Politicians Push for New Internet Sales Taxes

even for texas, for too long all states are now interlinked..

there is a fair amount of federal funding entering the state..

federal employees being payed and spending their money instate..

it is intermingled and texas will suffer badly if they split.
 
atchart5.jpg


2/3rds of every tax dollar goes to non discretionary programs like medicare...
 
TexUs said:
ItCNN fail to tell you that Obama renewed and extended the Patriot act back into law with his signature?
Or does that hurt your defense of Democrats too much to notice?
Click to expand...
I'm an anarchocapitalist. That means: I don't want there to be a government. I want everything to be provided on the free market. Everything.

I simply pointed out that republicrats and demopublicans alike voted for said unconstitutional pieces of crap. And that's a fact; you can check the congressional record. If that fact is too much for you: NMP.
 
Easykill1978 said:
at the current rate of spending in the USA government.. you government will be broke by 2018 when your interest alone will equal your GDP. and by 2019~2020 your GDP will not cover your governments debts interest!!!!

so what does that actually mean???

err ever wonder how the cold war ended and USSR collapsed?? same deal debt interest surpassed their GDP!
Click to expand...
A second fun fact...
Russia, back in 2000 I think, was pretty much in the same position the US is in today. Mounting debt and no way to stay out of the hole.
They were already taxing people 45%. The lowest and poorest people were getting taxed 14%.

Guess what they did? 13% tax on everything. They eliminated the loophole system known as the tax code... 13% on everything. Which also means that everyone ended up being taxed less.

Guess what came of that? They had a SURPLUS.


Easykill1978 said:
at
in order to stave off economic collapse, agovernment collapse all spending needs to be frozen.. department of defense needs to be cut by 40% and no less (R & D needs to be cut byt 50% at least or more). income tax needs to be boosted to 114% of current levels (that is if you pay 6 bucks tax per 100 than it would be around 14 bucks tax), nation wide GST of 5% to the federal government, and only then will you cover todays interest to pay it off income tax will need to be at 115% and new gst at 6% and you can pay it off in 10 years.
Click to expand...
I'll one-up you... If it doesn't involve improving the infrastructure or national defense: scrap it.
It'll be tough as hell, but we have to take drastic measures to get our debt out of control. It's either that or face economic collapse: take your pick. Of course it may be too late for the former, with the latter happening this week.

Easykill1978 said:
europe will become the economic and social powerhouse of the world..
Click to expand...
You live there, I'd assume?
More power to you for loving your country, but the world economy is always controlled by that with the strongest military might. Let's say the US falls, who do you say that would be??? Sure as hell isn't anyone in Europe.

It's China.


Easykill1978 said:
and your government debt is the sole reason i will not invest in the american stock market.. if your government runs out of the good old $$ nationalising a few complanies etc will help but my money would be gone.
Click to expand...
BTW... "American stock market" is just LOL...
You realize that when America collapses, the entire world economy goes to shit, right? Doesn't matter if you invested in China or anywhere... everything goes to crap.
It'll take years for the world to recover, with a new world leader emerging.

Easykill1978 said:
No state will, they will then be unable to borrow and have no federal backing.. alll federal infrastructer expenses halted.. etc etc etc.. it would be state suicide if they split.
Click to expand...
Um, if the USA collapses, there's no "federal" anything. Texas could do whatever they wanted to do.

Knight_of_BAAWA said:
I simply pointed out that republicrats and demopublicans alike voted for said unconstitutional pieces of crap. And that's a fact; you can check the congressional record. If that fact is too much for you: NMP.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out that if you want to point fingers: look at the party in control.
It's not too hard to see the Republicans have always been the lesser of two evils. Sure, the rich get richer. I'd prefer that over running our country into the ground with debt any day.
 
