General discussion


The coming liberal thugocracy

By maxwell edison ·
If nothing in the piece is incorrect..... can the conclusion be incorrect?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


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

What rate are you expecting,

30% to start. Will probably have to be lowered.

and which goods are you taxing?

all new retail goods and services, with a prebate to every household equivalent to the tax paid on poverty level spending. Just like the fairtax ( except that instead of federal, state, and local tax; the state gets 90%, the fed gets 10%.

Yes, this means the fed gets less money... but they will also have less to do. Anything (except the operation of federal facilities) within a state is wholly the responsibility of that state. The only thing the fed will do is protect our borders, perform some regulatory functions (uniform standards for traffic signs, for example) and mediate disputes between states. This will take less than half of their 10% and the rest can go to paying down the debt.

The absence of corporate taxes (and the bureaucracy to comply with and collect them) will allow business to soar. They will be more competitive here AND on world markets. More employees will be needed (we might even be begging people to emigrate here) which will drive up wages. And before you think that it's not fair that corporations get off the hook for taxes, realize: Where do they get the money to pay their taxes??? From you, the consumer, that's who.

Now 30% seems like a lot, but considering that it replaces all income and payroll taxes, it's not so bad... and we might find that after the debt is paid off, it will have to be lowered. Perhaps 10 years is pushing it a little, but certainly not much more than that. The more we produce and sell the more taxes will be paid, and the more the government's cut would be.

Details? That would take some work... Fairtax is a good start, but in my opinion keeping the money closer to where it will actually be needed/used would make it even more beneficial (sending money to Washington, only to have them send it back, is just plain retarded). Instead of "trickle-down" economics, it's "trickle up". You decide how much of your money the government gets by controlling your (above poverty level) spending. In effect, you'll vote with your wallet :)

Oh, and with approval rating of congress at an all time low, we might not need the guns :)

Collapse -

Excuse me????

by JackOfAllTech In reply to There's nothing new about ...

You compare peaceful, legal, picketing to bombing??????

How can you compare attempting to save lives with deliberately killing them?

Collapse -

Yes, I do make that comparison.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Excuse me????

Both are designed to intimidate, just to different degrees.

Not all anti-abortion protests have been peaceful. When a large, organized crowd forms around a facility performing a legal service, attempting to block legal patrons from entering, screaming at the patrons and staff, I consider that intimidation and not peaceful. When some of those protesters shoot and kill abortion facility doctors, I don't see much difference from church bombings.

Not all anti-abortion protests are like this; many are peaceful. Not all Obama supporters are making harassing phone calls to radio talk shows. My point is still that isolated examples of intimidation exist across the social and political spectrum.

Collapse -

Political Party Antics

by BFilmFan In reply to The coming liberal thugoc ...

Neither party wants real free speech, else they would not have made sure the protestors to their conventions were off to the side and not easily visible to the home viewers of the media.

Frankly, I think Obama's people have adopted Newt's tactic of getting into people's faces and asking them what it is they really do believe. And I don't disagree with that one bit when any candidate does it. They just might not like the reaction when someone tells them that they don't believe in their candidate.

We live in a thugocracy where both the parties want to have more and more control of our lives.

Collapse -

Well said

by maxwell edison In reply to Political Party Antics

I can't possibly disagree. And I doubt that you'll disagree when I suggest the only way to turn it around is to insist on less government, not more government.

Collapse -

The Founding Fathers wanted a weak gvt for just this reason.

by Locrian_Lyric In reply to Well said

The Fed should be providing a military, and little else

Collapse -

Agreed...The Fed has too much power

by jmgarvin In reply to The Founding Fathers want ...

The Fed should not be in control of the states as much as they are. The way I see it the Fed should provide:
1) Military
2) Basic Infrastructure SUPPORT (eg roads, trains, air traffic control, etc)
3) Supplement state needs AT THE REQUEST of the state

Collapse -

I agree with everything you said. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Agreed...The Fed has too ...

..... in that particular message. If that's the case, however, why do we seem to disagree on just about every issue?

And if you're genuine with your three points of government involvement, you'd also agree with me that we should.....

.....abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

.....never implement national health care.

.....abolish the Department of Education.


I could go on and on.

Collapse -

The REASON behind the idea of weak national gvt

by Locrian_Lyric In reply to I agree with everything y ...

Was the idea that the states would be living laboratories of ideas and practices. With the individual freedoms fueling movement from good to bad ideas and practices, there was a virtual guarantee that bad ideas would die out and good ideas would be mimicked and replicated.

The FFs also knew that one size fits none.

What works for urban, flat NJ does not work for the midwestern states with the rocky mountains. Try mass transit in the SW corner of Colorado and see where that gets you!

This is also why a national minimum wage law is a joke....

In areas like NY city, New Jersey, Los Angeles, et cetera, the minimum wage is a joke. The state minimum is higher than the Fed in NJ, and you have to look long and hard to find ANYTHING that pays that low.

In other areas where there is less money, the minimum wage just kills business.

Collapse -

I've asked along those lines before

by TonytheTiger In reply to The REASON behind the ide ...

Related Discussions

Related Forums