NationStates Jolt Archive

First things first:

Currently, the Parallel Congress contains four members:

President Pro Tempore: Jello Biafra
Speaker of the House: Neo Undelia
Senate Minority Leader: ***SEAT OPEN***
House Minority Leader: Soheran

This will not do.

Before Congress can get to the business of passing laws, we need to bolster the membership. We obviously do not have enough people to form a full-fledged bicameral legislature, so a downsized version will have to do.

For balance, I am now opening Congress to applications. If you wish to apply, state so here. Remember that this is not some honorific; members of Congress will have to draft, debate, and vote on legislation, which will usually be based on the recommendations of me and my Cabinet. There will be some work involved.

When you apply, please state your political affiliation. I will be maintaining some control over the rate of admission in order to assure ideological balance. If too many communists apply, for instance, no more will be allowed until some other groups balance them out. This way, Congressional membership will grow at a slow, but balanced rate.

Standard congressional rules will apply; if a tie vote is reached, for instance, Vice President Wilgrove will act as tiebreaker. The four Congressional leaders mentioned above will guide the discussion and debate. Any member can propose legislation.

Lastly, a word on multiple threads. This parallel government project is growing too large and complex for a single thread. To deal with this, I am implementing the following policy:

Each major government action (Cabinet meeting, session of Congress, etc.) will get its own thread. As President, I will handle the creation and regulation of these threads. When a new thread is created, general discussion will migrate to that thread. Discussion in the previous thread will be CLOSED. For reference, links to previous threads will be included in the OP of each new thread. GRAVEDIGGING CLOSED THREADS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. We don't want to be accused of spamming, now, do we?

Now, let's start the applications. Once the Congressional leaders feel they have a good number of members, let me know, and I'll close the application process. Once that's done, you can all start debating the Cabinet's latest recommendations.

Current Congressional roster (excluding leadership):
Holyawesomeness (libertarian conservative)
New Burmesia (liberal socialist)

===PREVIOUS THREADS=== (All discussions CLOSED)
First Parallel US Government (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508073): President Kyronea establishes government, appoints members, begins discussions, resigns
Second Parallel US Government (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508662): President Rhaomi appoints more members, holds first Cabinet Meeting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508662&page=7)

I'll apply. I am a libertarian conservative.... or a conservative libertarian based upon the latest test scores...

Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36

Alright, you're on board.

Apparently no one else wants to step up to the plate, so let's get started with the legislating.

*ahem*

I hereby open this first session of the Parallel Congress of the United States. My Cabinet and I have prepared three recommendations of action for the legislature. While these measures were reached by consensus, you are free to refine and amend them however you wish. Once you have narrowed each action into something you can all agree on, go ahead and vote on them and, if passed, send them on to me. If you cannot agree on one version of a bill, then by all means vote for removal of it from the agenda.

As Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, respectively, Jello Biafra and Neo Undelia shall guide the debate. Other congressional participants include Senate Minority Leader Eugene Victor Debs, House Minority Leader Soheran, and Senator Holyawesomeness.

These are the recommendations up for debate:

1. Implement modified FairTax plan:
* replace all taxes with a national Value-Added Tax (except capital gains and corporate taxes)
* make capital gains and corporate taxes progressive in nature
* increase awareness and scope of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
* reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
* include corporate penalties in the form of increased corporate income taxes
2. Reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
* increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) by 90%
* reduce other HUD functions accordingly
* delegate management of CDBGs to the local level
* encourage usage of CDBG funds for public works programs at the local level
* establish a small federal watchdog agency that will address complaints of waste, abuse, and corruption
* provide extra, specialized funding to Indian reservations, which will be used to both hire unemployed residents and use them to improve the infrastructure there
3. Approve EPA watchdog plan

The Cabinet meeting that produced these measures starts here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508662&page=7). If you require more information, ask in THIS thread (not the Cabinet discussion one).

Let the First Parallel Congress begin.

I will apply for a post in Congress if possible. I will resign my post in your cabinet if I must.

I am a radical libertarian socialist, but as you saw from our cabinet meeting, I am willing to compromise.

I will apply for a post in Congress if possible. I will resign my post in your cabinet if I must.

I am a radical libertarian socialist, but as you saw from our cabinet meeting, I am willing to compromise.

Alright, I guess... although you should choose a capable successor first. If you do that, you're in.

Alright, I guess... although you should choose a capable successor first. If you do that, you're in.

Never mind, then. I can be your Congressional liaison, though.

This is getting quite ridiculous. I've personally contacted every member of our Parallel Congress with information and links to this thread, but have seen no response. If the legislature continues to neglect its duties for much longer, I will be forced to take drastic action to continue the proper functioning of this government. The Cabinet has held up its end of the process admirably -- now it's your turn. You applied for these positions, so do the work.

I'll give the Congress until tomorrow afternoon to start debating the measures given above. I suggest you heed this warning, if you want to keep your jobs.

My humble opinions.

1. Implement modified FairTax plan:
Let's get to getting.
* replace all taxes with a national Value-Added Tax (except capital gains and corporate taxes)
Can't get behind that one. The poor really shouldn't ever have to pay taxes in any way. They owe society nothing. The rich though, they owe society everything.
* make capital gains and corporate taxes progressive in nature
I can support this.
* increase awareness and scope of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
Kids should learn about it in public school.
* reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Why? To put people out of a job?
* include corporate penalties in the form of increased corporate income taxes
As long as its reasonable and doesn't lead to excessive job loss.
2. Reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
Okay.
* increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) by 90%
And take it from the military.
* reduce other HUD functions accordingly
Hell, the whole thing could use more funding.
* delegate management of CDBGs to the local level
Uh, no. Incompetence is far too rampant at the local level. I trust them with as few federal funds as possible.
* encourage usage of CDBG funds for public works programs at the local level
As long as everything is supervised by the Fed.
establish a small federal watchdog agency that will address complaints of waste, abuse, and corruption
That goes along nicely with what I've been saying. Though it should be anything but small.
provide extra, specialized funding to Indian reservations, which will be used to both hire unemployed residents and use them to improve the infrastructure there
All good.
Approve EPA watchdog plan
As long as Sel Appa's in charge.

So, my recommendations.
1. Implement modified FairTax plan:
* replace all taxes with a national Value-Added Tax (except capital gains and corporate taxes) Delete
* make capital gains and corporate taxes progressive in nature
* increase awareness and scope of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
* reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Delete
* include corporate penalties in the form of increased corporate income taxes
2. Reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
* Redirect funds from military spending to HUD
* increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) by 90%
* reduce other HUD functions accordingly Increase funds
* delegate management of CDBGs to the local level Delete
* encourage usage of CDBG funds for public works programs at the local level
* establish a small federal watchdog agency that will address complaints of waste, abuse, and corruption Needs to be as large as necessary.
* provide extra, specialized funding to Indian reservations, which will be used to both hire unemployed residents and use them to improve the infrastructure there
[quote]3. Approve EPA watchdog plan
*Establish an agency, reporting directly to congress, with the purpose of investigating all actions take by the EPA
*Give the agency powers necessary to postpone actions taken by the EPA and, upon recommendation, put specific actions of the EPA before a congressional vote
*Name the agency, the Congressional Agency on Environmental Protection

Uh, no. Incompetence is far too rampant at the local level.

