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

[Mayhem]

I said tax levels, not revenue. I meant tax rates. That seems pretty easy to figure out.

Thanks for the clarification. I mean, that's not connected but good to know. Tax rates staying the same doesn't say anything about tax revenue.

Sometimes there is a decrease. But, over time... it trends upwards.

I showed numbers, and almost any 5-year stretch shows a gain in revenue.

In. the. current. system.

The. system. you. want. to. change.

You can't take numbers from the system you want to change and just assume that they stay the same despite you changing the system. Your change would immediately reduce revenue, which would lead to a decrease in tax revenue, it would also lead to less expendable income of future generations.

- - - Updated - - -

He said my stances and proposals are corporatist, when I was pointing to the list of recommendations I made, that he completely ignored.

Meanwhile, people have no problem with corporations like JD having more power....

Doesn't matter, in your proposals they'd still have more power. They just don't need to go through the government. How is that better?

[Machismo]

Thanks for the clarification. I mean, that's not connected but good to know. Tax rates staying the same doesn't say anything about tax revenue.



In. the. current. system.

The. system. you. want. to. change.

You can't take numbers from the system you want to change and just assume that they stay the same despite you changing the system. Your change would immediately reduce revenue, which would lead to a decrease in tax revenue, it would also lead to less expendable income of future generations.

- - - Updated - - -



Doesn't matter, in your proposals they'd still have more power. They just don't need to go through the government. How is that better?

This is simply in reference to the comment about stopping the increase in spending for 5 years. That doesn't change the system in any fundamental way. It's the same tax structure, the same governmental departments. The only thing that's changing, is how they choose to spend the exact same amount of money moving forward over the course of 5 years. I should not, I've made no demands on how they spend that money, and I'm leaving it up to the same people.

So yes, those numbers can be used. if you'll notice, that shows that almost every single 5-year stretch has an increase in revenues, and since the tax structure is exactly the same, then there's no reason to not use those numbers and trends.

To be clear, you are saying that opposing abortion restrictions and marijuana legalization is the corporatist stance to take?

[Mayhem]

This is simply in reference to the comment about stopping the increase in spending for 5 years. That doesn't change the system in any fundamental way. It's the same tax structure, the same governmental departments. The only thing that's changing, is how they choose to spend the exact same amount of money moving forward over the course of 5 years. I should not, I've made no demands on how they spend that money, and I'm leaving it up to the same people.

So yes, those numbers can be used. if you'll notice, that shows that almost every single 5-year stretch has an increase in revenues, and since the tax structure is exactly the same, then there's no reason to not use those numbers and trends.

Ok, you just keep ignoring that reduced spending will reduce revenue. Righto

To be clear, you are saying that opposing abortion restrictions and marijuana legalization is the corporatist stance to take?

No, read what I wrote.

[Machismo]

Ok, you just keep ignoring that reduced spending will reduce revenue. Righto



No, read what I wrote.

Read what he wrote, that's what I was trying to discuss.

It really won't reduce revenue all that much (compared to if no stop in spending were to occur), and I took into account the possibility of some reduction in the increase in revenue in my projection of a balanced budget over 15 years. Sure, you will end up having fewer government contractors and contracts. Those people will inevitably move into the private sector. If the only justification for that revenue is the continued existence of that revenue, then you have a problem. This pushes government to be more efficient and responsible, something that doesn't get done nearly enough.

[Mayhem]

Read what he wrote, that's what I was trying to discuss.

You were trying to discuss that your proposals make you a corporatist? Ok, cool.

It really won't reduce revenue all that much (compared to if no stop in spending were to occur), and I took into account the possibility of some reduction in the increase in revenue in my projection of a balanced budget over 15 years. Sure, you will end up having fewer government contractors and contracts. Those people will inevitably move into the private sector. If the only justification for that revenue is the continued existence of that revenue, then you have a problem. This pushes government to be more efficient and responsible, something that doesn't get done nearly enough.

