I believe the rich should pay more in taxes (salaries, fence, how much)

[LaTrang]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Higher taxes on their income could make up for the difference, or you can close their loopholes, and increase their taxes where they are deficient, like their payroll taxes, and capital gain taxes.



Where do we start. First, he starts the entire article off with the bastardization of a common practice--rounding up. He anecdotally tells a story of a teacher who sent in a letter about how she has worked 30 years and...HOLD YOUR HORSES, She's only worked 29 years. Clearly a grand scandal is taking place.

The author is complaining about sick days. Literally. Because teachers have in their contracts paid sick leave, he's throwing a fit. As a result, some teachers are getting decent pensions for when they retire.

So, what does he do, tells a singular, demonzing side of the story. He takes particular attention to the ability to "buy" credit years. Never mind that this practice goes on in every state, and that means every state pays pensions in the same way that Illinois is paying pensions, which means that every time Illinois pays a pension for time not spent in Illinois, some other teacher in another state is getting paid the same way.

This isn't evidence, it's a misinformed talking point.

Moving on.


And what makes you think people want to be poor, or aren't motivated to not be poor? Again, the fallacy that people are where they are because they are lazy.

Go earn less than 20,000 for four years, and you cannot accept any kind of welfare. You cannot move in with family. they already live with you and you're supporting them. You can't move out of your city. You can't get another job. You can't do anything that the working poor already can't do.

Then come back, if you haven't starved to death, and tell me how you fared without any assistance.



These programs don't "enable poverty," they reduce it. The vast majority of welfare users are on it for a matter of months before leaving.



No, I'm not conservative, I realize the importance of a strong people for a strong nation, and as such, I want to enable them in every way possible to get out of poverty, to get an education, and to contribute to this nation. The evidence shows resoundingly that welfare programs help far more than they hurt.

You don't get people out of poverty by giving them money, you get them out of poverty by making them work their asses off to better their lives.
You understand neither economics nor human nature. You just want to destroy what has stood us in good stead since the founding.

[Robeaux]

Originally Posted by Konraden

You're wrong. This flat-tax you suggest is actually disadvantageous to those who don't make a lot of money. Dollar for dollar, it matters more to those who make less than those who make more.

$1000 to someone making $10,000 is a tremendous amount of money. That's $9,000 to buy food, put a roof over ones head, and for some, raise a family.

Contrast that with someone making $1,000,000, and shelling out only $100,000. The $900,000 will build a house, buy a few cars, and operate a small business for two years with zero income. And still have money left over to go to the movies once a weekend.

Flat taxes will never work unless you plan to begin them above $60,000. There is a reason there is a progressive tax, and not because it's a "progressive" idea.

But isn't that "fair"? If not, are you suggesting that "fair" is taxing the rich 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc...more?

I know you didn't use the word "fair", but many, many liberals have. What, really, is "fair"?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Higher taxes on their income could make up for the difference

If you're going to go that route, you would need to raise taxes the most on the upper-middle class (All of the top 20% minus the top 1%). The upper-middle class are the ones who have expanded their wealth and have the greatest spread between their share of income and their share of federal tax liabilities.

Where do we start.

You can start by looking up the pensions. They're a matter of public record, and they've been posted accurately by the source I linked.

Still waiting for you to cite the US Constitution's mandate for the federal government to provide social welfare programs.

Hint: there isn't one.

[MN55]

I support a flat income tax.





Of zero f'ing percent.

Anything more than that is simply theft (or more accurately extortion).

If states or counties or municipalities want an income tax, that's fine. But the federal government should spend only what it takes in through tariffs and other non-compulsive revenues.

Repeal the 16th amendment.

[LaTrang]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Again, an incredible failure on your part to see that people don't always end where they are because of their own successes or failures. Chance can play an incredible role, not to mention factors well out of the control of the working man.

