in trying to end all our wars overseas by telling the people of those countries they have to take responsibility for their own country, close all foreign military bases, sell all retired vehicles for scrap metal (WTH are they doing in the Arizona dessert & not sold for scrap?), don't fund any new vehicles but I would always leave the door open to fighting wars if & when we need to.
@MrConservative608 You may be becoming a heretic among Conservatives. Good luck.
btw: I replied to robertmike and his 'slavery' trump card above. Arguing the past with these people is a moot point. They want to own the shame of slavery and use it, but don't actually act on equivalent situations because that would inconvenience their lifestyles. It's disgusting really. Because literally they are using slaves... once again as a means to their end. But missing the moral of the story completely.
@Brajabu74 I believe in having a world class military that can go & fight when we need to. I supported the Iraq War from the beginning because #1. Iraq was manufacturing WMDs but we got there after they were smuggled out & #2. Iraq was harboring Al Qaida in the northern parts of the country. Anyway, I understood that Reagan was building up the military to win the Cold War (meaning I am not a hippie) but I think our Iraq & Afgan. missions have faded into meaninglessness.
@MrConservative608 I'm with you, but too much of the info about WMD's has been tampered with. I thought they made it to Syria, but there is contradicting evidence as to if they ever existed at all. I was for the invasion based on the info I was told. I'm not sure about the Kurds harboring Al Qaeda. Again, possibly fabricated info. Reagan was a hero. Unfortunately both sides completely misrepresent him. It infuriates me when Neocons use his name.... at all. "A Time For Choosing" nuff said.
You know that Iraq was the largest ever manmade nuclear disaster...14,000 times larger radiation emitted overall than that of the Hiroshima bomb...
Kids born with defects up 600% since the US invaded Iraq...and im sure, with all the radiation lingering, that will continue --- not to mention the deaths down the road due to cancer.
Iraq may have had WMD's; the US provided those to them under Reagan.
@helltrackrider Reagan provided WMD's to Iraq? Proof or reference to some proof please. You are correct about the radiation in Iraq due to our bombs and weapons. Not sure about the percent, but it's bad. Soldiers are having a lot of problems too. Hey, on the upside, we can test a kinder gentler bomb in Libya, use the presidents accounting methodology and count anyone who doesn't die as 'lives saved'.
USA: Saving Lives by Droppin Bombs. You're welcome.
@robertmike57 You were the one who told me to eat shit for being patriotic in the United States of America which is the best nation on the planet because we have a constitution that recognize our rights as being from God and that no government has any business taking them away and because we have the right to not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - 5thAmend capitalism has BOOMED!
@MrConservative608 Guys like you aren't patriotic, but you are an idiot with that statement of rights coming form God, as if slavery was never enshrined in the consitution and entrenched in a manner it took a million people getting killed to end slavery. Progresive taxation is taking property, it's an assessment on the super rich to pay for the society they benefit.
@robertmike57 Once again, you are the one who told me to eat shit for being patriotic. The 3/5th Clause had absolutely nothing to do with slavery but with taxing native Americans 3/5th of a citizen. Also, the Republican party was established to end slavery, we were the ones who declared war on the Democratic Confederacy to end slavery, we also were the ones who pushed for the 13th, 15th & 19th Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & 1968. Why hate the USA?
@robertmike57 Okay, lets look at the text of the 3/5ths Clause. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Where does it say slaves are 3/5ths human?
@MrConservative608 It doesn't, not that clowns who go around calling people names without reading the document itself would understand that. Don't waste too much time trying to convince the idiots of their idiocy, man. Not worth the lost brain cells.
@MrConservative608 I never said a thing about 3/5 business, goes to show you're an idiot. The 3/5 was merely a device to increase the slave states representation in house of representatives and entrench their power.
@robertmike57 Slavery as CONSTANT talking point is becoming as overused as calling someone a Nazi. Is that all progressives have? Where are your clothes made? China, right? Slavery is a tool you use. Not something you find offensive. If it was, you'd put up and do something about the here and now. Stop jumping to slavery every single time Every freakin argument EVERY conversation about anything SLAVERY! Enjoy the toils of forced child labor. Finding fault with the past isn't morality.
@Brajabu74 I would prefer paying $12 for a shirt made in USA than $10 for 2 made in India, as I recently had done. Sri Lanka girls forced to have sex in a Jordan factory making shirts for a vendor supplying Clothing to Wal Mart, I was referring to. Would have no problem with paying more for many goods if they were made in USA. NO ONE gets the fact there are many industries worth protecting to bring/keep jobs to this country. Nice try at trying to make me out to be a hypocrite though.
@robertmike57 With so many enlightened progressives, how are our manufacturing and textile industries doing? There is no movement among progressives (or anyone for that matter) to do anything about it. But the slavery stick is used ad nauseum. It's like abortion. Shouldn't pro lifers be outnumbering the godless heathens by now? So, maybe you do take the time and spend the money. You would be an exception and unfortunately more people pay lip service toward doing this, but don't follow through.
@Brajabu74 The fundamental problem both political parties have ignored is allowing the manufacturing base to be so devastated. .I have no problem with tariffs as appropriate, a definite part of the solution is have China buy as much of our crap as purchased from them, fuck the WTO, they fuck us. People like Phil Knight of Nike have got to be a billionaire while tossing American shoe makers on the street. So screw Knight, tax the fuck out that bastard.
@robertmike57 It's not companies faults for trying to edge out competition, and you cannot put politicians in charge of designing a complicated tariff system. The lobbyists will get to them from the countries, and corps. The problem is slave labor, and we should have a basic humanitarian trade clause. We don't do business w/ countries or allow corps to do business in our country that use any form of forced labor. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Don't play it..
@Brajabu74 oh course you can put politicians in charge of devising trade policies to ensure jobs are developed and kept in the country. They've been in charge of destroying the country's manufacturing base for the last 20 years. As for dictating working conditions in other countries, be part of a the picture, the priority needs to be here.
@robertmike57 To the man with two first names, do you not blame the unions at all for creating monopoly prices on the labor market in the manufacturing sector? Hell, the postal union is about the only one with a captive audience and instead of growing like nike or other brands have done, it is crashing to the ground at an astonishing rate. My grandfather was one of the union lobbyist for the USPS and helped steer this wreck to the ground, so I do take the unions seriously and know their mindset.
@dlstb LOL! The postal service is getting strangled by fuckhead congress not allowing postage rates to raise to 60-75 cents. And no private company wants 1st class mail delivery. You sound like the usual antiunion crybaby loving the middle class being destroyed.
@robertmike57 That is part of the problem, but the union is a further restraint that doesn't allow the "private" enterprise of the USPS to adjust to market conditions and the rise of email. It has been unable to make the adjustments that it needs to to stay competitive because of all these reasons. Soon it will "have" to be bailed out I am sure. "
@robertmike57 You're being facetious right? Thus the need for a plain trade agreement. In that agreement there should be some humanitarian requirements. We don't do business with countries that use slave or child labor (the child age would have to come down significantly). This is easy and has 2 benefits. 1. We start to practice what we preach, and maybe MAYBE earn our way back to a country to be looked up to. 2. Paid labor can never compete with forced or slave labor. That is about here.
@Brajabu74 You need to check out how the WTO is overriding our laws. We can't keep child labor made goods out , nor can tuna be labelled dolphin safe anymore. Thom Hartmann has far more information on the topic. You won't hear about how we're getting fucked by the WTO by any of the Koch Brothers funded conservative propaganda bullshit organizations like Cato.
@robertmike57 I completely understand. Well, as much as a simpleton who is not part of that inner circle is able to. Yes, treaty law is disturbing. Liberals are just as much at fault. Global warming and the 'proposed' UN solution would completely circumvent our Constitution. THIS.. needs to stop. I am glad you are awake, and know who's ass needs kickin, but the infighting over ideology is perpetuating ignorance and disinformation and allowing 'Them' to continue unabated.
@Brajabu74 That means that we should abolish all closed union shops as unions lay claim to all the labor provided and therefore lay claim on the labor of the individuals employed. It is just another form of slavery so long as there isn't a choice in whether or not to join the union. This includes all the state licensing for things such as cosmetology, dentistry, law, and engineering. They are all systems that lay claim over the ability of an individual to profit from their own labor.
@dlstb It would become difficult for Unions to do business. Licenses are simply a form of taxation, manipulation and monopolizing an industry. All those groups would quickly be replaced by private groups that rated/ represented professionals. And their reputation would become paramount to their bottom line, so we would be better represented than we are now There would admittedly be a 'messy' period.
@Brajabu74 I agree, there would be a short term confusion in the market if labor unions all became voluntary and couldn't use force to guarantee their own existance anymore. However, I am young and I am willing to take the risk of few years of non-licensure until a private ratings system comes about that is truly voluntary and serves the good of the public. Especially in the health field which currently kills more people per year from preventable accidents than all gun related deaths times 10.
I would like to make one small comment about the phrase "Unions to do business". I have a hard time believing that anyone's union is really doing anything to help workers today. Mainly they are PAC's that run off of mandatory union dues. I would harldy consider theft in the same class as business. Especially since unions are taking part in political organizing with forced donations and churches cannot do the same with charitable donations. I was part of a union once. Lasted about 2 paychecks.
