I was surprised to learn that our Constitution actually conflicts with one of the Amendments. My favorite investment author, John Reed, pointed out that there is actually a tax plan inherent in the Constitution itself. It's what Reed calls a "head tax" (I like Reed's own version of a head tax but I fear that a head tax may keep the IRS around and slow down the economy while people save money for taxation which is why I tend to favor the Fair Tax instead). When the first income tax legislation was passed, it was declared unconstitutional. So what happened? A constitutional amendment was passed into law making a progressive income tax constitutional! This was a big mistake in my judgment. http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/04/25/abolish-the-income-tax/ (http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/04/25/abolish-the-income-tax/)
As I see it, there are two reasonable options: having the head tax as the Constitution originally had it or a Fair Tax which I like better. Having a head tax might slow down the economy because people would still be saving up money in order to be able to pay their taxes by a set deadline. Not that I like going against the Constitution but I think that if our founding fathers had heard of the Fair Tax or something similar, they would've liked it and made the Fair Tax the only constitutional method of taxation. We need to get rid of the progressive income tax. As I see it, it's another attempt by political progressives to wage a silly war on greed. I don't like greed one bit. In fact, I abhor greed. But I don't see how any income tax, progressive or not, is going to rid our country of greed.
Quote from: MatthewG on November 12, 2013, 09:41:19 PM
I was surprised to learn that our Constitution actually conflicts with one of the Amendments. My favorite investment author, John Reed, pointed out that there is actually a tax plan inherent in the Constitution itself. It's what Reed calls a "head tax" (I like Reed's own version of a head tax but I fear that a head tax may keep the IRS around and slow down the economy while people save money for taxation which is why I tend to favor the Fair Tax instead). When the first income tax legislation was passed, it was declared unconstitutional. So what happened? A constitutional amendment was passed into law making a progressive income tax constitutional! This was a big mistake in my judgment. http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/04/25/abolish-the-income-tax/ (http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/04/25/abolish-the-income-tax/)
As I see it, there are two reasonable options: having the head tax as the Constitution originally had it or a Fair Tax which I like better. Having a head tax might slow down the economy because people would still be saving up money in order to be able to pay their taxes by a set deadline. Not that I like going against the Constitution but I think that if our founding fathers had heard of the Fair Tax or something similar, they would've liked it and made the Fair Tax the only constitutional method of taxation. We need to get rid of the progressive income tax. As I see it, it's another attempt by political progressives to wage a silly war on greed. I don't like greed one bit. In fact, I abhor greed. But I don't see how any income tax, progressive or not, is going to rid our country of greed.
Welcome to the board!
Amendments amend, meaning that they change things. We can except the first ten amendments, as they actually changed nothing. They comprise what has come to called the Bill of Rights, and for all intents and purposes have become part and parcel of the document itself.
Yes, the original text of the Constitution prohibited "capitation taxes," that being a tax levied "by head" or by person. (The Latin origin of the word refers to the head; think "decapitation.") But more to the point, the original Constitution did not allow the new federal government to tax much of anything that didn't involve foreign or interstate commerce.
Greed? It's the stuff of life! No man creates a business in order to be "nice" or "friendly" or "public-spirited." He creates a business to make money, period. If you want to Scrooge it up with calling it "greed," fine. "Greed" is just a Leftist term for "motivation." We don't need to rid the country of "greed." We need to instill "greed" in every child.
I doubt if the Founders could have comprehended the Fair Tax. The necessity for proposals such as the Fair Tax is derived from the initiation of the Internal Revenue Code, which dates from 1913, the year Woodrow Wilson signed the first income tax legislation. (Until then, income tax was illegal.) The Founders saw the federal government as distant and -- most importantly -- small.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 13, 2013, 02:07:10 AM
Welcome to the board!
Thanks!
QuoteGreed? It's the stuff of life! No man creates a business in order to be "nice" or "friendly" or "public-spirited." He creates a business to make money, period. If you want to Scrooge it up with calling it "greed," fine. "Greed" is just a Leftist term for "motivation." We don't need to rid the country of "greed." We need to instill "greed" in every child.
Conservatives often speak of the left as having waged a "war-on-achievement" but, having been a part of the left for quite a number of years, in their thinking it's a "war-on-greed". They see greed as a consequence of selfishness. Many progressives abhor selfishness. In fact, this is what I didn't like about free-market enterprise in my progressive years. I considered it a selfish, greed-centered, Social Darwinist, "nice-guys-finish-last" economy of capitalist bad boys and I looked to the government to protect the underdog from capitalist bullies. Nowadays, I see greed as a unfortunate consequence of the free-market. I see the existence of hate speech is an unfortunate consequence of a free society, where everyone should have the right to speak freely; greed is also an unfortunate consequence of a free society where everyone should pursue success regardless of what motivates them. But I value a free society and so I will tolerate hate speech even if I condemn it. I believe that everyone should be able to pursue success and become wealthy even if I don't care for greed as a motivation.
QuoteI doubt if the Founders could have comprehended the Fair Tax. The necessity for proposals such as the Fair Tax is derived from the initiation of the Internal Revenue Code, which dates from 1913, the year Woodrow Wilson signed the first income tax legislation. (Until then, income tax was illegal.) The Founders saw the federal government as distant and -- most importantly -- small.
I think it's possible that they could've. If they had similar knowledge to what we had today, I think they would've liked it. Had they known about the income tax and the desire of progressives to implement it as part of their "war-on-greed", they might have liked it or at least have been very sympathetic to it.
