Home  ›  News  ›

Cell Tax Ban Proposed Again

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 29 replies

Hmm...I disagree with this

Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 11:21 AM
I consider myself a Libertarian, so it may sound odd that I would be against a moratorium on taxes, but I don't feel it is just for the federal government to impose upon a State's right to tax. I understand the intention is good, but I cannot morally support the federal government yet again impeding upon State's rights. What's next? Universal healthcare?

Oh...
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 12:44 PM
I'm a Libertarian, too and this is yet another reason why our conventions are so chaotic. I wish the closet Republicans would leave. Anyone who doesn't vote for Libertarian candidates at all times should declare themselves something else. I would be fine with them saying they had Libertarian leanings but you either are or you aren't. It's not about States Rights it is about the Power of the People. The main reason Libertarians are closely aligned with the States Rights position is that USUALLY the people have a greater influence the closer one gets to the local communities. However, to place a "moral" argument against tax increases or new taxes is downright inane.
...
Partyking

Mar 11, 2011, 2:15 PM
this country is in to much debt cutting taxes will only lead to cutting more services in this country
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 2:26 PM
LOLWUT?!

🤣

OK, sorry, but thanks for the laugh! First of all, cutting taxes will not result in cutting expenditures. See: 2011 federal budget and $1.3 trillion deficit.

And, why wouldn't you want services to be cut? Do you actually want the size of government to increase? Do you even know what the vision of the Founders was?
...
Versed

Mar 11, 2011, 8:25 PM
Hitting people up with taxes on mobile devices, and leaving other services un taxed or un touched isn't far. Its just politically easier to do. Want to give free phone service out, sure, hit up the schmuck with a cell plan. Want to give some rednecks broadband that their local provider or community doesn't want to supply, hit up the schmuck with the cell plan.

I'm sure most of these taxes originated during the early to mid 90's when mobile devices weren't as popular and used by corporations and people with higher incomes (not that's an excuse). But things are different now, you're hurting the average consumer. These taxes should be removed, or lowered to under 10% including the local sales tax.

If someone doesn't want or don't fee...
(continues)
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 8:38 PM
I clearly understand the effects of taxation. Very, very, very clearly. I do not need a middle school explanation of it.

You are all missing the point, so I will make it rudely obvious:

The federal government is, by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution, not allowed to infringe upon the rights of the states.

I hate taxes. I hate everything about them. I hate the Sixteenth Amendment. I hate giving away my hard-earned money. I make $16,000 a year and I pay regular price for my cell phone bill, so I know what it is like to be a 'regular' consumer.

However, just because it is convenient for the federal government to intervene does not mean that I am going to justify it. I...
(continues)
...
Caucasian

Mar 12, 2011, 2:26 PM
People always sound altruistic on paper, but in action, they eventually corrupt.

I believe that some people do want the best, but as the saying goes "All power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absolutely".

In this sense we can only vote for what we believe to the best candidate, and in voting straight party you are doing yourself no favors. You are simply giving a certain party absolute power of your choices and decisions.

Yes our country could do so much more, but we will have to accept it for what it is now and change it as we go, and if everyone agrees maybe it will work.
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 12:52 PM
Do you have any idea how pompous this sounds?

Blame South Carolina for starting a war that the South lost. I cannot believe we are having this discussion in 2011. If wireless consumers are already being taxed at twice the rate of other consumer goods then that is a bad thing. Period. What did you look at the politicians who were supporting it and say to yourself, "Rush wouldn't support this so I am not allowed to either." Think for yourself and maybe re-evaluate your political ideology while you're at it. You don't pass the Libertarian test to me. More like a Social Conservative by what I've read from you in the Lounge.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 1:51 PM
Why do you always assume things about me? I don't get my beliefs from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. My political philosophy roots from Ayn Rand's Objectivism (and she wasn't even a Libertarian!). I form my own beliefs, Azeron, yet you falsely assumed yet another thing about me. It makes you look foolish.

Is this not an issue of morals? It is to me. Politics are morals. The issue of taxation is indeed one of morals - at least for me.

Do I adhere strictly to the beliefs of Libertarianism? Hell no. It's simply the best way to quickly describe my political philosophy, because I more closely adhere to Libertarianism than I do any other political philosophy, but you shouldn't be so quick to wrongly assume. From what you've posted in the loun...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 3:08 PM
Your mathematical skills are certainly on par with your ability to reason and debate.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 3:19 PM
I like the part where you criticize my ability to debate with a one-liner.

+1
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 5:37 PM
Frankly, it's not a criticism. It's a statement. If you believe your skills are all great then it should work well from your view.
...
muchdrama

Mar 11, 2011, 4:47 PM
Joby Dick said:
I consider myself a Libertarian, so it may sound odd that I would be against a moratorium on taxes, but I don't feel it is just for the federal government to impose upon a State's right to tax. I understand the intention is good, but I cannot morally support the federal government yet again impeding upon State's rights. What's next? Universal healthcare?

Oh...


Just another reason to get a good pre-paid service and pay virtually no taxes.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 5:01 PM
You're missing the point. Do you think that I, an advocate of near-anarchy level government, would ever be in favor of an increase in taxes? Of course not!

But that's not the point. The point is, states [supposedly] have rights, and those rights are granted by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Banning their right to taxation is, technically, unconstitutional. But what can we expect? The Seventeenth Amendment made sure that the states lost fair representation in Congress.
...
muchdrama

Mar 11, 2011, 5:10 PM
Joby Dick said:
You're missing the point. Do you think that I, an advocate of near-anarchy level government, would ever be in favor of an increase in taxes? Of course not!

But that's not the point. The point is, states [supposedly] have rights, and those rights are granted by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Banning their right to taxation is, technically, unconstitutional. But what can we expect? The Seventeenth Amendment made sure that the states lost fair representation in Congress.


I'll stick with my right to eat.
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 5:40 PM
States don't have rights...people do. If the Feds can stop the State of Alabama from raping me...I am ALL for it.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 6:33 PM
You're right - not anymore. But for your information, they actually are designed to. Why else would we have two chambers of Congress? To look cool?

No. The Senate was originally designed to be disconnected from the people in order to more efficiently serve the states. Originally, Senators were elected by State legislatures. The 17th changed it to where the people elect Senators, which was the intended purpose of the House. Now, we just have a cluster**** of ignorant votes, and both the House and the Senate serve the people, while states are left behind.
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 7:24 PM
You're not a Libertarian. THAT'S for sure. Whatever you are...you are scary. People are ignorant? Many of the Founding Fathers were elitists but not all of them. The fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly by the people was one of many compromises that was made just to put the nation together. The 3/5 clause for slavery representation was another Don't act as though they all spoke with one voice. If Jefferson hadn't been in France, I have no doubt that the guys who overthrew the Articles government would have been outed as traitors. They did give us a shining example of a peaceful revolution however and we certainly need another one, but not to hand power to the States but to the People where it belongs.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 11, 2011, 8:31 PM
Joby Dick said:
Do I adhere strictly to the beliefs of Libertarianism? Hell no. It's simply the best way to quickly describe my political philosophy, because I more closely adhere to Libertarianism than I do any other political philosophy


Uh, thanks, I guess, for pointing out what I already said.

Jefferson had foolish ideas of government at times. He wanted an extremely weak federal government (AoC weak), a weak military, and he wanted the US to remain a rural agricultural land. He was too radical at times even for me.

As for your comment on state powers, you do know that you're wrong, don't you? The Virginia Plan (also known as the 'Big States Plan') and the New Jersey Plan (also known as t...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Mar 11, 2011, 9:18 PM
The Constitution doesn't GIVE rights to anyone. It LIMITS the power of the Federal Government. Stating that powers belong to the States or the People is unnecessary. As long as you realize that you are not a Libertarian. Find something else to crow about when you decide to make your inane statements.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 12, 2011, 12:31 AM
Azeron said:
The Constitution doesn't GIVE rights to anyone. It LIMITS the power of the Federal Government.


You make an excellent point, and I concede. +1

Stating that powers belong to the States or the People is unnecessary.


Why?
...
Azeron

Mar 12, 2011, 2:06 AM
The purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT or DEFINE Federal powers.

The point is We the People cannot trust ANY government to do the right thing. As far as I am concerned one is a lion and the other a jackal. The people are a man who has to use all of his wits to survive. If one attacks the man and the other intercedes in my view that is a GOOD thing. It is my desire to keep the two at one another's throats fighting for the prize that is the man's flesh (his liberty, his life his self-determination) for as long as possible. So the States Rights versus Federal Power debate is a false one in my view. The framers placed checks in the Constitution which simply do not work. The Executive Branch has seized powers it does not have. W...
(continues)
...
Versed

Mar 11, 2011, 11:25 PM
Joby,
While this really isn't the forum for all of this, I will say this, the founding fathers of the Constitution allowed for Amendments, the 17th Amendment was legally put into place for better or worse. I happen to agree with direct election of the Senate. I do understand what you're saying. The NJ Compromise really isn't abrogated because each state, only has two Senators.
...
MadFatMan

Mar 12, 2011, 11:48 AM
Let us all understand understated fact number one. Neither state or federal government can create revenue, it simply takes it from those of us who have worked for it and give it to those who have not.

Fact number two there is no such thing as shared wealth, only shares poverty.

It's not weather or not the feds have the right to do this or not its the exertion of power and setting the precedence. Never before in my adult life have I seen so many cases where BOTH sides are pushing the envelope as to where one jurisdiction ends and the other begins. It has been an all out mad Achilles yard power grab between the states and the federal government and the people are losing big time.

Yes, I would like a lower or in this case a stabilized...
(continues)
...
james_ryan_johns

Mar 12, 2011, 11:59 AM
I agree with what Andrew Jackson said... "The goverment should live within its means."

To often the solution for trying to balance the budget (both state and fed) is to raise taxes and fees. Instead how about they look at their own overblown salaries, pensions, and benifits.

I for one am sick of paying more of my hard earned money because some idiot wants to act like a teenager with daddys' checkbook.
...
MadFatMan

Mar 12, 2011, 12:03 PM
Andrew Jackson said as well "F*** the native Americans! The treaties that they signed with local government doesnt hold water" then so started the Trail of Tears
...
Azeron

Mar 12, 2011, 6:00 PM
Nobody's perfect. Jefferson was a slaver. Should I disregard the good things about him because of that hypocrisy?
...
Joby Dick

Mar 12, 2011, 6:49 PM
You must disregard everything Jefferson ever said, even the separation of church and state, 'cause he owned slaves, which was traditional for his time.

🙄
...
Azeron

Mar 13, 2011, 5:40 PM
Traditional for his time and yet something Jefferson knew was wrong. His writings make this clear.
...
Joby Dick

Mar 13, 2011, 7:37 PM
Yeah I know..

I shouldn't have included that segment. Regardless of his moral err, he is still remembered as a champion of liberty and a significant facet of the birth of the United States. His legacy is proof of his greatness, albeit flawed in ways.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2018 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.