Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[The Parkus Empire]

How do you propose to fund the Federal government then?

Cut spending to make up for less taxes, and anyway tariffs aren't a very good kind of tax imo.

You would prefer we keep Federal income tax, which is far more invasive?

[Conserative Morality]

Cut spending to make up for less taxes, and anyway tariffs aren't a very good kind of tax imo.

You would prefer we keep Federal income tax, which is far more invasive?

More invasive, less restricting.

[Ceolophysia]

Except they don't work.

Their primary purpose is state revenue. Considering they we're the primary source of Federal revenue until the introduction of income tax, I would say they worked

They hurt the economies of both the countries shipping the tariffed products and the home country by making it harder to buy those resources.

[Ceolophysia]

Cut spending to make up for less taxes, and anyway tariffs aren't a very good kind of tax imo.

You would prefer we keep Federal income tax, which is far more invasive?

Yes, but cut it down to a low flat tax.

[Northeast American Federation]

Their primary purpose is state revenue. Considering they we're the primary source of Federal revenue until the introduction of income tax, I would say they worked

They hurt the economies of both the countries shipping the tariffed products and the home country by making it harder to buy those resources.

As opposed to the agreements now where just the home country gets hurt while certain other countries (one in particular) laugh all the way to the bank.

[Ceolophysia]

So you admit you aren't the real defender of property?

Nope, I'm a defender of property despite the fact that it originates in theft. =^)

mrw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jUvhJ_Tgzw

[Ceolophysia]

They hurt the economies of both the countries shipping the tariffed products and the home country by making it harder to buy those resources.

As opposed to the agreements now where just the home country gets hurt while certain other countries (one in particular) laugh all the way to the bank.

> assuming I agree with those trade deals

[Northeast American Federation]

As opposed to the agreements now where just the home country gets hurt while certain other countries (one in particular) laugh all the way to the bank.

> assuming I agree with those trade deals

Embargoes when

[Ceolophysia]

> assuming I agree with those trade deals

Embargoes when

Embargoes for diplomatic leverage, and even then rarely.

[The Parkus Empire]

You would prefer we keep Federal income tax, which is far more invasive?

Yes, but cut it down to a low flat tax.

This is one reason I prefer conservatism to libertarianism, I will simply not support Federal income tax, its introduction in the United States was a mistake. Constitution Party > Libertarian Party


Repealing the income tax Amendment is the only way to go, because even if you do institute a flat tax, it won't last long

[Ceolophysia]

Yes, but cut it down to a low flat tax.

This is one reason I prefer conservativism to libertarianism, I will simply not support Federal income tax, it's introduction in the United States was a mistake. Constitution Party > Libertarian Party


Repealing the income tax Amendment is the only way to go, because even if you do institute a flat tax, it won't last long

Most other taxes affect pricing and such, and also, libertarianism doesn't require preference of income tax, that's just me.

[Aillyria]

Yes, but cut it down to a low flat tax.

This is one reason I prefer conservatism to libertarianism, I will simply not support Federal income tax, its introduction in the United States was a mistake. Constitution Party > Libertarian Party


Repealing the income tax Amendment is the only way to go, because even if you do institute a flat tax, it won't last long

I approve this message.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is one reason I prefer conservativism to libertarianism, I will simply not support Federal income tax, it's introduction in the United States was a mistake. Constitution Party > Libertarian Party


Repealing the income tax Amendment is the only way to go, because even if you do institute a flat tax, it won't last long

Most other taxes affect pricing and such, and also, libertarianism doesn't require preference of income tax, that's just me.

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

[Ceolophysia]

Most other taxes affect pricing and such, and also, libertarianism doesn't require preference of income tax, that's just me.

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

I don't think that we're going to convince each other of anything in this regard, so I ask you this: No matter what kind of taxes we're talking about, do you agree that, overall, taxes and government spending should be cut?

[The Parkus Empire]

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

I don't think that we're going to convince each other of anything in this regard, so I ask you this: No matter what kind of taxes we're talking about, do you agree that, overall, taxes and government spending should be cut?

