Is there such a thing as an honest conservative?
- Thread starter medicineman
- Start date
NLX, secession and liberty aren't the same thing. The constitution gives the federal government certain rights. Any rights not given to the federal government are reserved for the state. A state government with the will to stand up to the federal government could do so without leaving the union. Really, all that would need to happen is 1) Libertarians take over NH politics. 2) Succeed in making New Hampshire a better place. After that, Libertarian becomes the 3rd party. The party of "democrats and republicans are stupid". Good ideas spread, so if it works, look to see other states adopt. I would imagine business leaders might invest in NH and cause it to succeed if NH state laws gave business's an incentive to be there. That would cause there to be extra jobs, and a boom in NH. This would in turn make the Libertarian party the party that succeeds in the minds of the masses.
We are only a few states away from calling a constitutional convention. The last constitutional convention was called to fix some taxing issues so the federal government could have some money. It ended up they rewrote the Articles of Confederation and basically rewrote our entire government. The Constitution was made. It takes 2/3 of the states to call one. This overrides Congress, the House, and the President. They have to do whatever is decided. What happens if 2/3 of the govs are republican or democrat and they decide to hijack the country?
We are only a few states away from calling a constitutional convention. The last constitutional convention was called to fix some taxing issues so the federal government could have some money. It ended up they rewrote the Articles of Confederation and basically rewrote our entire government. The Constitution was made. It takes 2/3 of the states to call one. This overrides Congress, the House, and the President. They have to do whatever is decided. What happens if 2/3 of the govs are republican or democrat and they decide to hijack the country?
medicineman
New Member
Johnny says: "One more lame Meddie thread beginning with a faulty premise".
I fail to see the Faulty premis. All the gobblygook you spieled out did nothing to refute my premis. It is a well known fact that the unemployed will spend most all of the money handed out in unemployment insurance, hence, boosting the economy. It has been proven that giving the rich more money does not make any more jobs, Uhhhh, the last 8 years is proof. It is also true that the largest deficit reduction would be to hold those tax cuts for the rich and apply it to the deficit. I guess you don't do common sense, eh Johnny?
I fail to see the Faulty premis. All the gobblygook you spieled out did nothing to refute my premis. It is a well known fact that the unemployed will spend most all of the money handed out in unemployment insurance, hence, boosting the economy. It has been proven that giving the rich more money does not make any more jobs, Uhhhh, the last 8 years is proof. It is also true that the largest deficit reduction would be to hold those tax cuts for the rich and apply it to the deficit. I guess you don't do common sense, eh Johnny?
jeff f
New Member
well lets just carry your premise a little further to its logical conclusion....all people should be unemplyed to fuel the economy....seriously, where the fuck did you nitwits go to school? demand a refund.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I do common sense just fine. It is not my responsibility if you fail to recognize it.
I have already conceded that handing out unemployment to those whose benefits should have already expired would be put back into the economy. I have further showed that such activity is negligible. Empty calories.
Moreover, I have already stated that distributing borrowed money to extend benefits to people whose benefits would have run out already harms the economy in the long run.
That eight years you speak of includes four of which were presided over by a Democratic Congress, two of those years completely under the stewardship of the Democrats.
Again I ask, how do you 'give' something to someone which belongs to them in the first place?
Raising taxes in a soft economy. Is that your definition of common sense?
That gobbledygook to which you presumably refer destroyed your piece of shit premise. I have no idea what 'gobblygook' is.
Deficit reduction has everything to do with spending. Revenues are finite. There is only so far one can go to increase them. Spending is the key. Spending.
Reduce the fucking spending.
You might understand that if you bothered to read what I offered.
Then again, you probably wouldn't.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it sounds racist to me
beardo
Well-Known Member
that's what everyone called themit sounds racist to me
if it sounds good in the moment, the sheep will believe it.
Doesn't surprise me med ignores conservatives like Rand and Ron Paul. He loves to generalize and group people together on his posts from time to time. I remember a funny quote by Jon Stewart when interviewing Ron Paul.
"What is so interesting about Congressman Ron Paul is you appear to have consistent principled integrity," Stewart said. "Americans don't usually go for that," he added ironically."
medicineman
New Member
The fact that you don't know what gobblygook is doesn't prevent you from speiling it. 720 Billion to the rich over 10 Years, Hmmmm, yeah, I'm sure they need that money. They no doubt will rathole it away for use by their great great great great great grandchildren. How many millions/billions does a rich man need? By being allowed to gather that wealth in this country, he is obligated to give back to society. I'm sure you righties don't see it that way, but oh well, never thought you guys were very bright anyway. It is your exact mentality that has fucked this country to tears. I'm certain that it will continue into oblivion, just the way you like it. BTW, I see you are still the samje old asshole that you proffered up on this forum months ago. I don't expect much from you, and I'm never dissapointed, so go ahead and snivel to the mods, thats your forte.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is called investing... They will buy stocks or bonds and even *gasp* government bonds with that money. The rich are not stupid, simply storing it under their mattress will just devalue it.
And BTW, the government is not giving anything, it is just not taking an additional 72 billion per year. And since the deficit is projected at over 1.4 TRILLION per year I would like the government to cut spending because that 72 billion isnt going to do shit compared to the vast amounts of weath they are simply stealing from the populace and spending on whatever the fuck gets them re-elected...
It is the government that is destroying the value of the dollar, destroying savings in this country. It is the government that is the enemy... If they dont cut spending then nobody is going to be rich. Stop trying to strangle the golden goose to get more cash...
medicineman
New Member
Exactly my premis. They will take it out of general circulation to make further wealth, for them, and by not paying taxes they deprive the society of any benefit of their wealth expansion. That is exactly what has been going on for the last 30 years. This society cannot sustain this robbery of wealth from the middle class and the poor to subsidize the rich. What you wannabees don't realize, is that if your name is not Rockefeller, Getty, or some other prestigious name, it is only a matter of time before the wealthy get your money also. They have been robbing society since Reagon and his damned trickle down economics, and even before that.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
What you dont realize is that poor is not a terminal disease. You dont have to be needy your whole life.
And if you cannot trust yourself to save money and progress through increased income through your life then I cant help you but I sure as shit dont want the government to run both our lives for your defects.
Trickle down works!!! It didnt mean the poorest people would get mansions, it means they would have jobs and a way to better their lives. Freedom does not come with a promise of success and government cannot provide that.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I know what gobbledygook is, thank you very much. I'm not familiar with gobblygook.
How do you figure that it's comes to 720 Billion when the extension applies to two years? Where this honesty you seem to be so proud of?
Whether the affluent need it or not is no concern of yours. I doubt sincerely the money, which is theirs to do with as they see fit, will be 'ratholed.' That would be a very unwise investment strategy. Instead they will do what they always do, save and invest. That money will then be available for the private sector to use.
Your response gives the impression that you feel the affluent have some sort of obligation. FUCK THAT! They owe society nothing beyond what they pay now. They pay their taxes. A shit load of taxes. The wealthiest pay the most in income taxes already and have been for a long time, and that is indisputable.
It is the effects of the touchy-feely Progressive vision put into practice over the last hundred years which has doomed our economy, probably our nation. Thanks alot!
You accused me of going to the mods not too long ago, but you never offered up any indication of what you were talking about.
I did not know what you were moaning about then just as I do not have a fucking clue to what you are referring to today. Yet here you are whining about it again. Just what have I gone to the mods about?
Go ahead, give it up. I'm really curious.
Why would I go to the mods about the vague ramblings of some windy old brokedick gas bag?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you saying the affluent would have been just as likely or able to accrue their wealth without the structure set up by government?
that is DELUSIONAL.
it is hard to ship goods without public infrastructure to move along.
it is hard to keep goods secure without public employees that protect and serve.
it is hard to keep a business running without public servants to educate and prepare your workforce from a young age.
it is hard to keep lights on without a grid that brings electric to the public.
i could go on and on. the government orchestrated the conditions from which businesses are able to flourish and prosper.
i know how you love to ignore this while focusing on how *oppressive* and *burdensome* government regulations are...shtuff like safe safe working conditions and a livable wage. you much prefer the child and slave labor model where dignity is optional and people die on the line. we've gone over that already.
while we're at it, damn those minimum social safety nets like unemployment insurance and social security.
i'm sure those magnificent corporations in all their glory would see to it that the people get taken care of and treated with dignity.
no possible way they would treat employees like commodities, fucking them over in the name of the fattest bottom line.
i simply can not imagine such a reality, could you?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Not at all. What I am saying is that the affluent already pay more than their fair share as it stands.
To deny that while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the bottom 47% pay nothing in Federal income taxes is delusional cubed.
Paid for by state and Federal excise taxes on the fuel purchased to transport said goods.
Coppers? That's a state and local issue. Not a Federal issue.
Public education is a state and local issue. Not a Federal issue.
The subject is Federal income taxes, yes?
Which is supported by taxes and surcharges added to every electrical bill.
Like Net Neutrality? An FCC regulatory overreach designed to solve a problem that does not exist?
The function of a corporation is to increase the value of the stockholder's equity. They do this by earning income. Net income: The bottom line of the income statement.
Very soon the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rate because Japan is scaling theirs back.
Remember that the next time some Proggie assclown complains about jobs moving overseas.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
must be tough to be a corporation *snickers*
i paid more out of each and every one of my unemployment checks last year than GE did for the entire year. general electric, that is.
those poor, poor corporations.
unemployment would have been down significantly by now if the nearly 1.5 million jobs they created since the recession began were in the u.s., instead of mining child and slave labor abroad, as we know you prefer. anything for the bottom line, eh?
but as you point out, those poor, blameless corporations are not the ones to point the finger at...it is the government. the big bad government. and its absurd hard on for human dignity.
tell me johnny, how many mcdonalds are up and running in somalia? how about old navy? home depot?
i do not know the answer, to be honest. but i am fairly sure they don't try to make a buck in a place without minimum social structures provided by government. the big, bad government.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Which should I respond to? The original or the post-edited version?
I suppose I will respond to the original as planned.
<snickers>
Not surprisingly, you missed the point.
A corporation does not exist to create jobs. What jobs it does create belong to the corporation, not the employees.
A for-profit corporation is not a social welfare organization. For that I recommend a not-for-profit corporation. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation comes to mind.
A for-profit corporation's only obligation is to its stockholders. And if the government makes it too difficult to operate in any state or nation, that corporation can and will bolt.
It would be ludicrous to blame the corporation doing what it must do in order to fulfill it's purpose.
Cause and effect.
If you are looking for someone to blame over the unintentional consequences of burdensome taxation and oppressive regulation I suggest you look to the people who consistently push for them.
A mirror should help you locate the guilty party.