Top Gun,
Thank you for answering the questions. This is one of the few posts you've made in reply to one of mine where I get the sense you were being honest and not looking to score cheap political points. I wish we could have more exchanges such as this because they are far more gratifying than our usual exchanges.
Balancing unfair inequities.... Sounds like you are trying to bring about equality of outcome and that is the essence of "to each according to his need, from each according to ability." Helping specific people is not the 'general welfare' of all Americans.
Did you read the Democrat platform of 1960? They haven't given up on those goals. Aside from that; what is there to stop the general welfare clause from being used to bring about an "all inclusive" socialist state?
Both the flat and fair tax would bring in as much, in some cases more, revenue than the progressive tax system. You won't even take a serious look at them but nations such as Russia have implemented them, replacing their progressive tax, and its been a huge boon to their revenue and economy.
Our budget under Clinton was 2 trillion, we didn't have people dieing in the streets and our military wasn't languishing at those spending levels. Obama's budget is 4 trillion dollars, we don't have twice as many people on SS and Medicare and we don't have twice as much of a military. Yet if I were to suggest we cut federal spending by 50% and return to Clinton levels of spending, you'd be the first to claim I want people dieing in the street and kicked off SS, welfare, medicare etc... We simply cannot continues this spending, it is unsustainable.
That's simply untrue on many levels. Going to a flat tax or a fair tax would reduce the amount of taxes those at the bottom pay and make it easier for them to move up through the income quintiles.
In fascist Germany, business was "privately" owned but regulated so that everything they did would be in the best interest of the public.
Regulated so that they operate in the best interest of the public? No one is arguing they should not be regulated but they shouldn't there should be no regulations outside of protecting the public from force and fraud.
Where is the constitutional authority for government to act like a bank?
Banks do loan money but they don't step into the driver seat and make business decisions for the companies they loan money to... The Government is dictating business policy and making business decisions for the companies they loan money to.
I would disagree to some extent. The Democrat platform was that of discrimination against minorities, now its a platform of discrimination against whites. They are still the party of discrimination. The Republicans are still liberal on economic issues but have become way too progressive on their social and military policies. Prior to Bush I, it was Democrats who had taken America into all its wars.
If only Democrat ideas are any good, and if the only way for Republican ideas to be any good is for them to be identical to democrat ideas, then why have a Republican party?
But according to you, the Republicans need to agree with the policy positions of the Democrats in order to be "good". If they 'evolve in a positive manor' as you suggest, there would be nothing of substance to differentiate the two parties. We would have a one party system with the only difference being the elephant and donkey representing them.
You cannot balance them. In order to do whats in the public interest, individual rights must be violated. For example, Universal Healthcare is said to be in the public interest, but such a program violates individual rights.
Yet you support programs and policies that do violate the rights of the minority, such as Universal Healthcare and Means Testing for Social Security.
Sounds very much like my Libertarian viewpoint that gambling, prostitution, drugs and anything else adults choose to do without violating the rights of others is no business of the government.
Sounds like you support heavily taxing products such as tobacco, alcohol, sugary foods, as well as all other things that are deemed unhealthy in order to "limit" the bad behavior. Such taxes disproportionately affect the poor and increase poverty, yet you support them because you think these taxes can "limit" bad behavior. Such taxes don't "limit" unhealthy choices, they punish them.
I never claimed it was perfect, like Capitalism, its the least imperfect. I too look at all sides and make a determination on what the best path is to follow, having a philosophy does not prevent that. You did not answer the question though: what philosophy do you follow? Based on your answers, sounds like Pragmatism.
"Extreme" positions are good, there are some principles and ideas worth fighting for that we should never compromise.