The Alternative To Obama And Democrat Policies Thread

2

Comments

  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    My suggestion with regards to taxation is a high flat tax (somewhere between 40 and 50% at first, to pay down the debt) and a very high standard deduction (somewhere around $80k). The numbers can be adjusted to support the actual budget.
  • kingofsomewherehotkingofsomewherehot Posts: 3,999member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    My suggestion with regards to taxation is a high flat tax (somewhere between 40 and 50% at first, to pay down the debt) and a very high standard deduction (somewhere around $80k). The numbers can be adjusted to support the actual budget.



    See... I feel that with a standard deduction like that, the low-earners won't be "invested" in the tax rate at all... They need to know what a 50% tax rate is actually like... They need to experience that just as much as the "millionaire" does!! Otherwise it leads to the same class warfare we have now, with politicians pitting one against the other. Nothing wrong with having the poor folks contribute a little to getting us out of this mess... They voted the dumbshits into office as much as anybody else!

    (it could be argued that, since there are more poor than wealthy people, that they are MORE responsible for electing these assholes!)
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    I'm pretty sure they feel the effects of living paycheck to paycheck and being one cancer diagnosis away from bankruptcy.
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Pass free trade bills.



    Eliminate NLRB



    Expedite drilling permits and open anwr.



    Repeal ObamaCare
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    So, Jazz...



    How are we (as a nation) to pay for our defense? ... how will highways get built... how will we build and maintain a closed sewer system and water-treatment systems for large cities? How will the court system be funded? (In the event that someone wrongs you, that might come in handy!)



    Do you assert that all those services MUST be provided ONLY by government?



    Quote:

    You've plainly stated that ALL TAXATION IS THEFT ... well, theft should not be tolerated, so taxation should not exist...

    HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE PAY FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED GOVERNMENT? (I'll readily concede that our government has far overstepped it's mandate, but we still need to fund SOME sort of government.)



    How about a fee-based system, where you pay only for those services you actually want and/or use?
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    You forget about the benefits you receive from living in a healthy, educated society.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    No, I haven't forgotten about the services that are provided by a coercive government monopoly that forcibly extracts money from me to pay for them whether or not I want or use them.



    I'm simply saying there is a better alternative. It's called freedom.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    See... I feel that with a standard deduction like that, the low-earners won't be "invested" in the tax rate at all... They need to know what a 50% tax rate is actually like... They need to experience that just as much as the "millionaire" does!! Otherwise it leads to the same class warfare we have now, with politicians pitting one against the other. Nothing wrong with having the poor folks contribute a little to getting us out of this mess... They voted the dumbshits into office as much as anybody else!

    (it could be argued that, since there are more poor than wealthy people, that they are MORE responsible for electing these assholes!)



    It could be argued that you are both nuts.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    No, I haven't forgotten about the services that are provided by a coercive government monopoly that forcibly extracts money from me to pay for them whether or not I want or use them.



    I cannot empathize whatsoever with this point of view. It is as foreign to me as your ridiculous religious beliefs. You are a walking contradiction and it's absolutely painful to talk to you.



    You say government has a role and does have to be funded through taxes. Yet you also say all taxes are theft.



    You talk about services you don't want to use when we are talking about the benefits of living in a healthy and educated society. That's not exactly a service you can choose to use or not use. The only choice in that matter is to decide whether you want to live in that society or go elsewhere. Believe you me, if this nation decided to follow your ideals to the letter, I'd be out of here.



    You don't want to take part in the social contract? Fine. You have your out.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I cannot empathize whatsoever with this point of view. It is as foreign to me as your ridiculous religious beliefs. You are a walking contradiction and it's absolutely painful to talk to you.



    Starting off with ad-homs. This bodes well for the rest of the post.



    Quote:

    You say government has a role and does have to be funded through taxes. Yet you also say all taxes are theft.



    As far as the role of government, my political philosophy tends to go back and forth between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism. That, of course, may change as I continue to learn.



    But please quote me where I said the government has to be funded through taxes, because I don't recall making that assertion, and if I did, it was likely before I started getting into libertarian philosophy.



    Quote:

    You talk about services you don't want to use when we are talking about the benefits of living in a healthy and educated society. That's not exactly a service you can choose to use or not use. The only choice in that matter is to decide whether you want to live in that society or go elsewhere. Believe you me, if this nation decided to follow your ideals to the letter, I'd be out of here.



    You don't want to take part in the social contract? Fine. You have your out.



    In other words, you're falling back on the "if you don't like it then leave" argument.



    Here's the thing. If I was given the choice between opting into the "social contract" or leaving in the first place you might have a valid point.



    But I didn't have that choice. This "social contract" has been imposed upon me and I never had the opportunity to give my consent.



