tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post8730503981488959954..comments2024-03-28T12:43:07.327-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: "Sound Science"Dave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-40104894567926689112011-04-22T14:07:35.006-04:002011-04-22T14:07:35.006-04:00I could tell you, but I wouldn't have to kill ...I could tell you, but I wouldn't have to kill you. I'd be too busy watching my ass in Army jail.<br /><br />But never fear, Obama just extended the program for a lot more years. I guess he saw it's benefits too.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-29402964912224768112011-04-22T13:26:03.911-04:002011-04-22T13:26:03.911-04:00OK, Free, you may go on defending our freedom by k...OK, Free, you may go on defending our freedom by keeping us in the dark.<br /><br />I'd hate for you to have to kill us for knowing too much. ;-)Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-40535543345517377642011-04-22T01:24:40.563-04:002011-04-22T01:24:40.563-04:00...though I would love to educate you, unfortunate......though I would love to educate you, unfortunately it's a felony.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-63419386500947432172011-04-21T22:58:43.235-04:002011-04-21T22:58:43.235-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-48249575411163108212011-04-21T16:14:29.268-04:002011-04-21T16:14:29.268-04:00Free,
I've yet to see any real violations of ...Free,<br /><i> I've yet to see any real violations of anything in the 4th ammendment.</i><br /><br />Just poke around and you can easily find them. There have been lawsuits, both successful and unsuccessful, over the violations. Warrentles wiretaps, gag orders and National Security Letters are a few.<br /><br />I see Florida Republicans want safety net recipients to take drug tests now, at their cost too. Seems the AHCA may not be the only mandate for people to give their money to businesses. And this is for those who can least afford it. The libertarian side of me strongly dislikes both mandates.<br /><br /><i>"And the Tea Party and Libertarian Republicans are undoing it. Why don't you jump on board?"</i><br /><br />Show me where they really are taking on the MIC, and I would.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-4406927903709280822011-04-21T11:35:20.624-04:002011-04-21T11:35:20.624-04:00I don’t understand why you don’t have private insu...<i>I don’t understand why you don’t have private insurance</i><br /><br />Um... I'm in the Army, and I'm sure you know there are limits to which private companies will insure you. Professionally getting shot at is one reason (among many) they won't cover us.<br /><br /><i> you’ve had non-surgical decompression treatment.</i><br /><br />Sort of, but the standard of care in military medicine is much less than civilian medicine and you can't sue the doctor when he screws up when he violates it. A biproduct of the socialism. <a href="http://pptranger.us/sick-call/" rel="nofollow">In fact Soldiers view our health care system as some what of a joke.</a><br /><br />But I've also got to experience first hand the German, Canadian and French healt care systems. Wouldn't trade them... ever.<br /><br /><i>Are you sure weak government is the answer? In a power vacuum something else would rise.</i><br /><br />I'm not an anarchist, I'm a Libertarian. We of course think we should have some level of law enforcement to protect peope... though not against drug abuse lol. However, I've yet to see any real violations of anything in the 4th ammendment... though my right to property (not in any founding document) is pretty well trashed come tax time.<br /><br /><i>I think the question of strong v. weak government is moot. We have a military industrial congressional complex.</i><br /><br />And the Tea Party and Libertarian Republicans are undoing it. Why don't you jump on board?free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-58527739806051950042011-04-20T13:11:18.244-04:002011-04-20T13:11:18.244-04:00Free,
I wish you luck on your back. I have been ha...Free,<br />I wish you luck on your back. I have been having sciatic problems lately myself and it’s no fun. A herniated disc is one of the possible reasons. I don’t understand why you don’t have private insurance, if that is what you need. Now I suppose you could be rejected because of “previous condition”, especially if the Affordable Health Care Act is completely demolished. <br /><br />I think a waiting period is recommended for back pain because of the high possibility of complications of surgery, here and in Canada. I assume you’ve had non-surgical decompression treatment. <br /><br />Are you sure weak government is the answer? In a power vacuum something else would rise. And we know who has the money for such power. We at least have a Bill of Rights that is supposed to limit that power of government. Bush and his appeasing R’s and D’s have done near irreparable damage in the War on Terror fiction. Imagine the abuses of our rights by power even less