What is a small government libertarian?

[ScienceRocks]

Having a small government that can't even run this nation right is like having a small penis. Both don't work!

 

[Dad2three]

Private corporations built the U.S. I'm sure I'll fall onto the floor laughing when you post your version of how it happened.

Sure, it wasn't progressive policies that created the worlds largest middle class, it was private Corps. They also built the RR's, roads, work that created the internet, cell phones, CAT scans, etc...

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

 

[bripat9643]

Whenever I read this stuff about 'high taxes' and how our poor corporations are being treated unfairly, I know I'm reading a post by somebody who doesn't fill out their own tax returns, has no idea what taxes were in the past, or is just repeating junk propaganda they read somewhere, like from Free Republic or Town Hall.

My fave is the meme about the '90% tax rate' of the 1950's and early 1960's, as if that were really what was being paid. In fact, that was the top rate on capital gains, and only on 50% of capital gains, and of course an amazing array of deductions on even that taxable 50%, i.e. if you had $100 in gains you were taxed at 90% on $50 max, and only if you had absolutely no deductions of any kind, which never happened in an era when if you wanted to install solid gold faucets in the CEO's private bathroom, or just have the company buy his house for him, it was 100% deductible, for example, but it makes for great nonsense propaganda to scare the clueless with.

You just proved you're an ignorant blowhard.

Note where the line on the graph is for the year 1950. if you look to the left you'll see the number 90%.

Shocking, you don't know the difference on MARGINAL tax rates and capital gains rates


"Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent. From 1954 to 1967 the maximum capital gains tax rate was 25 percent"
Historical Capital Gains and Taxes

The moron I responded to said 90% was the top rate on capital gains, not income taxes. I just posted the proof that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. And you, the supposed expert on history, chimed in to defend his idiocy.

 

[Dad2three]

Those aren't examples of constitutionally limited governments. That's kinda the point of the thread.

Weird, SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY disagreed right? LOL

Wow.... you haven't heard that we disagree with them? Do you pay NO attention at all?

YOU and a SMALL minority of nutters disagree? OK AND? lol

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, it wasn't progressive policies that created the worlds largest middle class, it was private Corps. They also built the RR's, roads, work that created the internet, cell phones, CAT scans, etc...

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

Progressive policies are what create third world nations.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Those aren't examples of constitutionally limited governments. That's kinda the point of the thread.

Weird, SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY disagreed right? LOL

SCOTUS is a gang of political hacks chosen by a collection of big government statists precisely for the purpose of rubber stamping every expansion of the government they propose.

Can you show me where any of it is unconsitutional? We do need the cdc, fda, nws, noaa, epa, fbi, cia, etc to be able to effivtity have as high of standards that we enjoy!

 

[bripat9643]

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.


Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

The problem with your theory is that corporations in the 18th century were not like corporations as we know them today. In the modern era incorporating is just a license to do business. In the 18th Century a corporation was a grant of special privilege from the crown, usually a monopoly on trade in a given geographical area.It's no suprise that the Founding Fathers were opposed to the corporations that existed in those days since they were just another manifestation of royal privilege and the aristocracy.

Your sleazy tactic of pretending the two things are the same just goes to show how utterly pathetic your position is.

Weird, you know the 13 Colonies WERE Corps right? BUT you 'think' the US Founders would be OK with the current Corps are people and money is speech nonsense? lol

Apparently you believe that statement proves me wrong.

 

[Dad2three]

You just proved you're an ignorant blowhard.

Note where the line on the graph is for the year 1950. if you look to the left you'll see the number 90%.

Shocking, you don't know the difference on MARGINAL tax rates and capital gains rates


"Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent. From 1954 to 1967 the maximum capital gains tax rate was 25 percent"
Historical Capital Gains and Taxes

The moron I responded to said 90% was the top rate on capital gains, not income taxes. I just posted the proof that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. And you, the supposed expert on history, chimed in to defend his idiocy.

YOU need to go to ANOTHER board Bubba, you keep getting proved wrong

"My fave is the meme about the '90% tax rate' of the 1950's and early 1960's, as if that were really what was being paid. In fact, that was the top rate on capital gains, and only on 50% of capital gains, and of course an amazing array of deductions on even that taxable 50%, i.e. if you had $100 in gains you were taxed at 90% on $50 max, and only if you had absolutely no deductions of any kind, which never happened in an era when if you wanted to install solid gold faucets in the CEO's private bathroom, or just have the company buy his house for him, it was 100% deductible, for example, but it makes for great nonsense propaganda to scare the clueless with."

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

Progressive policies are what create third world nations.

So paving roads, investing in education and r&D according to you, are the cause of third world nations? I'd say the fact that a nation doesn't have a stable government is the cause of it. But what fuck do I know!

 

[Contumacious]

Sure, it wasn't progressive policies that created the worlds largest middle class, it was private Corps. They also built the RR's, roads, work that created the internet, cell phones, CAT scans, etc...

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

Yes indeed - fascism, socialism, parasitism is what's trending.

Entrepreneurs are - somehow - able to thrive in spite of the massive regulatory and confiscatory state.

May I remind you that in the old USSR the blackmarket thrived in spite of the KGB.

