Who Rules America?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by shanm

I think he will be better off in Tikrit. Much less "government" over there.

You are an idiot. What is it about freedom that annoys you so?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are an idiot. What is it about freedom that annoys you so?

Oh, you know.....the fact that idiots like you are allowed to breed.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are an idiot. What is it about freedom that annoys you so?

Freedom, as you want it, doesn't exist. You can't have a country this large with this many heterogenous people and have it be the scale you want it to be. It has to be a certain scale to deal with what goes along with having a country this large, with this many people. What part of that don't you get? You need to move to a much smaller country that is able to deal with things on the scale you seem to prefer.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's bullshit. You think anything worth doing requires that the government do it. Government has destroyed education. Get them out. The FDA is owned by Monsanto and Big Pharma. Get them out. Similar for most every other government function. You like government. Good for you.

Why don't you go live in a country with very few government establishment or control and see how fast your ass appreciates the U.S govt. You want less govt regulations but you will be the first to bitch if you got cancer from Asbestos at work because their were o govt regulations. You are really an idiot COG- you wouldn't be alive today if govt didn't play a critical part in your life in either defense/health or education.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Backing up to the point in the thread before the name calling started: Why does govt have to support folks? It's not a constitutionally guranteed right. So why should any taxpayer have to support others? Has not every socialist govt failed after a while?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Backing up to the point in the thread before the name calling started: Why does govt have to support folks? It's not a constitutionally guranteed right. So why should any taxpayer have to support others? Has not every socialist govt failed after a while?

Support folks? You don't want roads to drive on? Interstate highways to connect us? All the things that go with a centralized government? If you think the US is anything approaching socialism, you don't know what that word means.

[5T3V3]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Support folks? You don't want roads to drive on? Interstate highways to connect us? All the things that go with a centralized government? If you think the US is anything approaching socialism, you don't know what that word means.

The US has only become a centralized Government in the last 50 years ... it started with the income tax that gave the Government the ability to tax the earnings of Americans which coupled with a fiat currency gave them the power to print as much money as they needed so long as they could service the debt on it. We are now at a breaking point on the debt, so we see the BIG spenders being creative ... Carbon Tax ... just a creative way of taxing business - Sugar Tax ... taxing soft drinks - National health care ... taxing the health care system on and on until it all collapses.

The fallacy in your argument is only a strong "centralized" government can provide these things. When actually the most efficient, lowest cost method is to push the taxation and spending as close to the people as possible. Houston takes care of the cities roads, the State of Texas takes care of all those roads not cared for by a local city or county and the national US government takes care of the few roads that are in international waters or are not on a state which are almost none existent. The central government should only tax and handle the things that only it can handle - National Security, espionage, armed forces, air traffic control, government contracts, the federal court system and federal prisons, taxation, and the other SPECIFICALLY delegated powers of the constitution and amendments. And that means closing the door on the "general welfare" clause to mean ... and anything else we want it to mean.

I would argue we need a strong "decentralized" government - a federalist government as the founding fathers originally intended us to be - hence the enumerated powers or else they would have enumerated the states power and not the federal governments. All the problems you want solved are lost in the never ending bureaucracy of a centralized government and not because we can't afford them. It is time to close their check book ... and repeal the income tax in favor of a graduated fixed rate system that can never be raised only lowered. Take the money away from Washington and it will move naturally to the states and cities where it should be anyway.

PS- Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization (source- socialist labor party) - Auto industry, oil and gas through intense regulation, communications (TV, radio, cell, internet soon) ... on and on ... maybe you don't know what socialism is? Just remember every socialist government started out as benign at first it only became totalitarian once it had assumed enough power to not be challenged ... like Germany, Russia, Italy, can you name one that didn't go bad?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by 5T3V3

The US has only become a centralized Government in the last 50 years ... it started with the income tax that gave the Government the ability to tax the earnings of Americans which coupled with a fiat currency gave them the power to print as much money as they needed so long as they could service the debt on it. We are now at a breaking point on the debt, so we see the BIG spenders being creative ... Carbon Tax ... just a creative way of taxing business - Sugar Tax ... taxing soft drinks - National health care ... taxing the health care system on and on until it all collapses.

The fallacy in your argument is only a strong "centralized" government can provide these things. When actually the most efficient, lowest cost method is to push the taxation and spending as close to the people as possible. Houston takes care of the cities roads, the State of Texas takes care of all those roads not cared for by a local city or county and the national US government takes care of the few roads that are in international waters or are not on a state which are almost none existent. The central government should only tax and handle the things that only it can handle - National Security, espionage, armed forces, air traffic control, government contracts, the federal court system and federal prisons, taxation, and the other SPECIFICALLY delegated powers of the constitution and amendments. And that means closing the door on the "general welfare" clause to mean ... and anything else we want it to mean.

I would argue we need a strong "decentralized" government - a federalist government as the founding fathers originally intended us to be - hence the enumerated powers or else they would have enumerated the states power and not the federal governments. All the problems you want solved are lost in the never ending bureaucracy of a centralized government and not because we can't afford them. It is time to close their check book ... and repeal the income tax in favor of a graduated fixed rate system that can never be raised only lowered. Take the money away from Washington and it will move naturally to the states and cities where it should be anyway.

PS- Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization (source- socialist labor party) - Auto industry, oil and gas through intense regulation, communications (TV, radio, cell, internet soon) ... on and on ... maybe you don't know what socialism is? Just remember every socialist government started out as benign at first it only became totalitarian once it had assumed enough power to not be challenged ... like Germany, Russia, Italy, can you name one that didn't go bad?

Income tax began over 100 years ago... and I'm not saying a decentralized, more local, government couldn't do it. Germany? They have one of the strongest economies in the world and are doing quite well.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by 5T3V3

The US has only become a centralized Government in the last 50 years ... it started with the income tax that gave the Government the ability to tax the earnings of Americans which coupled with a fiat currency gave them the power to print as much money as they needed so long as they could service the debt on it. We are now at a breaking point on the debt, so we see the BIG spenders being creative ... Carbon Tax ... just a creative way of taxing business - Sugar Tax ... taxing soft drinks - National health care ... taxing the health care system on and on until it all collapses.

The fallacy in your argument is only a strong "centralized" government can provide these things. When actually the most efficient, lowest cost method is to push the taxation and spending as close to the people as possible The income tax is about as "close to the people" as a tax gets. Houston takes care of the cities roads, the State of Texas takes care of all those roads not cared for by a local city or county and the national US government takes care of the few roads that are in international waters or are not on a state which are almost none existent. This is an argument for decentralization. You're replacing federal government with state governments. Do you have any proof that either or is more efficient? The central government should only tax and handle the things that only it can handle - National Security, espionage, armed forces, air traffic control, government contracts, the federal court system and federal prisons, taxation, and the other SPECIFICALLY delegated powers of the constitution and amendments.Go back and look at the federal government tax allocation. 24% of our tax dollars go to social security, 18% goes to the military, 24% goes to healthcare (This was the same before Obama took office btw; 21% in 2007). As a total, those three account for 66% of our total tax dollar allocation. How do you suppose that the federal government will upkeep those programs without the income tax? The "general welfare" you argue in the next sentence account for 11% of the budget, and not all of them are unnecessary payments made to free-loaders. There genuinely are people who require disability assistance And that means closing the door on the "general welfare" clause to mean ... and anything else we want it to mean.

I would argue we need a strong "decentralized" government - a federalist government as the founding fathers originally intended us to be - hence the enumerated powers or else they would have enumerated the states power and not the federal governments. All the problems you want solved are lost in the never ending bureaucracy of a centralized government and not because we can't afford them. It is time to close their check book ... and repeal the income tax in favor of a graduated fixed rate system that can never be raised only lowered. Take the money away from Washington and it will move naturally to the states and cities where it should be anyway.We do have decentralized government in certain areas. They are no more efficient than the central government. Efficiency will never be the governments forte.

PS- Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization (source- socialist labor party) - Auto industry, oil and gas through intense regulation, communications (TV, radio, cell, internet soon) ... on and on Yes and this is not what America is. America is run by corporations, what "the workers" want doesn't matter here in the slightest. It's Capitalism ... maybe you don't know what socialism is? Just remember every socialist government started out as benign at first it only became totalitarian once it had assumed enough power to not be challenged ... like Germany, Russia, Italy, can you name one that didn't go bad?

Hey COIdiot, why can't you argue a bit more like this. At least he is making sense and is able to outline what he wants.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Support folks? You don't want roads to drive on? Interstate highways to connect us? All the things that go with a centralized government? If you think the US is anything approaching socialism, you don't know what that word means.

Where on earth did roads come into this? Stop being deliberately obtuse. Unlike many on this board, you are intelligent, even if you are wrong half the time. You know perfectly well that infrastructure was NOT what Carpenter was referring to.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Where on earth did roads come into this? Stop being deliberately obtuse. Unlike many on this board, you are intelligent, even if you are wrong half the time. You know perfectly well that infrastructure was NOT what Carpenter was referring to.

Perhaps not, but it's part of a larger problem. Obtuse is just my nature

Centralized, decentralized, there's no guarantee one is preferable to the other. One makes people feel better, because it's closer to them, but does it perform better in representing their actual concerns? We could reduce everything down to county-level politics, but even that will have its problems.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Where on earth did roads come into this? Stop being deliberately obtuse. Unlike many on this board, you are intelligent, even if you are wrong half the time. You know perfectly well that infrastructure was NOT what Carpenter was referring to.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Perhaps not, but it's part of a larger problem. Obtuse is just my nature
Centralized, decentralized, there's no guarantee one is preferable to the other. One makes people feel better, because it's closer to them, but does it perform better in representing their actual concerns? We could reduce everything down to county-level politics, but even that will have its problems.

Thank you Sins. And you are correct in that's not what I meant.
However, it is common for a socialist govt to be a centralized govt. as a socialist govt needs a central power base in order to operate.

So is a centralized govt good or bad? I could write a novel, but never-mind.
National defense? yes.
Anything else? Nope. At the least because it's a waste of money as all activities/costs are duplicated at the local level.

5T3 presents a few rationalizations.

As for socialism, there's two variations. 5T3 presents one in his last paragraph, and we've seen how those work.

The second variation has to do with a country supporting it's citizens more that it can afford through various social welfare programs. Greece is a current example where things caught up to them. I think that the States are headed that way as we simply can't afford the programs that are in place.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

Wealth inequality in America:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Modern liberals rule America, and they are destroying it.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by DSK

Modern liberals rule America, and they are destroying it.

Again, these aren't Liberals, they are Progressives. A Liberal wouldn't force you to bake of cake for two homosexuals.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Again, these aren't Liberals, they are Progressives. A Liberal wouldn't force you to bake of cake for two homosexuals.

A true liberal wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for two gays. That's conservatives you're thinking of.