Romney and representation without taxation

Quote from Tsing Tao:

You could solve all of this with a flat consumption based tax (no income tax) and a balanced budget amendment prohibiting Congress from ever running a deficit. Then it no longer matters who votes for what.
More...

Never happen.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

You could solve all of this with a flat consumption based tax (no income tax) and a balanced budget amendment prohibiting Congress from ever running a deficit. Then it no longer matters who votes for what.
More...

THose ideas are worth discussing but..

My point is that those like pspr, Lucrum, et al would like to disenfrachise anybody who doesn't see things thier way. Many of the 47% would be paying Federal taxes had Reagan and Bush not lowered the tax rates so much. Now that a Democrat is in office and it appears likely to remain in office, a certain segment of beneficiaries of the aformentioned tax overhaul is suddenly
a target for disenfranchisement.

You put Bush and his Retardicans in office for 8 years. You Republicans broke it, try owning it. We saw what you did with your mandate 2000 - 2008. You flushed an entire generation of Americans down the toilet.

We dont need to undertake a wholesale voter purge to tackle entitlement reform. Read Henry Blodget's article today on Yahoo. it's worth the time
 
Quote from L-Kabong:

THose ideas are worth discussing but..

My point is that those like pspr, Lucrum, et al would like to disenfrachise anybody who doesn't see things thier way. Many of the 47% would be paying Federal taxes had Reagan and Bush not lowered the tax rates so much. Now that a Democrat is in office and it appears likely to remain in office, a certain segment of beneficiaries of the aformentioned tax overhaul is suddenly
a target for disenfranchisement.

You put Bush and his Retardicans in office for 8 years. You Republicans broke it, try owning it.
More...

Tsing is a member of the GOP, but not necessarily a Neocon. There is a difference and the GOP is even now fighting a civil war over it.

Mittens, in truth, would be okay, but it is becoming clear he is not his own man, this is working against him of both sides.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Tsing is a member of the GOP, but not necessarily a Neocon. There is a difference and the GOP is even now fighting a civil war over it.

Mittens, in truth, would be okay, but it is becoming clear he is not his own man, this is working against him of both sides.
More...

True about the GOP or NeoCon distinction. I think we all would like to see the true GOP return at some point.
 
Quote from mrbill:

True about the GOP or NeoCon distinction. I think we all would like to see the true GOP return at some point.
More...

They will be back in 2016. The moderates will purge the Tea Party and there will be three parties going forward, I think.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

Sure... I think we have discussed this and I wholeheartedly agree with the principle. The question for me, as I said, is how to apply the principle in a consistent way that makes sense. For example, what do you do about the elderly retirees? What do you do about the genuinely disabled (for example, soldiers who have been disabled in the line of duty)?
More...

In my world?

Veterans vote, period.
Elderly vote IF they're still paying income tax. Which most of them are I would imagine. Interest income and the like.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Simply extend the tax paying requirement to include property tax as well. For those who pay no tax at all (income, property or whatever) they should have no vote as they have no skin in the game. Sales tax does not count.
More...

I'm good with this.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

They will be back in 2016. The moderates will purge the Tea Party and there will be three parties going forward, I think.
More...

I would like to see a 3rd Party as well, and I would like Ron Paul to see some fruition for his efforts. Perhaps not Rand Paul, but a solid Libertarian Party that will actually promote the core values and views.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

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.
More...

+ 16 Trillion...and counting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top