Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dad2three]

Libertarians want government limited to those functions which only government can do. Most of us would generally agree with police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. I am not referring to anarchists who want no government here who like calling themselves libertarians, I am referring to the masses of us who want government limited, not eliminated.

Fiscal polices. We want taxes, but we want them low, flat and for the good of the people as a whole and not used for income redistribution. The left are the extremists here not only punishing success and harming employers, but even using tax COLLECTION as a welfare program with refundable tax credits. We are moderates, taxes should be reasonable and to fund the government, not implement social policy. And spending should be within our means.

Social policies. Socons go to church (or other religious institutions) then go to government to implement morality by force. Clearly they are the extremists. Libertarians believe they should have the right to persuade people to live moral lives, they should not have the right to force their morality on them. We are, the moderates.

NeoCons. We want the military used for the defense of the United States. We don't want to be policeman to the world like the right, we also don't blame our troops for the failures of our politicians like the left. And we don't want them in everyone's back yard, like both sides do. We are moderates, protect and defend, don't use force to make other's decisions just like we don't want government making our decisions here.

Republicans and Democrats are just so deep into the question of what government can do to impose their social and fiscal wills on us, they have stopped even asking the question, should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask, that is the right question to answer before proceeding any further.

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the libertarians. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.


Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers




I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

- Thomas Jefferson




"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation
has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html






Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



Founders Established 'The Common Good


John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where do you guys get this The Government Puts A Gun To My Head thing? It's just utter nonsense. You don't pay your taxes and stop at red lights because of guns. You do so because the IRS can seize your bank accounts and cops write tickets. Where in God's name are the guns here? I've lived for decades and never had one pulled on me, by anyone, but especially not by my government. Fess up please...

That was funny.

Ever seen a cop without a gun?

Yes, and the ones with guns never point them at me, for any reason.

Yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately, the anarchists have taken over the libertarians

Your problem is that We the People get to determine how big a government we want

And your problem is that you think "We the People" amounts to simple majority rule. It doesn't. It requires that we respect of the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority. Democrats used to get this. Nowadays, not so much.

You can't respect the will of all people. That's absurd.

I seem to remember you raging against the fact that Prop 8 won.

 

[Dad2three]

Give me an example of how I am right wing that is not libertarian. I'm slapping you in the face with my silk glove and saying you have nothing in your pants.

So, back it up.

I DID back it up. You decided to erase it from your reply. Instead of addressing what I said, you decided to whine.

Tell me scum bag. HOW do retired people survive in your childish and naive worldview?

Let me count the ways:

Moe?

.

WE HAVE HISTORY OF FOLLOWING WHAT LIBERTARIANS WANT, IT ISN'T PRETTY


Social security keeps half of seniors out of poverty


Banking panics in the United States

1792
1796–97
1819
1825
1837
1847
1857
1866
1873
1884
1890 (Baring crisis)
1893
1896
1901
1907
1910-11
1929
2007-08



Panic of 1826

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. The panic sparked New York State to bring in extensive legislation seeking to regulate financial companies and protect investor interests. These regulations, legislations, and precedents like the shareholder derivative precedent were some of the first ever enacted in America and provided the basis for today’s financial regulations after the panic of 2008.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



NOW WHAT STOPPED ALL THOSE THINGS FROM 1929 UNTIL DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS WHERE HE IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS?


Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf






What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.

Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS
“True Americanism” (1915).




"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't respect the will of all people. That's absurd.

See what I mean?

A majority vote passed the Affordable Care Act. It's law. Now you tell us how we must respect the will of the minority who didn't want it passed.

I don't recall voting on the Obamacare.

 

[Contumacious]

John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

Are you saying that based on that passage you oppose all the welfare state laws which expropiate wealth in order to buy political support from the parasitic faction?

.

 

[Contumacious]

I DID back it up. You decided to erase it from your reply. Instead of addressing what I said, you decided to whine.

Tell me scum bag. HOW do retired people survive in your childish and naive worldview?

Let me count the ways:

Moe?

.

WE HAVE HISTORY OF FOLLOWING WHAT LIBERTARIANS WANT, IT ISN'T PRETTY


Social security keeps half of seniors out of poverty


Banking panics in the United States

1792
1796–97
1819
1825
1837
1847
1857
1866
1873
1884
1890 (Baring crisis)
1893
1896
1901
1907
1910-11
1929
2007-08



Panic of 1826

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. The panic sparked New York State to bring in extensive legislation seeking to regulate financial companies and protect investor interests. These regulations, legislations, and precedents like the shareholder derivative precedent were some of the first ever enacted in America and provided the basis for today’s financial regulations after the panic of 2008.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



NOW WHAT STOPPED ALL THOSE THINGS FROM 1929 UNTIL DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS WHERE HE IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS?


Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf






What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.

Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS
“True Americanism” (1915).




"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Excuse me dingle berry, identify one single 'panic" in which the government was not the cause. Just one.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

And your problem is that you think "We the People" amounts to simple majority rule. It doesn't. It requires that we respect of the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority. Democrats used to get this. Nowadays, not so much.

Do Lbertarians respect the will of ALL the people?

It seems they are only interested in themselves

Yeah. You keep saying that. And I'm quite sure there so-called libertarians out there who will prove you right. But, what they are 'interested' in is irrelevant, as long as they respect the equal rights of others. That's the core of the ideology.

I'm pretty sure you understand this, and are just on here to sling the usual partisan smears - pissing off tea-party Republicans, tweaking evangelicals, etc... That's all fine, and can be lots of fun, but you drag genuine libertarian philosophy through the mud when you do, and that's just dishonest.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Genuine libertarian philosophy?

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

 

[Dad2three]

BS.........They pay a flat rate and that's it. Without any loopholes............You'd see an increase in revenues as a result.

Face it. You love the dang IRS...........I don't .

Face it. You love sucking up to the wealthy.......I don't

BS. You do it everyday as you praise Obama and the Dems............Hillary says she's broke now....poor thing............Maybe she's the poor you champion, because it sure isn't the american people.

Typical right wing garbage. False premises, distortions or LIES, the only thing you Klowns have


Hilary said, coming out of the white house they were broke, and were, thanks to the millions they spent defending against right wingers attacking them on EVERYTHING...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A majority vote passed the Affordable Care Act. It's law. Now you tell us how we must respect the will of the minority who didn't want it passed.

Repeal it. Or modify it to make participation voluntary. But then, that's about the same effect, right?

Then you're disrespecting the will of the majority.

Majority?

You do know that less than 300 people voted in favor of Obamacare, don't you? How the **** does that rate a majority in a country with over 300 million people?

 

[Dad2three]

Let me count the ways:

Moe?

.

WE HAVE HISTORY OF FOLLOWING WHAT LIBERTARIANS WANT, IT ISN'T PRETTY


Social security keeps half of seniors out of poverty


Banking panics in the United States

1792
1796–97
1819
1825
1837
1847
1857
1866
1873
1884
1890 (Baring crisis)
1893
1896
1901
1907
1910-11
1929
2007-08



Panic of 1826

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. The panic sparked New York State to bring in extensive legislation seeking to regulate financial companies and protect investor interests. These regulations, legislations, and precedents like the shareholder derivative precedent were some of the first ever enacted in America and provided the basis for today’s financial regulations after the panic of 2008.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



NOW WHAT STOPPED ALL THOSE THINGS FROM 1929 UNTIL DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS WHERE HE IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS?


Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf






What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.

Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS
“True Americanism” (1915).




"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

Excuse me dingle berry, identify one single 'panic" in which the government was not the cause. Just one.

.

Already did dumb***


Panic of 1826

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. The panic sparked New York State to bring in extensive legislation seeking to regulate financial companies and protect investor interests. These regulations, legislations, and precedents like the shareholder derivative precedent were some of the first ever enacted in America and provided the basis for today’s financial regulations after the panic of 2008.


One of the primary causes of the Panic of 1826 was the rise in the number of incorporations in New York during the 1820s. From having only one bank and no insurance corporations in 1791, by 1830, there were over 150 financial companies and 1000 businesses. With this rise in number of incorporations, there were no statutes to protect stockholders and creditors as financial reporting and accounting standards did not exist. This spike in financial incorporations, specifically during the period from early 1824 to mid-1825, led to a 60% increase in market value of the New York Stock Exchange from 1824-1825. The rise of these new financial companies and how they were managed led to the eventual failure of these new firms.

The founders of the financial companies in the 1820s utilized lending and stock notes to retain full control of the firm and to vote themselves into the office of directors. Once they were able to establish majority ownership, the speculative owners were able to use their corporation’s resources as collateral to finance their own acquisitions and personal investing. Through borrowing on collateral and shifting assets around, the controlling investors were able to maintain directorships in a large number of firms. In the month of July 1826, there was a series of runs on three critical banks, which led to a halting of payments and the collapse of companies controlled by these investors. In a study regarding detailing shareholder ownership during the 1820s, it was shown how director of firms that failed controlled 62% of the share in their companies, which was double the proportion of the surviving firms.




Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


HOW ABOUT THE 2007-2008 BANKSTER CREATED WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We the People want you to pay your taxes. If you don't, we have empowered government to take punative action against you. Mostly they will garnish your wages or seize your assets. But if you are a real dick about it, you will go to jail

You seem to be missing the point.

We should only resort to force when it's truly necessary.

The government was delegated the power to use force by the People. You can't have a government without the use of force. If you didn't need force you wouldn't need a government.

Which is why you shouldn't trust the government.

 

[Dad2three]

Repeal it. Or modify it to make participation voluntary. But then, that's about the same effect, right?

Then you're disrespecting the will of the majority.

Majority?

You do know that less than 300 people voted in favor of Obamacare, don't you? How the **** does that rate a majority in a country with over 300 million people?

Don't know how our REPRESENTATIVE democracy (Republic) works huh? Typical

 

[Bfgrn]

Give me an example of how I am right wing that is not libertarian. I'm slapping you in the face with my silk glove and saying you have nothing in your pants.

So, back it up.

I DID back it up. You decided to erase it from your reply. Instead of addressing what I said, you decided to whine.

Tell me scum bag. HOW do retired people survive in your childish and naive worldview?

Let me count the ways:

Moe?

.

Those companies provide health care?

 

[Dad2three]

And they can be repealed when that majority is thrown to the curb. You will not maintain power much longer. So enjoy it while it lasts............You already have a lame duck in office, who may very well have to break out the veto stamp soon as you lose the Senate.

Ah, so you're going to use your majority to take away the rights of the minority.

lol, you don't know what you're talking about.

If the ACA is so righteous then that can't happen right................Another majority takes it away.....................

Which is exactly why these laws need to be written by both sides of the isle.........Not just being written as my way or the highway as the ACA was written............

So we get power and shit can it.
You get power back one day and restore it.
We shit can it.......and so on.

Which is BS. Perhaps your side of the equation shouldn't have rammed it down the throats of the people. The people will eventually take care of the ultimate outcome.

Sure, GOP WILL take ACA away, as soon as they take SS, Medicare, food stamps, labor laws, environmental laws, etc away, ALL the things they fought, yet not a chance can be taken away today...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why have any laws? If every law is an unfair assault on someone's freedom to do other than the law allows,

how can any law be just in your world?

Lots of laws are just. I never said 'every law is an unfair assault on someone's freedom'. But ACA is.

only in rightwingnuthackworld

you idiots loved it when the heritage foundation came up with it

If it wasn't for the fact that they didn't come up with anything resembling Obamacare you have a really good point.

 

[Dad2three]

And again this wasn't needed until Wilson came along..................The original plan was far better than the one we have today.

A Flat tax would generate more money, and it would be UNIFORM across the country for all people. A progressive tax structure's roots are in Socialism and Communism in their infant stages..............

You praise the use of our tax system as the current IRS abuses it's authority and attacks those who don't agree with the current administration.

The IRS needs to be castrated.

A flat tax is welfare for the rich

There is not a flat tax that doesn't reduce rates for the wealthy

BS.........They pay a flat rate and that's it. Without any loopholes............You'd see an increase in revenues as a result.

Face it. You love the dang IRS...........I don't .

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes





As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.


Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)




Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you're disrespecting the will of the majority.

Majority?

You do know that less than 300 people voted in favor of Obamacare, don't you? How the **** does that rate a majority in a country with over 300 million people?

Don't know how our REPRESENTATIVE democracy (Republic) works huh? Typical

I am not the idiot that said a majority voted fro Obamacare, am I? Why don't you take your point up with the idiot that made that claim?

 

[Dad2three]

You seem to be missing the point.

We should only resort to force when it's truly necessary.

The government was delegated the power to use force by the People. You can't have a government without the use of force. If you didn't need force you wouldn't need a government.

And again this wasn't needed until Wilson came along..................The original plan was far better than the one we have today.

A Flat tax would generate more money, and it would be UNIFORM across the country for all people. A progressive tax structure's roots are in Socialism and Communism in their infant stages..............

You praise the use of our tax system as the current IRS abuses it's authority and attacks those who don't agree with the current administration.

The IRS needs to be castrated.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson






Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Dad2three]

You seem to be missing the point.

We should only resort to force when it's truly necessary.

The government was delegated the power to use force by the People. You can't have a government without the use of force. If you didn't need force you wouldn't need a government.

And again this wasn't needed until Wilson came along..................The original plan was far better than the one we have today.

A Flat tax would generate more money, and it would be UNIFORM across the country for all people. A progressive tax structure's roots are in Socialism and Communism in their infant stages..............

You praise the use of our tax system as the current IRS abuses it's authority and attacks those who don't agree with the current administration.

The IRS needs to be castrated.

Andrew Mellon had a few distinctly progressive ideas. Of particular note, he suggested taxing "earned" income from wages and salaries more lightly that "unearned" income from investments. As he argued:


The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man's life and it descends to his heirs.

Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mental and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.



Tax History Project -- The Republican Roots of New Deal Tax Policy