Mine to..they seem to never have a big enough tax base. Seems to me I remember that the revolution was because of taxes, wasn't it?
Sorry to disappoint you but nowhere in the Constitution does it mention anything about "taxation without representation". Just FYI.
__________________
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our representation is part of the problem, they don't represent the average citizen, their loyalty lies with the special interest/ lobbyist groups. Didn't we have a little party in Boston about heavily taxed tea?
Our representation is part of the problem, they don't represent the average citizen, their loyalty lies with the special interest/ lobbyist groups. Didn't we have a little party in Boston about heavily taxed tea?
Well, yes you are correct about Boston. But, I think maybe you are missing the point in this case. My point is that taxation without representation is a myth. There never has been any such thing. Does not and never has existed. Whatever representation you believe you have is simply appeasement, pacify the public. You are correct about lobbyist and special interest groups. Who has the money after all? Personally I would like to see lobbyist abolished and special interest groups banned from government at any level. I would also like to see a clause in the Constitution that grants representation. Not much chance of either of those happening though.
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
we would be well on the way to balanced budget if the republicans didn't cry and refuse to do anything unless the rich got to keep the bush tax cuts.............
Don't kid yourself, the democrats (and republicans) were nowhere near being on the way to a balanced budget (and still aren't).
Well, yes you are correct about Boston. But, I think maybe you are missing the point in this case. My point is that taxation without representation is a myth. There never has been any such thing. Does not and never has existed. Whatever representation you believe you have is simply appeasement, pacify the public. You are correct about lobbyist and special interest groups. Who has the money after all? Personally I would like to see lobbyist abolished and special interest groups banned from government at any level. I would also like to see a clause in the Constitution that grants representation. Not much chance of either of those happening though.
What would legitimate representation look like, and what is fundamentally different about the legitimate form you're speaking of and the form you observe to exist?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Don't kid yourself, the democrats (and republicans) were nowhere near being on the way to a balanced budget (and still aren't).
and yet reality says otherwise, don't you hate it how facts always work against you. Those bush tax cuts really paid for themselves.............. The democrats had it, if we had continued those policies we would have been better off debt wise.
and yet reality says otherwise, don't you hate it how facts always work against you. Those bush tax cuts really paid for themselves.............. The democrats had it, if we had continued those policies we would have been better off debt wise.
The democrats claim they had it but it was smoke and mirrors as the debt rose during the Clinton years. It didn't rise much but it did rise, however we are talking about your claim which was for the current era after the Bush and Obama spending sprees . . .
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
we would be well on the way to balanced budget if the republicans didn't cry and refuse to do anything unless the rich got to keep the bush tax cuts.............
The democrats claim they had it but it was smoke and mirrors as the debt rose during the Clinton years. It didn't rise much but it did rise, however we are talking about your claim which was for the current era after the Bush and Obama spending sprees . . .
Quote:
it's not a democrats claim, it was according to the CBO above, it even says that yes the debt was increasing but it was slowing dramatically and ended with a surplus, so yes over the entire course the debt did increase but that was taking a heavy budget deficit created by a bush and reducing over his entire term. if the budget had been left as it was we would have continued lowering the deficit. Did you even look at that chart? understand it?
The republicans at that time said it was bad economic policy to not run a debt and the money was to be given back in tax cuts.
Linear Mode
