The Republicans want everyone to pay the same thing and have a focus on being revenue neutral, while the Democrats want most people to be tax exempt and they support more loopholes for the wealthy since they support higher marginal rates (Congress wouldn't raise the top marginal rate back to 91% without some special deductions for the wealthy).
Ultimately, the Democrats would lower taxes and leave more money in the market, especially since they don't want to tax consumption (which means they also don't think it's necessary for the tax payer or businesses to be forced to shelter the addition burden inherently required for the collection of consumption taxes) and because they support the Payroll tax cut... tje payroll tax cut is actually not supported by Keynesians/supply side Republicans even though it is actually more pro-market than anything they've proposed. That said, cutting the top marginal income tax rate does nothing unless the top marginal rate is reduced to zero.
Ultimately, I think the Republicans are being more pro-central planning than the Democrats because the Republicans think they can flatten the tax base when it's not possible. If anything, the wealthy will wind up paying more and the poor will and it will all be in the name of their brand of fairness.
Taxing all income at 7% would bring in way too much revenue for the govt (which is an irrational agent) to waste/recycle (irrational agents waste/recycle, so they don't reduce or reuse). Herman Cain and Bachmann thought the govt wasn't taxing enough and that everyone needed to pay the same thing... Bachmann was an IRS tax attorney FFS and said she was an expert on taxation yet she doesn't seem to realize that inequality enforced by the state and its arms is a revolt against the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Anyway, the letter of the Constitution prohibited the least harmful tax (an export tax), which is part of why the damn thing should've had a Jefferson (i.e., sunset) clause (where it would've been discarded c. 1809). It allowed the worst taxes, first the tariffs which don't even protect the domestic laborer any more than export taxes as well as property taxes (as of which is potentially the worst but most honestly liberal tax because it is arbitrarily set twice, once the value, then the percentage slapped on to that combined with the fact that it can only be evaded if people don't want their house or if enough people get armed). It's ironic how Jefferson and Adams were more liberal on revenue collection than the Democrats of today or even Jill Stein... none of them have ever even mentioned restoring the property tax yet they claim they want to "soak the rich".
Is the Republican Party's tax system (which just fiddles with the code and tries to reform something that is inherently formed in the name of fairness and preserving govt revenue) really better than the Democrat Party's tax proposal (where 90% won't pay any income taxes and where everyone will pay less in payroll taxes)? Isn't Obama less pro-tax than the Republicans all things considered?
If Obama hadn't reduced the payroll taxes then there would be even less good (as in non-tax funded) production and even less money in the market. The Republicans were against reducing it any further when Obama requested. Obama is very intelligent because he wants to fund SS out of the general revenue yet the Republicans just want more taxes so they can spend more and be able to continue to promise all generations SS and Medicare at the expense of futurity. Obama's deficits are so huge not because he's increased spending (he's barely increased spending compared to every Republican including Eisenhower who brought in a surplus two years of his admin) but because he has cut taxes. I wish the Hamiltonians didn't have something imaginary to complain about... like, you know, "he shouldn't be re-elected because he reduce the deficit by half" even though the Republicans wanted the extra spending and even though the Republicans have not passed one piece of pro-market legislation other than the Audit the Fed... which they only did so they could more easily shift, without criticism, to a 100% greenbackist system once Dr. Paul gets out of Congress. They never let Dr. Paul's pro-market deregulating, tax reducing, pro-free trade Health Care bill ever make it out of their committee... Obama would've signed it because Obama didn't even make Pelosicare and because he can be reasoned with. Dr. Paul tried to talk with Obama as soon as the latter got into office, but Obama was surrounded by people who wouldn't let Dr. Paul come anywhere near him and Obama was unhappy then so Dr. Paul didn't know what to make of it. If you notice, Obama has never been directly criticized by Dr. Paul (at least not the Divine one) and Dr. Paul doesn't call him "the President" like he did Bush. Dr. Paul has gotten very sharp with retards like Bernanke and Hillary Clinton (both of whom were clearly intimidated by Dr. Paul's divine nature), but he hasn't attacked Obama as much as he criticized both Bush Presidents... Dr. Paul was considering running against Bush 41 in 1992 to free America although he supported his populist opponent (Buchanan) instead of the asinine 41st president.
