The gov doesn't belong in those areas- the answer is to get them OUT.Originally Posted by MelissaWV
There is no spoon.
I am all for less government, but I am not for no government, that's anarchy.
Even Ron Paul has said give things back to the states so they can decide locally how they want to use the tax dollars they do take in, he has said get rid of federal taxation, not state taxation. If local states want to role back taxes and services and the people support that, then sure by all means.
But interestingly they would either vote for that on a direct referendum or for political leaders that say they will implement that.
Imagine a governement that said we eleminting all taxs, BUT ALL social programs are now gone too you are on your own.
When you are young and healthy with a large family that is supportive that seems like a really good deal.
But if you are 80 years old and have no family that is a terrible deal.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
You can claim that your monetary policy of spending more money then we have and printing is the solution to hungry 80 year olds. My solution is going to be spending less money so that people who are 80 don't lose all of their savings through inflation and have to depend on the government
All social programs should also be local. Plenty of ways to handle that and get the Fed gov out of our lives. The original purpose for federal gov was to protect in case of invasion and to handle trade with other countries- my, how we have deviated.
There is no spoon.
This is merely a manifestation of Parkinson's law: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...son-s-Law-1955
Last edited by timosman; 08-29-2016 at 12:56 AM.
I would support a $500 poll tax. What's more, this could be implemented quite easily by a state, or even a locality. So what if it's been ruled in the past supposedly unconstitutional? That was the distant, murky, ancient past. Things were bad back then; we've advanced beyond that. You want to go back to the past? You're just a barbaric throwback. On to the future!
Ideally, this would be the only tax. 100% of the government shall be funded by the poll tax. And anyone who cannot pay does not vote. Only taxpayers vote. Perfect justice.
Perfect justice only if the laws only apply to participants. Otherwise, why not cut out the middle man and just allow people to directly purchase legislation by paying its cost?
Like we have now?
No, right now the amount you pay does not relate to the cost of the legislation that you want.
So do you envision getting favorable legislation for more or less money under the proposed system?
(I want to note that buying favorable legislation is not in question.)
I envision, under either poll taxes or direct payment, that the cost of either would spiral upward to keep out "those people" until only a small oligopoly can afford the prices, and this oligopoly would inflict its will on everyone.
In other words, it would make little difference to me.
The fantasy economic model is the current one we are living in.
The one that seems to think we can endlessly kick the can down the road accumulating trillions in debt that will never be paid back.
The one that says middle class people have a $1000 a month to spend on mandated health insurance.
The one that insists we garrison the entire globe with a multi trillion dollar military that we neither can afford or need.
The one that has millions and millions on the dole now with millions more coming, and that's not even including the hordes of "wretched refuse" Madame President is going to subsidize to come here.
Nope, she will not.
And she'll vote hard to prevent it.
So will the GE stockholder, the cop, the guy getting a sick check, the Martin Marietta worker, the TSA groper and the millions and millions just like them.
Really?
Tell that to the lobbyists representing the "Just-Us" department, or Big-Pharm, Big-Ag, etc.........
Or were you trying to bring the working man into the equation?
The working man not affiliated with government lucre.........
I would also be in favor of condensing things down to one polling place city-wide -- or even state-wide! -- and putting it on top of a convenient mountain peak. Or, if that is unavailable, a tall skyscraper with all elevators "down for maintenance".
It *is* pipe dream nonsense, which was my point. Government has already spoiled a lot of fields to the point that their "income is derived from Government"; competition is shut down or aggressively discouraged, and the person twenty rungs down the ladder who can only manage to get a job at WalMart to avoid welfare is still deriving their income from Government, with no real say other than searching out a job in an industry whose major payments do not come from Government.
Then there's industries who benefit from subsidies, even if their income doesn't come directly via contracts, or who benefit from tax structures tilted in their industry's favor, or regulations along those lines. It's gone on for so long that many companies would simply sink if the Government withdrew its tentacles all at once. That doesn't mean they shouldn't, but it does mean that deciding voting the way that was being discussed is not that simple.
A direct check? Depends. You've got to decide how you're categorizing things. Is a settlement a Government check? Is Medicare? Unemployment? Social Security? Some of these are more under the "entitlement" umbrella than others. All touch on Government meddling and dependence. Knowing our lovely overlords, they would spend billions on a "Recategorization Committee" to make the decision
Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.
Funny thing, the more we have been taxed the smaller family size has become. Once upon a time generations of families would live on their land. The young would take care of the old and the old the very young.
Now there is no family unit. Mothers without husbands bearing multiple children by different fathers while living on the government teat.
Seems the social safety net has has encouraged the break down of families and here we sit today.
I agree, the collapse of the moral fiber of America has not helped ease the tax burden on it's citizens, but has inflated it.
It use to be there was no programs, but people had 5-10 kids and that was their social insurance for old age.
The program worked for centuries. And in places like India it still exists.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
??? The collapse of the moral fiber of America is because of the tax burden and the invention of collective welfare. And regulation without representation.
Agree?
While I am very much opposed to those outrages, as are you, and I know beyond any doubt they have massively contributed to the moral collapse, as do you, I do not put all the causality on that.
Really, the increase in taxes and transfer programs is more a symptom than a root cause. The dole is evil, to be sure, and has destroyed the black race in America, sure. But why did we decide to put up with doles? To actively support them, in fact? Even libertarians -- we'll be against the State doing it, sure, but nine times out of ten will be all for private, charitable hand-outs and wax eloquent about how much more efficient it will be when done privately and how compassionate we really are.
The American temperament has changed.
Just as the Roman temperament changed.
And the Greeks before them.
And the Babylonians, the Chinese, the Egyptians. Way back to the Sumerians.
It has happened every time.
It's biological.
It's the disease of prosperity.
Prosperity weakens subsequent generations and tenderizes them for the frying pan.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us