Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 742763 times)

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1200 on: March 18, 2016, 05:27:56 PM »
Okay, sorry for the double post (two different political threads on the MMM forum), but this clip is too hilarious to miss.  All of the audio really is Donald Trump at his campaign rallies/speeches, and as the comedians point out, he really does sound like a drunk guy rambling on about himself and his plans.  America, please save us from this!  https://www.facebook.com/frienddogstudios/videos/1627096487540629/

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3813
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1201 on: March 18, 2016, 06:02:06 PM »

So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos.


I think you are presuming too much by assuming that the Repubs give a damn about chaos.

Oh, I'm not presuming that, trust me! Definitely the activist wing doesn't care about chaos. The rumors were that the establishment types (McConnell, Ryan, and Co.) and some of the Republican governors breathed a big sigh of relief about the second court decision...but the base won't let it rest so I imagine the Establishment types viewed it more as 'at least we don't have to deal with this on top of an upcoming presidential election season' sort of thing.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1202 on: March 18, 2016, 06:19:25 PM »

So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos.


I think you are presuming too much by assuming that the Repubs give a damn about chaos.

Oh, I'm not presuming that, trust me! Definitely the activist wing doesn't care about chaos.

To be perfectly honest, I don't either.  As far as I'm concerned, the ACA is deeply flawed, and I don't want it fixed.  No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.  Positive rights do not exist, life is not fair, buck up Buckaroo.  This all leads to chaos sooner or later, and sooner is probably better in the long run anyway, so I might as well enjoy the show in the meantime.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1203 on: March 19, 2016, 07:59:20 AM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another.  Do you think all taxes are evil?

Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents?  Should parents just abandon their children?

Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?

I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet.  Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23407
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1204 on: March 19, 2016, 09:33:14 AM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another.  Do you think all taxes are evil?

Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents?  Should parents just abandon their children?

Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?

I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet.  Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.

What if you make a contract?

Say a baker agrees to trade a loaf of bread for a horseshoe from a blacksmith.  After the baker hands over his loaf of bread, does he not have a right to the horseshoe from the blacksmith?

There are absolutely cases where you have the right to the labour of someone else, which easily invalidate the silliness that Moonshandow typed.  In the case of choosing to live in a free society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the rules of that society in order to reap the benefits.  Refusing to do that is violating your societal contract.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1205 on: March 19, 2016, 02:51:06 PM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
No I don't.  The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax.  Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War.  There were also some usage taxes.  The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc.  Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.  So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes.  Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river.  The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed.  Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another.  I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.

Quote
Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents?  Should parents just abandon their children?
A child has the right to be cared for, because s/he exists by reason of actions by his parents, thus imposing an obligation upon them.  But only them, not society at large.  I have an obligation to my children, because I literally signed a contract to that effect when I adopted them.  In addition to signing it, the judge that oversaw the adoptions (in every case) made very certain to ask my wife & I, "You do understand that (name) becomes your child in every way under the law, as if s/he was born to you?
Quote
Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?
Felons should be required to pay restitution to victims (and their families), not to the state.  If prison labor resulted in restitution payment to the victims, forced labor can be justified due to the (already proven) actions taken by the felons.  If restitution is not paid out of that labor, than forced labor cannot be justified.
Quote

I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet.  Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.

As you can already see, I most certainly have thought this through quite well, as have many others before me.  Of course an obligation can be imposed upon others in many ways, but all of them include the willful actions of those upon those obligations have been imposed, beyond the simple act of working for a living.  In addition to the felon that creates an obligation due to the harm s/he has created upon others, the borrower incurs an obligation by agreeing to repay the lender, and the newlywed has incurred an obligation to honor the marital pact in exchange for the benefits that such a personal commitment brings.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1206 on: March 19, 2016, 03:05:23 PM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another.  Do you think all taxes are evil?

Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents?  Should parents just abandon their children?

Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?

I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet.  Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.

What if you make a contract?

