Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Iceweasel]

Yep, but many of those on welfare have few marketable skills. Conservatives want to eliminate jobs training, drug treatment and other social services and instead build jails.

Creating jobs isn't the government's purpose. The purpose is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Being a parasite is fine as long as your host doesn't mind, if you choose to take what isn't yours instead of making yourself marketable then prison is exactly where you belong. Only you can decide to be a worthless human being.

- How is creating jobs not promoting the general welfare?

Getting people laid is promoting general welfare if that's your definition. Maybe you'd like to be a government whore? There's a lot written about it, including from the founders and creating jobs so people have money isn't how they defined the term, that's an idiotic leftist twist.

If you were right the government would employ everybody. You people really are shockingly stupid.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

Money is fungible. You are veering into jargon and incoherence.

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

 

[Iceweasel]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Yep, but many of those on welfare have few marketable skills. Conservatives want to eliminate jobs training, drug treatment and other social services and instead build jails.

Creating jobs isn't the government's purpose. The purpose is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Being a parasite is fine as long as your host doesn't mind, if you choose to take what isn't yours instead of making yourself marketable then prison is exactly where you belong. Only you can decide to be a worthless human being.

- How is creating jobs not promoting the general welfare?

Getting people laid is promoting general w

Yep, but many of those on welfare have few marketable skills. Conservatives want to eliminate jobs training, drug treatment and other social services and instead build jails.

Creating jobs isn't the government's purpose. The purpose is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Being a parasite is fine as long as your host doesn't mind, if you choose to take what isn't yours instead of making yourself marketable then prison is exactly where you belong. Only you can decide to be a worthless human being.

- How is creating jobs not promoting the general welfare?

Getting people laid is promoting general welfare if that's your definition. Maybe you'd like to be a government whore? There's a lot written about it, including from the founders and creating jobs so people have money isn't how they defined the term, that's an idiotic leftist twist.

If you were right the government would employ everybody. You people really are shockingly stupid.

elfare if that's your definition. Maybe you'd like to be a government whore? There's a lot written about it, including from the founders and creating jobs so people have money isn't how they defined the term, that's an idiotic leftist twist.

If you were right the government would employ everybody. You people really are shockingly stupid.

- Why would government not guarantee everyone willing to work a job?

Capitalism needs unemployment, and our economic policy is designed to serve that need: to ensure that there is a supply of people who are unemployed, to be used as a "buffer stock" of employees to prevent inflationary wage shocks.

The Fed explicitly maintains unemployment by setting interest rates in accordance with predictive indicator called NAIRU (the non-accelerating inflation rate of employment).

They're doing this because everyone is so afraid of inflation that their policy is designed to maintain a certain percentage of unemployment (the target unemployment rate varies, but you can think around 5%. If the unemployment rate drops to near 5%, their normal response is to raise interest rates in order to create more unemployment).

This is thought to be stabilizing, and it's something that private industry very much supports, because it provides a stick of employees if business gets good, who can be obtained for about the same prices that business currently pays.

If you get rid of that buffer stock of employees, you all will shriek that interest rates are being held artificially low.

The way around that - the only moral way around that - is to offer a job guarantee. The federal government will pay states and municipalities to put people to work - anyone who wants a job. These jobs would pay the "minimum wage", because whatever they pay would essentially become the minimum wage.

Business gets a better buffer stock of employees, because these people (unlike the unemployed) would already be in the habit of showing up every day and being accountable.

It would be non-inflationary, because it would be countercyclical - with a better economy, fewer people would have JG jobs, with a worse economy, more people would go to work for governments.

Demand for business goods and services would be more consistent, removing us largely from a boom and bust cycle.

It would allow higher rates of savings by increasing income, allowing families to be more resilient during downturns - reducing credit defaults and so on.

And it infringes on nobody's liberty. If you don't want to work for government, don't.

You could eliminate the minimum wage, which it all hate.

Oh - and any objection you raise to it (but increased employment creates higher prices!) applies equally well to prosperity. Do you oppose prosperity because people's greater ability to afford things could potentially cause prices to rise?

Why would you NOT do that?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

Let me try to recap your logic here, IW.

Your argument is that money has nothing to do with freedom, because freedom is not earned.

So we'll invert your proposition, as you did, and accept your assumption that such an illogical inversion is valid.

Freedom is not earned.

Money is earned.

Therefore, money is not freedom.

That's your "logic".

So by your logic, we can tax 100% of somebody's earnings, and it takes no freedom from them.

You ask what country I am from.

Maybe the real question is what planet you are from.

 

[Iceweasel]

- Why would government not guarantee everyone willing to work a job?

Capitalism needs unemployment, and our economic policy is designed to serve that need: to ensure that there is a supply of people who are unemployed, to be used as a "buffer stock" of employees to prevent inflationary wage shocks.

You're full of shit. Brainwashed, delusional or outright lying, it's hard to say at this point. Capitalism doesn't need unemployment, in fact the opposite is true. The more people employed the more opportunity exists, the better the workers do and the more the nation takes in GDP. It's a win win. One can take everything you say and be confident the exact opposite is the truth.

Why wouldn't a government guarantee everyone a job? That's a question a toddler might ponder. When we are in our teens we know the answer. Some people are lazy and don't want to work. They do little more than show up or cause more harm than good. You think government should find a position for them? They have in droves but we don't need every one of them on the public tit.

 

[Iceweasel]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

 

[Iceweasel]

Let me try to recap your logic here, IW.

Your argument is that money has nothing to do with freedom, because freedom is not earned.

So we'll invert your proposition, as you did, and accept your assumption that such an illogical inversion is valid.

Freedom is not earned.

Money is earned.

Therefore, money is not freedom.

That's your "logic".

So by your logic, we can tax 100% of somebody's earnings, and it takes no freedom from them.

You ask what country I am from.

Maybe the real question is what planet you are from.

No, I didn't connect money and freedom at all. Your pea brain is stuck up your ass and sees what it wants, not what's there.

 

[danielpalos]

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well, I don't know about anyone else....but mine comes from THIS parchment:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not good enough for you? Sorry......

dude, it really really does help Your credibility when You have a clue and a Cause. Both are in the same parchment.

 

[danielpalos]

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Ever wonder why they wrote "general welfare" rather than the "specific needs of individuals"?

Because, dear Person on the Right; general Welfare must look after private Welfare if he is to be a good general.

You are welcome to look up private laws in the US.

 

[Wry Catcher]

By small government, conservatives mean a Government that won't help poor people, a government that won't get involved in business practices, a government that doesn't care about the environment

Must you ALWAYS resort to partisan foolishness?

It may be partisan but it is not foolish. The is no better reason to be partisan than to counter the Crazy New Right and their foolish ideology.

 

[danielpalos]

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

Governments that aren't spending trillions of borrowed money on war, have money to spend on their people and their infrastructure. Governments which haven't spent the last 10+ years at war, are balancing their budgets.

Countries which put people ahead of corporations, have healthier economies.

Your corporations and oligarchs are awash in cash. They've never had more money than they do now and yet it's not enough. The people have no savings and few investments. Americans are mortgaged to the hilt and their credit cards are maxed out and that's not enough for the right.

You encourage people to go deeply in debt to get a college degree but saddling the next generation with student loans it will take the next 20 years to repay means they won't be able to buy homes or other consumer goods to keep the economy moving.

Everyday working people need jobs. Shipping manufacturing overseas helped corporations bottom lines in the short run but is killing the economy in the long term.

Please cite ONE EXAMPLE of Right-wing Policy that promotes people being poor, having fire-walled credit cards, massive college debt, or to accrue any debt.

Christian principles literally discourage EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ASSERTED "RIGHT-WING" CAUSED PROBLEMS... and since Christianity defines America, thus 'the right', and The Ideological left adamantly opposes Christianity and its principled tenets, please explain how any of that drivel even relates to the right, let alone defines it?

That is easy; i have been arguing it for years now; only the right doesn't get it; there is no appeal to ignorance of a federal Doctrine in American law or that form of bearing False Witness to our own laws. Have those on the Right, no morals.

 

[Iceweasel]

By small government, conservatives mean a Government that won't help poor people, a government that won't get involved in business practices, a government that doesn't care about the environment

Must you ALWAYS resort to partisan foolishness?

It may be partisan but it is not foolish. The is no better reason to be partisan than to counter the Crazy New Right and their foolish ideology.

I'm a conservative, not a partier. And there's no better reason to be a conservative than to fight back the corrupt liberal thought and all its' miserable failures.

 

[danielpalos]

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

Again, LBJ started his "Great Society" nonsense to "end poverty in our lifetime". 50 Trillion dollars later........