constrained regarding our rights. Imagine Blackwater patrolling out streets. If you want your war on terror, then you don’t want weak government. It seems you just want one that abdicates is constitutional responsibility to levy taxes and regulate commerce. <br /><br />I hate stupid rules too and they are not all liberal ideas. The entire drug war debacle is one huge example. Nixon commissioned a study that urged de-criminalizing cannabis. He ignored it. The pressure from corporate lobbying by Big Pharma, tobacco, and alcohol are major factors in the supposed government of the people deciding what they can do with their own bodies. <br /><br />A weaker government means more corporate control of public policy. This is GOP Republicanism in a nutshell. <br /><br />I think the question of strong v. weak government is moot. We have a military industrial congressional complex. It is going to be powerful no matter what. The issue then becomes where and how that power should be applied.<br /><br />Liberals want a government that works for the people. And that’s what we’re here to bicker about. <br /><br />What a dilemma. <br /><br />TP,<br />Don’t accuse me of wanting no restraint on government. I fully support all of our Bill of Rights. I am very conservative that way. Also don’t assume I “assume this is blanket permission for government to do everything and anything”. I oppose government overreach in personal lives too. You fail to see my position on limited government. Wiretaps and searches without court orders violate the Bill of Rights far more egregiously than public health and retirement safety nets. You are free to disagree with this, but you are not free to define my assumptions without correction. <br /><br />I have to wonder why auto bailouts and health care scare you more than outright violations of the Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I’m ok with not subsidizing urine art, and I like the old light bulbs. And don’t forget I strongly dislike the mandates in the Affordable Care Act because that only gives more to the Insurance companies. It is very corporatist legislation. I’d much rather see a Medicare for all program with private caregivers. This would be less socialist than Britain because money trickles back to the private health care sector, like in Canada. <br /><br />True Stalinism would be more like the permanent takeover of a healthy auto company, not temporarily bailing out a failed one. Stalinism would also send you, and me, to a camp for saying what we say. You are re-defining again. <br /><br />We’re the only “one remaining free nation” now? Many would disagree. If you are correct, then Operation Iraqi Freedom was indeed a tragic failure. But I guess freedom is whatever you define at any given moment, like tyranny and punishment.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24864467138301387212011-04-20T10:50:24.514-04:002011-04-20T10:50:24.514-04:00Dave, the first part of my comment evidently went ...Dave, the first part of my comment evidently went to your spam filter. I really hate blogger...Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-50040600213659433442011-04-20T10:49:29.337-04:002011-04-20T10:49:29.337-04:00As for me leaving, well the problem is that I have...As for me leaving, well the problem is that I have no other place to go where freedom and self reliance are cherished. On the other hand, progressives can choose from many countries to move to and live in their socialist utopias. The need to eradicate the one remaining free nation evidently is their goal however.<br /><br />I want to live in a nation where individuals and free market capitalism rule. I do not want to live in a country where their idea of regulating commerce means that they can federalize private companies, fire their executives, put their own cronies in place, and then tell them what products they specifically will produce. THAT is outright Stalinism! The fact that this doesn’t scare the crap out of you and most Americans is a very sad and telling sign that we have already lost hold of some vital qualities of “American-ness”.<br /><br />Dubya, you seem to think that I don’t want any government. That is absolutely not true, as this would bring about anarchy. What I want is LIMITED government that does only those functions that private industry and state government cannot do, and for which it is constitutionally authorized. And yes, apparently most conservatives do have a better understanding of what the Constitution says and means accordingly.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-30167603664126559552011-04-20T10:49:06.069-04:002011-04-20T10:49:06.069-04:00Dubya, it is typically not conservatives that have...Dubya, it is typically not conservatives that have a problem with the English language. More often than not, this is an issue progressives have. It starts with redefining unpleasant things with softer euphemisms, as I have already pointed out, and ends with presidents under oath debating what the meaning of “is” is. <br /><br />While your implied accusation of me that I would want an overly narrow reading of the Constitution has merit from your perspective, I would submit to you that you want the Constitution to have seemingly no constraints on government whatsoever. When you look at “and promote the general welfare”, you assume this is blanket permission for government to do everything and anything.<br /><br />I would submit to you further that the government on the federal level does meet a constitutional threshold in establishing a Center for Disease Control for the nation, but that hardly gives them authority to set up a mandatory Affordable Health Care law. (Mandatory that is except for certain massive corporations and unions which have already received waivers from having to comply with Obamacare.) <br /><br />The conservative/libertarian principle that the progressives seem to loathe is this: Government should only do those functions that the private industry and people cannot reasonable do themselves, AND for which they are constitutionally authorized. In other words, the federal government should be responsible for the military, foreign affairs/diplomacy, regulating interstate commerce and providing anti-monopoly and intellectual property protections, creating and maintaining the interstate highway system, coining our increasingly worthless currency and other such specifically delineated duties. It has no business giving tax payer dollars to “artists” to fund projects like placing a crucifix into a jar of urine. It has no place in telling me what kind of light bulb I should buy or how many gallons per flush my toilet should use. It has no place “making us save for our retirement” through Social Security etc. <br /><br />Now I understand that since a promise has been made and millions of people are now dependent upon Social Security that we certainly cannot eradicate it; however, we do need to revamp it to maintain its solvency and to ensure that it still can help those folks for which it was intended. Medicare is in the same boat. These are functions that people could/should have provided for themselves though. The progressive mindset of looking to the government for answers to each and every one of an individual’s personal problems is the very reason why it has expanded to the monstrosity it has. It is your tortured definition of the words, intent, and original precedents of “promoting the general welfare” that has propelled our president and congress to spend another $4 Trillion in his first two years in office.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-6708924901761913262011-04-19T23:48:24.542-04:002011-04-19T23:48:24.542-04:00And you are now a victim of a government death pan...<i> And you are now a victim of a government death panel because that “free market thingy” isn't working for you? At least you are on a list showing socialism works where the market fails</i><br /><br />Well, I'm pretty sure no one has ever died of a herniated disk but it sure is miserable. Didn't you miss the part where I said had this happened on my private insurance I'd be fixed by now? Ah well, two years and counting. I'm actually saving up my own money to pay for a disk replacement surgery. You know, like people in Canada do.<br /><br /><i>I’d like to know how corporate control of government gives us more freedom.</i><br /><br />Dubya, what are you talking about. What I'm telling you is simple. If government is weak, and can't hurt you - who cares who controls it? What incentive to the "eeeevil corporations" have to control it when it doesn't hardly do anything. That's kinda the heart and should of Libertarianism. Government that doesn't do a whole lot, but today it's pretty powerful and it doesn't help most people anyway. At least when it's weak you keep more of your own money and don't have to live by too many stupid rules.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-70814934566613852572011-04-19T16:20:18.987-04:002011-04-19T16:20:18.987-04:00TP,
That 50% is the only assumption I see here. Yo...TP,<br />That 50% is the only assumption I see here. Your “family farm and small family business” line is deceptive and dishonest. This applies to multi-millionaires and you know it. <br /><br />Now there you go again with that “punish” bit. Thank you. <br /><br />(Hey everyone, I told ya’ll so.)<br /><br />You have a very lowball figure on Americans who want the tax rates of the rich restored. Some go as high as 70%. Your Mammonites love your devotion and reverence, though. Not to mention your vote for their guys.<br /><br />Thank you for your narrow Right Wing reading of the Constitution. “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” sure looks like in addition to, not a modifier of, the other provisions. Where do see how that refers to the other provisions?