Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

You stated it by fiat.

I dispute that reducing the tax burden even produces those outcomes at all. You consistently ignore what that tax burden actually pays for.

This is why I asked earlier about what particular programs you felt should get cut down, specifically. A question you found so offensive of me to ask you resorted to similar insults in response. You really don't want to explain any of the details at all, do you? I'm not sure why you find that such a threat.

Feel free to dispute it, it would literally be more money in your hands.

As was stated, I called for a 5-year freeze on spending increases. That means every department could get literally the exact same amount.

[Felya]

Let's lower spending, as I've been saying.

Will future generations not need this spending? You would rather shift the burden of keeping the country going, to future generations? Let me guess... you only see a doctor, once you start bleeding from various holes? Seems like you want to reap the benefits of lower taxes, at the expanse of paying for your expanses.

No dude... I am simply not pretending that cutting ambiguous spending, will fix the ambiguous problems, instead of making them worse them due to neglect.

Remember... you have yet to explain why debt is bad... just benefiting it from it, despite being the future generation of your ilk from 40 years ago.

[Machismo]

I wouldn't. Because I'm not an immoral sack of shit.

Then again I'm the guy who imports products from another country but refuses to use the fluctuating exchange rate as a means to make more money. I'm not out to bleed everyone dry.

It's not about bleeding everyone dry, it's about providing a good/service for those who don't plan properly. Convenience stores exist for this reason. You don't need to pay $8 for a popcorn at the movies, but people do... because they don't eat before they go inside.

It's the same concept.

[Endus]

Feel free to dispute it, it would literally be more money in your hands.

More money, and more problems which would need me to spend money to resolve.

As was stated, I called for a 5-year freeze on spending increases. That means every department could get literally the exact same amount.

And that's not acceptable to me, because given inflation and population growth, it's just asking to see social welfare programs get choked out and provide less benefit to those in need.

A blanket approach is not a move towards liberty, it's a move to harm those in need and who lack the finances to help themselves, and won't see any benefit of reduced tax burdens in the first place.

See, that's your problem. I keep thinking of my fellow citizens.

[Machismo]

Will future generations not need this spending? You would rather shift the burden of keeping the country going, to future generations? Let me guess... you only see a doctor, once you start bleeding from various holes? Seems like you want to reap the benefits of lower taxes, at the expanse of paying for your expanses.

No dude... I am simply not pretending that cutting ambiguous spending, will fix the ambiguous problems, instead of making them worse them due to neglect.

Remember... you have yet to explain why debt is bad... just benefiting it from it, despite being the future generation of your ilk from 40 years ago.

I'd rather cut spending, thanks.

Already did explain about debt. It's a forced burden on people who have no say in the matter. You should watch Reaper.

- - - Updated - - -

More money, and more problems which would need me to spend money to resolve.



And that's not acceptable to me, because given inflation and population growth, it's just asking to see social welfare programs get choked out and provide less benefit to those in need.

A blanket approach is not a move towards liberty, it's a move to harm those in need and who lack the finances to help themselves, and won't see any benefit of reduced tax burdens in the first place.

You'd be free to do that.

Meanwhile, you're supporting forcing people who aren't even alive yet, to pay for those things, and don't see anything wrong with it. You aren't thinking of them.

That's harm.

[Endus]

You'd be free to do that.

Meanwhile, you're supporting forcing people who aren't even alive yet, to pay for those things, and don't see anything wrong with it.

That's harm.

Nah. That's not how national debts work.

Also, maybe you don't know this, but Canada paid off a massive chunk of our national debt a while back. Which I contributed to, through taxes. As did all Canadians. And that program was overall pretty popular at the time.

I'm not gonna agree with directly hurting people now out of some fear that people in the future might be indirectly harmed. Particularly when the debt is paying for the status quo today that produces those future generations.

[Machismo]

Nah. That's not how national debts work.

Also, maybe you don't know this, but Canada paid off a massive chunk of our national debt a while back. Which I contributed to, through taxes. As did all Canadians. And that program was overall pretty popular at the time.

I'm not gonna agree with directly hurting people now out of some fear that people in the future might be indirectly harmed. Particularly when the debt is paying for the status quo today that produces those future generations.

Yeah, it is. The debt gets pushed back, continuously.

Alas, the United States spends like drunken sailors, so maybe you'll jump on board and support those spending cuts.

