• 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!

Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed?

radcen said:
You are correct, we disagree. I think people are only posturing when they complain about our politicians. I think, deep down, we have it easy and we know it, and we don't want to rock the boat.

Collective "we", of course. There certainly are people who are upset, and I would categorize most at places like here in that group, but those of us are in the definite minority.
Click to expand...

People become discontented when their own needs and wants are not being met.

That is both the weakness and strength of any Democracy. The majority are heard, while the minority can be oppressed as long as the majority can be appeased.
 
radcen said:
Do you mean original Constitution only and lose the Bill of Rights and everything? Or, keep the Bill of Rights, also?
Click to expand...

there are what? 27 amendments?
they all need to be re-reviewed and 1 single agreement comes to in the meaning and scope of their coverage.
this is taking into consideration the limited power the federal government is supposed to have.
 
Captain Adverse said:
People become discontented when their own needs and wants are not being met.

That is both the weakness and strength of any Democracy. The majority are heard, while the minority can be oppressed as long as the majority can be appeased.
Click to expand...

the problem is we are not a democracy. we are technically a republic.
 
Captain Adverse said:
People become discontented when their own needs and wants are not being met.

That is both the weakness and strength of any Democracy. The majority are heard, while the minority can be oppressed as long as the majority can be appeased.
Click to expand...
Competing interests. I hear this a lot, but I don't think I have ever heard a reasonable and workable solution where everybody can be satisfied. Is it even possible to satisfy everyone? :shrug:
 
ludin said:
the problem is we are not a democracy. we are technically a republic.
Click to expand...

I am aware that our government is not a pure democracy. There are all sorts of republics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

We happen to live under a democratic form. It's common usage to refer to our processes as democratic. That's all I meant.
 
radcen said:
You are correct, we disagree. I think people are only posturing when they complain about our politicians. I think, deep down, we have it easy and we know it, and we don't want to rock the boat.

Collective "we", of course. There certainly are people who are upset, and I would categorize most at places like here in that group, but those of us are in the definite minority.
Click to expand...

i always tell people to read the federalist 62 and 63, and it explains why the founders created the government the way they did, to prevent the collectiveness of the people by human nature, which can be deadly.
 
radcen said:
Competing interests. I hear this a lot, but I don't think I have ever heard a reasonable and workable solution where everybody can be satisfied. Is it even possible to satisfy everyone? :shrug:
Click to expand...

sure you have... its called mixed government

under mixed government, the interest of the people- states, and the union as a whole are served

under democracy 1 single entry is served
 
radcen said:
Competing interests. I hear this a lot, but I don't think I have ever heard a reasonable and workable solution where everybody can be satisfied. Is it even possible to satisfy everyone? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Of course not. That was not my argument.

My concern is with allowing a dynastic rule, or a dictatorship simply because more people agree with a certain leader than don't and are content to keep him in office as long as he wants to be.

We have a Constitution to define and limit the powers of government. I think term limits is necessary for the President to prevent what I have mentioned. I also think it would be worthwhile to overcome the problems we face in Congress with senior members who are so powerful they can prevent necessary change.
 
Master PO said:
sure you have... its called mixed government

under mixed government, the interest of the people- states, and the union as a whole are served

under democracy 1 single entry is served
Click to expand...
You left out the "...where everybody can be satisfied." part. ;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am aware that our government is not a pure democracy. There are all sorts of republics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

We happen to live under a democratic form. It's common usage to refer to our processes as democratic. That's all I meant.
Click to expand...

we live under a more democratic form today with the 17th , but the founders created a republican form of mixed government like the roman republic
 
Captain Adverse said:
Of course not. That was not my argument.

My concern is with allowing a dynastic rule, or a dictatorship simply because more people agree with a certain leader than don't and are content to keep him in office as long as he wants to be.

We have a Constitution to define and limit the powers of government. I think term limits is necessary for the President to prevent what I have mentioned. I also think it would be worthwhile to overcome the problems we face in Congress with senior members who are so powerful they can prevent necessary change.
Click to expand...
And I'm not sure how to answer that. On the one hand, we've only had that happen once with President, and it took a long time before that happened.

On the other hand, times and societal attitudes change, and people seem to want lifetime legislators today, in spite of what they say.
 
radcen said:
And I'm not sure how to answer that. On the one hand, we've only had that happen once with President, and it took a long time before that happened.

On the other hand, times and societal attitudes change, and people seem to want lifetime legislators today, in spite of what they say.
Click to expand...

Well truthfully if we review our history it could easily have happened more than once. Washington could have become President-For-Life, there were many who wished it; but he opposed that with every fiber of his being.

Who knows how long Lincoln could have held office had he not been assassinated?

The exampled of Roosevelt was exactly what pushed the Amendment after all.

Two four-year terms should be sufficient time in office for any man to do his duty and then bow out. I'd hold Congressmen to that same 8-year standard.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well truthfully if we review our history it could easily have happened more than once. Washington could have become President-For-Life, there were many who wished it; but he opposed that with every fiber of his being.

Who knows how long Lincoln could have held office had he not been assassinated?

The exampled of Roosevelt was exactly what pushed the Amendment after all.

Two four-year terms should be sufficient time in office for any man to do his duty and then bow out. I'd hold Congressmen to that same 8-year standard.
Click to expand...
I once saw a button from the 1940 campaign when FDR was running for his 3rd term. It said...

Washington wouldn't
Grant couldn't
Roosevelt shouldn't

Z_2677.jpg
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well truthfully if we review our history it could easily have happened more than once. Washington could have become President-For-Life, there were many who wished it; but he opposed that with every fiber of his being.

Who knows how long Lincoln could have held office had he not been assassinated?

The exampled of Roosevelt was exactly what pushed the Amendment after all.

Two four-year terms should be sufficient time in office for any man to do his duty and then bow out. I'd hold Congressmen to that same 8-year standard.
Click to expand...

the founders stated the congressman is to be closer to the people, and was given a 2 year term, the founders wanted senators to be farther from the people, and gave them a 6 yr term

closer and farther meaning under the influence of the people
 
Master PO said:
the founders stated the congressman is to be closer to the people, and was given a 2 year term, the founders wanted senators to be farther from the people, and gave them a 6 yr term

closer and farther meaning under the influence of the people
Click to expand...

Much as I admire the Founders, many of them were elitists who (rightly or wrongly) feared the People and true democracy.

To be honest I agree that true democracy works best with small groups of people familiar with their local concerns and needs. That it is less effective as the population group and territory involved expands beyond a reasonable expectation that those needs and concerns remain in any way homogeneous.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Much as I admire the Founders, many of them were elitists who (rightly or wrongly) feared the People and true democracy.

To be honest I agree that true democracy works best with small groups of people familiar with their local concerns and needs. That it is less effective as the population group and territory involved expands beyond a reasonable expectation that those needs and concerns remain in any way homogeneous.
Click to expand...


the founders where readers of books in their day, because of no tv, radio, they read about governments of the past, and they came to the conclusion that democracy, monarchy and oligarchy as single forms of government DO NOT WORK.

the democracy turns into majority rule

the monarchy turns into a diactorship

the oligarchy turns into feudalism with elites ruling over serfs

so they created a mixed government, which takes all 3 of those types of government and created our republic.

the house represents the people

the senate represents states, and president represents the union.

in this way, for any legislation to become law, all there 3 interest must be represented

our government is created on the idea of POLYBIUS [ a greek] the father of mixed government whom Madison references in the federalist 63

the founders saw mixed government as a good and stable government, because the roman republic lasted about 500 years until caesar ended it.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
i prefer a consumption tax, because it voluntary and everyone pays, and those that have a lot of money pay more taxes, because they buy more.
Click to expand...
That's not actually true. In economics we've found that as income increases the marginal propensity to consume decreases. Or in other words, looking at the broad economy, people tend to consume only so much before they stop spending money. Individuals' income levels far outpace their ability to spend money in today's economies.

Take a look at the below BLS graph which showing savings rates as an example for the USA. These are not "savings" as in savings accounts, or investments, but "savings" as in money that's not immediately spent by the person. (Income - Consumption = Savings)

Notice in the graph that as income rises, people are less able to keep up their consumption with their income level. On average a person making $250.000 is only able to spend 60% of their income; whereas a person making $100.000 is only able to spend 80% of their income. Which means that the wealthier person not taxed on 40% of their wealthy, while the relatively poorer person is not taxed on 20% of their wealth.

Also notice how people making less than $30K / year have a negative savings rate. Those income levels on a whole tend to have higher Consumption > than Incomes, which means that their "left over" money is in the negative. Typically those people are retirees, or those in deep debt or on welfare.

SavingsRate.jpg
Savings by Income in America: a Calculator - DQYDJ

What that means is if we had only a consumption tax, the wealthiest would end up paying a smaller tax rates than the poorest.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
That's not actually true. In economics we've found that as income increases the marginal propensity to consume decreases. Or in other words, looking at the broad economy, people tend to consume only so much before they stop spending money. Individuals' income levels far outpace their ability to spend money in today's economies.

Take a look at the below BLS graph which showing savings rates as an example for the USA. These are not "savings" as in savings accounts, or investments, but "savings" as in money that's not immediately spent by the person. (Income - Consumption = Savings)

Notice in the graph that as income rises, people are less able to keep up their consumption with their income level. On average a person making $250.000 is only able to spend 60% of their income; whereas a person making $100.000 is only able to spend 80% of their income. Which means that the wealthier person not taxed on 40% of their wealthy, while the relatively poorer person is not taxed on 20% of their wealth.

Also notice how people making less than $30K / year have a negative savings rate. Those income levels on a whole tend to have higher Consumption > than Incomes, which means that their "left over" money is in the negative. Typically those people are retirees, or those in deep debt or on welfare.

View attachment 67200105
Savings by Income in America: a Calculator - DQYDJ

What that means is if we had only a consumption tax, the wealthiest would end up paying a smaller tax rates than the poorest.
Click to expand...

in a consumption tax, it is not compulsory,. is my point, and people enjoy the liberty they have by not being forced to pay like a direct tax, which violates the principles of this nation.

people who make more money can afford more expensive items then those on the bottom.

taxes are collected to be paid for the powers of congress, and meant to be uniform for the people.
 
Master PO said:
in a consumption tax, it is not compulsory,. is my point, and people enjoy the liberty they have by not being forced to pay like a direct tax, which violates the principles of this nation.
people who make more money can afford more expensive items then those on the bottom.
taxes are collected to be paid to the powers of congress, and meant to be uniform for the people.
Click to expand...

People who make more money don't spend all of their money. People on the bottom do.
At the end of the day this means that the poorest would be paying tax on 100% of their belonging, and the wealthiest would only be paying tax on 20% of their belongings.

Do you honestly believe that's fair?

That the person with less money is paying tax on all of their money, but the person with more money is getting away with significant portions of their money untaxed?
How is that even remotely sync with American principles? That's about as un-uniform as you can go!
 
brothern said:
People who make more money don't spend all of their money. People on the bottom do.
At the end of the day this means that the poorest would be paying tax on 100% of their belonging, and the wealthiest would only be paying tax on 20% of their belongings.

Do you honestly believe that's fair?

That the person with less money is paying tax on all of their money, but the person with more money is getting away with significant portions of their money untaxed?
How is that even remotely sync with American principles? That's about as un-uniform as you can go!
Click to expand...

you are basing your thoughts on an income tax system we have always lived under


in a consumption system, [no direct taxes] everyone would receive every dime they earn, they would know every dollar they are going to earn ahead of time, and could budget their money properly without guess work, and would use their liberty to spend wisely based on what the item cost based on the levy of the tax.
 
Master PO said:
you are basing your thoughts on an income tax system we have always lived under

in a consumption system, [no direct taxes] everyone would receive every dime they earn, they would know every dollar they are going to earn ahead of time, and could budget their money properly without guess work, and would use their liberty to spend wisely based on what the item cost based on the levy of the tax.
Click to expand...
I'm not -- I'm basing it off the idea that no one has the liberty to live in our society free of spending money.
You can't NOT eat. You can't NOT buy clothing. You can't NOT get sick and not pay a doctor's bill.
No one can just "opt out" of spending money. Money doesn't grow on trees. It's necessary to survive.

Which why it's totally repressive of big government and contrary to the ideals of liberty to force people to pay tax on 100% of their money, because they have so little money they are forced to spend 100% of money to survive; and at the same time let other people pay tax on much less than 100% of their money! Not at all uniform.

Especially when the people who are paying tax on 100% have a lower standard of living.
 
Master PO said:
the founders where readers of books in their day, because of no tv, radio, they read about governments of the past, and they came to the conclusion that democracy, monarchy and oligarchy as single forms of government DO NOT WORK.

the democracy turns into majority rule

the monarchy turns into a diactorship

the oligarchy turns into feudalism with elites ruling over serfs

so they created a mixed government, which takes all 3 of those types of government and created our republic.

the house represents the people

the senate represents states, and president represents the union.

in this way, for any legislation to become law, all there 3 interest must be represented

our government is created on the idea of POLYBIUS [ a greek] the father of mixed government whom Madison references in the federalist 63

the founders saw mixed government as a good and stable government, because the roman republic lasted about 500 years until caesar ended it.
Click to expand...
That is eminently logical. I'm going to steal it. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom