What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[Full-Auto]

You have no idea what the fack you're talking about, you have contempt for all federal employees based on a few handful that you don't like and the fact that you pay taxes, what facking ever, I got no time for you and your whining jealous rants.

If you're going to swear why not be a man and just fucking swear instead of using misspelled artificial cuss words?

And You won't answer my question because you know that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than you do which means your entire "fair share" argument is bullshit because you're the one not paying your fair share.

Whatever I pay in taxes in my business, that's not information I'm open to sharing and I don't give a flying fack what you have to pay and all your whining about it, everbody pays taxes and feels the pain in their pockets from time to time, but it doesn't change the fact that Americans are paying the lowest in taxes in 60 years. The taxes you pay have jacks shat to do with federal employees solely your taxes go into paying lots of shat so why single out all federal employees as the target for your whining ire? Facking hating POS.

Because federal employees do not pay federal tax on any money received from the fed.

That money is provided by the tax payer to give the employee the appearance of paying taxes.

 

[Dragon]

The economy can exist without a bloated wasteful government.

True, but not very relevant to what you were arguing.

And tell me how government employees add to the net tax revenue when all the money they earn and pay in taxes is funded by taxes on the private sector.

I just did. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand it. What isn't clear?

 

[dblack]

Government was involved in the economy as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution, and it has never stopped being involved, and a safe bet it will always be involved. The automobile was invented but how far would the automobile have progressed without government building roads, bridges, writing traffic laws, enforcing those laws. And the bonus, government gave us, safer automobiles. Would GM or Chrysler even exist if not for government. What would have happened to American business if government had not passed and enforced laws on trusts and monopolies? The list is endless of needing government to supervise the economy.

Obviously we need government to supervise all of society. That's why we create it. But there's a distinct difference between supervising and actively intervening.

I continue to draw on the separation of church and state as a model for how (and why) we want to keep government from meddling in our economic affairs. Freedom of religion doesn't mean churches don't have to follow the law. It means government can't endorse or persecute any particular faith. It means we're not allowed to setup a state religion and compel people to adopt it. It means we're free to follow our own religious beliefs without state interference.

 

[Dragon]

And public servants do not add to govt. revenue. It's not even feasible mathematically.

(Sigh.)

Government employees perform services without which the economy would not even exist.

If the economy did not exist, there would be NO government revenues at all.

Therefore, public servants add to government revenue.

Q.E.D.

 

[Dragon]

As long as people produce and wish to exchange, there will be markets.

As long as ALL people wish to engage, there will be markets, but that is never the case. It takes only one person of sufficient strength (or following) who takes instead of trading to ruin the whole.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a really backward way of seeing things. First you determine that without government there would be no market, which is absolute horseshit. Yes there would be, it would simply be sloppy as people would have no laws to protect rights and property. Which would change the dynamic and make exchange messy in certain instances.

Revenue for government is obtain by coercion from rpivvate sector tax payers. Without them, government has no revenue. Which means no pay for public servants. You're trying to argue around the fact that public servants are economically nonproductive and that can not be done. It's a complete fallacy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As long as people produce and wish to exchange, there will be markets.

As long as ALL people wish to engage, there will be markets, but that is never the case. It takes only one person of sufficient strength (or following) who takes instead of trading to ruin the whole.

More bullshit from you. I don't engage in the illegal drug market, therefore not ALL people engage. Yet, interestingly enough, the market still exists. Sure, factions would exist without rule of law as theives. That does not mean they could take everything. The markets would still exist, just not free from coercive parties. Mucvh like the govt. is today the coercive party. People would also defend their livelihoods against such threat. So once again, not ALL people need to be engages for their to be a market. That's just nonsense.


You don't no shit about economics, son. This is the second time I've had to ruin you on undestanding in a thread.

 

[Dragon]

That's a really backward way of seeing things. First you determine that without government there would be no market, which is absolute horseshit. Yes there would be, it would simply be sloppy as people would have no laws to protect rights and property. Which would change the dynamic and make exchange messy in certain instances.

When I say "law" I mean governance on any level. For a very simple society, that can be something as informal as strong custom backed by collective action called by an informally-recognized leader. For a more complex society, it becomes necessarily more formal. But however it is arrived at and enforced, it is a prerequisite for the existence of trade. Without government, no trade.

Revenue for government is obtain by coercion from rpivvate sector tax payers. Without them, government has no revenue.

Correct, but at the same time, government action is a prerequisite for the existence of private sector taxpayers. Without government action, government has no revenue.

What makes this possible in a cause-effect consideration is that informal government does not require revenue, and formal government and a more complex economy grew up together.

 

[Dragon]

I don't engage in the illegal drug market, therefore not ALL people engage. Yet, interestingly enough, the market still exists.