You are directly hurting people.

[Bodakane]

That has been explained. This is about more individual liberty.

What individual liberties are being crushed senselessly then, especially the ones costing you money?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it is. The debt gets pushed back, continuously.

Alas, the United States spends like drunken sailors, so maybe you'll jump on board and support those spending cuts.

You are directly hurting people.

That's not how the national debt works. This has been explained to you 1000's of times, but the national debt is not like personal debt.

[Ivanstone]

It's not about bleeding everyone dry,

it's about providing a good/service for those who don't plan properly.

You don't need to pay $8 for a popcorn at the movies, but people do... because they don't eat before they go inside.

For you it seems like it sure is. Same with most capitalists.

That's why we have government. At least government isn't out to turn a profit. Expectation of profit is horribly inefficient.

Some people love movie popcorn. They go to the theatre looking forward to that meal.

[Machismo]

What individual liberties are being crushed senselessly then, especially the ones costing you money?

Ahh, nice use of hyperbole.

As was pointed out, this is about thousands and thousands of smaller cuts. the current topic of discussion is tax burden., I want to reduce it, meaning more liberty to spend your own money.

- - - Updated - - -

For you it seems like it sure is. Same with most capitalists.

That's why we have government. At least government isn't out to turn a profit. Expectation of profit is horribly inefficient.

Some people love movie popcorn. They go to the theatre looking forward to that meal.

Our government runs at a huge debt, and the people obliged to pay it off, often have zero say in the matter.

If you want to buy movie popcorn, I support your freedom to do it. Do you despise the theater for selling it?

[Mayhem]

No, it's a decrease in purchasing power, not a decrease in actual spending.

Well, the companies getting less will be delighted about that fact.

f tax levels remain the same, then the only real reason for revenue to decrease, would be in a recession. And, over time, you see that GDP and revenues increase.

That's a big if. What about the companies that would have to lay off workers because of the decreased government spending?

But even if everything just checks out, how are you going to reduce the deficit? So far all you've come up with is a suggestion on stopping deficit increase in the best-case scenario.

[Muzjhath]

So, lower taxes.

More liberty, more freedom to buy what you want, and less government involvement.

Except, if that means they'll need to pay more for what their current taxes cover. Then they'll have less liberty.
Health insurance, fire insurance, safety insurance, work insurance, road tolls, extortionist water prices, without even getting into Scrip of different natures.

[Endus]

Yeah, it is. The debt gets pushed back, continuously.

That's literally not how the national debt works, no. Older bits of that debt are constantly paid off. It isn't like a single big credit card carrying a balance. It's like a whole bunch of 30-year mortgages that the nation is consistently able to keep up payments on just fine. There's still "debt", but it has a specific pay schedule and the US is meeting those obligations.

Alas, the United States spends like drunken sailors, so maybe you'll jump on board and support those spending cuts.

Targeted spending cuts, depending on the context of how they affect outcomes.

You are directly hurting people.

Nah. You're just resorting to slander because it's cheaper and easier than explaining yourself.

[Ivanstone]

Our government runs at a huge debt, and the people obliged to pay it off, often have zero say in the matter.

If you want to buy movie popcorn, I support your freedom to do it. Do you despise the theater for selling it?

Yes it does. And you keep electing shitheads (ie GOP) who do a poor job of running it. They do things like the short-sided savings in water distribution and then end up spending more much later to fix the problem they created. Meanwhile some vulture is waiting in the wings to make everyone else's life more miserable.

The theatre doesn't sell popcorn because people forgot to eat dinner. The theatre sells popcorn because people enjoy eating the shit while they watch the movie. The price isn't there to take advantage of people's lack of foresight, the price is there because that's how much it costs to run a movie theatre.

[Bodakane]

Ahh, nice use of hyperbole.

As was pointed out, this is about thousands and thousands of smaller cuts. the current topic of discussion is tax burden., I want to reduce it, meaning more liberty to spend your own money.

For fucks sake, like what specifically???!?!?!?!?!? How many times do you have to be asked this question without answering. List 5? 10? something specific. What individual liberties are being hindered and which ones cost you money? For all the fucking screaming and crying you're doing you should have a bunch of them at the ready to list.

[Machismo]

Well, the companies getting less will be delighted about that fact.



That's a big if. What about the companies that would have to lay off workers because of the decreased government spending?

