Peripheral

General discussion

Locked

The coming liberal thugocracy

By maxwell edison ·
If nothing in the piece is incorrect.....

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/the-coming-thugocracy/print/

.....how can the conclusion be incorrect?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Government has to tax. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

But it doesn't have to tax income and productivity, and it doesn't have to tax personal property, which is no more than rent in perpetuity. The sixteenth amendment should be repealed, and people should be secure (from the government) in their own homes.

Moreover, the tax code is being used for more than simply generating operating revenue for the government; it's being used as a tool for social engineering and wealth distribution - something that would have Madison spinning in his grave if he were alive today! (An intentional bit of humor, there.)

You seem to believe that there was some sort of magic line we crossed that made it okay to ignore the ideals of the founders and the true intent of the founding documents. It all worked for 30 million people, but it can't work for 300 million? Is that what you believe? The world has gotten figuratively smaller, so it won't work anymore? Is that what you believe?

Go back to 1**2, the year the sixteenth amendment was being debated, and the time when issues of social conscience were being advanced. Is what we have today really the way you would have designed and predicted your desired outcome?

Debating where we are versus where we should be is much different than exploring where we were and where we should have gone.

If I could go back to a point in time and change it, I'd probably go back to 1**2, because the following year is where we really got onto the wrong road. I'm curious, Delbert, how far back would you go, and is what we have now really what you would have defined as your desired outcome? (Read the platform of the American Socialist Party of 1932 before you answer.)

Collapse -

There's a long history of zero-sum economics

by DelbertPGH In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

All it takes is a leadership culture ignorant of or indifferent to economics; who see wealth as something to be robbed, and new wealth as a dangerous social disruption; and there you go, zero-sum in action. Most of human history has been lived in defiance of Econ 101. Look at medieval Europe; look at China. Both were successful societies, by their own lights, and neither one grew except in response to population increase.

Modern economics says that if you let people do as they want, they will create wealth. Of course, you can't let them do everything they want, or the next thing the wealthy would do would be to prevent anybody else from competing for their piece of the market, and in general preventing any other upstarts from getting rich. Capitalism can't exist without a regulatory and legal environment that controls monopolistic and lawless tendencies, and guarantees contracts. It can't flourish without a state that secures its borders and provides roads and runs the courts, and it works really poorly without a stable money and banking system. In many ways, capitalism is like a defenseless little fetus that has to be coddled and protected from its own witless tendencies, and which sh|ts gold bars by way of compensation.

Collapse -

You've got to tax something

by DelbertPGH In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

You don't want to see an income tax or a property tax. That leaves the Huckabee notion of a 20% national sales tax, which I guess would have to be supplemented by a 10% state sales tax. I can see how the avoidance of a 30% levee on transactions would lead to tax avoidance as the great new American indoor sport.

What, you say, cut government down to bathtub size, so you don't need more than a 6% levee? Get real. In modern Western societies government will take up 30 or 40 per cent of the economy. There's no getting away from it. You couldn't drastically shrink the state without the social network falling apart, and you couldn't do it without starting a class civil war. And capitalism would fall apart; it needs a regulatory environment and a steady flow of trained labor and a prosperous set of markets; these things don't just bring themselves into being because capitalism calls. It takes more than a damn village; a big modern economy needs a big modern state.

If I had to go back to a point in time when there were magical opportunities for America, and government seemed well-positioned and capable of making the most of them, I'd go back to 1989, when taxes were moderate and communism was collapsing and the economy was booming, and the state still had the discipline to wage the cold war, except the cold war was gone. We were in shape to rebuild the world and our own economy: build Russia into a prosperous democratic-capitalist country, make the modern revolution available to countries across the Middle East and around the world, get ourselves off of imported oil, and restore our country's ability to train native engineers (not just imports from China) and become an exporting economy again. Of course, we did none of that, but it was sure a moment of great potential.

Incidentally, Max, I read the silly 1932 Socialist Party platform, and was surprised to see there was nothing in it other than an indictment of capitalism. It had only the vaguest of ideas, and presented no program other than suggesting production should be planned. Is this the piece you were referring to? Why would you suggest I read it?

Collapse -

government will take up 30 or 40 per cent of the economy

by maxwell edison In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

Are you serious? ARE YOU FRIGGIN' SERIOUS???????

It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent - 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).

But WE ARE approaching what you want. Our GDP is 12.5 trillion. Our budget is 3 trillion. What is that, 25 percent?

Are you REALLY SUGGESTING that we INCREASE government spending (and taxation) by 5-15 percent? Are you REALLY SUGGESTING THAT?

Here?s a suggestion: Read and consider your messages before you hit the submit button.

You have two options, Delbert:

1. Retract what you said.

2. Justify what you said.

Either way, you lose. (This is where you ramble on and on with your nonsensical nonsense.)

Collapse -

Delbert 's true Colors

by maxwell edison In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

Delbert's true colors paints a future in which government controls 30-40 percent of your life. Is that what you really want?

Collapse -

Federal, state, county, local, and agencies take over 30%

by DelbertPGH In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

It's a big number. With Social Security projected to grow as my generation retires, the federal share will really increase. It's about 21% now, I think.

Collapse -

Hey big spender.... (Max)

by TonytheTiger In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent - 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).

I think you're too high.... by a factor of ten!

[added:]

Your city should get more tax money than your state, and your state should get more than your federal... exactly backwards from the way it is (not addressing the method of taxation here, just the relative amounts).

Collapse -

Whoa Max

by Cactus Pete In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

Hi again Max.

You wrote...
"It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent - 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).

But WE ARE approaching what you want. Our GDP is 12.5 trillion. Our budget is 3 trillion. What is that, 25 percent?"

Delbert suggested a total taxation, including local rate with federal. Keep that in mind.

And I'd point out that tax rates fall far short of covering the budget. So cut the budget or increase taxes. We can't run up the debt like this forever. I'd say we passed the manageable debt limit already. (With the largest run-ups overseen by Republican "small government" presidents).

We can't have small taxation in the near future. We have to repay the debt.

It is unfortunate that we must take responsibility for the spending of the past, but we must. And I suggest we begin handling it now, rather than let it ruin the future of this country (more so).

Government will need many years of surpluses (modest ones, of course) to pay off the debt. It is only responsible.

If you want a smaller government in the future, we need a sufficient tax rate now. Of course, we need more fiscal responsibility to accompany that. And all the while bank in enough for those emergencies of which you spoke. It isn't east, and it looks bad in the short run. But the responsible thing to do now is to pay off the bills of the past and start saving for the future.

And someone else mentioned a national sales tax. I don't think that's a bad idea, actually. But taxing sales of items is still taxing property. Hope you all keep that in mind.

Collapse -

Only with the current system (Cactus Pete).

by TonytheTiger In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

I'd say we passed the manageable debt limit already

Switching to a consumption based tax would create an economy that would eliminate our national debt within a decade.

Unfortunately that sort of tax system is uncontrollable by liberal politicians, so without an armed revolution, we'll likely never see it.

Collapse -

Tony's decade

by Cactus Pete In reply to Practical, actually-exist ...

10 years??

What rate are you expecting, and which goods are you taxing? I'd love to see details that can give us an out in ten years.

It took us longer than 10 to get here. It will take even longer to get out of the mess, no matter the options chosen.

If you're convincing enough, I'd be next in line for my gun permit.

Related Discussions

Related Forums