<br /><br />General welfare is also brought up in Section 8 and clearly is listed in addition to the other provisions: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...” I say “in addition to” because they authors clearly used the word “and”. Does “and” mean something different to conservatives and refer to the other delineated powers? You are confusing us. <br /><br />I suppose if you want to get really narrow, the Constitution does not provide for an FBI, but we could allow that under to “establish justice”, though they specifically refer to courts. Neither does the Constitution call for a CIA, or NSA that have histories, along with the FBI, of violating the Bill of Rights. But we allow them because it can be claimed they provide for the common defense, not that we are allowed to see how or where they may do so. <br /><br />So maybe the reasoning is just as sound for the establishment of a public health service to deal with epidemics and health issues that affect the nation’s general welfare. Maybe the reasoning is just as sound that the government may establish worker safety regulations, Medicare and Social Security as well. Those fall under the general welfare. And most people agree with me.<br /><br />Do you insist all of these I mention are unconstitutional? <br /><br />If so, then fine. This is not the America you want, so please leave if you don’t like it. That’s what Righties tell me all the time for my interpretation of the Constitution. I’ve even been called an America-hating socialist for saying we were lied into a war and should have public health care.<br /><br />I see the words “Power To lay and collect Taxes” and “to regulate commerce” right there as well. Those are the parts you really hate, right?<br /><br />HR,<br />Thank you. You are certainly correct that we are from different philosophical, as well as semantic, premises.<br /><br />However I happen to agree that our money is our money. It is a given that the government has a right to some of our money, like it or not. The primary philosophical difference is what I see as constitutional taxation and regulation, TP calls punishment and tyranny.<br /><br />Go figure. <br /><br />If TP is correct and I am wrong, then at least I have the benefit of not having a paranoid sense of persecution.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-35059279865030176832011-04-19T15:53:07.242-04:002011-04-19T15:53:07.242-04:00Dave and T.Paine, you're approaching the quest...Dave and T.Paine, you're approaching the question from opposite philosophical premises, if you'll allow me to translate:<br /><br />Progressives believe the U.S. money supply belongs to the government and not to us individually, therefore a tax cut is called a "cost to government" and, when you die, the government decides what percentage your next of kin is allowed to keep.<br /><br />Conservatives believe our money is our own, therefore government spending is a "cost to taxpayers" and inheritance taxes tax dollars that were already taxed when they were earned, so the government has no right to tax them again when we die.<br /><br />You may proceed with the debate...Eric Norenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648635662703229678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-83540805325349367392011-04-19T14:29:43.494-04:002011-04-19T14:29:43.494-04:00Dubya, you make the typical assumption that many p...Dubya, you make the typical assumption that many progressives do. Someone that inherits “unearned wealth” should have to give 50% of it to the damned government. Never mind if that wealth is in the guise of the family farm that has been passed down for generations and must now be sold off to some huge corporate farming conglomerate so that the kids can pay the DEATH tax on the family farm. The same is often true for a small family business of many sorts too. For that matter, I frankly don’t care if the money is passed down to some spoiled ass trust fund kid. The government needs to learn to spend ONLY what it is constitutionally authorized to spend on and not provide perqs for corporations, unions, and other special interest groups.<br /><br />I don’t understand why the left wants to punish those that are producing and contributing to the federal tax revenues in order to benefit those that are being paid “too much” on unemployment to accept another job. Or especially those that would rather take welfare instead of working….<br /><br />If you keep de-incentivizing the producers in order to provide a life-style to those that are only consumers, eventually you will get more of the latter and less of the former. Do you remember the story about the ant and the grasshopper?<br /><br />I heard it reported yesterday that 47% of Americans think the “rich” don’t pay enough in taxes. It was also reported that 47% of Americans pay no net federal tax and indeed many receive entitlement payments in one form or the other. Do you suppose this is a coincidence?<br /><br />Lastly, in answer to your question, the general welfare statement refers to THOSE POWERS ONLY that are delineated within the Constitution. It is not meant to be an escape clause for progressives to provide universal health care, public subsidized homes, and cash for clunkers to whomever it deems worthy.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-10465736480469737592011-04-19T13:17:21.190-04:002011-04-19T13:17:21.190-04:00Free,
So, then, it’s “the more death panels, the m...Free,<br />So, then, it’s “the more death panels, the merrier” for you? And you are now a victim of a government death panel because that “free market thingy” isn’t working for you? At least you are on a list showing socialism works where the market fails. Now we know why Canadians and Europeans are not out in the streets demanding insurance companies take over their health care.<br /><br />I’d like to know how corporate control of government gives us more freedom. You see, this is why I advocate for more democracy, so the voters have the power, not Big Money.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-52763528744055631472011-04-19T12:45:27.045-04:002011-04-19T12:45:27.045-04:00Jerry,
Those that pay (mostly small and medium bu...Jerry,<br /><br />Those that pay (mostly small and medium business) pay well over their fair share. In fact, they pay the highest rate in the world. Seriously, when is enough, enough? When they've borrowed 28 trillion dollars in your name?<br /><br />I suppose you too would be for a flat 17% rate across the board corporate tax with zero deductions then eh?<br /><br />Dubya<br /><br /><i>Why wouldn't the corporate denial of benefits also be a death panel?</i><br /><br />It is. Of course you have many insurance companies and charity when that happens, and one government. I'm for not monopolizing the death panel.<br /><br /><i> Do you mean Medicare and the VA? Or do you mean Canada? You offer nothing, but accuse me of hiding an agenda</i><br /><br />Yes, yes and yes. I've currently been on a waiting list for two years for a surgery with our wonderful military health care. Had I had my old Blue Cross insurance, I'd have been done and recovered by now. That's one example for you. I can of course give you 16,000 more but that will make this post too long. That's not even counting Canada.<br /><br /><i> I prefer democracy and a government of, by and for the people, not a corporatist oligarchy of, by and for Big Money.</i><br /><br />But we indeed have special interest controlling government. You admit it. The more government we have, the more special interest control there is over you. As long as government has the power to control people there always will be groups that use it for bad ends - hence my support of limiting the power of the State, which is always to tool of oppression. The less government you have, the more freedom you have. The government is like tequila... it sounds like a good idea till you get the hang over and the vomiting that always results... unless you drink it in strict moderation.<br /><br /><i>I’ve paid a 35% tax rate, Small business owner friends pay that rate. Nobody likes it, but only the Righties are such crybabies about it</i><br /><br />Well I'm glad you like laying your chicken at the feet of the master, but I don't. It's very simple. The less money the government takes away from people, the more of it they have. That should be the goal. Not taking away money from the people who carry the water and giving it to those who just drink the water in exchage for votes, privilage and power.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-71716190330751560272011-04-19T11:58:06.486-04:002011-04-19T11:58:06.486-04:00TP,
I’m afraid I have bad news for you. Sorry, de...TP,<br /><br />I’m afraid I have bad news for you. Sorry, death is not the result of counseling. I’m no doctor, but I can say in fact, death is the result of life. And I’m glad you understand the “death tax” is not really a tax on dying. It is the tax on the millionaire beneficiaries of unearned wealth. I’m very impressed with your deep compassion for those poor wretches. They need to buy their “free speech” somehow, don’t they? Otherwise they’d be unrepresented like the rest of us. And we all know the likelihood of which party much of that money would be donated to, don’t we? <br /><br />You haven’t told me what general welfare means yet. I’m waiting for your expertise to enlighten us. The Left does not forget the fact that state and local government have powers constitutionally reserved for them. You love to go on about “original intent” but this is nothing other than your opinion. Since only the Right has the authority and insight to interpret the Constitution, you should be a happy camper with the Bush/Cheney cronies dominating the Supreme Court.<br /><br />John Adams felt the Constitution allowed for taxation for health care, and you don’t. Hmm.<br /><br />We’re waiting for your wisdom to set us straight. <br /><br />I was going to ask you to clarify the statement I analyzed, but there’s no need for that now. You proceeded to show us another perfect example of my assessment with your whining about “tyranny and control” again.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-11591197657993585962011-04-19T11:53:46.649-04:002011-04-19T11:53:46.649-04:00Free,
