Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

6981 - 7000 of 8111 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Well said @goddom. However, I have to disagree on some points.
The Feral Government is exceptionally limited by the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment spells that out very clearly. Unfortunately, we the lemmings (of both parties) have allowed them to get away with much more than we should.
The U.S. Constitution mentions only 3 crimes- Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting Currency. Indeed, murder is not specifically called out but..... Article 1 Sec. 8 empowers the Congress to make all laws necessary for executing its other powers and those of the federal government. Also known as the "necessary & proper clause". Seeing as the Constitution guarantees equal protection against the deprivation of life and liberty under the 14th Amendment, it enters "federal" territory. But not always. Murder in itself is NOT a federal offense. It is actually a State crime. Unless certain other circumstances are met (crossing borders, abduction..) it is a crime tried by the State and not the U.S. government.
I will wholeheartedly agree with you on campaign purchasing....er funding. That is what happens when being a politician is considered a career and not a service. While it will never happen in my lifetime, I would be elated to have term limits in Congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I was doing some pondering on this and I can't see this happening or being financially feasible. If the top one percent of folk (essentially those with over 480K AGI) currently pay more taxes than the bottom 90%, about 40% of all taxes IIRC. The top .1% pay approximately 20% of all tax revenue. The top .01% pay about 9% and the top .001% pay over 3% of total tax revenue. I would think that the US treasury income would drop so drastically under this sales tax that the government couldn't function, even if it cut its expenditures by 50%. The top 1% just wouldn't buy enough stuff to generate the income. There aren't enough of them and their numbers aren't linear. Just the way I see it, I could be way off base.
There are a lot of moving parts to this change, valid points for the income tax you're referring to, but there are many other taxes all of which would be rolled up into the fair tax, applied to our 19 trillion GDP.

Of course there are ways folks could avoid the fair tax legally if they prefer to purchase second hand products, but more likely middle and high income folks would still prefer new versus used.

Huge reductions in burden and interference on society by many national and state agencies, assuming the states adopted a similar model, would help too.

More information here: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Agreed, the constitution gave the states a lot of rights to create their own laws - so murder, rape, theft, speeding, etc is all controlled at a state level and congress can make necessary laws. My point being to others who say "well this isn't in the constitution so it shouldn't be illegal" isn't understanding the intent of the document.

I agree, the constitution does try and limit the federal government to a certain extent - partly for fear of falling into a authoritarian government and partly because the states should be able to better understand the needs of their constituents so instead of having blanket laws that cover numerous communities, cultural groups etc the laws can be tailored a little more closely to what each state needs.

As for term limits I think there are pluses and minuses to term limits. Career politicians seem to get wrapped up in the corruption and the establishment. However, they are now experienced - they know how the system works - how to write laws, manage their offices, etc. There is a learning curve to any job - so forcing new blood into the system you are going to get basically rookies on a regular basis. Congressmen have a term of only 2 years, so basically once they know their job they are up for re-election. Maybe not a bad idea to have term limits but allow them to be 12-18 years in office. That would prevent someone going for 30-40yrs in office, but at least they can get through the learning curve and hopefully be effective for a few terms before they limit out. Another down side is there will be many more retired politicians - which we pay them a pension and health insurance... So there will be more politicians on the pay roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
FAIRTax, it sounds good on paper but I don't see how it will actually work. Most rich people are rich because they actually don't - this may sound weird - buy a lot of stuff. They save lots of money, in vest a lot of money and what they spend, though its a lot compared to you and I, its only a small fraction of their actual income. I assume that Corporations who actually tend to buy a lot of things to do business would actually carry most of the tax burden under this plan. So will the middle class who tend to live paycheck to pay check. This may drive more people to buy second hand, or companies to sell things as second hand... I would have to do a little more research on this and not from the website that is trying to sell this idea. I would be interested to hear what people who oppose this idea have to say as well. They are going to tell you where the holes are in this proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
..... I would have to do a little more research on this and not from the website that is trying to sell this idea. I would be interested to hear what people who oppose this idea have to say as well. They are going to tell you where the holes are in this proposal.
Please do, you'll find many vested interests that disagree with the concept because it affects their bread & butter, specifically lawyers, accountants and enrolled agents involved in taxation.

Academic institutional reviews vary according the the guiding philosophy of the university, resulting in not so ~unbiased~ opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Please do, you'll find many vested interests that disagree with the concept because it affects their bread & butter, specifically lawyers, accountants and enrolled agents involved in taxation.

Academic institutional reviews vary according the the guiding philosophy of the university, resulting in not so ~unbiased~ opinions.
You can say that about anything. Maybe the people who are promoting this tax plan are rich people who know their overall tax burden will be decreased significantly....

It sounds like this is something the Bush administration thought about doing but declined because studies show its a regressive tax - meaning people who send the largest percentage of their income will be hit hardest. That just makes sense. The middle class spend the highest percentage of their income. The rich (or wealthy) who make more than $150k/yr spend less than half their income and that number goes DOWN as their income level goes up. So in effect - just basing on these two numbers, it would appear that the tax would hit the middle class harder than any other group.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/05/27/the-trouble-with-the-fairtax/#41816c6b5d7b
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
My point being to others who say "well this isn't in the constitution so it shouldn't be illegal" isn't understanding the intent of the document.


As for term limits I think there are pluses and minuses to term limits. Career politicians seem to get wrapped up in the corruption and the establishment. However, they are now experienced - they know how the system works - how to write laws, manage their offices, etc. There is a learning curve to any job - so forcing new blood into the system you are going to get basically rookies on a regular basis. Congressmen have a term of only 2 years, so basically once they know their job they are up for re-election. Maybe not a bad idea to have term limits but allow them to be 12-18 years in office. That would prevent someone going for 30-40yrs in office, but at least they can get through the learning curve and hopefully be effective for a few terms before they limit out. Another down side is there will be many more retired politicians - which we pay them a pension and health insurance... So there will be more politicians on the pay roll.
Oh, I'm picking up what you're laying down. I am a firm Constitutionalist (and formally a liberal) and have seen that argument come from both ends of the political spectrum. Just because it isn't in the document does not mean it cannot be illegal... As long as it does not contradict the Constitution. Conversely, it also does not mean that what is in the Constitution applies to individuals (freedom of speech, for instance).
See, I was thinking a 10 year limit on terms for the House and 12 for Senate. Partly because it would prevent one from switching chambers immediately after their term ends. So far as the pension goes, I think that is sort of a wash. One serving 6 years is entitled to only $17,000 a year. One serving 10 years is entitled to around $47,000. However, a 30 year veteran of Congress walks away with nearly $140,000 per year. Though, they may not have that many years left after they retire.
I get the learning curve, but maybe....just maybe, we need fresh meat that is not savvy to the reindeer games played in the white stone halls of our government. The reason they are all in cahoots now is because they have all been participating in circle fests with each other for decades.
It wont happen though. They are the ones that would have to make the law. No way they would vote themselves out of a job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
There are definitely pros and cons to the term limits. I am not very strong either way. For instance, when congress is regulating the telecommunications and they don't know anything about telecommunications... that's kind of a problem. Highlighted pretty clearly when the CEO of google has to explain that he doesn't make the iphone and how search engines work. So having newer, younger people who are more in touch with the fast changing technology landscape would be a good thing.

I am not sure what being a Constitutionalist actually means. I guess I would say I am a Constitutionalist in that I believe in the intent of the constitution and think our laws/regulations should reflect that intent. I won't say that democrats or republicans are against the Constitution in any blanket statement. Someone may disagree with how they interpret what the founding fathers meant but that doesn't mean they are anti-constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
You can say that about anything. Maybe the people who are promoting this tax plan are rich people who know their overall tax burden will be decreased significantly....

It sounds like this is something the Bush administration thought about doing but declined because studies show its a regressive tax - meaning people who send the largest percentage of their income will be hit hardest. That just makes sense. The middle class spend the highest percentage of their income. The rich (or wealthy) who make more than $150k/yr spend less than half their income and that number goes DOWN as their income level goes up. So in effect - just basing on these two numbers, it would appear that the tax would hit the middle class harder than any other group.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/05/27/the-trouble-with-the-fairtax/#41816c6b5d7b

The Forbes article has technical mistakes, {{the prebate credit would be managed by SSA not IRS}}

The contributor might say he's unbiased but the organization he is tied to is also claiming they are unbiased yet the following reviews indicate they lean leftish.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tax-policy-center/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Leonard Burman&gsc.sort=
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Burman

As you find third party opinions run them against the fairtax.org FAQ's and technical summaries on a variety of topics.
I don't expect to convince everyone of the new concept, we will always have disagreement, be it rooted in technical detail or core philosophy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
It's much easier to determine what the founders of America were thinking if you read their writings.

Not saying they ...............

Done editing. It is what it is.