Someone making very little should not be expected to shoulder the burden of society. You can't place the expenses of a great nation on the backs of the majority of the people, as the majority of the people (80% here) control less than 20% of the wealth of the country. Should they be taxed? Sure, but you must tax those making much more, much more.

The bottom twenty percent, those controlling less than a single percentage of our entire wealth, should have no expectation of taxation.

And the local gas station should give them free gas too, because they are poooor. No, everyone is equal in America - equal in opportunity and equal in obligations.

[LaTrang]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Reality does not care about your beliefs. People may not be where they are because of something they did or did not do, or as a result of their own merits. This is foolish to think. Many, many factors well outside the control of people affect them every single day. We cannot hold people accountable for things themselves cannot control, this is absurd.

It is not a women's fault for being a woman, not a man's fault for being a man, yet a glass ceiling still very much exists. The white man is very much advantaged in society.

Bill Gates as a very lucky man. He became wildly successful because he bought some software and got into the industry at its very beginning. Rag-to-riches is an incredibly rare but often touted scenario. Social mobility is non-existent. As I said, reality cares not about what you believe.

And successful people are not being punished. Taxation is not punishment, it's a citizens responsibility to the country. If you are so wildly successful as to make that kind of money, you have little reason to reject the idea that you need it all. Many of the wealthy have little problem with increased taxes because they don't actually need all that money. The small-minded think its' a travesty for a number of reasons, one of which is that they think they will be taxes, despite making less than $250,000 a year. Second is that they falsely believe they themselves will one day make millions, and they don't want government having it now.



What makes you think it is a free-ride?

It's worse than a free ride. It's a free ride with a bonus prize. Get a clue, and don't ever call me a fascist again.

[Fiddlehead]

I think they should pay more.

I can only speak from my own experience. Wifey and I and kidlet have gone from $50k to about $100k over the last few years. With my last pay raise of about $10k, life has gotten much better for us. Car repairs don't go on the credit card, I was able to pay off a $5k card balance in 6 months, student loans are going down fast, I can crank up payments to our retirement account, saving for the kids college, have a rainy day fund for house repairs, starting to look at investment accounts. Did I buy an Escalade? Hell no. I drive old beaters that I buy cash, but the point is, that doubling in income has made a tremendous change in our bottom line and stress level. Imagine if instead of $100k, we earned $1,000,000. It would be no comparison. Credit card deb t? Car payments? Student loans? Mortgage? Kid's braces? College? Ha! None of them would be even the slightest issue. The family making $50k would have to put most of those on credit, which would, of course, would enrich the wealthy even more. There is no question that the impacts of taxes are lower on upper income people. in terms of fundamental life quality. A person earning a million a year is not impacted by taxes to anywhere near the same degree.

I am not interested in soaking the rich, but the flat tax mentality is a ridiculous concept sold by talk radio schills, who work for the millionaires and billionaires. Wealth aggregates exponentially, and by the time a person starts earning a million a year, so many factors are rolling in their favor, a very favorable tax code is pretty trivial. They get it, of course, not because they need it, but because they can afford to buy lobbyists and spin doctors and we can't.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by LaTrang

And the local gas station should give them free gas too, because they are poooor. No, everyone is equal in America - equal in opportunity and equal in obligations.

Why not....the poor get free cell phones.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Konraden

The services help people get out of poverty, to become productive members of society, better our nation, and perhaps important to you--PAY TAXES.

That is the intention, that is however not the consistent result of such. Those services if you haven't noticed are a drain to the system, a cost burden to the tax payer and a depressant to the economic system. What is important to "me" is my responsibility, not that of my fellow countrymen. If you want to be concerned about "me", then you accept my individual freedom to choose and live by those choices, otherwise you are simply dictating my free will under the guise of wanting to help me.

Originally Posted by Konraden

The last forty years of supply-side economics has allowed the shift of the tax burden from the wealthy (where it belonged) to the middle class, which has killed our spending power, and ground the economy to a halt.

