Running the government "like a corporation"

Dixie said:
No, you would still have to pay what you owe in taxes, if you owe anything. Most of the McDonald's workers I know, get it all back at the end of the year. But if you had a tax liability, you would still have to pay it. Your voting is up to you, as always.
Click to expand...

That's right, single mothers working at McDonalds are immoral for getting all of their tax dollars back! They shouldn't be able to vote! They chose this path and the rich are better than them!
 
Watermark said:
IF THE RICH RULED AMERICA EVERYTHING WOULD BE GOOD AND THEY WOULDN'T BE SO READY TO DO (insert liberal idea here) THAT COMMON AMERICANS SEEM TO LOVE SO MUCH! IT WOULD BE FAIR IF THE POOR COULDN'T VOTE!
Click to expand...


Argghhhhh....

NOT THE WEALTHY DAMMIT!

How many times do we have to repeat this to get you to understand it? Is there some fundamental disconnect with you people, that you don't understand the huge differences between wealthy people and those who pay taxes? Why do I have to keep correcting you, are you just that IGNORANT?

What they WOULDN'T do, is spend our money like Paris Hilton in a little dog store! We would at least have "money people" in charge of our money, and those who paid the most in, would have the most say as to how it is doled out, rather than it being doled out willy-nilly to ever liberal socialist "cause" that comes down the pike!
 
Dixie said:
Argghhhhh....

NOT THE WEALTHY DAMMIT!

How many times do we have to repeat this to get you to understand it? Is there some fundamental disconnect with you people, that you don't understand the huge differences between wealthy people and those who pay taxes? Why do I have to keep correcting you, are you just that IGNORANT?

What they WOULDN'T do, is spend our money like Paris Hilton in a little dog store! We would at least have "money people" in charge of our money, and those who paid the most in, would have the most say as to how it is doled out, rather than it being doled out willy-nilly to ever liberal socialist "cause" that comes down the pike!
Click to expand...

Yep just because the American people WANT something doesn't mean they should HAVE it. What a flimsy jstisre
 
Onceler said:
"No, we had a revolution to separate us from the King of England, as in... they had a KING, a RULER, an EMPEROR, and he was mandating unreal taxation on the people, much like an out of control special-interest-laden congress of today, actually. "

The people who started America had a lot to say about aristocracy, also, and about the will of ALL the people not being subverted by the interests of a few.

You're really an idiot on this one; not that this is unusual, but I have to say, on this topic, it surprises me. This is about as anti-American in spirit as I have seen you. You generally at least seem to understand what principles the country was founded on; here, you're like a lost puppy. It's like you're not really familiar with America at all.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about aristocracy? I am talking about the people who pay the taxes, people who earn an income every day and pay federal income taxes every year. Not aristocrats!

Tell me, what fucking principle did the Founders base taking 35% of my income on, and giving it to the poor? I don't find that one in any of the Federalist Papers, so maybe you can enlighten me on this.
 
Dixie said:
Who said anything about aristocracy? I am talking about the people who pay the taxes, people who earn an income every day and pay federal income taxes every year. Not aristocrats!

Tell me, what fucking principle did the Founders base taking 35% of my income on, and giving it to the poor? I don't find that one in any of the Federalist Papers, so maybe you can enlighten me on this.
Click to expand...

Who do you think pays the most income tax there dixie?
 
This is about as anti-American in spirit as I have seen you.
Click to expand...

Exactly what is "un-American" about allowing those who pay more to have more of a voice in how the money is spent? It sounds very "democratic" to me! Those who paid the most, get the most say, and those who paid the least, get the least say. What is "unfair" about that? And hey... if you, a middle-class degenerate, wanted to voluntarily contribute more to the income tax revenues to gain an extra vote or two, that would be fine with me! I am not "disallowing" anyone to have a vote, as long as you pay taxes you will get a vote. The more you pay, the more extra votes you get, because this is how a corporation is operated. Those with the highest investment, get to make the decisions on the money, that's just how it should be.
 
The funny thing is that by his own plan dixie would still be at the bottom of the totem pole. He might be able to impact who is the animal control officer ;)

all that dodging roadside bombs in Iraq and your govt does not appreciate you and ask your advise. It must be frustrating.
 
uscitizen said:
The funny thing is that by his own plan dixie would still be at the bottom of the totem pole. He might be able to impact who is the animal control officer ;)

all that dodging roadside bombs in Iraq and your govt does not appreciate you and ask your advise. It must be frustrating.
Click to expand...

I could live with it, at least I would know our government would run more like a corporation than a sweepstakes or lottery. As for my dealings with the government in my personal business, that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. But, if my plan were in place, let's just say I would have more votes than you this year. ;)
 
Dixie said:
...And who gets to make most of the decisions regarding how it is spent?
Click to expand...

I get to make all of the decisions besides what I pay in taxes, which the people of the US get to make the decisions about. It's balanced between individual choice and collective choice.
 
Dixie said:
They make a profit too, don't they?

Maybe if we adopt this plan and in 20 years when we've paid off the national debt and are running in the black like a typical corporation, we could have a sweepstakes or lottery as well!
Click to expand...

A lot of corporations borrow a lot. Again, the government is not anything like a corporation, first and foremost the taxes collected are gained through coercion and not given voluntarily. This is a necessary evil. You would give the rich the right to coerce the poor into giving more taxes. And even if the poor gave all of their income in taxes and the rich paid a paltry amount the rich would still have most of the votes.
 
So what if the rich decided to drop their taxes just below where they'd get an assured majority of the votes, and then raise the poor and middle classes to max? And then still borrow anyway, using the poors money to finance it?
 
The government is not a corporation and to compare it to one is moronic in the extreme. A corporation has the goal of turning a profit. A government has the goal of making the people of the US as happy as possible.
 
And anyway, there are several SOCIALIST governments, like the government of Denmark, that don't borrow a lot, and consistently return in the fact that their economy is growing rapidly. The US government, which is far, far more conservative by contrast, isn't doing nearly so well. So maybe we should just give socialists all the shares and leave the morons like Dix out? What about that Dix? Would you enjoy that?

If socialists in other countries are running the country better than the twin conservatives here, why SHOULDN'T they control the country?

For the same fucking reason the rich shouldn't - it's a goddamn democracy.
 
Watermark said:
The government is not a corporation and to compare it to one is moronic in the extreme. A corporation has the goal of turning a profit. A government has the goal of making the people of the US as happy as possible.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I didn't post a thread entitled "Running the government like a corporation" and make some smart-assed comment about the most recent budget shortfall. That was Oncie.

You are actually making a pretty damn good argument for my plan, you've already mentioned how liberals would still be represented by people like ****** Buffett, and you keep pointing out how government isn't run like a corporation, which is the main reason we are trillions in debt now. Then there is the matter of your personal checking account, which YOU have the complete say over what is spent, so it's kind of the same concept. Those who contributed the money to the tax revenues would get to say how it's spent.

You see, there is a fundamental flaw with your concept of government's job being to make everyone happy, it can't do this indefinitely, it will eventually go bankrupt trying to please everyone. This is precisely how you get to be trillions of dollars in debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top