Contract with America RENEGOTIATED

[zahc]

Even those ten points are too complicated for the average American.

Term limits and a requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass an unbalanced budget would solve most of our problems

I think you are right. In the past I argued for smaller government, so that spending would go down. I think instead, I need to be arguing for less spending, so that the government goes down. Because "less spending" is a better argument than "less government".

I am starting to tire of attempting to explain to people the real philosophical reasons that I want less government. It just opens up arguments. I'm going to stop.

In Idiocracy when the main character was trying to explain why the plants will die if you water them with Brawndo, his audience was just not getting it. So instead he just told them he could talk to plants, and the plants told him they wanted water, and they accepted this. So he got them to stop putting Brawndo on the plants either way.

From now on, I'm not going to argue libertarianism, Americanism, freedom, or anything. I'm going to say I want to cut taxes. I want less taxes. I want less government spending, less debt. Everyone wants less taxes; everyone can understand this very simple point. And if you cut taxes, and cut money-printing, and cut spending, you cut government. It's not important to me that we achieve less government because of the reasons I want to achieve less government or because of some other reasons. I just want less of it, and I have my own reasons for wanting that.

But from now on, I'm not telling people "we need to reduce the size of the government! We need more freedom! Constitution! Capitalism! Commerce Clause! RAR!". From now on it's "CUT TAXES! Fair Tax! No income tax! No unbalanced budget! Cut federal spending! High tax rates hurt 'comony! Our children will be in debt! Inflation! 401k! RAR!"

[S. Williamson]

Up to 6305, as of now. 

6306

[sanglant]

Total Number of Signers: 6656 

[taurusowner]

I think you are right. In the past I argued for smaller government, so that spending would go down. I think instead, I need to be arguing for less spending, so that the government goes down. Because "less spending" is a better argument than "less government".

I am starting to tire of attempting to explain to people the real philosophical reasons that I want less government. It just opens up arguments. I'm going to stop.

In Idiocracy when the main character was trying to explain why the plants will die if you water them with Brawndo, his audience was just not getting it. So instead he just told them he could talk to plants, and the plants told him they wanted water, and they accepted this. So he got them to stop putting Brawndo on the plants either way.

From now on, I'm not going to argue libertarianism, Americanism, freedom, or anything. I'm going to say I want to cut taxes. I want less taxes. I want less government spending, less debt. Everyone wants less taxes; everyone can understand this very simple point. And if you cut taxes, and cut money-printing, and cut spending, you cut government. It's not important to me that we achieve less government because of the reasons I want to achieve less government or because of some other reasons. I just want less of it, and I have my own reasons for wanting that.

But from now on, I'm not telling people "we need to reduce the size of the government! We need more freedom! Constitution! Capitalism! Commerce Clause! RAR!". From now on it's "CUT TAXES! Fair Tax! No income tax! No unbalanced budget! Cut federal spending! High tax rates hurt 'comony! Our children will be in debt! Inflation! 401k! RAR!"

Unfortunately, you're wrong on that one.  Half of the nations doesn't pay any significant amount of taxes.  The other half pays for the entire population, with most of the burden already being on a small handful of wealthy taxpayers.  The half that does not pay taxes doesn't want less taxes.  They don't want a smaller government.  They get most of their livelihood for free from said government and high taxes.  We are at the point where the leeches outnumber the contributors.  The people who enjoy the forced taking of money from those who earned it have more political clout than the earners themselves.  So it doesn't matter how much we water down the message or how we trim our goal to fit into a few sentences.  There are still going to be more people who disagree with us no matter how concise the message is.  They like robbing us so they don't have to work.

[MicroBalrog]

Most of the people not paying income taxes are not welfare leeches. America doesn't have 150 million welfare leeches.

[taurusowner]

I don't recall me saying a word about welfare.  But they are people who use public services, don't pay for said services, are happy with the fact that others pay for those services, and wish this to continue and grow.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't recall me saying a word about welfare.  But they are people who use public services, don't pay for said services, are happy with the fact that others pay for those services, and wish this to continue and grow.

I think this is quite an unfair judgement. First of all because income taxes constitute less than half of Federal government revenue, and second, because many people who, by quirk of fate, have low earnings and are for some legal reason exempt from taxes, in fact vote Republican and are on your side of these issues.

Furthermore, I would argue even the poorest poor would benefit from a free-market system.

[wquay]

I don't recall me saying a word about welfare.  But they are people who use public services, don't pay for said services, are happy with the fact that others pay for those services, and wish this to continue and grow.

*ahem*

They get most of their livelihood for free from said government and high taxes.

Most of the people not paying income taxes are not welfare leeches. America doesn't have 150 million welfare leeches.

Let alone 150 million voting welfare leeches.

They like robbing us so they don't have to work.

I've met quite a few lazy, ignorant, ungrateful, and selfish Americans. Very few (any?) of those were explicitly looking to trade their vote for social services. I'm more afraid of the influential few at the top than the unwashed masses at the bottom. The Fed didn't expand their balance sheet by trillions of dollars for the sake of the welfare queens. Paulson didn't ask Congress for $700 billion to spend on food stamps and welfare checks.