And it is not on the federal level?

I trust them with as few federal funds as possible.

How will you hold the federal government accountable?

**applies for Librarian of Congress**

Not sure exactly what that would entail here, though.

So, does the Congress need more time for debate, or is the membership ready to come to a vote?

I agree with Neo Undelia's remarks about the Fair Tax plan. Sales taxes are almost exclusively regressive in nature. I cannot support a regressive tax.

I also agree with his remarks on the HUD.

The EPA issue, though...I'm not certain there's a need for an EPA watchdog group. Would someone kindly give me more information?

NSG Parliament>this
*flees from security*

And it is not on the federal level?

How will you hold the federal government accountable?

Ah, that eternal question. Is it better to have 1 big tyrant a thousand miles away or one thousand small tyrants 1 mile away?

Can't get behind that one. The poor really shouldn't ever have to pay taxes in any way. They owe society nothing. The rich though, they owe society everything.
The poor get much of their money back from rebates in the fair tax system and the rich don't owe everything anyway, taxes are not about owing but rather sustaining necessary supports for society. As well, the fair tax taxes wealth, people who do nothing but sit on money they already have will still be paying taxes.

I can support this.

Kids should learn about it in public school. I can agree with the former out of the spirit of compromise and really public schooling should teach kids a lot more on how to survive financially.

Why? To put people out of a job? This goes hand in hand with the fair tax. With an easier tax system we will not need these people, and by getting rid of these jobs we allow resources to get used more efficiently.

As long as its reasonable and doesn't lead to excessive job loss.
Drastic taxes hurt everyone, however corporate penalties for doing wrong are a good thing.

Okay.

And take it from the military.

Hell, the whole thing could use more funding.

Uh, no. Incompetence is far too rampant at the local level. I trust them with as few federal funds as possible.

As long as everything is supervised by the Fed.

That goes along nicely with what I've been saying. Though it should be anything but small. I can live with reorganization. Taking the funds from the military is a horrible idea considering that we are currently involved in a few wars and I cannot support it at all. Increased funds should be avoided given our financial situation in that we are in massive debt. The organization should be small, lean, and effective, we want to make sure that we act efficiently and avoid budget problems and should reduce the deficit. As well, incompetence and corruption exist throughout the federal government, at the very least local peoples have greater control over their governments than they do of the federal.

All good.

As long as Sel Appa's in charge.
I can allow this in the spirit of compromise.

So, my recommendations.
* replace all taxes with a national Value-Added Tax (except capital gains and corporate taxes) Delete I disagree, we need more efficient taxation systems, the current tax code is way too long, has way too many loopholes, and such a reform could go a long way to improve American problems.
* reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Delete This goes along with the fair tax. The IRS is too big and messy and reforms should take place to reduce its size and problems. Some people may lose jobs, so what? Jobs are meant to provide value to people, not to be unnecessary wastes of government money.

2. Reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
* Redirect funds from military spending to HUD Redirecting funds from the military during a time of war should be avoided, there is already talk that our men are underpaid and underequipped, we should not exacerbate problems.

* reduce other HUD functions accordingly Increase funds We need to reduce any spending if at all possible. Increasing funds should be avoided until deficit problems cease to be problems.
* delegate management of CDBGs to the local level DeleteSome local management would be a good thing so long as we have oversight. Local governments know better what local peoples need than the federal government.
* establish a small federal watchdog agency that will address complaints of waste, abuse, and corruption Needs to be as large as necessary. It needs to also be as small as possible, we need efficient programs to avoid federal overspending at this time.

Ah, that eternal question. Is it better to have 1 big tyrant a thousand miles away or one thousand small tyrants 1 mile away?
1 thousand tyrants of course. That way you get to choose your tyrant or at the very least have a less difficult time voting him away. You are far left, right? Let's just say that Bush, after leaving the presidency decides to run for a position of mayor of your town. Well, in this election your vote matters much more than it does in a federal election so you have an easier time opposing Bush's idea, but even if he still gets elected and you hate his policies you can at the very least leave your current town and move to another.

And it is not on the federal level?
Have you ever met your local representatives? Federal politicians are, at least, more professional.
How will you hold the federal government accountable?
Congress will hold them acountable.
The EPA issue, though...I'm not certain there's a need for an EPA watchdog group. Would someone kindly give me more information?
Check out Sel Appa's statement in the cabinet meeting.
Ah, that eternal question. Is it better to have 1 big tyrant a thousand miles away or one thousand small tyrants 1 mile away?
Considering, that in this imaginary situation, we are the tyrants 1000 miles away, I’d lean towards that one.The poor get much of their money back from rebates in the fair tax system and the rich don't owe everything anyway, taxes are not about owing but rather sustaining necessary supports for society. As well, the fair tax taxes wealth, people who do nothing but sit on money they already have will still be paying taxes.
I disagree. Taxes are necessary to carry out government services yes, but one of their most important functions is keeping those that get the most out of society subservient to that society. A complicated system rebates is unnecessary. A progressive tax system, with no deductions for the extremely wealthy, would work nicely I think.
This goes hand in hand with the fair tax. With an easier tax system we will not need these people, and by getting rid of these jobs we allow resources to get used more efficiently.
In the human department, we have an excess of resources, I think. It is necessary, for the good of society jobs that aren’t necessary. As long as people are doing actual work, even if it’s ultimately pointless, it’s all good.
Taking the funds from the military is a horrible idea considering that we are currently involved in a few wars and I cannot support it at all.
And why do you think we are in those wars? Cripple the military and we stay out of war.
Increased funds should be avoided given our financial situation in that we are in massive debt.
If we took enough money from the military and taxed the wealthy a little more, we could pay for all the social services we wanted and still come up with a surplus.
As well, incompetence and corruption exist throughout the federal government, at the very least local peoples have greater control over their governments than they do of the federal.
Which is exactly the reason I don't want them to have control of it. The uninformed elect the uninformed, or at least those who shamelessly go along with the uninformed. The government, and society in general, should be controlled by those who are as far away from the Evangelical Christians and various other varieties of trailer trash as possible.

I disagree. Taxes are necessary to carry out government services yes, but one of their most important functions is keeping those that get the most out of society subservient to that society. A complicated system rebates is unnecessary. A progressive tax system, with no deductions for the extremely wealthy, would work nicely I think. I disagree with that entire philosophy, it sounds more like state worship than it does of the underpinnings of a free society. The system of rebates isn't even complicated. As well, the tax rebate system isn't even complicated, it is simply a refund for up to poverty level and most Americans will spend well beyond that amount.