Obama understands Central Planning doesn't work better than any President since like Grover Cleveland. He's the most anti-Keynesian President since Cleveland... it may not be good enough, but Clinton always had faith in central planning because he didn't realize he just had good luck. Every Republican except maybe Grant, Hayes, and/or Arthur believed in Central planning and believed govt could be made more efficient... Obama realized that govt can't be reformed and that it can't be made efficient, that laissez-faire is the best, while no Republican after Arthur has left office believing the same thing... even Harding was about to pander to Hoover's (Hoover had the blend of classical conservative, classical liberal, and modern liberal tendencies which would be known as Original Fascism, the kind that never was because it got corrupted by Mussolini into Final Fascism... thus, Hoover was the only anti-communist who knew how to minimize the communist threat while maintaining peace) ass. The lies about him are sickening and it's even sadder that so many people are dumb enough to believe so much statist propaganda from the Party of the Classical Authoritarian. Some of his most fervent supporters are illogical (like the feminists worried about their "right to vote"), but Romney's supporters are just as illogical if not more so than the feminists for Obama.
As for the Federal Agents and the NDAA, that was Republican legislation probably supported by Bush/Clinton agents. I haven't been kidnapped by them yet so Obama is doing something right.
The Republicans didn't reduce spending at the State level at all so they can't get credit for that... they've only wasted more on public private partnerships when the roads could've been sold to the highest bidder to keep public debt and future public spending on roads down. Obama himself never proposed a second stimulus package that was more spending than tax cuts yet the Republicans have proposed so much wasteful spending almost daily plus new war spending and more govt/corp partnerships and regulations. The Republicans don't even realize that the reason things aren't worse is because of less spending rather than more spending. Instead, they attack him for deficits because Obama was the one who wanted to reduce taxes for everyone. UTAH's legislature which is solidly Republican supports the U.S. mint and believes it should have a monopoly.
The Republicans support more centralization of power via the 14th Amendment by protecting unborn fetuses and by protecting corporations via citizens united. They've legitimized voting and majority rule because of voter ID laws that they've installed both under Bush and in the States they control. They support more managed trade agreements so that all trade is uniform and regulated; Obama wanted to repeal NAFTA and sees how it is anti-market, the Republicans have made no attempt to do so. Dodd Frank in its current form is awful and not any worse than the Republicans' Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare is a misnomer... it's pelosicare or even Republicancare, Romneycare, or Ryancare. Obama didn't create the PATRIOT Act and he would've repealed it if the Republicans had wanted to. Republicans support more gun control as their hero on the Supreme Court said he wanted more gun control. The Republican governor of NJ doesn't support reducing NJ's draconian gun control laws. The Republican majority added an increase in taxpayer funding for abortions in the budget they intended for Obama to sign. The Republicans are so dumb that they inadvertantly delayed putting boots on the ground in Iran by giving Obama sanctions to use against Iran that have only helped build up their war machine. Obama won't order boots put on the ground there, so the Republicans just made their opponent stronger and harder for their country's troops to fight. Republican Bush 41 made sure the SALT Treaties were binding rather than a peaceful truce which meant that Bush wanted to continue the Cold War.
I'm going to miss Obama because he is a good man and the most logical president since Grover Cleveland... I never thought I would say that 4 years ago, but I really am and not having McCain at least bought a few people another four years to evacuate. OTOH, he's not enough of a terrorist to be a double executive so I won't be voting for him or anyone else.
Critique this if you can.
Ultimately, the Democrats would lower taxes and leave more money in the market, especially since they don't want to tax consumption (which means they also don't think it's necessary for the tax payer or businesses to be forced to shelter the addition burden inherently required for the collection of consumption taxes) and because they support the Payroll tax cut... tje payroll tax cut is actually not supported by Keynesians/supply side Republicans even though it is actually more pro-market than anything they've proposed. That said, cutting the top marginal income tax rate does nothing unless the top marginal rate is reduced to zero.