Our defense budget has not ended war in our time

My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

The point being you spend money on poverty because it is needed. While you may not end all poverty, you provide a safety net, and programs to help people escape poverty

You "spend your money" on poverty!?!?! Jesus - the amount of money that this country has spent on poverty should make us all millionaires!!! How damned much "money" do we have to shell out!?!?!?

Geezzz. even the staunchest left wing communist liberal has the ability to understand that throwing good money after bad only gets you ZERO. This might be hard for you to understand, but I'll give it a shot. Read the following carefully....

IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

Supply side economics seems to be working for the wealthiest; why do those on the Right believe it doesn't work, but only for the least wealthy in our Republic, under our form of Capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

You understand that's not an answer, right? Even in NoLa during Katrina people were working.

Looked to me like they were evacuating

Thats because you're stupid. There were plenty of people left who didnt evacuate. That included some of the wealthiest people there.

Sure Rabbi, sure

Isn't this the point where you run away when challenged to defend your bizarre claims?

LOL!!! Ironic post is moronic. You are running away from your own argument.

Time for the Rabbi two step



Rabbi: I may not be able to prove my wild statements, but I can do this little dance

Shouldn't True Judeans always have a good argument instead of potentially, begging for forgiveness?

 

[danielpalos]

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well, I don't know about anyone else....but mine comes from THIS parchment:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not good enough for you? Sorry......

Oddly, you all have been arguing what a flawed document it is for hours, based partly on the fact that it established a government in the first place.

So go ahead and wrap yourself in the flag, if you must, but it just looks ridiculous.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Only the Right prefers to plead, so specially.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep, but many of those on welfare have few marketable skills. Conservatives want to eliminate jobs training, drug treatment and other social services and instead build jails.

Creating jobs isn't the government's purpose. The purpose is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Being a parasite is fine as long as your host doesn't mind, if you choose to take what isn't yours instead of making yourself marketable then prison is exactly where you belong. Only you can decide to be a worthless human being.

- How is creating jobs not promoting the general welfare?

Getting people laid is promoting general welfare if that's your definition. Maybe you'd like to be a government whore? There's a lot written about it, including from the founders and creating jobs so people have money isn't how they defined the term, that's an idiotic leftist twist.

If you were right the government would employ everybody. You people really are shockingly stupid.

The greatest dramatic irony is when a poster calls others stupid, simply because they have posted an opinion which cannot be refuted. Countless self defined conservatives argue that if it isn't authorized in the COTUS, then it ought not be done. There are countless examples where it is done, usually by interpreting the text, which is many times ambiguous, and there is no recourse when done by an activist court which votes 5-4 to equate money and freedom of speech.

Speaking of the general Welfare, one might conclude that a jobless society contributes not to the general Welfare, no matter how one wants to spin it. Something authorized in Art I, Sec 8, clause 1.

 

[danielpalos]

Giving money to poor people in and of itself alleviates immediate needs but does little to assist with the underlying causes of poverty, chief among them, the lack of opportunities.

Providing low/no cost quality child care, classes to upgrade skills, and other "hand up" supports work but as long as the only jobs available are low wage service sector jobs, it won't do much good.

As for Republican policies which cost the U.S. jobs, let's start with giving tax breaks to corporations who shipped jobs offshore.

The U.S. is now outsourcing some aspects of defence contracts to China. There's a brain dead strategy if ever there was one.

Maybe the US is better at "reverse engineering" ancient Chinese secrets; we may plan to have willful signatories on Chinese products and services, and hopefully, get the signatures from high ranking members of the communist party; thus, ancient Tradition may forbid willfully damaging goods and services with high ranking signatories on them.

 

[danielpalos]

Giving money to poor people in and of itself alleviates immediate needs but does little to assist with the underlying causes of poverty, chief among them, the lack of opportunities.

Providing low/no cost quality child care, classes to upgrade skills, and other "hand up" supports work but as long as the only jobs available are low wage service sector jobs, it won't do much good.

As for Republican policies which cost the U.S. jobs, let's start with giving tax breaks to corporations who shipped jobs offshore.

The U.S. is now outsourcing some aspects of defence contracts to China. There's a brain dead strategy if ever there was one.

What about min wage laws that price new workers out of the market? Any responsibility there or is that different somehow?

Yes, simply because Capitalism is only useless to the Right now that we have a memo circulating on the left that we should merely learn how to Use capitalism for all of its worth; rather than learn how to fish in any mature market.

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy on an at-will basis through Individual Liberty; but the Right prefers to be infidel, protestant, and renegade to our own laws which could ameliorate poverty in our Republic.