Say a baker agrees to trade a loaf of bread for a horseshoe from a blacksmith.  After the baker hands over his loaf of bread, does he not have a right to the horseshoe from the blacksmith?

There are absolutely cases where you have the right to the labour of someone else, which easily invalidate the silliness that Moonshandow typed.  In the case of choosing to live in a free society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the rules of that society in order to reap the benefits.  Refusing to do that is violating your societal contract.

There is no such thing as a social contract.  Both yourself & Sol have a strong bias against this line of thinking, for reasons that I do not understand.  But you are, evidently, unable to imagine how a free society actually works.  Your example above with the blacksmith & the baker is called an 'implicit contract', wherein both parties to an exchange have agreed to terms, often defined by custom not ink on paper, and those implicit contracts are enforceable.  We all engage in these implicit contracts every day.  When you enter into Starbucks seeking your morning latte & stand at the counter to tell the barrista what you want, you have just engaged into an implicit contract to pay the amount of currency posted on the menu board for that latte.  If you refuse to pay that price, or if the barrista tries to impose an afore-unmentioned additional charge; then one of you has violated that particular implicit contract.  Yet there exists no such contract simply by virtue of you being born in this society and choosing to remain here; in every case you have to do something in particular to invoke the obligation of an implicit contract.  In this particular case, that would be the act of entering into a Starbucks and asking the barrista for the latte.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1207 on: March 19, 2016, 03:23:15 PM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another.  Do you think all taxes are evil?

Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents?  Should parents just abandon their children?

Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?

I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet.  Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.

What if you make a contract?

Say a baker agrees to trade a loaf of bread for a horseshoe from a blacksmith.  After the baker hands over his loaf of bread, does he not have a right to the horseshoe from the blacksmith?

There are absolutely cases where you have the right to the labour of someone else, which easily invalidate the silliness that Moonshandow typed.  In the case of choosing to live in a free society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the rules of that society in order to reap the benefits.  Refusing to do that is violating your societal contract.

There is no such thing as a social contract.  Both yourself & Sol have a strong bias against this line of thinking, for reasons that I do not understand.  But you are, evidently, unable to imagine how a free society actually works.  Your example above with the blacksmith & the baker is called an 'implicit contract', wherein both parties to an exchange have agreed to terms, often defined by custom not ink on paper, and those implicit contracts are enforceable.  We all engage in these implicit contracts every day.  When you enter into Starbucks seeking your morning latte & stand at the counter to tell the barrista what you want, you have just engaged into an implicit contract to pay the amount of currency posted on the menu board for that latte.  If you refuse to pay that price, or if the barrista tries to impose an afore-unmentioned additional charge; then one of you has violated that particular implicit contract.  Yet there exists no such contract simply by virtue of you being born in this society and choosing to remain here; in every case you have to do something in particular to invoke the obligation of an implicit contract.  In this particular case, that would be the act of entering into a Starbucks and asking the barrista for the latte.

You live in a society where you have little crime, someone to come hose your house down if it starts on fire, reasonable roads and the privilege of driving (or riding your bike) on them, the right to decide the direction of government by voting for candidates and initiatives and/or running for office yourself. Libraries. A safety net in case you're permanently disabled. Clean water. Defense from foreign enemies.

None of that is free, and the particular thing you do to invoke the obligation of the implicit social contract is to continue living in whatever country you're living in, presumably the United States.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 03:27:46 PM by protostache »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1208 on: March 19, 2016, 04:04:06 PM »

You live in a society where you have little crime, someone to come hose your house down if it starts on fire, reasonable roads and the privilege of driving (or riding your bike) on them

I pay property taxes and fire insurance to pay for these things.  The first is an example of an implicit contract, the second of an explicit one.

Quote

, the right to decide the direction of government by voting for candidates and initiatives and/or running for office yourself.
More taxes.

Quote
Libraries.
More taxes.

Quote

 A safety net in case you're permanently disabled.
Different taxes.

Quote

 Clean water.
Explicit contract, service agreement.

