Class War Illustrated

[The T]

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

So we're in agreement that there IS a role for 'government' going forward?

That's a good start.
​

The primary role is to safeguard Liberty, and in a limited fashion with the primary power in the hands of the several States or the people.

What we have now as to Federal power is contrary to that. The FED has far more power than intended. And *WE* let them get away with it, and to this point.

The whole lesson here is that the FED has overreached, and the States and the people are demanding back that power. It has and is being abused.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification - The Federalist Papers are a series of editorials. They are not in any way, shape or form codified into law. Invoking the Federalist Papers as proof that one's own intepretation of the Consititution is correct and another's incorrect, is both a logical fallacy and a massive fail.

This is correct. But the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can give us clear insight into original intent in the words of the Constitution which is rather important when subsequent generations would like to twist those words into different meanings.

I believe that their biggest intent was specifically to enable what you derisively call 'twisting'.

I didn't intend to be derisive as I think some of the 'twisting' is well intended. But I think you'll have a really tough time using the Federalist papers or any other writings of the Founders to support your point of view here unless you really take something out of context.

 

[AVG-JOE]

How does it help business to send millions of taxpayer dollars to Venezuela or many dozens of other countries that intend us no good now. We started sending foreign aid to Venezuela decades ago and nobody seems to remember why but we've never stopped. Do you think American business might be able to do more for Americans if they didn't have that money taxed away from them but had it to save, invest, grow their businesses, and hire people?

How does it help business to refuse to seal the border but require Americans to take care of, feed, clothe, provide medical care for, and educate everybody who sneaks into this country? Would Americans benefit more if that money wasn't taxed away from them so that they had it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?

How does it help business to make people easy in poverty so that many become so dependent on government that they become hardcore unemployable generation after generation? Wouldn't we all benefit with a more thriving economy if those people were instead led or driven out of poverty and were persuaded to earn their living and prosper so that they would contribute to the economy instead of sucking a whole lot out of it?

How does it benefit business to so tax it, regulate it, restrict it, force it, require it in this country that the only way to show a decent profit is to set up shop overseas?

And again I ask you:

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to prosper should be responsible in any way to support Citizen B who chose not to do that?

I've neve been able to get a liberal to honestly answer that question. Maybe you'll be the first.

First of all, you're ass-u-me-ing that liberal thinking supports the idea of taxing one hard working American for the sole purpose of supporting a lazy one. Liberal thinking does not. A truly staunch liberal would advocate letting the lazy one starve in the street - that's why we need social democrats - to point out how lazy Americans, starving in the streets, is not good for the tourists to see.

That being said, do We, The People want some sort of safety net for the unlucky, the stupid and the lazy? Do we want our streets free from bums and beggars?

If the answer to that is 'yes' then we need a method of collecting from those who have and dispersing it to those who We, The Peeps deem deserving of our help.

How to collect from the successful and how to disperse to the unlucky are two completely separate questions. Question one is fair taxes. Most everyone knows I advocate simple paperwork and NO tax 'incentives' for industry or individuals.

7 + 7 on 3.

Question two is worthy of its own thread.

LOL. As I tried to explain to our other friends, it is never safe to assume that I think anything that I have not expressly stated that I think.

And of course when I say "liberal" I am referring to the modern American liberal and in no way to the classical liberal that you define.

What one chooses to do and what one is assumed to be responsible for are also two separate things. I'm just trying to pin down our liberal brethren here (that's modern American liberal brethren) as to what rationale makes Citizen A responsible to support Citizen B. So far as I know there is no mandate for any sort of 'morality' written into the Constitution but is rather an intent to secure the unalienable, legal and civil rights of the people.

Calling a spade a club because everyone is doing it only adds to the deliberate mis-information and does nothing to promote GOOD ideas.

If you mean 'Social Democrat' then say 'Social Democrat'. For my part, I'll try to be better at distinguishing between Tea Party Liberals and the True Conservatives who are quite happy with our complex laws and tax codes that favor those who can afford lawyers and accountants because it makes personal economic sense to them to keep the status quo in place.

 

[manifold]

I understand, and in many ways agree with, a lot of conservative arguments about 'optimal' government involvement in both national defense and general welfare.

But to argue one is absoultely permissable while the other is not is at best abject ignorance, and at worst blatantly hypocritical.

Both phrases 'national defense' and 'general welfare' leave a SHIT LOAD of room for interpretation. To suggest that there is only one accepted definition of either is third grade silly.

 

[Foxfyre]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

Not only in the best interest of the Republic but the common defense is constitutionally mandated. Those things that we think should not be constitutionally mandated must be corrected by amendment or else we have anarchy which will infringe on the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of the people.

What we can do is insist that those we send to represent us stick to the original intent of the Constitution. Those who will not do that should be tossed out of office and replaced with those who will. In my opinion, that simple principle would correct a huge portion of the national problems we are now facing.

 

[The T]

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

Not only in the best interest of the Republic but the common defense is constitutionally mandated. Those things that we think should not be constitutionally mandated must be corrected by amendment or else we have anarchy which will infringe on the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of the people.

What we can do is insist that those we send to represent us stick to the original intent of the Constitution. Those who will not do that should be tossed out of office and replaced with those who will. In my opinion, that simple principle would correct a huge portion of the national problems we are now facing.

Agreed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

So we're in agreement that there IS a role for 'government' going forward?

That's a good start.
​

The primary role is to safeguard Liberty, and in a limited fashion with the primary power in the hands of the several States or the people.

What we have now as to Federal power is contrary to that. The FED has far more power than intended. And *WE* let them get away with it, and to this point.

The whole lesson here is that the FED has overreached, and the States and the people are demanding back that power. It has and is being abused.

If we can agree that the secondary role is to provide common infrastructure across state lines that anyone can use to further his or her personal economic situation, we're half way home.

 

[Trajan]

T... I think this time, I very specifically answered the question. See red highlight. I don't know how I can be any more specific or what exactly you're asking me for.

well, I am sorry Cuyo, but I think I was specific in what I was asking for....here;

lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

example; I feel at 100k no one ( separate (married) or single) should pay more than an average ( not marginal) tax rate of 20%. All in, state and federal.

what do you think it should be for the numbers I listed?

5 Million,
1 million
500k
250k
150k
100k
75k

Let's take it down to about $15k and start there and make it a flat percentage for all incomes.

sounds good to me.....

 

[The T]

I understand, and in many ways agree with, a lot of conservative arguments about 'optimal' government involvement in both national defense and general welfare.

But to argue one is absoultely permissable while the other is not is at best abject ignorance, and at worst blatantly hypocritical.

Both phrases 'national defense' and 'general welfare' leave a SHIT LOAD of room for interpretation. To suggest that there is only one accepted definition of either is third grade silly.

No they don't. The Founders were quite clear in thier words. The recourse is by amendment process rather than decades of usurpation as we are suffering under now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?

there are an awful lot of communities that have all volunteer fire depts., mine does. They get very little from the town via taxes and almost their entire budget comes from fund raisers.

There has not been a death from a house fire in my town in over 10 years at least. So I'd say that's pretty efficient.

Granted. How do you reckon that would work for Chicago, NYC or Seattle? I imagine condos burning to the ground.

It could work quite well considering that the population density is much greater there would be a larger pool from which to recruit volunteers for any given area.

 

[manifold]

I understand, and in many ways agree with, a lot of conservative arguments about 'optimal' government involvement in both national defense and general welfare.

But to argue one is absoultely permissable while the other is not is at best abject ignorance, and at worst blatantly hypocritical.

Both phrases 'national defense' and 'general welfare' leave a SHIT LOAD of room for interpretation. To suggest that there is only one accepted definition of either is third grade silly.

No they don't. The Founders were quite clear in thier words. The recourse is by amendment process rather than decades of usurpation as we are suffering under now.

Their only words that matter are those in the document itself. Even Madison said as much in the vaunted Federalist Papers.

Now go find the passage from the Constitution itself that settles the matter and proves that your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation.

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

 

[The T]

I understand, and in many ways agree with, a lot of conservative arguments about 'optimal' government involvement in both national defense and general welfare.

But to argue one is absoultely permissable while the other is not is at best abject ignorance, and at worst blatantly hypocritical.

Both phrases 'national defense' and 'general welfare' leave a SHIT LOAD of room for interpretation. To suggest that there is only one accepted definition of either is third grade silly.

No they don't. The Founders were quite clear in thier words. The recourse is by amendment process rather than decades of usurpation as we are suffering under now.

Their only words that matter are those in the document itself. Even Madison said as much in the vaunted Federalist Papers.

Now go find the passage from the Constitution itself that settles the matter and proves that your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation.

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

Your FIRST CLUE: Words mean things.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

Personally, I think that if one makes his own well being and then that of his family their sole concern then a society as a whole will prosper.

Making one less able to care for himself and his family by taking his earnings away so as to support another is counterproductive.

I contribute to the overall health of a community by not being and not allowing anyone in my family to be a burden on other members of said community.

Civic responsibility begins and ends with personal responsibility.

That's all well and good and I applaud your sense of civic and personal responsibility. I also agree wholeheartedly that supporting professional sun-tanners with tax-payer dollars sends the wrong message - the questions in this thread are two: Are taxes unfairly shouldered by the middle class? and Do We, The Peeps want to take up a collection to keep the bums and beggars off the streets for the tourists?

