more taxation = theft BS. By living here you are agreeing to be taxed to pay for things we all need. Like that pesky police force we all agree is necessary to a just state.

if you live here, you agree with these terms, thus no theft. If you don't like taxation, get out.

yet again we have this hypocrisy. when we agree to the terms of a contract when dealing with private business, no one complains when a business holds you to your end of the bargain. but when gov't tries to collect taxes you agree to pay and tries to hold you to your end of the bargain, suddenly it's this horrible thing.

If you want something, you have to pay for it and Libertarianism is just a way of saying "I want to get away with doing something that I know harms people" or "I want something but I don't want to have to pay for it" wrapped in delusion of freedom.

people throw around the word freedom but in reality, as @ChaosEngine pointed out. you give people freedom and they use it to fuck over other people. We haven't evolved to the point where we can realiably count on people not to fuck each other over. Someday maybe that will happen, but it certainly isn't today.

Voluntaryism is just Objectiveism and Meritocracy trying to divorce itself from the negative stigma of Ayn Rand. rebranding a failed idea to get gullible people to fall for it again. Legitimized avarice.

boy I sure didn't miss blankfist's one note charlie obsession with statism.

Did the people who come up with these ideas completely ignore the lessons they learned when they first became adults? When we're growing up, we hated our parents for imposing rules on us, when we first become adults and we have a first taste of freedom, we go nuts, we do extremely stupid things, harmful things. most adults do eventually learn that these things are harmful and *shock* learn to impose limits on themselves. Eventually they come to realize that their parents weren't jerks after all and they generally did have a good reason to impose rules on us. Sure there some shitty parents out there and the children of those shitty parents throw out the rules that didn't work when they become adults, but guess what, they don't throw out the system, they just come up with different rules. hopefully those rules are better, if not, we just try again.

There is this false notion of an adversarial relation between gov't and the people. PEOPLE CREATED GOV'T!!! gov't is just the current method by which we impose limits on ourselves. just like we do as we grow up. Sure, we don't have a perfect system. get used to it. If gov't truly wasn't necessary, we would have ditched it a long time ago. someday we will have the ability to self limit ourselves without a self-created third party, but that isn't today.

Probably isn't ever going to change until we evolve genetic memory of our parents/ancestors or we develop a way to download knowledge/experience Matrix-style so that instead of learning the hard way to not touch a stove because it's hot, we just already know it at birth or an earlier age.

As usual, the problem here is profit motive. The police force has a budget like everyone else and in order to help with expenses, thou must extract money from the populace.

If people would just agree that yes, a well trained (and well funded) and ethical police force is necessary for a free society and that said education and training are a priority and not traffic fines. We already have serious debates about legitimate taxation, we don't need taxation in this particular form. There are probably better ways to motivate people to drive safer. If you're wealthy, you aren't going to give a shit about a fine. (gotta love the cop's remark about protecting us against the 1% btw. yes I know he wasn't referring to the wealthy 1%, but still, it was amusing)

Either law enforcement is a priority and thus is deserving of funding so that they don't need to resort to petty ways of extracting money....or it's not a priority. Make a decision please.

The other problem is while yes, I think we need STRONG traffic law enforcement, but we need to take advantage of technology and make it so that manpower isn't focused on traffic enforcement, but on actual in-progress crimes.

It certainly looks like the IRS is guilty of some excesses.

The problem is, it's hard for your average person to separate a legitimate complaint such as that vs the standard rabblerabblerabble whining about having to pay taxes in the first place.

One of the late night pundits nailed it. The IRS can't win. Even if they do their job perfectly, people still hate them because their job is to collect taxes. People want gov't services but they will do anything to avoid paying the bill. It's fucking stupid.

Tax evasion is a crime, bitches.

As for Mr. Issa's argument. He said these groups were being disenfranchised. Weren't all the petitions for the exemption status granted? Maybe you can make the argument that they had unfair scrutiny, but where is the crime if the exemption was granted anyway.

If anything, it seems to me that the exemption status is being abused horribly. It's one thing to be non-profit and seeking exemption. But if you're a political organization (left or right) with the ability to lobby, then you need to be taxed motherfucker. Or at the very least, someone needs to give me a good reason why a political organization shouldn't be taxed.

No taxation? Then no representation!

I don't care if you think we've got a spending problem or a revenue problem, the bottom line is that we have a budget problem and it's irresponsibility at it's highest to only focus on one side of that budget. You HAVE to look at spending AND revenue. We've been through this before, taxes do not kill private spending, at least not as a whole they don't.

The IRS excesses are definite issues that need to be dealt with, but the rest looks like another case of mock outrage.

@chingalera dude, I never assumed "there are equitable rules that govern which corporate entities may enjoy a seat at the big-boy's table", but the exact opposite of that.

There is a criminal elite, I don't think that elite is, indiscriminately, "corporations". That's childish. Most corporations are also victims of bigger corporations in bed with government, imposing abusive taxation and unfair regulation. You and NinjaInHeat need to learn to make more refined distinctions. Know your enemy.

Please don't ever dispense diagnosis on other people's world views. You stink at it!

When I'm promoted and my pay-grade gets bumped at work I get taxed more for earning more. You don't see me saying "fuck it, what's the point?".

Corporations should most definitely be taxed HEAVILY, punishment has nothing to do with it, it's simply a matter of being part of a healthy, functioning society. If you have a problem with how that taxation money is then put to use that's another issue.

And if you want to talk about the "failure of capitalism", let's examine its evolution throughout the years, would you agree it's fair to say corporations today enjoy many more freedoms and hold much more power than they did in.. well, ever?

What's amazing is how willingly people disassociate themselves from their own governing bodies, not realizing that they are those governments, they are all you have that is meant to ensure the well-being of the society you live in (regardless of how well they manage at it). And you, and any sensible person would do well to not only expect, but demand, that massive corporations who are not bound to those governments and do not rely on their "protection" would pay heavy taxes simply for that privilege.

Thanks. Doesn't have to pay taxes AND has the ability to lobby?, 501(c)(4) seems like it should be gotten rid of. I don't care if it's tea party or anything else (although ironic because the tea party is supposed to be about fiscal responsibility, yet here's yet another situation where a group that will do anything to avoid paying their share).

No taxation? Then fuck you, no representation then.

no one is for blatant wealth redistribution, it's a huge strawman conjured up by the right. No has ever advocated that the government should come in and forcibly take everyone's money and redistribute it evenly. It's another scare tactic boogeyman the right likes to conjure.

the problem is, as you've already said, a taxation system that HEAVILY favors the already rich.

There will always be rich people and there will always be poor people. for as long as we have currency, this will always be the case. the question of fairness and how rich people are treated differently than the poor. The rich are allowed to get away with things the poor would never get away with. In certain cases, rich people get many perks for free that a poor person would have to pay for which is the opposite of what should happen. A rich person, by definition, can afford more without being burdened.

If you believe in the founding principles in America, you believe that every person is equal. Rich people are not "better" than poor people" rich and poor alike are endowed with rights that cannot be taken away. Yet the reality is quite different.

The problem is two fold:

1. When you have not just rich people, but uber rich people, It's far easier for them to exert influence over the gov't to get them to make rules that favor them so they can get even more rich. Elections need to have all private money removed from them...period. voting with your money is not equal. 1 person, 1 vote, end of story.

2. As I said before all things being equal, it wouldn't matter so much that there is a huge disparity in wealth if even the poorest of us didn't have to worry about basic necessities such as health care. One major illness and everything you've worked for is gone in an instant. This simply is not fair. Only the rich and uber rich are not seriously hampered by major illnesses

RFlagg,

I agree with what you've stated about CEO compensation and taxation of the wealthy. I've said the same thing for years. Reagan did the country a disservice by cutting taxes for the wealthy by half. Now, the wealthy are crying at the prospect of a few percent increase. The wealthy are as guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Republicans as the poor are guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Democrats. After WWII, the top tax bracket was paying more than 90% in taxes. For decades after WWII the top bracket was 70%. We need to be heading back in that direction. We also need to be reducing welfare programs by retraining and educating beneficiaries and properly educating their children.

I also believe that corporations with public shareholders should have salary caps for CEOs and upper management. Too often, shareholders lose money on their investments while CEOs receive shockingly high compensation for failed leadership. A board of directors, when voting on compensation, is not looking at the best interests of the shareholder. A board member is seeing potential for themselves in bloated CEO and leadership compensation.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.

The fact is when the tax rate was much more fair and taxing the rich was accepted we had the most unprecedented period of growth in the history of the world. It was like fiscal viagra. We've given up on that period from the 50s to the 70s and instead are just asking to go back to the 90s taxation. When rich people were still doing INCREDIBLY WELL, and they won't budge.

It's amazing how much power we give the rich in our society, that's the only way they are able to do these things.

>> ^alcom:

If Reps have a better sense of "how the world works," then why didn't they anticipate the mortgage-backed security crisis? Regulation is necessary, taxation is necessary and the freedom to marry who you want to marry is necessary to build a balanced and prosperous society. The Rep contradictions of "less gov = more freedom EXCEPT for marriage rights, women's bodies and more military spending" have been exposed to the majority as the fraud that they are. Obama endured relentless personal attacks, pointless filibustering and not a small amount of outright racism, lies and disrespect in a futile attempt to make him out to be the "worst president in history."
The people have spoken. Obama still came out on top, consistent to his values and gracious as he congratulated Romney on a hard-fought campaign. Taxing the top earners in the country a little more and cutting spending would be an effective way if paying down the deficit. How is this an illusion?
The Republican party needs to regroup. Their tactic of leaning further and further to the right (except in the last weeks) has soured too many right-of-center voters. If they argue now that they would have won "if only they had someone MORE conservative running," then they will surely lose again and again.