You can call it what you will -- greed, avarice, a lust for wealth, or just a desire to be better off than you are now. Remove it, Matthew, and everything stops. Suddenly there is no logical, rational reason for anyone to start a business or hire a new employee or invest a dollar in a new enterprise. And like it or not, people do things by and large for logical, rational reasons.
Businesses aren't charities, they're not organs for doing public good works. They are specifically designed enterprises by which the owners perform or provide goods or services for willing customers who pay enough, in money or other trade, to recompense the business owner -- and then some. That's called profit, and profit is the one and only reason most businesses exist.
If I go to my business today and provide you with goods and services worth $1,000, and you pay me exactly $1,000 in return, then I'll go home at the end of the day poorer for my effort. I didn't break even. I got screwed. I can't go to the store and buy a loaf of bread with what I made today. I've given a day's labor for nothing.
As far as "hate speech" goes, forget it. The whole concept is just one more tool the Left uses to divide us all into manageable chunks. Free speech may have its limits -- you're not supposed to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater for obvious reasons -- but for the most part, if you look carefully, you'll see that those who want to dictate to you what you cannot say (or what you absolutely must say) are on the Left.
You have to learn the "turnaround." In general, when you hear somebody holler 'Racist!' the thing to do is not look where the finger is pointing at the accused 'racist,' but turn around and look at who uttered the word. THERE is the racist, every time.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 13, 2013, 11:46:55 AM
You can call it what you will -- greed, avarice, a lust for wealth, or just a desire to be better off than you are now. Remove it, Matthew, and everything stops. Suddenly there is no logical, rational reason for anyone to start a business or hire a new employee or invest a dollar in a new enterprise. And like it or not, people do things by and large for logical, rational reasons.
I completely understand the profit motive for most businesses. I happy accept that people will do what it takes to make them better off than they were to begin with. It's not necessarily the profit motive that I have an issue with. It's the excessive desire for profits that will lead people to go to third world countries and set up sweat shops that pay people a very low wage. There are corporations that do something like this shamefully. The people who run these sweat shops appear to have not one ethical bone in their body about exploiting the workers. If such a motive is to be rewarded and applauded, then I grieve for humanity.
QuoteBusinesses aren't charities, they're not organs for doing public good works. They are specifically designed enterprises by which the owners perform or provide goods or services for willing customers who pay enough, in money or other trade, to recompense the business owner -- and then some. That's called profit, and profit is the one and only reason most businesses exist.
If I go to my business today and provide you with goods and services worth $1,000, and you pay me exactly $1,000 in return, then I'll go home at the end of the day poorer for my effort. I didn't break even. I got screwed. I can't go to the store and buy a loaf of bread with what I made today. I've given a day's labor for nothing.
You know, if I was ten years old and I was extremely naïve about the world, then perhaps there would be a point to you telling me this. I hate to disappoint you, but I am 35 years old. I know what a profit is and I don't need any of my fellow conservatives to condescend to lecture me on the topic as though I was born yesterday. No offense but I find this just a tad bit insulting. I suspect you mean well but if we traded shoes and you were put in my shoes, wouldn't you feel a bit put off by this? I am no stranger to business. I come from a middle class family of business owners and I have worked in the private sector for a long time.
QuoteAs far as "hate speech" goes, forget it. The whole concept is just one more tool the Left uses to divide us all into manageable chunks. Free speech may have its limits -- you're not supposed to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater for obvious reasons -- but for the most part, if you look carefully, you'll see that those who want to dictate to you what you cannot say (or what you absolutely must say) are on the Left.
Wait a minute. I never said that I wanted to abolish hate speech. I don't like it when gay people are called names like "fa**ot" or when conservatives are called "stupid". I consider that to be hate speech. I don't like it and I condemn it but it's part of a free society. I have come to accept that there will always be hate speech. We can condemn it but as Thomas Sowell pointed out, it's a compromise. We have to take the bad along with the good.
QuoteYou have to learn the "turnaround." In general, when you hear somebody holler 'Racist!' the thing to do is not look where the finger is pointing at the accused 'racist,' but turn around and look at who uttered the word. THERE is the racist, every time.
I already learned this. I learned that it is often the biggest people who whine about hate speech who are the most guilty of it. Also, the progressive who accuses conservatives of being selfish is often the most selfish person in town. The conservative who yells out "fa**ot" at a gay man just because he's dressed more feminine or holding hands with another guy is often, himself (or herself) gay or bisexual.
I don't mean to lecture, and I don't want to insult your intelligence. But you seem to think there's some magic line that separates "greed" from "profit." I think you're leaving out the nature of speculation/investment. When you put your resources into an enterprise, no matter what you think your return will be, you don't actually KNOW. That's why it's called 'risk.' But whether your return is pennies or millions, it's YOURS, and if you don't keep it, you're a fool.
Tell me, who draws that line that separates profit from greed? Our Great Kenyan Leader has stated that there comes a point where "you've made enough money." Where is that point? Why is that point, that point? Who gets to say what/where that point is? I note that the Kenyan himself, between taxpayer-financed vacays in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard costing tens of millions of dollars, and 150+ rounds of golf, all at taxpayer expense, has managed to cash his paychecks -- $450,000 per annum -- and his book royalty checks.
The Kenyan has never in his entire life produced a single product (save the books) that another free man was willing to buy. Why is he knocking down something north of a half-mil every year? Because he can.
Is that 'greed?' What do you think?
What the Lefties like to call "greed" I call "Fear of Poverty"....wakes me up early everyday.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 13, 2013, 12:40:28 PM
I don't mean to lecture, and I don't want to insult your intelligence. But you seem to think there's some magic line that separates "greed" from "profit." I think you're leaving out the nature of speculation/investment. When you put your resources into an enterprise, no matter what you think your return will be, you don't actually KNOW. That's why it's called 'risk.' But whether your return is pennies or millions, it's YOURS, and if you don't keep it, you're a fool.