Why does it belong with the wealthy? Why does not the aspects of this countries powers lay at the feet of all who are of it? Does not our system protect us from the infringement of the minority and yet here you are arguing that a minority should carry the burden of all? Maybe this is simply showing the problem with our over taxation? Maybe we are grinding to a halt because of many other factors that have nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with government infringement through discriminatory practices, regulatory proccesses, and socialized programs which place weights on others?

Originally Posted by Konraden

When that happens, the people with enough money, savings, or enough luck are moving up. The majority are moving down into poverty because the rich doesn't want a middle-class: they want workers. Dumb, slaves who are easily replaced.

You mean the government does not want a middle class? See, governments can control the rich by selling them power and special treatment. They can control the poor by promising them handouts. They can not control the middle class because they do not have the money to buy out power, yet they are self sufficient enough to not be persuaded by government handouts. Making this a class war serves the political powers and those who wish to increase them.

Originally Posted by Konraden

The entire point is to remove the tax burden from the middle-class, redistribute that onto the wealthiest elite of this country (many of which have no problem with this), and to apply social programs that lower poverty and educate the public.

Actually, the entire point is that government is too big, has too many social programs to which it has no authority, and taxes unconstitutionally to serve its political carrots to use as leverage against the people. The original tax code of the Constitution was that all would pay head taxes (every citizen pays x dollars a year). The first income tax was found unconstitutional with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. because the taxes being applied back then were not apportioned. This of course was made irrelevant with the 16th amendment which is a spiritual unconstitutional measure to which was specifically designed to evade the direct tax contingency to avoid apportionment to that of representation. That is, taxes were then allowed to be subject specifically as congress pleased to tax anything as they felt necessary and without any respect to taxes being related to that of representation.

The issue here is that Government spends far to much and the reason people keep stating that a flat tax (as was originally the position and intention of our Constitution) solves the issues of Government overstepping its boundaries is because then, if the entire people have to share the burden, the incentive to buy votes is removed and the people are then because they share the burden less likely to approve such irresponsible habits of the government.

Your claim of the "wealthy not caring" and constant appeals to emotional conviction to support the poor are contrary to a free society. One can be encouraged to do such (and many do without government programs and taxed based dictation), but to mandate such is in direct contradiction to the basic principals of a free country. What you seek is a country that gives up its freedoms to be ruled by the governing class and that has no place in our system.

Originally Posted by Konraden

Due to the rapid change in our economic base, we need an educated workforce to follow suite. Public education is great--until it no longer pays for post-secondary education, which is what we really need. People are working too many hours and don't have enough time to get an education to make more money, and to bring greater benefits to the country. We aren't getting the full value of our welfare because we don't have enough of it. Instead of cutting welfare programs (which the majority of people use and then leave in short periods of time), we should be investing it into post-secondary education: really anything skill-based, that will allow people to contribute to society and pay taxes.

We have more educated people than we have ever had in the history of this nation. Education does not create jobs. It does not guarantee jobs, it is simply an increased skill factor, but a skill of no use has no value in the market and we are inundated with many college graduates with useless skills.

Many of the achievements this country has made was on the back of not the educated, but the motivated, the diligent, the ambitious and freedom of an individual to pursue that which their heart desired. The power of the people to excel was in the hands of the people and it has been the removal of such incentive and power from the people over the years with government to which has slowly strangled the air out of such ambition and drive. We created a government to insure freedom to pursue such, yet the actions of the government over the last 100 years or so has been to limit it, regulate it, tax it. That result is what you see now.

The problem is not the rich as the rich have no power in a free society, they merely have advantages. What gives the rich power is government and what you advocate is more and more government. Reduce government, which will reduce taxes, which will encourage freedom of choice and the responsibilities there in. Do that, and you solve the economic problem. You can not solve government problems with more government.

