OK...Finally we get the truth from Obama and his agenda.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by CarsRmyVICE

Wagner, thanks for the detailed response. It is obvious you are passionate about the cause. I am familiar with corporate legal form and the tax structures that noose them. I must say I am one of those people who thinks/thought that a republican think tank shit out this tea party movement. Especially when I see morons like Palin showing up at the rallies. You make several excellent points about our country's transformation from what it once was to the semi-socialist republic we now live in. I will say I think some of your ideas are far fetched such as banishment of the federal reserve system. With that said, my undergraduate education was in finance and I can surely understand your quarrel with the fed. (I have no intentions of being a banker after spending the summer at Merrill lynch....so no witch hunt ) Additionally, I feel that it is extremely difficult if not irrational to live word for word off documents written over 200 years ago (aside from the bill of rights). I do not support the governments recent stomping on these documents, but I do not think our country could be run any better adhering to the principals outlined in the constitution and declaration alone. Last but not lease I do not yet make over 250,000. As someone who intends to own and operate a small business in our economy, I must say I have several concerns as you are well aware of. I sure as death intend to one day be in that higher tax bracket that's currently being progressively taxed and will acknowledge that my opinion may change when that day comes.

Your last portion really points to the issue. "It is ok if it doesn't happen to me", not saying that is you but that is the mentality of many in the supposed middle-class. Essentially this spawns class warfare where anyone making more than "you" should be taxed higher, thanks 1913.

I tell you I wasn't aware till Obama that I was rich Woohoo, lucky me.

I minored in Economics, actually tutored in it in college, but not finance. What does that mean? Well that I understand financial curves, meaning you can't create fake money based on nothing tangible.

We left the constitution decades ago, started when we began printing money after the Civil War and got worse when we decided that we needed nothing tangible to back it up. Think about who invented the Fed...here is a hint: JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller. That right there should tell you the Feds agenda. The founding fathers attempted to adopt a central bank between 1790est-1802..it failed miserably.

I'm actually hoping we learn a lot from Greece and, my prediction, the down fall of the Euro.

Again, thanks for asking questions of an actual Tea Party person and not the clowns you see on TV

[asindc]

I consider myself a progressive, but that does not mean I expect any government institution, local, state, or federal, to "save us" (In fact, the only people I know who believe such don't have much to work with in the first place, mostly due to their own making, or are accustomed to having elected government officials do their bidding). What I do expect is that those we choose to run our government institutions to have a genuine and healthy respect for those institutions, for what they can do and cannot do, and to not treat them with contempt. Be competent and be reasonable about what can be done, but understand the role government should play. However, just as I respect the idea that government should not attempt to solve every problem, too often I see the other side of that coin being ignored, which is that the markets do not self-correct in a way that is always beneficial to society at large. Just look at the erosion of the manufacturing sector of our economy and the decades-lasting debilitating effects it has had on several communities across our country.

Considering that, what is often ignored is that the private sector, large corporations in particular, do not consistently act with the best interests of our communities in mind, if at all. That is not their collective mission, however, so no reason to expect it. But knowing that, we do need our government institutions to become involved on our behalf in areas where the private sector is not willing or able. Attempts to fix our health care system is a prime example. I will say that I see small businesses as being much more community-minded than larger businesses, which is one of the reasons why the Small Business Administration was established. I know many people have been disappointed with the SBA's performance over the years, but that seems to be more a matter of execution and administration than a flaw in the philosophy of having our government utilize our resources to actively support small business development.

