The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
I don't believe Republicans have any idea what the definition of conservative is anymore other than lower taxes.
For the last 14 years libertarians are claiming the real conservative slogan while establishment GOP also claims to be conservative. I don't know what you'd call Trump's brand of conservatism but his followers seem to champion him as a conservative.
For the last 14 years libertarians are claiming the real conservative slogan while establishment GOP also claims to be conservative. I don't know what you'd call Trump's brand of conservatism but his followers seem to champion him as a conservative.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
labeling known racists and racist groups as conservative seems like a bad plan imo
but you do you
you do realize a conservative in most of those places is what you call a liberal here, right?
Runnin
Well-known member
I wish more people were Bible literate, then there'd be fewer people who believed in it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...n-donald-trump/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Putin is really loving the trump presidency.
Putin is really loving the trump presidency.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
She’s an acknowledged expert in her field with a distinguished academic career. I think pursuing this line of attack makes someone look stupid, but it ain’t her.
This is undoubtedly the tiredest part of a tired act. I engage with your posts, often with some substance. Arguably more than they deserve, often.
When and if there’s a bill, and it’s passed by Congress, courts will decide that. Granted, the Federal judiciary is being stacked with ideologues hostile to progressive policy, but the SC has generally been permissive about the governments ability to tax. The estate tax, for example.
Well, considering that we’re talking about two distinctly different states, that’s not a bad default answer. I’m not sure what particular policy you’re talking about, though.
Somehow, this doesn’t seem like an insurmountable hill to climb.
Not having any idea about the provenance of those figures, my off-the-cuff answer would be to ask why this would be necessarily a bad thing. I’m skeptical (like Jefferson) of the perverse effect on Democracy of massive accumulations of hereditary wealth. Using those proceeds to rebuild infrastructure, provide health care, alleviate societal precarity etc, instead of just seeking rents doesn’t sound like too bad an idea.
If you were familiar with EWs work, you’d know that she is a capitalist. She’s basically a liberal reformist with policy positions that are a fair sight from, say, Sanders. Just because you see commies under the bed doesn’t mean they’re really there.
I’m not sure at what point you’re going to internalize that prompting me to say that I am ok with taxing obscene wealth (or, indeed, that I think it’s obscene in the first place) is some kind of burn. I don’t agree with your moral framing of the issue. And let’s be quite clear that’s what it is. You tend to be quite short on practical arguments for why X or Y policy won’t work, but prefer to argue it on moral grounds, using only your feelings about taxation being theft as an underpinning.
Using dumb emotional people to get support. Hmm. It certainly works for some people.
1st of all, LOL @ "constitution lovers".
2nd of all, the only indication of any violation of Constitutional rights is yours in that a citizen of the United States cannot endorse a religion of their preference. Seems like you need to go back to Constitutional Literacy class if it was not the garlic to your vampiric socialist mentality.
Giving students the option to study one of the most influential works of literature in our history. Aghast! Definitely coercion!
sturg33
I
Ludwig Von Mises is an acknowledged expert in his field, with completely contradicting views. Her distinguished academic career was aided of course by her lying about her race to get accepted... that does look stupid.
You tend to ignore the data of my posts and zero in on other details to derail the topic... I often repeat my direct question to you over and over and over again with no response. Let's hope this time will be different
You don't have to be a ideologue to understand this won't fly with the current constitution... Nor do you have to be a Harvard law professor like Warren.
The Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 gave the federal government an additional right to tax income, and only income. Most federal revenue currently derives from this method of taxation. Individual income tax, business income tax (corporate tax), payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare – all are collected as a percentage of income earned, and the government is deemed within its right to collect these revenues only because the Sixteenth Amendment exists. Other forms of taxation in Article I, Section 8 declares that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises. The Constitution includes caveats as to how direct taxes can be applied in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which reads, "No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."
Warren's wealth tax would most certainly qualify as violating this clause, as it's a direct tax that is uniform based upon a taxpayer's asset value, and without apportionment in relation to "Census or Enumeration" among the individual states.
"A direct tax," Roy Ulrich writes, "is a tax on real or personal property imposed solely by reason of its being owned by the taxpayer. In contrast, indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event, such as the transmission of property. Thus defined, the income tax is plainly a direct tax. So, for that matter, is a tax on any asset."
Income tax is a direct tax, but taxation of income is specifically protected by a constitutional amendment. A direct tax on assets held without any "transmission" of property having taken place is the arbitrary confiscation of property by a federal government which clearly has no right enumerated in the Constitution to do so.
France imposed a wealth tax which caused over 12,000 millionaires to emigrate per year, the largest outflow of rich people in the world. Over 8 million middle class workers had their social security contributions raised to help fill the gap. You may have heard about rioting in the streets due to a new gas tax on the working people.
Oh, the French repealed that tax last year because it was costing them so much money. Since 1990, 12 European countries had wealth taxes, and 8 of them have repealed them including Sweden and Norway. Why would such great economic boons be repealed so quickly I wonder?
I suppose not if we wanted to ensure the government had a lot more access to our private lives than they already do... maybe the 4th amendment might take issue with that
Because rich people will leave with the middle class holding the bag. See France.
Cool. So you just take it away then? Their parents left it for them, they get taxed on it in that transfer. That's not enough, I suppose in your thirst for the rich
What about those that earned it? Bezos, Gates, Musk, Shultz, etc.? Take it away too... despite all the good they've done for people, workers, etc. You think our government can do better? Why?
This is assuming the government can do this efficiently, which they've proven time and time again they can't. The bureaucratic costs alone are estimated to be 14-16%... plus there are tons of studies highlighting hundreds of billion in redundancy costs from the massive bureaucracy.
I've asked you before. What has the federal government done more efficiently than the market? As mentioned, the two things Americans are struggling most with are education and healthcare debt - the two things the government subsidizes the most. Why do you think this is, Julio? And why do you think it will get better if we give them even more control?
I know that she calls herself one. She's made a lot of money bashing capitalism, though. But... you know, that wasn't my point. You went around it like you so frequently do
Why does she attack a private citizen's choice to buy a yacht. Why do you, 57 and others always ignore the fact that building yachts does in fact produce jobs. Money in the bank is lent out to people who need it. Investments are made in businesses who employ people. 57 keeps saying "hoarding" but never answers when I ask him what he thinks happens to the money while sitting in a bank. What do you think happens to it?
Oh I know you are proud to confiscate from people who have more than you. What a hero. I've asked you now I believe 6 times whether you think it's OK for me to steal from my rich neighbor under the same basis, and you've yet to answer. Will you now?
Bull ****.
I first framed it up as unconstitutional - to which you incorrectly dismissed away.
I then framed it up in pure numbers, that it will lead to less revenue and prosperity - To which you completely ignored and gleefully cheered about a rich person having to pay more.
I then framed it up as a basis of morality - to which you ignored the rest of the substantive debate to focus on that which you frequently do. It's funny - you're happy to talk about the morality of separating children from their parents at the boarder - but you try to dismiss and entire argument based on morality here.
But don't act like I'm simply making an emotional plea here - that's lazy, ignorant, and dumb.
Yep. Math is hard. FUK DA RICH is easy
Runnin
Well-known member
You believe a "Top Saudi official" who is clearly in bed with Trump.
Good on Obama for now making the Saudis happy.
sturg33
I
Trump's been a very peculiar Putin puppet
Runnin
Well-known member
It's called The National Security Council. Trump does not have a free rein.
sturg33
I
hehe
Everything he does that isn't overtly anti-Russia, he's being controlled
Everything he does that flies in the face of Russia, it wasn't his call.
Man - the party of science is amazing with how it can twist logic.