Tell me, who draws that line that separates profit from greed? Our Great Kenyan Leader has stated that there comes a point where "you've made enough money." Where is that point? Why is that point, that point? Who gets to say what/where that point is? I note that the Kenyan himself, between taxpayer-financed vacays in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard costing tens of millions of dollars, and 150+ rounds of golf, all at taxpayer expense, has managed to cash his paychecks -- $450,000 per annum -- and his book royalty checks.
The Kenyan has never in his entire life produced a single product (save the books) that another free man was willing to buy. Why is he knocking down something north of a half-mil every year? Because he can.
Is that 'greed?' What do you think?
It all boils down to what is the definition of greed. I personally think there is no correlation between greed and profit. However, progressives believe they can set the definition and make a determination of where the desire for profits become greed. What they don't understand is it is none of their business how much profit an entity makes.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 14, 2013, 04:54:55 AM
It all boils down to what is the definition of greed. I personally think there is no correlation between greed and profit. However, progressives believe they can set the definition and make a determination of where the desire for profits become greed. What they don't understand is it is none of their business how much profit an entity makes.
Oh, well said! :thumbsup:
The federal government was created to do just a few things, clearly called out in the Constitution. Not a single one of those things involves monitoring the profits of any private business.
My point was that there is no clear line between "profit" and "greed." They are merely different ways of expressing the same concept.
Read your history. The folks who landed at Plymouth Rock (mainly because they were out of beer :tounge:) tried it the socialist way for a while... until they realized they were quite literally starving to death. They had made the mistake of taking profit/greed out of the equation.
I would favor abandoning both terms -- profit and greed -- in favor of just one -- incentive.
Quote from: MatthewG on November 13, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Thanks!
Conservatives often speak of the left as having waged a "war-on-achievement" but, having been a part of the left for quite a number of years, in their thinking it's a "war-on-greed". They see greed as a consequence of selfishness. Many progressives abhor selfishness. In fact, this is what I didn't like about free-market enterprise in my progressive years. I considered it a selfish, greed-centered, Social Darwinist, "nice-guys-finish-last" economy of capitalist bad boys and I looked to the government to protect the underdog from capitalist bullies. Nowadays, I see greed as a unfortunate consequence of the free-market. I see the existence of hate speech is an unfortunate consequence of a free society, where everyone should have the right to speak freely; greed is also an unfortunate consequence of a free society where everyone should pursue success regardless of what motivates them. But I value a free society and so I will tolerate hate speech even if I condemn it. I believe that everyone should be able to pursue success and become wealthy even if I don't care for greed as a motivation.
I think it's possible that they could've. If they had similar knowledge to what we had today, I think they would've liked it. Had they known about the income tax and the desire of progressives to implement it as part of their "war-on-greed", they might have liked it or at least have been very sympathetic to it.
The free market keeps greed in check. A businessman can be as greedy as he can, but he will never beat the free market. Government hinders the free market, hurts consumers, and businesses.
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2013, 10:57:21 AM
The free market keeps greed in check. A businessman can be as greedy as he can, but he will never beat the free market. Government hinders the free market, hurts consumers, and businesses.
Exactly. Government cheats. Read my bottom sig line -- government is force. It bends what doesn't want to be bent.
In a free market, the ruling concept is competition, the "unseen hand." When government interferes, suddenly it's hammers pounding and swords slashing and guns firing, not to enforce a free market,
but specifically to eliminate a free market.
Government hates free markets, not because they're bad, but because they're the exact opposite of government. Free markets are "un-government."
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 15, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
Exactly. Government cheats. Read my bottom sig line -- government is force. It bends what doesn't want to be bent.
In a free market, the ruling concept is competition, the "unseen hand." When government interferes, suddenly it's hammers pounding and swords slashing and guns firing, not to enforce a free market, but specifically to eliminate a free market.
Government hates free markets, not because they're bad, but because they're the exact opposite of government. Free markets are "un-government."
Totally... when the greedy businessman tries to pay too low, or raise prices too high, or reap too much of the profit without putting back into growth, etc., the competition swoops in and keeps him in check.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 13, 2013, 12:40:28 PM
I don't mean to lecture, and I don't want to insult your intelligence. But you seem to think there's some magic line that separates "greed" from "profit." I think you're leaving out the nature of speculation/investment. When you put your resources into an enterprise, no matter what you think your return will be, you don't actually KNOW. That's why it's called 'risk.' But whether your return is pennies or millions, it's YOURS, and if you don't keep it, you're a fool.
I understand. I don't think that there is a magical line that separates greed from a profit. A profit is something that results from the selling of an item on the market regardless of what motive went into making that item. Greed is a motive and a profit is something that results from that motive. However, greed is not the only motive behind making a profit. Sometimes it's the mere need to etch out a living. My parents try hard to make their business profitable but they're not greedy people. My parents are also Evangelicals who believe that greed is contrary to the New Testament. Greed is selfish by nature and selfishness is opposed to the gospel. To them, greed is a consequence of selfishness and being selfish is sinful. My parents aren't Democrats or any kind of progressive; they're both staunch Reagan conservatives if that makes any difference.
QuoteTell me, who draws that line that separates profit from greed? Our Great Kenyan Leader has stated that there comes a point where "you've made enough money." Where is that point?
I don't see how the line can be drawn. I am not one to draw it. But it doesn't mean that I have to like sweat shops in third world countries or just shrug my shoulders and say "It's every man for himself and as long as I got mine you can join the devil in the pits of hell". I don't think that there is any such thing as "enough money". As long as a profit is legally and honestly made, the rightful owner of that profit is the one who made it. There is this sense of "unfairness" coming from the left but a profit is only unfair if it has been made illegally ( a pyramid scheme) or dishonestly ( a used car salesman ripping someone off) or both (I have a slimeball like Robert Kiyosaki in mind; I consider him a heinously evil man).
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 14, 2013, 04:54:55 AM
It all boils down to what is the definition of greed. I personally think there is no correlation between greed and profit. However, progressives believe they can set the definition and make a determination of where the desire for profits become greed. What they don't understand is it is none of their business how much profit an entity makes.
No disagreement from me there! :smile:
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2013, 10:57:21 AM
The free market keeps greed in check. A businessman can be as greedy as he can, but he will never beat the free market. Government hinders the free market, hurts consumers, and businesses.
I hope so. I have been a conservative for almost two years now. I am having to "unlearn" a lot of things that I previously believed to be true so I am probably going to sound ignorant from time to time.
Quote from: MatthewG on November 15, 2013, 05:49:23 PM
I hope so. I have been a conservative for almost two years now. I am having to "unlearn" a lot of things that I previously believed to be true so I am probably going to sound ignorant from time to time.
No worries. Better late than never. One thing you can always count on, being a conservative, is nature. Us humans are greedy bastards, so the forces of nature keep us in check. I can't honestly say I wouldn't raise prices 100x of any service I would provide, but if I did, competition would come in and put me out of business. I want to keep my labor costs as low as possible, but if I go too low, I'll lose valuable employees to competition offering better compensation and/or work environment. Nature perfectly calibrates the free market and keeps everything fair on an even playing field.
Quote from: taxed on November 15, 2013, 06:02:49 PM
No worries. Better late than never. One thing you can always count on, being a conservative, is nature. Us humans are greedy bastards, so the forces of nature keep us in check. I can't honestly say I wouldn't raise prices 100x of any service I would provide, but if I did, competition would come in and put me out of business. I want to keep my labor costs as low as possible, but if I go too low, I'll lose valuable employees to competition offering better compensation and/or work environment. Nature perfectly calibrates the free market and keeps everything fair on an even playing field.
One thing that always help me with my salary and pay raises. I always had headhunter call in for me all the time. Word gets around when you are a problem solver also. I had managers in other state of our company call to see if I would move even. Sales people that like you are good for spreading the word as they move around. My Manager would tell other manager he would loan me out for only a month to solve problems. Most of the time my wife would get to go along, just to get me to say I would go. I learned fast how to play there game. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on November 15, 2013, 08:11:11 PM
One thing that always help me with my salary and pay raises. I always had headhunter call in for me all the time. Word gets around when you are a problem solver also. I had managers in other state of our company call to see if I would move even. Sales people that like you are good for spreading the word as they move around. My Manager would tell other manager he would loan me out for only a month to solve problems. Most of the time my wife would get to go along, just to get me to say I would go. I learned fast how to play there game. :lol:
hahahaha
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 15, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
In a free market, the ruling concept is competition, the "unseen hand." When government interferes, suddenly it's hammers pounding and swords slashing and guns firing, not to enforce a free market, but specifically to eliminate a free market.
That would only really apply if the tax system were set up as to remove rather than reduce profits.
That is, beyond the amount of money you need to live a decently comfortable life and to provide the same to your family, maybe even the amount needed to provide yourself with a bit of a safety cushion and to invest in businesses/innovation/charity, your extra profits are not necessary to your welfare.
That does not mean you do not deserve to have them - but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits. They're still making more money - just by a lesser amount. But the person who makes 15 million dollars a year will still end up with more money after taxes than the person who makes 14 million dollars a year, just by half a million rather than a million.
So, you turn revenue - profits into a slightly concave down rather than linear graph; this isn't unfair. Your work - reward curve at such high levels becomes exponential rather than linear, so they balance each other out.
Greed is the domain of the welfare recipient. No agreement. No free exchange or free association. Just plunder.
And the taxing authority didn't apply to individuals.
QuoteThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
And when it did apply to individuals with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the term
uniform took on a whole new meaning. Suddenly, we had a tax that was not uniform but rather progressive.
Quote from: 9 on November 16, 2013, 05:03:52 PM
Greed is the domain of the welfare recipient.
Greed connotes a desire for something beyond what you
need.
QuoteNo agreement. No free exchange or free association. Just plunder.
Well AFAIK modern welfare policy requires that you attempt to find work.
Personally, I'd give welfare recipients a livable home, meals, etc., for six years on the condition that they attend college or a trade school and obtain a useful degree. If they fail, they lose their welfare privileges.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
Greed connotes a desire for something beyond what you need
By your retarded every man woman and child in America is an evil monster, and the only "generous" people are those who live on the edge of starvation in "Worker's Paradises" like Somalia and North Korea.
Greed means demanding something that you didn't EARN.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 04:53:19 PM
That would only really apply if the tax system were set up as to remove rather than reduce profits.
Wrong.
Quote
That is, beyond the amount of money you need to live a decently comfortable life and to provide the same to your family, maybe even the amount needed to provide yourself with a bit of a safety cushion and to invest in businesses/innovation/charity, your extra profits are not necessary to your welfare.
Profits and earnings belong to the person who earned them; not you. Please take your wealth envy issues to your therapist.
Quote
That does not mean you do not deserve to have them - but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits.
This is a very dumb statement. This is indeed eliminating the free market.
Quote
They're still making more money
More than you, because you are not an earner. You just simply benefit from the fruits of capitalism and those who are greedy enough to make as much money as possible.
Quote
- just by a lesser amount. But the person who makes 15 million dollars a year will still end up with more money after taxes than the person who makes 14 million dollars a year, just by half a million rather than a million.
You simply have intense wealth envy. Have you thought about going out and trying to make some money? You should try it.
Quote
So, you turn revenue - profits into a slightly concave down rather than linear graph; this isn't unfair. Your work - reward curve at such high levels becomes exponential rather than linear, so they balance each other out.
Wrong. This shows you have no clue about what you're talking about.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
Personally, I'd give welfare recipients a livable home, meals, etc., for six years on the condition that they attend college or a trade school and obtain a useful degree. If they fail, they lose their welfare privileges.
This is stupid. The desire to improve comes from the individual. If someone doesn't want to improve, they can work at McDonalds for the rest of their life. They are free to be a loser.
Quote from: taxed on November 16, 2013, 09:52:43 PM
QuotePersonally, I'd give welfare recipients a livable home, meals, etc., for six years on the condition that they attend college or a trade school and obtain a useful degree. If they fail, they lose their welfare privileges.
This is stupid. The desire to improve comes from the individual. If someone doesn't want to improve, they can work at McDonalds for the rest of their life. They are free to be a loser.
Go ahead and make fun of the retards (seriously, please do, it's always fun for everyone involved.) But once socialized medicine has been irretrievably woven into the fabric of what used to be America, liberals won't magically go out and get lives all of a sudden. They'll have to start their next crusade. And that's as likely to be socialized college as any other completely insane and idiotic idea.
Quote from: taxed on November 16, 2013, 09:50:09 PM
Wrong.
Profits and earnings belong to the person who earned them; not you. Please take your wealth envy issues to your therapist.
So by your logic, we should eliminate all taxes, period? What about your war against terror? What about highways and airports? Police and firefighting services? Give me a break - you already support some levels of taxation, so all we're debating now is the
scope of the idea.
Quote
This is a very dumb statement. This is indeed eliminating the free market.
Restating your contention as fact doesn't prove your point. You're creating a false choice where the alternative is that we live in a
partially free market - a "true" free market is about as common in human history as "true" communism.
Quote
More than you, because you are not an earner. You just simply benefit from the fruits of capitalism and those who are greedy enough to make as much money as possible.
Ad hominem (and not remotely true).
Quote
You simply have intense wealth envy. Have you thought about going out and trying to make some money? You should try it.
Ad hominem.
Quote
Wrong. This shows you have no clue about what you're talking about.
Ad hominem. Do you care to go back and actually produce a substantive argument?
This conversation is goin downhill to the point where I'm gonna close the book and shut off the power and then it'll be the end of it...for the both of ya's. Then ya's both can go back out in the garage try to turn the power back on and I'll lock you out.
Quote from: Snobert on November 17, 2013, 12:16:24 PM
This conversation is goin downhill to the point where I'm gonna close the book and shut off the power and then it'll be the end of it...for the both of ya's. Then ya's both can go back out in the garage try to turn the power back on and I'll lock you out.
This is what happens when a Marxist troll enters the forum.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 01:07:03 PM
This is what happens when a Marxist troll enters the forum.
I think the best way to show me up and expose my "marxist" views for what they are is to debate my points and disprove them through some logical/empirical framework, rather than quipping third person one liners.
QuoteSo by your logic, we should eliminate all taxes, period? What about your war against terror? What about highways and airports? Police and firefighting services? Give me a break - you already support some levels of taxation, so all we're debating now is the scope of the idea.
He mentioned "earnings and profits" Take a moment to figure out which taxes would affect "earnings and profits".
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 01:07:03 PM
This is what happens when a Marxist troll enters the forum.
Yeah, you're just a stupid mutt you know that??
You don't know when to knock it off...rotten bastard.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 01:09:25 PM
I think the best way to show me up and expose my "marxist" views for what they are is to debate my points and disprove them through some logical/empirical framework, rather than quipping third person one liners.
Wrong, the best way is to let your post illustrate your ignorance of Capitalism.
You're doing just fine on your own.
Quote from: Snobert on November 17, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Yeah, you're just a stupid mutt you know that??
You don't know when to knock it off...rotten bastard.
My, such an idiot! I wasn't talking about you, but obviously I hit a progressive nerve.
Find another forum to troll, you're gone from this one.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
Wrong, the best way is to let your post illustrate your ignorance of Capitalism.
You're doing just fine on your own.
Well if you feel no need to go out and make falsifiable statements, there's not much that can be said. But like it or not, you live in a partially capitalist, partially socialist society. And if you want to live in a "real" capitalist world, well, it's never existed. It's the communism of the right, and just as impossible.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 04:06:10 PM
It's the communism of the right, and just as impossible.
What in the Hell is that supposed to mean?
Are you saying Capitalism doesn't work?
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 06:55:43 PM
What in the Hell is that supposed to mean?
Are you saying Capitalism doesn't work?
Hmm... Is this toad from out side the U.S. ??
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 06:55:43 PM
What in the Hell is that supposed to mean?
I can't understand how my grammar could possibly confuse you, but...
I'm saying
pure capitalism has never worked, that is, an utterly unregulated free market. We all agree that some axiomatic regulation is necessary, so the question only becomes the
extent, hardly a fundamental question of government philosophy. And I've provided my own evidence to support the pragmatic necessity of certain regulations and programs; some of that evidence which you shipped off to an obscure forum as though you thought a compilation of scientific studies was too irrelevant for you to mind.
So you need to recognize that "should the government do X" is no longer an ideological but rather a factual question that you should justify with, you know results and evidence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:25:57 PM
I'm saying pure capitalism has never worked, that is, an utterly unregulated free market. We all agree that some axiomatic regulation is necessary, so the question only becomes the extent, hardly a fundamental question of government philosophy. And I've provided my own evidence to support the pragmatic necessity of certain regulations and programs; some of that evidence which you shipped off to an obscure forum as though you thought a compilation of scientific studies was too irrelevant for you to mind.
So you need to recognize that "should the government do X" is no longer an ideological but rather a factual question that you should justify with, you know results and evidence.
"Axiomatic regulation?" Collectivism isn't an abjectly insane and idiotic theology that has murdered a hundred million people because there is no such thing as "real capitalism" -- and the explanation of that is that there is no such thing as "pure capitalism"....
You notice how almost every word he uses is an actual word, but the way he puts them together seems pretty much random? Spell and grammar checkers are nifty, but it's a pain how nowadays you sometimes have to read an entire sentence before you figure out someone is a complete gibbering loon.
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
"Axiomatic regulation?" Collectivism isn't an abjectly insane and idiotic theology that has murdered a hundred million people because there is no such thing as "real capitalism"
Ah, so you equate putting limits on the amount of lead you can have in children's toys...with communism? :rolleyes:
Quote
-- and the explanation of that is that there is no such thing as "pure capitalism"....
The conclusion here doesn't even remotely fall from the premises...
Quote
You notice how almost every word he uses is an actual word, but the way he puts them together seems pretty much random? Spell and grammar checkers are nifty, but it's a pain how nowadays you sometimes have to read an entire sentence before you figure out someone is a complete gibbering loon.
You know, it's ridiculous how difficult it is to actually have an intelligible debate with any of you. While most people will respond to points and explain their contrary reasoning and evidence, you respond with giant block posts and vague blanket assertions;
anything but actually responding to the contentions. :rolleyes: You would go winless in any high school debate competition - at no point do you give any semblance of wanting to respond to arguments in a semi-logical structure.
It's really fascinating to see what happens when extremists willingly insulate themselves and create a circle of confirmation bias - it's clear from the lack of form or structure in your responses that you don't understand debate, don't understand fundamental logical fallacies and concepts, and don't have any desire to.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:17:02 PM
It's really fascinating to see what happens when extremists willingly insulate themselves and create a circle of confirmation bias - it's clear from the lack of form or structure in your responses that you don't understand debate, don't understand fundamental logical fallacies and concepts, and don't have any desire to.
Now it's a "circle of confirmation bias?"
So seriously, where does this kind of word salad come from? A bunch of neo-hippies sit in a big drum circle and pass catch-phrases back and forth until they all come out sounding like this. I suppose that's what tax dollars go to in the craziest liberal artiste colleges these days.
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 09:54:08 PM
Now it's a "circle of confirmation bias?"
So seriously, where does this kind of word salad come from? A bunch of neo-hippies sit in a big drum circle and pass catch-phrases back and forth until they all come out sounding like this. I suppose that's what tax dollars go to in the craziest liberal artiste colleges these days.
The difference is I came to these boards specifically because I grew tired of sitting around in liberal boards and not having any room to see the other side of the debate - of course, none of you seem interested in any
formal debate, and will instead resort to silly snipes and ramblings.
Here's another cute question for you: find the volume of of a region in space where the projection onto the x-y plane is in between the circles x^2 + y^2 = 1 and x^2 + y^2 = 2 in the first quadrant, and where z = x. Careful, I once tutored a 15 year old who easily answered this question. You can't get one upped that easily. :lol:
I'm sorry, maybe you shouldn't have accused me of not being able to count. Oh, wait, now that I think of it...
Why don't you find the sum of all possible subsets of <1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9>? It's just counting, right?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 10:06:06 PM
The difference is I came to these boards specifically because I grew tired of sitting around in liberal boards and not having any room to see the other side of the debate - of course, none of you seem interested in any formal debate, and will instead resort to silly snipes and ramblings.
Here's another cute question for you: find the volume of of a region in space where the projection onto the x-y plane is in between the circles x^2 + y^2 = 1 and x^2 + y^2 = 2 in the first quadrant, and where z = x. Careful, I once tutored a 15 year old who easily answered this question. You can't get one upped that easily. :lol:
I'm sorry, maybe you shouldn't have accused me of not being able to count. Oh, wait, now that I think of it...
Why don't you find the sum of all possible subsets of <1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9>? It's just counting, right?
Somebody allowed you around a fifteen-year-old child?
Quote from: kopema on November 18, 2013, 06:44:59 AM
Somebody allowed you around a fifteen-year-old child?
Let's return to the original contention. If you support any mode of economic regulation you shift the argument from "capitalism or socialism?" to "what degree of capitalism?". And therefore you need to respond to questions of raising taxes or imposing new regulations with some cost-benefit analysis, preferably supported with actual data and evidence, rather than a copy-pasted "socialism is evil" kneejerk response. Because you already support such "socialist" policies, it's only a matter of
degree, a matter of actual analysis.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Let's return to the original contention. If you support any mode of economic regulation you shift the argument from "capitalism or socialism?" to "what degree of capitalism?". And therefore you need to respond to questions of raising taxes or imposing new regulations with some cost-benefit analysis, preferably supported with actual data and evidence, rather than a copy-pasted "socialism is evil" kneejerk response. Because you already support such "socialist" policies, it's only a matter of degree, a matter of actual analysis.