Right, the people would move into the private sector where they magically get equivalent jobs. You are the first capitalist I know of that argues for reducing demand.

Better regulations would also push the government to be more efficient without getting people fired. It would also increase liberty and freedom based on being a citizen not based on your wealth.

[Ivanstone]

They chose to vote for it. They chose to go on television to push the misinformation that it was safe..

I know you don't want to hear this, but people are responsible for the choices they make in life.

WHY CAN YOU NOT GRASP THIS??!?!?!

I'll concede the point when a local elected official is charged with a crime. Thus far the Mayor and the City Council of Flint remain uncharged.

Everything else is misinformation orchestrated by the Party of Free Market Principles, Cost Cutting and Deregulation.

[Santti]

So. 119 pages. Are be beyond empty slogans yet?

[Felya]

So. 119 pages. Are be beyond empty slogans yet?

That and fearmongering debt... I am having troubles with the virtue signaling of ‘think of future generations’, when the argument is to cut the spending whose rewords they have been reaping their whole lives. That’s seems like a super shitty thing to do... they will still be paying the debt, but without the benefits said debt afforded. Pretty much the equivalent of ‘I got mine’ and shutting the door...

[Santti]

That and fearmongering debt... I am having troubles with the virtue signaling of ‘think of future generations’, when the argument is to cut the spending whose rewords they have been reaping their whole lives. That’s seems like a super shitty thing to do... they will still be paying the debt, but without the benefits said debt afforded. Pretty much the equivalent of ‘I got mine’ and shutting the door...

That's pretty much what I've gathered out of this, as well. This is pure selfishness, in a political dress.

[Gestopft]

Dunno why y'all argue with Machismo; he's admitted that he doesn't actually care whether or not his ideas work.

[Santti]

Dunno why y'all argue with Machismo; he's admitted that he doesn't actually care whether or not his ideas work.

Which is all the more puzzling, considering how much he likes to argue about it. Take all the threads together, which is probably at over 200 pages by now, and we've arrived at "fuck you, got mine" and empty platitudes and slogans, akin to Brexiteers shouting "Sovereignty!".

[tehdang]

Which is all the more puzzling, considering how much he likes to argue about it. Take all the threads together, which is probably at over 200 pages by now, and we've arrived at "fuck you, got mine" and empty platitudes and slogans, akin to Brexiteers shouting "Sovereignty!".

He believes this stuff, and obviously has an argument from his point of view, however he expresses it in troll form to others trolling him. Why go 100 pages with people insulting him and returning insult for insult?

Frankly, I think the real problem is he has an iota of a point here, and people know it's an unconfessed drawback to their own ideology. It's probably got something to do with his claims about real harm and conceptions of liberty. The little semi-trolly side paths about Bill Gates's healthcare and Tennessee Whiskey provisions didn't yield any important admissions that govt regulations are sometimes an extension of corporate power and, in fact, a lasting difficulty with government power in general. Granted, I only read about 80 pages of the 120 for humor and to see how dug-in both sides were and are.

As a second point, seeing him called corporatist, conservative, and anarchist among all those pages was worth the time I spent reading. So many labels and accusations.

[Machismo]

You were trying to discuss that your proposals make you a corporatist? Ok, cool.



Right, the people would move into the private sector where they magically get equivalent jobs. You are the first capitalist I know of that argues for reducing demand.

Better regulations would also push the government to be more efficient without getting people fired. It would also increase liberty and freedom based on being a citizen not based on your wealth.

No, he said all...

Giving people government jobs just for the sake of having government jobs... is pointless welfare. This is especially the case of productivity doesn't increase. As for regulation, you mean regulation like abortion restrictions?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll concede the point when a local elected official is charged with a crime. Thus far the Mayor and the City Council of Flint remain uncharged.

Everything else is misinformation orchestrated by the Party of Free Market Principles, Cost Cutting and Deregulation.

So, you agree that Trump is completely innocent of the things he's accused of doing, since he has been charged with no crimes? I want to be sure that your stance on such issues is consistent. Otherwise, you're being willfully ignorant.

How is it misinformation to state that the mayor went on television to swear the water was safe, months after the EPA had tested higher levels of lead in the water?

How is it misinformation to state that the local council voted to change the water supplier in the first place, because it was cheaper?

How is it misinformation to state that no corrosion inhibitors were added to the new water?

How is it misinformation to state that they voted to keep the cheaper water, even after two water boilings and GM sopped its usage?

- - - Updated - - -

I’m saying the things I called out are corporatist. Please keep up and answer the question.

I did, I provided numerous policies.

- - - Updated - - -

So. 119 pages. Are be beyond empty slogans yet?

You mean like the policies I provided almost from the very beginning?

Well, they were ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

That and fearmongering debt... I am having troubles with the virtue signaling of ‘think of future generations’, when the argument is to cut the spending whose rewords they have been reaping their whole lives. That’s seems like a super shitty thing to do... they will still be paying the debt, but without the benefits said debt afforded. Pretty much the equivalent of ‘I got mine’ and shutting the door...

It's simply an attack on the liberties of those who will be forced to pay off that debt, and have no say in the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

That's pretty much what I've gathered out of this, as well. This is pure selfishness, in a political dress.

That's the problem, I'm not the selfish one. I'm not the one supporting the forcing of debt onto people who aren't even born yet.

[Machismo]

Which is all the more puzzling, considering how much he likes to argue about it. Take all the threads together, which is probably at over 200 pages by now, and we've arrived at "fuck you, got mine" and empty platitudes and slogans, akin to Brexiteers shouting "Sovereignty!".

Except, I've been arguing for you to keep yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you ever get tired of lying?

How many times did you call me an anarchist?

[Machismo]

Once? When you were making it sound like you wanted to reduce government to nothing.

So, you got caught lying...

Meanwhile, care to address my plan to stop spending increases for 5 years?

Care to address any of my other policies and platforms I spoke about?

You'll notice this entire thread was me speaking about compromise, and a recognition that nobody is going to get everything they want in a government. That's how an operational and fair government works.

[Machismo]

No, I made an incorrect assessment for which I apologized. By continuing to claim I was lying, after this has been explained, the only one caught lying is you. Good luck with that. And I’ll discuss your plan as soon as you answer the question. I’ve answered far mor than you have Mr. “Strict Ideology”.

You'll notice this entire thread was me speaking about compromise, and a recognition that nobody is going to get everything they want in a government. That's how an operational and fair government works.

So, those small steps are what I think are achievable when we have a country with two parties who want very different things.

Now what exactly was the question?

[Machismo]

You already forgot? Try to keep up.

No, I want the exact question for when I answer it, so that there's no confusion. I recall it being something about long-term goals.

By the way, I've stated numerous long-term goals.

[Machismo]

Then go check my posts. I’ve repeated the question enough.

You already forgot?

Interesting.

Would you like to discuss long-term goals?

[Machismo]

Nope, I didn’t forget. Maybe you should have answered the first 12 times it was asked? Sure, explain your long term goals. Who pays taxes? Who owns the infrastructure? Who owns the government? How are these long term goals not corporatist? I’ll go on, but if you can’t answer these simple questions, you’ve shown a complete inability to do so, then there’s not much point.

My long-term goals are the lowering of taxes, reducing of government spending, increase of individual liberty, and to justify how any government action is actually needed, before it's put into law. I understand that I will never have complete control of a government, and don't want complete control.

If you're talking about some utopia, then I have stated I favor voluntary governance where people choose which government they want to be a part of, and it's not based on land. That way, it would be entirely up to the people within that government, so the responsibility and the outcome relies entirely on them.

[Machismo]

All while corporations have unlimited financial influence over every government as well as owning the infrastructure. There’s a word for that.

You could literally have your own socialistic government...

There is a term for that, voluntary government.