It seems too often over the past 30 years that some who profess to be libertarian have been selective in advocating for limited government. For example, witness the lack of outcry from some "liberatarians" when the federal government became more aggressive in promoting religion in general, regardless of the fact that no particular religion was promoted. I do believe that the debate about the role of government should be perpetual, which is why I enjoy reading well-reasoned, sincere opposing viewpoints. I do question the sincerity of anyone, whether they call themselves progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or something else entirely, when I see inconsistencies in his/her approach to the issues. Too often, IMO, libertarians have allowed government activism on some issues without protest (official government promotion of religion) to preserve their right to be at the table on other issues (tax structive, the necessity of certain government programs). For many people who do not make the distinction (I do, by the way) between libertarians and "wackos" holding signs at Tea Party events shown on Fox News and CNN, this is one of the reasons why. Accusing the President of wanting to limit the amount of money an individual can legally make, when it is quite clear he meant no such thing, can also blur those lines for some people.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by asindc

I consider myself a progressive, but that does not mean I expect any government institution, local, state, or federal, to "save us" (In fact, the only people I know who believe such don't have much to work with in the first place, mostly due to their own making, or are accustomed to having elected government officials do their bidding). What I do expect is that those we choose to run our government institutions to have a genuine and healthy respect for those institutions, for what they can do and cannot do, and to not treat them with contempt. Be competent and be reasonable about what can be done, but understand the role government should play. However, just as I respect the idea that government should not attempt to solve every problem, too often I see the other side of that coin being ignored, which is that the markets do not self-correct in a way that is always beneficial to society at large. Just look at the erosion of the manufacturing sector of our economy and the decades-lasting debilitating effects it has had on several communities across our country.

Considering that, what is often ignored is that the private sector, large corporations in particular, do not consistently act with the best interests of our communities in mind, if at all. That is not their collective mission, however, so no reason to expect it. But knowing that, we do need our government institutions to become involved on our behalf in areas where the private sector is not willing or able. Attempts to fix our health care system is a prime example. I will say that I see small businesses as being much more community-minded than larger businesses, which is one of the reasons why the Small Business Administration was established. I know many people have been disappointed with the SBA's performance over the years, but that seems to be more a matter of execution and administration than a flaw in the philosophy of having our government utilize our resources to actively support small business development.

It seems too often over the past 30 years that some who profess to be libertarian have been selective in advocating for limited government. For example, witness the lack of outcry from some "liberatarians" when the federal government became more aggressive in promoting religion in general, regardless of the fact that no particular religion was promoted. I do believe that the debate about the role of government should be perpetual, which is why I enjoy reading well-reasoned, sincere opposing viewpoints. I do question the sincerity of anyone, whether they call themselves progressive, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or something else entirely, when I see inconsistencies in his/her approach to the issues. Too often, IMO, libertarians have allowed government activism on some issues without protest (official government promotion of religion) to preserve their right to be at the table on other issues (tax structive, the necessity of certain government programs). For many people who do not make the distinction (I do, by the way) between libertarians and "wackos" holding signs at Tea Party events shown on Fox News and CNN, this is one of the reasons why. Accusing the President of wanting to limit the amount of money an individual can legally make, when it is quite clear he meant no such thing, can also blur those lines for some people.

I'm a Christian & a Libertarian, I can't think of anything that grays the line of church and state more than having currency that reads "In God We Trust". I was in favor of the cancelling of a 50year tradition of 'National Day of Prayer', sometimes it is difficult to attempt to be fair. Until government becomes an unpaid service of working individuals, we will continue to have bought off politicians and thus, a corrupt government. Take a note from the Texas play book where the local legislature only serves 140 days every two years, what that means is that those folks actually have to work.

I still believe the concrete is laid by the US constitution for an amazing country, as we've enjoyed since 1776.

[JCL]

Wagner: Good to have you back, the debate needed elevating. I enjoyed your posts, above.

What does "a non-progressive tax system" mean? Regressive? Proportional? Flat tax?

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by JCL

Wagner: Good to have you back, the debate needed elevating. I enjoyed your posts, above.

What does "a non-progressive tax system" mean? Regressive? Proportional? Flat tax?

Thanks man.

I would want a flat tax based system. I would advocate a standard, flat, 14% Federal tax at the end of the tax year replacing the entire income based tax system including Social Security and Medicare. A lot of people are advocating a VAT system similar to Europe, in my eyes you couldn't do something worse during a fragile economy.

[CarsRmyVICE]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Thanks man.

I would want a flat tax based system. I would advocate a standard, flat, 14% Federal tax at the end of the tax year replacing the entire income based tax system including Social Security and Medicare. A lot of people are advocating a VAT system similar to Europe, in my eyes you couldn't do something worse during a fragile economy.

Sounds lovely but how can we reasonably expect to pay off any of our 14,000,000,000,000 at such low tax rates? I'm sure you will suggest that you did not personally advocate or approve of such spending (nor did I) but that does not change the fact that we need to do something. Would you support a raise in the capital gains tax? How about taxing fat people who eat shit, or bimbo's who live at the tanning booth? I would rather they did not raise capital gains, but I wouldn't mind cranking up the price on unhealthy activities that costs us all money at the end of the road.

[Weasel]

I'd say a good start would be stopping any politicians from having 6 digit salaries. You should run this country for the love of it and because you believe you can do better for it, and have a comfortable living during that period... not become a rich career politician.

We are no longer in the period of "of the people, for the people" but we would be better off if we were.

GOOOH | Get Out of Our House: A non-partisan plan to elect citizen representatives!

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by CarsRmyVICE

Sounds lovely but how can we reasonably expect to pay off any of our 14,000,000,000,000 at such low tax rates? I'm sure you will suggest that you did not personally advocate or approve of such spending (nor did I) but that does not change the fact that we need to do something. Would you support a raise in the capital gains tax? How about taxing fat people who eat shit, or bimbo's who live at the tanning booth? I would rather they did not raise capital gains, but I wouldn't mind cranking up the price on unhealthy activities that costs us all money at the end of the road.

Research it, a flat tax for all gathers far more revenue than a progressive income tax system. In our current system 50% of taxable base doesn't pay taxes. You can't raise capital gains taxes. The very basis of capital gains is so businesses and smart individuals can reinvest the wealth. There are many articles on the use of capital gains tax *which by the way Obama is raising in 2011*. Raising capital gains is a sure fire way to stop economic growth not associated with the government. As for selective taxes, it isn't unprecedented and in fact is already done on tobacco and alcohol. I don't agree with that practice at all but apparently society does. It isn't my prerogative to tell you what is healthy and what isn't. And it isn't sciences either, just ask this question over the last decade: which part of the egg is good for you?

Our income tax system is entirely miss-guided and was established in 1913, nearly 100 years ago. Here is one part that boggles my mind, once I make over 106,000 for the year I no longer pay social security tax, how does that make sense? I mean, if we are going to be progressive, then be progressive. Why did I pay in every pay check when I worked in high school, but now when "I could afford to pay more" (according to Biden) I don't have to pay?


The problem is not a revenue one, it is a spending one. The soon to be 15T debt isn't a 'real' number, it is based on current spending rates. Heck, even the bulk of the original Stimulus deal has yet to be spent. How about we don't spend it?

You could raise the income tax rate to 100% on the top 10% earners and still couldn't pay the debt off. The point is, we need to stop pretending to focus on what we deem "rich" and start making all citizens pay their way if possible. A flat tax would do that. It is not popular at all because those 50% not paying taxes would get hit.

Oh and I'd actually be OK with raising the national gas tax as long as there was a yearly percentage cap and sector by which it could rise, not simply legislative rulings.

[MPowerFarmer]

There is absolutely an issue with distribution of wealth. People do not need 10, 20, 50 billion dollars when a large plurality of American can not afford health insurance. And by the way I am well into the highest tax bracket.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by MPowerFarmer

There is absolutely an issue with distribution of wealth. People do not need 10, 20, 50 billion dollars when a large plurality of American can not afford health insurance. And by the way I am well into the highest tax bracket.

And who are you to deem when/where a person should spend their earnings? Sorry you don't have a right to render 'need'. Maybe you need to do a little research on this topic of spreading wealth to those in 'need'.

A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas