• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Constitutional Amendment

Amendments to the US Constitution

  • Repeal the income tax and replace with the Fair Tax

    Votes: 12 25.0%

  • Repeal Amendment 14

    Votes: 7 14.6%

  • Abolish Govt-run welfare, health care, education, etc.

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • Mandate a balanced budget every year

    Votes: 16 33.3%

  • Limit total taxes and spending to under 15%

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • Stop all wars and meddling abroad

    Votes: 10 20.8%

  • Abolish all meddlesome regulations and mandates

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Privatize social security

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • Make all states independent nations

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 24 50.0%
  • Total voters
    48
the makeout hobo said:
The founders set up a flawed system. That's why we need to change it from time to time. Remember setting it up so that women couldn't vote? Good job founders. Or the vice president being the person who got the second most amount of votes? That part was a keeper. I don't get why people have this idea "the founders set it up, so that's always the best way to do it" mentality.
Click to expand...

1. There was nothing in the Constitution regarding women not being able to vote. That was a result of State laws, not the Constitution.
2. In theory, the VP provision was plausible. George Washington, among others, warned of the dangers of forming political parties -- a process that was already underway at the time he gave his Farewell Address. Without the formation of political parties, it would have worked, but with the formation of parties, the situation of 1800 was inevitable.

I have to wonder if the anti 17th amendment people ever looked at what happened back then. Most of the time, the senate seat would just become a bargaining chip for political maneuvering in the state house. Deadlock would lead senate seats unfilled for months at a time. They'd almost always be some of the biggest political insiders you've ever seen. And you think having senators be chosen by politicians would be good for this country? weird.
Click to expand...

I am still undecided on this one. The point that the States need representatives to protect their rights is a powerful one and one consistant with the actual foundation of the country. However, in most states, there wouldn't be a big political issue of appointing Senators as in most states, one political party has a clear advantage over the other in the lower house of the legislature.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
Mandate that the size of the house be increased until each member represents a population approximately equal to that of the least populous state.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the Congress passed a law in the 1920s to prevent the size of the House from getting too large because they failed to reapportion in 1920?
 
Kandahar said:
AMENDMENT 33:
(1) In the event that more than one-fifth of the seats of either house of Congress are vacant, the executives of each state shall have sole authority to appoint replacements irrespective of the state constitutional process. (2) This authority shall remain in effect until fewer than one-tenth of the seats of either house of Congress are vacant.
Click to expand...

The Tom Clancy Executive Orders Amendment?
 
ludahai said:
The Tom Clancy Executive Orders Amendment?
Click to expand...

I dunno, I've never read it. The idea is that we'd be able to quickly refill the seats of Congress in the event of a tragedy in which many of them died.
 
Redress said:
Yes, I disagree with the LP platform almost point for point. If a libertarian wants to call me totalitarian for that, feel free.
Click to expand...

You literally disagree with all of them? You literally believe that we need to minimize individual freedom and maximize political authority?

I'm not calling you a totalitarian, but I would like you to acknowledge that you stand for totalitaran ideals. If not, please expand further. This debate can't be over yet!
 
Kandahar said:
I dunno, I've never read it. The idea is that we'd be able to quickly refill the seats of Congress in the event of a tragedy in which many of them died.
Click to expand...

Which is what happened in Executive Orders. I was reminded of that book as well when I read your proposed ammendment.
 
Redress said:
Yes, I disagree with the LP platform almost point for point. If a libertarian wants to call me totalitarian for that, feel free.
Click to expand...

Your a totalitarian. :)
 
  • Establish a specific approach to constitutional interpretation.
 
the makeout hobo said:
It's more of that many libertarians are very single-minded about it, evangelical isn't a bad word for it. You weren't on the board during 2008 but I'm sure you can imagine how insane some of the ron paul fanboys got.
Click to expand...

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. single-minded about segregation? Libertarians, IMHO, are far more consistent in their ideology. Consistency is often mistaken for zealotry or evangelism.

And you'd have to be more specific about such ron paul "fanboys." I'm one libertarian who isn't a fan of the Tea Party movement, whatsoever. But I did like Paul.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The founders set up a flawed system. That's why we need to change it from time to time. Remember setting it up so that women couldn't vote? Good job founders. Or the vice president being the person who got the second most amount of votes? That part was a keeper. I don't get why people have this idea "the founders set it up, so that's always the best way to do it" mentality.

I have to wonder if the anti 17th amendment people ever looked at what happened back then. Most of the time, the senate seat would just become a bargaining chip for political maneuvering in the state house. Deadlock would lead senate seats unfilled for months at a time. They'd almost always be some of the biggest political insiders you've ever seen. And you think having senators be chosen by politicians would be good for this country? weird.
Click to expand...

I most certainly do believe Senators should be appointed by the states legislatures. The current way hasn't dampened any corruption at all. At least when they were appointed the states had some control over the federal government. Now they don't even have any representation as states . Foreign governments have more representation in Washington than individual states do. This is why there are so many unfunded mandates .
Balance of power was what they sought by having the Senators under direct control of the state governments.
It's all part of that checks and balances thing.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Libertarians, IMHO, are far more consistent in their ideology. Consistency is often mistaken for zealotry or evangelism.
Click to expand...

Well, they are very closely related concepts. If one is concerned more about consistency than practicality, the result will be a staunch defense of completely untenable policies...which sounds a lot like zealotry to me.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What my idea of the problem is? I don't have any problem with the 17th, so i'm not sure what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

Popular vote hasn't made senators less corrupt, what the hell are you thinking? All it's done is distance the States from the working of the federal govt.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, they are very closely related concepts. If one is concerned more about consistency than practicality, the result will be a staunch defense of completely untenable policies...which sounds a lot like zealotry to me.
Click to expand...

I was also going to say that I believe Libertarians are far more practical in their ideological mind set. But that is ultimately a subjective judgement. It appears the only justificiation to the argument, "Libertarians are irrational" is that they're few in number. But being a minority doesn't automatically discredit the integrity of an idea. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be glad to. Unfortunately, I have to leave.
 
ElijahGalt said:
You literally disagree with all of them? You literally believe that we need to minimize individual freedom and maximize political authority?

I'm not calling you a totalitarian, but I would like you to acknowledge that you stand for totalitaran ideals. If not, please expand further. This debate can't be over yet!
Click to expand...

Spin it how you will.
 
Kandahar said:
I dunno, I've never read it. The idea is that we'd be able to quickly refill the seats of Congress in the event of a tragedy in which many of them died.
Click to expand...

Nearly every Congresscritter was killed in a terrorist attack in which a plane was flown into the Capitol building... written before 9/11 btw...
 
Get rid of the income tax, but I would say flat tax over "fair".
 
ElijahGalt said:
Being a moderator, I'm guessing you're tired of putting thought into your posts.
Click to expand...

Or it could be I think arguing with some one who thinks those who disagree with them politically means they stand for totalitarian ideals is a waste of my time.
 
Redress said:
Or it could be I think arguing with some one who thinks those who disagree with them politically means they stand for totalitarian ideals is a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

I'm only going by the definitive meaning of the term. If you stand against everything that is libertarian, you are a totalitarian. This is because totalitarianism is the opposite of libertarianism. If you stand against everything that is libertarian, then you're not liberal. You can call yourself whatever you like, but don't you wish to back your claim with evidence? I couldn't label myself Japanese unless I could show strong evidence that I was Japanese. I couldn't label myself a Mormon if I'm 100% atheist. I could, but then it would be absurd.

If you'd like to put some thought into the debate, you could give me some examples of the provisions you're against and WHY you're against them. I was sure a "pro-homosexual bigot" like yourself would support gays in the military and gay marriage.

It's also impossible to be completely against libertarianism, "point-by-point" if you do feel a little close to conservatism. Conservatives sometimes support free-market principles and the right to bear arms. These are qualities shared with libertarians. And given that you served in the military, I also assumed you would support the 2nd Amendment.

I'd really like you to answer my question regarding the Bill of Rights. Maybe you don't realize that when you claim you're completely against something, you quickly discover that's a blanket statement and it is not really accurate.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Get rid of the income tax, but I would say flat tax over "fair".
Click to expand...

Flat tax is not flat for sole proprietors... they wouldn't be able to deduct their business expenses... fair tax would be better for very low income earners than a straight flat tax...
 
ludahai said:
Flat tax is not flat for sole proprietors... they wouldn't be able to deduct their business expenses... fair tax would be better for very low income earners than a straight flat tax...
Click to expand...

Sole proprietors'll get screwed in any tax system if they are honest.
 
Tucker Case said:
Sole proprietors'll get screwed in any tax system if they are honest.
Click to expand...

How would they get screwed in a Fair Tax system? Though, you are probably right...

I like the provision in the Fair Tax for refunds to everyone equal to the amount of the tax up to the poverty line, but does anyone know if there is recompense for taxes paid on items for your business?
 
ludahai said:
How would they get screwed in a Fair Tax system? Though, you are probably right...

I like the provision in the Fair Tax for refunds to everyone equal to the amount of the tax up to the poverty line, but does anyone know if there is recompense for taxes paid on items for your business?
Click to expand...

Granted, this is an assumption on my part, but my thinking is that somehow, the fact that sole proprieters have to buy more stuff in general will end up leaving them with a larger burden, much like the current state leaves sole proprietors with a larger burdern.

I know that I've been paying more in taxes than wage earners at the same income level for most of my adult life. And I have to buy more stuff than they do in order to work. Currently, I can write off the stuff I have to buy, but I still get taxed differently.
 
My last post on FairYtax.
The virus/Cult that keeps popping up everywhere on this board

mbig said:
Virtually everyone will do better with Fairtax calculator because, well.. the rate is PHONY.

Independent scoring of Fairytax (WSJ/NYT/Congressional Joint committee taxes, CTJ, etc) all score the REAL NEEDED Rate at 56%-57%.
(Not including state sales taxes and state income taxes converted to sales taxes to make it work)
65%-70% anyone?
How would you do then?
Because that's what's needed to offset the loss of rev from the rich.

And the Claimed FairYtax rate is on EVERYTHING not just what state taxes are on now.

FairYtax taxes FOOD, RENT (killing the lower classes and urban dwellers), Medicine, Surgical procedures.. EVERYTHING.
That's right.. add any percent you like to rent or heart/Kidney ops and what have you got?
Disaster. Debtor Prison.

Because if you make, ie, $30 million and only spend $3 million to live... your tax rate goes from 38% of income + 15% tax on Div and cap gains, + estate tax.... goes to 10%.

And the math even gets better if you make a Billion.
Your rate goes from 38% of income to basically 0%-1% say 30% of $10 million
A loss to the Federal govt of $350,000,000.
Probably half a million people get to pay more to give Buffett alone a tax break!

So since FairtYtax is 'revenue neutral'.. who pays more?

Do ya think it's you? .. or the two Texas Billionaires who designed it?

in fact, FairYtax basically inverts the current burden.
The poor and middle who have to spend virtually All their income to live, pay 30% (read 60%) of all the make/spend.
They become the New top Bracket.
While the rich whose current Bracket is 35% drop to single digits.

FairYtax is an obvious Scam.
You don't need a degree to figure it out.
Click to expand...
'Flattax' is better but still Impossibly Regressive.

You simply can't raise the rates on the low/middle at all. (while lowering it on the rich)
Someone who makes 26k - aka Walmart, our largest employer- simply can't pay the same, ie, 25% as someone who makes 300k, or 300M.

In past years we have had to regularly send out stimulous checks (which are progressive and mean more to the bottom) to keep the whole system running.. at all.
Yes the proof of the pudding is even the big guys and the congress they finance have to send out some goodies so their Stock portfolios don't collapse because the Bulk of consumers can't afford that computer or car.

No, what's need is to leave the rates alone.. just add a bracket 50%, for those making over $1 Mil a year. (and perhaps return the cap gains/Divs tax to what it was before the Bush Halving of those rates).

That would return us to our more traditional top marginal rates when we were a 'socialist' country.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
Click to expand...
It seems any attempt to return to historical Norms is "Class warfare"... when in Fact "There has been class warfare, and my side is winning" - Warren Buffett.

The problem is oft here - young idealogues/partisans who have no history- just Hannity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom