Government Regulations Discussion (Philosophical and/or Constitutional)

[blu]

We should allow our federal government to oversee the supply of currency, defend our borders , and deliver the mail.
Until they can do those things right, letting the federal government do anything else shouldn't even be considered.
State governments should be restored the responsibility of providing all other services within their borders.
The most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States should be your local police department or county Sherriff.

I wouldn't trust cops to be the most powerful people in their family much less the whole country

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even putting aside the stark demonstrations of consititutional ignorance, the discussion about television commercial volume has been pretty interesting ...

really?

go figure

 

[Skull Pilot]

And people have more money to spend when the government takes less from us not more.

What you don't seem to understand is that the government cannot spend a dime it does not first take from the taxpayers. then a portion of that dime gets eaten up in the bureaucracy and only a fraction of that dime gets spent on a government program.

Where as if the government left that entire dime in the hands of the people, the whole 10 cents would be infused into the economy either directly as spending or indirectly on investments.

read this

The Broken Window Fallacy

tax and redistribution of wealth is plagued by bureaucracy, yes, but capitalism is plagued by hoarding without it. the entire dime would not be infused back into the economy. study some history and some greater economic thinkers than your broken window analogists.

Hoarding?

Tell me who today puts their money in a mattress. Money invested in stocks and bonds or put in a savings account is not being hoarded. In all cases that money is used for something. granted it is not used on direct spending but it still makes its way into the economy. The broken window fallacy is a basic example and that is all it is meant to be.

And why don't you post something from these economists?

the bottom line is that redistribution facilitates commerce, which in turn facilitates the creation of wealth. this is the reason why countries with little or no taxation have destitute, jobless citizens,

And countries with high taxation have chronic unemployment

and a very minute, very wealthy few. countries like ours dont require wealth to come from stripping our factors for export, and despite higher rates of tax, these developed economies have less poverty and a domestic component that facilitates the creation of wealth on several tiers.

Examples?

the pennies in your dime analogy build hard and soft infrastructure, and support government, which through a number of measures, some requiring direct expenditure, help to build a consumer economy in ways the private sector wont.

We pay taxes that are specifically for infrastructure already. Taxes on utilities are supposed to maintain and upgrade the grid for example. federal and state gas and excise taxes are supposed to be spent on infrastructure.

You are like most making the assumption that I am somehow advocating no government but you, like them are wrong.

Government spending is nearly 50% of GDP and taxes are the largest annual expenditure for the average American Household.

You have not shown how these two facts increase wealth.

im just surprised youve been in private enterprise for as long as you claim, but cant see some of the policy you criticize acting to your benefit. i would expect as much from folks employed in the shelters of overhead or economists and their libraries, but it makes you out to be a blind-ass despite what youve accomplished.

And what specific polices have I criticized?

I have criticized the expansion of government and higher taxes that go along with it. In this thread, I have been critical of the forced purchase of health insurance and Social Security. Nowhere have I said there should be no roads or infrastructure. The truth is we already pay in billions of taxes that are supposed to be dedicated to infrastructure yet our roads are in horrible shape and the government tell you that we need more but you fail to ask what happened to all the billions that were supposed to be used to maintain the infrastructure.

I'll tell you what happened to that money. Government officials and politicians squandered it.

The simple fact is that if we all had more of our own money to spend save or invest as we see fit, we would all be individually and collectively better off.

 

[antagon]

thanks for the reply. i gotta be brief today, but...

Hoarding?

Tell me who today puts their money in a mattress. Money invested in stocks and bonds or put in a savings account is not being hoarded. In all cases that money is used for something. granted it is not used on direct spending but it still makes its way into the economy. The broken window fallacy is a basic example and that is all it is meant to be.

And why don't you post something from these economists?

hoading, yes. where economies dont have robust domestic expenditure, the wealthy resort to foreign investment. there simply isnt as much opportunity for domestic investment without domestic consumption. the US is, for example the leading manufacturer, but certainly not the leading exporter on the planet. taxes play a role in distributing wealth to the sweet-spot in the economy where wealth is created on several tiers. can trickle-down really claim to do the same? does investment really constitute capitalist commerce?

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - from On the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (the jesus of capitalism) on progressive tax.

theres a quote for what thats worth.

And countries with high taxation have chronic unemployment

Examples?

looking at the developed world, id say that we are dealing with deindustrialization and capitalization, which can lead to greater unemployment. being a business person myself, i could appreciate the tax shelter that employees, particularly new employees, present come april-time. can it really be said that lower taxes improve the job outlook?

a major difference between the reagan recovery and the clinton recovery was the tax policy. reagan cut taxes, but struggled to recover the labor market despite the economy turning around, soaring even. the clinton recover included an increase in tax, and labor statistics followed economic growth, in contrast. while there are merits to conservative tax policy, it is clear that the 'jobless recovery' is a symtom associable with that approach. targetted tax policy can be very, very effective. the republican cut taxes 'cross the board' or flattening of taxes seems to promote foreign investment, often times taking the jobs overseas, rather than to the domestic labor market. no tax incentive. you do get your stock market booms, though. is that really capitalism, or just overinvestment?

it takes being an employer through a few different tax policies to appreciate the difference, and the counterintuitive nature of conservative tax policy on employment. when i hear folks saying 'cut taxes and they'll hire', i suspect they dont have this insight and have not tracked these policies historically. i suspect theyre parroting pundits on the topic.

Examples?

here's some examples of countries without progressive tax and social spending exporting their factors, rather than using them for domestic consumption...

the middle east are fine examples of countries that dont give a shit about their citizens. like the US, these countries are energy-based economies. unlike the US, they export all of their energy (oil) to the extent that they have energy crises. there is no domestic market for manufactured goods, there's no universal education, medicine, income, nada.

there is no coincidence that countries without a safety net, welfare, universal subsistence, whatever you want to call it, have economies like this with a rich few and poor, stupid masses, with marginal domestic consumption. countries that affect these programs through tax (not communism) are like the US... every last one which has adopted these policies for a reasonable amount of time.

you could see our economy make a considerable transition from this direction from the moment the 16th was passed. mexico did not follow suit. we were both oil producing countries with world leading economies at the time. que paso?, they ask. i argue that it is the tax and social policy and expenditure choices they made which attracted investment and fostered commerce in the US, rather than down there... of course plenty of private factors at play, but thats the biggest divergence when it comes to the role of government in the equation.

gotta flight to catch, man....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Sort of like the definition of pornography, you know it when you see it

Bingo. Which is unfortunate at it creates a kind of slippery slope.

I think the voting public is perfectly in the right to ask for regulation and oversight on vital interests, as in services and goods that are necessary to the survival of the nation and the individual. That in my mind includes predatory practices by large corporations or individuals when it comes to vital services.

I think we go too far on some things. Seat Belt laws and Motorcycle helmet laws for example. If you want to be stupid and not use the safety devices, then natural selection will remove you from the equation and solve the problem without intervention by the government. That in essence, is the line for me. Government shouldn't be in the business of trying to fix your own stupidity.

 

[DiamondDave]

Skull.. The reason youi will never prove that taxes are the biggest burdon is that you are only looking at half the picture.. You are spouting off about 26k in taxes and not considering how much people make.. The average household income for 2004 is only 44k.. So you are going to sit here and tell us that someone making 44k a year is actually only getting 18k to live on?? Your nuts!! The highest tax rate the IRS will impose is 35% Barely over a third.. And that is only if you are making millions a year.. Most people at that income level will only see a rate of 15% or 25% at best.. Depending on deductions like house and kids.. I am sorry.. The math doesn't add up.. Even if you count state tax, which some states don't have like mine.. And sales tax, your tax burdon is only marginal.. It is sizable.. But not quite half..

Show me the tax debt for a family with 2 children making 44k.. Hell even a family with 1 child.. Or just someone filing head of household.. Show me the numbers..

Income 2004 - Three-Year-Average Median Household Income by State: 2001-2004

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you this much of a moron?? Go back to the fantasy realm, WoWfag

Notice it is ALL taxation.. not just income taxation... do you even grasp how much you pay in tital taxation from income to sales to tolls to property to gas to SS, etc??

You are a dense and stupid motherfucker

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Notice it is ALL taxation.. not just income taxation... do you even grasp how much you pay in tital taxation from income to sales to tolls to property to gas to SS, etc??

STFU and pay your taxes.

taxes make the world go 'round.

 

[logical4u]

Main Entry: civil rights
Function: noun plural
Date: 1658
: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

But those do not apply to citizens BEFORE birth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Main Entry: civil rights
Function: noun plural
Date: 1658
: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

But those do not apply to citizens BEFORE birth.

and that includes the unborn that the so-called right to lifers, the anti-choice crowd, keeps crowing about.

what bothers me is when a murderer gets a double murder charge for killing pregnant woman. I think killing a pregnant woman should be life in prison. But one charge.