AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre,
I agree:

Foxfyre wrote:

And again the raw numbers don't tell the whole story, Ican, though they are useful in spotting trends and dispelling at least some myths.

I further agree with the rest of your post.

As I have previously posted, I know from my study of the Constitution of the USA including its 27 amendments that FDR's stimulus decisions were not only failures, they were also illegal and violate our "supreme law of the land."

The same is true for Bush's stimulus actions.

Obama is emulating FDR's and Bush's failed stimulus actions and amplifying them beyond comprehension, and, more importantly, Obama is enraging a majority of Americans with his stimulus bill.

I think it obvious that the Congressional Budget Office's latest statement is correct . Doing nothing will hurt the economy less than Obama's stimulus bill.

I also think that the most effective thing the federal government can do to begin to correct our current economic mess is to replace all current income tax laws with a single 13% flat tax with zero exemptions, zero deductions, and zero paybacks. Then the feds should begin to reduce and/or cancel all presently illegal government giveaways to private individuals and organizations.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, For you to expect anybody to accurately forecast what will happen to any economy and tax rates and its impact is spoken from ignorance. It's up to the current administration and congress to determine how best to establish tax rates, and for future administrations and congress to figure out tax rates in the future whether its for social security, Medicare or income taxes. The fact that past administrations and congress did not act properly in determining tax rates is based on how we elect our representatives in our government, and we all are responsible for that.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

No you are right. I should have said 3% instead of 1%. And there were some other categories other than the elderly included in the program. So thank you for pointing that out.

But there is no way FDR would ever have been able to sell the program and get it through Congress had he had any inkling that it would become the enormously costly program with the scope that it now has.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, the Obama government has already convinced the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office that Obama's stimulus package is worse than doing nothing.

It is easy to predict the future of that which has previously failed many times in the past. It will fail again and every time it is subsequently tried.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Well, as you know, we don't entirely see 100% eye to eye on the deductions thing. From my perspective, if MACs appreciate those American values that have sustained, improved, and stablized society in positive ways, then it is not inappropriate for the government to enact policies that encourage such values which would include the institution of marriage, traditional family, home ownership, voluntary charitable giving, entrepreneurialism etc. So we probably do disagree on the propriety of people receiving any kind of government benefit for embracing such values. I haven't been able to rationalize how doing away with such benefits would benefit the people, but I am open to be convinced.

We do see eye to eye on a flat tax however, but why in particular, 13%?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, voluntary charity giving is a private individual value and and a private group process. The objective of most--not all--private charity is ultimately reducing the dependence on charity of people receiving that charity. When government is the giver of charity, the consequence is sustained dependence on its charity. So I think it an unhealthy idea to grant government the right to give as charity that which is obtained by forcing people to provide it.

As you know, there exists no provision in the Constitution granting the federal government the power to give to private individuals or organizations a pottion of its tax revenue. Therefore, such action by the federal government is illegal.

If some fixed dollars of total income were taxed at a zero rate, and the rest taxed at, say, 13%, that would be a violation of the Constitutional provision that all federal taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." Some people think that means only that any non-uniformity in the tax laws shall be uniform throughout the United States. I think the interpretation that uniform = uniform-non-uniformity is not only self-contradictory, it's ridiculous.

My choice of a 13% flat tax rate is based on the assumption that total USA personal income will grow within a decade of its adoption to 20 trillion from its present 10 trillion. Then 13% of 20 trillion would deliver 2.6 trillion dollars revenue. While current government expenditures exceed that, the additional effect of such a tax would be to force either a reduction in total federal expenditures or a tax increase. If everyone is paying that tax, then everyone has a stake in keeping the tax low, perhaps at 13%.

Nonetheless, if a two-tax rate system were adopted (e.g., 0% on the 1st say 20 thousand dollars of income, and 13% on the rest) , I'd still celebrate the improvement that will help make to our economy.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

My choice of a 13% flat tax rate is based on the assumption that total USA personal income will grow within a decade of its adoption to 20 trillion from its present 10 trillion

Don't you think this is a mite optimistic, considering all you have is a theory to go off of?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre, voluntary charity giving is a private individual value and and a private group process. The objective of most--not all--private charity is ultimately reducing the dependence on charity of people receiving that charity. When government is the giver of charity, the consequence is sustained dependence on its charity. So I think it an unhealthy idea to grant government the right to give as charity that which is obtained by forcing people to provide it.

As you know, there exists no provision in the Constitution granting the federal government the power to give to private individuals or organizations a pottion of its tax revenue. Therefore, such action by the federal government is illegal.

We aren't too far apart actually. I agree that there is no constitutional authority for the govrnment to take what Citizen A lawfully acquired and give it to Citizen B. In other words government should not be in the business of dispensing charity.

But I also believe that a moral society takes care of the figurative widows and orphans and the truly helpless and those in crisis through no fault of their own. Toward that end I have no problem with the government allowing those who choose to care for the widows and orphans, etc., to get some kind of tax break for charitable contributions.

A tax break to those who marry and file joint returns would most likely have the effect of strengthening neighborhoods, communities, towns, and the country overall and ensuring that more children will not be born into poverty.

A tax break for new business start ups or new branches established in poor areas of high unemployment only makes sense.

All these I see as valid application of the constitutional mandate to 'promote the common welfare. None advantages any person or group over any other or takes anything away from anybody. This assumes, of course, that the government operates within its means including efforts to promote the common welfare. The deductions would not reduce the tax percentage paid but only the AGI on which it was paid.

Quote:

If some fixed dollars of total income were taxed at a zero rate, and the rest taxed at, say, 13%, that would be a violation of the Constitutional provision that all federal taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." Some people think that means only that any non-uniformity in the tax laws shall be uniform throughout the United States. I think the interpretation that uniform = uniform-non-uniformity is not only self-contradictory, it's ridiculous.

My choice of a 13% flat tax rate is based on the assumption that total USA personal income will grow within a decade of its adoption to 20 trillion from its present 10 trillion. Then 13% of 20 trillion would deliver 2.6 trillion dollars revenue. While current government expenditures exceed that, the additional effect of such a tax would be to force either a reduction in total federal expenditures or a tax increase. If everyone is paying that tax, then everyone has a stake in keeping the tax low, perhaps at 13%.

Nonetheless, if a two-tax rate system were adopted (e.g., 0% on the 1st say 20 thousand dollars of income, and 13% on the rest) , I'd still celebrate the improvement that will help make to our economy.

I can't quarrel with your rationale here.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Re: ican711nm (Post 3565918)
Ican- You are correct. Cyclopitchorn will not admit that overtaxing causes a drying up of revenue which leads to even more recession. Ofcourse, Cycloptichorn will not try to rebut my post. He is still smarting from the drubbing I gave him recently. I have noticed that many liberals are like that. They avoid getting into a debate if they are afraid they will be exposed as frauds.

But you are correct.

Amity Shlaes, who wrote the highly praised. "The Forgotten Man" about the great depression tells us what happened under FDR--IT SOUNDS A GREAT DEAL LIKE OBAMA'S PROGRAMS.

Shlaes wrote:

P. 8

"Businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out and conserve their money for the future. Roosevelt decided to punish them by introducing the undistributed profits tax --to press the money out of them. Such forays PREVENTED RECOVERY and took the country into depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938."

end of quote

It was only World War II which revived the American Economy. Actually almost all of the thirties, during which Roosevelt taxed and taxed and the only going concerns were government funded( sound familiar??) were miserable years. If we are not out of these bad times by 2012, Obama will not be re-elected, unless he can, of course, convince the American electorate that it's all Bush's fault.

But, then, the American voter never had that much patience

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Roosevelt told Francis Perkins, his Labor Secretary in1935-

quote

"...this( the Social Security Act of 1935) is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated debt for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980. We can't do that. We can't see the US short in 1980 any more than in 1935"

FDR is whirling around in his grave, I am sure, when he sees that Obama is not only mortaging the future of our children and grandchildren with his ridiculously bloated stimulus package--He has done NOTHING to meet the challenge of future Social Security and Medicare payouts. He won't either because Social Security is the third rail of politics and those who try to fix it are not re-elected and Obama has already shown that his main motivation is to gain more personal power--not to help the citizens of the USA with their future concerns about Social Security and/or Medicare.

I may have missed Obama's comment about either of those programs but I don't think so. So far, he has appeared to assidiously avoid them.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre:

Quote:

But I also believe that a moral society takes care of the figurative widows and orphans and the truly helpless and those in crisis through no fault of their own. Toward that end I have no problem with the government allowing those who choose to care for the widows and orphans, etc., to get some kind of tax break for charitable contributions.

Interesting possibility: allowing people to deduct their charitable contributions from their tax payments.

While I think this idea is one that can be too easily corrupted by the feds, it certainly is worth considering what rules would have to be made to minimize chances of that possibility's corruption. I fear, such a rule would be used by Congress to buy votes via their selection of what is and what is not an "approved" charity.

Foxfyre:

Quote:

All these I see as valid application of the constitutional mandate to promote the common welfare.

The clause to "promote the common welfare" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. It does not even exist in the Constitution's preamble, which, by the way, does not itself constitute a delegation of power to the federal government.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The mandate within the Constituion you might be thinking about is providing for the general welfare of the United States.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 8. 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;

This clause does not grant Congress the power to use tax money to support private individuals or organizations.

Just so you won't think me unique in this opinion, here are two old examples that match my own opinion.

Several times under our early constitutional government, folks like Benjamin Franklin and Davy Crokett warned the Congress money collected in taxes is not theirs to give." The proposed gift was a gift of some taxes by the feds to a widow in need.

In another case, members of Congress gave their own money to someone in need, rather than gave tax money.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

And, when reviewing the book by Amity Shales--"The Forgotten Man'- The ULTRA LEFT WING MAGAZINE--'THE NATION' SAID-

"Shlaes is, of course, correct that the NEW DEAL FAILED to restore economic health.

In her afterword to the book, Shales reviews FDR's policies. They are frighteningly reminiscent of Obama's Stimulus Package.

She writes--P. 391

"President Roosevelt had no time for paltry changes. He nearly doubled the federal budget in his first term. The WPA, which hired people for smaller projects spent several billion all by itself. The idea, as the New York Times put it back then was for" Washington to do work that could not be done by private industry:...Along the way, the New Deal created a lot of jobs burt the New Deal's emergency jobs were short term, lasting months not years,so that people could settle into them...Washington sucked up much of the available capital by selling bonds and colleting taxes to pay for the tTVA or municipal power plants in towns...At many points during the New Deal, net private investment was not merely low but NEGATIVE...All this tells us that some companies had little hope for productivity gains inthe years ahead...Roosevelt no longer believed in business. Five years into the New Deal, companies across the United States were mounting whatROOSEVELT HIMSELF CALLED A 'CAPITAL STRIKE...As a matter of fact, infrastructure spending isoften just a nicer name for what we used to call PORK."

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre:
Quote:
But I also believe that a moral society takes care of the figurative widows and orphans and the truly helpless and those in crisis through no fault of their own. Toward that end I have no problem with the government allowing those who choose to care for the widows and orphans, etc., to get some kind of tax break for charitable contributions.

Interesting possibility: allowing people to deduct their charitable contributions from their tax payments.

While I think this idea is one that can be too easily corrupted by the feds, it certainly is worth considering what rules would have to be made to minimize chances of that possibility's corruption. I fear, such a rule would be used by Congress to buy votes via their selection of what is and what is not an "approved" charity.

\

No, I wasn't considering a tax credit but more like a deduction from the income on which taxes are assessed. In other words, if your taxable income is $50,000 and you give $5,000 to charity, you would pay taxes on the remaining $45,000 just as it is now.

I would like to see the rules tightened on what constitutes a charity, however. Certainly bonafied churches, groups like the Salvation Army, or Boy's Ranch, or Legal Aid, or any other organization that provides religious nurture and/or direct humanitarian or necessary services to the public should qualify. I do think that there should be a cap on what percentage of the gross 'income' can be paid in salaries and certain other expenses, however, and any organization that presumes to campaign outside its organization on behalf of a political candidate, including a church, would lose its non profit status.

Foxfyre:

Quote:

All these I see as valid application of the constitutional mandate to promote the common welfare.

Quote:

The clause to "promote the common welfare" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. It does not even exist in the Constitution's preamble, which, by the way, does not itself constitute a delegation of power to the federal government.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The mandate within the Constituion you might be thinking about is providing for the general welfare of the United States.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 8. 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;

This clause does not grant Congress the power to use tax money to support private individuals or organizations.

No, I said the same thing just in a different way. You are correct that it is 'general' welfare instead of 'common' welfare but they are essentially the same thing.

But I think a tax break given to married couples to encourage people to get married before they have kids, to encourage home ownership, to encourage entrepeneurship in depressed areas, and property relief to churches etc. not only helps protect the First Amendment but also helps promote the very values that reduce poverty among children, that strengthen neighborhoods and communities, that reduce crime, that produce a gentler and more liveable environment, that strengthen schools and good education, reduce drop outs, and foster pride and initative to make civic improvements that are good for all is what our Founders had in mind with 'promote the general welfare' as well as government provision for infrastructure that benefits all.

There is no way to prevent corruption in government if the government targets any particular demographic or group for direct government relief or subsidy.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, you've made good arguments to support your position. I'll have to think about them some more. In the meantime, here's some additional thoughts of both mine and a dictionary.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no way to prevent corruption in government if the government targets any particular demographic or group for direct government relief or subsidy.

Perhaps you are right! But I'd like to think there are ways to make it very difficult if not impossible to prevent corruption in government.

Foxfyre wrote:

it is 'general' welfare instead of 'common' welfare but they are essentially the same thing.

I think they are different. To me, common welfare applies to individuals in a group of individuals, whereas general welfare applies to the condition in which a whole group exists.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=23&y=6
Main Entry: 1com·mon
...
Function: adjective
...
1 a : of or relating to a community at large (as a family unit, social group, tribe, political organization, or alliance) : generally shared or participated in by individuals of a community : not limited to one person or special group ...
2 a : held, enjoyed, experienced, or participated in equally by a number of individuals : possessed or manifested by more than one individual
...

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=25&y=8
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority
...
<we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>

4 : marked by broad overall character without being limited, modified, or checked by narrow precise considerations : concerned with main elements, major matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars
...
6 : belonging to the common nature (as of a group of like individuals)
...
10 : involving or affecting practically the entire organism : not local <general nervousness>
synonym see UNIVERSAL

Hmmm ... !? I guess the correct interpretation of common and general depends on context. In the context of the US Constitution, general as in "promote the general welfare," seems to me to mean "b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects."

0 Replies

Well we don't have to get too technical here since I think we are in 100% agreement that when the government uses the public treasury to curry favor with/benefit any particular constituency, the possibility/probability of government corruption comes into play.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well we don't have to get too technical here since I think we are in 100% agreement that when the government uses the public treasury to curry favor with/benefit any particular constituency, the possibility/probability of government corruption comes into play.

Makes one wonder how you guys feel about tax cuts for the rich. That's a pretty particular constituency, wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sure all conservatives, especially those MACs, will refuse any of the stimulus plan monies and benefits. Conservatives do not lose jobs, homes or their health insurance; they are totally self-sufficent, and our government should not be spending money for such purposes. But it's okey to spend 10-billion every month in Iraq to bring democracy to the middle east. LOL

1 Reply

Re: ican711nm (Post 3566796)
And, when reviewing the book by Amity Shales--"The Forgotten Man'- The ULTRA LEFT WING MAGAZINE--'THE NATION' SAID-

"Shlaes is, of course, correct that the NEW DEAL FAILED to restore economic health.

In her afterword to the book, Shales reviews FDR's policies. They are frighteningly reminiscent of Obama's Stimulus Package.

She writes--P. 391

"President Roosevelt had no time for paltry changes. He nearly doubled the federal budget in his first term. The WPA, which hired people for smaller projects spent several billion all by itself. The idea, as the New York Times put it back then was for" Washington to do work that could not be done by private industry:...Along the way, the New Deal created a lot of jobs burt the New Deal's emergency jobs were short term, lasting months not years,so that people could settle into them...Washington sucked up much of the available capital by selling bonds and colleting taxes to pay for the tTVA or municipal power plants in towns...At many points during the New Deal, net private investment was not merely low but NEGATIVE...All this tells us that some companies had little hope for productivity gains inthe years ahead...Roosevelt no longer believed in business. Five years into the New Deal, companies across the United States were mounting whatROOSEVELT HIMSELF CALLED A 'CAPITAL STRIKE...As a matter of fact, infrastructure spending isoften just a nicer name for what we used to call PORK."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone Imposter is against funding for wars. So am I. When is the President going to stop funneling Billions in taspayer dollars to continue a useless war in Afghhanistan? NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

Here is part of the report given to the Congress by the DOD in Oct. 2008

Past Trends and Future DOD Costs in Afghanistan. How has funding
for Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror Operations changed over time and
what does the future hold? As of enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental,
Afghanistan has received about $173 billion in appropriations for DOD, foreign and
diplomatic operations, and VA medical. In recent years, funding for Afghanistan was
about $20 billion annually but jumped by 75% to about $37 billion in FY2007, then
falls to $34 billion in FY2008 when more funding is included for operations and less
for training Afghan security forces.

*********************************************************************How many schools could we build for the inner city blacks and Hispanics who suffer from the racism of conservatives with all of the money spent in Afghanistan.

END THE WA R IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!

I doubt that Obama will do it!!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually I am 100% against tax cuts for the rich. I prefer to target reasonable tax cuts for everybody in a way that provides incentive and ability for the private sector to strengthen the economy and thereby provide more opportunity for everybody. If the rich happen to benefit along with everybody else, that's okay.

MACs aren't into class envy and do not despise the successful. They look for government policy and practices that encourage people to become successful rather than thinking the way to accomplish that is by making the fat cats skinnier.

President Obama, when it was pointed out that a certain tax policy had actually increased treasury revenues, once said that it wasn't a matter of revenues. It was a matter of fairness. That is liberal speak at its very worst and something I would hope Americans would discard as destructive and unproductive. You cannot help the poor by tearing down the rich.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know