Running the government "like a corporation"

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Whiskey tax was a form of income tax , since it was an income source used for barter.
And payment was required in money not barter.

Ahhhh... memories of the Whiskey Rebellion come to mind....

Did the Founding Fathers determine that people who had a lot of whiskey, for whatever reason, would have to pay 36% tax, while people who didn't have much whiskey, wouldn't have to pay any tax???? Noooo... they didn't determine this, did they???

Your Point Refuted!

 

[Onceler]

Your thread title was a sarcastic attempt to criticize the national debt with a concept you simply don't believe in. It doesn't matter what the Bush administration says, Congress is who dictates the budget and determines how much more debt we are going to assume.

Now you want to climb up on your pony and act like you are a Founding Father all of a sudden... you look funny up there... like Yankee Doodle! I'll tell you what the Founding Fathers would laugh at... A US Income Tax... specifically, one that taxes some people nearly half of what they make, while others who are working, pay no tax at all! They would start rolling in the floor laughing when you suggested that the ones who didn't work or pay any taxes at all, should have equal say in how the money is to be spent!

As I said earlier, I can see someone like Ben Franklin, suggesting my idea, IFFFFFF the Founding Fathers had even remotely considered imposing Federal Income Tax on the people! So you can get down off your pony now, and put away that feather in your hat you call macaroni, because you've been exposed for the fraud you are.

Doesn't matter what the Bush admin says? They have nothing to do with this deficit? You're gone, man...like WAY gone. You've lost your friggin' mind. Bush pushes & signs a huge tax cut, signs every bloated pork bill that gets put in front of him and starts an unnecessary $1 trillion war, while his boss says that "deficit spending doesn't matter," and IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY SAY. You are on another planet. You're in another solar system.

As for the Fed income tax, start another thread. I'm trying to preserve what we have left of what the founding fathers envisioned. Is that your new excuse for supporting an aristocracy? Well, we've already screwed the pooch on the founders' vision with the income tax, so let's just let it all go to hell now? Great debate point, Dix - really great.

You have put words in my mouth this entire time, and lied about everything I have stated. You are incapable of having what I suppose you would call an "intellectually honest" discussion. Once one leftie says something, they ALL say it in Dixieland. That's how it works with you and that pea-brain of yours. You're a train wreck; someone who is positively insane. The world you see is not the world as it exists, and I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so deserving of that.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahhhh... memories of the Whiskey Rebellion come to mind....

Did the Founding Fathers determine that people who had a lot of whiskey, for whatever reason, would have to pay 36% tax, while people who didn't have much whiskey, wouldn't have to pay any tax???? Noooo... they didn't determine this, did they???

Your Point Refuted!

You are hopelessly mental.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie in technical medical terms.. You are plain nuts.

See... the problem you people seem to be having is articulating WHY!

It's real easy to say someone is nuts.... USCITIZEN, YOU ARE NUTS! ...see?
Of course, the challenge is, pointing out why or how this is the case. If you can't do that, it seems to me that you have no basis for your argument. So far, you haven't done this, and I encourage you to do so, if this is the argument you wish to make. Indeed, I challenge you to do this, IF you can!

Tell us why it is "nuts" to believe that people should have voting power in proportion to the amount of money they are contributing to the country in income taxation? Tell me how it is "nuts" to believe that would reduce our national debt, or completely eliminate it by generating profit rather than loss? Tell me why it is "nuts" to think our government could operate on the same principles as corporations with stockholders.

Anytime you are ready.....

*crickets chirping*

 

[uscitizen]

I categorize argueing with you dixie like argueing with a rock. Exact same result. But sometimes more entertaining I will grant.

 

[Onceler]

I categorize argueing with you dixie like argueing with a rock. Exact same result. But sometimes more entertaining I will grant.

Rocks don't re-state your positions in completely inaccurate, fabricated terms. Rocks don't lecture you about "intellectual honestly" one sentence after lying about something you said.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Doesn't matter what the Bush admin says? They have nothing to do with this deficit?

Nope, the US Congress has to pass and approve all budget legislation.

I'm trying to preserve what we have left of what the founding fathers envisioned. Is that your new excuse for supporting an aristocracy?

No you're not, you are trying to convince us that you are standing on some courageous and moral principle of the Founding Fathers to play fucking Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. I never supported "aristocracy", or did you miss the 96 pt bold type too? There is a vast difference between an "aristocrat" and one who pays federal income taxes. If you aren't familiar with the difference, I suggest you go read up on it and educate yourself, and stop lying about what I have said.

You have put words in my mouth this entire time, and lied about everything I have stated. You are incapable of having what I suppose you would call an "intellectually honest" discussion.

WTF? No, that is what you keep doing to ME! I've never said a word about "the wealthy" or "giving the rich power" or "aristocracy" ...but you continue to argue on that basis and point. I've never denied anyone freedom or liberty or the right to vote, or any right they have in the Constitution, but I have been called "fascist", "Neo-fascist", "un-American", "unpatriotic", and "nuts."

And this has been done, not on the basis of any evidence presented or counter-argument produced, just a constant barrage of personal insults on my intelligence and attacks on my character.

The truth of the matter is, you don't want an "intellectually honest discussion" on this! Because, if you have that, you lose and you know you lose. It is easier to vilify me, to cast dispersions on my character and attack me personally, in an attempt to destroy my credibility. After all, you stand a much better chance of doing that here, than winning this debate on merit.

 

[uscitizen]

Rocks don't re-state your positions in completely inaccurate, fabricated terms. Rocks don't lecture you about "intellectual honestly" one sentence after lying about something you said.

Yeah that is the sometimes entertaining part.

 

[Onceler]

"Nope, the US Congress has to pass and approve all budget legislation"

And Bush doesn't see that, or have anything to do with it, or sign off on anything that could potentially contribute to the deficit?

Yes or no.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Nope, the US Congress has to pass and approve all budget legislation"

And Bush doesn't see that, or have anything to do with it, or sign off on anything that could potentially contribute to the deficit?

Yes or no.

Yes Bush sees it, in fact, he has to propose it and sign it. But he has to do so with the understanding that it has to be approved by Congress as well. He also understands that if he even reduces the amount of 'built-in' increase in funding for precious entitlement programs, the opposition will deem it a "cut" and attack him with it. So the president (any president) is in a precarious position, because the operation of vital federal government services depend on the budget being passed by Congress.

While we are on the subject of President Bush, which was not the topic of the thread... Let's also discuss Walter E. Williams brilliantly articulated point, with the 'votes for taxes' idea. His fundamental concern is, the danger of having no tax liability. It has become popular for presidents who cut taxes, to literally remove millions from the tax roles completely. He criticizes Bush for this in his article, by the way. The problem, he says, is that America keeps releasing people from their obligation to pay federal income tax, and they remain in control of how the money is spent and how much tax is charged to whom. He points out Madison's concerns over land owners having too much power, but the very point Madison made, also warns of the danger in too much power by those who owned no land.

He proposes a correction for the problem, and that is... one man, one vote, plus extra votes for every $10k in Federal Income Tax paid. I would even be more Liberal than Mr. Williams and allow an extra vote if you paid ANY Federal Income Tax at all! I might even be inclined to add a half vote for the indigent, just for being a citizen of the US! But the bottom line would be, those who are paying the most income tax, would have the most political power in votes. This has absolutely nothing to do with wealth, and everything to do with fairness.

 

[uscitizen]

Bush has to propose it ?

Just how bad is this Bush godhood thing of yours anyway ?

 

[Onceler]

"Yes Bush sees it, in fact, he has to propose it and sign it. But he has to do so with the understanding that it has to be approved by Congress as well. He also understands that if he even reduces the amount of 'built-in' increase in funding for precious entitlement programs, the opposition will deem it a "cut" and attack him with it. So the president (any president) is in a precarious position, because the operation of vital federal government services depend on the budget being passed by Congress. "

I knew you couldn't give a plain ol' yes or no.

You are the king of apologists. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't adore. The energy & transportation bills of his admin were laden with record-breaking pork; truly epic pork. Pork is not a "built-in" increase; it is pork.

You never stop spinning. This admin has been the most fiscally irresponsible in decades. It has stated that deficit spending doesn't matter; it has made little to no effort to cut spending to offset huge tax cuts. Nixon's economic chief called their reckless fiscal management immoral because of the debt it would hand off to our children. People have even speculated that their secret goal is to bust the budget, so programs will have to be cut completely as emergency measures down the line.

Your attempt to make apologies & excuses for your blue jean baby as just trying to "toe the line" to avoid (gasp!) criticism is truly pathetic. Bush was unqualified on a wide variety of levels to be President, but his fiscal incompetence is something we'll have to live with for a long, long time.

 

[Onceler]

"While we are on the subject of President Bush, which was not the topic of the thread"

And what the hell are you talking about here? His admin & their fiscal mis-management are most certainly the topic of this thread. It's MY thread. Do you want to try to tell me what it's supposed to be about?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bush has to propose it ?

Just how bad is this Bush godhood thing of yours anyway ?

Yes, the president submits his budget to Congress, and they vote on it. If it is passed, they send it to him for his signature.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, the president submits his budget to Congress, and they vote on it. If it is passed, they send it to him for his signature.