In the human department, we have an excess of resources, I think. It is necessary, for the good of society jobs that aren’t necessary. As long as people are doing actual work, even if it’s ultimately pointless, it’s all good. No we don't. We have unlimited desires, how do we have excesses of resources. You are simply making the fallacy of the broken window, and rehashing a mistake that should have died off. The people fired will likely find jobs in some sector of the economy where they will do work that actually has a point.

And why do you think we are in those wars? Cripple the military and we stay out of war. We are in these wars because a previous government chose to enter these wars. Even if we accepted your logic as true though, that does not change the problems with doing so now, we cannot pursue 2 conflicting objectives at the same time obviously, and considering that one objective currently has a significant number of human lives at stake we cannot do anything but go in that direction.

If we took enough money from the military and taxed the wealthy a little more, we could pay for all the social services we wanted and still come up with a surplus. The entire idea of United States economic policy is not to run a state that dominates all of our efforts. Government services tend not to work and your ideas will not benefit our economy in the long run.

Which is exactly the reason I don't want them to have control of it. The uninformed elect the uninformed, or at least those who shamelessly go along with the uninformed. The government, and society in general, should be controlled by those who are as far away from the Evangelical Christians and various other varieties of trailer trash as possible.
So, a contempt for the people is the idea behind our democracy/republic? Yes, by all means authoritarianism is the way to go. God damn those people for having opinions, they have no say over how we rule them, after all, rulership comes solely from the divine right of kings.:rolleyes: Please, government by the people and for the people, not by self-aggrandizing bureacrats who hate the very individuals that they work for and shamelessly spend money they never earned. The money should be controlled by local figures who will act in the BEST interests of the people that they govern, not in the social engineering prompted by some authoritarian bureacrat. Certainly some things that will be done by local government will be undesirable, however, the loss of freedom from not running the country in such a manner would be more undesirable.

Check out Sel Appa's statement in the cabinet meeting.Ah, thank you, I skimmed over some of it.

I disagree. Taxes are necessary to carry out government services yes, but one of their most important functions is keeping those that get the most out of society subservient to that society.I don't know that I would agree that the point is to keep people subservient to society, but I do agree entirely with the idea that the amount of tax that people pay should reflect the benefit they get from society.

I don't know that I would agree that the point is to keep people subservient to society, but I do agree entirely with the idea that the amount of tax that people pay should reflect the benefit they get from society.
The only question on that is how much is money really reflecting the benefit derived from the person by society, consider that people pay these individuals money for services. If society pays these people that much in the first place then wouldn't it be more true to look at the high pay as a sign of society benefitting from the person than the converse? Also before the CEO thing goes into play, we must remember that corporate structures are artificial to some extent and open to corruption, and also consider that Paris Hiltons don't pay income tax but do pay the fair tax and pay a lot considering how much expensive crap they buy.

Have you ever met your local representatives?

No. So? Have you met your state and national representatives?

Congress will hold them acountable.

This branch of government is infested with the lobbyists of the rich and powerful, and you expect it will focus its attention on aid to the poor?

Such blind trust in the benevolence of the distant, centralized state has always been extremely harmful to attempts at social reform.

Ah, that eternal question. Is it better to have 1 big tyrant a thousand miles away or one thousand small tyrants 1 mile away?

No tyrants anywhere. And localization is much better at ensuring that, at least if the local governments have real power.

I disagree with that entire philosophy, it sounds more like state worship than it does of the underpinnings of a free society.
I think the rich-poor devide undermines a free society more than nationalism ever could.
The system of rebates isn't even complicated. As well, the tax rebate system isn't even complicated, it is simply a refund for up to poverty level and most Americans will spend well beyond that amount.
Well then just make income taxes exclusive to the highest 10% of income levels, and make everyone pay a simple sales tax.
No we don't. We have unlimited desires, how do we have excesses of resources. You are simply making the fallacy of the broken window, and rehashing a mistake that should have died off. The people fired will likely find jobs in some sector of the economy where they will do work that actually has a point.
How? The job market is terrible and unemployment is already too high.
We are in these wars because a previous government chose to enter these wars. Even if we accepted your logic as true though, that does not change the problems with doing so now, we cannot pursue 2 conflicting objectives at the same time obviously, and considering that one objective currently has a significant number of human lives at stake we cannot do anything but go in that direction.
We could easily withdraw from both those conflicts. In fact, I think we should. It's high time we begin to deal with the world in a civilized manner.
The entire idea of United States economic policy is not to run a state that dominates all of our efforts. Government services tend not to work and your ideas will not benefit our economy in the long run.
First of all, there is no reason a government service would work any better or worse than a corporation if it were well funded.
So, a contempt for the people is the idea behind our democracy/republic?
Of course not. They should be free. Most just aren't intelligent enough to realize that.
The money should be controlled by local figures who will act in the BEST interests of the people that they govern, not in the social engineering prompted by some authoritarian bureacrat.
That's just the thing. Those closest to the people are the most influenced by them and most people just do not care about freedom.
Certainly some things that will be done by local government will be undesirable, however, the loss of freedom from not running the country in such a manner would be more undesirable.
Freedom has nothing to do with self governance. In fact the best way to end freedom would be to give the masses all the power they wanted by majority vote.

Freedom is in the rights and comforts that people posses because a government protects them from those who would take away those freedoms and provides for them the freedoms which they can not obtain for themselves.

School Daze (I-Washington)- I usually vote with the Democrats but I don't have to. :p

See, people will apply, you just have to give them time... By page 11 there will be too many.

2. Reorganize the Department of Housing and Urban Development

How so?
Ah, that eternal question. Is it better to have 1 big tyrant a thousand miles away or one thousand small tyrants 1 mile away?
Why we have both already? The big tyrants rule other countries. The little ones are neighborhood and school bullies.

I think the rich-poor devide undermines a free society more than nationalism ever could. Please, the infringement of government on liberty is by far much greater. It was oppressive governments that brought on the horrors of totalitarianism, not rich people.

Well then just make income taxes exclusive to the highest 10% of income levels, and make everyone pay a simple sales tax. We already have a tax on capital gains to deal with the rich, as well as corporate taxes.

How? The job market is terrible and unemployment is already too high.
Unemployment is not very high at all! BLS (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
An unemployment rate hovering around 5% is good, and because markets change and because we are reducing taxation issues we should have a market that should be somewhat conducive to the people that we lay off.

We could easily withdraw from both those conflicts. In fact, I think we should. It's high time we begin to deal with the world in a civilized manner.
Not really, we are knee-deep in the mess and the problems within these nations have not been dealt with. If things are bad now, our leaving will make things worse.