TexUs said:
I'm pointing out that if you want to point fingers: look at the party in control.
It's not too hard to see the Republicans have always been the lesser of two evils. Sure, the rich get richer. I'd prefer that over running our country into the ground with debt any day.
Click to expand...
A lesser evil is still evil. I cannot support evil. I cannot support coercive monopolies which see fit to steal from us in any way possible, whether directly via income or sales taxes or permit fees, or via the indirect tax of inflation.

The problem is the nature of government; trying to lay blame on one party or another doesn't look at the root.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
A lesser evil is still evil. I cannot support evil. I cannot support coercive monopolies which see fit to steal from us in any way possible, whether directly via income or sales taxes or permit fees, or via the indirect tax of inflation.

The problem is the nature of government; trying to lay blame on one party or another doesn't look at the root.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. However, how else do you vote???
When both parties are evil, I'll sure as hell vote for the lesser of the two.

Not voting is just as bad.
 
Southparkrocks said:
atchart5.jpg


2/3rds of every tax dollar goes to non discretionary programs like medicare...
Click to expand...

Why do people use outdated data from 2003?

Not to mention, any military spending is vastly under-represented. Past debts from Vietnman, World War 2, and now War on Terror, are financed heavily through loans which increase the national debt dramatically when compared to other tables. Also, since it's paid back incrementally, the military expenditures can be spread out and hidden through many, many years. But anyone who has a credit card knows, if all you pay back are minimums, then you are adding a significant amount of "hidden" cost from that initial loan.

In short, that analysis is shallow. Most of the debt (most of the taxdollars) comes from military expenditures, aka discretionary spending.
 
Lollipop said:
Fascists restrict freedoms while Libertarians fight for choices for citizens. Your logic is empty.
Click to expand...

Ah, that would be why one of the Libertarian Party platforms is equal rights for homosexual citizens.

Oh, wait...

24-types_of_libertarian.png
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
You don't. You refuse to participate in the sham.


No it isn't. Not voting keeps you out of the problem.
Click to expand...

Choosing not to participate doesn't change the fact that you will still suffer from your inaction. Compromising toward a greater goal is often more beneficial than hiding ones head in the sand.

and Daggah, what was funny! :D
 
Daggah said:
Ah, that would be why one of the Libertarian Party platforms is equal rights for homosexual citizens.

Oh, wait...

24-types_of_libertarian.png
Click to expand...

LOL! :D A friend is a self-proclaimed Libertarian, but he def. leans left and hates big corp. :D
 
Under the current situation of the U.S., if we truly went "small government," we'd just be trading government power over us for corporate power over us. At least we get some say in the way our governments work...
 
Daggah said:
Under the current situation of the U.S., if we truly went "small government," we'd just be trading government power over us for corporate power over us. At least we get some say in the way our governments work...
Click to expand...

The naivety is strong with you!
 
…and history proves this. Everywhere Friedman’s principles have "actually" been applied, prosperity had blossomed and where it is has been denied prosperity has been stifled. The more control governments are given, the less opportunities are available. Yet when free markets have been allowed to flourish with less supervision the consumers and citizens win. This has been exhibited all over the world. You're on a capitalistic website that sells consumer related reviews for profit and that doesn't serve you better than if a politician spent your money to tell you what to buy?
 
Lollipop said:
…and history proves this. Everywhere Friedman’s principles have "actually" been applied, prosperity had blossomed and where it is has been denied prosperity has been stifled. The more control governments are given, the less opportunities are available. Yet when free markets have been allowed to flourish with less supervision the consumers and citizens win. This has been exhibited all over the world. You're on a capitalistic website that sells consumer related reviews for profit and that doesn't serve you better than if a politician spent your money to tell you what to buy?
Click to expand...

You're confusing capitalism with free market capitalism.
 
Daggah said:
You're confusing capitalism with free market capitalism.
Click to expand...

No, you're confusing this modern, bastardized, quasi-capitalism to real free markets. I’m not for Anarchy if that’s what you mean, but I only think laws should exist that restricts one entity from intentionally harming or directly refusing another entity’s liberties and property. People should be free until they refuse another person of their rights to freedom.
 
