Running the government "like a corporation"

"LOL... I didn't realize Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, were Republicans! When the fuck did THAT happen? Did I miss something??? "

Your idiocy is COMPLETELY predictable.

Most of this current deficit was accrued & set up by the fiscal decisions in the 1st 5 years of this admin (huge tax cut, war, energy & transportation bills, etc.). I don't give the current Dem Congress a pass, but you're the one claiming that "people like Waterhead" have run the show the whole time.

This is why you are so intellectually dishonest. You grasp at what you can, and ignore the rest. You're really, really pathetic -a total liar, and stupid, to boot.
 
There is no guarantee that your "plan" - which flies in the face of the ideas regarding equality & democracy that the founders endorsed - would have any effect whatsoever. Bush pays a lot in taxes, and he's been running the show; so have a lot of other guys that pay a lot in taxes. There is nothing to indicate that paying a lot of taxes = better fiscal management or wiser decision-making.
Click to expand...

Well the proof is in the number of successful corporations which operate on this very principle every day. If you are the only person allowed to write checks on your account, it is no guarantee you will remain in the black, but it is much more likely than if you turn your checkbook over to a bunch of crackheads and let them write the checks, isn't it? Which of those cases would you be more likely to incur debt you couldn't afford?


And you guys keep throwing this argument out there about how it "flies in the face of democracy and equality" but you haven't presented a logical argument for this. How is it not democratic to allow people to determine how their own money is being spent? What the fuck is "equal" about letting people who don't contribute, have control and power over those who do? What we presently have is what flies in the face of equality and democracy, as well as every principle our founding fathers stood for.
 
Onceler said:
"LOL... I didn't realize Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, were Republicans! When the fuck did THAT happen? Did I miss something??? "

Your idiocy is COMPLETELY predictable.

Most of this current deficit was accrued & set up by the fiscal decisions in the 1st 5 years of this admin (huge tax cut, war, energy & transportation bills, etc.). I don't give the current Dem Congress a pass, but you're the one claiming that "people like Waterhead" have run the show the whole time.

This is why you are so intellectually dishonest. You grasp at what you can, and ignore the rest. You're really, really pathetic -a total liar, and stupid, to boot.
Click to expand...

What's "idiotic" about what I said? ALL of the National Debt is the responsibility of the US Congress and the politicians We The PEOPLE have elected. Most of them have been elected by people like Waterhead, who believe the government's job is to give us stuff, NOT to make profit! It's real fucking simple... if you don't make profit, you run a deficit! Duh!

The problem started years ago, when it became politically popular to dismiss people from the tax roles and attack "the rich" for having too much wealth! We are now to a point where the ones who are paying the majority of the tax burden, have no say in how it is being spent or how much more the tax is increased, and the more people we release from tax liability, the worse this problem will become.
 
Corporations do not operate on who pays the most in taxes. They operate based on what their stockholders tell them to do. Their stockholders are people with wealth to buy stock.

Now it would seem YOU'RE conflating wealth with tax paying, wouldn't it? Is that intentional? Trying to muddy the waters?

Corporations don't operate anything like what you're suggesting. There's no proof/evidence that the amount of taxes you pay make you smarter financially.
 
The left has been so closeminded lately. I am probably voting for Obama, but I can admit that McCain would be a decent President as well. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for McCain over Obama, just like there are vice versa.

Acting like it is a non-choice just shows how truly stupid and closeminded some people can be. I could make a legitimate case for voting either way.
 
Epicurus said:
The left has been so closeminded lately. I am probably voting for Obama, but I can admit that McCain would be a decent President as well. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for McCain over Obama, just like there are vice versa.

Acting like it is a non-choice just shows how truly stupid and closeminded some people can be. I could make a legitimate case for voting either way.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because they're both douchebags beholden to the military industrial complex. Wouldn't you like a real choice?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Corporations do not operate on who pays the most in taxes. They operate based on what their stockholders tell them to do. Their stockholders are people with wealth to buy stock.

Now it would seem YOU'RE conflating wealth with tax paying, wouldn't it? Is that intentional? Trying to muddy the waters?

Corporations don't operate anything like what you're suggesting. There's no proof/evidence that the amount of taxes you pay make you smarter financially.
Click to expand...


Right, the stockholders who have contributed by purchasing stock have the say on what to do. In my example, the "taxpayer" becomes the "stockholder" as this is exactly what the "taxpayer" is. Wealthy taxpayers pay more tax just as wealthy stockholders buy more stock. Although, the stockholder gets the voice and power to control how the assets are handled, and this is directly proportional to how much stock he owns. This is all I am suggesting here, to give those who contribute the tax revenue, the voice and power to control how the assets are handled.