So does the government. The illegal drug trade exists because trade in general exists; without government of some kind, it could not exist. Government attempting to ban the drug trade instead of regulating it cannot completely wipe it out because of the effect of government on the economy in general; however, the absence of effective government does mean that the drug trade suffers from massive levels of violence, and within itself it's a matter of taking rather than trading -- EXCEPT where a strong drug lord imposes law of his own.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Their seats in office, the same thing libs are doing.


Keep in mind, I'm using the words wrong to go along with the discussion. Republicans aren't conservative, democrats aren't liberal. Well both are liberal in terms of spending, but that's about the only time either label fits.


The better labels for both parties are neoconservative and fascist.

 

[Dragon]

You don't no shit about economics, son. This is the second time I've had to ruin you on undestanding in a thread.

Blowing your own horn and beating your chest like this contributes nothing to the conversation and is merely evidence of your own lack of a good argument. You might as well not waste your time with it.

 

[Douger]

The gilded age.

And what followed the Gilded Age? The Progressive Era.

Fascism.

 

[Intense]

Soft Tyranny, followed by Hard Tyranny.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't engage in the illegal drug market, therefore not ALL people engage. Yet, interestingly enough, the market still exists.

So does the government. The illegal drug trade exists because trade in general exists; without government of some kind, it could not exist. Government attempting to ban the drug trade instead of regulating it cannot completely wipe it out because of the effect of government on the economy in general; however, the absence of effective government does mean that the drug trade suffers from massive levels of violence, and within itself it's a matter of taking rather than trading -- EXCEPT where a strong drug lord imposes law of his own.

That's doublespeak/double think.

The illegal drug trade exists because there are buyers/consumers and sellers/producers. It suffers from violence because the game is risky with the third party intrusion of force by governments if caught. This makes the stakes of the game higher, and it is what is known as a black market. There was a black market for food in the Communist era of the USSR too. Although the reason was because of government control rather than an attempt to outlaw the practice of bringing food to market. The system was so severely inadequate that producers tried to make extra on the side from losses they would suffer from govt. imposed production ratios, etc..

The bottom line is, government does NOT create markets, people do. Public servants do NOT ADD revenue to government coffers. You're trying to argue your way in through a side door that doesn't exist by attempting to say that the government is the reason we have markets in the first place. This is false. People who produce items to exchange for other items create markets. Government takes from the private producers to pay for the ever exapnding public services that bureaucrats wish to see and sell to the citizens in the name of "public good". Without the private payers, the govt. has no means to provide for public servants, or their services. Public servants do not create revenue no matter which way you want to spin it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?




Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

The Bill of Rights........

For the rich and religious fundies only.

Youre not even denying that you want to take those rights away from all people. How sad.

 

[Intense]

The Bill of Rights........

For the rich and religious fundies only.

Youre not even denying that you want to take those rights away from all people. How sad.

Flaylo is overdone. Flaylo thinks that we exist for his profit, benefit, and amusement. All he want's is power over our wills. Is that too much to ask???

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't know what I facking pay and the rich pay far less and keep more than I do and federal employees do so why focus your ire on federal employees when most of your taxes don't even go to federal salaries?

If he doesnt know what you pay, it's because you won't tell him. If you want to make the argument that you pay more than he does: PROVE IT. Otherwise, making the claim while refusing to prove it when you are called on it just more evidence that you know your lying and that providing the evidence support him.

 

[Avatar4321]

My argument was that government employees do not add to the net tax revenue of the government.

Exactly, and that's nonsense. The private economy as we know it wouldn't even exist without government. No human society more complex than a small-population pre-urban farming community can function without formal government, and NO human community, not even a foraging-hunting band, can function without SOME kind of governance. Whatever you do for a living, almost certainly you would be unable to do it without the government.

Government is an essential component of the private economy. Without government, it would not even exist.

I dont know how you managed to do it, but you got that completely backwards.

The government exists because of the economy. The economy does not exist because of the government. The economy would exist without any government, it would be pretty crappy, but it would exist without any government.

But if we had no economy, there really would be no need for government whatsoever.

 

[Avatar4321]

As long as people produce and wish to exchange, there will be markets.

As long as ALL people wish to engage, there will be markets, but that is never the case. It takes only one person of sufficient strength (or following) who takes instead of trading to ruin the whole.

Why the heck do you think we want government to get out of the markets as much as possible? Why do you think we oppose forced "redistribution"? Because they are using the government to take instead of trading which is ruining the whole.

 

[Flaylo]

For the rich and religious fundies only.

Youre not even denying that you want to take those rights away from all people. How sad.

Flaylo is overdone. Flaylo thinks that we exist for his profit, benefit, and amusement. All he want's is power over our wills. Is that too much to ask???

Like this?

Facebook Protection Amendment Voted Down In House

Sure repugs want feedom of speech and right to privacy.