Ultimately, I think the Republicans are being more pro-central planning than the Democrats because the Republicans think they can flatten the tax base when it's not possible. If anything, the wealthy will wind up paying more and the poor will and it will all be in the name of their brand of fairness.
Taxing all income at 7% would bring in way too much revenue for the govt (which is an irrational agent) to waste/recycle (irrational agents waste/recycle, so they don't reduce or reuse). Herman Cain and Bachmann thought the govt wasn't taxing enough and that everyone needed to pay the same thing... Bachmann was an IRS tax attorney FFS and said she was an expert on taxation yet she doesn't seem to realize that inequality enforced by the state and its arms is a revolt against the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Anyway, the letter of the Constitution prohibited the least harmful tax (an export tax), which is part of why the damn thing should've had a Jefferson (i.e., sunset) clause (where it would've been discarded c. 1809). It allowed the worst taxes, first the tariffs which don't even protect the domestic laborer any more than export taxes as well as property taxes (as of which is potentially the worst but most honestly liberal tax because it is arbitrarily set twice, once the value, then the percentage slapped on to that combined with the fact that it can only be evaded if people don't want their house or if enough people get armed). It's ironic how Jefferson and Adams were more liberal on revenue collection than the Democrats of today or even Jill Stein... none of them have ever even mentioned restoring the property tax yet they claim they want to "soak the rich".
Is the Republican Party's tax system (which just fiddles with the code and tries to reform something that is inherently formed in the name of fairness and preserving govt revenue) really better than the Democrat Party's tax proposal (where 90% won't pay any income taxes and where everyone will pay less in payroll taxes)? Isn't Obama less pro-tax than the Republicans all things considered?
If Obama hadn't reduced the payroll taxes then there would be even less good (as in non-tax funded) production and even less money in the market. The Republicans were against reducing it any further when Obama requested. Obama is very intelligent because he wants to fund SS out of the general revenue yet the Republicans just want more taxes so they can spend more and be able to continue to promise all generations SS and Medicare at the expense of futurity. Obama's deficits are so huge not because he's increased spending (he's barely increased spending compared to every Republican including Eisenhower who brought in a surplus two years of his admin) but because he has cut taxes. I wish the Hamiltonians didn't have something imaginary to complain about... like, you know, "he shouldn't be re-elected because he reduce the deficit by half" even though the Republicans wanted the extra spending and even though the Republicans have not passed one piece of pro-market legislation other than the Audit the Fed... which they only did so they could more easily shift, without criticism, to a 100% greenbackist system once Dr. Paul gets out of Congress. They never let Dr. Paul's pro-market deregulating, tax reducing, pro-free trade Health Care bill ever make it out of their committee... Obama would've signed it because Obama didn't even make Pelosicare and because he can be reasoned with. Dr. Paul tried to talk with Obama as soon as the latter got into office, but Obama was surrounded by people who wouldn't let Dr. Paul come anywhere near him and Obama was unhappy then so Dr. Paul didn't know what to make of it. If you notice, Obama has never been directly criticized by Dr. Paul (at least not the Divine one) and Dr. Paul doesn't call him "the President" like he did Bush. Dr. Paul has gotten very sharp with retards like Bernanke and Hillary Clinton (both of whom were clearly intimidated by Dr. Paul's divine nature), but he hasn't attacked Obama as much as he criticized both Bush Presidents... Dr. Paul was considering running against Bush 41 in 1992 to free America although he supported his populist opponent (Buchanan) instead of the asinine 41st president.
Obama understands Central Planning doesn't work better than any President since like Grover Cleveland. He's the most anti-Keynesian President since Cleveland... it may not be good enough, but Clinton always had faith in central planning because he didn't realize he just had good luck. Every Republican except maybe Grant, Hayes, and/or Arthur believed in Central planning and believed govt could be made more efficient... Obama realized that govt can't be reformed and that it can't be made efficient, that laissez-faire is the best, while no Republican after Arthur has left office believing the same thing... even Harding was about to pander to Hoover's (Hoover had the blend of classical conservative, classical liberal, and modern liberal tendencies which would be known as Original Fascism, the kind that never was because it got corrupted by Mussolini into Final Fascism... thus, Hoover was the only anti-communist who knew how to minimize the communist threat while maintaining peace) ass. The lies about him are sickening and it's even sadder that so many people are dumb enough to believe so much statist propaganda from the Party of the Classical Authoritarian. Some of his most fervent supporters are illogical (like the feminists worried about their "right to vote"), but Romney's supporters are just as illogical if not more so than the feminists for Obama.