Lollipop said:
^ for you Daggah
Click to expand...

Let's talk about the most recent time America could be considered anything close to a free market capitalist country (rather than the mixed market economy country that we are now...along with the entire rest of the civilized world in various degrees.)

The early 20th century was probably the closest example of an American economy with little to no government regulations of businesses.

The Libertarian free market cultist wet dream:

Cheap child labor (cheap labor, yay!)
No safety regulations (extremely hazardous working conditions, yay!)
No environmental regulations (pollution for everyone, yay!)
Extreme economic disparity (who needs income equality, anyway?)
Poverty (more cheap labor, yay!)
Illiteracy (more cheap labor, yay!)

Thankfully, we pulled our heads out of our collective asses because we realized that unregulated free market capitalism doesn't work.

Right now, the closest you can come to that ideal is Somalia...there sure isn't any government regulation there!

Of course, I don't think anyone would ever call that an "ideal."
 
Lollipop said:
No, you're confusing this modern, bastardized, quasi-capitalism to real free markets. I’m not for Anarchy if that’s what you mean, but I only think laws should exist that restricts one entity from intentionally harming or directly refusing another entity’s liberties and property. People should be free until they refuse another person of their rights to freedom.
Click to expand...

You know why no one today tries "real free markets?"

Ultimately, no one is stupid enough.
 
Daggah said:
You're confusing capitalism with free market capitalism.
Click to expand...

If all corporations were monopolies than your logic is true, but they are not. If one company screws you over, will you buy from them again? Probably not. That is the freedom of choice. If the big bad corporation screws over too many people, they do not get consumers to buy their product and they die. With government, there is no choice. You are subject to the government you live under. This why the US constitution does not dictate how to live our lives, but guarantees certain freedoms by limiting government.

And for those of you who do not wish to participate, good luck with that. If you have no plan you will become part of someone elses whether you agree with it or not.
 
Daggah said:
Let's talk about the most recent time America could be considered anything close to a free market capitalist country (rather than the mixed market economy country that we are now...along with the entire rest of the civilized world in various degrees.)

The early 20th century was probably the closest example of an American economy with little to no government regulations of businesses.

The Libertarian free market cultist wet dream:

Cheap child labor (cheap labor, yay!)
No safety regulations (extremely hazardous working conditions, yay!)
No environmental regulations (pollution for everyone, yay!)
Extreme economic disparity (who needs income equality, anyway?)
Poverty (more cheap labor, yay!)
Illiteracy (more cheap labor, yay!)

Thankfully, we pulled our heads out of our collective asses because we realized that unregulated free market capitalism doesn't work.

Right now, the closest you can come to that ideal is Somalia...there sure isn't any government regulation there!

Of course, I don't think anyone would ever call that an "ideal."
Click to expand...

This is fundamentally wrong. America has never seen free markets. Governments have always gotten in the way with laws that restricted or gave preferential treatment to certain segments. "Cronyism and bigotry" were rampant in America during those times. The bigger governments get the more they make backroom deals with tycoons that seek to silence competition and lower standard for cheap labor.
 
caniba said:
If all corporations were monopolies than your logic is true, but they are not. If one company screws you over, will you buy from them again? Probably not. That is the freedom of choice. If the big bad corporation screws over too many people, they do not get consumers to buy their product and they die. With government, there is no choice. You are subject to the government you live under. This why the US constitution does not dictate how to live our lives, but guarantees certain freedoms by limiting government.

And for those of you who do not wish to participate, good luck with that. If you have no plan you will become part of someone elses whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

All of that would work if you look at small, local economies. But personal buying power is insufficient on a larger scale...the competition you posit as magically regulating all of the businesses requires perfect information be available to consumers that act rationally in their best interests. But that isn't the case, which is why competition alone is an insufficient approach to negative externalities.

For example, say that you have a hypothetical free market with very limited regulation of business by government. Say that there's a factory polluting in Detroit as it churns out cars. Who's affected by that? The surrounding area. But it's a large scale economy. If the factory only produced goods sold to people in the local area, then sure, consumers in Detroit could boycott and insist that the factory self-regulate and clean up its act. If it doesn't, it goes out of business. But the factory produces goods sold all over the world. Do you think someone in Texas cares (or even knows) about the pollution caused by the factory in Detroit? Much less someone in Germany buying cars from the same factory...

Free market capitalism has no answer for negative externalities. That's when government regulation is needed.
 
Lollipop said:
This is fundamentally wrong. America has never seen free markets. Governments have always gotten in the way with laws that restricted or gave preferential treatment to certain segments. "Cronyism and bigotry" were rampant in America during those times. The bigger governments get the more they make backroom deals with tycoons that seek to silence competition and lower standard for cheap labor.
Click to expand...

That's why I said that this was the closest America came to a free market. I didn't say it WAS a free market. But what WAS true is that there was extremely limited government regulation, and the result was dirty, unsafe factories, child labor, rampant pollution, and rampant poverty. It was a damn crappy time period to live in.
 
Daggah said:
You know why no one today tries "real free markets?"

Ultimately, no one is stupid enough.
Click to expand...

Why no free markets and limited governing? Because people in power are obsessed with it and refuse to relinquish control to those that seek to do for themselves. There has never been a shortage of freeloaders with their hands out to put smooth talkers on pedestals.
 
Lollipop said:
Why no free markets and limited governing? Because people in power are obsessed with it and refuse to relinquish control to those that seek to do for themselves. There has never been a shortage of freeloaders with their hands out to put smooth talkers on pedestals.
Click to expand...

The only people truly suggesting a real free market are the zealots like yourself that naively think that big business will do an adequate job of self-regulation. It's quite upsetting to see people like you take Adam Smith's ideals and beliefs and twist them so to justify your own greed. He'd be rolling over in his grave if he realized that capitalism has resulted in exactly the same kind of disparity of wealth in the world today that he intended to use it to fight in his era.

That you are naive enough to suggest that the free market has the answer to everything while BP's fuckup spills thousands upon thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every single day because they failed to self-regulate says volumes about you.
 
Daggah said:
That's why I said that this was the closest America came to a free market. I didn't say it WAS a free market. But what WAS true is that there was extremely limited government regulation, and the result was dirty, unsafe factories, child labor, rampant pollution, and rampant poverty. It was a damn crappy time period to live in.
Click to expand...

So you assume free markets don't work because they were almost close to being something in the vicinity of a free market system, yet big government has been done to death all over the globe for centuries and has always failed, but not "your" way? Is that it?
 
Lollipop said:
So you assume free markets don't work because they were almost close to being something in the vicinity of a free market system, yet big government has been done to death all over the globe for centuries and has always failed, but not "your" way? Is that it?
Click to expand...

The failings of the early 20th century were BECAUSE of a hands-off approach of the economy. Government regulations didn't cause child labor. Government regulations didn't cause pollution.
 
Lollipop said:
So you assume free markets don't work because they were almost close to being something in the vicinity of a free market system, yet big government has been done to death all over the globe for centuries and has always failed, but not "your" way? Is that it?
Click to expand...

You know what, until you can come up with a reasonable explanation of how a free market can successfully handle negative externalities, I'm not even going to bother with yoou.
 
Daggah said:
The only people truly suggesting a real free market are the zealots like yourself that naively think that big business will do an adequate job of self-regulation. It's quite upsetting to see people like you take Adam Smith's ideals and beliefs and twist them so to justify your own greed. He'd be rolling over in his grave if he realized that capitalism has resulted in exactly the same kind of disparity of wealth in the world today that he intended to use it to fight in his era.

That you are naive enough to suggest that the free market has the answer to everything while BP's fuckup spills thousands upon thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every single day because they failed to self-regulate says volumes about you.
Click to expand...

