Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15544)	9/4/2001 10:42:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Neocon, there is a difference between high taxes and high salaries for CEOs. No one is forced to pay CEOs high salary under threat of death or imprisonment. Just looking at the different requirements of the 19th century military and a modern military will show a lot of the reason for the rise in the price of government. We are now supporting several times the original number of Congressmen and staffs; congressional oversight is now much more extensive, and requires much greater committee staffing, than at mid- century; there is an extensive array of national parks and wilderness areas to administer; and so forth. The majority of the increase in federal spending falls in none of those areas but rather in social security, medicare, medicaid and other transfer payments. The congressional staff has increased a lot but it is not a significant factor in the overall budget and to the extent that there is any legitimate need for this expansion it is because the rest of the government has expanded so much. The military is much bigger but so is the population and our per capita GDP is also much larger. The cost of the military as a % of GDP may be larger then it was for most of the 19th century but the increase is much smaller then the increase of the rest of the budget, and the % of GDP for defense is much smaller then it was for most of the post WWII period. The national parks and wilderness areas cost only a small part of the government budget and it can be argued that the extent of government ownership of America's land is itself a sign of reduced freedom. The increase of regulatory control over the land the government does not own is more clearly a sign of reduced freedom. Tim

To: Neocon who wrote (15544)	12/29/2002 4:33:56 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

In a free society the individual has a lien on the state; the state does not have a lien on the individual. The taxation of an individual's successful creation of wealth is against personal liberty and philosophically immoral. Our Founding Fathers knew that. The individual has rights; the state has no rights. With the creation of the United States of America a country came into being that had limited and severely restricted powers. It was designed that way to protect the Republic and individual rights and freedoms. The Hamiltonian federalists, over the past 150 years, have managed to trash almost every protection and blur the lines to the point where the power of the state is now oppressing the rights of the people. Lincoln was wrong. You can fool most of the people most of the time. FT