The US debt (proper debate) - Page 28

On July 28 2011 08:07 BestZergOnEast wrote:



Raising taxes is never the answer. Personally I don't villianze the rich. I'm not an envious man. I was born into a family that was very poor. My mother raised me on welfare, alone. But I don't hate the rich. I don't want to use state violence to take their money from them. All I want is freedom. I want people to treat each other decently, not try to use state coercion to redistribute wealth for themselves. Wealth is either created or stolen; I think if you create it you deserve to keep 100%, and if you steal it you are a thief, worthy only of contempt and hatred.

On July 28 2011 08:14 BestZergOnEast wrote:
ilovelings : it's no surprise that you are both highly educated and highly statists. The main role of the modern intellectual is to provide the justification for the state, and in return the intellectuals share in the state's plunder. This was once the role of the clergy but in an ever increasingly secular society religion lost it's influence. I personally am not formally educated at all (high school drop out) but that is irrelevant; appeal to authority is a very common logical fallacy.

Taxation is theft.

On July 28 2011 08:17 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Sometimes I really don't understand our Government. It seems that instead of getting stuff done, the two parties just try to hinder each other from getting anything done as much as possible (especially the Republicans).

Right now we have 11 active aircraft carriers, with 2 more on the way, while other nations pretty much have 1 or 2, maybe 3

... why?

I think our budget to defense is so damn bloated that it seems we want to be able to take on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea and the Middle East all at the same time. George Washington was smart to advise against Political Parties, I think they are more at fault with our debt than anything else. It's not that we can't solve our debt, it's just that Congress would rather bicker at each other and get nothing done, just to spite the other party.

Or so it seems

On July 28 2011 07:17 ilovelings wrote:
One of the presidential prerogatives is to veto a law passed by the congress.

The problem here is entirely political. The congress has the constitutional attribute (attribution?) of increasing the debt limit(or not increasing it). Reps know the debt limit must be increased in order to keep paying the debt but the thing is they are using the debt issue to pass additional legislation which obama (and myself) considers to be pernicious for the state & general welfare. They also hold Obama responsible of this situation, so a "defeat" in congress translates into presidential weakness. Obama's political mistake was giving in to the Republican demands and pressure the first time this issue was debated in the congress during Obama's administration. Now you have a strong Republican block that thinks that if they put enough pressure into the president, they can get whatever they want.

This is just my political analysis of the situation.

On July 28 2011 08:14 BestZergOnEast wrote:
it's no surprise that you are both highly educated and highly statists. The main role of the modern intellectual is to provide the justification for the state, and in return the intellectuals share in the state's plunder. This was once the role of the clergy but in an ever increasingly secular society religion lost it's influence.

On July 28 2011 08:14 BestZergOnEast wrote:
I personally am not formally educated at all (high school drop out)

On July 28 2011 08:30 BestZergOnEast wrote:
You're an anarchist that wants to raise taxes?

On July 28 2011 08:33 jon arbuckle wrote:


This could pass for a quote from Lenin, if not Stalin, and I'm not being hyperbolic.



Incredible.



I just... I can't... I mean... just...

On July 28 2011 08:29 Diks wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf_vHMpGTJw
Nice documentary about origin of the debt and who is taking profit of it.

On July 28 2011 08:29 BestZergOnEast wrote:
But that's not very fair is it? I thought we wanted a great egalitarian society where everyone was treated equally under the law. I propose government be funded by a poll tax of $5 a head. Of course that won't be enough money to bail out rich bankers or blow up brown people, so I guess government will have to settle for a smaller role, say defending property rights.


I agree with your first paragraph. my question is, why is it moral for the government to steal $360,00 from the rich guy? Do you think it would be okay if I went out and did a home invasion? Why is this organization known as government treated with different rules than every other organization or individual?

On July 28 2011 08:40 BestZergOnEast wrote:
As Barry Goldwater once said, 'moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue'. Government spending is a dead weight on the economy. Slashing it radically would not jeperodize the future of the economy, it is keeping it the same that is dangerous. Wealth is created by the market, the government only steals it, redistributes it and consumes it. Simply maintaining the status quo will mean serious economic ills.

On July 28 2011 08:41 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Yes, that would be very egalitarian we would all be equally fucked. But I'll meet you half way, we abolish the state and keep private property.

On July 24 2011 04:07 ploy wrote:
I don't think it's being shrugged off anymore by your average educated citizen. Most people I interact with recognize that it's a serious problem. Personally, I have no idea how we're ever going to get it under control without taking really drastic measures that either totally hinders governmental function or corporate profitability.

Basically, at some point, SOME GENERATION will have to take the hit for the irresponsibility of our government's actions for the past 20-30 years.

On July 28 2011 08:43 drumsetjunky wrote:



This has to be the best description of ANY I've heard. No rhetoric, no slant..
Great post by ploy and overall the definitive truth.

On July 28 2011 08:44 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Actually the opposite is true - so long as there is a government with the ability to tax there is no such thing as private property. You cannot own land without paying rent (property tax) to the true owner. It is only when we abolish the state that we will truly have private property and a peaceful prosperous society.


Coercion is the threat of violence. Private property is ownership. You do not need violence to own things.

On July 28 2011 08:40 BestZergOnEast wrote:
As Barry Goldwater once said, 'moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue'. Government spending is a dead weight on the economy. Slashing it radically would not jeperodize the future of the economy, it is keeping it the same that is dangerous. Wealth is created by the market, the government only steals it, redistributes it and consumes it. Simply maintaining the status quo will mean serious economic ills.