Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.
I didn't judge who's better suited to set future policy. It is irrelevant to judge what policy McCain would have set. The policies that are actually being set are reality. To compare them with conjectural policies that might have been set by the unelected candidate is a common trick to deflect from the matter at hand. As for an understanding of why we have massive current deficits and a massive national debt, as I said, the major, if not sole reason, is the Federal Government's usurpation of power and therefore responsibility to do things not delegated to it but reserved to the States and the people.
I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.
What has been distorted is the power of the Central Government and its unconstitutional intrusion into areas of governing and regulation not granted to it.
I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?
Your assuming that Alabama and it's citizens believe that methyl mercury is suitable to breath in Alabama--that noone in Alabama will sue the polluters nor that Alabaman legislators, lawyers, enraged and poisoned citizens would not care enough about their own health to demand that companies not pollute Alabama air.
The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.
The context was "We can justify higher corporate taxes . . ." To do what? To pay for government programs that the Federal Government is not constitutionally allowed to create? Which is the same reason for "progressively" higher tax rates of individuals--all under the ruse that these taxes will only affect corporations and the rich, but won't affect the poor and middle class. Ha-ha. Of course it will in higher prices, lost jobs, lost businesses, lost investment, lost freedom, further departure from constitutional government, etc., etc.
Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...
-spence
|
Neither I, nor anyone I know, are anarchists. The Constitution is not an anarchistic manifesto. It mandates that we govern ourselves--individually, locally, by State, and by the Central Government in limited select functions granted to it by consent of the governed--all with the intent that the individual will be protected from the tyranny of the majority. What is most unpredictable and uncertain, is an over-arching Central Government that constantly expands its power over States, localities, and individuals in unrelenting various ways that were not granted to it. And there is great uncertainty in those sitting on loads of cash as to what direction or new tax or tax rate that has no principalled or constitutional reason, that this Central Government will create.