But even if everything just checks out, how are you going to reduce the deficit? So far all you've come up with is a suggestion on stopping deficit increase in the best-case scenario.

Yes, defense contractors and government contractors will see this.

It's not really a big if, since we have decades of revenue numbers to work with.

This would loser the deficit over time...

- - - Updated - - -

Except, if that means they'll need to pay more for what their current taxes cover. Then they'll have less liberty.
Health insurance, fire insurance, safety insurance, work insurance, road tolls, extortionist water prices, without even getting into Scrip of different natures.

No, they will have freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Government is not known for their efficiency.

- - - Updated - - -

That's literally not how the national debt works, no. Older bits of that debt are constantly paid off. It isn't like a single big credit card carrying a balance. It's like a whole bunch of 30-year mortgages that the nation is consistently able to keep up payments on just fine. There's still "debt", but it has a specific pay schedule and the US is meeting those obligations.



Targeted spending cuts, depending on the context of how they affect outcomes.



Nah. You're just resorting to slander because it's cheaper and easier than explaining yourself.

And we keep adding more and more... I'm well aware of how the debt works. The issue is that the "funnel is continuously filling up. I simply ant to lower the flow into the funnel in the first place.

You want to push more and more debt onto people who don't have a say in the matter.

That's harm.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it does. And you keep electing shitheads (ie GOP) who do a poor job of running it. They do things like the short-sided savings in water distribution and then end up spending more much later to fix the problem they created. Meanwhile some vulture is waiting in the wings to make everyone else's life more miserable.

The theatre doesn't sell popcorn because people forgot to eat dinner. The theatre sells popcorn because people enjoy eating the shit while they watch the movie. The price isn't there to take advantage of people's lack of foresight, the price is there because that's how much it costs to run a movie theatre.

Are we back to Flint, where the Democratic leaders voted to change to the cheaper water? Do you really want to go there?

Well, they capitalized on the choices people made, and so do I.

- - - Updated - - -

For fucks sake, like what specifically???!?!?!?!?!? How many times do you have to be asked this question without answering. List 5? 10? something specific. What individual liberties are being hindered and which ones cost you money? For all the fucking screaming and crying you're doing you should have a bunch of them at the ready to list.

That was literally pointed out, and I brought numerous things throughout this thread. Hell, I even took the time to bold them... and people ignored it. So, refer to the previous times I answered that fucking question.

- - - Updated - - -

Hard to tell, you refuse to discuss your end goal.

I've offered short-term solutions.

My end goal is more individual liberty.

[Muzjhath]

So, do I, or do I not want government?

You want a government run by and for the wealthy and corporations. Yes. Since you believe corporations and the wealthy should be allowed to spend more in political contributions that is what you want. As it's the result those policies will ultimately bring about.

[Machismo]

You want a government run by and for the wealthy and corporations. Yes. Since you believe corporations and the wealthy should be allowed to spend more in political contributions that is what you want. As it's the result those policies will ultimately bring about.

I want the government to be run in a manner, where people can actually have individual liberty.

[Muzjhath]

No, they will have freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Government is not known for their efficiency.

Maybe in your fantasy. In reality they wouldn't Since without water they would die. And with private water infrastructure water prices would soar. The CEO of Nestle would be happy as fuck, and you'd invest in that corporation and probably dance a happy fucking dance. Meanwhile most people would suffer.

- - - Updated - - -

I want the government to be run in a manner, where people can actually have individual liberty.

Your arguments and ideas tell a very different story. Read some books on history and economy is my advice.

[Machismo]

Maybe in your fantasy. In reality they wouldn't Since without water they would die. And with private water infrastructure water prices would soar. The CEO of Nestle would be happy as fuck, and you'd invest in that corporation and probably dance a happy fucking dance. Meanwhile most people would suffer.

- - - Updated - - -



Your arguments and ideas tell a very different story. Read some books on history and economy is my advice.

Oh, I have, textbooks as well.

You mean like Flint? is that what we want?

- - - Updated - - -

And when you refuse to define what that actually means... yeah. You have stated you want to sell off all our infrastructure to corporations though. And that they should have unlimited financial influence over the political process in the short term. It’s not hard to see where that would lead, a ton of corporatist policies being enacted. Feel free to disagree at any time.

I provided short-term solutions, did you address any of them?