@helltrackrider ? Your point is pointless. Any system of governance has to have examples of other ways to do things that are worse than it. Otherwise there would be only one way no others. Nothing could be less libertarian than the thought that there is only one correct way to govern. It is up to the individuals in a society to decide how they shall be governed. The reason that the legitimized evil will always exist in this world has nothing to do with Libertarians and our beliefs.
So, I must be forced into a system of which I do not agree?
Legitimized evil has everything to do with Libertarianism....Libertarians advocate for Government - which is legitimized force; force upon those who have not consented is evil...as an individual; being born is not consent to force - unless you advocate for Government (regardless of the size - it is force)
@helltrackrider You don't understand the Libertarian ideals. Libertarians believe that they have no power over others to use force or coercion unless that person is using some form of force or coercion on them or a person they are allied with. That means that you are allowed to govern yourself so long as you don't go around beating on others and raping them. If you can't agree to a system that allows you that much freedom, but not the freedom to rape and pillage, you are a rapist and wife beater
May want to recheck the Libertarian platform...1) doesnt advocate for self-governance...2) doesnt advocate for the outright exclusion of force - as it is a Government philosophy...
Maybe you are thinking of a "Voluntaryist"?...but anyway, the mere existence of Government and the fact that, regardless of what philosophy you support, it is coersive and places the individual inferior to the ideology....means that, you support force and violence.
@helltrackrider So how does anarchy deal with murderers and rapists? Do the individuals attacked by the violent criminal beings just lay down? Or do they have the right to defend themselves and others facing similar attacks? Anarchy is everyone for themselves and no rule or morality. Libertarianism sets a common standard of conduct that says an individual may not use force against another. It goes further to allow the individual to ally with others for the common defense against persons of force
@helltrackrider I know exactly what Libertarian is and how it works. The truth about anarchy is that it is just that, anarchy and that is only governed by luck at best and by rule of the strongest over the weakest at best. Remember, the earth was ruled by anarchy before and the natural evolution of prolonged states of anarchy was monarchy and people as property of the monarch. You may want to rethink your opinion of what anarchy is and have some foresight into the situation.
Every since the development of the human conscious; humans have either fell in line with Religion or Government as a ruling faction...by fear of course; the fear of no afterlife/hell or the fear of being shot in the face..which, Libertarianism doesnt remove.
How does Libertarianism deal with murderers, rapists and thieves?...by extorting and forcing individuals to be a part of a governing entity...which grows like a cancer, until it is USA sized.
@helltrackrider You still haven't told me how anarchy solves the problem of individuals using force against one another. In a truly Libertarian style government, force is only taken against an indiviual when the individual has initiated force upon another and that individual has been given a fair chance to dispute the claims against him. TELL ME WHAT PROTECTIONS ANARCHY PROVIDES! None. That is what. Ther is no guarantee that force will not be used against you nor a guarantee for justice after.
Do you believe in Capitalism?...assuming so, the market will determine the best means of dealing with coersive force upon others...sorry that your brainwashed mind cannot grasp this.
As you stated earlier...people want security - this extends to the idea that services and food will be available to them when the deem necessary; why cannot forceful people be dealt with by denying or limiting services within the market place?
@helltrackrider So the way to deal with a murderer or a rapist in an anarchist society is to starve them to death or just not trade with them. How advanced of you. So where in anarchy is the right of the individual to protect their own life? That is why I say that anarchy is survival of the fittest and rule of the strong over the weak. If there is no protection of the right to life with a threat of force once force is initiated against another, there is only violence and death.
Protection is an inherent right; Government doesnt "secure" or "provide" this.
Where is the protection of "right to life" today?
How many people are murdered?...how many are starved?...how many are unemployed due to government / market collusion and manipulation?...how many rely on the theft from others to provide food?...how many are murdered by Government?...how many are imprisoned for voluntary and non-violent offenses?...Government rely works well.
@helltrackrider You are obviously a mindless drone to not understand the words that I am typing. The current sytem of government was founded upon libertarian ideals, yes. The current government follows those ideals it was founded on, uh, I think freaking not. I think we could come to some middle ground and actually discuss this if your head weren't so far up your large intestine. Libertarians don't agree with imprisoning persons for non-violent offensesl
@helltrackrider Nor do Libertarians believe that the market should be in any way controlled by the government. So right there are two places where we agree, you are just to shallow to understand the matter. Further, protection is not a "right". You have a right to life. Which means that you have every right to defend yourself from harm. This doesn't mean that it is your right to receive police assistance or some other form of security. That is why we pay for such protection in the form of taxes.
Why are you trying to define "Rights" to me?...I never claimed "protection is a right"...that is th mantra of Government - even Libertarians, as they advocate for a "National Defense" (i.e. PROTECTION)...paid for by the violation of property rights (whether it be from the individual or the business is a moot point)
you explained - you support force against the business, why is this?...I thought that you were for "the non-initiation of force"
@helltrackrider Those taxes used to provide the service should also be collected through a means that is circumventable by the individual who does not wish to pay for these services, IE, the FairTax. Your point about people relying on theft to provide food only proves to me that you truly are a socialist or communist in disguise and you truly don't understand either anarchy or Liberty. Theft is force or coercion and runs contrarty to both. Also, there is no right to be fed, only to life.
In todays world; people DO rely on theft to provide food...what do you think happens when people can "vote" for a lifestyle?...Does the Constitution warrant Medicare, Unemployment, Welfare....etc....of course not; but do those who vote want these?...yep...so they vote in people who dont feel obligated to adhere to century old "rules"...
I do not advocate for theft for food...not sure where you got that from.
Of course I believe in capitalism and the free market, however, these are only good at providing exchangeable goods and services. They cannot control things that are not some sort of commodity. I refuse to believe that your right to not be killed or raped maliciously is some sort of commodity that can be exchanged for a price. It simply isn't true. No right that you have can be traded or exchanged, they are ever present in you. If you believe otherwise, slavery is a moral act of the free market
Protection is a service...the market offers it currently; and with the removal of legitimized immorality from the market - protection and insurance would possibly be the largest market share provided.
Rating agencies and Insurance agencies would be prevelant, similar to the credit system or underwriters laboratories of today...businesses and individuals could easily log on or make a phone call to determine the reliablility of potential customers...
Do you not understand that force and violence are going to occur regardless of what type of system (or lack of system) there is instituted?...Now, the question is, DO YOU SUPPORT THE INITIATION OF FORCE?...If you support ANY form of "Government" - which by default initiates force to supply the wealth for the "services" it provides - then you support force.
Libertarianism, as wonderful as the party may paint it to be, STILL SUPPORTS FORCE.
@helltrackrider I support the initiation of force against those who iniate force against myself or someone to which I am allied with. I choose to ally myself with the general citizenry of the United States and agree to pay taxes (although begrudgingly) to support the defense of my fellow citizens against force. It is true that government now is the largest source of force and coercion, but that doesn't mean that my loyalty to my fellow citizens is not as strong as it has ever been.
As a Libertarian, Im sure you support the ideology of a "strong National defence" and a "good justice system"...tell me, how do these get funded?
Even further..."National Defense" assunes two things...1) the individual is part of a "Nation" - which is compulsive (i.e. forced upon that individual) and 2) that the Defense is to be provided for the Nation - which is funded via taxation (i.e. theft)
How does this differ from a Monoarchy or Democracy?
@helltrackrider National defense is an extension of the natural right of self defense, so yes I believe in the national defense. I am also a Marine Corps veteran of the War in Iraq, so draw your own conclusion on how I feel about the invasion of the US.
To answer how I feel about taxation, I feel that I must point out that I support the FairTax which would only tax consumption of new goods and services, not used or bardered goods, which would allow an individual who wishes not to be a part
@dlstb of the tax paying base to do so. I also believe that we should cut out all government spending for all types of welfare and charity, including FEMA because those are not Constitutional uses of taxpayer dollars. There are very few Constitutional uses for tax payer dollars and the judicial system and providing for the national defense should be the largest and most obvious because these two systems are charged with directly preserving the rights of the people. Argue with that.
FairTax...ncreases cost of goods and forces the companies to pay a revenue to an entity which did not produce, distribute or market any of the goods or services...very Fair.
You still say that you disagree with the use of Force; yet...your system relies on Force to collect a "FairTax" and to opress individuals into a "Citizenry"...Again, Libertarians are pro-Government ... meaning they are Statist, minimal State - but Statist nontheless ... I was a Libertarian once, I woke up.
@helltrackrider Cato does not represent libertarians. The only definition of libertarian is one who accepts the Nonaggression Principle. Had you been libertarian once, you would know this.
Nonaggression by advocating for aggression (Government)...rethink your definition.
Government cannot be provided without aggression, as it is compulsive...meaning that the people within the "jurisdiction" do not have the ability to remove themselves from the "Government" and remain within the jurisdiction.
@helltrackrider I see in your thread comments that you consider yourself educated about libertarian theory. But your comments show an awareness of a very slim section of those who call themselves libertarian. You seem totally unaware of major influences such as the ideas of Murray Rothbard, Sam Konkin, Roderick Long, Patri Friedman, de Puydt, Benjamin Tucker, John Zube, Michael Rozeff, Max Borders, and many many others past and current. Educate yourself and you'll find no contradictions.