Regulations aren't necessarily capitalist or socialist. That would depend on the nature of the regulation. So, "No, regulatory economics can exist in both capitalist and socialist systems". The existence of regulations alone does not equate to an acceptance of socialism. Laissez faire free-market capitalism stresses the importance of preventing over regulation. Socialist systems tend to be more regulated than systems which strive towards Laissez faire capitalism due in part to the wide divergence between socialism and more natural free markets. This wider departure from a natural system of trade and property rights necessitates a higher degree of regulation to accomplish the reformation to the unnatural.
As an example, take a regulation preventing a merchant from advertising a sale on any LCD Television set in the store if the merchant HAS no LCD Television sets IN THE STORE and is merely announcing a fictitious prospective sale to lure customers into the store. Or another example failing to disclose the fact all such sets available for sale are used. This is in no way a socialist or capitalist regulation.
Quote from: LibDave on November 22, 2013, 04:47:19 AM
Regulations aren't necessarily capitalist or socialist. That would depend on the nature of the regulation. So, "No, regulatory economics can exist in both capitalist and socialist systems". The existence of regulations alone does not equate to an acceptance of socialism. Laissez faire free-market capitalism stresses the importance of preventing over regulation.
One analogy is boxing. Of course any single unethical boxer might well want to put lead weights in his gloves -- that provides a decided advantage for him. But he doesn't want ALL boxers doing the same thing -- that would, among other things, greatly shorten their average career span.
A simple way to differentiate between a liberal idea and a potentially sane one is to ask: "Would one expect a reasonable TAXPAYER to support this?"
Roads and bridges? Most taxpayers don't have a gigantic problem with them; only liberals ever seem to refer to those as evil "Communist conspiracies."
But, if given a choice, would even the most generous saint ever born want to
contribute his own money to the byzantine, horrifically inefficient and even perversely-incentivized federal Welfare system - when he could spend his time and money giving personal attention to the people who so desperately need it? Of course not; it's only liberals who think giving away other people's money somehow constitutes "charity." No taxpayer could ever feel that way.
Quote from: LibDave on November 22, 2013, 04:47:19 AM
Regulations aren't necessarily capitalist or socialist. That would depend on the nature of the regulation.
You dispute my notion that it's simply a matter of degree and suggest that there's a fundamental distinction; please state what you think this is.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:52:43 AM
So by your logic, we should eliminate all taxes, period?
All income taxes, correct.
Quote
What about your war against terror?
I need you to step up the intellect for a second and make the connection between the theft of one's earnings to "The War On Terror".
QuoteWhat about highways and airports?
These don't require income taxes.
Quote
Police and firefighting services?
These are the services that are first cut to continue the corrupt gravy train facilitated by government. Try again.
Quote
Give me a break - you already support some levels of taxation, so all we're debating now is the scope of the idea.
I do not support income taxes. Please try again.
Quote
Restating your contention as fact doesn't prove your point. You're creating a false choice where the alternative is that we live in a partially free market - a "true" free market is about as common in human history as "true" communism.
Incorrect, I am not creating a false choice. We can move towards a free market by reducing government interference. This would benefit everyone in our society. A free market is the best choice, plain and simple. Nature handles everything.
Quote
Ad hominem (and not remotely true).
Ad hominem.
Ad hominem. Do you care to go back and actually produce a substantive argument?
You have put forth no argument, except brilliance like "but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits." That is something someone stupid would say. It is not the free market to steal property from the individual who earned it.
Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2013, 10:53:41 PM
All income taxes, correct.
Are you one of those national sales tax fellows?
Income taxes do not deincentivize earning more money because you
still earn more money as your income increases. I've never once met a fellow who stated that he doesn't want to make more money because he'd have to give it all away in taxes. Maybe because that would not be true.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, would certainly discourage spending. Which is a great idea, given today's markets. :rolleyes:
Quote
I need you to step up the intellect for a second and make the connection between the theft of one's earnings to "The War On Terror".
I did not support the war in Iraq. Would I be justified in objecting to paying taxes to such an endeavor, as you feel you have the right to object to paying taxes to that which you do not believe in?
Quote
These don't require income taxes.
How much revenue could a sales tax raise?
Quote
These are the services that are first cut to continue the corrupt gravy train facilitated by government. Try again.
So who funds the police and other emergency services?
QuoteI do not support income taxes. Please try again.
You do not support income taxes, yet you take advantage of services made possible by said income taxes... :lol:
Quote
Incorrect, I am not creating a false choice. We can move towards a free market by reducing government interference. This would benefit everyone in our society. A free market is the best choice, plain and simple. Nature handles everything.
"Nature handles everything" - we don't live in a Disney movie, buddy. How does the invisible hand of your free market system handle food manufacturers who "forget" to screen their products for dangerous chemicals and even outright toxins? What if the side effects are too long term and complex for your typical consumer to deduce? No federal agency to regulate the public safety, no private company with the incentive or, worse yet, the authority to conduct screenings,
every incentive to minimize any consideration for your customer's safety not immediately tied to profits.
How does the free market drive long term investments too far down the road for any profit driven corporation to see any payback in? How does the free market reconcile obvious conflicts of interest between personal profit and the public good? For one who constantly appeals to his advanced age, you have a ridiculously naive picture of reality. What's funnier, you think "nature handles everything" but still don't believe in evolution. :lol:
QuoteYou have put forth no argument, except brilliance like "but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits." That is something someone stupid would say. It is not the free market to steal property from the individual who earned it.
Feel free to dispute my argument beyond your say-so, then. You don't eliminate profits with taxation. Elimination would entail taxing revenue 100% beyond a certain threshold, or, as probably done de-facto in certain historical regimes,
beyond 100%.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 27, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
Are you one of those national sales tax fellows?
Income taxes do not deincentivize earning more money because you still earn more money as your income increases. I've never once met a fellow who stated that he doesn't want to make more money because he'd have to give it all away in taxes. Maybe because that would not be true.