I’m honored that you join with TP in challen...Free,<br />I’m honored that you join with TP in challenging my positions. I’m amused at the great lengths you stretch in order to justify your “death panel” nonsense. Why wouldn’t the corporate denial of benefits also be a death panel? Your keen distinction eludes me. What also eludes me is this death panel scourge happening “everywhere else there is socialist health care”. Do you mean Medicare and the VA? Or do you mean Canada? You offer nothing, but accuse me of hiding an agenda. <br /><br />How can this be? I’ve always been open about my views. I prefer democracy and a government of, by and for the people, not a corporatist oligarchy of, by and for Big Money. If you believe this is all a diabolical cover for a secret Communist takeover, then your paranoia is the problem. <br /><br />I’ve paid a 35% tax rate, Small business owner friends pay that rate. Nobody likes it, but only the Righties are such crybabies about it. And there are such things as deductions. According to the “Journal of Small Business Management” over half of small businesses fail in their first year. Taxes have nothing to do with that. They also report 9 out of 10 small businesses fail due to “lack of general business management skills and planning”. I wonder if you and TP can imagine failures due to management inadequacy being conveniently blamed on taxes and regulations. Probably not. It doesn’t fit your belief system. It’s more comforting and self-righteous to blame “tyranny”.<br /><br />If a small business was gaining traction and hiring, I’d be happy to reduce their tax rate, especially if that led to greater revenue. Instead of the myth that tax cuts create jobs, I would allow for more jobs to create tax cuts. Does that make sense? I have no fealty to 35%. Corporations are supposed to be taxed that rate, but hardly ever pay it. I agree with you on closing corporate loopholes, ALL of them, not just the usual “to-be-determined” hypothetical ones that would remain after a tax cut. And we know that is how the Right really wants it, both ways.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-51411208066836911832011-04-19T09:19:20.295-04:002011-04-19T09:19:20.295-04:00Free already stole some of my thunder, but here is...Free already stole some of my thunder, but here is my response nonetheless.<br /><br />Dubya, I would submit to you that it is the left generally that twists the definition of words from their true meaning and creates gentle euphemisms to soften the blow, as it were. What is an inheritance tax but the taxes paid upon the death of a person for their estate? And of course, end of life counseling sounds a lot more benign than death panels, but if it resorts to the rationing of care to extend or improve the quality of one’s life, isn’t death the ultimate result of that “counseling”?<br /><br />Next, I can assure you that taxes and excessive regulation have destroyed many a small business. I know by first-hand account, as I helped my friend run an initially successful engineering business in California for several years, that is until the burdens of a small business trying to grow was overwhelmed with all of the regulations and additional “fees” assessed and taxes imposed. There is a damned good reason why many businesses have failed or left California accordingly. It is a very difficult place to do business precisely because of the taxes and regulations, sir.<br /><br />Further, if you will look back a few comments, you will recall that I advocated closing those tax loopholes on the large corporations that allow companies such as GE to get away with paying no taxes last year. I am not totally in disagreement with you on this issue, Dave.<br /><br />You are correct though that it is exceptionally hard to have a debate. The left wants to use euphemisms to soften their tyranny and control, and decries the right for their “hateful rhetoric” when they call a spade, a spade.<br /><br />Case in point, the left has twisted the constitutional phrase of “promote the general welfare” to mean anything they wish is acceptable to fund from the treasury. Never mind that much of what they want to fund is indeed against original intent, tradition, precedent, and even otherwise negated by the constitution itself. I seem to recall that those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” The left always seems to forget that part though.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-1695856022104832512011-04-18T23:24:59.726-04:002011-04-18T23:24:59.726-04:00How about big business paying their share?
Beside...How about big business paying their share?<br /><br />Beside, don't you always say businesses don't pay taxes? If that's the case, the rate does matter. Right?<br /><br />Which way do you want it because you can't have it both ways. Either they pay or they don't pay. <br /><br />Get you story straight!Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-31127730254468189402011-04-18T21:19:54.529-04:002011-04-18T21:19:54.529-04:00are code for the Right.
This has got to be my all...<i>are code for the Right.</i><br /><br />This has got to be my all time favorite D-bag move from the left. When arguing fails... simply pretend what the opponent is saying really means something else.<br /><br />We say death panels Dubya because when the government rations, and with government health care it will, someone will have to decide that. There will be no other choice when resources become limited due to state service and price controls. When you're all out for that cancer surgery because the bureaucrat assigned it to someone else (as it happens everywhere else there is socialist health care) you'll call it a Death Panel too. It is what it is, we don't speak in code. We don't have to hide our agenda like progressives do.<br /><br />As for small business, if you don't want to kill them with taxes I suppose you'd support lowering the tax rate for their owners from 35% down to say... 11%? And of course you must know our small business face the highest tax rate on the planet? That's not an exaggeration, they literally pay the highest rates on the planet- higher than all other countries. I'm sure you'd be all for cutting that down to the world average of 12% right?<br /><br />Yeah, didn't think so.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-74078270050228587092011-04-18T15:03:39.371-04:002011-04-18T15:03:39.371-04:00TP,
I know you mean well when you say, “You don’t ...TP,<br />I know you mean well when you say, “You don’t further punish business by strengthening the power of the state to control it.”<br /><br />On the surface we would all agree to this.<br /><br />So I’m not going to argue with this statement. I only want to analyze it and note the terms and phrases that are code for the Right. <br /><br />“Punish” as we know, along with “tyranny”, “oppression” and “burden”, is what the Right calls constitutionally imposed taxes. Emotional trigger words are far more effective for the Right than mutually defined terms, thus we see them use “death tax” and “death panels" instead of Inheritance Tax and end of life treatment counseling.<br /><br />“Strengthening the power of the state” is what we can assume to mean the proper role of government, which is to tax and impose regulatory oversight in the interests of the law and protection of the public.<br /><br />And the last and best part is “to control it”. This, my friends is code for implying Marxism or socialism, for the purpose of overturning what we know as regulated capitalism, derived from the Constitutional provision for government to regulate commerce.<br /><br />Liberals of course do not want to drive small businesses out of existence by taxing them beyond their ability to function. To listen to the Right, taxes are what drive them out of business. The fact is, most, if not all of them fail because of other factors. The Right attempts to divert and distract from the real Progressive interest in restoring fair tax rates on Big Business and their multimillionaire and billionaire owners. We all know they can easily afford it. History has shown us clearly the falsehood of their claim that lower taxes for the economic elites and corporations create jobs in America. Thus they construct the straw man of liberal attacks on small business. <br /><br />This is a good illustration of the difficulty and near futility of reasoned debate or discussion between the Left and Right. The Right must twist language and definitions, and ignore Constitutional words like “Promote the general welfare” to suit their arguments.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-396900083293492962011-04-18T09:23:39.405-04:002011-04-18T09:23:39.405-04:00Jerry, I would kindly submit to you that you are t...Jerry, I would kindly submit to you that you are the one who is wrong.<br /><br />Small businesses, in particular, are the ones most impacted by corporate taxes. While most of what you stated was correct, you ended up drawing the wrong conclusion, sir.<br /><br />A business (especially a small business) does not aim to just "break even". If the government raises taxes on a given industry, then you are technically correct that the business can choose not to pass that cost on to its consumers; however, if that profit is taxed less, then the small business can use that money to re-invest in the company or perhaps to hire an additional person.<br /><br />You are dead wrong though if you don't think that taxes paid by corporations, particularly the small and medium size ones, aren't passed right back to the consumer in order that those companies can continue and hopefully grow. Supply and demand is only a part of the equation, sir.<br /><br />Heathen did an excellent job of clarifying this.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-87491970998861765312011-04-17T23:38:36.755-04:002011-04-17T23:38:36.755-04:00My, my Heathen. Aren't we touchy. If you loo...My, my Heathen. Aren't we touchy. If you look back at your comment, you will see that you introduced the subject of small businesses.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-41538837518884700642011-04-17T22:06:48.292-04:002011-04-17T22:06:48.292-04:00You've violated the rules for rational debate:...You've violated <a href="http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart1.jpg" rel="nofollow">the rules for rational debate</a>: "Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved."<br /><br />Your original argument was that companies do not pass along tax expenses to customers. That taxes do not impact prices. That taxes are only a factor after profit has been calculated.<br /><br />I demonstrated that in fact, some companies, large companies, do factor in tax rates in very early stage decision making. This frequently impacts customer prices. My response directly rebuts your charge.<br /><br />Because you cannot refute my argument, you ignored my direct rebuttal and started discussing small businesses, the engine of our economy. Your focus on small businesses does not change the fact that large businesses pay attention to, and are impacted by, tax rates.<br /><br />As the rules stipulate: "You cheated. The discussion is terminated. You are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point. You forfeit any right to complain about the discussion."<br /><br />Maybe we'll finally conclude this chain of comments. As if.Eric Norenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648635662703229678noreply@blogger.com