    It's not even technically a "contract", is it?



    Doesn't a the concept of a "contract" entail both parties agreeing upon the terms beforehand? When was I ever presented with the terms of the contract and allowed to opt in - or opt out - of my own free will and choice?
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Having to breathe oxygen is also imposed on you. Go rail against aerobic respiration, too.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Inalienable (natural) rights don't have to be imposed. That's the point.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Part of being a social creature means you get to take part in society. You want to live off the grid? Go ahead. You want to be part of a society? Yes, you are fucking born into a social contract. That's the nature of humanity. Deal with it.



    You don't have the choice not to eat. You don't have the choice not to breathe. You don't have the choice not to take part in the social contract.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    jazzguru, you weren't given a choice of parents and you weren't given a choice of birth nation. Deal with it. As I said before, you should feel damn lucky you were born into a social contract with the United States of America, and not Somalia, Brazil, or anywhere else in the world where you may think people have more "economic freedom" at the cost of a developed and safe society.



    You're like one of those kids who goes to the police with child abuse claims at 11 years old, when your parents force you to clean your room, and ends up leaving home when they're sixteen to get away from a very loving mom and dad, because, "You always do what Sally wants to do! I HATE you, Mom!"



    Ayn Rand would be proud. If she cared, which she wouldn't.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." -- Frederic Bastiat
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    jazzguru, every time you go to a restaurant, you're paying for the cleaning and maintenance of the toilet. You could go to the restaurant a hundred times, never use the toilet once, and you're still paying for the cleaning and maintenance of the toilet.



    I guess in your utopia, we'd have coin operated toilets in every restaurant, so only those people using the toilet would have to pay for it.



    What a wonderful world that would be.



    Now you're going to claim you can choose another restaurant. But you still can't choose one that doesn't make you pay for using the toilet, can you? Live off the grid. Cook at home.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    You're leaving some important points out of your analogy, tonton. Consent, being one of them.



    The restaurant is sending armed thugs to my house every day, kidnapping me, taking me to the restaurant, forcing me to eat its food whether I like it or not, and then forcing me to pay for it.



    Yes, the money that is taken from me also happens to go towards cleaning the toilets, which I may or may not use.



    You accuse me (and libertarians) of being utopian, when we are nothing of the sort.



    You want to know what's utopian?



    Quote:

    The belief that we can grant a monopoly on violence to an institution, along with the authority to determine whether its own actions are permissable — in other words, to grant limitless power to an entity and then say, “Limit yourself” — that is the truly utopian and unrealistic fantasy of a naive mind.



  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You're leaving some important points out of your analogy, tonton. Consent, being one of them.



    The restaurant is sending armed thugs to my house every day, kidnapping me, taking me to the restaurant, forcing me to eat its food whether I like it or not, and then forcing me to pay for it.



    I already said you can live off the grid and cook at home.



    Quote:

    Yes, the money that is taken from me also happens to go towards cleaning the toilets, which I may or may not use.



    You accuse me (and libertarians) of being utopian, when we are nothing of the sort.



    Oh come ON! You claim monopolies wouldn't be a problem under the free market! You claim businesses can self-regulate safety, pollution, fair wage, discrimination, etc. That's pretty fucking utopian!



    Quote:

    You want to know what's utopian?



    Now you're using a Mormon Libertarian site to define "utopia", which simply means "an imagined perfect society", and saying I don't understand the meaning of the word? Good one.



    What is it about anti-family nutters claiming same-sex marriage advocates aren't allowed to "redefine words"?
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I already said you can live off the grid and cook at home.





    Oh come ON! You claim monopolies wouldn't be a problem under the free market! You claim businesses can self-regulate safety, pollution, fair wage, discrimination, etc. That's pretty fucking utopian!







    Now you're using a Mormon Libertarian site to define "utopia", which simply means "an imagined perfect society", and saying I don't understand the meaning of the word? Good one.



    What is it about anti-family nutters claiming same-sex marriage advocates aren't allowed to "redefine words"?



    Anti-family nutters, now who is redefining what? Anti-FAMILY?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Anti-family nutters, now who is redefining what? Anti-FAMILY?



    Jeez.



    One group of people supports families with a single mom and a child or children, a single dad and a child or children, a mom and dad and child or children, grandparents or aunts or uncles and a child or children, two dads and a child or children, two moms and a child or children, a childless same sex couple, a childless opposite sex couple, and many other forms of family.



    The other group doesn't support the idea of many of those.



    Which one is pro-family and which one is anti-family?



    I'm certainly not redefining any terms here. One of those two groups is pro-family, and one is anti-family. If you don't like the descriptions that fits, then fit the description you want. Either support families or oppose them.



    But that's for another thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.