love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.