First of all, there is no reason a government service would work any better or worse than a corporation if it were well funded. The only difference is that bureaucrats are separate from the people that they serve and are not under pressure to necessarily provide the best services. The US government is not known for its massive efficiency.

Of course not. They should be free. Most just aren't intelligent enough to realize that. And it is up to us the enlightened monarchs to tell them how things should work? Such a policy would backlash with ease, and the authoritarian principles upon which this is based would lead to less likeable governments using them against our causes.

That's just the thing. Those closest to the people are the most influenced by them and most people just do not care about freedom. The only thing is that only those groups of people are the best to decide how their lives and governments are to be run. Our job isn't to protect people from themselves but to facilitate them and in all likelihood if we give power to the people there will arise those who truly want freedom and who will have their own group that promotes it. By setting up the central government as the authority over all of this we set ourselves up for a fall as we make it so that in a few offices all freedom can be eradicated.

Freedom has nothing to do with self governance. In fact the best way to end freedom would be to give the masses all the power they wanted by majority vote. Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with self-governance. If one has a great chunk of their life controlled by a government that they have no say in then they are not really free. The best way to preserve freedom is by decentralizing freedom, even if a few communities vote away a few rights not all will agree and people will still be able to freely move between communities. Freedom will be preserved and it will flourish more than ever before.

Freedom is in the rights and comforts that people posses because a government protects them from those who would take away those freedoms and provides for them the freedoms which they can not obtain for themselves.
Freedom is in the rights that people possess in absence of all intervention. Government, of course, has a duty in preserving freedom but large government is the destruction of freedom. It is better that some communities lose freedom rather than we endanger it all by centralizing it and expanding the powers of government to eclipse all free human action.

The uninformed elect the uninformed, or at least those who shamelessly go along with the uninformed. The government, and society in general, should be controlled by those who are as far away from the Evangelical Christians and various other varieties of trailer trash as possible.
I'd watch my tongue if I were you. Don't take this as some kind of Presidential censorship -- just keep in mind that you're supposed to be a representative of the people. Talk smack about your own constituents and you're likely to get thrown out come next election.

Not that we can reliably simulate an election, but still, you get the idea.

The EPA issue: For some reason I interpreted the EPA watchdog group as a group to watch over the EPA, as opposed to the EPA watching over companies. Companies should be watched over, and so I approve this idea.
I also like the idea of Sel Appa handling it.

The only question on that is how much is money really reflecting the benefit derived from the person by society, consider that people pay these individuals money for services. If society pays these people that much in the first place then wouldn't it be more true to look at the high pay as a sign of society benefitting from the person than the converse? No, since the payment that any one individual receives is not necessarily given by the whole of society, however the existence of their job is typically contigent upon the existence of the whole of society.

and also consider that Paris Hiltons don't pay income tax but do pay the fair tax and pay a lot considering how much expensive crap they buy.We already have sales taxes; I wouldn't mind seeing a separate sales tax reform, though. Or perhaps we could institute a Value Added Tax, for luxury items.

Please, the infringement of government on liberty is by far much greater. It was oppressive governments that brought on the horrors of totalitarianism, not rich people.
One in the same.
We already have a tax on capital gains to deal with the rich, as well as corporate taxes.
Well, they need to be taxed more. They aren't carrying their weight.
Unemployment is not very high at all! BLS (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
An unemployment rate hovering around 5% is good, and because markets change and because we are reducing taxation issues we should have a market that should be somewhat conducive to the people that we lay off.
Maybe 5% is acceptable to you, but I will settle for nothing more than 1%. Everyone who wants a job should have one.
Not really, we are knee-deep in the mess and the problems within these nations have not been dealt with. If things are bad now, our leaving will make things worse.
We can't know that for sure. What we can know is that leaving will save the lives of US soldiers and allow us to use our funds towards more productive ends.
The only difference is that bureaucrats are separate from the people that they serve
And a corporate executive is not?
and are not under pressure to necessarily provide the best services.
Neither is a corporation. They just have to make people think that they provide the best service.
The US government is not known for its massive efficiency.
Which is something we should seek to change.
Freedom has EVERYTHING to do with self-governance. If one has a great chunk of their life controlled by a government that they have no say in then they are not really free.
I'm not talking about controlling people's lives. I'm talking about ensuring that others do not.
The best way to preserve freedom is by decentralizing freedom, even if a few communities vote away a few rights not all will agree and people will still be able to freely move between communities.
I will settle for nothing less than absolute freedom everywhere.
Freedom will be preserved and it will flourish more than ever before.

That has only ever happened when the federal government stepped in to enforce the rights they had granted.
Freedom is in the rights that people possess in absence of all intervention.
I'm sure African Americans would have something to say about that.
I'd watch my tongue if I were you. Don't take this as some kind of Presidential censorship -- just keep in mind that you're supposed to be a representative of the people. Talk smack about your own constituents and you're likely to get thrown out come next election.
Just assume I come from a very liberal district.

One in the same. No, individuals are different than the government.

Well, they need to be taxed more. They aren't carrying their weight.
They are carrying their weight, they create a lot of value for our economy.

Maybe 5% is acceptable to you, but I will settle for nothing more than 1%. Everyone who wants a job should have one.
There is a trade-off between employment and inflation called the phillips curve. If we take on your goal we will kill the economy with high inflation that will drive down everyone's quality of life for certain. Not only that but many people speculate that in the long run the employment level is constant, so not only would we deal with just high inflation, we would deal with increasing inflation.

We can't know that for sure. What we can know is that leaving will save the lives of US soldiers and allow us to use our funds towards more productive ends.
It does not take much to figure out that things would be worse if we left. The infrastructure in these countries are not developed for handling what is happening in there, so a simple cut and run operation would be monstrously inhumane.

And a corporate executive is not? Profits drive the economy. Bureaucrats don't have to care about whether or not people pay for their services, business executives are consumed by that.

Neither is a corporation. They just have to make people think that they provide the best service. The best measurers of the value of goods are the consumers of such goods. Corporations have to make sure that consumers support them, government officials just have to stay in the good graces of other government people.

Which is something we should seek to change. Rather than trying to make a static system efficient when inefficiency will naturally build up and continue, we should give more power to a more dynamic system. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program and there are many cases of governmental institutions outliving their purpose. For this reason, government power should be reduced in order to stop waste and inefficiency that inevitably will take place.

I'm not talking about controlling people's lives. I'm talking about ensuring that others do not. The only thing is that self-determination allows for greater protection. Let's just say that our government is thrown out for being too liberal(which it would be in the real US), then the apparatus that you have set up of greater government control over individual areas will be thrown out in an instance. By centralizing power over freedom you weaken it. If some areas are less than your idea of perfect freedom than so be it. People are still free to move and can still have high levels of freedom, the needs of different communities will be different.

