The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's a pretty broad spectrum of people, many of whom have the ability to change that situation on their own, so yeah, I do think someone who wants to steal from us at gunpoint to buy their support/subsidize their sloth, is a horrible person.

Many of those who don't.  Unless you're Warren Buffett you'll be okay.

[Rob's House]

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Many of those who don't.  Unless you're Warren Buffett you'll be okay.

 

How many? 10%? 40%? 75%? It's not a trivial question.

 

If you can't clearly define the need you are addressing (they can't) and the scope of your plan (they won't), then you don't have a practical or responsible proposal. 

 

And whether I'll be okay isn't the point.

 

Brushing aside the costs, which would be substantial, with the rationalization that "you'll be okay," (whatever that means), is not a serious or responsibly thought out position.

[Doc Brown]

10 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

How many? 10%? 40%? 75%? It's not a trivial question.

 

If you can't clearly define the need you are addressing (they can't) and the scope of your plan (they won't), then you don't have a practical or responsible proposal. 

 

And whether I'll be okay isn't the point.

 

Brushing aside the costs, which would be substantial, with the rationalization that "you'll be okay," (whatever that means), is not a serious or responsibly thought out position.

Which politician and plan are you referring too?

[Rob's House]

15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Which politician and plan are you referring too?

 

The post I quoted was made in reference to Sanders and Warren. 

 

I'm not sure how we got here though b/c I just realized what thread we're in and when that was posted.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

13 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The post I quoted was made in reference to Sanders and Warren. 

 

I'm not sure how we got here though b/c I just realized what thread we're in and when that was posted.

 

 

I was responding to a generalization that somehow Warren/Sanders are the worst kind of politicians because their political positions differ from their ideology.  The left would argue the worst kind of politician are those that pass policies that give the ultra wealthy huge tax breaks in return for cutting social programs. Using terms like "the worst" destroys any chance of a healthy debate about how much of a social safety net we should implement.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I was responding to a generalization that somehow Warren/Sanders are the worst kind of politicians because their political positions differ from their ideology.  The left would argue the worst kind of politician are those that pass policies that give the ultra wealthy huge tax breaks in return for cutting social programs. Using terms like "the worst" destroys any chance of a healthy debate about how much of a social safety net we should implement.

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

[GG]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

 

With regards to taxation generally I don't know that there is an example, but wrt income tax, the US had none until 1913 and it worked out pretty well.

[TakeYouToTasker]

23 minutes ago, GG said:

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

Honest inquiry?

[GG]

13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Honest inquiry?

Yeah, honest in a practical application of zero taxation with real life examples of where it has worked. 

 

Otherwise it's the polar opposite of the rationale for Communism. 

[GG]

41 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

With regards to taxation generally I don't know that there is an example, but wrt income tax, the US had none until 1913 and it worked out pretty well.

The argument is zero taxation, not zero income tax.  US had taxes and levies before income tax was enacted. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

Yeah, honest in a practical application of zero taxation with real life examples of where it has worked. 

 

Otherwise it's the polar opposite of the rationale for Communism. 

Lets start, then, with the income tax.

[GG]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Lets start, then, with the income tax.

Fine, do away with the income tax and replace it with a new consumption tax.  It's still a tax. 

Edited November 29, 2019 by GG

[snafu]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

 

Dissolve the country and replace it with what?

There will still be a large group of people who believe “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and who believe “all taxation is theft” who will want to say how we’re governed.

 

Should be more like keep the country and replace the mentality of each branch to over engineer how citizens should live.  Just because someone gets to the Senate or the  House or the Bench or the Executive doesn’t mean that they must insist on pushing for change. That’s been a long time problem with our country. 

 

 

 

 

[Bakin]

1 hour ago, GG said:

Fine, do away with the income tax and replace it with a new consumption tax.  It's still a tax. 

This is a far preferable option. 
Consume - pay tax. 
Much better than Earn - pay tax. 

[Nanker]

But Lizzy wants to try something entirely new - wealth confiscation! Just take people's wealth each and every year. There's a lot more "wealth" in the nation than there is just income. 

[snafu]

10 hours ago, Bakin said:

This is a far preferable option. 
Consume - pay tax. 
Much better than Earn - pay tax. 

 

I don’t think it is preferable. Especially for people with fixed or low incomes.

 

[Bakin]

32 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don’t think it is preferable. Especially for people with fixed or low incomes.

 

I think it’s very reasonable. 
Spend big money pay big tax. 
Necessities of life can be taxed differently than other items. 

[B-Man]

Impeachment Makes the Best Case to Unseat Dems

by Andrew I. Fillat

 

Original Article

 

The recent sad spectacle of the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives is but the latest example of the disdain the political Left shows for both substance and process in a quest for power. If the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls is any indication, that power will be exercised by pursuing divisive and destructive policies that will hurt America for generations. But excoriating those policies will require volumes best authored elsewhere. Consider first the impeachment circus. Whether the “high crime” is called quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery, the premise is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

.