Who qualifies as a bum or a beggar is a question worthy of its own thread.

I for one do not live in an area frequented by tourists nor do we have any bums on the streets because I live in a semi rural area. So there is absolutely no need for me to pay taxes to remedy that problem because bums on the street is purely a local issue and not one for the federal government.

 

[Trajan]

Fox, you ask why a man has a moral or ethical obligation to care for his fellow Man, then you claim you're don't want to deal with the morality of the matter. That is intellectually dishonest, to put it kindly. It seems you simply do not want to answer to the question. Again, if you can't grasp that some feel/believe such a moral obligation exists, then you will never understand. It is not something one can understand on a purely intellectual level- even to explain how it is better for society as a whole assumes that it is 'good' to do what is best for society. Fortunately, most people grasp this and feel this obligation to their fellow Man- evolution took care of that.

I wonder this: if you were to fall from a ladder, would you believe I had any obligation to help you- either by carrying you or calling 9-1-1? Do I have any obligation to call the police or an ambulance if you are shot and robbed?

Of course, you presented a loaded question in the first place, choosing your words to purposely misrepresent what most people actually advocate in terms of the social safety net. This all goes to show that you are not interested in an honest discussion of the matter. That is why you won't get the answer you want- you're trolling and everyone can see it.

no, sorry , this is the same old game. I thought this had by page 8 to a larger extent become a discussion what a fair tax is, in that what citizens should pride from their labor to the collective, AFTER that is determined, what comes next is what the government DOES with the taxes.

I have yet to have conversation on the internet with folks of the left ( past I’d say 3 on my left- right number line) who wish to really examine that, I can even get them to delineate by income level what % of tax they think is fair,OR what “rich” is, its always is turned into 'you have a moral obligation’ and driven inot an emotional trench.

Ala Harry Reids ridiculous commentary on ‘Cowboy Poetry’, absent the taxation details, in that there is a level of taxation that should be hard stop, there by FORCING the gov. to make do with what it has been given ala that level of taxation and the dollars it brings, the discussion will just turn into the usual; ‘ you greedy bastards hate poor people’. As in you post #130, though subtlety put was basically the same old same old.

 

[The T]

Fox, you ask why a man has a moral or ethical obligation to care for his fellow Man, then you claim you're don't want to deal with the morality of the matter. That is intellectually dishonest, to put it kindly. It seems you simply do not want to answer to the question. Again, if you can't grasp that some feel/believe such a moral obligation exists, then you will never understand. It is not something one can understand on a purely intellectual level- even to explain how it is better for society as a whole assumes that it is 'good' to do what is best for society. Fortunately, most people grasp this and feel this obligation to their fellow Man- evolution took care of that.

I wonder this: if you were to fall from a ladder, would you believe I had any obligation to help you- either by carrying you or calling 9-1-1? Do I have any obligation to call the police or an ambulance if you are shot and robbed?

Of course, you presented a loaded question in the first place, choosing your words to purposely misrepresent what most people actually advocate in terms of the social safety net. This all goes to show that you are not interested in an honest discussion of the matter. That is why you won't get the answer you want- you're trolling and everyone can see it.

no, sorry , this is the same old game. I thought this had by page 8 to a larger extent become a discussion what a fair tax is, in that what citizens should pride from their labor to the collective, AFTER that is determined, what comes next is what the government DOES with the taxes.

I have yet to have conversation on the internet with folks of the left ( past I’d say 3 on my left- right number line) who wish to really examine that, I can even get them to delineate by income level what % of tax they think is fair,OR what “rich” is, its always is turned into 'you have a moral obligation’ and driven inot an emotional trench.

Ala Harry Reids ridiculous commentary on ‘Cowboy Poetry’, absent the taxation details, in that there is a level of taxation that should be hard stop, there by FORCING the gov. to make do with what it has been given ala that level of taxation and the dollars it brings, the discussion will just turn into the usual; ‘ you greedy bastards hate poor people’.

The left cannot handle the rejection they're garnering by their own fault.

 

[Foxfyre]

So we're in agreement that there IS a role for 'government' going forward?

That's a good start.
​

The primary role is to safeguard Liberty, and in a limited fashion with the primary power in the hands of the several States or the people.

What we have now as to Federal power is contrary to that. The FED has far more power than intended. And *WE* let them get away with it, and to this point.

The whole lesson here is that the FED has overreached, and the States and the people are demanding back that power. It has and is being abused.

If we can agree that the secondary role is to provide common infrastructure across state lines that anyone can use to further his or her personal economic situation, we're half way home.