I will settle for nothing less than absolute freedom everywhere. And you claim to be a congressman??? Your job is compromise and pragmatism, not hard-lining and ideology-worship. The latter is a threat to all humanity, no matter what its source is. Frankly though, from MY perspective, the entire argument of absolute freedom is negated by your ideas for policies and massive statist intervention.

That has only ever happened when the federal government stepped in to enforce the rights they had granted.
Individuals possess rights. Strong governmental intervention isn't required to allow men to speak, for them to believe, or for them to act. Government intervention is required to stop those actions not to allow them to start.

I'm sure African Americans would have something to say about that.
Yeah, I am sure that they would considering that this includes the Jim Crow laws, and slavery laws that existed in our nation.

No, since the payment that any one individual receives is not necessarily given by the whole of society, however the existence of their job is typically contigent upon the existence of the whole of society. No, it isn't but nothing is perfectly representative of society anyway, our government is not of society, nor is anything else. The existence of their job though, is only dependent upon the maintainence of law and order, which they don't impose too much extra upon that they cannot pay usage fees anyway.

No, it isn't but nothing is perfectly representative of society anyway, our government is not of society, nor is anything else. The existence of their job though, is only dependent upon the maintainence of law and order, which they don't impose too much extra upon that they cannot pay usage fees anyway.And roads, and the government creation of things like the internet, and in many other cases the government creating favorable trade relations with other countries, or the government diverting taxpayer monies to help with their businesses, or a few other things depending upon which job we're talking about.

I would like to apply for Minister of Education

I am a radical libertarian socialist, but as you saw from our cabinet meeting, I am willing to compromise.

You don't know what those two terms mean, do you? They are diametrically opposed to one another. You need to drop the crack pipe and pick up a dictionary.

And Rhaomi, it seems to me that you need a proper defense secretary in your Cabinet... ;)

I would like to apply for Minister of Education

Minister? What do you think this is? The UK? :p

Minister? What do you think this is? The UK? :p

it should be.....:D


Alright, i would like to apply for Head of Education

it should be.....:D


Alright, i would like to apply for Head of Education

i think not your a spy

it should be.....:D


Alright, i would like to apply for Head of Education

Secretary...we call 'em secretaries in the US. :p

it should be.....:D


Alright, i would like to apply for Head of Education

Secretary of State for Education, you'll find. Who isn't a member of Congress.

Secretary...we call 'em secretaries in the US. :p

Well i live in a british colony , we call them ministers of education(MOE)

Make me secretary of education!!!

You don't know what those two terms mean, do you? They are diametrically opposed to one another. You need to drop the crack pipe and pick up a dictionary.Nope.

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[2] In United States because the word "libertarian" is now commonly used by anti-state capitalists, non-authoritarian socialists ot that country often call themselves libertarian socialists to differentiate themselves. In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is a synonym of "anticapitalist". [2]

The right stole it from us, not the other way around.

Nope.



The right stole it from us, not the other way around.

Um...no. And wiki's written by idiots. You can't use it as gospel.

Well i live in a british colony , we call them ministers of education(MOE)
Funny, here in the UK we have a Secretary of State for Education, like in America, but a Minister for Social Inclusion. Odd.

Make me secretary of education!!!
Already taken in the parallel executive thread.:(

Um...no. And wiki's written by idiots. You can't use it as gospel.
Ah, the joys of the Ad Hominem.

I would like to apply for Minister of Education
Sorry, but Gorias already has that job.

And Rhaomi, it seems to me that you need a proper defense secretary in your Cabinet... ;)
Hmm? What's the trouble with Posi?

Funny, here in the UK we have a Secretary of State for Education, like in America, but a Minister for Social Inclusion. Odd.


Already taken in the parallel executive thread.:(

damn I think i have a position i the second goverment but i forgot what it was

Secretary of State for Education, you'll find. Who isn't a member of Congress.

You're right: not a member of Congress. However, secretary of state for education? State and Education are two different departments.

Oh, and if there's no naturally born citizen article for congress (I don't think there is...) I'll volunteer for our parallel congress too. If possible, I'll go for the Senate, so I get better dental.

You're right: not a member of Congress. However, secretary of state for education? State and Education are two different departments.
Oh, my mistake. In the UK, members of the executive take the style "Secretary of State for XXX", not "Secretary of XXX". That slipped my mind.

Ah, the joys of the Ad Hominem.

You should probably learn what that term means before you bandy it about.

Hmm? What's the trouble with Posi?

No trouble with Posi. Just suggesting there might be a better alternative. ;)

You should probably learn what that term means before you bandy it about.
No. You attacked Wikipedia, not the argument it/Jello Baifra presented. An Ad Hominem.

Oh, my mistake. In the UK, members of the executive take the style "Secretary of State for XXX", not "Secretary of XXX". That slipped my mind.

OOH! Rhaomi, can I be secretary of XXX? Your cabinet needs a secretary of porn! :D

No. You attacked Wikipedia, not the argument it/Jello Baifra presented. An Ad Hominem.

Ad hominem = against the man.

Wiki is not a man. If you're going to try using logic arguments, at least know what they mean.

Oh, and if there's no naturally born citizen article for congress (I don't think there is...) I'll volunteer for our parallel congress too. If possible, I'll go for the Senate, so I get better dental.
Political affiliation? (Trying to keep the membership somewhat balanced.)

Ad hominem = against the man.
Yes. The man who wrote that article. Or do you think robots write wiki articles?

Wiki is not a man. If you're going to try using logic arguments, at least know what they mean.
No. You stop trying to wriggle out of making an Ad Hominem. Which you know you made.

Political affiliation? (Trying to keep the membership somewhat balanced.)
Liberal socialist. I'll get my political compass score out is that's useful.

Yes. The man who wrote that article. Or do you think robots write wiki articles?

No, my argument is that wiki has been written by any fool -- not one particular fool -- who feels like spouting off his definition of something. The problem lies with wiki and the citation of it as evidence.

No. You stop trying to wriggle out of making an Ad Hominem. Which you know you made.

Actually, you should stop trying to use philosophical terms and fancy-sounding Latin words that you obviously don't understand.

Um...no. And wiki's written by idiots. You can't use it as gospel.So do you have a source that is written by non-'idiots' that supports your claim?

Liberal socialist. I'll get my political compass score out is that's useful.
I'll put you on hold for now -- there are too many libertarian socialists as it is. You can join once there is more balance.

I'll put you on hold for now -- there are too many libertarian socialists as it is. You can join once there is more balance.

There's a big difference -- in US political speak -- between liberals and libertarians, you know...

No, my argument is that wiki has been written by any fool -- not one particular fool -- who feels like spouting off his definition of something. The problem lies with wiki and the citation of it as evidence.

Well, let me provide the definition of an Ad Hominem for you: "An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself."

Which is exactly what you did.

Actually, you should stop trying to use philosophical terms and fancy-sounding Latin words that you obviously don't understand.
All right then, just so you can continue to feel special, I'll just say that your argument against Wikipedia has in no way effected Jello Baifra's claim.

I'll put you on hold for now -- there are too many libertarian socialists as it is. You can join once there is more balance.
Hokay. :cool:

There's a big difference -- in US political speak -- between liberals and libertarians, you know...
Crap, strike that... I misread "liberal" as "libertarian" in his post. New Burmesia, you're in.

So do you have a source that is written by non-'idiots' that supports your claim?

Let's try the American Heritage Dictionary.

lib·er·tar·i·an n. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

so·cial·ism n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Diametrically opposed.

Crap, strike that... I misread "liberal" as "libertarian" in his post. New Burmesia, you're in.
Ta muchly.

Crap, strike that... I misread "liberal" as "libertarian" in his post. New Burmesia, you're in.

No problem. As you can see from this thread, it's not an uncommon mistake.

Let's try the American Heritage Dictionary.



Diametrically opposed.

http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secI1.html

http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secI1.html

Socialist claptrap. :rolleyes:

The notion that the state controlling all production is somehow condusive to individual libery is, quite frankly, utter bullshit.

Oh, by the way,: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Socialist claptrap. :rolleyes:

The notion that the state controlling all production is somehow condusive to individual libery is, quite frankly, utter bullshit.In libertarian socialism, there is no state.

In libertarian socialism, there is no state.


You've got no idea what "socialism" means at all, do you?

You've got no idea what "socialism" means at all, do you?
Why don't you address what he's saying instead of continually insulting his intelligence?

Why don't you address what he's saying instead of continually insulting his intelligence?

Because what he's saying makes no sense. Socialism requires a state. What he's describing, I believe, is Marxist communism, which has never once been implemented on a national level (in fact, I happen to think, from what I've seen of his posts over the past several months, that JB's a very bright guy). I'm not insulting his intelligence. I'm simply pointing out that terms are being misused.

And roads, and the government creation of things like the internet, and in many other cases the government creating favorable trade relations with other countries, or the government diverting taxpayer monies to help with their businesses, or a few other things depending upon which job we're talking about.
Roads exist whether or not these people are rich or not, enterprises use more roads than people do and they also get taxed more but the rich themselves do not get utility from driving multiple cars at a time, not only that be we already have gas taxes to deal with road quality anyway, so truck businesses already pay more for their use of the road. Everyone benefited off of the internet, rich or poor, in fact, one might even argue that the poor business man gained more than the rich through the fact that it allowed an easier time peddling his wares. The government creating favorable trade relations with other countries helps everyone as well, but it is not a job that requires much extra in taxes or deserves much extra as it is just the government doing its job, it helps enterprise and it helps the average consumer buy cheap goods. Diverting tax payer money to the rich should not be taken though as the job of government is not to intervene in such a manner. It is more justifiable to stop corporate welfare than it is to do anything else. Most of those things you mention benefit just about everyone and are for common use. The rich don't benefit from just using the government to their end, they benefit from using existing resources to the ends of others, and for that reason they deserve their wealth.

Let's try the American Heritage Dictionary.

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary
lib·er·tar·i·an n. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

so·cial·ism n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Diametrically opposed.

Its not diametrically opposed. Collective ownership means communal ownership, not state ownership.

Lets go with another definition for socialism.

Webster's Dictionary

A political theory based on producers own and control the means of producing and distributing goods and services.

Collective ownership, not state ownership.

You've got no idea what "socialism" means at all, do you?

Because what he's saying makes no sense. Socialism requires a state. What he's describing, I believe, is Marxist communism, which has never once been implemented on a national level (in fact, I happen to think, from what I've seen of his posts over the past several months, that JB's a very bright guy). I'm not insulting his intelligence. I'm simply pointing out that terms are being misused.Trotsylvania answered this already, but he should have bolded the whole of "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively"

Roads exist whether or not these people are rich or not, enterprises use more roads than people do and they also get taxed more but the rich themselves do not get utility from driving multiple cars at a time, not only that be we already have gas taxes to deal with road quality anyway, so truck businesses already pay more for their use of the road. Yes, but there is a road network that is planned by government agencies so that everyone isn't expending resources to build roads. Those people who transport materials across the country benefit more from that central planning than those who just drive around locally.

Everyone benefited off of the internet, rich or poor, in fact, one might even argue that the poor business man gained more than the rich through the fact that it allowed an easier time peddling his wares. It allowed everyone an easier time to peddle their wares; since the rich have more wares to peddle, they they would naturally peddle more.

The government creating favorable trade relations with other countries helps everyone as well, but it is not a job that requires much extra in taxes or deserves much extra as it is just the government doing its job, it helps enterprise and it helps the average consumer buy cheap goods. But does not help the laborer who produces the goods that are now being supplied by the foreign country, and is thus out of a job.

Diverting tax payer money to the rich should not be taken though as the job of government is not to intervene in such a manner. It is more justifiable to stop corporate welfare than it is to do anything else. Most of those things you mention benefit just about everyone and are for common use. I don't have a problem with the idea of eliminating corporate welfare; everyone's taxes could be lowered then, but nonetheless we currently have a system of corporate welfare that benefits the rich.

The rich don't benefit from just using the government to their end, they benefit from using existing resources to the ends of others, and for that reason they deserve their wealth.And it is the government that faciliates this process.

Yes, but there is a road network that is planned by government agencies so that everyone isn't expending resources to build roads. Those people who transport materials across the country benefit more from that central planning than those who just drive around locally. Yes, and a lot of this was developed for governmental use in order for the efficient transport of equipment from one place to another such as in a war-time situation. Everyone does benefit from these networks though, but if you think that this should not be supported then we could replace them with toll-roads if you'd like. The only thing is that increasing taxes on the rich for systems that don't benefit just them or even compete with their enterprises is not a just idea.

It allowed everyone an easier time to peddle their wares; since the rich have more wares to peddle, they they would naturally peddle more. Not necessarily, rich people aren't the ones using e-bay and there are many many small businesses. Rich people don't usually directly sell wares as much as the middle classes do.

But does not help the laborer who produces the goods that are now being supplied by the foreign country, and is thus out of a job. Except for the fact that this economy is made up of many enterprises, free trade creates more jobs than it destroys, and consumers benefit the most out of free trade. The people who oppose free-trade are the ones who seek their benefits at the costs of the rest of society.

I don't have a problem with the idea of eliminating corporate welfare; everyone's taxes could be lowered then, but nonetheless we currently have a system of corporate welfare that benefits the rich. Yes, we do, but taxing the rich does not correct what is wrong with the system. Corporate welfare's harm isn't that it makes people rich unjustly, but rather that it takes the money of others and uses it for goals contrary to the wishes and desires of society. Hurting consumer sovereignty and misusing tax money are the wrongs.

And it is the government that faciliates this process.
The government creates the infrastructure that allows for society to work which helps the rich and the poor. The rich become so through the use of their talents to organize systems to benefit others and as such, the rich are not getting so because the government makes them rich but rather through their own efforts.

Yes, and a lot of this was developed for governmental use in order for the efficient transport of equipment from one place to another such as in a war-time situation. Everyone does benefit from these networks though, but if you think that this should not be supported then we could replace them with toll-roads if you'd like. The only thing is that increasing taxes on the rich for systems that don't benefit just them or even compete with their enterprises is not a just idea.I don't think that taxes on the rich should be increased, they're fine where they currently are.

Not necessarily, rich people aren't the ones using e-bay and there are many many small businesses. Rich people don't usually directly sell wares as much as the middle classes do.The internet also helps with advertising, for everyone, rich and poor, but naturally bigger business would do more of that.

Except for the fact that this economy is made up of many enterprises, free trade creates more jobs than it destroys, and consumers benefit the most out of free trade. The people who oppose free-trade are the ones who seek their benefits at the costs of the rest of society.But nonetheless free trade does not help everyone.

Yes, we do, but taxing the rich does not correct what is wrong with the system. Corporate welfare's harm isn't that it makes people rich unjustly, but rather that it takes the money of others and uses it for goals contrary to the wishes and desires of society. Hurting consumer sovereignty and misusing tax money are the wrongs.I'm not entirely certain that society is always against corporate welfare. I bet if there was a large local company that was going out of business, they could conceivably come up with a sob story to get the locals to give them tax money.

The government creates the infrastructure that allows for society to work which helps the rich and the poor. The rich become so through the use of their talents to organize systems to benefit others and as such, the rich are not getting so because the government makes them rich but rather through their own efforts.Through their own efforts in a system that allows them to become rich, you mean. Not all systems allow this.

With that said, if you believe that the rich give as much to the system as they get, why don't you support a flax income tax instead of the randomly regressive FairTax? Even if you wanted a regressive tax system, it would be much more effective to have a regressive income tax as opposed to a tax that essentially is a voluntary donation.

The internet also helps with advertising, for everyone, rich and poor, but naturally bigger business would do more of that. A lot of internet advertisements are for things only found on the internet. As well, the advertisements for big business tend to support sites that everyone benefits from. Without advertising support, many websites would not exist or would require pay per use.

But nonetheless free trade does not help everyone. It helps almost everyone and in the long run it does help everyone.

I'm not entirely certain that society is always against corporate welfare. I bet if there was a large local company that was going out of business, they could conceivably come up with a sob story to get the locals to give them tax money. And for them to do so is not a good thing.

Through their own efforts in a system that allows them to become rich, you mean. Not all systems allow this. The systems that don't allow that tend to be less successful than those that do. The gain of wealth is the incentive to create and innovate great things in many cases.

With that said, if you believe that the rich give as much to the system as they get, why don't you support a flax income tax instead of the randomly regressive FairTax? Even if you wanted a regressive tax system, it would be much more effective to have a regressive income tax as opposed to a tax that essentially is a voluntary donation.
Except that the FairTax is not regressive, the charts and predictions show it will be somewhat progressive. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/390px-Effectiverate.png

as well the taxes gained from the FairTax would be more stable than that of an income tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/images/faq/q9pic.gif

Finally, I support the FairTax because I think it will be easier to get support for than another tax bill because our cabinet is already on board with it as well I can support it as it looks to be a reform that will increase efficiency.

A lot of internet advertisements are for things only found on the internet. As well, the advertisements for big business tend to support sites that everyone benefits from. Without advertising support, many websites would not exist or would require pay per use.Like this one? Lol.

It helps almost everyone and in the long run it does help everyone.It could be argued that free trade in oil has hurt us. If we'd closed up the borders to oil, perhaps we'd have discovered an alternate source of energy by now.

And for them to do so is not a good thing. Well, I agreed with this already, but I will again. I agree. :)

The systems that don't allow that tend to be less successful than those that do. The gain of wealth is the incentive to create and innovate great things in many cases.Perhaps, perhaps not, but nonetheless they couldn't have gotten rich otherwise.

Except that the FairTax is not regressive, the charts and predictions show it will be somewhat progressive. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/390px-Effectiverate.png

as well the taxes gained from the FairTax would be more stable than that of an income tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/images/faq/q9pic.gif I'm a bit skeptical of this chart, because it's trying to predict the unpredictable. The Fair Tax will turn savings accounts into tax shelters, but it will do so at different rates for each individual. Different people will save different amounts. With that said, the lower classes will definitely be spending a larger percentage of their income than the upper classes, as a whole.
Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the amount of sales over the internet that will be ordered from other countries and shipped directly to the consumer. These sales will not be taxed, and anyone can do it - except those who are too poor to have internet access, that is.

Finally, I support the FairTax because I think it will be easier to get support for than another tax bill because our cabinet is already on board with it as well I can support it as it looks to be a reform that will increase efficiency.Well, I can't dispute either of these things.

Like this one? Lol. You mean nationstates?

It could be argued that free trade in oil has hurt us. If we'd closed up the borders to oil, perhaps we'd have discovered an alternate source of energy by now. After suffering massive economic problems due to transportation, we possibly would. The only thing is that no politician in their right mind is going to push such a harmful short-run policy, as well, some development in this direction is going to naturally occur anyway as gas prices will not be getting lower in the long run.


Perhaps, perhaps not, but nonetheless they couldn't have gotten rich otherwise.


I'm a bit skeptical of this chart, because it's trying to predict the unpredictable. The Fair Tax will turn savings accounts into tax shelters, but it will do so at different rates for each individual. Different people will save different amounts. With that said, the lower classes will definitely be spending a larger percentage of their income than the upper classes, as a whole.
Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the amount of sales over the internet that will be ordered from other countries and shipped directly to the consumer. These sales will not be taxed, and anyone can do it - except those who are too poor to have internet access, that is.
All predictions predict the unpredictable, at least all predictions outside the fact that the sun will rise the next day. The lower classes will get more as well, the system includes rebates that will actually remove taxes on low incomes. As well, I doubt that too many sales will occur over the internet because of the time involved with this, however, in such a case all we would need is to look at most major places to buy/sell over the internet and make sure that taxes are included. Really though, I will admit that some problems might arise from this, but I think that the possible problems will be offset by the gains in efficiency.

I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've spent the last week at the hospital visiting a lady from my church, and I've got finals coming up. I'm afraid I'll have to step down from my position (if I haven't been replaced already, I haven't had a chance to read this). I'll be glad to re-join as soon as life calms down. Sorry. Good luck!

I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've spent the last week at the hospital visiting a lady from my church, and I've got finals coming up. I'm afraid I'll have to step down from my position (if I haven't been replaced already, I haven't had a chance to read this). I'll be glad to re-join as soon as life calms down. Sorry. Good luck!

Alrighty. I'll have to find a replacement, but you're welcome to take a regular congressional seat once everything settles down.

I would like to apply for Secretary of Treasury as a Conservative libertarian, but am willing to moderate on some issues.
That position is already taken by Red_Letter (see the link to the second session at the bottom of the OP).

My apologies. *withdraws*

Alrighty. I'll have to find a replacement, but you're welcome to take a regular congressional seat once everything settles down.
Considering that I am one of the most active congressman on this thread and that his position would be a promotion, can I have his place?

You mean nationstates?Yes.

After suffering massive economic problems due to transportation, we possibly would. The only thing is that no politician in their right mind is going to push such a harmful short-run policy, as well, some development in this direction is going to naturally occur anyway as gas prices will not be getting lower in the long run.True, but the more they push the issue, the sooner we will have alternative fuels.

All predictions predict the unpredictable, at least all predictions outside the fact that the sun will rise the next day. The lower classes will get more as well, the system includes rebates that will actually remove taxes on low incomes. As well, I doubt that too many sales will occur over the internet because of the time involved with this, however, in such a case all we would need is to look at most major places to buy/sell over the internet and make sure that taxes are included. It's true that lots of things aren't predictable, but with a fixed amount of income tax, you can predict how much someone will pay based upon what their income is (as long as there are no loopholes).

Really though, I will admit that some problems might arise from this, but I think that the possible problems will be offset by the gains in efficiency.It's not that the government will be getting less money that concerns me, but rather that the benefit that people will be getting from society will outweigh the taxes they pay to society, and that the amount of money a person gives to the government will be determined by their willingness to get around the taxes by putting money into a savings account or by how many goods they order directly from overseas.

True, but the more they push the issue, the sooner we will have alternative fuels.
The only problem is that we would be forcing hardship on the people in order to control their decisions. I can support an alternative fuel subsidy, but to increase the pain on the wallets of every American just to promote certain goals in that type of manner seems a bit too totalitarian for my taste and definitely not very good in the short run.

It's true that lots of things aren't predictable, but with a fixed amount of income tax, you can predict how much someone will pay based upon what their income is (as long as there are no loopholes). You can also predict it somewhat with statistics on the nature of spending for people of that income and wealth range. As well, the assumption that there are no loopholes is flagrantly untrue, a large amount of the drive for FairTax proposals is to eliminate the chance of loopholes that allow people to get out of paying taxes.

It's not that the government will be getting less money that concerns me, but rather that the benefit that people will be getting from society will outweigh the taxes they pay to society, and that the amount of money a person gives to the government will be determined by their willingness to get around the taxes by putting money into a savings account or by how many goods they order directly from overseas.
Except that there is no way to determine benefit gained from society in any meaningful manner, so instead of even looking at some non-objective measurement which arguably wealth may not even present due to the nature of property rights, it is better to look at the benefits of the tax system from a more utilitarian perspective. There are already means of tax evasion, and the amount that people pay the government already is somewhat determined by their willingness to get around taxes. The only thing is that rich people don't normally use savings accounts due to the low interest rates, I would imagine they would prefer investment which means they would pay a capital gains tax on their earnings, as well, getting foreign packages is relatively expensive on its own, as well, foreign mail in the form of packages can be regulated if we find this to be a problem. I think that most people would rather pay taxes than get involved with smuggling, especially considering that some goods cannot even be effectively smuggled anyway.

The only problem is that we would be forcing hardship on the people in order to control their decisions. I can support an alternative fuel subsidy, but to increase the pain on the wallets of every American just to promote certain goals in that type of manner seems a bit too totalitarian for my taste and definitely not very good in the short run.
The pain on american wallets will happen whether you like it or not. It just depends whether you want a small amount now, or a huge amount later.

The pain on american wallets will happen whether you like it or not. It just depends whether you want a small amount now, or a huge amount later.
Except that I approved technology subsidies. As well, I am opposed to government instated pain, and as well, the pain will be high no matter what happens. I do not tend to think that the gas market will just suddenly collapse though, it will get higher at a relatively gradual rate causing more investment into different cars and into alternative fuels. For the government to manipulate the economy in such an intentional manner seems very totalitarian and a bad precedent.

Except that I approved technology subsidies. As well, I am opposed to government instated pain, and as well, the pain will be high no matter what happens.
It will be higher if we do nothing. Instead of considering it pain, consider it an investment.

I do not tend to think that the gas market will just suddenly collapse though, it will get higher at a relatively gradual rate causing more investment into different cars and into alternative fuels.
In an economy so reliant on oil as ours is, the effects of the price of oil rising will be huge, even without counting the economic effects of climate change as well. The more we get ourselves off our addiction to oil (yuck - I quoted Bush) and the sooner we do it, the better.

For the government to manipulate the economy in such an intentional manner seems very totalitarian and a bad precedent.
Why?

Bureaucrats
Usually
Must
Pass (laws)

Enough debate... let's get with the legislating so we can move on to new things.

It will be higher if we do nothing. Instead of considering it pain, consider it an investment. So, our investment is to force individuals into acting how we desire??? That isn't an investment, an investment would be a research subsidy, which is something I approve of. We should let gasoline be valued at its cost to society though.


In an economy so reliant on oil as ours is, the effects of the price of oil rising will be huge, even without counting the economic effects of climate change as well. The more we get ourselves off our addiction to oil (yuck - I quoted Bush) and the sooner we do it, the better.
Yes, and you are suggesting that we start raising the prices now which will hurt the economy, even though if we let the economy grow now that could create more resources which could be pushed to researching alternative fuels and ultimately allow us to have our cake and eat it too to some extent. I seek to avoid most of the bad economic impact if possible, while still giving people a relatively free hand over their lives. The addiction to oil is not innately bad just like our addictions to air and food are not innately bad, the problem comes with fears about our supply of oil and as such I would suggest that we simply act to subsidize research so that way when our supply of oil finally does get threatened, then we won't have to worry about it and can use our success during the fat years to prepare for the lean.


Why?
I dunno, because strongly interventionist economic policies seem to be things I associate with totalitarian societies due to the fact that they run counter to free choice to favor governmental power, especially when the measures are to control purchases made by individuals within a society and in effect to control individual action out of a desire to compulse people to act as governmental officials desire. It seems that this type of action taken without regard to the people, will lead us down the path of totalitarian states.

Bureaucrats
Usually
Must
Pass (laws)

Enough debate... let's get with the legislating so we can move on to new things.
All being said, I see no reason to not pass the recommendations from the white house.

So, how do we take votes? Do we just say what we support and what we don't? Or will we be using a more formal process?