30 replies to this topic

[Ancap]

And the republicans are cutting spending and reducing taxes?

 

wake up guys...the effective tax rate has been the same since world war 2 and Republican and democrats equally added massive debt 

 

 

 While democrats argue they want a few percent higher and republicans are talking a few percent lower.but essentially giving you the same effective rate....no one is talking about repealing the income tax except libertarians 

[mvphilly]

And the republicans are cutting spending and reducing taxes?

 

wake up guys...the effective tax rate has been the same since world war 2 and Republican and democrats equally added massive debt 

 

 

 While democrats argue they want a few percent higher and republicans are talking a few percent lower.but essentially giving you the same effective rate....no one is talking about repealing the income tax except libertarians 

Well if we HAVE ton have one I wwould like to see a flat tax of some sort. Simplify the whole dam thing.

[Ancap]

Well if we HAVE ton have one I wwould like to see a flat tax of some sort. Simplify the whole dam thing.

Whey have an income tax at all you only need to cut spending to the levels of 15 years ago and completely eliminate the income tax....America was built with no income tax for a very long long time

[2edgesword]

And the republicans are cutting spending and reducing taxes?
 
wake up guys...the effective tax rate has been the same since world war 2 and Republican and democrats equally added massive debt 
 
 
 While democrats argue they want a few percent higher and republicans are talking a few percent lower.but essentially giving you the same effective rate....no one is talking about repealing the income tax except libertarians

Functionally I think you are correct but ideologically there are differences.

Most republicans are for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They see the fundamental soundness of having a balanced budget. Actually I think many democrat voters understand this is a sound policy but somehow think balance can be achieved via higher taxes. But history shows that is not the case. The government, with rare exceptions, always spends whatever it takes in and then some. Without the legislative discipline a balanced budget amendment provides they will continue to do so.

That said a balanced budget amendment would have to include some period of time to be phased in (20 years). It would have to include REAL cuts in spending not just reductions in the rate of growth. Those REAL cuts could be a reduction of 1%. Is there any agency of government that can reasonably argue they can't find 1% worth of reductions in spending (waste and/or increase in efficiency)?

There may be more political will on the republican side to get it done (near zero on the democrat since) so while functionally it seems there is no difference ideologically there are differences between the parties with respect to financial issues. At some point the pain that will ultimately be produced for ignoring sound economics is going to force a return to very basic economic ideals like a balanced budget. The only question is how deep and long is that pain going to have to be endured.

[Ancap]

Functionally I think you are correct but ideologically there are differences.

Most republicans are for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They see the fundamental soundness of having a balanced budget. Actually I think many democrat voters understand this is a sound policy but somehow think balance can be achieved via higher taxes. But history shows that is not the case. The government, with rare exceptions, always spends whatever it takes in and then some. Without the legislative discipline a balanced budget amendment provides they will continue to do so.

That said a balanced budget amendment would have to include some period of time to be phased in (20 years). It would have to include REAL cuts in spending not just reductions in the rate of growth. Those REAL cuts could be a reduction of 1%. Is there any agency of government that can reasonably argue they can't find 1% worth of reductions in spending (waste and/or increase in efficiency)?

There may be more political will on the republican side to get it done (near zero on the democrat since) so while functionally it seems there is no difference ideologically there are differences between the parties with respect to financial issues. At some point the pain that will ultimately be produced for ignoring sound economics is going to force a return to very basic economic ideals like a balanced budget. The only question is how deep and long is that pain going to have to be endured.

 

a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. The constitution already limits government spending through article one section 8...if they followed that, you could abolish the income tax

 

we need to stop reinventing the wheel and go back to the libertarian/classical liberal principles this country was founded on 

[2edgesword]

a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. The constitution already limits government spending through article one section 8...if they followed that, you could abolish the income tax

 

we need to stop reinventing the wheel and go back to the libertarian/classical liberal principles this country was founded on 

You forgot about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States

 

Article 1 doesn't get the job done. We need a Constitutional amendment to limit the spending and borrowing power of the Congress. The spending needs to be limited to revenue and borrowing needs to be limited to only in times of extreme emergency.

[Ancap]

You forgot about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States

 

Article 1 doesn't get the job done. We need a Constitutional amendment to limit the spending and borrowing power of the Congress. The spending needs to be limited to revenue and borrowing needs to be limited to only in times of extreme emergency.

Your ignoring the enumerated powers. If you cut all unconstitutional spending you would see massive surpluses 

[2edgesword]

Your ignoring the enumerated powers. If you cut all unconstitutional spending you would see massive surpluses

I’m not ignoring anything. You said article 1 section 8 is all that is needed ignoring the Constitutional ability of the government to borrow. Spending and borrowing need to limited with spending limited to revenue and borrowing limited to national emergencies.

As for enumerated powers, I don’t fundamentally disagree with you. The problem is Congress and the Courts have claimed the welfare clause means they can spend in just about anything that can be tied to the national welfare. That means there is no restraint on what they can spend on. A balanced budget amendment forces Congress to prioritize what they are going to spend on given the limitations of revenue versus revenue plus borrowing. The amendment doesn’t tell them how to spend but limits how much in total they can spend.

[Ancap]

I’m not ignoring anything. You said article 1 section 8 is all that is needed ignoring the Constitutional ability of the government to borrow. Spending and borrowing need to limited with spending limited to revenue and borrowing limited to national emergencies.

As for enumerated powers, I don’t fundamentally disagree with you. The problem is Congress and the Courts have claimed the welfare clause means they can spend in just about anything that can be tied to the national welfare. That means there is no restraint on what they can spend on. A balanced budget amendment forces Congress to prioritize what they are going to spend on given the limitations of revenue versus revenue plus borrowing. The amendment doesn’t tell them how to spend but limits how much in total they can spend.

 

the constitutional convention and the founding fathers made it very clear that the welfare clause does not go beyond the enumerated powers.

 

if you limit spending to only enumerated powers, once again you would have surpluses with no need for income taxes

 

if you accept that the constitution is a “living document” and the “elastic clauses” are legitimate....then we no longer have a constitution, because anything goes...including eliminating gun ownership

[Nordon]

I give the Biden, well Harris, administration 3-6 months before they self destruct. It just seems like a much larger version of CHAZ, and they will have noone to blame for their inadequacies, except each other. Productivity, with their form of governing, goes against all the laws of nature. Who will want to be the “producer”, in a world where the producers are constantly penalized for producing, and the consumer, who relies on the government, is constantly rewarded ? The “Do not feed the Bears” logic does not apply for the human race in their eyes.

Edited by Nordon, Yesterday, 09:28 AM.

[Phoenix69]

As long as the MSM is part of the Lib agenda nothing they do will be reported as harmful to America. We will be told that we are living in Utopia.