I would argue there is indeed proof that those who pay more in taxes, are financially smarter than those who don't. At least for the fiscal year they paid more taxes in. This should be painfully obvious to even a moron such as yourself. You see, if they hadn't been financially wiser, they would not have paid as much tax because they would have not earned as much income. It's precisely because they did make better financial decisions, that they paid the most in taxes. Also, you are familiar with the old saying... a fool and his money are soon parted? ...it's true!
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Right, the stockholders who have contributed by purchasing stock have the say on what to do. In my example, the "taxpayer" becomes the "stockholder" as this is exactly what the "taxpayer" is. Wealthy taxpayers pay more tax just as wealthy stockholders buy more stock. Although, the stockholder gets the voice and power to control how the assets are handled. This is all I am suggesting here, to give those who contribute the tax revenue, the voice and power to control how the assets are handled.

I would argue there is indeed proof that those who pay more in taxes, are financially smarter than those who don't. At least for the fiscal year they paid more taxes in. This should be painfully obvious to even a moron such as yourself. You see, if they hadn't been financially wiser, they would not have paid as much tax because they would have not earned as much income. It's precisely because they did make better financial decisions, that they paid the most in taxes. Also, you are familiar with the old saying... a fool and his money are soon parted? ...it's true!
Click to expand...


I think we should do the opposite of your plan, because true intelligence is shown by how LITTLE tax you pay on your fortune.
 
Epicurus said:
I think we should do the opposite of your plan, because true intelligence is shown by how LITTLE tax you pay on your fortune.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is, we are doing the opposite of my plan now, and have been for the past century, pretty much. Ever since we adopted the practice of taxing income, which itself, is in direct violation of our founding fathers intentions.

Tell me Epicurus, you seem to be reasonably intelligent. Can you explain why my idea is "unfair" or "unpatriotic"? What is the fundamental problem you have with giving those who contribute the most in taxes, the most say in how their money is spent?
 
I don't have a fundamental problem with it other than the fact that it erodes the principle of one-man one-vote. I think it is slightly more in tune with what the Founder's advocated than the system we use today, but there would be little benefit to changing to it.

I also know that it would stand no chance of happening, and that publicly espousing support for it would only serve to undermine your other arguments.
 
Last edited:
I think we should do the opposite of your plan, because true intelligence is shown by how LITTLE tax you pay on your fortune.
Click to expand...

...and also, thank you for reemphasizing the point that I am not talking about aristocracy or giving rich people more power, my plan is based solely on federal income taxes paid, not wealth or fortune.
 
Epicurus said:
I don't have a fundamental problem with it whatsoever.

But I know that it would stand no chance of happening, and that publicly espousing support for it would only serve to undermine your other arguments.
Click to expand...

And WHY would it stand no chance of happening? Because it makes too much sense, or because it would take away the power held by those who pay nothing into the system now, and would rightly return it to whom it belongs?
 
Dixie said:
I was just stating what our founding document said. I don't think it's 'nonsense' and a lot of people agree with me about that.
Click to expand...

Well first off, this isn't a logical argument, since you've provided nothing to back up your claims besides proposing that a lot of people agree with you. Second off, fuck you.



My plan would be completely democratic, everyone who paid taxes would get a vote. We could even make an exception for the extremely poor who couldn't afford to pay taxes, and give them a vote too. The more you pay in, the more votes you get, just like a corporation. I don't know why you are so hung up on the "wealthy" and "rich" here, I haven't even mentioned them. Where do you get "power in the hands of the elite" from? No... it would be power in the hands of the ones paying the bills. That's all! If you want to pass laws to tax the rich some more, we could do that, but it would give them more control and power. If you fear (and you seem to) the rich having too much power, lower their taxes, take away some power! You want the middle class to have more power, give them higher taxes, and they would have more power. I fail to see how my very fair system would cause any one group of people (wealthy or otherwise) to have some 'lock' on the power.
Click to expand...

Democracy is a system in which the people vote and the majority rules. It doesn't matter if you think your system would be "fair", it's not democratic.
 
What are the cutoffs in your system, Dix? 1 vote for everyone under $100K? 2 votes for $100K - $250K? 3 votes for $250 - $500K? And so on?
 
Dixie said:
Seems to me, that is why we are trillions in debt now. Your willy-nilly mindset, that we can just keep making people happy endlessly by throwing tax dollars at their every whim. It is this mindset that is currently in charge of deciding what to do with all of our money. I would rather have the people who contributed the most, to have the largest voice in what to do with it. I think that solves the problems, because right now you have a majority of those who don't contribute a thing, making the decisions and choices they shouldn't be entitled to make about other people's money.
Click to expand...

We are trillions in debt and it has nothing to do with social programs. It has to do with not wanting to pay for what we buy. I would pay for what we buy, you and other conservatives don't want to.
 
it erodes the principle of one-man one-vote.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Dr. Williams and myself are both clear on this, every man would still have a vote, just as it always has been, no one would be denied a vote. Also, no one would be denied the ability to pay federal income tax, everyone would have the same equal opportunity to contribute to the tax revenues. If you are concerned with a particular 'group' having more influence or power, you could simply reduce their tax liability or increase others to their level. It's all perfectly fair and reasonable, and not in conflict with anything our Founding Fathers endorsed or supported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top