Originally Posted by Konraden

So yeah, you can go ahead and cut the parsley from the plate, but you're biggest budget is social security, and defense, and one of those programs is paid for with its own tax, and the other kills people.

So let me know what you think we should do about that.

Absolutely. For SS and all social programs of the like, we abolish them. We stop collecting for it. We tally up all who have paid in (including interest on their money) and we see how much we have paid out to them. If they are paid out in full or over. We cut them off. If they are not, we continue to pay them in whatever means we can as fast as we can to pay them off. The system gets phased out and people are encouraged to be responsible for themselves and plan as needed for the future (called "promoting" the general welfare). The result is those people now have more money in their pockets to save as they see fit, not under systems that government can control, dip into and squander to increase its power.

As for defense, we cut it back if needed. We move all basis in friendly areas of no conflict back immediately and we cut off many of the aid we have been giving through these bases which should be handled by that countries government.

We assess our bases and actions in current active conflict areas and establish the relevance to such a need being there as to our own security as a nation and the concerns of avoiding future power dangers.

We build if need, or reduce to as necessary a defense that allows us to stay as a super power military force to handle any contingency of conflict within the world and we maintain that level. We continue to research and develop our military to stay strong.

We cut as much government programs as is possible to keep a basic infrastructure within our system to attend to the needs of defense as mentioned, and that of insuring the protections of the people and the states they reside in.


All of this reduction would reduce spending dramatically and yes, there would be some spikes in various numbers unemployment would spike due to government layoffs, but at the same time due many government intrusions, taxes, regulations, etc... would be reduced making this country the prime economic building base in the world to which businesses will be flocking to come.

There may need to be some short term flat tax adjustments to pay for the transition, paying the debt off, etc..., but these would need to be legislated with a no continue vote shut off.

The whole point? Reduce government and that will increase freedom to which a free nation will thrive. It stagnates now because it is being strangled by those idealist who think that they make a better king, than that of a common individual.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by Robeaux

But isn't that "fair"? If not, are you suggesting that "fair" is taxing the rich 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc...more?

I know you didn't use the word "fair", but many, many liberals have. What, really, is "fair"?

The value of the dollar is a lot more for someone who is poor than for someone who is rich. This is what we refer to when someone says "because the rich can afford it." 10% to someone making $10,000 is $1,000. That leaves them with $9,000 to spend on food, housing, etc.

To someone making $1,000,000, 10% is just $100,000. Sure, that's 100x what the poor person is paying, but the rich person has a whopping 900,000 to spend for the same exact things the poor man has $9,000 to spend. This is why flat taxes do not and can not work. It disadvantages the poor and working class, because costs do not scale.

Originally Posted by LaTrang

You don't get people out of poverty by giving them money, you get them out of poverty by making them work their asses off to better their lives.

What? I didn't hear you over the sound of facts.

You understand neither economics nor human nature. You just want to destroy what has stood us in good stead since the founding.

What is this thing you refer to that has "stood us in good stead."

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

If you're going to go that route, you would need to raise taxes the most on the upper-middle class (All of the top 20% minus the top 1%). The upper-middle class are the ones who have expanded their wealth and have the greatest spread between their share of income and their share of federal tax liabilities.

You can start by looking up the pensions. They're a matter of public record, and they've been posted accurately by the source I linked.

Still waiting for you to cite the US Constitution's mandate for the federal government to provide social welfare programs.

Hint: there isn't one.

First, the wealth distribution is sickening in this country. We are a third-world country, the wealth should be falling from the top and to the bottom, as Reagan promised.

With that, the wealthy still aren't paying their share of taxes, and neither is the upper class. It's all burdened on the poor and middle class.

Third.

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States of Americas: Article 8, The Legislative Branch; Article 1, the Powers of Congress]
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST

Imposts[/url] and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Originally Posted by LaTrang

It's worse than a free ride. It's a free ride with a bonus prize. Get a clue, and don't ever call me a fascist again.