As for the Federal Agents and the NDAA, that was Republican legislation probably supported by Bush/Clinton agents. I haven't been kidnapped by them yet so Obama is doing something right.
The Republicans didn't reduce spending at the State level at all so they can't get credit for that... they've only wasted more on public private partnerships when the roads could've been sold to the highest bidder to keep public debt and future public spending on roads down. Obama himself never proposed a second stimulus package that was more spending than tax cuts yet the Republicans have proposed so much wasteful spending almost daily plus new war spending and more govt/corp partnerships and regulations. The Republicans don't even realize that the reason things aren't worse is because of less spending rather than more spending. Instead, they attack him for deficits because Obama was the one who wanted to reduce taxes for everyone. UTAH's legislature which is solidly Republican supports the U.S. mint and believes it should have a monopoly.
The Republicans support more centralization of power via the 14th Amendment by protecting unborn fetuses and by protecting corporations via citizens united. They've legitimized voting and majority rule because of voter ID laws that they've installed both under Bush and in the States they control. They support more managed trade agreements so that all trade is uniform and regulated; Obama wanted to repeal NAFTA and sees how it is anti-market, the Republicans have made no attempt to do so. Dodd Frank in its current form is awful and not any worse than the Republicans' Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare is a misnomer... it's pelosicare or even Republicancare, Romneycare, or Ryancare. Obama didn't create the PATRIOT Act and he would've repealed it if the Republicans had wanted to. Republicans support more gun control as their hero on the Supreme Court said he wanted more gun control. The Republican governor of NJ doesn't support reducing NJ's draconian gun control laws. The Republican majority added an increase in taxpayer funding for abortions in the budget they intended for Obama to sign. The Republicans are so dumb that they inadvertantly delayed putting boots on the ground in Iran by giving Obama sanctions to use against Iran that have only helped build up their war machine. Obama won't order boots put on the ground there, so the Republicans just made their opponent stronger and harder for their country's troops to fight. Republican Bush 41 made sure the SALT Treaties were binding rather than a peaceful truce which meant that Bush wanted to continue the Cold War.
I'm going to miss Obama because he is a good man and the most logical president since Grover Cleveland... I never thought I would say that 4 years ago, but I really am and not having McCain at least bought a few people another four years to evacuate. OTOH, he's not enough of a terrorist to be a double executive so I won't be voting for him or anyone else.
Critique this if you can.
Everything is the Republican Party's fault. What have the Democrats done since Obama's been in office compared to what the Republicans have done? The Democrats suck too, but the fact that they're still a little less statist economically than the Republican party is just sad. Honestly, I think another 4 years of Obama would be enough to get shit straight. With Romney, however, he is going to be the first Emperor. I don't see what's so hard to get about that. Obama's going to lose and Jeffersonian ideals are dead and not possible for now possibly not for the next 100 years. I really think China will at least partially colonize America and it would suck but I fear my own govt more than I fear the Chinese govt at the current time. This is the last time the nation of Israel will ever have a state. The Persians are probably going to wind up like the Japanese did after WWII. I hope the Japanese don't suffer any damage from this coming Hot War but they're right in the crosshairs of China. Russia is still largely communist because there are too many poor people there. It's just more of a nationalist communism than it was before. As soon as Obamadinejahd leaves office, the new rulers will rip into all Iranians and all Americans. Considering how low saving are now, and how much will have to be rationed in the upcoming war, I'd say 1/2 of America could die from repression alone and another 1/2 will probably die from attacks. I bet 75% of Americans alive today will not be alive 15 years from now. China will just cut the US gov's credit off and that will be the end for the US gov. The only other possibility is civil war after the elections this year, but that's unlikely because the control of this country's govt has never been fought over.
Facebook
Twitter