Apparently you have reading comprehension problems. I didn't say anything about republicans having a better sense of how the world works. I said that propaganda dictates how most people in this country seem to think. That if you talk to anyone they have no idea what Obamas real policies are or what they mean. I meant that mostly on the republican sides but it's true for democrats as well.

But go ahead, read what you want.

If Reps have a better sense of "how the world works," then why didn't they anticipate the mortgage-backed security crisis? Regulation is necessary, taxation is necessary and the freedom to marry who you want to marry is necessary to build a balanced and prosperous society. The Rep contradictions of "less gov = more freedom EXCEPT for marriage rights, women's bodies and more military spending" have been exposed to the majority as the fraud that they are. Obama endured relentless personal attacks, pointless filibustering and not a small amount of outright racism, lies and disrespect in a futile attempt to make him out to be the "worst president in history."

The people have spoken. Obama still came out on top, consistent to his values and gracious as he congratulated Romney on a hard-fought campaign. Taxing the top earners in the country a little more and cutting spending would be an effective way if paying down the deficit. How is this an illusion?

The Republican party needs to regroup. Their tactic of leaning further and further to the right (except in the last weeks) has soured too many right-of-center voters. If they argue now that they would have won "if only they had someone MORE conservative running," then they will surely lose again and again.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Actually, far from stupid I found him really on the point here.
Candidate A will "Give them things" ie. make their lives better.
Candidate B says, "Screw you, my rich friends need MORE!" ie. make their lives worse.
Why did anyone vote for Romney again? It's been shown time and again, Democratic Presidents have a better record on the economy, AND debt levels than Republicans. Yet this illusion remains that somehow by focusing 90% of their energy on helping 5% of the population the Republican will magically shrink the debt and make everything work, in spite of the fact that it's been tried numerous times, and it's failed every single time.

If you hear people talk about Obama and his policies they are simply uninformed about them. They're uninformed about everything whether it's what the deficit means to history to how the world even works. The PR industry works hard on producing massive amounts of propaganda and it does work. This is how you do things when you do not have the big stick like in a Totalitarian society, you have to manufacture everyone's consent.

>> ^VoodooV:

It's less dirty coal, but it's still dirty, yet they get to call it CLEAN for some reason.
cold fusion, solar, hydrogen fuel cells or GTFO


Name 3 things that won't work in time for it to matter!

Go gen4 reactors, lots of them, and now! I recommend David MacKay's book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" as to why I believe this. Available for free at http://www.withouthotair.com/

Video reference here:

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


But ya, coal needs to go, but you have to remember, 2 billion people live in abject poverty. They try to bridge the gap using as cheap a source of energy they can...like coal. Until you make energy cheaper than coal, your never going to displace the use of dino fuels around the world. The physics on fusion, solar, and hydrogen can't answer that call for quite awhile (we have been trying to make fusion work for decades, same with solar, and fuel cells are just terrible right now and only work for transportation fuels not baseload power generation). I do think we can answer a large number of these problems with new generations of nuclear power, with passive safety and no emissions, gen4 reactors have a lot of great points if people give them a chance!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

In relation to the direct content of the video, your NEVER going to get China and India on board with giving up cheap energy...they are BOTH x3 the population of the US, they have to care about cheap energy WAAAAY more than us, for population and standard of living issues. The only way to win this isn't through regulation, it is through technological innovation...and China has been buying up our AP1000 Gen3 for all the reasons I just mentioned.

To say that dino fuels are "Destroying us" is a little bit of a misnomer, you don't get food without hydrocarbons, you don't have refrigeration without hydrocarbons, you don't get heating and cooling without hydrocarbons. Energy isn't the enemy, any attempts to price out energy will only hurt the most reliant on its low price...if you doubled the price of gas via taxation, you aren't helping the little man. Cheap energy prices, even if they are oil based, aren't the devil, any attempts to make them so is a misunderstanding of the energy crisis. More oil drilling isn't even going to lower costs, at best, it will keep them the same, but peak oil in the US has already come, more drilling in more exotic places is just going to tow the line...and it isn't even going to do that.

Talking about clean coal is just so "we" can talk about how much we need cheap energy without talking about the health effects. Coal does kill, without a doubt, but so does electricity so costly you can't afford heating or cooling. You can't call for an elimination of coal without talking about what is going to replace it, and at what cost. This is even MORE relevant with the recent spout of weather, imagine if that area was packed full of solar and wind...it most likely be completely destroyed, and those are already very cost heavy forms of energy.

Anyway, I will end the rant. I really recommend the book above if you wish to delve down the rabbit hole of energy solutions. It isn't as easy as you think, it is why we are still using dino fuels. Any path you choose is challenging, and VERY capital and R&D intensive. Were are talking multiple trillion dollars to role out replacements on a national scale. Now, oil does a trillion a year, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility, but it is going to take a technical answer to solve, not a political one.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.