How am I supposed to "get a clue" if you can't actually articulate how you think this is a free-ride for people. While you're at it, define a "free-ride."

Originally Posted by Nomander

That is the intention, that is however not the consistent result of such. Those services if you haven't noticed are a drain to the system, a cost burden to the tax payer and a depressant to the economic system.

I reject your claims without evidence. Statistics from both the Census bureau and show that these programs do work.

The 2011 Statistical Abstract: Social Insurance & Human Services

I'll have to find the testimony, but some research that was done into the effectiveness a program found two interesting results. One was that the vast majority of people that had ever used AFDC were on it for a period of a few months (which was essentially people falling on hard times). The vast majority of them. Welfare ate them up and spit them out pretty quickly.

The other finding was seemingly contradictory. It found that at any given time, 70% of the people on welfare had been using it for two years. When taken as a single snapshot, welfare looks abused, because 70% of the people that were on AFDC at that given time were on it for a long period. But that group of people was over-represented, because it didn't account for the millions that passed through, on welfare for a period of a few months. Find the abusers and stop them, but don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

What is important to "me" is my responsibility, not that of my fellow countrymen. If you want to be concerned about "me", then you accept my individual freedom to choose and live by those choices, otherwise you are simply dictating my free will under the guise of wanting to help me.

You are but a small part of a larger society. The total health of the society is considered as well as the health of individuals. It is your responsibility to be a functional member of society. For those that have trouble being functional members, we aid them to do so--which evidence shows to work. If you don't need the help--don't take it, no one is forcing you. But for those that do need it, we have it. That's the purpose of welfare.

Why does it belong with the wealthy?

Because they contain the greatest wealth, and the value of a dollar is less to them than to us, as I've mentioned over a dozen times, is because costs do not scale to your income or your wealth. A $5 sandwich is $5 to me and $5 to Bill Gates. The difference is, I have significantly less wealth proportionally after having bought that sandwich that Bill Gates does. As a result, my money is more valuable per dollar.

Combine that with the economy functioning from demand-side economics, and if 80-90% of your population can't afford to spend money, you don't have an economy. The tax burden is there because they can afford it.

Why does not the aspects of this countries powers lay at the feet of all who are of it?

Because the greatest wealth is concentrated in the smallest hands. The poor may be great in number, but not in power or money. You can't run a country on 35 pence.

Does not our system protect us from the infringement of the minority and yet here you are arguing that a minority should carry the burden of all?

A republic protects against the tyranny of a singular democratic majority. It is there to protect minorities from destruction by a majority. However, a tremendously wealthy power-elite don't need protection if they are causing the harm in the first place.

Maybe this is simply showing the problem with our over taxation?

Of the poor and middle-class, of 80 to 90 percent of the populace.

Maybe we are grinding to a halt because of many other factors that have nothing to do with taxes

If your market is over taxed and has no money to spend, you have no demand for the goods you produce. You can create supply all you want, but that isn't going to create a demand for those products. The easiest way to explain the failure of trickle-down economics.

We grind to a halt because the market has no wealth and is over-taxed. Reducing taxes on the poor and middle class, and moving it back to the wealthy--who've always paid higher taxes (as described above) will free up middle-class to accrue wealth. With wealth comes demand, with demand comes an economy.

and everything to do with government infringement through discriminatory practices,

Which practices?

regulatory processes,

Which regulations?

and socialized programs which place weights on others?

The benefits of social programs far outweigh the costs. It widens the tax base and improves the nation's GDP, everything a budging conservative wants.

You mean the government does not want a middle class? See, governments can control the rich by selling them power and special treatment. They can control the poor by promising them handouts. They can not control the middle class because they do not have the money to buy out power, yet they are self sufficient enough to not be persuaded by government handouts. Making this a class war serves the political powers and those who wish to increase them.

