nearly half of dipshiat teabaggers pay ZERO federal taxes

[Chronic Husker 85]

This is why neither can be trusted. They're both all about spending to buy votes. It's simply that the typical upper-middle/upper-class incoem earner supports the Ds, so they feel free to tax them directly, whereas thats not the typical supporter of the Rs, so they need to indirectly tax, through constant inflation brough on by deficit spending, everyone (instea dof just their oppoenets supporters).

 

I wish a comet would crash into a joint session of congress. This system cannot be fixed.

This is the most moderate thing CMT has ever posted here. All those years of debating Bunster must have rubbed off on him.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

This is why neither can be trusted. They're both all about spending to buy votes. It's simply that the typical upper-middle/upper-class incoem earner supports the Ds, so they feel free to tax them directly, whereas thats not the typical supporter of the Rs, so they need to indirectly tax, through constant inflation brough on by deficit spending, everyone (instea dof just their oppoenets supporters).

 

I wish a comet would crash into a joint session of congress. This system cannot be fixed.

 

I agree, except even if the comet were successful, the next group of politicians would come and restore it to the crap that it was before. You see that happen even when people vote out representatives who stunk, only to have the next guy come in and suck too. We really need a party who is missing some of the fringe crazies, whose TRUE goal is to promote fiscal responsibility.

 

The challenge is that the Federal government has to provide some sort of services and have some sort of taxing and it is hard to get two people to agree on "what" is the former and "how much" of the latter. Take that issue and multiply it by the millions of people that we and you can see where the problems are. I would be fine if we could just get everyone to agree that we can't spend more than we take in.

[KSB2424 3,083]

The challenge is that the Federal government has to provide some sort of services and have some sort of taxing

:raiseshand:

 

1. National Defense

2. Public Safety and imposing of laws (police, fire, rescue, DMV, IRS, HHR ect.)

3. Public infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, transportation, ect.)

4. Education

5. Parks and Recreation

6. Federal safety nets for the private sector - laws that hold the private sector to certain standards to prevent fruad or criminal activity, just like individuals. (i.e. banking, health insurance, housing/mortgage, ect.)

 

Every single thing else is in the private sector regulated by the intrinsic laws of capitalism and/or covered at the state or local level.

No bailouts. No Pork.

 

It's not that hard.

[jerryskids 5,192]

:raiseshand:

 

1. National Defense

2. Public Safety and imposing of laws (police, fire, rescue, DMV, IRS, HHR ect.)

3. Public infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, transportation, ect.)

4. Education

5. Parks and Recreation

6. Federal safety nets for the private sector - laws that hold the private sector to certain standards to prevent fruad or criminal activity, just like individuals. (i.e. banking, health insurance, housing/mortgage, ect.)

 

Every single thing else is in the private sector regulated by the intrinsic laws of capitalism and/or covered at the state or local level.

No bailouts. No Pork.

 

It's not that hard.

Education should not be regulated by the Feds. Reagan wanted to eliminate that department.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

:raiseshand:

 

1. National Defense

2. Public Safety and imposing of laws (police, fire, rescue, DMV, IRS, HHR ect.)

3. Public infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, transportation, ect.)

4. Education

5. Parks and Recreation

6. Federal safety nets for the private sector - laws that hold the private sector to certain standards to prevent fruad or criminal activity, just like individuals. (i.e. banking, health insurance, housing/mortgage, ect.)

 

Every single thing else is in the private sector regulated by the intrinsic laws of capitalism and/or covered at the state or local level.

No bailouts. No Pork.

 

It's not that hard.

 

I think that you might have to phase out some of the bigger items that you have left off the list (SS, Medicare, Medicaid - for example). I also think that some of the areas that you have in there will need just a little bit more clarification.

 

Now, if you can get 51% of the people agreeing with this, then you have some momentum.

[Call me...Tim? 0]

:raiseshand:

 

1. National Defense

2. Public Safety and imposing of laws (police, fire, rescue, DMV, IRS, HHR ect.)

3. Public infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges, transportation, ect.)

4. Education

5. Parks and Recreation

6. Federal safety nets for the private sector - laws that hold the private sector to certain standards to prevent fruad or criminal activity, just like individuals. (i.e. banking, health insurance, housing/mortgage, ect.)

 

Every single thing else is in the private sector regulated by the intrinsic laws of capitalism and/or covered at the state or local level.

No bailouts. No Pork.

 

It's not that hard.

 

 

Why do you need police? Seriously.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Why do you need police? Seriously.

You're right, I really didn't think this through as I just typed it real fast.

 

Police, Fire, and Rescue can be a the state level. Education as well.

 

The gist of what I was saying is the Federal Gov't should be there so we as a country can pull resources to do things that we as individuals cannot. I can't build a highway that goes from North Carolina to Californina. I can't defend this counrty by myself against a national threat. I can't buy a park and perserve it as a national park. ect. ect. That is what the Federal gov't should do, and collect taxes to pay for it. The states can do rest and collect state taxes.

 

Obviously it it's not that simple but the Feds need to err on the side of less gov't and a "first do no harm" approach rather than the opposite which whats going on.

[swamp dog 0]

Why do you need police? Seriously.

 

not to mention parks and recreation...

 

the main argument of the righties is always the same: i'm selfish and only want to pay for what I WANT to pay for...anything else is unconstitutional!!!!!

[Strike 3,961]

You're right, I really didn't think this through as I just typed it real fast.

 

Police, Fire, and Rescue can be a the state level. Education as well.

 

The gist of what I was saying is the Federal Gov't should be there so we as a country can pull resources to do things that we as individuals cannot. I can't build a highway that goes from North Carolina to Californina. I can't defend this counrty by myself against a national threat. I can't buy a park and perserve it as a national park. ect. ect. That is what the Federal gov't should do, and collect taxes to pay for it. The states can do rest and collect state taxes.

 

Obviously it it's not that simple but the Feds need to err on the side of less gov't and a "first do no harm" approach rather than the opposite which whats going on.

 

That's what our founding fathers envisioned. They also realized man's quest for power and purposely wrote the constitution such that it enumerated the LIMITED specific things our federal government was responsible for and relegated everything else to the individual states. Unfortunately, due to our government and the courts bastardizing the constitution, especially the commerce clause, the federal government now has more power than our founding fathers ever envisioned it would. Essentially, the federal government can do just about anything it wants as evidenced by it's unprecedented decision to force every American to purchase a product from a private company.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That's what our founding fathers envisioned. They also realized man's quest for power and purposely wrote the constitution such that it enumerated the LIMITED specific things our federal government was responsible for and relegated everything else to the individual states. Unfortunately, due to our government and the courts bastardizing the constitution, especially the commerce clause, the federal government now has more power than our founding fathers ever envisioned it would. Essentially, the federal government can do just about anything it wants as evidenced by it's unprecedented decision to force every American to purchase a product from a private company.

 

I am not sure that I agree with what you think our founding fathers wanted. Most of them wanted slaves and women relegated to being 2nd class citizens.

 

I do agree that the Federal government has grown to such a size that it is no longer tenable.

[Strike 3,961]

I am not sure that I agree with what you think our founding fathers wanted. Most of them wanted slaves and women relegated to being 2nd class citizens.

 

Not sure this is really relevant to anything but I'll respond anyways. When we realized the founding fathers were wrong about slaves and women we passed these things called, um what is that, oh yeah, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. But, unlike those things, the balance of power between the states and the federal government has been swung without any sort of constitutional amendment, simply through the slow erosion of states powers by both the federal government and the courts.

[swamp dog 0]

Not sure this is really relevant to anything but I'll respond anyways. When we realized the founding fathers were wrong about slaves and women we passed these things called, um what is that, oh yeah, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. But, unlike those things, the balance of power between the states and the federal government has been swung without any sort of constitutional amendment, simply through the slow erosion of states powers by both the federal government and the courts.

 

i think the point is that the beck crowd and other "originalists" constantly spew the phrases "what the FOUNDING FATHERS wanted..." and "what THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON..."

 

they don't talk about what came AFTER (re: amendments) so much...

 

hence, taking their logic to its logical conclusion...viola.

 

otherwise they're going to have to cherry pick and pick and choose, which considerably weakens their argument: "what our founding fathers wanted--except the slavery thing, women not voting, and all the other stuff corrected in the decades since via amendments...but EXCLUDING ALL OF THAT, what our founding fathers wanted, brother!"

 

see how silly it is? eggsactly.

[swamp dog 0]

...not to mention the idiot right and john birchers want to conveniently change the founding fathers from deists (which a majority were) to fundamentalist whacko christians.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Not sure this is really relevant to anything but I'll respond anyways. When we realized the founding fathers were wrong about slaves and women we passed these things called, um what is that, oh yeah, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. But, unlike those things, the balance of power between the states and the federal government has been swung without any sort of constitutional amendment, simply through the slow erosion of states powers by both the federal government and the courts.

 

We have gone through this before, but I disagree with your premise. Under your premise, we would have to have an Amendment for everything that was not explicitly in the Constitution. That is NOT what the founding fathers wanted, which is why they had those provisions in there as vague as they are.

 

For the major things that were clearly against the Constitution (slavery, suffrage, etc.), they did Amendments. For those that were not against the Constitution, Congress just passed laws and the SCOTUS decided whether or not it was against the Constitution. Some were, some weren't. That is exactly what was spelled out in the Constitution and nothing that has happened since then has changed that.

 

You could argue that the interpretations have changed, but I also think that was part of the plan. Life is more complex, technologies bring us to areas that were not anticipated and the values/mores of a society evolve over time. IMO, that is what was anticipated and intended by those founding fathers.

[Strike 3,961]

We have gone through this before, but I disagree with your premise. Under your premise, we would have to have an Amendment for everything that was not explicitly in the Constitution. That is NOT what the founding fathers wanted, which is why they had those provisions in there as vague as they are.

 

For the major things that were clearly against the Constitution (slavery, suffrage, etc.), they did Amendments. For those that were not against the Constitution, Congress just passed laws and the SCOTUS decided whether or not it was against the Constitution. Some were, some weren't. That is exactly what was spelled out in the Constitution and nothing that has happened since then has changed that.

 

You could argue that the interpretations have changed, but I also think that was part of the plan. Life is more complex, technologies bring us to areas that were not anticipated and the values/mores of a society evolve over time. IMO, that is what was anticipated and intended by those founding fathers.

 

You're the one who brought up slavery and the wimmens. If that topic is so clearly different than states rights vs. federal rights I'm not sure why you brought it up.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You're the one who brought up slavery and the wimmens. If that topic is so clearly different than states rights vs. federal rights I'm not sure why you brought it up.

 

 

Do you not comprehend English?

 

 

 

 

Nevermind.  I forgot who I was dealing with.