• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I thought our taxes were not going up?!?!?!?

Hey, lookn at that, they just updated it to 2011. This year they're saying 48%.

http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf

Ummm...warresisters.com? Really?

And I disagree...it would DRAMATICALLY reduce cost and cut taxes because it would eliminate massive amounts of beaurocratic bull****. The fed DOE for example in 2007 took in something like a budget of 73 billion and proudly proclaimed on their website that they had spent soem 43 billion on education grants, refunds to state programs, scholarships, etc. Thats still 30 billion a year in adminstrative and departmental costs. Why is that even needed when every state HAS a DoE?
 
Last edited:
Ummm...warresisters.com? Really?

You can read their methodology and replicate the math yourself. What they're doing that does spin things there way is including past military expenditures as well as current. So they count things like veteran's benefits, interest payment made on debt accumulated to fund wars, etc. But, IMO, that gives you a much more complete picture of the sistuation.

And I disagree...it would DRAMATICALLY reduce cost and cut taxes because it would eliminate massive amounts of beaurocratic bull****.

I would assume the opposite would happen. For example, right now we have one EPA. You would be creating 50 EPAs. Think of all the redundant positions you would be creating. Every one of them would need, for example, a team that has sufficient expertise to know all the ins and outs of doing environmental impact studies for smelting plants or whatever niche area, where the EPA only needs one team to cover that for the whole nation. Also, think about all the complexity you would be creating for companies to try to comply with multiple, conflicting, sets of rules. Companies would need to have one whole set of processes that they used in plants in one state, a whole different set for another state. They'd need to do many times more research into the impacts various approaches have just to comply with multiple sets of rules. That seems like a massive beaurocratic nightmare.

The fed DOE for example in 2007 took in something like a budget of 73 billion and proudly proclaimed on their website that they had spent soem 43 billion on education grants, refunds to state programs, scholarships, etc. Thats still 30 billion a year in adminstrative and departmental costs. Why is that even needed when every state HAS a DoE?

That doesn't really make sense. The DoEd does a lot more than distribute grants and refunds. They develop curiciulum, research, etc.
 
I would assume the opposite would happen. For example, right now we have one EPA. You would be creating 50 EPAs. Think of all the redundant positions you would be creating. Every one of them would need, for example, a team that has sufficient expertise to know all the ins and outs of doing environmental impact studies for smelting plants or whatever niche area, where the EPA only needs one team to cover that for the whole nation. Also, think about all the complexity you would be creating for companies to try to comply with multiple, conflicting, sets of rules. Companies would need to have one whole set of processes that they used in plants in one state, a whole different set for another state. They'd need to do many times more research into the impacts various approaches have just to comply with multiple sets of rules. That seems like a massive beaurocratic nightmare.
That doesn't really make sense. The DoEd does a lot more than distribute grants and refunds. They develop curiciulum, research, etc.
What value then does having 50 state beauracracies have? Come now...you REALLY believe having a federal agency is more effective than a state agency? I can give you 13.5 trillion reasons why thats not the case.

Again...why do you need a FEDERAL BEAURACRACY establishing a curriculum? Or dictating research? I mean...unless of course there is a federal agenda you are trying to legislate...

Im not advocating elimination of the federal government...just the redundant branches. Every state has a DoE...every state has a dept of Transp. we have state department of corrections...is there REALLY any reason to have federal correectional facilities? Some things it would make sense to keep. Others...not even a little bit. But since we will maintain status quo we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt. BEfore long we wont be able to pay our interest. Thats sad.
 
Last edited:
Come now...you REALLY believe having a federal agency is more effective than a state agency?

I believe that having one agency is a lot cheaper and less beaurocratic than having to deal with 50 agencies all doing similar stuff.

Again...why do you need a FEDERAL BEAURACRACY establishing a curriculum? Or dictating research?

Not sure what you mean by dictating research. They do research on education and provide the results to the states and whoever else wants them. That isn't dictating anything to anybody.

That said though, education is one I have mixed feelings about. On one hand, some states just really can't get their act together on education and when that happens, it pulls down the economic future of the whole country. So, I do see some practical value in federal level education stuff. But, on the other hand, the fed tends towards a lame one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't really work well everywhere. What Mississippi needs to be doing to get their schools back on track is way different than what Minnesota needs to be doing to continue to provide stellar public eduction.

every state has a dept of Transp

Well, there are state level transportation issues and inter-state transportation issues. States can't own the interstate issues. Say, for example, that we need a highway that crosses 15 states expanded, that is a decision that needs to be made at the federal level, since none of those 15 states has the authority over the interstate commerce and whatnot it is used for.

we have state department of corrections...is there REALLY any reason to have federal correectional facilities?

Sure. Federal correctional facilities are for people who break federal laws, state ones are for people who break state laws. The federal government definitely needs to be able to enforce federal law without relying on the states to do its job.
 
I believe that having one agency is a lot cheaper and less beaurocratic than having to deal with 50 agencies all doing similar stuff.



Not sure what you mean by dictating research. They do research on education and provide the results to the states and whoever else wants them. That isn't dictating anything to anybody.

That said though, education is one I have mixed feelings about. On one hand, some states just really can't get their act together on education and when that happens, it pulls down the economic future of the whole country. So, I do see some practical value in federal level education stuff. But, on the other hand, the fed tends towards a lame one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't really work well everywhere. What Mississippi needs to be doing to get their schools back on track is way different than what Minnesota needs to be doing to continue to provide stellar public eduction.



Well, there are state level transportation issues and inter-state transportation issues. States can't own the interstate issues. Say, for example, that we need a highway that crosses 15 states expanded, that is a decision that needs to be made at the federal level, since none of those 15 states has the authority over the interstate commerce and whatnot it is used for.



Sure. Federal correctional facilities are for people who break federal laws, state ones are for people who break state laws. The federal government definitely needs to be able to enforce federal law without relying on the states to do its job.

You say that as if we dont have those 50 individual agencies...and that is my POINT...we DO have them. And obviously there are areas that require federal intervention. But not EVERY AREA requires federal intervention.

The schools are a classic example. California is so ****ed up they have TWO deprtments of education. they also cantafford to pay their teachers. Now...if california had ONE board of Education and didnt send a pretty significant chunk of their state assets to the fed, then how much more efficient could they do their job?

And so what that we have interstates...since the STATES and INDIVIDUALS pay the taxes why on earth do we need a fed dept of transportation? OK...so maybe ONE coordinator and that coordinator says hay states L, M, N, and O...what do you think about putting in a connecting highway system? Great? OK then...budget it and lets start construction in 2 years. Poof...done...use existing state assets without creating a parallel department complete with equipment and manpower.

Commit a federal crime...what...your ass cant sit on a stainless steel state toilet...you need or deserve a cushy federal toilet? How does that even make sense? break a federal law, get tried and do your time in a state prison.

Its the status quo thinking that has put us 13.5 trillion in debt and nothing but increases in sight.
 
The schools are a classic example. California is so ****ed up they have TWO deprtments of education. they also cantafford to pay their teachers. Now...if california had ONE board of Education and didnt send a pretty significant chunk of their state assets to the fed, then how much more efficient could they do their job?

CA has two departments of education?

And so what that we have interstates...since the STATES and INDIVIDUALS pay the taxes why on earth do we need a fed dept of transportation? OK...so maybe ONE coordinator and that coordinator says hay states L, M, N, and O...what do you think about putting in a connecting highway system? Great? OK then...budget it and lets start construction in 2 years. Poof...done...use existing state assets without creating a parallel department complete with equipment and manpower.

Why would you want to split 1 big construction project up into 15 separate construction projects? What is the point of that? It would just be less coordinated and more expensive for no reason... You'd have to have 15 organizations buying all the equipment and doing their own surveys and deciding what signs go where and whatnot, and it would all be a mish-mash of some states getting done earlier and other states not putting up signs and some states putting in rest areas and whatnot... But you would gain nothing... Sounds like a pointless waste of money to me.

Commit a federal crime...what...your ass cant sit on a stainless steel state toilet...you need or deserve a cushy federal toilet? How does that even make sense? break a federal law, get tried and do your time in a state prison.

Why would it be better for federal authorities to have to rely on states to carry out their legal responsibilities? Why would states want to absorb that cost? What advantage would there be to using state prisons instead of federal?

Its the status quo thinking that has put us 13.5 trillion in debt and nothing but increases in sight.

The assumption that a task would be more efficiently completed by 50 separate organizations than by one is incorrect.

As for overlapping agencies, for example education, just because the names overlap doesn't mean anything. 99% of the money spent is state and local money for state departments of education. The federal department of education just provides some coordination and resources and whatnot. Not sure why you think we don't need that. Sounds like you're just assuming they like do the same thing as the state level ones, but that isn't correct. Having every state have to create a miniturized version of everything the federal government does sounds horrifically expensive and inefficient to me. Tons and tons of people they would have to keep on staff just to deal with relatively uncommon things in case they occur, 50 separate sets of every regulation, 50 separate IT organizations, 50 separate directors, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
So you don't think spending is too high at the moment?


I for one think one can't kill the beast while still suckling its teat. It needs to be cut, not more of my money going to washington to be wasted on things like tattoo removal for crack ho's (SF)....

lets look at the dem logic and what really is motivating their claims

1) since the government spends too much, those who pay most of the taxes should have to pay more and more and should never get a tax cut until the government reins in spending. This sort of dem logic means the wealthy will be subjected to ever increasing taxes with no end in sight. When I asked the tax hike fans how much the rich have a duty to pay, they never answer but it is obvious-as long as the government continues to spend, the rich have a duty to pay more and more and more.

2) since dems gain power by spending our money on their voters and since most of those who benefit from that spending do not suffer increased taxes to pay for that spending, there is no incentive for dem voters or dem politicians to limit or restrain government spending

3) if Dems limited government spending, they limit their own ability to buy the votes of those who are net tax consumers. Dems need more tax consumers than tax payers to reliably win elections so dem schemes target a minority of high paying tax producers

4) if we really are serious about paying down the deficit we should cut spending which is far better a tool in that arena than jacking up taxes on a minority. Most tax payers will continue to clamor for government goodies when they don't have to pay for it. In the long run, those carrying most of the tax burden will either run out of money or leave meaning millions upon millions of addicts will be without the money they have been promised by the dems.

5) If you strip away the BS the statist tax hikers spew, you will normally see class envy and spite. One poster constantly ranted that she had no sympathy for the wealthy having to pay more taxes. Yet, I bet if her taxes were to go up 15-50% or more (if you are a retired investor, your taxes will go from 15%-to 40% which is a huge huge soaking), she would be whining like a stuck pig

6) unless those who want more taxes actually have to pay them, their position is without any merit
 
Last edited:
CA has two departments of education?



Why would you want to split 1 big construction project up into 15 separate construction projects? What is the point of that? It would just be less coordinated and more expensive for no reason... You'd have to have 15 organizations buying all the equipment and doing their own surveys and deciding what signs go where and whatnot, and it would all be a mish-mash of some states getting done earlier and other states not putting up signs and some states putting in rest areas and whatnot... But you would gain nothing... Sounds like a pointless waste of money to me.



Why would it be better for federal authorities to have to rely on states to carry out their legal responsibilities? Why would states want to absorb that cost? What advantage would there be to using state prisons instead of federal?



The assumption that a task would be more efficiently completed by 50 separate organizations than by one is incorrect.

As for overlapping agencies, for example education, just because the names overlap doesn't mean anything. 99% of the money spent is state and local money for state departments of education. The federal department of education just provides some coordination and resources and whatnot. Not sure why you think we don't need that. Sounds like you're just assuming they like do the same thing as the state level ones, but that isn't correct. Having every state have to create a miniturized version of everything the federal government does sounds horrifically expensive and inefficient to me. Tons and tons of people they would have to keep on staff just to deal with relatively uncommon things in case they occur, 50 separate sets of every regulation, 50 separate IT organizations, 50 separate directors, etc, etc.

remind me what clause of the constitution empowered the federal government to create a department of education

remind me of AMerica's standing in the world in terms of primary and secondary education before and after the creation of this department

thanks
 
Hey, lookn at that, they just updated it to 2011. This year they're saying 48%.

http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf





Well, then you aren't really talking about cutting taxes though so much as shifting the taxes you pay away from federal taxes into state taxes. So that doesn't really help that much. But, I don't really mind doing it that way either, so no real objection from me.

are you willing to suffer a 15% to 100% increase in taxes? that is what most liberals want for the "wealthy"
 
remind me what clause of the constitution empowered the federal government to create a department of education

remind me of AMerica's standing in the world in terms of primary and secondary education before and after the creation of this department

thanks
why do you even need to ask that question, recognizing you are a graduate of yale law school
do you really not know?
 

why do you even need to ask that question, recognizing you are a graduate of yale law school
do you really not know?

I never said I went to Yale Law School

and I am asking those who defend such a department. I cannot find any such proper delegation of power

have at it and cite the clause.
 
lets look at the dem logic and what really is motivating their claims

1) since the government spends too much, those who pay most of the taxes should have to pay more and more and should never get a tax cut until the government reins in spending. This sort of dem logic means the wealthy will be subjected to ever increasing taxes with no end in sight. When I asked the tax hike fans how much the rich have a duty to pay, they never answer but it is obvious-as long as the government continues to spend, the rich have a duty to pay more and more and more.

Fine. Let's cut spending and pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and stop the War on Drugs by legalizing recreational drugs.

2) since dems gain power by spending our money on their voters and since most of those who benefit from that spending do not suffer increased taxes to pay for that spending, there is no incentive for dem voters or dem politicians to limit or restrain government spending

Why don't you ever talk about how the Republicans gain power by spending our future money by using deficit and debt on their corporate campaign contributors and since most of those who benefit from that deficit spending can benefit from government contracts, there is no incentive for Republican corporate contributors or Republican politicians to limit or restrain government spending?

3) if Dems limited government spending, they limit their own ability to buy the votes of those who are net tax consumers. Dems need more tax consumers than tax payers to reliably win elections so dem schemes target a minority of high paying tax producers

If Republicans prohibit no-bid contracts, they limit their own ability to barter the campaign funding of those who are defense and government contractors. Republicans need more deficit spending and doling out of contracts to campaign donors to reliably win elections so Republican schemes target Democrats trying to pay off the debt that the Republicans themselves put the government in.

4) if we really are serious about paying down the deficit we should cut spending which is far better a tool in that arena than jacking up taxes on a minority. Most tax payers will continue to clamor for government goodies when they don't have to pay for it. In the long run, those carrying most of the tax burden will either run out of money or leave meaning millions upon millions of addicts will be without the money they have been promised by the dems.

There are many ways about paying off the deficit and debt. One is cutting spending in certain areas. Another is decriminalization and legalization of certain black markets, such as recreational drugs and prostitution. By decriminalizing these two current black markets, the government will have to spend less taxpayer money on enforcement of laws against these markets and even generate tax revenue by regulating them.

5) If you strip away the BS the statist tax hikers spew, you will normally see class envy and spite. One poster constantly ranted that she had no sympathy for the wealthy having to pay more taxes. Yet, I bet if her taxes were to go up 15-50% or more (if you are a retired investor, your taxes will go from 15%-to 40% which is a huge huge soaking), she would be whining like a stuck pig

Unfortunately, the poor and middle class can no longer afford to pay the taxes that our politicians spend on no-bid contracts to the corporations and businesses that are run by the wealthy. Since the wealthy have profited for so long by the use of such government contracts, it is only fair that they pay the taxes to support the government since their industry flourishes only from government spending.

6) unless those who want more taxes actually have to pay them, their position is without any merit

Then I propose you ask your Republican Congressmen and Senators to stop giving so many tax cuts for families and children and the like, along with many other tax cuts, so more people across all classes will be obligated to pay their taxes.
 
CA has two departments of education?



Why would you want to split 1 big construction project up into 15 separate construction projects? What is the point of that? It would just be less coordinated and more expensive for no reason... You'd have to have 15 organizations buying all the equipment and doing their own surveys and deciding what signs go where and whatnot, and it would all be a mish-mash of some states getting done earlier and other states not putting up signs and some states putting in rest areas and whatnot... But you would gain nothing... Sounds like a pointless waste of money to me.



Why would it be better for federal authorities to have to rely on states to carry out their legal responsibilities? Why would states want to absorb that cost? What advantage would there be to using state prisons instead of federal?



The assumption that a task would be more efficiently completed by 50 separate organizations than by one is incorrect.

As for overlapping agencies, for example education, just because the names overlap doesn't mean anything. 99% of the money spent is state and local money for state departments of education. The federal department of education just provides some coordination and resources and whatnot. Not sure why you think we don't need that. Sounds like you're just assuming they like do the same thing as the state level ones, but that isn't correct. Having every state have to create a miniturized version of everything the federal government does sounds horrifically expensive and inefficient to me. Tons and tons of people they would have to keep on staff just to deal with relatively uncommon things in case they occur, 50 separate sets of every regulation, 50 separate IT organizations, 50 separate directors, etc, etc.

Im not sure if its LOST on you...you are just too I dont know what to get it, or are just deliberately obtuse...we ALREADY HAVE in MANY (NOT ALL...nor have I advocated for ALL) areas of government DUPLICATE systems. Every state as their own transportation dept, education dept, etc. What you are DUPLICATING and what I have advocated is the elimination of duplicate BEAURACRACY. DUPLICATE LAYERS of supervision...relatively highly paid individuals doing the same jobs...both of which will eventually collect pensions. In each state where they have offices of the Fed Dept of Transportation they have duplicate layers of beauracracy. Layers of supervision...management...people that get paid well and will draw pensions. Its not NECESSARY. Its redundant and its EXPENSIVE.

But hey...maybe you are just one of those guys that believes big government and redundant systems...thats the way to do it...
 
Last edited:
I never said I went to Yale Law School

and I am asking those who defend such a department. I cannot find any such proper delegation of power

have at it and cite the clause.
i stand corrected. while you advised you attended yale, that may have been your undergrad
but i notice you are a law school graduate - tho not of yale - and you still need help researching a question about what is found within the U.S. Constitution?
I don't know what is worse, being a victim of affirmative action (I was turned down for a constitutional law teaching position despite being in the top 25% of my class at a top law school in favor of a black female who was bottom half of her class at a schoool currently ranked about 56th in the USA because I was told the ABA was worried this local law school needed a "black female" increase) or having a couple friends who are Black who really earned what they have yet are seen by the ignorant as not as good an attorney as some of us who work with them because they "must have been given breaks"
emphasis added by bubba

here is the answer you were seeking:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
 
remind me what clause of the constitution empowered the federal government to create a department of education

Well, the fed can form whatever departments it wants, and it can spend on anything it believes to promote the general welfare. It cannot dictate policy to the states. Officially, it doesn't, but no child left behind is uncomfortably close to the line IMO. They're using their power NOT to spend to try to force states into accepting their policies, which while technically that is probably constitutional according to the letter of the law, doesn't really support the spirit of the constitution.

remind me of AMerica's standing in the world in terms of primary and secondary education before and after the creation of this department

Seriously? You are going to conjecture that the federal department of education somehow is responsible for our loss in standing? You're assuming, on no evidence, that it would be the dominant factor despite representing only a tiny percentage of the dollars spent, and even though you have produced no evidence that it hurts anything in any way? You see the flaws in that reasoning I'm sure.

are you willing to suffer a 15% to 100% increase in taxes? that is what most liberals want for the "wealthy"

I want people who make their income via investment to pay the same percentage on it as people who make their income by working. Seems reasonable, no?
 
IDK how you guys find the patience to deal with turtle man. His arguments are complete idiocy for the most part.
 
Im not sure if its LOST on you...you are just too I dont know what to get it, or are just deliberately obtuse...we ALREADY HAVE in MANY (NOT ALL...nor have I advocated for ALL) areas of government DUPLICATE systems. Every state as their own transportation dept, education dept, etc. What you are DUPLICATING and what I have advocated is the elimination of duplicate BEAURACRACY. DUPLICATE LAYERS of supervision...relatively highly paid individuals doing the same jobs...both of which will eventually collect pensions. In each state where they have offices of the Fed Dept of Transportation they have duplicate layers of beauracracy. Layers of supervision...management...people that get paid well and will draw pensions. Its not NECESSARY. Its redundant and its EXPENSIVE.

But hey...maybe you are just one of those guys that believes big government and redundant systems...thats the way to do it...

It would only be duplicate if they were doing the same thing, but that isn't the case, right? For example, a state department of transportation deals with transportation issues within the state, whereas the federal department of transportation deals with transportation issues between states. Only one or the other is involved in any given situation. So, just because they have the same name doesn't mean they are duplicates.

But, even if they were duplicates, that would be an argument in favor of getting rid of the state ones, not the federal one. There are 50 state departments on transportation and only one federal one, so eliminating 50 would be a much greater efficiency improvement than eliminating 1... I'm not arguing that we should do that, but for the tasks that do overlap between states- ie an interstate highway- there is no reason to do the same work multiple times when you can just do it once...
 
IDK how you guys find the patience to deal with turtle man. His arguments are complete idiocy for the most part.

To a parasitic socialist I would expect nothing less
 
Fine. Let's cut spending and pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and stop the War on Drugs by legalizing recreational drugs.



Why don't you ever talk about how the Republicans gain power by spending our future money by using deficit and debt on their corporate campaign contributors and since most of those who benefit from that deficit spending can benefit from government contracts, there is no incentive for Republican corporate contributors or Republican politicians to limit or restrain government spending?



If Republicans prohibit no-bid contracts, they limit their own ability to barter the campaign funding of those who are defense and government contractors. Republicans need more deficit spending and doling out of contracts to campaign donors to reliably win elections so Republican schemes target Democrats trying to pay off the debt that the Republicans themselves put the government in.



There are many ways about paying off the deficit and debt. One is cutting spending in certain areas. Another is decriminalization and legalization of certain black markets, such as recreational drugs and prostitution. By decriminalizing these two current black markets, the government will have to spend less taxpayer money on enforcement of laws against these markets and even generate tax revenue by regulating them.



Unfortunately, the poor and middle class can no longer afford to pay the taxes that our politicians spend on no-bid contracts to the corporations and businesses that are run by the wealthy. Since the wealthy have profited for so long by the use of such government contracts, it is only fair that they pay the taxes to support the government since their industry flourishes only from government spending.



Then I propose you ask your Republican Congressmen and Senators to stop giving so many tax cuts for families and children and the like, along with many other tax cuts, so more people across all classes will be obligated to pay their taxes.

1) I have always wanted to end the war on drugs. Military actions are perhaps the most constitutional of all federal governmental activities

2) its the dems who are in power and the topic is about dems jacking up taxes. we benefit by strong corporations, we derive no benefits by expanding the dependent class-dem politicians do in terms of votes

3) entitlement programs started under FDR cost us far more money and have the additional problem of expanding the entitlement addicts

How much of their wealth should the rich have to pay as long as dem voters continue to expand dependency entitlements?
you seem to ignore or support the problem I have laid out-that as long as most people don't suffer tax increases they have no incentive to restrict government spending to a sane level
 
i stand corrected. while you advised you attended yale, that may have been your undergrad
but i notice you are a law school graduate - tho not of yale - and you still need help researching a question about what is found within the U.S. Constitution?

emphasis added by bubba

here is the answer you were seeking:

you failed-quote the exact language and demonstrate that the power was specifically delegated to congress. and don't forget the tenth amendment
 
Well, the fed can form whatever departments it wants, and it can spend on anything it believes to promote the general welfare. It cannot dictate policy to the states. Officially, it doesn't, but no child left behind is uncomfortably close to the line IMO. They're using their power NOT to spend to try to force states into accepting their policies, which while technically that is probably constitutional according to the letter of the law, doesn't really support the spirit of the constitution.



Seriously? You are going to conjecture that the federal department of education somehow is responsible for our loss in standing? You're assuming, on no evidence, that it would be the dominant factor despite representing only a tiny percentage of the dollars spent, and even though you have produced no evidence that it hurts anything in any way? You see the flaws in that reasoning I'm sure.



I want people who make their income via investment to pay the same percentage on it as people who make their income by working. Seems reasonable, no?

I love your constitutional interpretation-anything congress says is for the general welfare is constitutional.

Ever heard of Lopez? that sort of slams a big door square in the face of your rather unlearned views as to federal power

your last comment is not reasonable--it drives investment out of the United States and people have already paid taxes on the money they invest
 
I'd go with Turtle's general line of thought but Sam brings up good points about holding Repubs accountable for deficit spending (including Bush and Reagan) AND that while we are cutting we need to cut defense also. We spend way too much on wars with no exit strategy and post WW2 european defense, which is essentially a subsidy to them. We can longer afford this.
 
I love your constitutional interpretation-anything congress says is for the general welfare is constitutional.

Nope. That's not my stance. They can tax and spend to promote the general welfare, nothing else is authorized by that clause.

your last comment is not reasonable--it drives investment out of the United States and people have already paid taxes on the money they invest

You get taxed based on where you live as an investor, not where you invest, so no, it would not drive investment out really unless some people actually decided to move, but the same applies to income taxes, so that isn't an argument against equalizing them.

As for already having paid taxes, that makes no sense. They may have paid taxes on the amount they invested, and that money won't be taxed again. Capital gains taxes tax them on the NEW money they make. Their profits, not the base that they invested...
 
It would only be duplicate if they were doing the same thing, but that isn't the case, right? For example, a state department of transportation deals with transportation issues within the state, whereas the federal department of transportation deals with transportation issues between states. Only one or the other is involved in any given situation. So, just because they have the same name doesn't mean they are duplicates.

But, even if they were duplicates, that would be an argument in favor of getting rid of the state ones, not the federal one. There are 50 state departments on transportation and only one federal one, so eliminating 50 would be a much greater efficiency improvement than eliminating 1... I'm not arguing that we should do that, but for the tasks that do overlap between states- ie an interstate highway- there is no reason to do the same work multiple times when you can just do it once...

Right...because the federal government has done such a responsible job of spending taxpayer dollars. The states which have adopted the socialized policies also struggle...but many states have managed to remain solvent...and you want to remove responsibility from them and give MORE to the fed?

You are a believer in big gov and socialism...OK...we disagree...but there is no value in continueing this. If you can look at the 13.5 trillion dollar debt and the long term collapse of our economy and think thats a good thing...then...well...I dont know...
 
Right...because the federal government has done such a responsible job of spending taxpayer dollars. The states which have adopted the socialized policies also struggle...but many states have managed to remain solvent...and you want to remove responsibility from them and give MORE to the fed?

You are a believer in big gov and socialism...OK...we disagree...but there is no value in continueing this. If you can look at the 13.5 trillion dollar debt and the long term collapse of our economy and think thats a good thing...then...well...I dont know...

It seems like you don't have a counter argument... All the stuff about spending assumes that this approach is more expensive, but that makes no sense to me that combining overlapping departments would not be more efficient than keeping them separate. That's the main reason companies merge for example- so they can reduce duplication of effort. Same applies in government. I don't feel like you're providing a response to that central point.
 
Back
Top Bottom