Clever, but backwards. The rich control a variety of politicians, particularly ones disinteRested in the common good. These politicians that aren't interested in the common good, are interested in among other things, the lining of their own pockets.

The poor, despite your disillusioned beliefs, don't actually want to be poor. Which is why the majority of them end up not on welfare. Those "handouts" like police departments, public schools, and national parks, benefit this nation in positive ways that could not be accomplished or trusted in private hands. Ethics is disinterested in war for profit.

This isn't a class war. It's reality we're trying to deal with. A section of this country is tremendously wealthy, and they aren't paying their dues. Some are more than willing to do so (read: Soros, Gates, Buffet, etc.) Some Aren't. (Read: Murdoch).

Actually, the entire point is that government is too big,

In what way?

has too many social programs to which it has no authority,

Name one it doesn't have Authority to commence.

and taxes unconstitutionally

Explain how.

to serve its political carrots to use as leverage against the people. The original tax code of the Constitution was that all would pay head taxes (every citizen pays x dollars a year).

I've already shown explicitly how damaging flat-taxes, no matter how ancient you want to go, are dangerous. Flat-taxes destroy the poor and concentrate wealth, just as we have now, in the upper classes.

Maybe this is why it was abandoned for a progressive income tax?

The first income tax was found unconstitutional with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. because the taxes being applied back then were not apportioned.

They were found to be direct taxes, which had to be apportioned via constitution. Subsequent precedences and laws found that taxation of income is an indirect tax--which it is as a result of being a transfer of labor to currency, and not property to currency--and as such liable to being taxed without apportion to the states.

This of course was made irrelevant with the 16th amendment which is a spiritual unconstitutional measure to which was specifically designed to evade the direct tax contingency to avoid apportionment to that of representation.

That is to say, so that wealthy people couldn't get away with very few taxes for the wealth they began to accuulate. The apportionment of direct taxes was devised so that property owners--in this case the Southerns, who had large tracts of land and lots of slave property, didn't have to pay gargantuan taxes on their property which didn't actually provide much income.

So, you were going to say something else?

That is, taxes were then allowed to be subject specifically as congress pleased to tax anything as they felt necessary and without any respect to taxes being related to that of representation.

Except this isn't the case at all! Indirect taxes existed before the 16th amendment, income was never oridingally taxed, however. When income was taxed directly, it was found unconstitutional. Only by defining it as an indirect tax was congress able to tax income. And you know what? They were right, because congress expressed concern over the increase in wealth of the top classes of people, because their incomes far exceeded the working poor of that time.

Where else are we experiencing this?

The issue here is that Government spends far to much

What are we overspending on? There is a correct answer, let's see if you get it right.

and the reason people keep stating that a flat tax (as was originally the position and intention of our Constitution) solves the issues of Government overstepping its boundaries is because then, if the entire people have to share the burden,

Except as consistently demonstrated, flat taxes don't share the burden.

the incentive to buy votes is removed and the people are then because they share the burden less likely to approve such irresponsible habits of the government.

What "incentive" is there to buying votes that didn't exist prior? Those flat taxes only existed for property. And indirect taxes were subject to the taxation, as I believe you put it, "whims" of congress. That included capital and transfer taxes. The direct tax appropriations were specifically limited to individuals and their property, and only because the south had lots of property that didn't earn them much income.

Your claim of the "wealthy not caring" and constant appeals to emotional conviction to support the poor are contrary to a free society.

What claim that they don't care?

One can be encouraged to do such (and many do without government programs and taxed based dictation), but to mandate such is in direct contradiction to the basic principals of a free country.

To mandate people pay higher taxes to be more in proportion with their accumulated wealth? How is this against a free society? Nobody is forced to pay their taxes, but they'll suffer consequenes for doing it. These things called "laws" pretty much govern every action we do. I guess that means no one is totally free because we have to drive on the right side of the road?

What you seek is a country that gives up its freedoms to be ruled by the governing class and that has no place in our system.