Quote
Defense from foreign enemies.
More taxes, and I served myself.

Quote

None of that is free,

Obviously, the costs are beside the point.  There is not a single 'social contract' that I have agreed to by living here.  If you disagree, point to it.  You can't, because it does not exist.  Even if it did (such as the theory that the US constitution was a social contract) then it has already been violated repeatedly by others before me, and I am certainly not under any obligation to uphold whatever part of the deal was supposedly mine.

Quote

and the particular thing you do to invoke the obligation of the implicit social contract is to continue living in whatever country you're living in, presumably the United States.

Nope, because there isn't an exchange that occurs there.  You see, the concept of a social contract is impossible, because it implies an exchange of some kind.  In other words, if you do this for me, I do this for you.  You can make the argument that I must practically engage in a number of implicit (and explicit) agreements to live in the US; but you cannot make the argument that I'm obligated into those implicit contracts by reason of existing.  I do not owe society (at large) anything, and neither do you.  In every case, you owe some particular institution or individual an obligation; and often even those are imaginary, or at-least entirely self-imposed.  You do not owe your birth-nation any loyalty, but if you grant it anyway, you do so entirely of your own will, and cannot impose an obligation upon society for doing so.

As for voting in a democracy; the US is not, and has never been, a democracy.  It was (originally) a republic by the consent of the governed.  I do not owe my ongoing consent either, and have withdrawn my consent decades ago.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1209 on: March 19, 2016, 07:19:55 PM »
Bernie would create an even bigger mountain of people dependent on the government.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7373
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1210 on: March 20, 2016, 08:15:45 AM »
An interesting take on why Evangelicals love Trump, written by an Evangelical minister.

http://tcpca.org/2016/03/17/in-love-with-donald-trump/

Edit: forgot the effing link...
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 11:07:33 AM by Kris »

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1211 on: March 20, 2016, 09:55:43 AM »
Clinton would sell out the United States to China, just like her old man did when he sold out the middle class by signing NAFTA.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7373
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1212 on: March 20, 2016, 11:08:27 AM »
Here is Politifact's ranking of how truthful each of the remaining candidates have been in their statements, as of March 15:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/15/presidential-scorecards-so-far-march-15-2016/

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7373

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1214 on: March 20, 2016, 12:10:50 PM »
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Agree.  Good article.  One of my senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Even though it's not going to change his mind, I'm going to write to him to encourage him to give Judge Garland a hearing.  If you feel so inclined to follow suit, here is the list of members:  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3378
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1215 on: March 20, 2016, 12:33:08 PM »
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Agree.  Good article.  One of my senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Even though it's not going to change his mind, I'm going to write to him to encourage him to give Judge Garland a hearing.  If you feel so inclined to follow suit, here is the list of members:  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

This may be getting to be a bit of a tangent, but with Republicans looking at 24 open seats in the Senate this time around and the Senate playing a big role in filling that seat, keeping the SCOTUS seat in play into 2017 could be political calculus aimed at keeping those Senate seats red. "If you don't vote for me, the liberals will get a majority in the Senate and can vote in any liberal activist judge they want to act on<insert conservative dog whistle issue>."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2016

And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1216 on: March 20, 2016, 06:54:15 PM »
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Agree.  Good article.  One of my senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Even though it's not going to change his mind, I'm going to write to him to encourage him to give Judge Garland a hearing.  If you feel so inclined to follow suit, here is the list of members:  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

This may be getting to be a bit of a tangent, but with Republicans looking at 24 open seats in the Senate this time around and the Senate playing a big role in filling that seat, keeping the SCOTUS seat in play into 2017 could be political calculus aimed at keeping those Senate seats red. "If you don't vote for me, the liberals will get a majority in the Senate and can vote in any liberal activist judge they want to act on<insert conservative dog whistle issue>."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2016

And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."

Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.

