[quote=White Fox;523165]The Constitution outlines a system of government that is a small as it is possible to get without endangering life, liberty, or property.
[quote]
And, since individuals disagree about where the limits on government should be, it was written to be flexible, and, by its very nature, open to interpretation.
Quote:
|
Power corrupts, but the people are not punishing them for this. I think this will change after Bush.
|
I think this will change after you get shellacked at the voting booth.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, I've read the hoover institute, and the cato institute's and all the other think tanks, always say.
Tax-revenues were increasing at a faster rate under clinton than under Bush, and his lower tax rate.
In essence: the lower tax-rate did not correlate with increased revenue for the government.
So, your claim is false.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html
Quote:
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.
|
See, the problem is, it's all theory. There is no magic number. Moreover, the tax rate is more complicated than you're making it out to be. What we find is that tax-cuts for the middle class do spur the economy, because middle class people put that money right into the economy.
Tax-cuts for the wealthiest are typically saved, or put into assets of one kind or another.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Clearly, if the curve is an attainable reality, we were closer to it under CLinton, when revenues increased much more quickly.
Quote:
|
So liberals should support these tax cuts, instead of calling them "irresponsible" as Obama has done.
|
They are irresponsible. While Bush and Repugs increased spending, they also cut revenues to the government.
And, as I've linked you to, they haven't paid for themselves. He missed the curve, if their is one.
Quote:
|
No we are not. We are on the planet earth, which means we can't get off, no matter who has a bomb.
|
So, we should whip out our gun and shoot innocent people, making the situation more dangerous for everybody, because we
think some other guy has a bomb? Do you see how foolish that is? Even after we've done it, and found their was no bomb?
Quote:
|
I can only think of two at the moment, even if it's a little bit of an exaggeration.
|
Who?
Quote:
|
Their idea of a powerful federal government was one that could raise taxes.
|
...without representation.d
Quote:
|
Liberals have to take courses on logic? That explains a lot.
|
The implication is that you need one.
Quote:
|
This thread will not turn into an argument over the validity of the elastic clause. It would really never end.
|
I'll end it: the constitution gives the power to congress to do whatever it likes, if it's necessary and proper.
Necessary and proper is clearly a subjective term, and thus, subject to the will of the people via representatives.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Right. Congress can pass any laws it likes, then it goes to the president, and can be tested in court against constituional stipulations.
And, most of the things libertarians claim to be unconstituional are quite constitutional, according to various rulings.
Adding to the point that libertarians claim only one interpretation of the constitution, when, obviously, there are more.
Quote:
|
Government is a necessary evil. Power corrupts. That government which governs least, governs best.
|
Ask not what your country can do for you...