My goodness, where did all this straw come from.

We have more educated people than we have ever had in the history of this nation.

Yes, we do. And even still, people are attacking education like crazy.

Education does not create jobs.

No, demand does. Education creates competent workers, who can fill jobs.

It does not guarantee jobs, it is simply an increased skill factor, but a skill of no use has no value in the market and we are inundated with many college graduates with useless skills.

25% of the populace has some college. That leaves 75% of the people with nothing. They are left with little more than high-school educations or worse. Our economy and workforce needs to be smarter, especially considering the number of positions we have open that no one is filling because no one has the skills for them. Welfare needs to include some kind of post-secondary education as well, to get people into jobs. With the way welfare works now, it isn't give us our best bang for the buck. I covered this previously in this thread.

Many of the achievements this country has made was on the back of not the educated, but the motivated, the diligent, the ambitious and freedom of an individual to pursue that which their heart desired.

Ambiguous phrasing. It takes many people to build a bridge, including architects, engineers, and scientists.

The power of the people to excel was in the hands of the people and it has been the removal of such incentive and power from the people over the years with government to which has slowly strangled the air out of such ambition and drive.

In what way?

We created a government to insure freedom to pursue such, yet the actions of the government over the last 100 years or so has been to limit it, regulate it, tax it. That result is what you see now.

The "achievements" which destroy our quality of life are not achievements. There is no travesty in the regulation of nuclear waste, not atrocity in limits on pollution in our air.

The problem is not the rich as the rich have no power in a free society,

Don't bring that **** here. Money is power, and the rich have all of it.

The recent Wal-Mart case was a travesty, where millions of poor, working-class women were denied their legal rights because the Supreme Court felt that the case was too diverse? That each women now had to take on Wal-Mart by themselves, their $200 a month extra for a lawyer against the 200 a month Lawyer's Wal-Mart had in their army.

It's a simple fact. The peon doesn't have wealth, and doesn't have power. In aggregate, we get it--which is why we have Unions and special interest groups. As a collective, we have power. As a single person, the poor don't. The wealthy have tremendous power as individuals, so take your sycophant bull**** elsewhere.

they merely have advantages. What gives the rich power is government and what you advocate is more and more government. Reduce government, which will reduce taxes, which will encourage freedom of choice and the responsibilities there in. Do that, and you solve the economic problem. You can not solve government problems with more government.

"More taxes" does not equal "more government."

More government doesn't give wealthy people any more power than it gives to the poor, because the government, in terms of this republic, is the power. The government denatures power from the wealthy and from the poor, and brokers it. The problem is that the wealthy through the corrupting influence of wealth have empowered themselves with government, not the other way around.

People see any laws that protect anyone as "more government." What they don't see as "more government" is the explosion of the Defense Department's budget, which has continued to go up and up and up. What they don't see is the continued funding of redundant agencies. What they do see is funding of beneficial programs. Their minds are warped by conservative malinformation.

Meanwhile, poor people are still poor and conservatives have no solutions that work to help.

Absolutely. For SS and all social programs of the like, we abolish them.

Social Security was something endorsed by the founding fathers. I'm pretty sure you've tried repeatedly to use this line of argument on me in order to abolish taxes, why wouldn't work to keep them?

We stop collecting for it. We tally up all who have paid in (including interest on their money) and we see how much we have paid out to them. If they are paid out in full or over. We cut them off.

That's not actually how Social Security works. $10 a paycheck, 26 paychecks...$260 a year?

If they are not, we continue to pay them in whatever means we can as fast as we can to pay them off. The system gets phased out and people are encouraged to be responsible for themselves and plan as needed for the future (called "promoting" the general welfare).

This doesn't actually help at all, because it doesn't actually help people that can't help themselves, which is one of the purposes of welfare in the first place. When people are spending every penny they earn on goods and services because they don't make a living wage, they can't save anything. Your argument fails. I've addressed that above as well. "Promoting" isn't just about talk--talk is cheap. It's about enacting programs that promote general welfare of society as well, just as anti-biotics promote good health.