@helltrackrider The FairTax only taxes those new goods and services. It does away with all income taxes. This means that only businesses are forced to pay any tax. Individuals who wish to avoid taxes may simply choose to buy second hand or make their own without a tax associated. The cost of goods that you cite is completely bunk. Currently that cost is incurred by employers and workers in payroll and income tax, but the incidence of ANY tax is always on the consumer. You must have hit your head
What is that word you used?..."Forced" to pay taxes.
There you have it...I thought a few moments ago you tried to explain that you support the non-initiation of Force?...crazy Libertarians.
If the Fair Tax only taxes new goods and services - where is the incentive to "produce"?...This incentive would be exactly where it is today; in a foreign economy.
And I'm the one with my head up my large intestine?
@helltrackrider Its very simple hell, the incentive to produce under the FairTax comes from the fact that the taxes are only paid on new goods and services. This means that a person can work and produce goods without being taxed for that production. Unlike current tax code which places a nearly 30% tax on all goods and services produced. By shifting the tax to consumption instead of production, it makes US made goods more competitive in the US and abroad
I guess you dont understand the numbers behind your advocation of force...You shift the tax burden solely to production and you recieve LESS production as the cost of said production increases...as the costs of goods increase; the market for these goods decreases...
BTW, people can only produce goods so long as the company they work for can achieve a profit from their goods produces...see above for explination.
@helltrackrider I'm no longer relpying to your brain dead self because I've made my case clear and it is quite apparrent that you are a socialist pig who touts the non-use of force so that only you can use force and get what you want. You are at best a child who needs desperately to be beaten with a belt on the back side. My bet is that your parents didn't spank you and so you became a rotten egg. Spare the rod, spoil the child. That sort of thing.
So...now you advocating for PARENTS to use force against kids?...shouldnt parents raise kids with compassion and love; perhaps reasoning?
Im sorry that your elitist libertarian position fails when you try to rationalize it...I once thought that "Libertarianism" was the way to go...I read and read more and finally realized that, no...it isnt, it STILL advocates for force against peaceful and respectful individuals while claiming that others are not worthy via birth location.
@helltrackrider Yes, the relationship between parent and child is not the same as between two adults. Parenting is a benevolent dictatorship (courtesy of Dave Ramsey) and is in place to protect the child from himself until he reaches the age of majority and is expected to make his own decisions and sink or float on his own merit. The institution of discipline instills a parents values into a child and is the basis of society. It is obvious that your parents had no such values, nor have you.
Again, you claim to "respect others rights" and only commit "reactive force" upon others...yet, you fail to include children into the category of humans who deserve this respect from you.
Keep beating your kids...dont blame them when they turn out sociopathic and delusional, afterall - they are just proceeding through life the way their parents (you) raised them to be.
Seeing children as unequal on a scale of humanity is a problem in todays culture, not a "basis of society"
Im not sure what the hell is wrong with your brain; a "benevolent dictatorship"...not to mention your views on forcing businesses and individuals to participate in a forceful system of governance...look up the word "Sociopath" - you might find all the answers you have been looking for.
Any respectful and decent parent understands that raising a child with guidance and reasoning s the proper way; not demands / ultimatums / violence --- but then again, most parents in America are brainwashed with religion and assume the "God" position over their kids...and feel as if they should act the same way that vile SOB acted.
Look what chaos religion caused throughout the centuries; look at the evil perpetrated by "God" in the Old Testament...not much of a "Father figure".
@helltrackrider It does makes our goods more price competitve because foreign goods are taxed at sale just the same as American goods and our exports aren't taxed at all. By not taxing our exported goods we can sell them overseas at a lower rate than we currently do and that will increase our market share and increase our exports. This means increased manufacturing. Also, the business friendly tax culture would draw in billions if not trillions from countries that have high tax rates.
What this argument comes back to on every level is YOUR support of force and the use of violence against people; extorting wealth from them to forceably provide services and compulesive "citizenship" based on the geographic location of where they were pushed out of a vagina...I suppose with this stance, outsiders would have to be "vetted" and prove that they are worthy of "Citizenship"?
Whereas, legitimate force is not present in Anarchy.
How does "luck" govern in a voluntary society?...Also, how do the Strongest "Rule" over the weakest in a society without "Rule" or "Authority"?....what you are describing seems to fit perfectly for todays government; which grew directly from an overwhelming group of Libertarian ideals ... the Constitution and Early America.
Fact is, Anarchy hasnt existed in a true form...the Quakers had a few decades of near Anarchy...and guess what, they never fought with Native Americans, traded constantly with them and made deals regarding lands outside of their region; unlike the colonies - who just decided that the Native Americans were inferior and the best way to deal with them was to treat them as such.
What are you afraid of?...Why do you support legitimized violence?...Dont let fear be your motivator.
@helltrackrider You truly are a fool. The time I speak of is further back than you can apparently imagine. In the natural state of humanity, their is anarchy. In anarchy their is no security. The immediate solution to that security issue is the banding together of the family and then of several families until a village, community, then state forms. Since the family unit is a benevolent dictatorship, the governance that is naturally derived from it is a monarchy. Do you see the dots now.
As you noted towards the end, it is NOT a cut. It is a reduction in planned growth. In business, NO ONE would call this a cut in a spending. At least not any company that I have worked for.
A cut means that spending is lower. It does not mean a smaller increase. And that is the problem with government. They use this kind of bulshit language to effectively lie to the public. Some people actually believe that spending was cut.
@666sigma Exactly. It's the same mentality as saying "I bought a TV that was on sale for $1,000 that normally costs $1,500! I just saved myself $500!" No, you didn't. You spent $1,000. It's pathetic that so many people don't recognize this, though then again, those are probably the same people who like to go around spending someone else's money.
I think I originally had a line like this about my wife and her saving by spending, but I ran out of characters. I tell her the same thing every time she tells that she saved me money.
Another good one is the corporate tax, which is nothing more than a cost of production to be passed on to consumers. Unless, of course, the company is no longer competitive. Tax the oil companies sounds good until you realize that it ends up at the pump.
@666sigma LOL Keep at it with trying to convince your wife. Logic should win out sooner or later. And yeah, the corporate tax is basically a double tax on consumers, the same as any tax on businesses (or the sales tax, or the death tax...). What annoys me is that people then whine and gripe about how prices are so high without even realizing why. At least learn what you're talking about before you complain. -_-
I am 100% against taxes and subsidies for business. However, the income that is paid to owners should be taxed at normal income rates. If a business wants to keep plowing its earnings back into the business to grow, I am all for that.
However, our tax does favor Wall Street gamblers over companies that make things of real value. Wall Street needs to get back to investment banking and banks need to get back to lending. Hedge funds are leveraged bets.
@666sigma That reminds me of something else that doesn't make sense. Aren't small business owners taxed based upon their total initial business revenue, not upon their revenue after costs? If an owner has $250K in revenue but $200K in costs, he should be taxed on the remaining $50K, not on the initial $250K. That's not fair at all. I would think small businesses would benefit greatly from fixing that particular stupid tax code quirk.
@frongjumping You have bad info (or a very very very very bad accountant) the small buisness owner only pays income tax on the 50K, not the 250k. If it is retail sales, yes he has to pay sales tax on all 250k, but this is why sales tax is added to the bill, it does not affect the 250k in sales.
@SpamSpamNEggs I was actually asking if that was the case or not, not stating it as fact. I wasn't sure, to be honest, because I'm not a business owner and am not familiar with the tax code in that regard. Thanks for clearing that up.
@frongjumping I am both a small business owner and a professional tax preparer. You can be sure that I have the correct info on small business taxes.
@SpamSpamNEggs LOL Fair enough. What I'm sure you'd agree on, though, is that no small business owner welcomes higher taxes or additional regulations, because it makes it impossible to expand your business. As the owner, any new hires or purchases of capital have to come out of your own pocket, yes? The less money in your pocket, the less chance of creating new jobs. I cannot fathom why the left doesn't grasp this concept.
@frongjumping Because the right isn't talking about small business. They are talking about helping mega corps. The Koch brothers have all the money they could ever want. If there are capital goods that are available to help improve production, it is not a shortage of money that is stopping them from buying it.
The more money that gets funneled to the mega corps, the less money gets invested in capital goods. The less money I have to expand with.
@SpamSpamNEggs Whose money are you talking about, though? Taxpayer money? I agree that too many of the establishment Republicans are too closely tied to giant multinational corporations, but not all of them. The 2010 freshman class includes a number of reps who have been living in the real world up until now and actually care about small business owners more than corporations.
@frongjumping Who? I Don't follow the republican party. I have yet to see any one that really breaks from the ranks and is not all about supporting the mega corps, but I don't follow them, so I may have missed someone new.
@SpamSpamNEggs Marco Rubio, for one. I haven't checked into his campaign finances or anything, but every word out of his mouth makes a ton of sense. There's also another guy who I just saw on a video recently who I think was a small business owner himself until getting elected last fall. I can't remember his name for the life of me, but he ripped into both parties for screwing around and not paying attention to the challenges people in the real world outside of D.C. face. It was great.
@SpamSpamNEggs While it's true that most of what's on that list is not specifically targeted at small businesses, I fail to see how things like repealing ObamaCare, getting rid of the death tax and reforming the ungodly-complicated tax code are specifically in support of big corporations. I also don't see how they would hurt small businesses any. I hadn't seen this list before, by the way, so I had to go look it up.
@frongjumping Check back to my original point. The right wing players support mega corps. Most of the list specifically targets mega corps.
Fixing the convoluted tax code is the point the I gave him for supporting small business.
Almost every thing in Obama's heath care bill is about regulating the mega corps in health care insurance. Not small business, not the practice of medicine, but the insurance to get medical care.
The death tax really only affects the top 1% in any real way. These are the people that own and control the mega corps.
The only real break for the lock stock and barrel republican is supporting not taking away god given workers rights. Continuing to allow workers to have secerate ballets for unionization is not a support for mega corps.
How it hurts me. Every pro mega corp bill that is passed makes it harder for me to operate. Every $ given to mega corps is a $ out of my pocket.
@SpamSpamNEggs I don't believe at all that the death tax only affects the top 1% to any real degree, but even if that's true, how does repealing it hurt the rest of us any? The only two points on Rubio's list that appear to be specifically directed at corporations are #2 (cutting the corporate tax) and #12 (protecting free trade). All the rest would benefit everyone, corporations, small businesses and individuals alike, assuming they're done in a fair fashion. That much remains to be seen.
2/12 are specifically directed at helping corporations
0/12 are specifically directed at helping small business.
Where do you think his priorities lie?
If you truly think that the top 1% don't have enough money, but you have extra, then the republicans are correct. I say the top 1%, the mega corporations, have more now than at any point in US history. Any step to give them more is a step in the wrong direction.
@SpamSpamNEggs That's some strange logic right there. Why are you discounting the fact that the other 10/12 would help everyone, small businesses included? It's not like a measure has to be specifically targeted at small businesses in order to help them, after all. We'd all benefit from tax code reform, an ObamaCare repeal, etc. In any case, I agree on ending corporate subsidies, but lowering the corporate tax rate isn't a subsidy. It's just letting them keep more of their own profits.
@frongjumping I'm trying to point out priorities. This guy, like all other republicans I've looked at, clearly have the priority of helping the super rich and mega corps. Any benefit to real small business owners or working class people will be unintended, 2ndary affects.
Yes 10/12 of these points could help small businesses. 0/12 WILL be written to help small business.
@SpamSpamNEggs My opinion is that we should completely eliminate both income tax and corporate/business tax. Then we only charge a consumption tax for all items purchased. Items like food can be tax free, as they are basic necessities for the poor. Items like LCD tv's can be taxed at 40% (which might seem high, but the price of products would decrease, since you would not be paying income tax in the base price). What do you think?
@daobagua In theory, I say all good. In practice I think it would fail worse than the tax code we have now. In theory we would cut taxes dramatically for the poor, raise taxes on the rich (the ones with lots of spending). In practice I expect that personal jets would make it on to the "necessities" list, but frozen dinners would not. That there would be a massive loss of revenue for the government and the first programs to be cut would be the ones that help the poor.
ATTENTION FELLOW CONSERVATIVES & LIBERTARIANS!!! If you want to know how serious the GOP presidential candidates are about cutting federal spending, please go to the FoxNews/Google GOP Debate YouTube page and under the text questions for the "Govn't Spending & Budget" category VOTE UP any questions about ELIMINATING BASELINE BUDGETING!!!
Under the Baseline Budgeting accounting method, cuts are only scored as cuts in the rate of growth.
MrConservative608 5 months ago
@MrConservative608 True 'dat! However, with a modest GDP growth rate, those cuts can reduce the deficit/debt. Any "Cut" in federal spending is a good thing. May not be ideal, but a good thing nonetheless.
luke55664 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just in case of interest:
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is out
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6W07bFa4TzM
Ron Paul 2012
ToxinalX 5 months ago
This are the death thoes of your discredited system. Compared to other western countries, you don't have any room for these type of spending cuts without threatening social instability - your unemployment rate is already 50% higher than Europe, and you don't have any safety net for the unemployed. You could cut, of course, the trillions of dollars you to hand out in corporation subsidy and the military, which is currently being used to lay waste to the lives of innocent people across the planet.
nowthatsinteresting1 7 months ago
cato institute - researching novel new ways of accelerating the destruction of the environment, fucking of the middle class and making the richest 2% richer.
djstorm75 7 months ago
Thanks for this video.
twanablevins 7 months ago
Baseline Budgeting. Look it up. That is why we will NEVER have real cuts but simply reductions in the rate of growth.
I vote Republican but I am ashamed that even the most conservative of electable candidates for any office in Washington D.C. cannot really cut the budget in any meaningful way.
Wasn't this why people were so mad at Enron? Funny, when the federal government gets creative with mathematics, no one is outraged.
MrConservative608 7 months ago 2
Two trillion or two hundred trillion who cares it's all counterfeit anyway
EdisunSolar 7 months ago 3
Clinton $547 Million Per DAY
Bush $1.6 BILLION Per Day
Obama $4.7 BILLION Per Day
And some people question the concerns of the people who support the Tea Party?
wsoxman 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
MY FAVORITE VIDEO!!
JudgeNapolitanoFTW 7 months ago
@efishunter You're missing the point, and I think that's deliberate, given your other big government apologist comments on this video. Look at the online US Debt Clock. We're drowning in debt. The problem keeps getting worse. Including unfunded entitlements (example: government stole your money promising to pay it back as Social Security but spent it instead), each taxpayer is now on the hook for over a MILLION DOLLARS. We can't repay this debt. Go ahead. Try to apologize for that.
Liberty4Ever 7 months ago
here's a novel idea, cut the trillion dollar wars..
MrCactopuss 7 months ago 18
@MrCactopuss Thank you for volunteering to go over to Afghanistan and get rid of Al Qaida all by yourself, then going over to Iraq to stabilize that country so we can take those wars off the books.
However, both wars cost us a total of $633.7 billion and out of an annual budget of $3.55 trillion, it is 17.9% of our spending.
MrConservative608 7 months ago
@MrCactopuss yeah like all 4, 5, or is it 6 of the wars going on. I forget how many MR. anti war Obama started.
Ecl713 7 months ago
@MrCactopuss That would save approximately $125b per year. What to do with the $1trillion plus deficit per year, much less, the out of control "Mandatory" spending increases each year? You may or may not realize that the interest alone on our national debt is more than the annual war budget.
luke55664 1 week ago
It takes government legislator math to call a small cut to a much larger spending hike a "cut" in government spending.
My state legislators play the same word games, and the city council is starting to tell the same lies... as government at all levels gets bigger and bigger.
Remember "It's the economy, stupid", as the Bill Clinton campaign slogan that identified the real problem of the day? This year, the election slogan should be, "It's the government, stupid!"
Liberty4Ever 7 months ago
The Right created this debt and they want the middle class and poor to pay for the reduction in taxes on the wealthest of us. Give me a break. Where is the common ground? It is not possible to balance the budget without increasing the tax rate to what it use to be when most of us still had jobs during the Clinton admin.
genevievevan 7 months ago
@genevievevan No, everyone created this debt. Both Bush and Obama and the past many republicrats have been creating this debt for a long time, it's no one's fault specifically, it's more of everyone's fault.
RKAddict101 7 months ago
i really feel politics just slows every thing down... instead of getting things done.. in a timely manner...
88roro11 7 months ago
Cato is doing a great job
a4finger 8 months ago
It's just like a one party systme. The Dems and the GOP have been bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. They blow money like drunken sailors and the taxpayer gets screwed again and again. Vote them all out next go around.
czubspenx 8 months ago 2
@czubspenx The two party system is more like a duopoly. Akin to Coke and Pepsi. Each have their loyal followers and fans, but in the end you get similar if not directly exchangeable end products. In the coke pepsi case, brown sugar water. In the party case, big government and less freedom and liberty. Personally, I align myself as being more of a libertarian, but there is one glaring problem with Libertarianism. We don't believe that we can force or coerce others to think like we do.
dlstb 8 months ago
Less of an INCREASE is NOT A CUT!
yakyakyak69 8 months ago 2
This should also tell you that the talk of government defaulting is also a big lie by the Liberals. They want you to think government will collapse and they are your saviors. Just more scare tactics; same as they used before passing the worthless Stimulus Bill.
READ OUR LIPS! NO MORE SPENDING!
wetweasel56 8 months ago
Write or call your reps today and tell them not to raise the debt ceiling until they have a balanced budget amendment. It is time to cut up Congresses credit card.
quizerry 8 months ago
Until we return to the size of government in 1960 how can anyone take the Demopublicans seriously?
harrybean2006 8 months ago
MrConservative608 needs to re-look his constitutional history. Many of the writers of the constitution were anti slavery. Unfortunately it took almost 60 years to abolish it completely. It is a LIBERAL play book statement...heard it over and over again now recently. Stay in the present...
BritaniSmith 8 months ago
Thanks
darek795 8 months ago
The Cato Institute are nothing but whores for the rich. Massive tax raises on the richest americans are in order and are appropriate. Fuck all you dumbasses who have been brainwashed by these low life cretin Koch Brothers. Daddy died rich and left them lots of money even where he was taxed at 70%. Hell, Koch Brothers are so fucking greedy they were swindling their 2 other billionaire brothers.
robertmike57 8 months ago
Just posted it to my wall. I hope it goes viral. That would be wonderful. People need to know this, and not be apathetic..
SeymourHoosierDaddy 8 months ago
This is why the Ryan Budget plan is full of fail. It's a step in the right direction, but doesn't do nearly enough and will not solve our interrelated debt and currency devaluation problem.
chitownboy57 8 months ago
EVERYONE SHARE THIS AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN!
Ozaze3 8 months ago
I'd rather hit a brick wall in a geo going 20 than 80 any day. So even if the rest of America thinks like you and doesn't even want to try to completely stop collapse, we should at least put on the brakes as hard as possible. Maybe even start throwing crap out the windows to lighten the load when we do hit. Less mass = less kinetic energy = more probable chance of survival.
dlstb 8 months ago 2
@dlstb
"the rest of America"...Collectivist slave speak.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@wakawl B.S. If we get serious and start kicking the idiots out of office and explain to the older generations that what they are doing is tantamount to a parent using their child's credit to get a new mortgage, car loan, or credit card; we might just be able to head this situation off.
dlstb 8 months ago
Social security can only "invest" in government bonds. That means that all soc. sec. taxes are loaned to the federal government balooning the budget from what it would otherwise be. Then, to pay back the money to the soc. sec. beneficiaries, the federal government has to repay those bonds with tax dollars plus interest. They take it from you both ways and we wonder why we are in debt as a nation.
dlstb 8 months ago
This video is exactly one minute long. Can you guys put this on TV?
MooseOfReason 8 months ago
Many people talk about Washington spending more than it takes in and that's true and relevent. However, Washington needs to see the $ flowing in reduced, which would seriously reduce its power. With all that money, no wonder it's the monster it is. In this day and age, Washington exist mostly to redistribute income from one class of citizens to another. It's sad & pathetic.
UTubekookdetector 8 months ago
one day, we libertarians shall rule the world, but we must wait for the opposing philosophies of the earth to fail in epic disaster first.
Zontertes 8 months ago
And here I thought the Naacp, the aclu
- and a thousand other drains on the economy would be defunded
stupid me
Zendout1 8 months ago
I smell a revolution, be it zombie or other.
MagnusIan 8 months ago
Why can't all liberals move to Canada? They loath the United States anyway. Liberals, please go to Canada where you can run that country into the ground with this kind of budgeting BS.
MrConservative608 8 months ago 3
@MrConservative608 Uh, yeah I agree. They can take the conservative Neocons with them. Don't try to make the budget issue a 'liberal' problem. Defense spending is ludicrous, and follows almost no checks and balances. We know liberals spend like Saudi Princes. The breakdown came when 'Conservatives' joined in the fray.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@Brajabu74 About DOD (Dept. of Defense), I would join any libertarian in trying to end all our wars overseas by telling the people of those countries they have to take responsibility for their own country, close all foreign military bases, sell all retired vehicles for scrap metal (WTH are they doing in the Arizona dessert & not sold for scrap?), don't fund any new vehicles but I would always leave the door open to fighting wars if & when we need to.
MrConservative608 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 You may be becoming a heretic among Conservatives. Good luck.
btw: I replied to robertmike and his 'slavery' trump card above. Arguing the past with these people is a moot point. They want to own the shame of slavery and use it, but don't actually act on equivalent situations because that would inconvenience their lifestyles. It's disgusting really. Because literally they are using slaves... once again as a means to their end. But missing the moral of the story completely.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@Brajabu74 I believe in having a world class military that can go & fight when we need to. I supported the Iraq War from the beginning because #1. Iraq was manufacturing WMDs but we got there after they were smuggled out & #2. Iraq was harboring Al Qaida in the northern parts of the country. Anyway, I understood that Reagan was building up the military to win the Cold War (meaning I am not a hippie) but I think our Iraq & Afgan. missions have faded into meaninglessness.
MrConservative608 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 I'm with you, but too much of the info about WMD's has been tampered with. I thought they made it to Syria, but there is contradicting evidence as to if they ever existed at all. I was for the invasion based on the info I was told. I'm not sure about the Kurds harboring Al Qaeda. Again, possibly fabricated info. Reagan was a hero. Unfortunately both sides completely misrepresent him. It infuriates me when Neocons use his name.... at all. "A Time For Choosing" nuff said.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@MrConservative608
Was the United States manufacturing WMD's?
You know that Iraq was the largest ever manmade nuclear disaster...14,000 times larger radiation emitted overall than that of the Hiroshima bomb...
Kids born with defects up 600% since the US invaded Iraq...and im sure, with all the radiation lingering, that will continue --- not to mention the deaths down the road due to cancer.
Iraq may have had WMD's; the US provided those to them under Reagan.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider Reagan provided WMD's to Iraq? Proof or reference to some proof please. You are correct about the radiation in Iraq due to our bombs and weapons. Not sure about the percent, but it's bad. Soldiers are having a lot of problems too. Hey, on the upside, we can test a kinder gentler bomb in Libya, use the presidents accounting methodology and count anyone who doesn't die as 'lives saved'.
USA: Saving Lives by Droppin Bombs. You're welcome.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 Whoa, we don't want them up here either. Maybe Europe?
CernelJoson 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 you conservatives are the ones wrapping yourseves in the flag so you can shit in it. So go fuck yourself and drop dead.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 Wouldn't you be much happier in Europe?
MrConservative608 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 Wouldn't you be happier in Somalia?
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 You were the one who told me to eat shit for being patriotic in the United States of America which is the best nation on the planet because we have a constitution that recognize our rights as being from God and that no government has any business taking them away and because we have the right to not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - 5thAmend capitalism has BOOMED!
MrConservative608 8 months ago 3
@MrConservative608 Guys like you aren't patriotic, but you are an idiot with that statement of rights coming form God, as if slavery was never enshrined in the consitution and entrenched in a manner it took a million people getting killed to end slavery. Progresive taxation is taking property, it's an assessment on the super rich to pay for the society they benefit.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 Once again, you are the one who told me to eat shit for being patriotic. The 3/5th Clause had absolutely nothing to do with slavery but with taxing native Americans 3/5th of a citizen. Also, the Republican party was established to end slavery, we were the ones who declared war on the Democratic Confederacy to end slavery, we also were the ones who pushed for the 13th, 15th & 19th Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & 1968. Why hate the USA?
MrConservative608 8 months ago 5
@MrConservative608 Taking Glenn Beck History makes you a retard.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 Okay, lets look at the text of the 3/5ths Clause. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Where does it say slaves are 3/5ths human?
MrConservative608 8 months ago 2
@MrConservative608 It doesn't, not that clowns who go around calling people names without reading the document itself would understand that. Don't waste too much time trying to convince the idiots of their idiocy, man. Not worth the lost brain cells.
frongjumping 8 months ago
@MrConservative608 I never said a thing about 3/5 business, goes to show you're an idiot. The 3/5 was merely a device to increase the slave states representation in house of representatives and entrench their power.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 Slavery as CONSTANT talking point is becoming as overused as calling someone a Nazi. Is that all progressives have? Where are your clothes made? China, right? Slavery is a tool you use. Not something you find offensive. If it was, you'd put up and do something about the here and now. Stop jumping to slavery every single time Every freakin argument EVERY conversation about anything SLAVERY! Enjoy the toils of forced child labor. Finding fault with the past isn't morality.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@Brajabu74 I would prefer paying $12 for a shirt made in USA than $10 for 2 made in India, as I recently had done. Sri Lanka girls forced to have sex in a Jordan factory making shirts for a vendor supplying Clothing to Wal Mart, I was referring to. Would have no problem with paying more for many goods if they were made in USA. NO ONE gets the fact there are many industries worth protecting to bring/keep jobs to this country. Nice try at trying to make me out to be a hypocrite though.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 With so many enlightened progressives, how are our manufacturing and textile industries doing? There is no movement among progressives (or anyone for that matter) to do anything about it. But the slavery stick is used ad nauseum. It's like abortion. Shouldn't pro lifers be outnumbering the godless heathens by now? So, maybe you do take the time and spend the money. You would be an exception and unfortunately more people pay lip service toward doing this, but don't follow through.
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@Brajabu74 The fundamental problem both political parties have ignored is allowing the manufacturing base to be so devastated. .I have no problem with tariffs as appropriate, a definite part of the solution is have China buy as much of our crap as purchased from them, fuck the WTO, they fuck us. People like Phil Knight of Nike have got to be a billionaire while tossing American shoe makers on the street. So screw Knight, tax the fuck out that bastard.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 It's not companies faults for trying to edge out competition, and you cannot put politicians in charge of designing a complicated tariff system. The lobbyists will get to them from the countries, and corps. The problem is slave labor, and we should have a basic humanitarian trade clause. We don't do business w/ countries or allow corps to do business in our country that use any form of forced labor. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Don't play it..
Brajabu74 8 months ago
@Brajabu74 oh course you can put politicians in charge of devising trade policies to ensure jobs are developed and kept in the country. They've been in charge of destroying the country's manufacturing base for the last 20 years. As for dictating working conditions in other countries, be part of a the picture, the priority needs to be here.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 To the man with two first names, do you not blame the unions at all for creating monopoly prices on the labor market in the manufacturing sector? Hell, the postal union is about the only one with a captive audience and instead of growing like nike or other brands have done, it is crashing to the ground at an astonishing rate. My grandfather was one of the union lobbyist for the USPS and helped steer this wreck to the ground, so I do take the unions seriously and know their mindset.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb LOL! The postal service is getting strangled by fuckhead congress not allowing postage rates to raise to 60-75 cents. And no private company wants 1st class mail delivery. You sound like the usual antiunion crybaby loving the middle class being destroyed.
robertmike57 8 months ago
@robertmike57 That is part of the problem, but the union is a further restraint that doesn't allow the "private" enterprise of the USPS to adjust to market conditions and the rise of email. It has been unable to make the adjustments that it needs to to stay competitive because of all these reasons. Soon it will "have" to be bailed out I am sure. "
dlstb 7 months ago
@robertmike57 You're being facetious right? Thus the need for a plain trade agreement. In that agreement there should be some humanitarian requirements. We don't do business with countries that use slave or child labor (the child age would have to come down significantly). This is easy and has 2 benefits. 1. We start to practice what we preach, and maybe MAYBE earn our way back to a country to be looked up to. 2. Paid labor can never compete with forced or slave labor. That is about here.
Brajabu74 7 months ago
@Brajabu74 You need to check out how the WTO is overriding our laws. We can't keep child labor made goods out , nor can tuna be labelled dolphin safe anymore. Thom Hartmann has far more information on the topic. You won't hear about how we're getting fucked by the WTO by any of the Koch Brothers funded conservative propaganda bullshit organizations like Cato.
robertmike57 7 months ago
@robertmike57 I completely understand. Well, as much as a simpleton who is not part of that inner circle is able to. Yes, treaty law is disturbing. Liberals are just as much at fault. Global warming and the 'proposed' UN solution would completely circumvent our Constitution. THIS.. needs to stop. I am glad you are awake, and know who's ass needs kickin, but the infighting over ideology is perpetuating ignorance and disinformation and allowing 'Them' to continue unabated.
Brajabu74 7 months ago
@Brajabu74 That means that we should abolish all closed union shops as unions lay claim to all the labor provided and therefore lay claim on the labor of the individuals employed. It is just another form of slavery so long as there isn't a choice in whether or not to join the union. This includes all the state licensing for things such as cosmetology, dentistry, law, and engineering. They are all systems that lay claim over the ability of an individual to profit from their own labor.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb It would become difficult for Unions to do business. Licenses are simply a form of taxation, manipulation and monopolizing an industry. All those groups would quickly be replaced by private groups that rated/ represented professionals. And their reputation would become paramount to their bottom line, so we would be better represented than we are now There would admittedly be a 'messy' period.
Brajabu74 7 months ago
@Brajabu74 I agree, there would be a short term confusion in the market if labor unions all became voluntary and couldn't use force to guarantee their own existance anymore. However, I am young and I am willing to take the risk of few years of non-licensure until a private ratings system comes about that is truly voluntary and serves the good of the public. Especially in the health field which currently kills more people per year from preventable accidents than all gun related deaths times 10.
dlstb 7 months ago
I would like to make one small comment about the phrase "Unions to do business". I have a hard time believing that anyone's union is really doing anything to help workers today. Mainly they are PAC's that run off of mandatory union dues. I would harldy consider theft in the same class as business. Especially since unions are taking part in political organizing with forced donations and churches cannot do the same with charitable donations. I was part of a union once. Lasted about 2 paychecks.
dlstb 7 months ago 12
Why not have a "RemoveGovernment" dot org site?
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider ha, because libertarians are not anarchists.
Zontertes 8 months ago
@Zontertes
This is where libertarians fail...they just have to have some remnents of perpetuated and legitimized evil.
Not full blown sociopathic, but close.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider ? Your point is pointless. Any system of governance has to have examples of other ways to do things that are worse than it. Otherwise there would be only one way no others. Nothing could be less libertarian than the thought that there is only one correct way to govern. It is up to the individuals in a society to decide how they shall be governed. The reason that the legitimized evil will always exist in this world has nothing to do with Libertarians and our beliefs.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Here is where you are wrong...
I wish to govern myself....why can I not?
Even Libertarianism agrees that I cannot.
So, I must be forced into a system of which I do not agree?
Legitimized evil has everything to do with Libertarianism....Libertarians advocate for Government - which is legitimized force; force upon those who have not consented is evil...as an individual; being born is not consent to force - unless you advocate for Government (regardless of the size - it is force)
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider You don't understand the Libertarian ideals. Libertarians believe that they have no power over others to use force or coercion unless that person is using some form of force or coercion on them or a person they are allied with. That means that you are allowed to govern yourself so long as you don't go around beating on others and raping them. If you can't agree to a system that allows you that much freedom, but not the freedom to rape and pillage, you are a rapist and wife beater
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
May want to recheck the Libertarian platform...1) doesnt advocate for self-governance...2) doesnt advocate for the outright exclusion of force - as it is a Government philosophy...
Maybe you are thinking of a "Voluntaryist"?...but anyway, the mere existence of Government and the fact that, regardless of what philosophy you support, it is coersive and places the individual inferior to the ideology....means that, you support force and violence.
Anarchy is true Freedom.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider "Anarchy is true Freedom."
And it's also true chaos. It'll never work as long as there's humans involved.
byteresistor 8 months ago
@helltrackrider So how does anarchy deal with murderers and rapists? Do the individuals attacked by the violent criminal beings just lay down? Or do they have the right to defend themselves and others facing similar attacks? Anarchy is everyone for themselves and no rule or morality. Libertarianism sets a common standard of conduct that says an individual may not use force against another. It goes further to allow the individual to ally with others for the common defense against persons of force
dlstb 8 months ago
@helltrackrider I know exactly what Libertarian is and how it works. The truth about anarchy is that it is just that, anarchy and that is only governed by luck at best and by rule of the strongest over the weakest at best. Remember, the earth was ruled by anarchy before and the natural evolution of prolonged states of anarchy was monarchy and people as property of the monarch. You may want to rethink your opinion of what anarchy is and have some foresight into the situation.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Explain....when "Anarchy" ruled?
Every since the development of the human conscious; humans have either fell in line with Religion or Government as a ruling faction...by fear of course; the fear of no afterlife/hell or the fear of being shot in the face..which, Libertarianism doesnt remove.
How does Libertarianism deal with murderers, rapists and thieves?...by extorting and forcing individuals to be a part of a governing entity...which grows like a cancer, until it is USA sized.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider You still haven't told me how anarchy solves the problem of individuals using force against one another. In a truly Libertarian style government, force is only taken against an indiviual when the individual has initiated force upon another and that individual has been given a fair chance to dispute the claims against him. TELL ME WHAT PROTECTIONS ANARCHY PROVIDES! None. That is what. Ther is no guarantee that force will not be used against you nor a guarantee for justice after.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Do you believe in Capitalism?...assuming so, the market will determine the best means of dealing with coersive force upon others...sorry that your brainwashed mind cannot grasp this.
As you stated earlier...people want security - this extends to the idea that services and food will be available to them when the deem necessary; why cannot forceful people be dealt with by denying or limiting services within the market place?
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider So the way to deal with a murderer or a rapist in an anarchist society is to starve them to death or just not trade with them. How advanced of you. So where in anarchy is the right of the individual to protect their own life? That is why I say that anarchy is survival of the fittest and rule of the strong over the weak. If there is no protection of the right to life with a threat of force once force is initiated against another, there is only violence and death.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Protection is an inherent right; Government doesnt "secure" or "provide" this.
Where is the protection of "right to life" today?
How many people are murdered?...how many are starved?...how many are unemployed due to government / market collusion and manipulation?...how many rely on the theft from others to provide food?...how many are murdered by Government?...how many are imprisoned for voluntary and non-violent offenses?...Government rely works well.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider You are obviously a mindless drone to not understand the words that I am typing. The current sytem of government was founded upon libertarian ideals, yes. The current government follows those ideals it was founded on, uh, I think freaking not. I think we could come to some middle ground and actually discuss this if your head weren't so far up your large intestine. Libertarians don't agree with imprisoning persons for non-violent offensesl
dlstb 8 months ago
@helltrackrider Nor do Libertarians believe that the market should be in any way controlled by the government. So right there are two places where we agree, you are just to shallow to understand the matter. Further, protection is not a "right". You have a right to life. Which means that you have every right to defend yourself from harm. This doesn't mean that it is your right to receive police assistance or some other form of security. That is why we pay for such protection in the form of taxes.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Why are you trying to define "Rights" to me?...I never claimed "protection is a right"...that is th mantra of Government - even Libertarians, as they advocate for a "National Defense" (i.e. PROTECTION)...paid for by the violation of property rights (whether it be from the individual or the business is a moot point)
you explained - you support force against the business, why is this?...I thought that you were for "the non-initiation of force"
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Those taxes used to provide the service should also be collected through a means that is circumventable by the individual who does not wish to pay for these services, IE, the FairTax. Your point about people relying on theft to provide food only proves to me that you truly are a socialist or communist in disguise and you truly don't understand either anarchy or Liberty. Theft is force or coercion and runs contrarty to both. Also, there is no right to be fed, only to life.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
In todays world; people DO rely on theft to provide food...what do you think happens when people can "vote" for a lifestyle?...Does the Constitution warrant Medicare, Unemployment, Welfare....etc....of course not; but do those who vote want these?...yep...so they vote in people who dont feel obligated to adhere to century old "rules"...
I do not advocate for theft for food...not sure where you got that from.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
Of course I believe in capitalism and the free market, however, these are only good at providing exchangeable goods and services. They cannot control things that are not some sort of commodity. I refuse to believe that your right to not be killed or raped maliciously is some sort of commodity that can be exchanged for a price. It simply isn't true. No right that you have can be traded or exchanged, they are ever present in you. If you believe otherwise, slavery is a moral act of the free market
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
Protection is a service...the market offers it currently; and with the removal of legitimized immorality from the market - protection and insurance would possibly be the largest market share provided.
Rating agencies and Insurance agencies would be prevelant, similar to the credit system or underwriters laboratories of today...businesses and individuals could easily log on or make a phone call to determine the reliablility of potential customers...
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@dlstb
Do you not understand that force and violence are going to occur regardless of what type of system (or lack of system) there is instituted?...Now, the question is, DO YOU SUPPORT THE INITIATION OF FORCE?...If you support ANY form of "Government" - which by default initiates force to supply the wealth for the "services" it provides - then you support force.
Libertarianism, as wonderful as the party may paint it to be, STILL SUPPORTS FORCE.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider I support the initiation of force against those who iniate force against myself or someone to which I am allied with. I choose to ally myself with the general citizenry of the United States and agree to pay taxes (although begrudgingly) to support the defense of my fellow citizens against force. It is true that government now is the largest source of force and coercion, but that doesn't mean that my loyalty to my fellow citizens is not as strong as it has ever been.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
As a Libertarian, Im sure you support the ideology of a "strong National defence" and a "good justice system"...tell me, how do these get funded?
Even further..."National Defense" assunes two things...1) the individual is part of a "Nation" - which is compulsive (i.e. forced upon that individual) and 2) that the Defense is to be provided for the Nation - which is funded via taxation (i.e. theft)
How does this differ from a Monoarchy or Democracy?
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider National defense is an extension of the natural right of self defense, so yes I believe in the national defense. I am also a Marine Corps veteran of the War in Iraq, so draw your own conclusion on how I feel about the invasion of the US.
To answer how I feel about taxation, I feel that I must point out that I support the FairTax which would only tax consumption of new goods and services, not used or bardered goods, which would allow an individual who wishes not to be a part
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb of the tax paying base to do so. I also believe that we should cut out all government spending for all types of welfare and charity, including FEMA because those are not Constitutional uses of taxpayer dollars. There are very few Constitutional uses for tax payer dollars and the judicial system and providing for the national defense should be the largest and most obvious because these two systems are charged with directly preserving the rights of the people. Argue with that.
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
FairTax...ncreases cost of goods and forces the companies to pay a revenue to an entity which did not produce, distribute or market any of the goods or services...very Fair.
You still say that you disagree with the use of Force; yet...your system relies on Force to collect a "FairTax" and to opress individuals into a "Citizenry"...Again, Libertarians are pro-Government ... meaning they are Statist, minimal State - but Statist nontheless ... I was a Libertarian once, I woke up.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider Cato does not represent libertarians. The only definition of libertarian is one who accepts the Nonaggression Principle. Had you been libertarian once, you would know this.
leafwatch 8 months ago
@leafwatch
Nonaggression by advocating for aggression (Government)...rethink your definition.
Government cannot be provided without aggression, as it is compulsive...meaning that the people within the "jurisdiction" do not have the ability to remove themselves from the "Government" and remain within the jurisdiction.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider I see in your thread comments that you consider yourself educated about libertarian theory. But your comments show an awareness of a very slim section of those who call themselves libertarian. You seem totally unaware of major influences such as the ideas of Murray Rothbard, Sam Konkin, Roderick Long, Patri Friedman, de Puydt, Benjamin Tucker, John Zube, Michael Rozeff, Max Borders, and many many others past and current. Educate yourself and you'll find no contradictions.
leafwatch 7 months ago
@leafwatch
About "Libertarian Theory"...no; about the fact that Libertarianism relies on force, yes.
You cannot have Government without force...Libertarianism is not the answer to remove violence and voluntarily interact...sorry.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider It's your choice, stay locked inside the matrix, or learn.
leafwatch 7 months ago
@leafwatch
Considering I oppose the complete ideology of any form of compulsive governance; I wouldnt consider myself "in the matrix"...
Libertarianism, as minimal as it claims, is still compulsive.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider The FairTax only taxes those new goods and services. It does away with all income taxes. This means that only businesses are forced to pay any tax. Individuals who wish to avoid taxes may simply choose to buy second hand or make their own without a tax associated. The cost of goods that you cite is completely bunk. Currently that cost is incurred by employers and workers in payroll and income tax, but the incidence of ANY tax is always on the consumer. You must have hit your head
dlstb 8 months ago
@dlstb
What is that word you used?..."Forced" to pay taxes.
There you have it...I thought a few moments ago you tried to explain that you support the non-initiation of Force?...crazy Libertarians.
If the Fair Tax only taxes new goods and services - where is the incentive to "produce"?...This incentive would be exactly where it is today; in a foreign economy.
And I'm the one with my head up my large intestine?
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Its very simple hell, the incentive to produce under the FairTax comes from the fact that the taxes are only paid on new goods and services. This means that a person can work and produce goods without being taxed for that production. Unlike current tax code which places a nearly 30% tax on all goods and services produced. By shifting the tax to consumption instead of production, it makes US made goods more competitive in the US and abroad
dlstb 7 months ago
@dlstb
I guess you dont understand the numbers behind your advocation of force...You shift the tax burden solely to production and you recieve LESS production as the cost of said production increases...as the costs of goods increase; the market for these goods decreases...
BTW, people can only produce goods so long as the company they work for can achieve a profit from their goods produces...see above for explination.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider I'm no longer relpying to your brain dead self because I've made my case clear and it is quite apparrent that you are a socialist pig who touts the non-use of force so that only you can use force and get what you want. You are at best a child who needs desperately to be beaten with a belt on the back side. My bet is that your parents didn't spank you and so you became a rotten egg. Spare the rod, spoil the child. That sort of thing.
dlstb 7 months ago
@dlstb
So...now you advocating for PARENTS to use force against kids?...shouldnt parents raise kids with compassion and love; perhaps reasoning?
Im sorry that your elitist libertarian position fails when you try to rationalize it...I once thought that "Libertarianism" was the way to go...I read and read more and finally realized that, no...it isnt, it STILL advocates for force against peaceful and respectful individuals while claiming that others are not worthy via birth location.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Yes, the relationship between parent and child is not the same as between two adults. Parenting is a benevolent dictatorship (courtesy of Dave Ramsey) and is in place to protect the child from himself until he reaches the age of majority and is expected to make his own decisions and sink or float on his own merit. The institution of discipline instills a parents values into a child and is the basis of society. It is obvious that your parents had no such values, nor have you.
dlstb 7 months ago
@dlstb
Again, you claim to "respect others rights" and only commit "reactive force" upon others...yet, you fail to include children into the category of humans who deserve this respect from you.
Keep beating your kids...dont blame them when they turn out sociopathic and delusional, afterall - they are just proceeding through life the way their parents (you) raised them to be.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@dlstb
Seeing children as unequal on a scale of humanity is a problem in todays culture, not a "basis of society"
Im not sure what the hell is wrong with your brain; a "benevolent dictatorship"...not to mention your views on forcing businesses and individuals to participate in a forceful system of governance...look up the word "Sociopath" - you might find all the answers you have been looking for.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@dlstb
Any respectful and decent parent understands that raising a child with guidance and reasoning s the proper way; not demands / ultimatums / violence --- but then again, most parents in America are brainwashed with religion and assume the "God" position over their kids...and feel as if they should act the same way that vile SOB acted.
Look what chaos religion caused throughout the centuries; look at the evil perpetrated by "God" in the Old Testament...not much of a "Father figure".
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@dlstb
And no, I never was spanked - nor should any kid be...I had reasonable parents.
Afterall, you are an extension of your upbringing.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider I knew it. You are just another child who still needs his arse whipped so that he can grow a brain.
dlstb 7 months ago
@helltrackrider It does makes our goods more price competitve because foreign goods are taxed at sale just the same as American goods and our exports aren't taxed at all. By not taxing our exported goods we can sell them overseas at a lower rate than we currently do and that will increase our market share and increase our exports. This means increased manufacturing. Also, the business friendly tax culture would draw in billions if not trillions from countries that have high tax rates.
dlstb 7 months ago
@dlstb
Oh...so we FORCE foreign companies to pay taxes as well...do you see where your philosophy is falling apart?
You advocate for the non-initiation of force; yet - force taxes upon businesses foreign and domestic...
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@dlstb
What this argument comes back to on every level is YOUR support of force and the use of violence against people; extorting wealth from them to forceably provide services and compulesive "citizenship" based on the geographic location of where they were pushed out of a vagina...I suppose with this stance, outsiders would have to be "vetted" and prove that they are worthy of "Citizenship"?
Whereas, legitimate force is not present in Anarchy.
Again, dont let FEAR be your motivator.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@dlstb
How does "luck" govern in a voluntary society?...Also, how do the Strongest "Rule" over the weakest in a society without "Rule" or "Authority"?....what you are describing seems to fit perfectly for todays government; which grew directly from an overwhelming group of Libertarian ideals ... the Constitution and Early America.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@dlstb
Fact is, Anarchy hasnt existed in a true form...the Quakers had a few decades of near Anarchy...and guess what, they never fought with Native Americans, traded constantly with them and made deals regarding lands outside of their region; unlike the colonies - who just decided that the Native Americans were inferior and the best way to deal with them was to treat them as such.
What are you afraid of?...Why do you support legitimized violence?...Dont let fear be your motivator.
helltrackrider 8 months ago
@helltrackrider You truly are a fool. The time I speak of is further back than you can apparently imagine. In the natural state of humanity, their is anarchy. In anarchy their is no security. The immediate solution to that security issue is the banding together of the family and then of several families until a village, community, then state forms. Since the family unit is a benevolent dictatorship, the governance that is naturally derived from it is a monarchy. Do you see the dots now.
dlstb 8 months ago
This is the first time I've voted up every comment left on a video by others!
SuperDoctorprofessor 8 months ago
As you noted towards the end, it is NOT a cut. It is a reduction in planned growth. In business, NO ONE would call this a cut in a spending. At least not any company that I have worked for.
A cut means that spending is lower. It does not mean a smaller increase. And that is the problem with government. They use this kind of bulshit language to effectively lie to the public. Some people actually believe that spending was cut.
666sigma 8 months ago 34
@666sigma No one ever cut government spending to achieve prosperity
robertmike57 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robertmike57
Thomas Jefferson did. Look it up.
666sigma 8 months ago
@666sigma Exactly. It's the same mentality as saying "I bought a TV that was on sale for $1,000 that normally costs $1,500! I just saved myself $500!" No, you didn't. You spent $1,000. It's pathetic that so many people don't recognize this, though then again, those are probably the same people who like to go around spending someone else's money.
frongjumping 8 months ago 7
@frongjumping
I think I originally had a line like this about my wife and her saving by spending, but I ran out of characters. I tell her the same thing every time she tells that she saved me money.
Another good one is the corporate tax, which is nothing more than a cost of production to be passed on to consumers. Unless, of course, the company is no longer competitive. Tax the oil companies sounds good until you realize that it ends up at the pump.
666sigma 8 months ago
@666sigma LOL Keep at it with trying to convince your wife. Logic should win out sooner or later. And yeah, the corporate tax is basically a double tax on consumers, the same as any tax on businesses (or the sales tax, or the death tax...). What annoys me is that people then whine and gripe about how prices are so high without even realizing why. At least learn what you're talking about before you complain. -_-
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping
I am 100% against taxes and subsidies for business. However, the income that is paid to owners should be taxed at normal income rates. If a business wants to keep plowing its earnings back into the business to grow, I am all for that.
However, our tax does favor Wall Street gamblers over companies that make things of real value. Wall Street needs to get back to investment banking and banks need to get back to lending. Hedge funds are leveraged bets.
666sigma 7 months ago
@666sigma That reminds me of something else that doesn't make sense. Aren't small business owners taxed based upon their total initial business revenue, not upon their revenue after costs? If an owner has $250K in revenue but $200K in costs, he should be taxed on the remaining $50K, not on the initial $250K. That's not fair at all. I would think small businesses would benefit greatly from fixing that particular stupid tax code quirk.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping You have bad info (or a very very very very bad accountant) the small buisness owner only pays income tax on the 50K, not the 250k. If it is retail sales, yes he has to pay sales tax on all 250k, but this is why sales tax is added to the bill, it does not affect the 250k in sales.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I was actually asking if that was the case or not, not stating it as fact. I wasn't sure, to be honest, because I'm not a business owner and am not familiar with the tax code in that regard. Thanks for clearing that up.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping I am both a small business owner and a professional tax preparer. You can be sure that I have the correct info on small business taxes.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs LOL Fair enough. What I'm sure you'd agree on, though, is that no small business owner welcomes higher taxes or additional regulations, because it makes it impossible to expand your business. As the owner, any new hires or purchases of capital have to come out of your own pocket, yes? The less money in your pocket, the less chance of creating new jobs. I cannot fathom why the left doesn't grasp this concept.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping Because the right isn't talking about small business. They are talking about helping mega corps. The Koch brothers have all the money they could ever want. If there are capital goods that are available to help improve production, it is not a shortage of money that is stopping them from buying it.
The more money that gets funneled to the mega corps, the less money gets invested in capital goods. The less money I have to expand with.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Whose money are you talking about, though? Taxpayer money? I agree that too many of the establishment Republicans are too closely tied to giant multinational corporations, but not all of them. The 2010 freshman class includes a number of reps who have been living in the real world up until now and actually care about small business owners more than corporations.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping Who? I Don't follow the republican party. I have yet to see any one that really breaks from the ranks and is not all about supporting the mega corps, but I don't follow them, so I may have missed someone new.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Marco Rubio, for one. I haven't checked into his campaign finances or anything, but every word out of his mouth makes a ton of sense. There's also another guy who I just saw on a video recently who I think was a small business owner himself until getting elected last fall. I can't remember his name for the life of me, but he ripped into both parties for screwing around and not paying attention to the challenges people in the real world outside of D.C. face. It was great.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping Most republicans have really good words coming out of their mouths, and really bad actions when it comes time to vote.
I will do some looking into Marco Rubio. I havent even heard that name yet.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@frongjumping Done my research. Marco Rubio is just the same BS in a prettier package. Take his 12 point plan for fixing the economy.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12, all are in support of the mega corps.
#6 could be done to help small business (most likely not)
#10 helps the people.
11/12 of his ideas are in support of the mega corps.
1/12 of his ideas are in support of small business.
1/12 of his ideas help the workers.
he clearly is a mega corp supporter.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs While it's true that most of what's on that list is not specifically targeted at small businesses, I fail to see how things like repealing ObamaCare, getting rid of the death tax and reforming the ungodly-complicated tax code are specifically in support of big corporations. I also don't see how they would hurt small businesses any. I hadn't seen this list before, by the way, so I had to go look it up.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping Check back to my original point. The right wing players support mega corps. Most of the list specifically targets mega corps.
Fixing the convoluted tax code is the point the I gave him for supporting small business.
Almost every thing in Obama's heath care bill is about regulating the mega corps in health care insurance. Not small business, not the practice of medicine, but the insurance to get medical care.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
The death tax really only affects the top 1% in any real way. These are the people that own and control the mega corps.
The only real break for the lock stock and barrel republican is supporting not taking away god given workers rights. Continuing to allow workers to have secerate ballets for unionization is not a support for mega corps.
How it hurts me. Every pro mega corp bill that is passed makes it harder for me to operate. Every $ given to mega corps is a $ out of my pocket.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I don't believe at all that the death tax only affects the top 1% to any real degree, but even if that's true, how does repealing it hurt the rest of us any? The only two points on Rubio's list that appear to be specifically directed at corporations are #2 (cutting the corporate tax) and #12 (protecting free trade). All the rest would benefit everyone, corporations, small businesses and individuals alike, assuming they're done in a fair fashion. That much remains to be seen.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping
In your own words.....
2/12 are specifically directed at helping corporations
0/12 are specifically directed at helping small business.
Where do you think his priorities lie?
If you truly think that the top 1% don't have enough money, but you have extra, then the republicans are correct. I say the top 1%, the mega corporations, have more now than at any point in US history. Any step to give them more is a step in the wrong direction.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs That's some strange logic right there. Why are you discounting the fact that the other 10/12 would help everyone, small businesses included? It's not like a measure has to be specifically targeted at small businesses in order to help them, after all. We'd all benefit from tax code reform, an ObamaCare repeal, etc. In any case, I agree on ending corporate subsidies, but lowering the corporate tax rate isn't a subsidy. It's just letting them keep more of their own profits.
frongjumping 7 months ago
@frongjumping I'm trying to point out priorities. This guy, like all other republicans I've looked at, clearly have the priority of helping the super rich and mega corps. Any benefit to real small business owners or working class people will be unintended, 2ndary affects.
Yes 10/12 of these points could help small businesses. 0/12 WILL be written to help small business.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs My opinion is that we should completely eliminate both income tax and corporate/business tax. Then we only charge a consumption tax for all items purchased. Items like food can be tax free, as they are basic necessities for the poor. Items like LCD tv's can be taxed at 40% (which might seem high, but the price of products would decrease, since you would not be paying income tax in the base price). What do you think?
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua In theory, I say all good. In practice I think it would fail worse than the tax code we have now. In theory we would cut taxes dramatically for the poor, raise taxes on the rich (the ones with lots of spending). In practice I expect that personal jets would make it on to the "necessities" list, but frozen dinners would not. That there would be a massive loss of revenue for the government and the first programs to be cut would be the ones that help the poor.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs the "poor" pay no taxes friend.
cessna605ac 7 months ago
@cessna605ac Yes, the poor do pay taxes. Don't believe the Fox News/Republican propaganda.
SpamSpamNEggs 7 months ago
@SpamSpamNEggs So which propaganda should people read/listen?
luke55664 1 week ago