Infrastructure that promotes the general welfare is a prerogative of government as the people so agree but it should never feed special interests or become another means of buying votes which has a corrupting influence on both government and recipients of government largesse

Eisenhower commissioned the interstate highway system as necessary for the common defense and it was designed for that purpose including mandates for straight portions every so many miles so that those sections can be used as landing strips for aircraft. That it serves many other useful purposes is a nice bonus and does not negate the project as a legitimate function of the federal government. To build a road for rural New Mexico or a bridge in Alaska, however, should not be a function of the federal government.

At the local level, good government follows development. As commerce and industry expand there will be need for additional roads, sewer systems, power delivery, etc. and the local governments, if they are good governments, will effectively see that such is accomplished. Most generally, however, this is accomplished through letting of bonds that are voted by the people and that keeps the process mostly honest. Such infrastructure should never be the prerogative or responsibility of the Federal government.

 

[code1211]

Morality has everything to do with the question you posed. Obligations are either moral or ethical- and ethical matters are often rooted in morality.

And it is not at all a loaded question.

Yes, it is. You assume that person B is making no effort to better his or her condition. You assume they simply want to sit back and have someone else pay their way. Most who advocate a social safety net would exclude such persons. The proposition is aiding those who are disadvantaged- the sick, children, the elderly, those without the resources they might need to improve their condition. Your question intentionally misrepresented the matter- it was classic reactionary bourgeois rhetoric.

I must ask- what constitution are you referring to? Which version do you agree with? Before any of the amendments? After the Tenth but before the 11th? The current form? Some other form you would have, with some amendment(s) you would see put in place? What interpretation or understanding of the text? Literal? If so, then it was never ratified, since the States didn't all vote on identical texts. 'Original Intent'? if so, how do you determine that- and why should we be ruled by corpses? Your own understanding of what you believe it means? Your understanding of what someone else thought it meant? Your appeal to this bit of parchment raises more questions than it answers.

You also seem ignorant of basic matters of philosophy. The Constitution was written by Liberals.

Those Liberals to whom you refer were strong advocates of gun rights, personal property rights, Christianity, States Rights, Weak Federal Government, restrained ability of the Federal Government to tax and provided for no social safety nets at the Federal level of any type.

Please square this with the definition of Liberalism as it exists today.

 

[Cuyo]

well, I am sorry Cuyo, but I think I was specific in what I was asking for....here;

lets say a bus man who after operating costs etc.for is bus., OR a salary slave, his personal net income ala AGI for;

5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

example; I feel at 100k no one ( separate (married) or single) should pay more than an average ( not marginal) tax rate of 20%. All in, state and federal.

what do you think it should be for the numbers I listed?

5 Million,
1 million
500k
250k
150k
100k
75k

Let's take it down to about $15k and start there and make it a flat percentage for all incomes.

sounds good to me.....

Strictly on principle? Or do you believe that will be beneficial to society?

 

[The T]

The primary role is to safeguard Liberty, and in a limited fashion with the primary power in the hands of the several States or the people.

What we have now as to Federal power is contrary to that. The FED has far more power than intended. And *WE* let them get away with it, and to this point.

The whole lesson here is that the FED has overreached, and the States and the people are demanding back that power. It has and is being abused.

If we can agree that the secondary role is to provide common infrastructure across state lines that anyone can use to further his or her personal economic situation, we're half way home.

Infrastructure that promotes the general welfare is a prerogative of government as the people so agree but it should never feed special interests or become another means of buying votes which has a corrupting influence on both government and recipients of government largesse

Eisenhower commissioned the interstate highway system as necessary for the common defense and it was designed for that purpose including mandates for straight portions every so many miles so that those sections can be used as landing strips for aircraft. That it serves many other useful purposes is a nice bonus and does not negate the project as a legitimate function of the federal government. To build a road for rural New Mexico or a bridge in Alaska, however, should not be a function of the federal government.

At the local level, good government follows development. As commerce and industry expand there will be need for additional roads, sewer systems, power delivery, etc. and the local governments, if they are good governments, will effectively see that such is accomplished. Most generally, however, this is accomplished through letting of bonds that are voted by the people and that keeps the process mostly honest. Such infrastructure should never be the prerogative or responsibility of the Federal government.

And again? The FED has become an overbloated, arrogant arbitor that has lost it's way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's take it down to about $15k and start there and make it a flat percentage for all incomes.

sounds good to me.....

Strictly on principle? Or do you believe that will be beneficial to society?

Both.

The principle being that we are intended to be a people with unalienable rights recognized, respected, and secured who govern ourselves rather than be subject to and dependent on a strong central government that decides what rights we will and will not have on any given day.

Toward that end, the federal government should be taking no more from the people than it absolutely has to have in order to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

Because the people will almost always use their own money in a way that will benefit all more effectively and efficiently than the government will do that on their behalf, the benefit to society could be enormous.