So everyone you know is poor?
If you understood that animal known as "Tax Bracket" you'd know that a lot of people turn down promotions over it.
Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2013, 07:09:15 PM
So everyone you know is poor?
No one he knows is poor. They're all living off the government.
Even if they "work" for the government, it's not like they ever have to work
harder, let alone risk anything. It's not a difficult thought process. Each year they make the same tough decision: "More money for just showing up? Hmm... Well, OK, sure, why the heck not?"[/i]
If the new piece of the pie isn't quite as much bigger as it otherwise would have been, that's not a tax; it's a kickback. They know they'll just get more next year.
Quote from: kopema on November 28, 2013, 05:22:01 AM
No one he knows is poor. They're all living off the government.
Even if they "work" for the government, it's not like they ever have to work harder, let alone risk anything. It's not a difficult thought process. Each year they make the same tough decision: "More money for just showing up? Hmm... Well, OK, sure, why the heck not?"[/i]
If the new piece of the pie isn't quite as much bigger as it otherwise would have been, that's not a tax; it's a kickback. They know they'll just get more next year.
May be a lot of truth in that.
To him, someone that gets a Govt handout is merely on the govt payroll.
Welfare recipient? No, just an Govt employee on standby.
Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2013, 07:09:15 PM
So everyone you know is poor?
If you understood that animal known as "Tax Bracket" you'd know that a lot of people turn down promotions over it.
That's the result of a cost-benefit analysis; is the extra work I'm going to put in worth the extra money; that would exist regardless of taxation. It wouldn't even be a big deal if our taxation rates were continuous rather than discrete.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 05:28:51 AM
To him, someone that gets a Govt handout is merely on the govt payroll. Welfare recipient? No, just an Govt employee on standby.
They do everything that's required of them: Once every few years they allow themselves to be trundled into a van, then they get out and touch the "D" button on a screen.
Sure, a few of them can be trained to carry a sign and shout a slogan or two for the cameras. But they're the overachievers.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 06:54:22 AM
That's the result of a cost-benefit analysis; is the extra work I'm going to put in worth the extra money; that would exist regardless of taxation. It wouldn't even be a big deal if our taxation rates were continuous rather than discrete.
Try disproving my point, or move on.
Your childish anecdotal attempts are getting real old quick.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 27, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
How does the invisible hand of your free market system handle food manufacturers who "forget" to screen their products for dangerous chemicals and even outright toxins? What if the side effects are too long term and complex for your typical consumer to deduce? No federal agency to regulate the public safety, no private company with the incentive or, worse yet, the authority to conduct screenings, every incentive to minimize any consideration for your customer's safety not immediately tied to profits.
Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs :rolleyes:
If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce. Just look at your ideal chinese system, indeed government bureaucracy are excellent in stopping these abuses no? :smile:
And even worse, the corporatist economy you are advocating promotes collusion between corporations and government agencies to give them special rules and less regulations. :laugh:
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs :rolleyes:
If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce. Just look at your ideal chinese system, indeed government bureaucracy are excellent in stopping these abuses no? :smile:
And even worse, the corporatist economy you are advocating promotes collusion between corporations and government agencies to give them special rules and less regulations. :laugh:
Is it blind ignorance, or willful idiocy?
I swear, he lives in an alternate universe from reality.
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs :rolleyes:
Please quote where I say this.
Quote
If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce.
Sorry, but no, it isn't. We can all poke fun at government agencies all day long, but they have:
1. Tax revenue to hire professionals
2. The authority to inspect companies beyond what they show to consumers
Whereas consumer advocacy groups (which ironically for you typically support government regulations like these) cannot rely on significant revenue streams and don't have the authority to do much. So there goes strike one to your arbitrary and naive "the invisible hand sorts everything out perfectly" Disney-movie plot synopsis.
There are reasons we poke fun at the government all day long. Here's one: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/)
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 30, 2013, 01:44:07 PM
There are reasons we poke fun at the government all day long. Here's one: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/)
Do you know why you'd make a great career as a news anchor?
Quote from: walkstall on November 17, 2013, 07:10:56 PM
Hmm... Is this toad from out side the U.S. ??
Ask him what color the sky is on his planet.
Quote from: MatthewG on November 13, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
Thanks!
Conservatives often speak of the left as having waged a "war-on-achievement" but, having been a part of the left for quite a number of years, in their thinking it's a "war-on-greed". They see greed as a consequence of selfishness. Many progressives abhor selfishness. In fact, this is what I didn't like about free-market enterprise in my progressive years. I considered it a selfish, greed-centered, Social Darwinist, "nice-guys-finish-last" economy of capitalist bad boys and I looked to the government to protect the underdog from capitalist bullies. Nowadays, I see greed as a unfortunate consequence of the free-market. I see the existence of hate speech is an unfortunate consequence of a free society, where everyone should have the right to speak freely; greed is also an unfortunate consequence of a free society where everyone should pursue success regardless of what motivates them. But I value a free society and so I will tolerate hate speech even if I condemn it. I believe that everyone should be able to pursue success and become wealthy even if I don't care for greed as a motivation.
I think it's possible that they could've. If they had similar knowledge to what we had today, I think they would've liked it. Had they known about the income tax and the desire of progressives to implement it as part of their "war-on-greed", they might have liked it or at least have been very sympathetic to it.
If you are speaking of the Founders I doubt it. They did not want this big over bloated Federal Government. Hence no need for adsorbent taxation.
Though the authenticity of this speech may be in doubt but not its message. It should be required reading in high school. As should Atlas Shrugged :)
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html)
Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0#)
Quote"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."