Yes, but I think poll taxes are the only realistic remedy there

[Republic of the Cristo]

Most other taxes affect pricing and such, and also, libertarianism doesn't require preference of income tax, that's just me.

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

[The Parkus Empire]

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

Then their spending bill will likewise have to be less. They can manage IF they don't spend money beyond their Constitutional function

[Ceolophysia]

Affecting pricing of imports is fine. Taxes must be collected, but taxing someone on their spending is much better than taxing them on their earning

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

> implying the government not having enough money for their excessive spending is a bad thing

[The Parkus Empire]

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

> implying the government not having enough money for their excessive spending is a bad thing

Just borrow more :^)

[Republic of the Cristo]

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

Then their spending bill will likewise have to be less. They can manage IF they don't spend money beyond their Constitutional function

Than the recession is intensified even further. The United States government will be spending around 4 trillion dollars this year, making it the worlds largest spender ( more than any company, nation, or individual ). The United States Governments employs upward 22 million people across the world, making it by far the largest employers in the nation ( one of the largest in the world, topped out only by China ). The United States also spends about 20 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, and close 100 billion a year in corporate subsidies.

This nation turns because of government expenditures - and you just want it to suddenly and dramatically shrink every time a recession hits? Not only would this be impossible to implement, as nobody but absolute extremists would go for this, but it would completely collapse the US Global economy after the first recession.

It's not feasible, to put it mildly.

[Ceolophysia]

> implying the government not having enough money for their excessive spending is a bad thing

Just borrow more :^)

That is definitely 100% the best idea in the entire world.
(sarcasm indication because Poe's law)

[Reikoku]

On the other hand, pity can be taken too far. I witnessed this in the slavery thread, where it was maintained than not just slavery, but making convicts do any work is "cruel and unusual punishment". That is literally calling work, " cruel and unusual ". It is quite right to pity another according to the actual level of their suffering, but sometimes the pity magnifies the suffering beyond what is actually felt (this is especially common when the one who pities is much weaker than the one suffering). This neurotic compulsion with mourning any and all pain as evil, has created a culture of victimization. Even being fat makes someone a victim to those who have this mourning sickness. Every hardship is turned into a travesty of injustice, no matter how small.

Prisoner rights in America are pretty awful, which is one reason I favor something more like the Scandinavian system. There's too much obsession with justice as an “eye for an eye” rather than reparation and rehabilitation. I think once we reach the point where we feel empathy for everyone, even violent offenders, and are more focused on changing them for the better rather than sources for schadenfreude, all of society will be much better off.

[Republic of the Cristo]

What if their earning far outstrips their spending? Say, for example, like during a recession, when people typically start cutting out a lot of their spending costs. Suddenly, our federal government has plumb run out of cash because of the basic principles of recession.

> implying the government not having enough money for their excessive spending is a bad thing

We do need a more responsible federal ( and state ) budgets - but what we don't need is ideology getting in the way of what is simply practical.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then their spending bill will likewise have to be less. They can manage IF they don't spend money beyond their Constitutional function

Than the recession is intensified even further. The United States government will be spending around 4 trillion dollars this year, making it the worlds largest spender ( more than any company, nation, or individual ). The United States Governments employs upward 22 million people across the world, making it by far the largest employers in the nation ( one of the largest in the world, topped out only by China ). The United States also spends about 20 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, and close 100 billion a year in corporate subsidies.

This nation turns because of government expenditures - and you just want it to suddenly and dramatically shrink every time a recession hits? Not only would this be impossible to implement, as nobody but absolute extremists would go for this, but it would completely collapse the US Global economy after the first recession.

It's not feasible, to put it mildly.

The Federal government spends far beyond its Constitutional limits, all that should stop

[Aillyria]

Just borrow more :^)

That is definitely 100% the best idea in the entire world.
(sarcasm indication because Poe's law)

Debt runs the world.