Time to drink.
Agreed, everyone wants to put their own spin on what they think the Constitution means but considerably fewer know anything about how we ended up with it the way it is. You don't even have to read it anymore, you can just sit and listen.

https://librivox.org/the-federalist-papers-by-alexander-hamilton-john-jay-and-james-madison/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Highlighted pretty clearly when the CEO of google has to explain that he doesn't make the iphone and how search engines work.
That was hysterically sad. I watched the old men and women embarrass themselves.
I am not sure what being a Constitutionalist actually means. I guess I would say I am a Constitutionalist in that I believe in the intent of the constitution and think our laws/regulations should reflect that intent. I won't say that democrats or republicans are against the Constitution in any blanket statement. Someone may disagree with how they interpret what the founding fathers meant but that doesn't mean they are anti-constitution.
I won't say I blindly fall in line to either of these categories, but a Constitutionalist can essentially be defined as one who wishes to strip 85% of the powers that the Feral Gov has assumed it has. Protect our citizens and provide for them before anyone else. Secure our sovereignty.
I agree that no one party can be defined as "anti-Constitution" but there are (IMHO) vastly more far left liberals in our government that wish to ignore it than there are far right who wish to do so. Coming from the left, I see how far down that rabbit hole they go. Which is why I realized they no longer share my values as a whole.
 

·
california deplorable
Joined
·
10,397 Posts
ok i only have a minute but
just read a thing on fascist book and i am ashamed of my self for not thinking of it
is the reason that the dems are SO desperate to stop the sotu the fact that it is tradition for the supreme court justices to attend.darth vader ginsberg has slept through the last few but as she has not been seen sine 12-26-18....
could it be the demonrats are looking for anyway to keep their activist loaded criminal courts that they are hiding the fact that darth vader ginsberg died and is not sleeping through her duties anymore
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,909 Posts
ok i only have a minute but
just read a thing on fascist book and i am ashamed of my self for not thinking of it
is the reason that the dems are SO desperate to stop the sotu the fact that it is tradition for the supreme court justices to attend.darth vader ginsberg has slept through the last few but as she has not been seen sine 12-26-18....
could it be the demonrats are looking for anyway to keep their activist loaded criminal courts that they are hiding the fact that darth vader ginsberg died and is not sleeping through her duties anymore
Or,,, they may be worried that Mad Maxine will jump up and start screaming "Peach fourdy fibe".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
I think it is because the Dems dont want to hear how well the country (generally) is doing despite the blockade. My curiosity is piqued as to why the president has agreed to delay. The man does nothing without forethought. He may seem impulsive at first glance but is a chess player in reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I think they always keep one or two Justices away for national security, she could be exempted, in the unlikely event terrorists nuke the capitol then we're left with a handful of Sen's/Rep's and Justices to organize continuity of government, scary that it would be fully in her hands though, maybe the new guy (Kavanaugh) should be exempted from appearance, I'd rather he were involved in post apocalypse restoration than her.

I think we're going in the direction of national emergency as the next stop in the Trump train....

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Im sorry, I am completely lost. So you think - RBG (you childishly call Ruth Vader Ginsberg? and the Democracts as demonrats? - geez, I wonder why we are so politically divided...) is actually dead? And somehow, the Democrats are able to hide this? The republicans are so inept that they can't figure this out?

Now on to more serious discussion - I think saying the federal government needs to 85% smaller does really make sense - at least without any other information. For one, what do you define as the "government" and what would you like to see made smaller?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,710 Posts
Now you take offense to demonrats and Vader Ginsberg (who BTW says she doesn't consider our constitution in her decisions), and you say nothing about the 24/7 negative news coverage of the president of the United States and insinuate our name calling is why we're divided? You can't be serious! The Obamahmed administration used the power of the government to spy on a political rival, Clinton destroyed evidence, the political hacks on the left routinely call the president a racist, a liar and worse. The lame stream news media is a propaganda wing of the democrats as evidenced just this past weekend when they completely ignored the black racists and Phillips lying about the entire encounter along with his military service, and trashed a bunch of innocent HS kids simply because they were white and wore MAGA hats. We're divided because the last administration made it their goal to divide us and the fake news media has been on board all the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
The news media is a commercial entity that is catering to its audience. The same can be said about Fox but its the propaganda machine of the right. Its like this because WE - the consumers of the media - let it be that way. Like any business, their main goal is to make money and they do so by drawing audience and getting ad revenue. So yes, I blame interactions like this as the foundation - the media feeds off the devide, but they didn't create the divide. You want to change it - then be informed, stop watching news that just agrees with your position, hold the news to a higher standard and be informed.

Blaming Obama is not true nor does it solve the problem.
 
6981 - 7000 of 8111 Posts
Top