Jeff Kleb
New member
Doing well??
Socialist Security is going to disappear -- and has been insolvent for quite some time. We had a chance (and could still do it with some difficulty) to "fix" it decades ago, but those in power chose to throw younger people under the bus by doing nothing about it except 'promising' that it will always be there.
:bash:
Medicare is a huge boondoggle that is about to get even worse. Unfortunately, the answer is just to throw more money at it and make all citizens wards of the state instead.
Our police and fire services here are actually pretty decent, but they're not run & administered by the federal government. Then again, local control of such functions does not run afoul of the US Constitution the way so many other programs do.
Potholes have always been a problem, but they usually have more to do with ineptitude & waste than with lack of funding. But road building is usually left to the states. Even when federal dollars are spent, bear in mind that that 'federal' money comes from taxes collected from people in that same state.
I would hardly call a constitutional republic a "libertarian utopia" by any stretch - though it may be a small step in the right direction. You seem to confuse libertarianism with anarchy. While I am definitely not an ideologically-pure libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, I am still a minimalist when it comes to the role of government, particularly at the federal level.
Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what would result when a federal government had unchecked powers and could rule with an iron fist. We fought a war over that, sir.
There definitely is a role for government to play -- at the federal, state and local levels. The problem, however, is when too many people look to Washington, DC for some kind of "one size fits all" method of solving problems inherent to such a large nation. Obviously, what works in one state or region might not work so well elsewhere. (Again, the wisdom of our Founders shines through clearly.)
I typically favor having government (especially at the federal level) handling only things that people cannot do for themselves. Such stuff may include military operations, coining money, national security, regulating interstate commerce, running a court/justice system, etc., etc. Ironically, that is pretty much listed in Article I, Section 8 of our US Constitution.
:bigok:
Could it be because too much of our tax code relies on chasing income -- rather than wealth? I don't know of too many billionaires who get their money from a "job" the same way you and I do.
If we had an honest, flat-rate, fair tax that was based on a percentage (without mulitple tiers), it is very likely that our government would actually generate more revenue and less money would find its way offshore. Like it or not, we in the middle classes are strongly affected when the "rich" people avoid taxes by spending their millions offshore rather than buying things made or sold by US citizens.
The rub is that so many in Washington (who occupy both sides of the aisle) would rather have fewer dollars and MORE POWER than to have more money coming into the coffers, but with LESS POWER. But this is what happens when the tax code is perceived as being used for 'social engineering' rather than its true purpose of generating revenue.
You may think I am doing well, but that's obviously a relative term. I probably make close to the 'median' income in my area, plus a little bit more -- but I often work 55 to 60 hours a week, instead of 35 to 40 as most people do. I also generate a lot of revenue for my company - as opposed to taking up space or doing a "make work" job.
:awais:
Anyway, "spreading the wealth" sounds all fine and dandy; but why not find a way to enable more wealth to be created? Seems as though our friends on the left are not so concerned about doing the right thing here.
As for the "higher classes" paying less in taxes, that is one of those things that can be spun in many different ways. Once again, there is a huge chasm between wages and wealth.
Why should we design the tax code so that it will only serve to prevent people from becoming wealthy? The ones who already "got theirs" will just laugh it off and keep on clipping their dividend coupons. If the Democrats really are the party of the "working man," then why are such a huge percentage of the wealthiest people in Congress all Democrats? Those people care about "us" only when it serves to keep them in power ad infinitum.
I am still waiting for someone to show me where health care, education and retirement are itemized in the US Constitution as functions of the federal government. Then again, look at how many people think that "promoting the general welfare" somehow means putting everyone on welfare.
:girl:
If our leaders have so much disrespect for the US Constitution, why don't they simply amend it to make the aforementioned things federal duties? That would be the proper way to do things - instead of just ignoring or sh*tting all over it. So many of those chaps (in both parties) show utter contempt for limitations on their power and more often seem as though they have been 'annointed to govern' rather than being 'elected to serve'.
:chair:
=====================================
"But what else should we expect from people who have been taught that the militia is only the National Guard?" -- Odd thinking, when you realize that the Second Amendment was written more than a century before the National Guard existed.
=====================================
SonRunner said:
Socialist Security is going to disappear -- and has been insolvent for quite some time. We had a chance (and could still do it with some difficulty) to "fix" it decades ago, but those in power chose to throw younger people under the bus by doing nothing about it except 'promising' that it will always be there.
:bash:
Medicare is a huge boondoggle that is about to get even worse. Unfortunately, the answer is just to throw more money at it and make all citizens wards of the state instead.
Our police and fire services here are actually pretty decent, but they're not run & administered by the federal government. Then again, local control of such functions does not run afoul of the US Constitution the way so many other programs do.
Potholes have always been a problem, but they usually have more to do with ineptitude & waste than with lack of funding. But road building is usually left to the states. Even when federal dollars are spent, bear in mind that that 'federal' money comes from taxes collected from people in that same state.
I would hardly call a constitutional republic a "libertarian utopia" by any stretch - though it may be a small step in the right direction. You seem to confuse libertarianism with anarchy. While I am definitely not an ideologically-pure libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, I am still a minimalist when it comes to the role of government, particularly at the federal level.
Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what would result when a federal government had unchecked powers and could rule with an iron fist. We fought a war over that, sir.
There definitely is a role for government to play -- at the federal, state and local levels. The problem, however, is when too many people look to Washington, DC for some kind of "one size fits all" method of solving problems inherent to such a large nation. Obviously, what works in one state or region might not work so well elsewhere. (Again, the wisdom of our Founders shines through clearly.)
I typically favor having government (especially at the federal level) handling only things that people cannot do for themselves. Such stuff may include military operations, coining money, national security, regulating interstate commerce, running a court/justice system, etc., etc. Ironically, that is pretty much listed in Article I, Section 8 of our US Constitution.
:bigok:
Could it be because too much of our tax code relies on chasing income -- rather than wealth? I don't know of too many billionaires who get their money from a "job" the same way you and I do.
If we had an honest, flat-rate, fair tax that was based on a percentage (without mulitple tiers), it is very likely that our government would actually generate more revenue and less money would find its way offshore. Like it or not, we in the middle classes are strongly affected when the "rich" people avoid taxes by spending their millions offshore rather than buying things made or sold by US citizens.
The rub is that so many in Washington (who occupy both sides of the aisle) would rather have fewer dollars and MORE POWER than to have more money coming into the coffers, but with LESS POWER. But this is what happens when the tax code is perceived as being used for 'social engineering' rather than its true purpose of generating revenue.
You may think I am doing well, but that's obviously a relative term. I probably make close to the 'median' income in my area, plus a little bit more -- but I often work 55 to 60 hours a week, instead of 35 to 40 as most people do. I also generate a lot of revenue for my company - as opposed to taking up space or doing a "make work" job.
:awais:
Anyway, "spreading the wealth" sounds all fine and dandy; but why not find a way to enable more wealth to be created? Seems as though our friends on the left are not so concerned about doing the right thing here.
As for the "higher classes" paying less in taxes, that is one of those things that can be spun in many different ways. Once again, there is a huge chasm between wages and wealth.
Why should we design the tax code so that it will only serve to prevent people from becoming wealthy? The ones who already "got theirs" will just laugh it off and keep on clipping their dividend coupons. If the Democrats really are the party of the "working man," then why are such a huge percentage of the wealthiest people in Congress all Democrats? Those people care about "us" only when it serves to keep them in power ad infinitum.
I am still waiting for someone to show me where health care, education and retirement are itemized in the US Constitution as functions of the federal government. Then again, look at how many people think that "promoting the general welfare" somehow means putting everyone on welfare.
:girl:
If our leaders have so much disrespect for the US Constitution, why don't they simply amend it to make the aforementioned things federal duties? That would be the proper way to do things - instead of just ignoring or sh*tting all over it. So many of those chaps (in both parties) show utter contempt for limitations on their power and more often seem as though they have been 'annointed to govern' rather than being 'elected to serve'.
:chair:
=====================================
"But what else should we expect from people who have been taught that the militia is only the National Guard?" -- Odd thinking, when you realize that the Second Amendment was written more than a century before the National Guard existed.
=====================================
Last edited:
