Your Government Owes You a Job

[RKMBrown]

Yes we are, as we never recovered from 2008. They pumped up the Pyramid again just delaying the inevitable. Too Big to Fail is BS............

But who are the Too Big to Fail, Really. Possibly the 4 Horsemen of the Banking system.

The same ones who are primary stockholders of our currency and currencies around the globe. Who now have the power to generate Fiat currency any dang time they want. Which they absolutely did after the crash to a tune of 16 TRILLION from the discount window of the Federal Reserve which they own anyway.

None of this current debate will matter then. They will control everything which is exactly why they are doing this BS on purpose.

Will you be their serf after they basically destroy us. Will you beg for a job from the Gov't, a Gov't that does as they ask, or will you stand against them.

That will eventually be the choice, as they bring the whole dang system down.

They own you already. Your posts prove it. Wanting the very assholes who are doing this to be our saviors, and maybe they'll give us all a job.

Complete joke.

Try looking at it this way: Our political system (government) is failing because the rich have amassed fortunes large enough to buy out government. It doesn't matter if you "choose" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

In 2007 this nation's top 1% paid about 22.4% of their income in federal income taxes. If they paid 43.5% they would still have twice as much of national after-tax income as they had in 1970.

Like it or not, government is your only choice to fight the oligarchs. Elect legislators that tax rich individuals and corporations at the same rates as 1961, and the Treasury collects an additional $716 billion every year.

"In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally disappear over the next decade."

Deconstructing the ?Federal Debt Crisis? - RootsAction

$716 billion...First, where do you come up with this figure?
Second, $716 billion is less than the FY 2014 Budget of nearly $4 Trillion.
Lastly. Government does not 'save' money. When additional revenues are collected or particular program or department has been reduced, government simply finds another thing on which to spend the money.
Meanwhile the wealthy individuals and companies you wish to tax have found other places to put their money. And one place I can tell you it isn't going to be placed....Here in the USA.

Additionally, when a government agency has not yet spent their wad for the year they spend the excess on junkets, conferences, parties, new equipment, ammo,...

 

[georgephillip]

I don't think government has to SUPPLY the job, but they can certainly offer incentives towards hiring.

That's what most of the Tea Brains don't understand about Taxes--they serve a dual purpose - funding public sector, incentives towards fiscal behavior.

I'm not a 'Tea Brain', but I totally get that. It's one of the most insidious abuses of state power. Taxation should be used to fund government equitably, not as a tool to dictate behavior.

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

 

[dblack]

I don't think government has to SUPPLY the job, but they can certainly offer incentives towards hiring.

That's what most of the Tea Brains don't understand about Taxes--they serve a dual purpose - funding public sector, incentives towards fiscal behavior.

I'm not a 'Tea Brain', but I totally get that. It's one of the most insidious abuses of state power. Taxation should be used to fund government equitably, not as a tool to dictate behavior.

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't think government has to SUPPLY the job, but they can certainly offer incentives towards hiring.

That's what most of the Tea Brains don't understand about Taxes--they serve a dual purpose - funding public sector, incentives towards fiscal behavior.

I'm not a 'Tea Brain', but I totally get that. It's one of the most insidious abuses of state power. Taxation should be used to fund government equitably, not as a tool to dictate behavior.

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm not a 'Tea Brain', but I totally get that. It's one of the most insidious abuses of state power. Taxation should be used to fund government equitably, not as a tool to dictate behavior.

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

Nothing. It's a set up question.
Answer in the affirmative, then the response is "Well then. Shouldn't government do( fill in the blank) as well?"
Georgephillip poster is a dyed in the wool socialist. He is anti freedom/liberty. He despises the concept of individual achievement. He spits at the notion that a person is more than capable of getting things done on his own.
His side is a bunch of frightened individuals who look to government to replace their mommy and daddy.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes we are, as we never recovered from 2008. They pumped up the Pyramid again just delaying the inevitable. Too Big to Fail is BS............

But who are the Too Big to Fail, Really. Possibly the 4 Horsemen of the Banking system.

The same ones who are primary stockholders of our currency and currencies around the globe. Who now have the power to generate Fiat currency any dang time they want. Which they absolutely did after the crash to a tune of 16 TRILLION from the discount window of the Federal Reserve which they own anyway.

None of this current debate will matter then. They will control everything which is exactly why they are doing this BS on purpose.

Will you be their serf after they basically destroy us. Will you beg for a job from the Gov't, a Gov't that does as they ask, or will you stand against them.

That will eventually be the choice, as they bring the whole dang system down.

They own you already. Your posts prove it. Wanting the very assholes who are doing this to be our saviors, and maybe they'll give us all a job.

Complete joke.

Try looking at it this way: Our political system (government) is failing because the rich have amassed fortunes large enough to buy out government. It doesn't matter if you "choose" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

In 2007 this nation's top 1% paid about 22.4% of their income in federal income taxes. If they paid 43.5% they would still have twice as much of national after-tax income as they had in 1970.

Like it or not, government is your only choice to fight the oligarchs. Elect legislators that tax rich individuals and corporations at the same rates as 1961, and the Treasury collects an additional $716 billion every year.

"In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally disappear over the next decade."

Deconstructing the ?Federal Debt Crisis? - RootsAction

And all the rich guys support the democrats... hmm..

After Democrats lost three straight presidential elections in the '80s, they decided rich guys ruled. You can't cure what's wrong with America by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not a 'Tea Brain', but I totally get that. It's one of the most insidious abuses of state power. Taxation should be used to fund government equitably, not as a tool to dictate behavior.

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

 

[RKMBrown]

Try looking at it this way: Our political system (government) is failing because the rich have amassed fortunes large enough to buy out government. It doesn't matter if you "choose" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

In 2007 this nation's top 1% paid about 22.4% of their income in federal income taxes. If they paid 43.5% they would still have twice as much of national after-tax income as they had in 1970.

Like it or not, government is your only choice to fight the oligarchs. Elect legislators that tax rich individuals and corporations at the same rates as 1961, and the Treasury collects an additional $716 billion every year.

"In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally disappear over the next decade."

Deconstructing the ?Federal Debt Crisis? - RootsAction

And all the rich guys support the democrats... hmm..

After Democrats lost three straight presidential elections in the '80s, they decided rich guys ruled. You can't cure what's wrong with America by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

Agreed!

 

[dblack]

Should government fund education efforts to warn citizens of the perils of ingesting tobacco products or other corporate environmental poisons?

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

 

[RKMBrown]

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Promote general welfare... sorry dude that cat was out of the bag at the start of this nation.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Promote the general welfare....

Lol. The leftist parasites believe this entitles them to endless govt support from cradle to grave....

Amusingly pathetic eh ?

 

[RKMBrown]

Promote the general welfare....

Lol. The leftist parasites believe this entitles them to endless govt support from cradle to grave....

Amusingly pathetic eh ?

Minor correction:

Pathetic is the fact that the amendments and acts of congress passed at the end of the civil war, and all subsequent generations after that, have resulted in our parasites being entitled to endless government support from cradle to grave.

Still more pathetic is that both parties support this crap. But yes at least the pubs pretend to be on the side of sanity from time to time even though they usually refuse to do a damn thing about it when they have the chance.

 

[dblack]

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Promote general welfare... sorry dude that cat was out of the bag at the start of this nation.

Not really. They clearly understood that the general welfare clause wasn't a general grant of power. It took some creative, and persistent, lawyering to cross that bridge. In any case, you're right in that we've become fairly invested in the welfare state. But we can push it back, if we want it bad enough.

 

[RKMBrown]

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Promote general welfare... sorry dude that cat was out of the bag at the start of this nation.

Not really. They clearly understood that the general welfare clause wasn't a general grant of power. It took some creative, and persistent, lawyering to cross that bridge. In any case, you're right in that we've become fairly invested in the welfare state. But we can push it back, if we want it bad enough.

Yeah well I could have been more specific. Promoting general welfare was a portion of the prefatory clause that explained why we have a Constitution.

My point was that social engineering is what the consitution is all about. Hell one could argue that the first ten amendments and all of the powers handed to the federal government, and/or states by exclusion, are all social engineering exercises.

However, I do recognize that individual welfare was not included in consitution as originally written.

Thus, my issue was with your use of the very broad term "social engineering" as there are many classifications of social engineering, such as ensuring due process of law to create a society in which the government can't run amok.

 

[dblack]

Promote general welfare... sorry dude that cat was out of the bag at the start of this nation.

Not really. They clearly understood that the general welfare clause wasn't a general grant of power. It took some creative, and persistent, lawyering to cross that bridge. In any case, you're right in that we've become fairly invested in the welfare state. But we can push it back, if we want it bad enough.

Yeah well I could have been more specific. Promoting general welfare was a portion of the prefatory clause that explained why we have a Constitution.

My point was that social engineering is what the consitution is all about. Hell one could argue that the first ten amendments and all of the powers handed to the federal government, and/or states by exclusion, are all social engineering exercises.

However, I do recognize that individual welfare was not included in consitution as originally written.

Thus, my issue was with your use of the very broad term "social engineering" as there are many classifications of social engineering, such as ensuring due process of law to create a society in which the government can't run amok.

I see. Well let me clarify. I wasn't complaining about social engineering in general, but rather the practice of using discriminatory taxation to implement it. We gave government the power to tax us in order to fund it's legitimate functions. Not so it could keep us jumping though hoops.

 

[georgephillip]

Beyond requiring vendors to be honest about the nature of the products they're selling, no. Regarding pollution of the environment, corporate or otherwise, yes - government has a key role to play in protecting the commons from damage.

Not sure what this has to do with the tax incentive/mandating issue.

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."

Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

Not really. They clearly understood that the general welfare clause wasn't a general grant of power. It took some creative, and persistent, lawyering to cross that bridge. In any case, you're right in that we've become fairly invested in the welfare state. But we can push it back, if we want it bad enough.

Yeah well I could have been more specific. Promoting general welfare was a portion of the prefatory clause that explained why we have a Constitution.

My point was that social engineering is what the consitution is all about. Hell one could argue that the first ten amendments and all of the powers handed to the federal government, and/or states by exclusion, are all social engineering exercises.

However, I do recognize that individual welfare was not included in consitution as originally written.

Thus, my issue was with your use of the very broad term "social engineering" as there are many classifications of social engineering, such as ensuring due process of law to create a society in which the government can't run amok.

I see. Well let me clarify. I wasn't complaining about social engineering in general, but rather the practice of using discriminatory taxation to implement it. We gave government the power to tax us in order to fund it's legitimate functions. Not so it could keep us jumping though hoops.

At this point pretty much all federal taxation is punitive, involuntary, and discriminatory.

Legitimate functions of our government now include murdering American citizens with drone strikes and seizing assets so you should be grateful to be alive and left with table scraps. Legitimate is one of those indefinite feel good words, like fairness, and affordable. It sounds good saying it but really it's up to the reader to fill in what it means based on their own personal view point.

Yes we have many problems. The first being how this government goes about enslaving workers by forcefully taking a % of their labor if they are stupid enough to report income over the minimum bar, thus moving them out of the majority into the minority. The second being how this government then goes about distributing said portion from said minority group, by order of the tyrannical democratic majority that has decided to line their pockets from the public purse. Bush really effed this country up when he set the tax rates to zero for half the country, WTF was he thinking?

 

[rightwinger]

Promote the general welfare....

Lol. The leftist parasites believe this entitles them to endless govt support from cradle to grave....

Amusingly pathetic eh ?

What would make you think that?

It means Congress does what is best for the country. Difficult concept to accept isn't it?

 

[Samson]

Promote the general welfare....

Lol. The leftist parasites believe this entitles them to endless govt support from cradle to grave....

Amusingly pathetic eh ?

What would make you think that?

It means Congress does what is best for the country. Difficult concept to accept isn't it?

Which Country?

Mexico?

 

[dblack]

I suppose it has something to do with how we "fund government equitably" without "dictating behavior."

It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".

Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?

"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."

Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.

The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.

All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.