In Which We Rehash Basic Libertarianism, and Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Come Back to Life! - Politics and Economics

Increasing the debt to perpetuate the illusion of economic prosperity is different from the economy actually doing well.

It's long been time to cut government, rather than increase taxes.

Quote:

As far as spending goes, the big problem is with priorities, not the amount of spending.

And the big Dem proposal, M4A, isn't really new spending for the most part. It's mostly just a shift in where the money goes.

How about letting individuals keep more of their own money and prioritize their own personal spending, rather than government essentially steal it from them at gunpoint?

02-07-2019 , 04:30 PM

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,683

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

It's long been time to cut government

What should be cut?

Be very specific.

02-07-2019 , 04:38 PM

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyebooger

What should be cut?

Be very specific.

Everything. The only things left should be:

- Military
- Judicial branch, but federal courts would be smaller with drugs legal
- Legislative branch
- Executive branch, but without all the unnecessary bureaucracies
- Social Security & Medicare, because they would need to be phased out

Of course, this would need to go hand in hand with:

- Ceasing all the endless, unnecessary wars
- Legalizing drugs
- Much-simplified tax code

02-07-2019 , 04:40 PM

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Counterpoint: The US Gov should be much bigger and do more and by doing so would make a lot more people happier and better off.

02-07-2019 , 04:48 PM

Paul D

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 14,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by uDevil

Is it even a rw talking point anymore?

I present to you the deficit hawk and "taxation is theft" rw type as evidence.

02-07-2019 , 04:49 PM

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Counterpoint: The US Gov should be much bigger and do more and by doing so would make a lot more people happier and better off.

This sounds like utopian drivel.

The most difficult problem to solve is that many of the wealthiest people have gotten much of their wealth through corruption, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, etc. When you go to tax those people on their high income and/or wealth, how are you going to avoid:

- penalizing those that legitimately earned their wealth?
- preventing top earners and wealthiest from creating tax shelters and/or moving their wealth to different countries where they pay little/no tax?

02-07-2019 , 04:51 PM

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

Sounds like a libertarian dystopia. I thank you for your contribution to this forum, but I think I would have to pass on this.

02-07-2019 , 04:52 PM

Zimmer4141

Wet

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 33,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

1. Who Cares. They should still pay more in taxes. It's better for everybody.

2. Make penalties for it. The fact that the most powerful military in world history allows countries to act as tax shelters says more about the people in charge of deciding such things than our ability to act on them. If the US Government wanted to pass laws eliminating tax shelters, they could.

02-07-2019 , 04:55 PM

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

If deficits and debt don't matter, why don't we just give each adult a few million $, and increase minimum wage to ~$350/hour?

It's sad that so many have so little understanding of economics.

02-07-2019 , 04:57 PM

#10

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

It's literally happening in the world right now. There are countries that have larger government spending to GDP ratios and have better metrics than the US. That's, by definition, not utopian.

It's even historical. The US elderly population's poverty rate was much higher before Social Security than after it. More government spending reduced the elderly poverty rate!

02-07-2019 , 04:58 PM

#11

Paul D

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 14,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

If deficits and debt don't matter, why don't we just give each adult a few million $, and increase minimum wage to ~$350/hour?

It's sad that so many have so little understanding of economics.

You're spazzing.

02-07-2019 , 05:04 PM

#12

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuffle

Deficits don't matter:

https://www.businessinsider.com/alex...olicies-2019-1

I like her, but this is about as dumb as it gets.

Stick to social issues and high taxes for wealthy and corporations, please.

Obviously they only matter when Dems are in charge of the spending...

02-07-2019 , 05:05 PM

#13

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimmer4141

1. Who Cares. They should still pay more in taxes. It's better for everybody.

Why is it better for everybody for a centralized authority to make decisions about what is valuable and what is not... and who gets more and who gets less? What is wrong with individualism?

Quote:

2. Make penalties for it. The fact that the most powerful military in world history allows countries to act as tax shelters says more about the people in charge of deciding such things than our ability to act on them. If the US Government wanted to pass laws eliminating tax shelters, they could.

That would seem a viable solution, but the very wealthy also hold the power and dictate the rules, and they don't seem apt to break that vicious cycle. So how would one expect such a solution to transpire, other than through actual revolution?

02-07-2019 , 05:11 PM

#14

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

Why is it better for everybody for a centralized authority to make decisions about what is valuable and what is not... and who gets more and who gets less? What is wrong with individualism?

Individuals don't do much really. All the cool stuff in our society is the result of groups of people pooling their resources to accomplish said stuff. There is nothing preventing you from moving to the wilderness, getting off the grid, and living your lone wolf life.

02-07-2019 , 05:13 PM

#15

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

It's literally happening in the world right now. There are countries that have larger government spending to GDP ratios and have better metrics than the US. That's, by definition, not utopian.

They probably aren't embracing the role of "world's policeman." The U.S. used to have much better relative metrics, before it became increasingly socialist.

Quote:

It's even historical. The US elderly population's poverty rate was much higher before Social Security than after it. More government spending reduced the elderly poverty rate!

The overall poverty rate has basically held steady for the past ~50 years, despite dramatic increases in government spending.

02-07-2019 , 05:13 PM

#16

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

By shrinking the size of government of course!!!

02-07-2019 , 05:14 PM

#17

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

I can't add "hurr durr" because IMPROVED FORUM but consider it implied there

02-07-2019 , 05:15 PM

#18

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

The overall poverty rate has basically held steady for the past ~50 years, despite dramatic increases in government spending.

Do you have a source for this hot take?

02-07-2019 , 05:16 PM

#19

Shame Trolly !!!1!

Neo-Gorean

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 4,839

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

Why is it better for everybody for a centralized authority to make decisions about what is valuable and what is not...

Walmart is a centralized authority. It's a whole lot bigger in economic scope, and as a centralized authority, than a whole lotta nation-states.

Are you advocating breaking up Walmart?

If so, why? If not, why not?

02-07-2019 , 05:17 PM

#20

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

I mean,

1. The Oligarchy basically runs the country, and they do whatever the **** they want at the expense of the vast majority below them on the wealth ladder

2. We SHRINK GOVERNMENT down to a skeleton crew

3. <Underpants gnomes>

4. The Oligarchy decides to "break the vicious cycle."

That about right?

02-07-2019 , 05:18 PM

#21

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but "groups of people pooling their resources" sounds like:

- multiple individuals
- voluntarily combining their resources (financial, physical, intellectual, etc.)

You make it sound as if without government taxation and spending, individuals wouldn't voluntarily combine some resources at the time/place/frequency of their choosing to pursue common goals. Human history has not shown this to be true.

02-07-2019 , 05:23 PM

#22

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!

No, because Walmart is not mandating that anyone shop at their stores.

The main problem with large corporations is that they can and do lobby the government for resources, laws, etc., most/all of which are only available due to the scope of federal government beyond its constitutional bounds.

02-07-2019 , 05:25 PM

#23

AllInNTheDark

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,256

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

Do you have a source for this hot take?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert..._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern...ending_GDP.png

02-07-2019 , 05:26 PM

#24

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

Why is it better for everybody for a centralized authority to make decisions about what is valuable and what is not... and who gets more and who gets less? What is wrong with individualism?

Allow your point is valid for the moment. We could, in principle, structure wealth so that the gaps between those who produce the most value and the rest of us is much smaller. i.e same place in wealth hierarchy as now but everyone closer together.

I'm allowing your point so please allow mine that this could be achieved. Wouldn't this be a lot better? Still rewarding value, still incentives to rise the hierarchy, much more equality

02-07-2019 , 05:26 PM

#25

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllInNTheDark

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. Please list an “individual” who has accomplished anything major with benefiting from government taxing and spending.

Page 1 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 11

Last

...

Page 1 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 11

Last