Military Brides

Military spending...

2»

Re: Military spending...

  • LuluP82LuluP82 member
    First Comment
    edited January 2012
    Fire, I am a crazy libertarian, and I agree with you that in principle, there are only a few things that government can do better than private agencies. Defense is one of those things. However, just because that's my idea of an ideal government, it doesn't make the government we have unconstitutional. There's also no such thing as a "less" constitutional agency.

    And income tax is constitutional.  Read Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to tax. And then read the 16th amendment, which specifically constitutionalizes income tax. If you're really curious, check out Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, a SC case from 1916, which upholds the first income tax law passed after the amendment. Come on, now.

    As far as cutting spending, I think it makes sense to cut defense spending if we're actually winding down from the wars (which is debatable, and I'm not saying it's the right thing to do). I do think they need to cut back everything else, too, though, especially entitlement programs. In fact, if Lulu ran the world, I'd just make each agency cut back 15% of spending, at their discretion. Done. That's how private companies do it, and it works.

    With the bailouts...I actually worked quite closely with the financial sector bailout in 2008 if anyone is interested I can provide more detail. Suffice to say most of the banks didn't want it, it was forced on them by the government because they didn't want there to be a run on the banks. Probably a good decision overall. You should watch too big to fail if you have a chance, having been there at the time, it's very accurate. And PS most if not all the large banks have paid back their loans. With interest. The government made money on those, I believe.

    Lastly, the auto industry I agree were excessive. I think the auto industry especially should have been left to die, because they were in the mess due to their own inefficiencies. I blame the unions.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:0a82dc77-4dc9-4882-b788-740bcc824a30">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : This "unconstitutional" thing really ruffles my feathers - who are you getting this from?  Where is your reference that this is unconstitutional?  What exactly is the federal government supposed to do, in your opinion? For the record, based on some of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, the purpose of giving states a large portion of the automony that they have is because it would be impractical for one location to run the entire country.  This is when letters were delivered on horses, so it makes sense.  They couldn't protect the whole country from one location, they couldn't collect taxes, they couldn't communicate about issues efficiently.  Now we have jets that we can move across the entire country within a few hours, and electric banking, and we have the internet and phones.  A lot of the reasoning for some of the state's powers were because it simply was not efficient are no longer valid. The Constitution was written as guidelines, but it does not say specifically that the federal government cannot collect income tax.  If it did, it wouldn't be happening.  There's a lot up for interpretation, which is why experts read it and interpret it and why precident in law helps us set specific examples for how it should be implemented.  It's a living document that is meant to grow as we do.
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

    C, I addressed the unconstitutional thing below. It makes no sense from a logical or legal perspective. IT's one thing if she's saying she thinks it SHOULD be, but it definitely isn't. Especially income tax. It's in the freaking constitution! Twice.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:da0aa5a4-cc59-4056-b07c-bf7712812672">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Fire, I am a crazy libertarian, and<strong> I agree with you that in principle, there are only a few things that government can do better than private agencies</strong>. Defense is one of those things. <strong>However, just because that's my idea of an ideal government, it doesn't make the government we have unconstitutional.</strong> There's also no such thing as a "less" constitutional agency. And income tax is constitutional.  Read Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to tax. And then read the 16th amendment, which specifically constitutionalizes income tax. If you're really curious, check out Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, a SC case from 1916, which upholds the first income tax law passed after the amendment. Come on, now. As far as cutting spending, I think it makes sense to cut defense spending if we're actually winding down from the wars (which is debatable, and I'm not saying it's the right thing to do). I do think they need to cut back everything else, too, though, especially entitlement programs.<strong> In fact, if Lulu ran the world, I'd just make each agency cut back 15% of spending, at their discretion. Done. That's how private companies do it, and it works.</strong> With the bailouts...I actually worked quite closely with the financial sector bailout in 2008 if anyone is interested I can provide more detail. Suffice to say most of the banks didn't want it, it was forced on them by the government because they didn't want there to be a run on the banks. Probably a good decision overall. You should watch too big to fail if you have a chance, having been there at the time, it's very accurate. And PS most if not all the large banks have paid back their loans. With interest. The government made money on those, I believe.<strong> Lastly, the auto industry I agree were excessive. I think the auto industry especially should have been left to die, because they were in the mess due to their own inefficiencies. I blame the unions.</strong>
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    Thank you!  Most especially the bolded.  I'm all for different opinions, and we could discuss which agencies the government could do without or minimize or outsource, but I love that you came in with facts.

    And everything that I bolded I fully agree with 100%.

    I didn't know that the banks paid it back - that's good to hear.  I am a big fan of free trade and utilizing competitive advantages, and I just don't believe the US's competitive advantage is manufacturing anymore.  Especially not in the automotive industry.  There's no benefit to us as a country in the long term by artificially supporting a dying industry - this includes corn subsidies, which are a particular pet peeve of mine.

    image

    Anniversary

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:28c7c1fc-c81c-4d7d-be72-16911ec8d76b">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : C, I addressed the unconstitutional thing below. It makes no sense from a logical or legal perspective. IT's one thing if she's saying she thinks it SHOULD be, but it definitely isn't. Especially income tax. It's in the freaking constitution! Twice.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    I love that you came out of the woodwork.  I have a vision of you on a horse carrying the Constitution in front of you - it's a pretty awesome mental image!

    image

    Anniversary

  • I will also say though, that while I don't believe in taxing "the rich" more (I think it will lower tax revenues overall as less people will be incentivized to be "rich") and I don't like the level of debt, I also am reluctant to cut jobs, wherever those might be right now. My biggest issue with cutting defense spending right now is that all these people will be out of work. Makes much more sense to have them working in the service than on unemployment. But the same argument can be made for all the other agency workers. I hate most agencies-- I can do without every single one, including popular ones like the Dept of Ed. Like I said, I think they should all go away (not because they're "unconstitutional" but because I think it's bad policy and promotes inefficiency). However, do I really think it's good for the economy to have all those ppl out on the streets? No.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:21388b01-1654-4998-93a4-0a6e074de5eb">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : I love that you came out of the woodwork.  I have a vision of you on a horse carrying the Constitution in front of you - it's a pretty awesome mental image!
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

    Yes, me and my 38 week belly :)

    I will admit I had to look up the consitution references. And the case. I remembered reading them a million years ago in law school, but I'm not *that* good with cites.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • calindicalindi member
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited January 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:c8b1ff5d-f08b-4d80-90e1-2a6fa94505d9">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]I will also say though, that while I don't believe in taxing "the rich" more (I think it will lower tax revenues overall as less people will be incentivized to be "rich") and I don't like the level of debt, I also am reluctant to cut jobs, wherever those might be right now. My biggest issue with cutting defense spending right now is that all these people will be out of work. Makes much more sense to have them working in the service than on unemployment. But the same argument can be made for all the other agency workers. I hate most agencies-- I can do without every single one, including popular ones like the Dept of Ed. Like I said, I think they should all go away (not because they're "unconstitutional" but because I think it's bad policy and promotes inefficiency). However, do I really think it's good for the economy to have all those ppl out on the streets? No.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    Very good points.  I wouldn't mind finding other ways to use excess personnel that benefit our country, like Teach for America type stuff.  Give them another way to keep their employment and benefits while doing something productive for our country.

