Quote:
Originally Posted by f0ca1
You claimed that they all wanted limited government. You were wrong.
|
The Constitution outlines a system of government that is a small as it is possible to get without endangering life, liberty, or property.
Quote:
|
That's super duper. But, we were discussing why Republicans don't have any discernible political philosophy, or, why they abandon their philosophy when they gain power.
|
Power corrupts, but the people are not punishing them for this. I think this will change after Bush.
Quote:
|
We need to raise taxes and decrease spending.
|
Raising taxes does not increase government revenue when it will cause the economy to shrink past the point where the increased tax rate would not make the government any more money.
To demonstrate this, I'll show you this. It's called the Laffer Curve, and you may have heard of it before. Basically, this is how it works. If a government has a 100% tax or a 0% tax, it won't make any money at all. But obviously there is a place somewhere where the government can make money. So this creates a curve, the Laffer Curve, and somewhere along the curve is a place where the government makes the maximum amount of money. Nobody knows where this is, as economics is a very complex science, but it has become clearer in modern times and we get closer to finding it everyday as the economy shifts and tax rates change. However, the Bush tax cuts have given us very valuable insight into this, because government revenues increased in general, not just because of the capital gains cut. Unfortunately, new ideas like this are not always immediately put into effect, and public opinion has more to say on actual policies than science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laffer-Curve.svg
Please not that this curve is not to scale. A 50% tax is not the maximum, but this helps to illustrate the concept. A libertarian economist had this to say about the concept, ""In the United States the recent advances in tax rates produced only negligible revenue results beyond what would be produced by a progression which stopped at much lower rates."
With the national debt topping 4 trillion dollars, I propose that the government try to find this through very small changes in the tax rate over a large period of time, until it is found and the government gets as much money as possible. Then, when the budget is balanced, we can further reduce taxes to let people get as much of their money as possible. It seems like a simple solution to me, and even then, liberals who want government programs to help the poor should stick to the optimum on the Laffer Curve. An optimum which we can safely assume, is around the lower taxes that Bush has given us. So liberals should support these tax cuts, instead of calling them "irresponsible" as Obama has done.
Quote:
|
We aren't on an airplane.
|
No we are not. We are on the planet earth, which means we can't get off, no matter who has a bomb.
Quote:
|
But, assuming you're sincere about your ideals, it must be frustrating to watch your party abandon them, perpetually.
|
YOU HAVE NO IDEA
Quote:
|
No one is supporting that now. That's sheer hyperbole.
|
I can only think of two at the moment, even if it's a little bit of an exaggeration.
Quote:
|
My logic succeeds because the constitution was the result of compromise between those who wanted a powerful federal government, and those that did not.
|
Their idea of a powerful federal government was one that could raise taxes.
Quote:
|
Ever taken a course on logic?
|
Liberals have to take courses on logic? That explains a lot.
Quote:
|
Ever heard of the elastic clause? Ever heard of the lousiana purchase? Ever heard of the National bank?
|
This thread will not turn into an argument over the validity of the elastic clause. It would really never end. But regardless, it does not give the government to do whatever it wants to. Everyone agrees on that, the only argument is what steps the government can take to carry out the powers given to it by the Constitution.
Quote:
What is so is that the side of extremely limited government, the predecessor of your side, also referred to hyperboles of authoritarianism.
The difference is, they had enough class and reason to indulge the other side, and admit, honestly, that their were two valid sides to the argument of the role of government, that boil down to nothing but a person's opinion.
|
Government is a necessary evil. Power corrupts. That government which governs least, governs best.