Q. For Small Government Adherents

[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.

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

dude, only the Right shirks its responsibility to practice the Art of the Husbandman on Earth, even with a Bible for moral support.

 

[The Rabbi]

- 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.

Logical fallacies and misinformation seem to be all you can offer.
By your logic:

Money is earned
A brother is not earned.
Therefore we could execute your brother and not infringe on your freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

dude, only the Right shirks its responsibility to practice the Art of the Husbandman on Earth, even with a Bible for moral support.

Dude, that is way overlooking Moore's Law. You fail, every time.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

Apparently, conservative currently means having no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

- 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.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

It is Only because the left has been trying to goad the Right to find good Capitalists to make more money with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

Apparently, conservative currently means having no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Republicans have the principle of lectio difficilior on their side. Youve got nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

dude, only the Right shirks its responsibility to practice the Art of the Husbandman on Earth, even with a Bible for moral support.

Dude, that is way overlooking Moore's Law. You fail, every time.

Dude, only the Right fails to have a good a excuse at Every opportunity; have you seen the latest videos on YouTube regarding the latest discoveries in astronomy made possible by the latest advances in optics technologies?

Shouldn't True Judeans have more Perfect Knowledge of good and evil regarding the practice of the Art of the Husbandmen on our plane of existence?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

Apparently, conservative currently means having no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Republicans have the principle of lectio difficilior on their side. Youve got nothing.

I only need a valid rebuttal arising from some clue and some Cause. It is really, all I need.

 

[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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

Apparently, conservative currently means having no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Republicans have the principle of lectio difficilior on their side. Youve got nothing.

I only need a valid rebuttal arising from some clue and some Cause. It is really, all I need.

No, you only need a dollar and a dream. You've got neither.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

Apparently, conservative currently means having no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Republicans have the principle of lectio difficilior on their side. Youve got nothing.

I only need a valid rebuttal arising from some clue and some Cause. It is really, all I need.

No, you only need a dollar and a dream. You've got neither.

I may try to convince chics on the Right to get more social, at a Dollar Store.

 

[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.

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

I can't think of a bigger left wing hack than yourself and rdean. You two are locked in partisanship and couldn't supply an original thought if your life depended on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

I can't think of a bigger left wing hack than yourself and rdean. You two are locked in partisanship and couldn't supply an original thought if your life depended on it.

I'd have to add JoeB. They drone the same things over and over.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

If you only had the means to understand, that what you said amounts to little more than gibberish.

To wit:

1- Fallacious Appeals are always unsound....
2- Unsound argument never qualifies as a valid appeal.
3- A Federal construct exists, does not set the Federal Government Supreme over anyone, in a Constitutional Republic. Because the Federal Government is limited by it Constitutional constraints.
4- The Philosophical Right, OKA: The Americans, stand in eternal opposition to the Ideological Left, representing the soundly reasoned tenets of the US Constitution, which itself rests upon the the empirical truths intrinsic to Natural Law; the objective bedrock of morality.

With that said: Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

Ironic post is ironic.

On some level you must have an inkling of how truly stupid you are.

 

[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.

If you only had the means to understand, that what you said amounts to little more than gibberish.

To wit:

1- Fallacious Appeals are always unsound....
2- Unsound argument never qualifies as a valid appeal.
3- A Federal construct exists, does not set the Federal Government Supreme over anyone, in a Constitutional Republic. Because the Federal Government is limited by it Constitutional constraints.
4- The Philosophical Right, OKA: The Americans, stand in eternal opposition to the Ideological Left, representing the soundly reasoned tenets of the US Constitution, which itself rests upon the the empirical truths intrinsic to Natural Law; the objective bedrock of morality.

With that said: Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

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.