• 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
II.

I am for a Balanced Budget except for years in extremis, such as the last two.

About The Concord Coalition | The Concord Coalition

Bigger govt, Smaller govt. Vote away!

I care less on about size of govt than how Responsibly/Honestly it's run.

(ie, You want to run a war/wars and give prescription drug benefits? You Cannot Lower taxes. Instead we should have a tax surcharge to pay for it and make people aware of what it costs. 100 Billion a yr)
 
Last edited:
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...

I really don't care how the tax is manipulated as long as it doesn't effect me. As a Senior citizen, I pay no taxes, zippo...

ricksfolly
 
mbig said:
My last post on FairYtax.
The virus/Cult that keeps popping up everywhere on this board


'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.

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.
Click to expand...

In 1982 taxes dropped from 69 to 50 pct and in 1987 down to 38.5 pct, a thirty percent drop during Reagan's term. Also during his term the Public Debt tripled. I wonder if his favoritism of the wealthy and big business had anything to do with it.

ricksfolly
 
mbig said:
My last post on FairYtax.
The virus/Cult that keeps popping up everywhere on this board


'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.

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.
Click to expand...

One thing your source ignored about the Fair Tax is that ALL tax paid up to the poverty line would be refunded. So, if you were in a family of four making 20k a year, you would pay ZERO federal tax... no income tax, no payroll tax, and yes, you pay tax on your rent, BUT that would be refunded, so for those living below the poverty line, not only would they not pay any tax, but they would get what is, in effect, an Earned Income Tax credit...
 
You are missing "Stop corporate funding of political parties and limit political funding". Would solve a bunch of problems IMO.

As for the rest.. stupid ideas most of them. They are undemocratic to out right dangerous. You even advocating dissolving the US for god sake.. is that really the Tea Party/Libertarianism wet dream?.. the death of the US?
 
ronpaulvoter said:
If you could write any amendments to the US Constitution, what would they be?
Click to expand...

That is like asking what you would wish for from a genie. The most obvious answer is more wishes.

I would write an amendment granting me the sole power to amend the Constitution whenever I wanted and as many times as I wanted.
 
PeteEU said:
You are missing "Stop corporate funding of political parties and limit political funding". Would solve a bunch of problems IMO.
Click to expand...

You mean limiting free speech?

Since you live in Spain, I won't expect you to know the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (after all, we Americans don't know half the political facts about any given country)

Here it is, for your convenience:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
ElijahGalt said:
Here it is, for your convenience:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

You know reading it for the first time in the context that it's in, religion. The case could be made that the free speech part only relates to religious issues, preaching, assemble, testifying, phamplets, tracts, etc.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
You know reading it for the first time in the context that it's in, religion. The case could be made that the free speech part only relates to religious issues, preaching, assemble, testifying, phamplets, tracts, etc.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

huh?!?!? how do you figure? you did note that there is a semi-colon in there, not a simple comma, right?
 
ElijahGalt said:
You mean limiting free speech?

Since you live in Spain, I won't expect you to know the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (after all, we Americans don't know half the political facts about any given country)

Here it is, for your convenience:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

I just don't accept the argument that money is speech. I understand that financing is a delicate tricky issue, but nowhere in the founders writings, did they consider speech and money synonomous.
 
ricksfolly said:
You know reading it for the first time in the context that it's in, religion. The case could be made that the free speech part only relates to religious issues, preaching, assemble, testifying, phamplets, tracts, etc.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

That would be true, but only if you don't understand the English language. Semicolons, like the one after 'thereof' are used to indicate interdependent statements.

Also, this is why there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the Second Amendment. Some individuals demand that the amendment only apply to militias. But those individuals always forget the comma after the word 'state' to distinguish between the right of the militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I just don't accept the argument that money is speech. I understand that financing is a delicate tricky issue, but nowhere in the founders writings, did they consider speech and money synonomous.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about money. It explicitely states that congress shall make no law...abridging free speech. Therefore, if you favor a law that limits or restricts the right of corporations or groups of individuals to spend money on political advertising at the close-end of a campaign, that is effectively creating a law that limits their right to free speech. Haven't you heard the arguments from above? The officials want to ban the publication of pamphlets, magazines, or books with special "magic words" that are intended to be released towards the end of an election cycle. We're banning books now to stop the evil campaign finance system!
 
ElijahGalt said:
It says nothing about money. It explicitely states that congress shall make no law...abridging free speech. Therefore, if you favor a law that limits or restricts the right of corporations or groups of individuals to spend money on political advertising at the close-end of a campaign, that is effectively creating a law that limits their right to free speech. Haven't you heard the arguments from above? The officials want to ban the publication of pamphlets, magazines, or books with special "magic words" that are intended to be released towards the end of an election cycle. We're banning books now to stop the evil campaign finance system!
Click to expand...

If you use value-laden words like evil, I cannot take you seriously. Are you going to stop using appeals to emotion and discuss things like an adult, or should i just start ignoring what you say?

The Citizen's United case most definately equated money with speech. While I don't agree with all of modern finance law, the fact that it abolished spending restrictions like it did most definately is a blow in having a democratic government of the people and not a plutocracy.
 
the makeout hobo said:
If you use value-laden words like evil, I cannot take you seriously. Are you going to stop using appeals to emotion and discuss things like an adult, or should i just start ignoring what you say?

