Lol
How Republicans Sell Out Their Base While Pretending To Fight
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
You said he was going to use ebola to do it.Odumbo WANTS IRAN AND ISLAM TO FLOURISH AND FOR AMERICA TO BE DESTROYED!
His immigration policies and this "deal" with Iran are the most blatant examples.
You get nonsense when you post crap like you did. It's like GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). You want to break down some of the hilarity? Fine. Let's skip the 2, 1, 3, 4 order numbering giving yet another example to how you process stuff.
The American people are stupid, no question. But term limits would prevent politicians from seizing too much power while in office, because no one is going to waste massive amounts of money on someone they know won't be around 4 years (or whatever size term) from now. No term limits means politicians can build empires and mountains of money to smother any resistance or opponents from ever seeing the light of day and being put in front of the stupid electorate. To consider putting term limits in as a furthering of the "nanny state", you must be smoking good weed this morning.
There are many studies that have been done on a flat or consumption based tax model and they all state that it would result in a massive shrinkage to the IRS. No, it wouldn't get rid of them completely, because someone would still need to collect taxes. But a tax code that fills up a small office when all the books and laws are stacked on top of each other is a problem. It is written by lobbyists and bought politicians to favor select groups - not the people. Only a complete and utter fool or corrupt bureaucrat could think otherwise. Again, calling a move to a flat or consumption based tax moving towards a "nanny state" is one of the dumber things you've ever said - and that's saying something.
As for hurting people that buy things, you obviously don't read much about it otherwise you'd not be saying such things. I recommend you go look up a consumption tax study and note that the poor get refunded for food and clothing. Used items don't get taxed as they have been taxed before, etc. And you get to keep your income - which encourages people to work and not sit on their lazy ass on the couch like you.
IBM doesn't borrow every year and run a negative income statement. If they did, they'd be dead. The government does. Private enterprises do take on debt, but not more than they can handle. If they do, they begin to show loss, not profit, and investors flee. Eventually, they declare bankruptcy. So in effect, profitable and successful companies do run balanced budgets. Saying otherwise shows a complete and total lack of understanding of finance. As for this having something to do with the nanny state, again, put down the pipe.
Again, the people are stupid but campaign finance reform is about getting the money of big business OUT of the electoral process. Companies, even foreign governments, can hide donations and influence the electorate through massive amounts of money, effectively locking out anyone who could actually be good for the system, but can't raise the funding to compete. It's unfair, and completely indicative of a nanny state. The opposite - good reform - is more freedom. I would think a "libertarian" like yourself would get this. But you haven't had your head on straight the entire time you've been on this website, so I supposed I shouldn't be surprised at the manure you spew forth.
thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'd have to say for the most part I agree with you, except the nanny state part. The nanny state arises when the elite think the people are stupid and they make laws to protect the stupid people from themselves, like term limits and campaign finance reform.
I started with 2 because for the most part, even though I always bitch about the government I really only come in contact with them once a year on April 15th. It was simple until you started talking about refunds, rebates, credits and I don't know what all for the poor. How do you know who is poor and who is rich whithout an IRS?
1. Term limits. The politicians become pass throughs while the true bureacracy who really runs things stay forever and every new politician must answer to them.
3. Balanced budgets are fine for States and small business. If your child is in the middle of a war do you really want to wait until congress raises taxes and approves new spending before he gets the supplie he needs? I could go for a balanced budget except in times of war, but you know how they like to spend money and are not immune from starting a war just to get around the balanced budget amendment.
4. Where does all this campaign money go? Plane trips, tv ads, County Fairs, what business is that of mine? The nanny state wants to protect the stupid people from untrue political ads on tv. How much more nanny can you get?
Last edited:
The nanny state is when the government provides cradle-to-grave entitlement. It has nothing to do with putting in term limits and campaign finance reform. Those two changes would make the political process more free, less corrupt. Where you are getting that this is all about stupid people I have no idea.
What?
Politicians pass laws. If they are not beholden to special interest (because they're not there long enough to have their career bought and paid for) then you have less of a corruption effect.
Then don't go to war so often. The fact that we spend more on defense then the next 20 or so countries shows how this is a problem.
Making the playing field fair is not protecting stupid people from tv ads. Really....why do I get into these conversations.
these sales tax guys crack me up. At first it is so simple. Everybody pays the same. Has nothing to do with the economy, it just satisfies their chip on the shoulder that thinks the way it is now is unfair.
Then you ask them about how it will hurt the poor, and the first thing they come up with is all kinds of new special rules for the poor. Sounds like a lot of palms getting greased just to decide who is rich and who is poor.
Then you ask them about how it will hurt the poor, and the first thing they come up with is all kinds of new special rules for the poor. Sounds like a lot of palms getting greased just to decide who is rich and who is poor.
It's not about winning. It's about making sense.
Studies on a national sales tax have had it someplace around 20% on all new items. However, you get to keep all of your income. There's no income tax at all. If your income is below a certain amount (that amount is debated) then you get the rebate on food and clothing tax. If you purchase a used item (car, computer, etc) it functions a bit like a VAT. There's no tax, because the tax on that item has already been paid.
Don't be ridiculous. There are already rules that determine poverty - these are perfectly fine to be used (or adjusted accordingly).