Wake the fuck up.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

so-called libertarians are not libertarians if they are anti-choice and anti-gay...

today's brand of libertarians are largely a bunch of whiny spoiled children who stamp their feet when they have to live by rules... but are just peachy keen with interfering in the most intimate and personal decisions of others.

Oh here we go....The gay card...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..
Which rules might those be?
Hey, nobody cares who's carpet you chomp...

 

[Dad2three]

The problem with your theory is that corporations in the 18th century were not like corporations as we know them today. In the modern era incorporating is just a license to do business. In the 18th Century a corporation was a grant of special privilege from the crown, usually a monopoly on trade in a given geographical area.It's no suprise that the Founding Fathers were opposed to the corporations that existed in those days since they were just another manifestation of royal privilege and the aristocracy.

Your sleazy tactic of pretending the two things are the same just goes to show how utterly pathetic your position is.

Weird, you know the 13 Colonies WERE Corps right? BUT you 'think' the US Founders would be OK with the current Corps are people and money is speech nonsense? lol

Apparently you believe that statement proves me wrong.

No what proved you wrong was your 'belief' that the rail system was created without Gov't subsidies this was more of a question you blew off!

 

[bripat9643]

True, the TP/GOP is showing US that today

You are such a drone.

And the 'free hand' of the market magically created the rail system in the US lol

Hmmm, no. Entrepreneurs created it, but they can only do their magic when government gets the hell out of the way. State governments initially tried to cash in on the bonanza, but all their schemes imploded. Private railroads were the rule for most of the history of this nation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

YOU'D THINK WITH ALL THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STUFF, SCOTUS WOULD'VE ALREADY STOPPED HIM? lol

April 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

Bush didn't go off the deep end by threatening and insulting the SCOTUS, you moron.

Nor did he claim he would go against SCOTUS ruling by issuing executive orders.

Nope, he just wiretapped without court orders and tortured people....

FISA?......Hey shit for brains......Without interrogation with discomfort, your chose one would not have been able to crow about killing bin Laden

 

[bripat9643]

Weird, you know the 13 Colonies WERE Corps right? BUT you 'think' the US Founders would be OK with the current Corps are people and money is speech nonsense? lol

Apparently you believe that statement proves me wrong.

No what proved you wrong was your 'belief' that the rail system was created without Gov't subsidies this was more of a question you blew off!

The subsidized railroads all went bankrupt and collapsed in an orgy of graft, corruption and scandal. So, yes, the rail system was created almost entirely without government subsidies, at least the part of it that actually had paying customers.

 

[Dad2three]

You are such a drone.

And the 'free hand' of the market magically created the rail system in the US lol

Hmmm, no. Entrepreneurs created it, but they can only do their magic when government gets the hell out of the way. State governments initially tried to cash in on the bonanza, but all their schemes imploded. Private railroads were the rule for most of the history of this nation.

"Private railroads were the rule for most of the history of this nation."

Between 1867 and 1873, railroad companies laid 35,000 miles of track in the United States–as much as was built in the three previous decades. In 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, Congress had chartered the Union Pacific and Central Pacific corporations to construct a line between Omaha, Nebraska, and Sacramento, California. In 1869, a golden spike–hammered into place with great ceremony at Promontory Point, Utah–marked the completion of the link between the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

The largest government subsidies in U.S. history financed the railroad boom. Between 1862 and 1872, Congress gave the railroad companies more than 100 million acres of public land and over $64 million in loans and tax breaks…

 

[Dad2three]

Apparently you believe that statement proves me wrong.

No what proved you wrong was your 'belief' that the rail system was created without Gov't subsidies this was more of a question you blew off!

The subsidized railroads all went bankrupt and collapsed in an orgy of graft, corruption and scandal. So, yes, the rail system was created almost entirely without government subsidies, at least the part of it that actually had paying customers.

Give me ONE not benefiting from Gov't? Just ONE? Please (I hope you try)...

 

[dblack]

Having a small government that can't even run this nation right is like having a small penis. Both don't work!

Heh.... alrighty then. I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, Matthew.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush didn't go off the deep end by threatening and insulting the SCOTUS, you moron.

Nor did he claim he would go against SCOTUS ruling by issuing executive orders.

Nope, he just wiretapped without court orders and tortured people....

FISA?......Hey shit for brains......Without interrogation with discomfort, your chose one would not have been able to crow about killing bin Laden

Panetta Obliterates The Myth That Torture led to Bin Laden


Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Sunday that “We could have gotten bin Laden without” enhanced interrogation techniques, despite the implication in the film “Zero Dark Thirty” that the techniques, called torture by opponents, played a pivotal role in finding bin Laden.

He went on to say the following: “Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” he admitted. “But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

In response to Chuck Todd’s follow up asking if we could have gotten the information without any use of torture (or as some call it enhanced interrogation” Panetta replied: “I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that.”

This is consistent with Panetta’s explanation in a letter to Senator John McCain right after we got Bin Laden.

Panetta Obliterates The Myth That Torture led to Bin Laden

 

[dblack]

Weird, SCOTUS has REPEATEDLY disagreed right? LOL

Wow.... you haven't heard that we disagree with them? Do you pay NO attention at all?

YOU and a SMALL minority of nutters disagree? OK AND? lol

Yeah.. you keep falling back on the mob rule thing. Kinda sad.