Scalia says students should revolt if taxes get too high

Originally posted by whodey
Make no mistake, Obama is an empty suit, much like "W". I view them as one in the same.

yes but are you blaming him for all of the debt? this was my actual point, if you are then the statement is misleading.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but are you blaming him for all of the debt? this was my actual point, if you are then the statement is misleading.

Are you really that dense?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/20/scalia-taxes_n_5182480.html

While giving a speech to a group of law students, Supreme Court Justice Scalia said that if taxes become too high, perhaps citizens should revolt. 😲

When asked if taxing income was Constitutional, he said he thought it was. Keep in mind, however, that before progressives added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, SCOTUS ruled it Unconstitutional.

Scalia should be careful what he wishes for. If there is a revolution, he'll likely be among the first the crowd with pitchforks and torches come for.

Originally posted by Phranny
For those of you who oppose taxation and the infrastructure for which it pays, I suggest you try "growing" your business in Somalia as it has a very small government, few taxes and an infrastructure privately supported.

The comparison between the US and Somalia is ludicrous. Somalia has almost no effective government. Nobody in the US is suggesting power be left to self appointed warlords.

The US got along decently under the Articles of Confederation, and solved a few problems in commerce by adopting the Constitution. A Civil War altered the government somewhat, but it still remained fairly limited. Not until 1913 did the power to tax incomes alter that status, and subsequent changes in government finances and goals put the US in the 21st century far into debt and annual deficit spending.

The US stands in the position of other World Powers of the past who didn't recognize the costs of supporting an empire. It was actually easier, and more predictable in the US to start and grown a business in the 19th century, when taxes and government were still quite limited. Today, notwithstanding the challenges of a Somalia, most of the businesses in the US are run on obscene amounts of debt, as well as savage taxation, and we are growing a class of dependent citizens, which characterize the fall of previous empires.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I thought the notion that social welfare programmes like Social Security and Medicare added to life expectancy was uncontroversial. Tax rates and life expectancy are correlated (not just in the US). Check out the data if you're interested.

The existence of two things in a somewhat similar time frame is no proof of causation. Coexistence doesn't prove causation.

The very same thing could be said of capitalism.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How did some economies get "better" than others?

For three centuries, capitalism.

Originally posted by Eladar
Are you really that dense?

try addressing the content of the post, who knows, you may do better, you could hardly do any worse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you blaming the President for the entire debt? If not then this statement is misleading.

'the massive debt that has been built up by Obama'

Of course the current President isn't to blame entirely for all of the debt. His share of it is more than enough.

Originally posted by normbenign
Of course the current President isn't to blame entirely for all of the debt. His share of it is more than enough.

how much would you say? five percent, ten percent? or as whoders alleges, all of it?

Originally posted by Eladar
Are you really that dense?

Robbie is a conflicted soul.

On the one hand, he loves Obama because he redistributes money because at his heart of hearts, Robbie is a collectivist.

On the other hand, his religion tells him that he cannot vote because politics is of the devil. He then starts threads about the US government being an oligarchical tyranny.

Poor soul, he is a tormented one that Robbie. :'(

Originally posted by whodey
Robbie is a conflicted soul.

On the one hand, he loves Obama because he redistributes money because at his heart of hearts, Robbie is a collectivist.

On the other hand, his religion tells him that he cannot vote because politics is of the devil. He then starts threads about the US government being an oligarchical tyranny.

Poor soul, he is a tormented one that Robbie. :'(

once again try to actually address the content of a text rather than the now obligatory logical fallacy, you may do better, so how much of your national debt is the President to blame for, 100% as you claim?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
once again try to actually address the content of a text rather than the now obligatory logical fallacy, you may do better, so how much of your national debt is the President to blame for, 100% as you claim?

Unfortunately the US political system transfers responsibility for slaying all the dragons entirely to the new president, in part because candidates are required to promise that they will slay all the dragons. The public demands such promises be made. When the promises are broken, many conclude that the candidate didn't really want to do it and in fact intended to continue and expand on whatever bad things were being done. So instead of intending to slay the dragons, he must have supported them all along.

Originally posted by JS357
Unfortunately the US political system transfers responsibility for slaying all the dragons entirely to the new president, in part because candidates are required to promise that they will slay all the dragons. The public demands such promises be made. When the promises are broken, many conclude that the candidate didn't really want to do it and in fact intende ...[text shortened]... being done. So instead of intending to slay the dragons, he must have supported them all along.

I see, perhaps if the president had been a fairy god mother with a magic wand, then again, even then he would be chastised for not casting enough magic spells! or putting the price up on ruby red slippers!

Originally posted by JS357
Unfortunately the US political system transfers responsibility for slaying all the dragons entirely to the new president, in part because candidates are required to promise that they will slay all the dragons. The public demands such promises be made. When the promises are broken, many conclude that the candidate didn't really want to do it and in fact intende ...[text shortened]... being done. So instead of intending to slay the dragons, he must have supported them all along.

Isn't it the truth. All blame and credit mostly goes to Presidents, even when they did little to deserve either.

Originally posted by normbenign
For three centuries, capitalism.

Don't nearly all modern economies incorporate aspects of capitalism?