[p12]

Signed it

6830

[taurusowner]

They get most of their livelihood for free from said government and high taxes.

Still not seeing Welfare in that sentence. Maybe it's my eyes.

[wquay]

Still not seeing Welfare in that sentence. Maybe it's my eyes.

Please explain how the "other half" of the population of a country with a median household income of $50k gets "most of their livelihood for free from said government" without direct financial assistance (i.e. welfare).

[brimic]

Furthermore, I would argue even the poorest poor would benefit from a free-market system.

But they unfortunately don't understand that.

[MicroBalrog]

But they unfortunately don't understand that.

If you believe that the socialists somehow 'own' a given voting bloc, that poor are somehow 'natural enemies' of the rich, congratulations. You've basically swallowed the major point of Das Kapital.

[Balog]

You are reading a lot of things into brimics post that aren't there.

[sanglant]

You are reading a lot of things into brimics post that aren't there.

actually, that's a shallow reading compared to MicroBalrog's norm

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You are reading a lot of things into brimics post that aren't there.

And you're reading a lot of things into Micro's post that aren't there.

Micro's point is correct, and it's a good point to make.  How it relates to brimic's post is up to the reader.

[Balog]

Brimic made the point that many people in America today do not understand the benefits free market capitalism and an end to the welfare state would bring them. This is true.

Micro attacked him as supporting Marx, on the faulty claim that brimic was saying all poor people always hate all rich people.

It is not a necessary truth that the different socio-economic classes are inimicably opposed to each other. Human nature being what it is, greed and envy is a standard issue but it is not always the controlling factor. That being said, many Americans today (especially on the lower end of the income continuum) have been indoctrinated with Marxist philosphy since they first entered public schools and have accepted it as truth. To ignore this fact is a dangerous oversight.

[MicroBalrog]

No, I did not attack Brimic for supporting Marx.

Remember: liberals believe – and this is inherently a Marxist belief, this is what Karl Marx is all about – that certain social classes 'belong' to them, that the proletariat's natural interest is to vote for socialism. When a proletarian identifies himself with the 'wealthy' ('I don't want to tax the rich, because I want to become rich myself' or 'I share their culture and that's more important to me than the class distinction' or whatever), the Marxist believes that this is some form of 'false consciousness', that the poor guy has been deceived and doesn't know what's good for him. That's why the liberals believe in 'wedge issues' – the notion that the evil conservatives use unimportant concepts like abortion or gay marriage or gun control to distract people from 'real concerns'.

But the way to combat this is not to accept that certain groups of people inherently 'belong' to a given coalition of voters. The way to do this is to lure people into your own coalition.

[Balog]

Again, that is A. true & B. totally irrelevant. Show me where brimic said anything that could reasonably be construed as supporting that notion.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Micro attacked him as supporting Marx, on the faulty claim that brimic was saying all poor people always hate all rich people.

No, he didn't.  Micro never said that brimic supported Marx, that was something you read into Micro's remarks that wasn't there.  Micro said that brimic might be making the same mistake Marx made, namely that the poor are the natural enemies of the rich.  

Micro's point, which I believe to be a good point, is that the poor don't automatically have to be enemies of the rich.  

The poor and the rich can be, and probably ought to be, natural allies.  For instance, the assembly line workers at GM need the management and capital side of GM just as much as the manage/capital element needs the laborers.  Neither side will be able to benefit themselves without the help of the other.  Anything that harms one side will harm both sides.  This is the major failing of the auto unions, they position themselves and their members as being at war against management.

[Balog]

No, he didn't.  Micro said that brimic might be making the same mistake Marx made, namely that the poor are the natural enemies of the rich.  He never said that brimic supported Marx, that was something you read into Micro's remarks that wasn't there.

Micro's point, which I believe to be a good point, is that the poor don't automatically have to be enemies of the rich.

You've basically swallowed the major point of Das Kapital.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Can you not see the distinction between supporting Marx vs. making the same mistake that Marx and the libs tend to make in regards to class warfare?

Or, in other words, show me where Micro said that brimnic supports Marx.  Micro simply made a point related to what brimic said.  It was a good point.  No need to get so worked up about it.

[MicroBalrog]

In my view, it's very hard to effectively fight against leftism once you've internalized the things that the leftists believe about reality.

I'm not saying that if you do it, you automatically become a leftist. I'm saying once you buy their line of manure, they win.

[Balog]

Again, show me where brimic said anything even remotely resembling what you are talking about.

He merely pointed out a fact about a worldview common to a certain group of people, at this time and in this place. Any larger idealogical assumptions being drawn are just that: assumptions projected by the reader. Yeesh...

[Perd Hapley]

At this point, I'd be more than willing to hear anyone's comments on what is lacking in that Ten for Ten thing we were talking about a long time ago.