The Citizen's United case most definately equated money with speech. While I don't agree with all of modern finance law, the fact that it abolished spending restrictions like it did most definately is a blow in having a democratic government of the people and not a plutocracy.
Click to expand...


I'm stunned you didn't respond to the banned books comment. The spending restrictions were essentially restrictions on the amount of speech one or more individuals could make. In order to speak to an audience as wide as a city, state, or country, you need capital. By limiting the amount of capital that could be spent on such ads (with an explicit ban on the type and timing of political ads), you are restricting the right of that person or persons to make free speech. The First Amendment does not distinguish between commercial or non-commercial, political or non-political speech.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I'm stunned you didn't respond to the banned books comment. The spending restrictions were essentially restrictions on the amount of speech one or more individuals could make. In order to speak to an audience as wide as a city, state, or country, you need capital. By limiting the amount of capital that could be spent on such ads (with an explicit ban on the type and timing of political ads), you are restricting the right of that person or persons to make free speech. The First Amendment does not distinguish between commercial or non-commercial, political or non-political speech.
Click to expand...

Technically, the first amendment DOES distinguish between different types of speech, according to modern con law. I couldn't put out an ad that said "hobo's wonder pills will magically make you lose 50 pounds", then claim free speech when they don't work. Commercial speech has many restrictions on it. And I didn't respond to the remark about books because as far as I understand, the law in question only pertained to TV ads.

Let me ask you- how can we continue to have government by the people if VaultTech can pump so much money into a race as to drown out all other voices?
 
Redress said:
Don't feel bad. I found out from him in this thread I support a form of totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

I really wish you could stay with me in the debate, Redress.

I'm sorry for calling you a totalitarian. But hopefully I've convinced you that it takes a lot of faith to believe you're 100% against Libertarianism. I don't doubt you have your disagreements and a lot of them, but I certainly don't believe you're even capable of being 100% against Libertarian. But Libertarianism, like the left or the right, does contain a polar opposite, and it's quite ugly. :)
 
I did not say 100 %. I said almost point for point. This is not the thread really to discuss the LP platform, and I have discussed it at various times. If you want to create a thread to discuss the topic, let me know when you do, I will add my thoughts.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Technically, the first amendment DOES distinguish between different types of speech, according to modern con law.
Click to expand...

I'm a strict constitutionalist, myself. Given enough time, modern con laws will prevent the rights of certain groups from speaking due to their political affliation. Parties and ideas will be labeled "hate speech" and will be restricted.

I couldn't put out an ad that said "hobo's wonder pills will magically make you lose 50 pounds", then claim free speech when they don't work. Commercial speech has many restrictions on it. And I didn't respond to the remark about books because as far as I understand, the law in question only pertained to TV ads.
Click to expand...

You're assuming I agree with such restrictions. I believe there's far too many exemptions given to the First Amendment that directly violates the original law. And if you didn't hear about the books, you haven't been paying attention.

Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? - Reason Magazine

Let me ask you- how can we continue to have government by the people if VaultTech can pump so much money into a race as to drown out all other voices?
Click to expand...

VaultTech is not people. Inanimate, non-human objects and things cannot pump money anywhere. PEOPLE pump money into a race, and there will always be people who have more money to pump. It is wrong to limit the amount of money one or more individuals can spend on political advertising, regardless of the circumstances.
 
Redress said:
I did not say 100 %. I said almost point for point. This is not the thread really to discuss the LP platform, and I have discussed it at various times. If you want to create a thread to discuss the topic, let me know when you do, I will add my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Promise? I'm creating it now in the Gen. Pol. Disc. forum.
 
I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits and bans and prohibits any level of government from giving any sort of tax break, tax abatement, handout, corporate welfare, regulatory leniency, or debt forgiveness to any business to attract it to the area.

Such practices harm the people because they take government money and give it to private companies. They deny the people valuable government services as tax revenues go down. They are unfair to existing businesses who were not given such breaks and have to play on a very uneven playing field.
 
haymarket said:
I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits and bans and prohibits any level of government from giving any sort of tax break, tax abatement, handout, corporate welfare, regulatory leniency, or debt forgiveness to any business to attract it to the area.

Such practices harm the people because they take government money and give it to private companies. They deny the people valuable government services as tax revenues go down. They are unfair to existing businesses who were not given such breaks and have to play on a very uneven playing field.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me!
 
ElijahGalt said:
You have got to be kidding me!
Click to expand...

Why would I kid you?

Its high time that government stopped stealing businesses from one town to another or one state to another and the main winners are the company owners. It is blatantly NOT fair to existing companies who have to compete with those getting governmental favors and largesse. If done on a national level, everybody know plays by the same rules in the same geographic area.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I really wish you could stay with me in the debate, Redress.

I'm sorry for calling you a totalitarian. But hopefully I've convinced you that it takes a lot of faith to believe you're 100% against Libertarianism. I don't doubt you have your disagreements and a lot of them, but I certainly don't believe you're even capable of being 100% against Libertarian. But Libertarianism, like the left or the right, does contain a polar opposite, and it's quite ugly. :)
Click to expand...

You don't think Redress could be 100% against libertarianism but you were still willing to use the word totalitarian...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom