re: So I was born in the late 90s and consider myself to be pretty liberal...

quote:

---

So you're an ugly conservative who died in the late 90s?

---

quote:

---

I never said it wasnt; but I'd rather things like food, infrastructure (or a mix of public and private), health care... just some things outside of basic national security be regulated by people accountable to the public instead of shareholders.

---

The personal freedoms and the booming economy that comes from people being allowed to prosper in regard to their enthusiastic personal industry, can only be sustained by "a moral and religious people", T. That was the Founder's pov.

The Founders also warned that when the People realized that they could write themselves checks from the National Treasury...the temptation to do so would overrule the discipline not to do so. Because who gets checks from the Treasury - and how much - must be based on both a moral/just and practical (sustainable) criteria. I.e., "social justice" becomes "income equality"...sooner or later. It is a virtual fait accompli.

A Democracy is no better than the wisdom and will power of the Populous, since they are the ultimate decision-maker. Therein, the "moral and religious" point of the Founders. Take a good look at the man on the street out there - the lower class, those who are in 'need' for various reasons - and tell me they are wise and willful enough not to go for writing themselves checks out of the Treasury. Or tell me WHAT wisdom that you (as a future 'Regulator' can offer those unwise (and in many cases, willfully immoral/irresponsible/ignorant) that will persuade them to become productive and responsible citizens.

The best you could hope for in your above quote, is that the people who regulate the Government (Politicians/Bureaucrats) would be both wise and willfully adept...and able to elucidate and persuade (to the Populous) why "social justice/income equality" is NOT just...but rather unjust. Nor practical and sustainable. Like trying to persuade the Kids that we can't spend the family income on goodies.

In spirit, I agree with you sentiments. It may well be that provision of life's basic needs can be "regulated by people accountable to the public" in the form of that which now regulates our Energy Companies (Entergy, DemCo, et al). I imagine (I don't know) that Corporate profits have a (regulated) limit, and an allowed profit sufficient to deliver the least expensive service to the folk. I'd be fine with that IF indeed the services/goods delivered were of sufficient quality; but looking at the VA...I really don't trust Bureaucracy and virtual unaccountability.

Bottom line. Herding cats. Jesus knew that; He split pretty quick, before things could get out of hand...re 'hand outs'. Good luck.

quote:

---

To me, all it seems like is Trump selling his base a piece of legislation that will only hurt them and their children in the long run along with a massive hole in the deficit to be blown that doesn’t sound like something conservatives and tea party members would be excited about.

---

You are young and dumb so I guess you get a pass. there are several variables here that you just simply are ignoring. One being the obvious fact that tax cuts have tremendous potential to grow the economy. The economy is not a zero-sum game. with more people making more money they will pay more taxes. Comprend?

also the money does not belong to the government. taxes are meant to pay for essential government function. history has shown that Government never stops growing and stops the rate of spending. Even in recessions the government always spends more. The only way to stop this is to stop feeding the government so much of the peoples money. even if taxes didn't grow the economy, there is still the fact that Americans are taxed too much. The government needs to stop spending so much. that's how you fix your deficit and your debt

quote:

---

This. Can't all these people who want more taxes voluntarily give more money to the government?

---

why of course they can, but they don't want to pay more themselves.

They just want you to pay more.

(no message)

quote:

---

Ronald Regan exposes this point better than any president in the last 100 years. It is very simple.

---

Generically agree with your points, but 1984 was the beginning of taxation of SS retirement benefits which was the worst kind of taxation. Paid into with taxes by workers and employers, then turnaround and tax benefits...of course we know why that is.

quote:

---

Back in here; I really only had one question about why the tax bill was supported by those that it might hurt. I got my answer. Y'all (those that make enough, i assume) just feel like yall already pay enoughGood enough answer for me, I guess, without getting into how it affects other people. But this is the party of no safety nets and personal responsibility so theres no point of traveling down that road.

---

I don't think you understand much about this tax bill honestly. And I agree it's hard to discern from some of the comments here, but this bill does not help the wealthy very much at all, and it surely does not hurt the middle class or poor.....like at all.

"Those that make enough", as you refer to are mostly middle class people, including myself. I assume by "other people" you mean the poor, but this bill does absolutely nothing to hurt the poor, so I don't really know where you're going with this.

quote:

---

also just want to challenge the idea that private entities always handle funds better. Most just worry about their bottom line.

---

Well if you look at it from an economic standpoint, most gov't entities are grossly inefficient and lose money hand over fist. They have zero incentive to be efficient. Private companies on the other hand do. That's the easiest answer to a complex question.