I don't think the current obstruction is aimed at keeping the Senate red, if anything it jeopardizes that proposition as it's not the red states that they have to be concerned about, but the purple state Senate seats that are threatened. Enough so, that one Republican holding one of those seats has already called out his fellow Republicans out for refusing to hold hearings.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-kirk-vote-merrick-garland

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1217 on: March 21, 2016, 02:02:21 PM »
Back from my small vacation,

It still seems it will still be Clinton vs Trump and Clinton will take general.
Some chance for Cruz and Kasich, very small chance for Sanders.

General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)

So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1218 on: March 21, 2016, 02:19:54 PM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
No I don't.  The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax.  Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War.  There were also some usage taxes.  The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc.  Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.  So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes.  Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river.  The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed.  Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another.  I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1219 on: March 21, 2016, 05:26:37 PM »
General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)

So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.

This is pretty meaningless, though, when it comes down to it. You can't make any predictions about how the general will turn out unless you have state-by-state polling.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1220 on: March 21, 2016, 06:34:46 PM »
General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)

So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.

This is pretty meaningless, though, when it comes down to it. You can't make any predictions about how the general will turn out unless you have state-by-state polling.
I don't think it's meaningless, it sort of matches favorability ratings which are also not meaningless. I'm pretty sure if the general election were today, Clinton would beat Trump, Kasich would beat Clinton, and Sanders would beat both Trump and Cruz. I think Trump and Cruz would lose most swing states while Sanders and Kasich would win most swing states.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1221 on: March 21, 2016, 09:39:48 PM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
No I don't.  The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax.  Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War.  There were also some usage taxes.  The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc.  Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.  So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes.  Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river.  The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed.  Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another.  I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.

The US didn't have nearly the infrastructure, in part, because it didn't have nearly the population required to justify that infrastructure.  One of the oldest locks, and the oldest hydroelectric power plant, on the Ohio River (maybe the who nation) is about 25 miles downriver from my current location.  It still manages an enormous about of cargo throughput.  As for the rest of it; do you think we could afford a social safety net (not SS or Medicare, they both suck) if we did not buy those planes, jets, tanks, destroyers & aircraft carriers?  And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1222 on: March 22, 2016, 06:35:38 AM »
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it. 

Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
No I don't.  The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax.  Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War.  There were also some usage taxes.  The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc.  Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.  So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes.  Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river.  The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed.  Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another.  I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.

The US didn't have nearly the infrastructure, in part, because it didn't have nearly the population required to justify that infrastructure.  One of the oldest locks, and the oldest hydroelectric power plant, on the Ohio River (maybe the who nation) is about 25 miles downriver from my current location.  It still manages an enormous about of cargo throughput.  As for the rest of it; do you think we could afford a social safety net (not SS or Medicare, they both suck) if we did not buy those planes, jets, tanks, destroyers & aircraft carriers?  And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

Actually, it wasn't like just turning on some switch. It took time to gear up industrially to produce arms and equipment on the fly. And that was a nation with an economy that was more geared towards manufacturing, much different nation than we are today. The idea that the United State can or even should somehow magically regress to the condition it was in prior to WWI is naive at best. Believe it or not, the U.S. and the world is in a much better place today than it was prior to WWI or even WWII for that matter.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1223 on: March 22, 2016, 07:16:58 AM »
Back from my small vacation,

It still seems it will still be Clinton vs Trump and Clinton will take general.
Some chance for Cruz and Kasich, very small chance for Sanders.

General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)

So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map?  A candidate can win the popular vote but loose the election. Likewise, the popular vote can be within 2-3% percentage points but the outcome can be a landslide.

Also - which 'general election polling' are you pulling these data from?  (source?)

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1224 on: March 22, 2016, 07:50:05 AM »
Back from my small vacation,

It still seems it will still be Clinton vs Trump and Clinton will take general.
Some chance for Cruz and Kasich, very small chance for Sanders.

General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)

So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map?  A candidate can win the popular vote but loose the election. Likewise, the popular vote can be within 2-3% percentage points but the outcome can be a landslide.

Also - which 'general election polling' are you pulling these data from?  (source?)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
A candidate could also win the popular vote in every state and still lose the election, but as I said before, and it could be a coincidence, but I think it's fairly accurate on who would beat who

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1225 on: March 22, 2016, 08:16:21 AM »
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map? 

To echo other posters in this thread, realclearpolitics presents a compilation of all known polling data including statistical relevance of each poll and including state by state breakdowns, and they are predicting that Trump would lose the popular vote by 6-12% and would lose the electoral college vote by much more.  Go check out the provided links, if you haven't already.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1226 on: March 22, 2016, 08:28:28 AM »
While I'm in the "legitimate criticisms" thread, I should mention that The Economist now ranks a possible Trump Presidency as among the greatest near term threats to world economy, right up there with China destabilizing their currency, dissolution of the EU, and a new cold war with Russia.

Read all about it:  https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1227 on: March 22, 2016, 09:28:23 AM »
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."
Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.

Appointing a criminal defense attorney (as opposed to someone who's previously been a judge, which usually implies they started out as a prosecutor) would be a nice change of pace, actually.

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1228 on: March 22, 2016, 09:57:19 AM »
Wow,
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner
these predictions show it is just as likely that Trump will be president, as he'll run as an independent, that's messed up.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1229 on: March 22, 2016, 09:58:02 AM »
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."
Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.

Appointing a criminal defense attorney (as opposed to someone who's previously been a judge, which usually implies they started out as a prosecutor) would be a nice change of pace, actually.

Just to be clear, "pushing up daisies" = Johnny Cochran is dead.  He died of a brain tumor in 2004.  (Also, prosecutor OR corporate lawyer is the most common category of people nominated for federal judgeship, but it is still not a majority.)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 10:00:10 AM by LeRainDrop »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1230 on: March 22, 2016, 10:04:29 AM »
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map? 

To echo other posters in this thread, realclearpolitics presents a compilation of all known polling data including statistical relevance of each poll and including state by state breakdowns, and they are predicting that Trump would lose the popular vote by 6-12% and would lose the electoral college vote by much more.  Go check out the provided links, if you haven't already.

Thanks Sol.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1231 on: March 22, 2016, 11:03:44 AM »
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."
Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.

Appointing a criminal defense attorney (as opposed to someone who's previously been a judge, which usually implies they started out as a prosecutor) would be a nice change of pace, actually.

Just to be clear, "pushing up daisies" = Johnny Cochran is dead.  He died of a brain tumor in 2004.  (Also, prosecutor OR corporate lawyer is the most common category of people nominated for federal judgeship, but it is still not a majority.)

Yeah, that's why I was referring to a "criminal defense attorney" in general, not Johnny Cochran in particular.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1232 on: March 22, 2016, 11:26:31 AM »
This was my dose of sanity for today, another top notch David Wong article. 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-things-politicians-hope-you-forget-every-election-year/

We had a nice sneak preview of the type of ad that Trump is going to use on Clinton. 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-posts-anti-clinton-ad-instagram 

Just a class act this guy is. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1233 on: March 22, 2016, 12:02:44 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1234 on: March 22, 2016, 12:14:45 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1235 on: March 22, 2016, 12:21:18 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

Because innuendo that our current government might NOT be constitutional is classic FUD for those people who don't like the way things are but don't really have a good leg to stand on in terms of the ACTUAL Constitution.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1236 on: March 22, 2016, 12:28:07 PM »
And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Oops, never mind. I read an extra "don't" where it did not exist and thought you said exactly the opposite of what you actually said.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1237 on: March 22, 2016, 12:31:45 PM »
This was my dose of sanity for today, another top notch David Wong article. 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-things-politicians-hope-you-forget-every-election-year/

We had a nice sneak preview of the type of ad that Trump is going to use on Clinton. 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-posts-anti-clinton-ad-instagram 

Just a class act this guy is.

That cracked article was goood. biggest reason i switched to republic wireless was b/c the only thing I knew I could do (short of getting rid of cell phone all together) was to pay them(phone companies that cooperate with NSA) the least amount possible.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1238 on: March 22, 2016, 01:05:52 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect. 

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1239 on: March 22, 2016, 01:39:39 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
No we don't have to keep the income tax, but we are going to.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1240 on: March 22, 2016, 01:42:44 PM »

And don't tell me that we need them, either.  We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.

You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!

And how would that be me contradicting myself?  My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2.  In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
No we don't have to keep the income tax, but we are going to.

Why?  What does it do for you?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1241 on: March 22, 2016, 01:44:17 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1242 on: March 22, 2016, 01:47:06 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1243 on: March 22, 2016, 01:54:15 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1244 on: March 22, 2016, 02:08:18 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidates

*With the exception of Gary Johnson
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 02:10:35 PM by Jeremy E. »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17694
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1245 on: March 22, 2016, 02:22:13 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidates

*With the exception of Gary Johnson

Ok, I found the part where MoonShadow advocated excise and sin taxes (quote below) to fund the government.  I still do not udnerstand why that question could be considered criticism.
Quote
Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War.  There were also some usage taxes.  The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc.  Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.

From my perspective, levying an income tax is far more fair than deciding that certain items should be taxed and other should not.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1246 on: March 22, 2016, 02:27:38 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.

The reason that the 16th amendment was required at all, was because the framers regarded the direct taxation of a citizen's labor wages to be immoral.  They used property taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, 'sin' taxes (on alcohol, tobacco & heroin, etc), and locally sales taxes to fund the functions of governments.  Some states did have income taxes, but some did not, and still don't.  They are acceptable forms of taxes under a libertarian viewpoint because they do not demand a portion of a man's basic subsistence, only a portion of his luxuries, comforts or fortunes (property taxes, sin taxes & inheritance taxes; respectively).  Granted, it's easy to make the argument that the modern progressive income tax, with the guaranteed minimum deduction, works out to the same ends; but it only does so today due to decades of modifications, and it still favors those who can afford a well educated tax professional's services.  I just think that it would be better to destroy the income tax, and return to a straightforward set of transaction taxes (which is what all those I mentioned really are, taxes upon particular types of transactions) with the open purpose of funding the functions of government from what those transaction taxes can bring in.  I don't consider this likely, however, because those transaction taxes have always lain heavier upon the wealthy in the US, and they are very good at protecting that wealth and influencing legislation towards that end, which is how we got the 16th in the first place.  Who here could argue against the idea that the current system favors income from investing over wages?  Most of us make incredible use of those quirks, myself included.  I don't think it's really fair, but I'm still going to take advantage of it so long as it persists.  I'm not that interested in changing the tax status quo.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1247 on: March 22, 2016, 02:29:52 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidates

*With the exception of Gary Johnson

since when is this thread a criticism of presidential candidates???

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1248 on: March 22, 2016, 02:39:55 PM »

From my perspective, levying an income tax is far more fair than deciding that certain items should be taxed and other should not.

But we do that anyway.  State sales taxes typically exempt groceries bought at a grocery store, but still tax prepared food served at a restaurant.  Why?  Because eating out is a luxury, and taxing basic food needs seems wrong to us.  Taxing activity that the common man must engaging into in order to live; working for a daily wage, buying groceries to feed his kids, etc.; feels wrong at a basic level.  But that is what an income tax does, at least absent the standard deduction, but the standard deduction didn't exist until 1944, and even then maxed out at $1K until 1969; so it's a relatively recent fix to the naturally regressive nature of the 'progressive' income tax.  Just another band-aid to a broken idea.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #1249 on: March 22, 2016, 02:41:48 PM »

Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?

We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point.  The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government.  And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?

I already listed them.  If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
how is that a criticism?  It's a straightforward question.  If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidates

*With the exception of Gary Johnson

since when is this thread a criticism of presidential candidates???

Never.  I thought the title was deliberately ironic, since both major viewpoints have completely different concepts about what are 'legitimate' criticisms.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!