The problem with a strong centralized government is that they lack humility

[Chris]

Unfortunately, they think that they are "being humble" while trying to solve our nation's and the world's problems. However, this is where the 10th Amendment comes in; people are best to solve their own problems.

Now, I am not against some public policy and some public interventionism, but it angers me that these "humble civil servants act humbly" in our best interest, when they clearly don't.

Plus, it takes humility to recognize that a consolidation of power over wars and money is not necessarily a good thing. It can be extremely harmful, but some ******* idiots will not recognize this most pertinent fact.

We don't have a strong centralized government.

We have a plutocracy run by corporate lobbyists.

 

[rdean]

Unfortunately, they think that they are "being humble" while trying to solve our nation's and the world's problems. However, this is where the 10th Amendment comes in; people are best to solve their own problems.

Now, I am not against some public policy and some public interventionism, but it angers me that these "humble civil servants act humbly" in our best interest, when they clearly don't.

Plus, it takes humility to recognize that a consolidation of power over wars and money is not necessarily a good thing. It can be extremely harmful, but some ******* idiots will not recognize this most pertinent fact.

We don't have a strong centralized government.

We have a plutocracy run by corporate lobbyists.

It's not very kind to expose their delusions.

 

[rdean]

I can definately see why you chose not to answer that question. As for Bush , I never voted for that fool. So don't care that you rightfully point out that he was as bad for our economy as Obama is. See that's the difference between me and you moron. You absolutely without doubt know that Obama hasn't accomplished SHIT in regards to the economy, but hey he has a D after his name so defend him you will.

Another thing I see you screaming about repeatedly is that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Which is total bullshit, as I posted in another thread (with link) and you just ran from the thread. The top 1% of earners in this nation earn 19% of the income yet pay 37% of the income tax meanwhile 40% of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax, and coincidentally this includes the people who use up most of the resources paid for by those tax dollars yet I have NEVER seen you even suggest that those 40% should have to pay ANYTHING let alone "their share." Wonder why that is Deano.

Also Deano my boy, I see you continually screaming that Republicans have no ideas to fix the economy, but I have never seen you ever actually offer any ideas yourself, all you do is the equivalent of yell "hope and change" on this message board.

I know you see yourself as some intellectual who is telling the rest of us poor lost morons how it is, but the truth is you're an ignorant, smug, partisan hack who offers NOTHING of substance.

Now run from my questions some more little child.

I have never run "screaming" from a thread.

You already asked the same questions in another thread and my answer was something like:

Many of those wealthy people who are "EARNING" all that money are doing so through speculation in the stock market. This is the reason food costs are spiraling and the cost of gas is so high. What they are doing is totally legal because they have bought mostly Republican politicians who have worked tirelessly to deregulate Wall Street which was the original cause of the recent economic meltdown. Republicans have made sure that could happen again.

As I have also pointed out in the past, most of those "wealthy people" are not going into the military. They are moving their money offshore yet they continue to live here. How is that a "fair share"? If middle class Americans put the lives of their sons and daughters on the line to protect this country, why shouldn't the wealthy pay a little more to even out the cost. How much money is YOUR son or daughter worth? Just so a millionaire could keep another million?

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce and China moved 2.4 million jobs to China. Is that also a "good thing"?

2.4 millions jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008

From the posts you write, I'm suspecting you might be a "pre-teen". You are like a pair of children's scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp. You repeat Republican talking points without even a tiny bit of reflection or question.

your answers are non answers you little *****.

The numbers given show that the top 1% of earners in this country earn 19% of the income and yet pay 37% of the taxes collected. They also show that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax. Do you dispute those figures?

Oh and your little "they don't join the military" is irrelevant, as is "they hide their money offshore." Regardless of what they may or may not hide, we still have 1% of our population paying 37% of our taxes while 40% pay NOTHING. How could you possibly be upset at one group and not the other?

And of course posting that I just don't seem that sharp is a total puss out on your part because you know that there is no reasonable answer to my questions. You can't deny the numbers are true, and know you'd look like an idiot if you out and out said that you think it's perfectly fair that 1% of the population pays 37% of the income tax while 40% of the population pays ZERO income tax.

See what I said about name calling?

Like I said, like children's scissors.

The rich run the Republican Party. We know that for a fact. It's why all their policies are geared towards the rich and only the rich.

The rich don't join the military, with very, very few exceptions. When they do, they are usually like George Bush, assigned to a unit made up of Senator's sons and Dallas Cowboys.

It's very easy to send middle class Americans off to war for oil like Bush did in Iraq. All those Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed for life. And you don't believe rich people should pay a greater share? They already pay enough? How many billions did Cheney and Bush's friends make off Iraq?

Every middle class American who lost a son or daughter or husband or wife may feel the rich should "pay more" even if you don't. If you are writing on this board, you can bet, you are NOT rich. Why defend these people? What do you get out of it? If you lost a family member and feel the rich are doing enough already, considering the number of jobs moved overseas, then I can't tell you how pathetic you are. It wouldn't matter because you don't believe it and never will. This is why people such as yourself must be defeated.

Your kind have created a new ruling class that does not work for the best interests of the country. Notice on your posts, you have never named a single positive thing Republicans could do for this country. Nothing about building or infrastructure or research. Your kind just want to tear down the country and replace government with a kind of "theocratic" wealthy royalty.

 

[Londoner]

You people couldn't get any dumber if you tried. Left wing politicians are just as owned by corporations as right wing politicians. You do realize that Obama got more money in campaign donations from Wall Street than any Presidential candidate in history don't you?

Read my post.

My whole point is about how the political system is owned. There is no government. Both parties are a reflex of the money which pours in from the market. The final stage of capitalism is when the market winners consolidate control over markets, government, and media.

Listen son. We all want a "free market". We want companies to compete to the death to give us lower prices. But that is not how the real world works. Every competition has winners, and those winners don't seek additional competition, they seek to lock down market share in order to boost profits. [Have you ever been to a shareholder meeting? I have been to over 200. We fire people who can't guarantee our returns by destroying competition and locking down (monopolizing) markets]

The goal of every company is to become big enough to capture government for the purpose of establishing extra-market (anti-competitive) control over one's sector. The goal of the market winners is to get rid of competition. And this is exactly what happened when Reagan convinced the country to return control to the market. What did the market do? It launched an era of mega-mergers and consolidation that made some corporations so large that they could use their financial leverage to buy governments and lock down markets -- so large that they could take system destroying risk.

My young naive son, please listen dear boy: free market capitalism worked best before companies like AIG grew larger than many world governments. This was my point about a post-Adam-Smith critique of capitalism, which the Right has not offered, because, like you, they are stuck in tired cliches that don't adequately describe late capitalism (where business now owns and influences governments across multiple continents).

[Don't allow yourself to be educated by a political movement. Read "Wealth of Nations". Do some work. Go to the source. Start with Adam Smith and then work your way through the Chicago School. This will allow you to participate in message boards with actual concepts instead of talking points and bipartisan drivel. Try to actually understand the theoretical foundations that your party is using.]

I'll say it again.

The centralizing power of government is owned by business, which funds elections, staffs government, and drafts laws & regulations. THEREFORE...

When Republicans say

"return power from government to business, so that market decisions can be made by the actual market players"

they are missing THE fundamental point. Business already controls everything. And they have not opted for decentralized control and free market competition.

They have opted to merge, consolidate, and centralize control over markets with more force than any government ever dreamed. Meaning: the market winners don't just control one country; rather, they influence laws, elections, and regulations globally. The market winners have created centralization on the grandest scale ever imagined

(The puny little nation state government (e.g., the USA) which you people are so worried about is on the payroll son. Study the 2003 Drug Bill in depth; study the money that flowed into congress for this vote: government works for Ely Lilly. Bush worked for Big Oil. Both parties work for Goldman Sachs, especially the Democrats. Meaning: government doesn't exist -- it is a reflex of business, which has literally purchased it. So if you want to actually criticize the source of centralized power, you have to go to the thing which owns and controls it, i.e., business, which does not seek competition)

You are repeating talking points that have been around for 40 years. You need to start saying stuff that is more relevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Making governments smaller and more local doesn't create more liberty.