I'll suggest something equally radical from the "left" side of the camp. Let's nationalize all of the Oil industry.

The result is those people now have more money in their pockets to save as they see fit, not under systems that government can control, dip into and squander to increase its power.

Instead of cutting taxes which are actually used for good, how about we shift the tax burden from the poor and middle-class, who are over-paying, to the wealthy, who are under-paying. That way, we free up 90% of the country's spending power, and get the country moving again. Social Security and Medicare are beans compared to what we could save by cutting taxes in half for the middle-class and working poor, and increasing it by 10 to 15 percent on the wealthy, back to where they would be paying their fair share.

As for defense, we cut it back if needed. We move all basis

Bases.

in friendly areas of no conflict back immediately and we cut off many of the aid we have been giving through these bases which should be handled by that countries government. We assess our bases and actions in current active conflict areas and establish the relevance to such a need being there as to our own security as a nation and the concerns of avoiding future power dangers.

We build if need, or reduce to as necessary a defense that allows us to stay as a super power military force to handle any contingency of conflict within the world and we maintain that level. We continue to research and develop our military to stay strong.

Actually a good idea with exceptions. One of the reasons we have bases is to provide global outreach of power if needed. We don't need a hundred over-sea bases, but half that would probably suffice. In the meantime, we should be cutting corporate welfare for defense industry contractors as well who haven't actually provided a product in years.

We cut as much government programs as is possible to keep a basic infrastructure within our system to attend to the needs of defense as mentioned, and that of insuring the protections of the people and the states they reside in.

Here is where we disagree. Roughly 25% of the budget goes to defense, Medicair, and Social Security. As I stated, one of those is paid for by its own tax. Everything else falls under the other 25%. I see no reason to cut "as much as possible." A lot of things we enjoy today would not exist without government spending, subsidizing, and the like. For example, lasers. Our "pet projects" benefit us in unseen ways.

All of this reduction would reduce spending dramatically and yes, there would be some spikes in various numbers unemployment would spike due to government layoffs, but at the same time due many government intrusions, taxes, regulations, etc... would be reduced making this country the prime economic building base in the world to which businesses will be flocking to come.

I don't see the reason why polluting our water, or following this lie of supply-side economics would do anything of value. You can't create an economy by taking regulations and taxes of corporations. We can't compete with the power of China's manufacturing base. They pay their employees beans. We can't simply isolate the U.S. from the global economy, because we can't pay our people in beans.

If you want to move this economy, you have to get money back to the 90% market, which means shifting the tax burden from everyone else to the wealthy, who have less value for each dollar. You require demand before you even think about supply. If there is no demand for a product, no amount of tax cuts or deregulation will create demand.

There may need to be some short term flat tax adjustments to pay for the transition, paying the debt off, etc..., but these would need to be legislated with a no continue vote shut off.

Flat-tax doesn't work. You'll cripple the spending power of the majority who's contributions even now are about 18% of the revenue. Jacking that up might bring more wealthy into the government, but it'll completely destroy the spending power because people will have even less to spend than they already do. If you want to increase revenues, you must take it from someone who already has wealth. Or, alternatively, rebalance the tax-burdens so that people can go off and buy things, which builds the economy and now we can talk about paying off the debt. We need to close the deficit, and you aren't going to get there by raising taxes or lowering the spending power on the middle-class and working poor.

The whole point? Reduce government and that will increase freedom to which a free nation will thrive. It stagnates now because it is being strangled by those idealist who think that they make a better king, than that of a common individual.

"reduce government" in what way? Throwing out social safety nets which keep people solvent? Killing the poor and elderly? Lowering our standards of living? Nothing you've really offered, with the exception of cutting defense spending, has actually been of any use.