Romney and representation without taxation
- Thread starter nursebee
- Start date
It's ironic that this question is arising now, since the Founders of the country thought it out 250 odd years ago.
Voting was limited to adult male landowners, on the sensible notion that they were responsible for producing the wealth and defending the country, so they had the right to make the decisions.
The new Constitution was carefully drafted to prevent the problem of taking from one group to subsidize another. Taxes were circumscribed. It took a constitutional amendment, decades later, to even authorize an income tax. Tax revenues were not an issue however since spending was also tightly controlled. Congress was limited to expressly enumerated powers. There was no need for a vast military, since noninterventionalism was a core principle.
Our present day problems would not surprise the Founders, not if they saw how far we strayed from their vision. Now we recognize no limits on government's taxing power. A supposedly conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just radically expanded that power in the Obamacare case.
Similarly, taxing one group to subsidize another is a core policy of both parties. The only debate is over how far to go.
Spending is out of any control. We spend more on our military than all other countries combined, yet are unable to prevail in a war against backward goat herders in Afghanistan. Congress and our politicians seem to view their primary role as preventing anyone anywhere from suffering the effects of bad judgment, bad luck or dysfunctional behavior.
We probably have passed the point of no return. Our current economic policy is to run up vast debts and then have the Federal Reserve create money to pay them off. Does anyone think that can last very long? It's the financial equivalent of cold fusion or a perpetual motion machine.
Voting was limited to adult male landowners, on the sensible notion that they were responsible for producing the wealth and defending the country, so they had the right to make the decisions.
The new Constitution was carefully drafted to prevent the problem of taking from one group to subsidize another. Taxes were circumscribed. It took a constitutional amendment, decades later, to even authorize an income tax. Tax revenues were not an issue however since spending was also tightly controlled. Congress was limited to expressly enumerated powers. There was no need for a vast military, since noninterventionalism was a core principle.
Our present day problems would not surprise the Founders, not if they saw how far we strayed from their vision. Now we recognize no limits on government's taxing power. A supposedly conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just radically expanded that power in the Obamacare case.
Similarly, taxing one group to subsidize another is a core policy of both parties. The only debate is over how far to go.
Spending is out of any control. We spend more on our military than all other countries combined, yet are unable to prevail in a war against backward goat herders in Afghanistan. Congress and our politicians seem to view their primary role as preventing anyone anywhere from suffering the effects of bad judgment, bad luck or dysfunctional behavior.
We probably have passed the point of no return. Our current economic policy is to run up vast debts and then have the Federal Reserve create money to pay them off. Does anyone think that can last very long? It's the financial equivalent of cold fusion or a perpetual motion machine.
sensible?
this is in direct conflict with the declaration of independence.
Some of the founding fathers understood that this piece of hypocrisy would come back to threaten the union, and you say it is sensible. That is an interesting position AAA. Have you actually thought this thru?
Houses built on sand......
Nothing to do with liberalism.
You might want to review the principles of this country versus it's conduct.