It's not the federal government telling you what color you can paint your house or how often you have to mow your lawn or whether or not you can have a rummage sale.

It's your teeny tiny homeowners' association, or your itty bitty zoning board.

I disagree with your premise that a strong and centralized government makes people more free.

Could you elaborate on your premise?

The more central a government, the bigger the constituency, thus the more diverse the constituency, and thus the more difficult for a small population to oppress a smaller minority.

Southern states years ago didn't want integration and equal rights for black Americans. Most of the rest of the country did not share that sentiment.

With power concentrated at the state level, a state like Alabama, for example, could use its segregationist majority to perpetuate that institution, and Jim Crow, etc., etc., and thus deny a set of rights, freedoms, and privileges to a certain portion of its population, ie, obviously, blacks.

But with the power shifted to the national level, Alabama's segregationist majority disappears, and consequently the 'big central government' is able to assert the right of black equality and freedom in Alabama despite the state's majority not wanting it.

The general principle is one held by James Madison, btw, vs. the anti-Federalists.

 

[TheBrain]

I have never run "screaming" from a thread.

You already asked the same questions in another thread and my answer was something like:

Many of those wealthy people who are "EARNING" all that money are doing so through speculation in the stock market. This is the reason food costs are spiraling and the cost of gas is so high. What they are doing is totally legal because they have bought mostly Republican politicians who have worked tirelessly to deregulate Wall Street which was the original cause of the recent economic meltdown. Republicans have made sure that could happen again.

As I have also pointed out in the past, most of those "wealthy people" are not going into the military. They are moving their money offshore yet they continue to live here. How is that a "fair share"? If middle class Americans put the lives of their sons and daughters on the line to protect this country, why shouldn't the wealthy pay a little more to even out the cost. How much money is YOUR son or daughter worth? Just so a millionaire could keep another million?

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce and China moved 2.4 million jobs to China. Is that also a "good thing"?

2.4 millions jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008

From the posts you write, I'm suspecting you might be a "pre-teen". You are like a pair of children's scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp. You repeat Republican talking points without even a tiny bit of reflection or question.

your answers are non answers you little *****.

The numbers given show that the top 1% of earners in this country earn 19% of the income and yet pay 37% of the taxes collected. They also show that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax. Do you dispute those figures?

Oh and your little "they don't join the military" is irrelevant, as is "they hide their money offshore." Regardless of what they may or may not hide, we still have 1% of our population paying 37% of our taxes while 40% pay NOTHING. How could you possibly be upset at one group and not the other?

And of course posting that I just don't seem that sharp is a total puss out on your part because you know that there is no reasonable answer to my questions. You can't deny the numbers are true, and know you'd look like an idiot if you out and out said that you think it's perfectly fair that 1% of the population pays 37% of the income tax while 40% of the population pays ZERO income tax.

See what I said about name calling?

Like I said, like children's scissors.

The rich run the Republican Party. We know that for a fact. It's why all their policies are geared towards the rich and only the rich.

The rich don't join the military, with very, very few exceptions. When they do, they are usually like George Bush, assigned to a unit made up of Senator's sons and Dallas Cowboys.

It's very easy to send middle class Americans off to war for oil like Bush did in Iraq. All those Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed for life. And you don't believe rich people should pay a greater share? They already pay enough? How many billions did Cheney and Bush's friends make off Iraq?

Every middle class American who lost a son or daughter or husband or wife may feel the rich should "pay more" even if you don't. If you are writing on this board, you can bet, you are NOT rich. Why defend these people? What do you get out of it? If you lost a family member and feel the rich are doing enough already, considering the number of jobs moved overseas, then I can't tell you how pathetic you are. It wouldn't matter because you don't believe it and never will. This is why people such as yourself must be defeated.

Your kind have created a new ruling class that does not work for the best interests of the country. Notice on your posts, you have never named a single positive thing Republicans could do for this country. Nothing about building or infrastructure or research. Your kind just want to tear down the country and replace government with a kind of "theocratic" wealthy royalty.

More deflection from the dope.

Come on RDean , for the 40th time, answer the questions.

1) Do you deny that the stats I provided that show that the top 1% of earners in this nation earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax in this nation while 40% of the population pays ZERO income are correct stats?

2) If you acknowledge those numbers are correct, how do you claim that the "rich" aren't paying their share without being upset that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING?

Come on , stop being a ***** and answer the questions.

 

[Antiderivative]

your answers are non answers you little *****.

The numbers given show that the top 1% of earners in this country earn 19% of the income and yet pay 37% of the taxes collected. They also show that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax. Do you dispute those figures?

Oh and your little "they don't join the military" is irrelevant, as is "they hide their money offshore." Regardless of what they may or may not hide, we still have 1% of our population paying 37% of our taxes while 40% pay NOTHING. How could you possibly be upset at one group and not the other?

And of course posting that I just don't seem that sharp is a total puss out on your part because you know that there is no reasonable answer to my questions. You can't deny the numbers are true, and know you'd look like an idiot if you out and out said that you think it's perfectly fair that 1% of the population pays 37% of the income tax while 40% of the population pays ZERO income tax.

See what I said about name calling?

Like I said, like children's scissors.

The rich run the Republican Party. We know that for a fact. It's why all their policies are geared towards the rich and only the rich.

The rich don't join the military, with very, very few exceptions. When they do, they are usually like George Bush, assigned to a unit made up of Senator's sons and Dallas Cowboys.

It's very easy to send middle class Americans off to war for oil like Bush did in Iraq. All those Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed for life. And you don't believe rich people should pay a greater share? They already pay enough? How many billions did Cheney and Bush's friends make off Iraq?

Every middle class American who lost a son or daughter or husband or wife may feel the rich should "pay more" even if you don't. If you are writing on this board, you can bet, you are NOT rich. Why defend these people? What do you get out of it? If you lost a family member and feel the rich are doing enough already, considering the number of jobs moved overseas, then I can't tell you how pathetic you are. It wouldn't matter because you don't believe it and never will. This is why people such as yourself must be defeated.

Your kind have created a new ruling class that does not work for the best interests of the country. Notice on your posts, you have never named a single positive thing Republicans could do for this country. Nothing about building or infrastructure or research. Your kind just want to tear down the country and replace government with a kind of "theocratic" wealthy royalty.

More deflection from the dope.

Come on RDean , for the 40th time, answer the questions.

1) Do you deny that the stats I provided that show that the top 1% of earners in this nation earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax in this nation while 40% of the population pays ZERO income are correct stats?

2) If you acknowledge those numbers are correct, how do you claim that the "rich" aren't paying their share without being upset that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING?

Come on , stop being a ***** and answer the questions.

The rich benefit very well by living in America. They also lobby very hard to pass policies that benefit them. We spend billions on useless corporate welfare.

However, kooks fail to recognize this fact. Instead, they think that the uber rich are the most victimized segment of society.

It is truly amazing.

 

[Londoner]

Accumulated wealth is centralized power because it allows you to buy government and media. Large corporations (and their wealthy class of shareholders) are not victims: they own government. They claim to be victims in order to mask their control of government and media. The point of movement conservatism is to move profits into a message machine which fools Americans into thinking that it's still 1940 and the businessman is persecuted by big evil government. Nothing could be further from the truth because business now owns the big evil government, and they use it to channel more of the nation's wealth and resources into fewer and fewer hands. These people are creating a culture of hedge fund billionaires at the expense of affordable education for hard workers. [We were told that if we lowered capital gains to 15%, we would see a glorious reinvestment by capital in America. Education would flourish. Health care would become more innovative and competitive. Energy competition would take off. Instead we've seen a steady flight of capital. Once we removed the tax and regulatory burden on capital, they did the opposite of investing in American jobs; they left the country. Job creators my ass. America got punk'd in 1980. Business used every tax cut to lobby Washington to let them ship more jobs to 3rd world sweat shops. It's a joke. Washington teamed with business to bypass middle class labor on behalf of tyrannical countries which deliver ultra-cheap, oppressed labor. Reagan passed the largest amnesty bill in California's history in order to give business cheaper labor. They don't care about borders. They care about cheap labor and cheap resources. The GOP is the most anti-patriotic political organization in American history.

Bill Gates Sr. is very clear on the centralizing power of accumulated wealth
Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why ... - Google Books

Republican voters are being lead to believe that the wealthy don't have centralized control over government, media, and markets.

Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

 

[TheBrain]

See what I said about name calling?

Like I said, like children's scissors.

The rich run the Republican Party. We know that for a fact. It's why all their policies are geared towards the rich and only the rich.

The rich don't join the military, with very, very few exceptions. When they do, they are usually like George Bush, assigned to a unit made up of Senator's sons and Dallas Cowboys.

It's very easy to send middle class Americans off to war for oil like Bush did in Iraq. All those Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed for life. And you don't believe rich people should pay a greater share? They already pay enough? How many billions did Cheney and Bush's friends make off Iraq?

Every middle class American who lost a son or daughter or husband or wife may feel the rich should "pay more" even if you don't. If you are writing on this board, you can bet, you are NOT rich. Why defend these people? What do you get out of it? If you lost a family member and feel the rich are doing enough already, considering the number of jobs moved overseas, then I can't tell you how pathetic you are. It wouldn't matter because you don't believe it and never will. This is why people such as yourself must be defeated.

Your kind have created a new ruling class that does not work for the best interests of the country. Notice on your posts, you have never named a single positive thing Republicans could do for this country. Nothing about building or infrastructure or research. Your kind just want to tear down the country and replace government with a kind of "theocratic" wealthy royalty.

More deflection from the dope.

Come on RDean , for the 40th time, answer the questions.

1) Do you deny that the stats I provided that show that the top 1% of earners in this nation earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax in this nation while 40% of the population pays ZERO income are correct stats?

2) If you acknowledge those numbers are correct, how do you claim that the "rich" aren't paying their share without being upset that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING?

Come on , stop being a ***** and answer the questions.

The rich benefit very well by living in America. They also lobby very hard to pass policies that benefit them. We spend billions on useless corporate welfare.

However, kooks fail to recognize this fact. Instead, they think that the uber rich are the most victimized segment of society.

It is truly amazing.

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

That's how it works in my home. I pay the bills so I tell my kids (who don't pay the bills) how things are going to be. ANd yes sometimes that means that it appears that the rules benefit me more. Do you allow your kids to run your house?

 

[Antiderivative]

Accumulated wealth is centralized power because it allows you to buy government and media.

Bill Gates Sr. is very clear on this
Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why ... - Google Books

Republican voters are being lead to believe that the wealthy don't have centralized control over government, media, and markets. They are making Orwell roll over in his grave

It is so disturbing that the right thinks that the government works against the wealthy instead of working for them.

However, that is what happens when you jack off to Ayn Rand and become emotionally immature.

 

[Antiderivative]

More deflection from the dope.

Come on RDean , for the 40th time, answer the questions.

1) Do you deny that the stats I provided that show that the top 1% of earners in this nation earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax in this nation while 40% of the population pays ZERO income are correct stats?

2) If you acknowledge those numbers are correct, how do you claim that the "rich" aren't paying their share without being upset that 40% of Americans pay NOTHING?

Come on , stop being a ***** and answer the questions.

The rich benefit very well by living in America. They also lobby very hard to pass policies that benefit them. We spend billions on useless corporate welfare.

However, kooks fail to recognize this fact. Instead, they think that the uber rich are the most victimized segment of society.

It is truly amazing.

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

That's how it works in my home. I pay the bills so I tell my kids (who don't pay the bills) how things are going to be. ANd yes sometimes that means that it appears that the rules benefit me more. Do you allow your kids to run your house?

The last thing we need in this country is more special interest lobbyist. However, this is what rw kooks want. Instead of wanting a humble republic, they want a strong and centralized corporation.

 

[TheBrain]

The rich benefit very well by living in America. They also lobby very hard to pass policies that benefit them. We spend billions on useless corporate welfare.

However, kooks fail to recognize this fact. Instead, they think that the uber rich are the most victimized segment of society.

It is truly amazing.

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

That's how it works in my home. I pay the bills so I tell my kids (who don't pay the bills) how things are going to be. ANd yes sometimes that means that it appears that the rules benefit me more. Do you allow your kids to run your house?