LOL, bills are also submitted by congress.
And most of them seem to cause spending.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Yes Bush sees it, in fact, he has to propose it and sign it. But he has to do so with the understanding that it has to be approved by Congress as well. He also understands that if he even reduces the amount of 'built-in' increase in funding for precious entitlement programs, the opposition will deem it a "cut" and attack him with it. So the president (any president) is in a precarious position, because the operation of vital federal government services depend on the budget being passed by Congress. "

I knew you couldn't give a plain ol' yes or no.

You are the king of apologists. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't adore. The energy & transportation bills of his admin were laden with record-breaking pork; truly epic pork. Pork is not a "built-in" increase; it is pork.

You never stop spinning. This admin has been the most fiscally irresponsible in decades. It has stated that deficit spending doesn't matter; it has made little to no effort to cut spending to offset huge tax cuts. Nixon's economic chief called their reckless fiscal management immoral because of the debt it would hand off to our children. People have even speculated that their secret goal is to bust the budget, so programs will have to be cut completely as emergency measures down the line.

Your attempt to make apologies & excuses for your blue jean baby as just trying to "toe the line" to avoid (gasp!) criticism is truly pathetic. Bush was unqualified on a wide variety of levels to be President, but his fiscal incompetence is something we'll have to live with for a long, long time.

No apologies or excuses. I have proposed an idea that would solve this problem, and you are opposed to it. You see, we simply can't cut the federal deficit until we cut spending, and we can't do that with people like Waterhead in charge, who think the government's job is not to make a profit, but to make people happy. We particularly can't do it when the majority pay no taxes, and control the people who make the choices on how to spend the tax revenues. It's the equivalent of giving a crackhead your checkbook and expecting him to handle your finances and reduce your debts. It just ain't going to happen!

This is why I say you are a fraud, you are not honest. You talk as if you feel it is important to gain some fiscal responsibility, but when met with a completely logical and sensible way to do that, you balk and act incredulous, and display false outrage at how someone can be so "unpatriotic" as to suggest the people who pay the most money in, should actually have the most say in how it is spent! You're a phony and a hypocrite. The only reason you brought this subject up, was to attempt to throw more shit at the right. You thought you were being really clever and cute, but you just had your ass handed to you in short order, and now you want to attack me personally because you lack the intellectual skills to articulate a point here, or refute a damn thing I've said.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL, bills are also submitted by congress.
And most of them seem to cause spending.

I wasn't asked about "bills" I was asked about the Federal Budget.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh I thought it was about the debt, which comes from the presidential bill, congressional bills and supplemental spending bills like the Iraq war which has been funded off the budget for some reason.

It is dishonest to only concentrate on the budget. when discussing the national debt.

 

[Onceler]

No apologies or excuses. I have proposed an idea that would solve this problem, and you are opposed to it. You see, we simply can't cut the federal deficit until we cut spending, and we can't do that with people like Waterhead in charge, who think the government's job is not to make a profit, but to make people happy. We particularly can't do it when the majority pay no taxes, and control the people who make the choices on how to spend the tax revenues. It's the equivalent of giving a crackhead your checkbook and expecting him to handle your finances and reduce your debts. It just ain't going to happen!

This is why I say you are a fraud, you are not honest. You talk as if you feel it is important to gain some fiscal responsibility, but when met with a completely logical and sensible way to do that, you balk and act incredulous, and display false outrage at how someone can be so "unpatriotic" as to suggest the people who pay the most money in, should actually have the most say in how it is spent! You're a phony and a hypocrite. The only reason you brought this subject up, was to attempt to throw more shit at the right. You thought you were being really clever and cute, but you just had your ass handed to you in short order, and now you want to attack me personally because you lack the intellectual skills to articulate a point here, or refute a damn thing I've said.

I didn't realize that a Republican-controlled Executive and Legislative branch were "people like Waterhead."

Dixie, the options are not your idea, versus doing nothing to cut spending & run a fiscally responsible government. The mere idea that these are the only options is absolutely ludicrous, and the height of intellectual dishonesty. In the late '90's, a GOP Congress & Dem President showed that you can at least push things toward a balanced budget, and fiscal responsibility. I'm not sure what happened to your party over the past 7+ years, but leadership comes from the top. Again, one of the top guys said "deficit spending doesn't matter," and your hero signed every spending bill that they threw at him (something which you keep avoiding...you're really not very good at addressing facts when they are presented to you).

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.

In short, you're a fool.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't realize that a Republican-controlled Executive and Legislative branch were "people like Waterhead."

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???

Again... the point is, the Congress, who is most largely responsible for the national debt, is voted on by people like Waterhead, who have paid little or no tax revenue into the system and have little or no regard for how much we increase the taxes on ANY group, as long as they don't have to pay for it themselves.