Without big government lobbying consumers win and this has been proven. How does any company get gargantuan without serving consumers? With politically greasy palms. Companies get so large because of two-way, government, back-scratching deals. And what are you talking about with BP? BP was one of BO's biggest contributors.
 
Daggah said:
For example, say that you have a hypothetical free market with very limited regulation of business by government. Say that there's a factory polluting in Detroit as it churns out cars. Who's affected by that? The surrounding area. But it's a large scale economy. If the factory only produced goods sold to people in the local area, then sure, consumers in Detroit could boycott and insist that the factory self-regulate and clean up its act. If it doesn't, it goes out of business. But the factory produces goods sold all over the world. Do you think someone in Texas cares (or even knows) about the pollution caused by the factory in Detroit? Much less someone in Germany buying cars from the same factory...

Free market capitalism has no answer for negative externalities. That's when government regulation is needed.
Click to expand...

I agree, and this fits within the constitution to regulate. Even though nobody in Texas might not care about the pollution in Detroit, the people who are in Detroit do. They still within the USA and in Detroit their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness would be hindered. So by the constitution guaranteeing these rights, then the government should step in to make sure the people of Detroit are protected.
 
Lollipop said:
Without big government lobbying consumers win and this has been proven. How does any company get gargantuan without serving consumers? With politically greasy palms. Companies get so large because of two-way, government, back-scratching deals. And what are you talking about with BP? BP was one of BO's biggest contributors.
Click to expand...

Right, no monopoly has EVER come into existence on its own. Nope, never. :rolleyes:

Someone doesn't understand externalities, period...negative ones, network ones...

BP's political contributions to politians are a convenient red herring, don't yoou think? Well, I'm not stupid enough to fall for that.
 
caniba said:
I agree, and this fits within the constitution to regulate. Even though nobody in Texas might not care about the pollution in Detroit, the people who are in Detroit do. They still within the USA and in Detroit their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness would be hindered. So by the constitution guaranteeing these rights, then the government should step in to make sure the people of Detroit are protected.
Click to expand...

I also agree. I said clearly that those companies that intentionally harm citizens should suffer consequences. But don’t forget most consumers aren’t going to purchase products that directly harm fellow citizens either. Whenever you find a company that has been found grossly negligent with the people you will find an abetting politician somewhere in the corruption pile with fat pockets too.
 
Daggah said:
Right, no monopoly has EVER come into existence on its own. Nope, never. :rolleyes:

Someone doesn't understand externalities, period...negative ones, network ones...

BP's political contributions to politians are a convenient red herring, don't yoou think? Well, I'm not stupid enough to fall for that.
Click to expand...

It can be so inconvenient when some facts get in your way, right?
 
Lollipop said:
I also agree. I said clearly that those companies that intentionally harm citizens should suffer consequences. But don’t forget most consumers aren’t going to purchase products that directly harm fellow citizens either. Whenever you find a company that has been found grossly negligent with the people you will find an abetting politician somewhere in the corruption pile with fat pockets too.
Click to expand...

That is so true. There are negatives to any system but I completely agree with you that a true free market is much better than a government limited one where freedom is restricted for both the corp and the consumer.
 
caniba said:
That is so true. There are negatives to any system but I completely agree with you that a true free market is much better than a government limited one where freedom is restricted for both the corp and the consumer.
Click to expand...

No system will ever be perfect, as nothing is. Murphy's Laws, the human fallibility, and ill intentions will always exist, but free markets offer more opportunities, choices, and liberties than any system ever conceived. It just doesn’t play well with the corrupt crowds, cowardly crowds or the Kumbaya crowds.
 
Lollipop said:
It can be so inconvenient when some facts get in your way, right?
Click to expand...

Precisely what facts do you think you have?

Other than the obvious one that involves your understanding of Economics is limited to complete faith in what you learned in Econ 101?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top