    I think most agencies are extremely inefficient and aren't given the motivation or the ability to streamline their processes and create and effective structure to achieve their goals.  The Dept of Ed is a prime example - our public school systems are not as good as they should be (understatement) and our teachers are suffering, while unions are making it hard to get fresh blood into the industry or to keep pay competitive and based on skill and performance.  "No Child Left Behind" was trying to do the right thing but failed rather miserably at everything it wanted to do, in fact did the exact opposite.  It created a system where teachers weren't incentivized to teach children how to learn but rather how to take tests.  It's not the children who should have their funding be based on performance - it's the administrators and the Dept of Ed.

    image

    Anniversary

  • AmandaSC1988AmandaSC1988 member
    First Comment First Anniversary
    edited January 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:da0aa5a4-cc59-4056-b07c-bf7712812672">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Fire,<strong> I am a crazy libertarian</strong>, and I agree with you that in principle, there are only a few things that government can do better than private agencies. Defense is one of those things. However, just because that's my idea of an ideal government, it doesn't make the government we have unconstitutional. There's also no such thing as a "less" constitutional agency. And income tax is constitutional.  Read Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to tax. And then read the 16th amendment, which specifically constitutionalizes income tax. If you're really curious, check out Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, a SC case from 1916, which upholds the first income tax law passed after the amendment. Come on, now. As far as cutting spending, I think it makes sense to cut defense spending if we're actually winding down from the wars (which is debatable, and I'm not saying it's the right thing to do).<strong> I do think they need to cut back everything else, too, though, especially entitlement programs. In fact, if Lulu ran the world, I'd just make each agency cut back 15% of spending, at their discretion. Done. </strong>That's how private companies do it, and it works. With the bailouts...I actually worked quite closely with the financial sector bailout in 2008 if anyone is interested I can provide more detail. Suffice to say most of the banks didn't want it, it was forced on them by the government because they didn't want there to be a run on the banks. Probably a good decision overall. You should watch too big to fail if you have a chance, having been there at the time, it's very accurate. And PS most if not all the large banks have paid back their loans. With interest. The government made money on those, I believe. Lastly, the auto industry I agree were excessive. I think the auto industry especially should have been left to die, because they were in the mess due to their own inefficiencies. I blame the unions.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    First, Whenever I see Dem/Reb arguing about this issue I have a hard time seeing how this isn't a bipartisan issue? It seems more like a math problem to me...not a political platflorm.

    Second, I fully agree with equal cuts...
    Photobucket
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:da0aa5a4-cc59-4056-b07c-bf7712812672">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Fire, I am a crazy libertarian, and I agree with you that in principle, there are only a few things that government can do better than private agencies. Defense is one of those things. However, just because that's my idea of an ideal government, it doesn't make the government we have unconstitutional. There's also no such thing as a "less" constitutional agency. And income tax is constitutional.  <strong>Read Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to tax. And then read the 16th amendment, which specifically constitutionalizes income tax. If you're really curious, check out Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, a SC case from 1916, which upholds the first income tax law passed after the amendment</strong>. Come on, now. As far as cutting spending, I think it makes sense to cut defense spending if we're actually winding down from the wars (which is debatable, and I'm not saying it's the right thing to do). I do think they need to cut back everything else, too, though, especially entitlement programs. In fact, if Lulu ran the world, I'd just make each agency cut back 15% of spending, at their discretion. Done. That's how private companies do it, and it works. With the bailouts...I actually worked quite closely with the financial sector bailout in 2008 if anyone is interested I can provide more detail. Suffice to say most of the banks didn't want it, it was forced on them by the government because they didn't want there to be a run on the banks. Probably a good decision overall. You should watch too big to fail if you have a chance, having been there at the time, it's very accurate. And PS most if not all the large banks have paid back their loans. With interest. The government made money on those, I believe. Lastly, the auto industry I agree were excessive. I think the auto industry especially should have been left to die, because they were in the mess due to their own inefficiencies. I blame the unions.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    <div>Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1 does give them the right to tax, but it wasn't income that they were taxing, it was establishment of the right to a direct tax and an indirect tax (direct taxes being on property and capitation, and indirect tax being sales taxes) . True, the 16th amendment did constitutionalize income tax, but IMO that should have never happened, and there are varying debates over the constitutionality of it and what should be considered "income". Regardless of where you fall on that issue, I definitely think that there's nothing constitutional about the progressive tax that we have now. I have no issues with taxation on goods and services; but there is a lot wrong in our system that essentially punishes people for making more money. I would think that goods and services tax would be much more effective, considering the number of people who don't pay taxes and the number of people who get a refund when they paid less taxes than the refund amount was for. </div><div>
    </div><div>
    </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:9007b1e2-6309-4dab-b6ee-ccc1b82f9e1e">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1 does give them the right to tax, but it wasn't income that they were taxing, it was establishment of the right to a direct tax and an indirect tax (direct taxes being on property and capitation, and indirect tax being sales taxes) . True, the 16th amendment did constitutionalize income tax, but IMO that should have never happened, and there are varying debates over the constitutionality of it and what should be considered "income". Regardless of where you fall on that issue, I definitely think that there's nothing constitutional about the progressive tax that we have now. I have no issues with taxation on goods and services; but there is a lot wrong in our system that essentially punishes people for making more money. I would think that goods and services tax would be much more effective, considering the number of people who don't pay taxes and the number of people who get a refund when they paid less taxes than the refund amount was for. 
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    But that's the thing though. The 16th Amendment constitutionalized income tax as we know it. It specifically says it doesn't have to be from specific sources (it actually says, from whatever source derived), without approportioning to the states and with disregard for census or enumaration. That's pretty broad powers, right there.
    Since it's a constitutional amendment then it IS constitutional. You can't argue that it isn't.

