7 ms·

> or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" Your bias is showing a bit there.

by tedivm 3y ago

stronglikedan 3y ago
Pointing out historically demonstrable facts isn't bias.
phpisthebest 3y ago
My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers. That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more... I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
- jorvi 3y ago
  > The best government is the smallest government Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent. > and how we always need to tax them more... Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger > I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class? It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
- pierat 3y ago
  Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".
  - ackfoobar 3y ago
    Looking at the thread I don't think he objects to government ensuring clean water, but Democrats' taxing policies.
    - pierat 3y ago
      Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other. And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein. It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.
    - ROTMetro 3y ago
      To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  Small government is a common talking point pulling on the strings of what we all intuitively desire (less intrusion in our lives) without providing context. I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. Imagine Germany fighting tooth and nail against teaching about the world wars in school - would be a bit of a red flag, no? Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive toward us, our children, and I see as interference. Defining government enforcing such protections as “interference” is an obvious sleigh of hand. Another example is extending copyright to longer than 7-15 years and enforcing this insanity for the robbing of the public domain. People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages. East access to healthcare and great education makes a strong nation. Encouraging prosperity for all instead of creating moats around the wealth of the richest extractors also makes a strong nation. I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree?
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. I bet I can test your resolve to both of them and show you really do not want more freedom, you just want different government controls than "the other team" For example Education. Do you support backpack funded school choice, putting the power of what schools people go to in the hands of the parents? Reproductive Rights.. How about "Financial Abortion" or Default Joint Custody with no support to either parent? Or mandatory DNA validation before entering names on birth certificates. >Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive Corporations are a creation of government, the entire purpose of a corporation is to protect them from liberality. That is really the sole reason for their existence. I always love when strong government supports rail on and on about corporations when strong government is the source of power for corporations. The stronger the government the stronger the corporations. The more centralized the government, the larger the corporations. Since We have been putting more and more regulation an power under the pervue of the federal government the largest corporations have gone from about 20% market share on average to 80% market share on average. Strong Central Governments weakens and prohibits competition in the market place, history proves this time and time again >>People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages. "A world that is safe for today’s rich will never be safe for the rest of us. Not until the rich’s massive fortunes, and the state power propagating them, is destroyed will we be safe. Smashing the state and eating the rich are two sides of the same coin." [1] >I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree? I want to see a Federalist nation of 50 semi-independent States joined in a common economic union under a single National Defense Apparatus where the bulk of out government interactions are at the state and local level, and most people never even think about the federal government who simply ensures we are not invaded from the outside, that States do not fight each other, and that we can trade freely on the world stage. [1]https://c4ss.org/content/30085 https://c4ss.org/content/30085
- gamblor956 3y ago
  The best government is efficient government, whatever the size it needs to be to efficiently and successfully accomplish the tasks it has been given by its citizens.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    You're technically right, but it may be that the ideal model of government tends towards a certain size; perhaps size significantly affects the extent of corruption? In any case, the more pressing matter is how to turn an inefficient government into an efficient one, heh. (Or even before that, getting consensus on the fundamental responsibilities to the citizens.)
purpleblue 3y ago
As someone who was a life-long liberal, but worked their ass off to become a 1%er, I 100% believe that the Democrats are using people like me as scapegoats and it makes me furious. I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it. But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden? They can go fuck themselves. Until the Democrats stop vilifying people like me, I'm going to hold my nose and vote anti-Democrat across the board. Everyone that I talk to feel the exact same as me.
- tombert 3y ago
  So because some people were mean to you, you just changed all your values about gay marriage, climate change, social welfare, etc? Honestly I actually don't like the "tax the rich to make them pay their fair share" narrative either because it implies that taxes are what pays for the social programs, which is reductive at best (at least with current US monetary theory). I don't make more than $400,000/year [1], but I have traditionally done pretty well in total comp, and I still vote left because I my viewpoints don't change just because some people were to demonize me. Also, wasn't Elizabeth Warren's "pay their fair share" tax for people making like more than $10 million? [1] I actually make $0/year right now due to layoffs.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    I think the start of your reply is the bad faith they’re calling out — as that’s obviously not what they said. They simply prioritize their well-being and not being vilified over the social causes you view as $very_important; and I’d suggest that since you bring up issues such as minority rights, you examine why you think they should accept being othered and vilified, when clearly you object to that behavior in other contexts. Why is that particular example of social abuse something they need to “sit down and shut up” about?
    - tombert 3y ago
      I don't know why you put "sit down and shut up" in quotes when I very decidedly (and purposefully) didn't say that.

> or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" Your bias is showing a bit there.

by tedivm 3y ago

> or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" Your bias is showing a bit there.

stronglikedan 3y ago

Pointing out historically demonstrable facts isn't bias.

phpisthebest 3y ago

My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers. That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more... I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club

jorvi 3y ago
> The best government is the smallest government Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent. > and how we always need to tax them more... Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger > I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class? It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
pierat 3y ago
Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".
- ackfoobar 3y ago
  Looking at the thread I don't think he objects to government ensuring clean water, but Democrats' taxing policies.
  - pierat 3y ago
    Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other. And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein. It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).
andrei_says_ 3y ago
Small government is a common talking point pulling on the strings of what we all intuitively desire (less intrusion in our lives) without providing context. I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. Imagine Germany fighting tooth and nail against teaching about the world wars in school - would be a bit of a red flag, no? Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive toward us, our children, and I see as interference. Defining government enforcing such protections as “interference” is an obvious sleigh of hand. Another example is extending copyright to longer than 7-15 years and enforcing this insanity for the robbing of the public domain. People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages. East access to healthcare and great education makes a strong nation. Encouraging prosperity for all instead of creating moats around the wealth of the richest extractors also makes a strong nation. I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree?
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>I’d love to see less government interference in people’s reproductive rights, in education like the massive censorship around US history of slavery and genocide and the slightest mention of lgbtq people. I bet I can test your resolve to both of them and show you really do not want more freedom, you just want different government controls than "the other team" For example Education. Do you support backpack funded school choice, putting the power of what schools people go to in the hands of the parents? Reproductive Rights.. How about "Financial Abortion" or Default Joint Custody with no support to either parent? Or mandatory DNA validation before entering names on birth certificates. >Government protecting corporations from their responsibilities to the safety of the public and toward our ecosystems is extremely oppressive Corporations are a creation of government, the entire purpose of a corporation is to protect them from liberality. That is really the sole reason for their existence. I always love when strong government supports rail on and on about corporations when strong government is the source of power for corporations. The stronger the government the stronger the corporations. The more centralized the government, the larger the corporations. Since We have been putting more and more regulation an power under the pervue of the federal government the largest corporations have gone from about 20% market share on average to 80% market share on average. Strong Central Governments weakens and prohibits competition in the market place, history proves this time and time again >>People keeping their fair share of their labor is a similar one. I’d like to see a cap on exploitation of 99% of people, not constant reductions on the taxes that the 1% earn while they sleep - mostly at the cost of the rest not having livable wages. "A world that is safe for today’s rich will never be safe for the rest of us. Not until the rich’s massive fortunes, and the state power propagating them, is destroyed will we be safe. Smashing the state and eating the rich are two sides of the same coin." [1] >I want to see the US as a strong healthy nation, very very much. I think we’re on the same page, would you agree? I want to see a Federalist nation of 50 semi-independent States joined in a common economic union under a single National Defense Apparatus where the bulk of out government interactions are at the state and local level, and most people never even think about the federal government who simply ensures we are not invaded from the outside, that States do not fight each other, and that we can trade freely on the world stage. [1]https://c4ss.org/content/30085 https://c4ss.org/content/30085
gamblor956 3y ago
The best government is efficient government, whatever the size it needs to be to efficiently and successfully accomplish the tasks it has been given by its citizens.
- vacuity 3y ago
  You're technically right, but it may be that the ideal model of government tends towards a certain size; perhaps size significantly affects the extent of corruption? In any case, the more pressing matter is how to turn an inefficient government into an efficient one, heh. (Or even before that, getting consensus on the fundamental responsibilities to the citizens.)

purpleblue 3y ago

As someone who was a life-long liberal, but worked their ass off to become a 1%er, I 100% believe that the Democrats are using people like me as scapegoats and it makes me furious. I worked and studied when my classmates or coworkers were partying, made good choices, and now I enjoy a nice life because of it. But now all of a sudden, because I make over $400,000 I "don't pay my fair share of taxes", according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden? They can go fuck themselves. Until the Democrats stop vilifying people like me, I'm going to hold my nose and vote anti-Democrat across the board. Everyone that I talk to feel the exact same as me.

tombert 3y ago
So because some people were mean to you, you just changed all your values about gay marriage, climate change, social welfare, etc? Honestly I actually don't like the "tax the rich to make them pay their fair share" narrative either because it implies that taxes are what pays for the social programs, which is reductive at best (at least with current US monetary theory). I don't make more than $400,000/year [1], but I have traditionally done pretty well in total comp, and I still vote left because I my viewpoints don't change just because some people were to demonize me. Also, wasn't Elizabeth Warren's "pay their fair share" tax for people making like more than $10 million? [1] I actually make $0/year right now due to layoffs.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I think the start of your reply is the bad faith they’re calling out — as that’s obviously not what they said. They simply prioritize their well-being and not being vilified over the social causes you view as $very_important; and I’d suggest that since you bring up issues such as minority rights, you examine why you think they should accept being othered and vilified, when clearly you object to that behavior in other contexts. Why is that particular example of social abuse something they need to “sit down and shut up” about?
  - tombert 3y ago
    I don't know why you put "sit down and shut up" in quotes when I very decidedly (and purposefully) didn't say that.