The last thing we need in this country is more special interest lobbyist. However, this is what rw kooks want. Instead of wanting a humble republic, they want a strong and centralized corporation.

complete deflection. You still haven't answered the question. Why are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying no income tax while at the same time bitching that the 1% who pay 37% of income tax collected aren't paying their share?

 

[Antiderivative]

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

That's how it works in my home. I pay the bills so I tell my kids (who don't pay the bills) how things are going to be. ANd yes sometimes that means that it appears that the rules benefit me more. Do you allow your kids to run your house?

The last thing we need in this country is more special interest lobbyist. However, this is what rw kooks want. Instead of wanting a humble republic, they want a strong and centralized corporation.

complete deflection. You still haven't answered the question. Why are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying no income tax while at the same time bitching that the 1% who pay 37% of income tax collected aren't paying their share?

As I stated before, I think we should tax consumption rather than savings and investment.

I think our current tax code is appalling. However, no matter how many times I state this, you rw kooks resort to logical fallacies.

Perhaps we should try this again when you can get more honest.

 

[TheBrain]

The last thing we need in this country is more special interest lobbyist. However, this is what rw kooks want. Instead of wanting a humble republic, they want a strong and centralized corporation.

complete deflection. You still haven't answered the question. Why are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying no income tax while at the same time bitching that the 1% who pay 37% of income tax collected aren't paying their share?

As I stated before, I think we should tax consumption rather than savings and investment.

I think our current tax code is appalling. However, no matter how many times I state this, you rw kooks resort to logical fallacies.

Perhaps we should try this again when you can get more honest.

Clearly it isn't possible for me to have read and remembered all of you posts. I do not recall you ever saying that. However, that still doesn't answer the question of our current system. Are you okay with 40% of Americans paying no income tax and then bitching about not having as much of a say as the 1% of tax payers who pay 37% of the income tax collected? That's a simple yes or no question.

By the way, we agree on the consumption tax.

 

[Antiderivative]

complete deflection. You still haven't answered the question. Why are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying no income tax while at the same time bitching that the 1% who pay 37% of income tax collected aren't paying their share?

As I stated before, I think we should tax consumption rather than savings and investment.

I think our current tax code is appalling. However, no matter how many times I state this, you rw kooks resort to logical fallacies.

Perhaps we should try this again when you can get more honest.

Clearly it isn't possible for me to have read and remembered all of you posts. I do not recall you ever saying that. However, that still doesn't answer the question of our current system. Are you okay with 40% of Americans paying no income tax and then bitching about not having as much of a say as the 1% of tax payers who pay 37% of the income tax collected? That's a simple yes or no question.

By the way, we agree on the consumption tax.

I think our current tax code is appalling. I'll leave it up to you to draw a yes/no answer from that.

 

[Charles_Main]

Unfortunately, they think that they are "being humble" while trying to solve our nation's and the world's problems. However, this is where the 10th Amendment comes in; people are best to solve their own problems.

Now, I am not against some public policy and some public interventionism, but it angers me that these "humble civil servants act humbly" in our best interest, when they clearly don't.

Plus, it takes humility to recognize that a consolidation of power over wars and money is not necessarily a good thing. It can be extremely harmful, but some ******* idiots will not recognize this most pertinent fact.

Wrong. IMO what is wrong with a strong Central Government is the exact opposite. It is not that the lack humanity, it is that they are Human. Power corrupts, the more power you put in Federal Bureaucrats hands, the more they will abuse it. The Key problem is that we have to count on people to Carry out our wishes, and that will always be the problem. That is why I support keeping as much government, as local as possible. Smaller scale means more direct input, and more accountability. I rather argue with some asshole at the county building, or even in Lansing, than have to deal with some asshole in DC. IMO anyways.

You are a fuckiing idiot.

Wow stellar Debating skills there.

Perhaps I need to spell out your own conclusion.

Perhaps you could tell me where I am going wrong, instead of flinging childish names around like a 10th grader.

Do you deny that the Fact that any government will be administered by People is a problem in and of itself? Do you not agree that Power Corrupts? Is it not true that the more local a government, the more accountable it is? Elaborate, tell me where I am wrong. Don't just toss out insults with out explaining why you are right, and I am wrong.

 

[Antiderivative]

Wrong. IMO what is wrong with a strong Central Government is the exact opposite. It is not that the lack humanity, it is that they are Human. Power corrupts, the more power you put in Federal Bureaucrats hands, the more they will abuse it. The Key problem is that we have to count on people to Carry out our wishes, and that will always be the problem. That is why I support keeping as much government, as local as possible. Smaller scale means more direct input, and more accountability. I rather argue with some asshole at the county building, or even in Lansing, than have to deal with some asshole in DC. IMO anyways.

Wow stellar Debating skills there.

Perhaps I need to spell out your own conclusion.

Perhaps you could tell me where I am going wrong, instead of flinging childish names around like a 10th grader.

Do you deny that the Fact that any government will be administered by People is a problem in and of itself? Do you not agree that Power Corrupts? Is it not true that the more local a government, the more accountable it is? Elaborate, tell me where I am wrong. Don't just toss out insults with out explaining why you are right, and I am wrong.

I believe in more local and decentralized government. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Read the title of the OP.

Instead, you behave like a ******* idiot and think that I am for a more stronger and centralized government. You are a ******* idiot. There is nothing to debate.

 

[TheBrain]

As I stated before, I think we should tax consumption rather than savings and investment.

I think our current tax code is appalling. However, no matter how many times I state this, you rw kooks resort to logical fallacies.

Perhaps we should try this again when you can get more honest.

Clearly it isn't possible for me to have read and remembered all of you posts. I do not recall you ever saying that. However, that still doesn't answer the question of our current system. Are you okay with 40% of Americans paying no income tax and then bitching about not having as much of a say as the 1% of tax payers who pay 37% of the income tax collected? That's a simple yes or no question.

By the way, we agree on the consumption tax.

I think our current tax code is appalling. I'll leave it up to you to draw a yes/no answer from that.

Not good enough. That doesn't tell us shit. I want to know, are you okay with 40% of Americans paying NO income tax? Yes or no. Don't be an RDean type coward. Just come out and say that I am correct the problem with our economy isn't that the rich don't pay enough taxes. The problem is that the lower middle class and poor pay NO taxes.

Come on, just be an honest poster here. Promise you won't turn to a pillar of salt or anything.

 

[Antiderivative]

Clearly it isn't possible for me to have read and remembered all of you posts. I do not recall you ever saying that. However, that still doesn't answer the question of our current system. Are you okay with 40% of Americans paying no income tax and then bitching about not having as much of a say as the 1% of tax payers who pay 37% of the income tax collected? That's a simple yes or no question.

By the way, we agree on the consumption tax.

I think our current tax code is appalling. I'll leave it up to you to draw a yes/no answer from that.

Not good enough. That doesn't tell us shit. I want to know, are you okay with 40% of Americans paying NO income tax? Yes or no. Don't be an RDean type coward. Just come out and say that I am correct the problem with our economy isn't that the rich don't pay enough taxes. The problem is that the lower middle class and poor pay NO taxes.

Come on, just be an honest poster here. Promise you won't turn to a pillar of salt or anything.

I hate the ******* income tax. It is basically a war mongering tax.

Again, I will leave you to draw your own y/n conclusion from my statement. I have faith in you.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wow stellar Debating skills there.


Perhaps you could tell me where I am going wrong, instead of flinging childish names around like a 10th grader.

Do you deny that the Fact that any government will be administered by People is a problem in and of itself? Do you not agree that Power Corrupts? Is it not true that the more local a government, the more accountable it is? Elaborate, tell me where I am wrong. Don't just toss out insults with out explaining why you are right, and I am wrong.

I believe in more local and decentralized government. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Read the title of the OP.

Instead, you behave like a ******* idiot and think that I am for a more stronger and centralized government. You are a ******* idiot.

I Never claimed you were for anything bud. You need to stop making assumptions. I simply disputed your premise that the problem with having a strong government is they Lack Humanity. I simply stated that I think the main problem is that they are Human, and therefore flawed, and corruptible.

I did not assume you were for stronger Centralized government, until you responded by calling me an idiot, and not saying why. When All I had done was agree with wanting more local government, but dispute which reason was most important for wanting it.