You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to say what the Constitution already says. You just need to shoot a few lawyers. And who said anything about dropping taxes to zero? Just something reasonable, like when they FIRST imposed the income tax on us, say 1% of everything over 250,000. That would more than pay for roads and defense and public works, not retirement and health care and welfare and student loans and studies of the one eyed African newt and NEA and the Department of Education and all those other UNCONSTITUTIONAL uses of tapxpayer money.
See, income taxes are the reason why the government grew into the monster eating us alive now. You are not going to get control until you starve the beast. |
|
"how 'bout we eliminate the need for so much government revenue? Like forcing the government back on its true enumerated powers? Like giving control of individual lives back to the American people? You wouldn't even have to worry about that curve then, would you?"
Great.
First, we'd have to have a constitutional amendment or another supreme court decision to redefine little things like the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause or we'd have to convince Congress to stop whoring themselves out to the highest bidder.
Good luck with that. |
|
"How 'bout this? Instead of fascist corporatist policies of confiscating business wealth for various government run programs designed to manage the ordinary peasants' lives, let's drop business tax rates even further and allow even more deductions so the our businesses can kick the crap out of their businesses."
How about corporations feel a little bit of patriotism and accept the fact that we've got to pay for little things like roads, schools, fighters, etc. that makes it possible for them to conduct business.
I'm all for companies and individuals making a profit and enjoying the fruits of their labor, but let's not kid ourselves, if we cut tax rates down to zero, we're not going to find ourselves in a Randian paradise, and even if we did, we would simply trade one master (government) for another (corporations). |
|
"Yes, those bailouts were a completely fascist act which proved Bush was not the conservative you Marxists long claimed he was. And the fact most of those corporations were boarded mostly by very rich Democrats who contributed millions to Obama may also be a factor."
I know that because I don't fall into the premade mold of Tea Partier or Limbaugh Conservative that most people automatically gloss over my posts so they can reply with some screed about how I'm a Marxist, but you really should stop and read them sometimes. I have been positively scathing of George Bush and his policies for quite some time.
I have likewise criticized Obama for continuing the same foreign policy, fiscal policies, executive overreach and civil liberties stances.
I have also been a strong advocate of realistic budget reform which means dealing with defense spending, doing something with regards to social security and medicare, and ending corporate entanglements whereby the financial industry executives move into Washington jobs and the Washington hacks become lobbyists for industry.
The bailouts disgust me. The prospect of not getting anything in exchange for them (save worthless stock) disgusts me. |
|
"The difference putting us more in line with other countries that have lower business tax rates than we do now, but don't have the loopholes that we do which means the amount in taxes paid is actually less than the rate." That 'putting us in line with other countries' is why we are in trouble today. How 'bout this? Instead of fascist corporatist policies of confiscating business wealth for various government run programs designed to manage the ordinary peasants' lives, let's drop business tax rates even further and allow even more deductions so the our businesses can kick the crap out of their businesses, thereby bringing their businesses and more jobs and prosperity and higher wages to our own shores. Now that would be American exceptionalism.
"It's called the Laffer CURVE for a reason. Once you reach a certain point on the curve, cutting taxes does not result in revenue increases." Hmmm, well, then here's a thought- how 'bout we eliminate the need for so much government revenue? Like forcing the government back on its true enumerated powers? Like giving control of individual lives back to the American people? You wouldn't even have to worry about that curve then, would you? |
|
"You don't have to fire troops to achieve savings"- but they will, because that is what always happens. I was RIF'd in 1995 by Billy Boy because he wanted to show he could cut government spending and it was easier to force me into retirement than get rid of the NEA. I was just a warmonger, contributing nothing, and those guys were arteests making our lives richer.
"But I am aware this won't be cut." That's right, because when government creates a benefit, you can never eliminate it. So why do you want to create more?
"I suggest you google "Wall St. Bailouts"" Ah, you mean an ACTUAL instance of corporate welfare, instead of the long held boring myth that tax cuts for businesses was the same as welfare. Yes, those bailouts were a completely fascist act which proved Bush was not the conservative you Marxists long claimed he was. And the fact most of those corporations were boarded mostly by very rich Democrats who contributed millions to Obama may also be a factor. Why don't you Google "Richard Holbrooke" and "AIG"?
|
|
I thought you wanted to solve the problem that we face NOW.
If you'd like we can talk about how overregulation squeezed banks in the 70's so that they made a deal with the devil to get the Govt off their backs by agreeing to make bad loans wherein they lost money but were reimbursed by Uncle Sam in exchange for some modest donations I'm sure. With the no-lose situation the banks made MORE loans to businesses, individuals, and speculators who used interesting accounting to show that, on paper, we were ALL rich.
Anyhoo, as for NOW - you've got to get the bidnesses to hire people. In America. |
|
"AND IMMEDIATLEY RIF SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND NO LONGER NECESSARY MILITARY MEMBERS INTO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES"
You don't have to fire troops to achieve savings. Having them deployed and having equipment in an area that requires severe maintenance costs spikes our spending on maintaining a military dramatically.
"ESPECIALLY FOR DEMOCRAT DISTRICTS... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
Yes. We should do this immediately and put real savings in the pockets of Americans. With corn (and corn syrup) no longer subsidized, we might actually start seeing declining cases of diabetes and obesity in Americans.
But I am aware this won't be cut.
"WHICH DOESN'T EXIST, SIMPLY A MARXIST MYTH, BUT SEE BELOW..."
Well, for the biggest example, I suggest you google "Wall St. Bailouts" I know there wasn't much in the news about this, so I understand how you could have missed it.
"THE DIFFERENCE ACTUALLY RESULTING IN A SOARING TAX BURDEN THAT WILL PUT 75% OF ALL BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS"
The difference putting us more in line with other countries that have lower business tax rates than we do now, but don't have the loopholes that we do which means the amount in taxes paid is actually less than the rate.
"Or, we could try something that has been proven throughout history to work extremely well- drop ALL taxes by 75%."
It's called the Laffer CURVE for a reason. Once you reach a certain point on the curve, cutting taxes does not result in revenue increases. |
|
"Attacking businesses is what is causing lack of employment. Surely you can connect the dots?"
I disagree...
The bank crisis and credit crunch, combined with the fall of the housing bubble (and the subsequent removal of a lot of people's 'surplus' equity that was being borrowed against to fund more purchases); the looming crisis with commercial real estate; and the general uncertainty regarding the recession and whether it's going to end or get worse is inspiring many surviving businesses to cut costs and payroll or forgo expansion until the general economic climate is more certain.
Only a part of this is related to government and some of these government conditions go back a decade or more. The rest is Fed policy combined with a general economic cycle.
Though, I'm not against your idea of looting any unspent stimulus funds, I would much rather prefer the government start looking at cutting (or reallocating) the yearly budget items instead of focusing on a 'one-time' item. |
|
"If we were being realistic:
1. Withdraw from Iraq- AND IMMEDIATLEY RIF SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND NO LONGER NECESSARY MILITARY MEMBERS INTO THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES
2. Cut farm subsidies- ESPECIALLY FOR DEMOCRAT DISTRICTS... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
3. Cut Corporate welfare- WHICH DOESN'T EXIST, SIMPLY A MARXIST MYTH, BUT SEE BELOW...
4. Reform the business tax code to eliminate loopholes AND simultaneously lower the overall business tax rate a bit. (Businesses would probably pay the same amount or slightly more w/o loopholes, but the rate would be lower than now.)- THE DIFFERENCE ACTUALLY RESULTING IN A SOARING TAX BURDEN THAT WILL PUT 75% OF ALL BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS
5. Find other unnecessary defense projects to cut- WON'T NEED TO, SINCE YOU WILL HAVE SO DEPOPULATED THE MILITARY THERE WON'T BE ANYONE AROUND TO RUN THE MACHINES, ANYWAY.
Or, we could try something that has been proven throughout history to work extremely well- drop ALL taxes by 75%.
|
|
We don't even need to consider Iraq/Afghanistan necessarily. We could use the rest of the stimulus $$$ (85% has yet to be spent) and fund health insurance for centuries.
Attacking businesses is what is causing lack of employment. Surely you can connect the dots? |
|
If we were being realistic:
1. Withdraw from Iraq
2. Cut farm subsidies
3. Cut Corporate welfare
4. Reform the business tax code to eliminate loopholes AND simultaneously lower the overall business tax rate a bit. (Businesses would probably pay the same amount or slightly more w/o loopholes, but the rate would be lower than now.)
5. Find other unnecessary defense projects to cut.
But if we're going to continue the fantasy we'll probably just raise the progressive tax rate on the rich a slight amount and have another 36 months of Carol saying why such a move is just like Lenin shooting the capitalists. |
|
|
no jobs = no taxes = where are you gonna get the $$$ from? |
|
No offense, but one of the major drives for health care reform is the simple fact that when you lose your job, you more often than not also lose your health care unless you can pay the premium yourself.
Even then, that only lasts for a year, and you'll have to deal with getting new insurance (and God help you if you have a preexisting condition.)
So, high unemployment isn't exactly an argument against some kind of health care reform, it's an argument in favor of it. |
|
|
Thats a rhetorical question right? |
|
|
These are true believers, folks. The old ones like Reid and Pelosi have had their fun. The One and some others just don't care about getting re-elected. They are sacrificing their careers for the "Greater Good". |
|
The Pelosi Democrats are 'idee fixe' obsessives that would play while the Capitol burned around them over their health care bill.
Jobs? Pelosi and Obama don't worry about jobs. They want Americans to suffer, falter, fail. They need a society where the Government takes care of all and jobs can wait. First, the society must falter hard.
Like all zealots, they fail to realize that the political dialectic doesn't occur and never has historically.
The marginals are in the light and it has them blinded by their own passions and societal hates.
|
|
|
|