Please, strum. Tell me about all the world class societies that don't tax their citizens?
Americas Elite triumph again.
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
Is that why, when there was no income tax, people were flooding into this country?
Um, what? I do vote that way. I either vote third candidate liberal, or Democratic liberal. Or are you so out of touch that you think the conservatives are the ones arguing for less military and doing less for the rich?
I don't recall saying this is a horrible time to live though. I am merely pointing out, that we need to move past on depending on the system for our next evolution. I have pointed out that not having more faith in what we can do without it will eventually lead to our downfall.
I doubt it, but you are welcome to try. You seem to be consumed by this one irrational worldview of which you are loathe to consider the details and ramifications.
Not so much actually. Maybe the common Democratic voter, but certainly not the Democratic administrations of the past. If they preached those things, they surely haven't done their part to put those preachings into action.
Since you bring up Bernie Madoff, let's talk about the biggest Ponzi scheme that is 'protected' by the fedgov, The FedRes. They are the biggest fraudsters and their speech is protected. So much so, that the minutes of the Fed hearings are not released to the public until 6 weeks LATER. That gives the insiders plenty of time to move their money around BEFORE decisions are actually announced.
You have defined lobbying and bribery as problem solving. In an attempt to try and convince me and whoever else you are currently debating into believing that it's done out of the necessity of good intentions.
Where in reality lobbying and bribing has been for the gain of those that take from you. Some people are good at mixing words with the truth, and convincing people that it is nothing but the truth. Some are good at seeing past the words and seeing the real truth.
That's what you were essentially telling me. You were telling me that even if I wasn't talking about anarchy, that I was actually talking about anarchy because of what I believe. Basically that I wasn't allowed to talk about anything, save for anarchy.
But what you have failed to point out is any alternative. You snipe at an admittedly imperfect system that despite its limits has been instrumental in marked improvement in nearly every area of the human condition. Rather than work to fix those imperfections you want a revolution in favor of something you can't outline. That is hogwash.
The 1990's, after income taxes were raised, saw a flood of immigrants that dwarfed anything that happened before the Constitutional amendment for income taxes. Sure you want to play this game?
Salient point. It's rather like the Republicans bitching about Obamacare, but being unable to come up with an alternative.
How about pre 1913 when we had our greatest growth in peacetime? It seems no wars, no inflation and a thriving economy would be a good thing.
The 1990's, after income taxes were raised, saw a flood of immigrants that dwarfed anything that happened before the Constitutional amendment for income taxes. Sure you want to play this game?
What's your point? That the world's population has increased over the past 100 years?
While you wait for his answer,...Tell me how the most world class of the world class, used Capitalism to get to the pinnacle of that Huey.
Don't tell me think we reached this point because of taxes Huey,........maybe in regards to how we used that money to wage war and take control of the world,......but the innovations came from Private enterprise.
Thank the billionaires you hate for that.
No, no no. You get it wrong. I specifically said I don't think people act out of good intentions. I think they act out of self interests. I'm a pragmatist. I like reality. That's why I want to bribe them. The alternative is to force them. Your nebulous position seems rooted in people just acting correctly with no prodding which is why you are naive in my view.
I just think you made-up a term and decided it means "USA is cool!" Well, it's biased and it's arrogant, but it's still not a universal definition of what a "world class society" is. I was being rhetorical, basically. There's no real answer because you made it up. It's relative. It's subjective.
I don't care how much all of you tax-them-to-death people try to gift-wrap the pleasures and comforts of taxing the sh*t out of people to cover for all blank-thousand federal departments and their bloated payrolls and shouting "look! Gay people can marry! This taxing-to-death thing works!" It still is absolutely antithetical to the founding principles of the country in terms of taxing your personal labor and wages. You don't really have a choice but go out-of-your-way to try and church-it-up and make it look like it's worth it.
Kind of hard to get any of these things done when the Republicans won't let you.
And, yet, Democrats never actually do any of those things. Yet, you people keep voting for them based on their lies. That's insanity.
So your views don't fit together? You pull your positions out of a hat completely unrelated to one another? When you are talking about shrinking government that has nothing to do with your overall philosophy about government? That's a bizarre position I'm not likely to grant.
You guys had two years with the House, the Senate, and the presidency, didn't you?
Once again, what world-class society exists that doesn't tax it's citizens? You can play the definition game all you want, because I suspect that you can't put your money where your mouth it, but you still haven't produced one 1st rate society that gets by without taxing income.
Kind of hard to get anything passed in the Senate with the Republicans setting records for filibustering.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Entertaining an idea, even if you don't agree with it?"
What policy from 1913 did you want to put in place? Are you arguing the human condition was better in that time?
You guys made sure to sell us out to the insurance companies. You couldn't get anything else done?
I think his point is that you really have no idea what you're arguing for in this thread.
Well, we didn't have the bankers stealing from us constantly, and we had the right to due process. Those are two things I would really love to have back.
I have no idea what "world class society" means. It doesn't have a universal meaning. So, what's the point. You're trying to promote a relative idea in an absolute context. That doesn't work.
Do governments like to tax their people? Hell yeah! That's what institutions rely on for their own self-preservation. This "world class society" concept is something you're basically making up to defend your idealistic view of whatever the hell it is.
We actually had a supermajority for that vote. A supermajority that only lasted a few months. Pretty hard to pass 8 years worth of legislation in just a few shorts months, wouldn't you agree?
Why? Because I'm an anarcho-capitalist?
The real problem is that HE doesn't understand what I'm arguing for in this thread, which is why I've had to repeat myself multiple times.
Is that what you are dong here? Are you just tossing out ideas you already think are wrong? If so we are in agreement, your positions here are wrong. But if you are still an anarcho capitalist, a position you refuse to comment on, your ideas here should be understood in that light and you should own up to your real ideas. Hiding your views is basically dishonest.
Those sound like good things that would not be possible without a government.
You sure pushed out that 1000 page monstrosity fast. You couldn't pass anything else? Your first thought was about selling the little guy out to the corporations?
The united states of America (I used capitals and lower cases there for a reason), was a country that did it quite well for many, many decades. Now, it set a precedent to the world as to how to tax it's own peoples' personal wages to pay for everything it wanted and never give them anymore than they need to in order to make them feel like they're still in charge.
I note with a smile that you're really hung up on a definition in this reply.
Natural, you're my boy, but you are not a realist. Another realist knows another realist when he sees one and....you,...no. Your view is naive because it's not based on actual happenings. You read the synopsis and clearly you miss out on all of the small print, eh?
Seriously, dude?
The bankers need the government to force us to use their tender. Have you noticed that, if you own a business, that it's illegal to refuse the dollar? They also need the government to overspend so that they can loan the U.S. government the money to cover its debts...with interest of course.