    You can say you don't agree with it, that it isn't fair and that it shouldn't have been passed. You can even fight to repeal it. But until you amend the constitution, then income tax as we know it today-- progressive as it is-- <strong>IS </strong>in fact constitutional. And to say otherwise weakens your argument and your position.

    Anyway, I have to run off to a dr.s appointment. Have a good weekend everyone.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:f791229e-e18f-4205-b4d2-32276ab6b580">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : First, Whenever I see Dem/Reb arguing about this issue I have a hard time seeing how this isn't a bipartisan issue? It seems more like a math problem to me...not a political platflorm. Second, I fully agree with equal cuts...
    Posted by AmandaSC1988[/QUOTE]

    Well the budget should be a math problem. But the theories behind what role government should play in society is fundamentally a partisan issue. Me saying that the government should only provide defense and everything else should be privatized isn't a math issue, it's a political philosophy which is in stark contrast to someone who believes the government should provide services like free education and healthcare to the people. See what I mean?

    Fire's statement that defense should be the only agency is a fairly common Libertarian belief, which is why I said that.

    Ok I really do have to go now. I love this thread though.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Lulu you are rocking my world right now.
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:0d90d6f3-f78b-406c-a485-45a1e052566e">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : Well the budget should be a math problem. But the theories behind what role government should play in society is fundamentally a partisan issue. Me saying that the government should only provide defense and everything else should be privatized isn't a math issue, it's a political philosophy which is in stark contrast to someone who believes the government should provide services like free education and healthcare to the people. See what I mean? Fire's statement that defense should be the only agency is a fairly common Libertarian belief, which is why I said that. Ok I really do have to go now. I love this thread though.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    And I love you.  I basically wrote out a similar answer, saying that the debt isn't as cut-and-dry as the media makes it out to be.  Having $0 debt isn't necessarily a good thing if it means it flatlines our economy.  Though obviously having high growth and $0 debt is the ideal situation, it isn't always possible, so it's about balancing those two things in the best possible way to put us in a good place in 5, 10, 15 years.  And that's what makes it political rather than mathematical.

    Economics is more theory than math.

    image

    Anniversary

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:da0aa5a4-cc59-4056-b07c-bf7712812672">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE] And income tax is constitutional.  Read Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to tax. And then read the 16th amendment, which specifically constitutionalizes income tax. If you're really curious, check out Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, a SC case from 1916, which upholds the first income tax law passed after the amendment. Come on, now.
    Posted by LuluP82[/QUOTE]

    <div>You know, I'm just about as far away from a Libertarian as it gets, but *slow clap*.</div>
    I hate Dave Ramsey
  • Lulu wins the internet for all this. 
    image
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards