Tea Bag Socialists

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....and the philosophy of Libertarian socialism, which argues that genuine free-markets weaken the capitalist class and empower the working class.

quoting a wikipedia entry on libertarian socialism is disingenuous at best. there are so many ideologies concerning economic and political theory and they are labeled in such an obtuse manner that those labels become almost meaningless. the concept of a libertarian socialist is nearly an oxymoron. there are certainly deluded fools out there that believe a libertarian's minimal government is capable of controlling a massive nation's economy, as in the socialist model, but those are the sort of naive, ivory tower idiots that have gotten us into the mess we are in now. the u.s. began its life as a libertarian society, a loosely knit alliance of separate states with the federal government as the final arbiter in assuring the liberty of the individual. in about two centuries that limited federal authority has become the oppressive voice of control through its use of federally mandated programs and overreaching power grabs, centralizing control to a nearly totalitarian degree. this is the outcome of mixing the near anarchism of libertarian thought with the stringent control required by socialist dogma. the liberty assured by one is overridden by the necessary centralized power of the other.

.....as far as gettin rid of social programs well lets see where we will be with absolutely no social programs.....
my point is socialist programs do have their good points.

there are very few who would demand the abolition of all social programs. a certain amount of charity within government is a sign of a healthy society. the dilemma is deciding at what point does the scope of those programs become oppressive to the nation as a whole and where should the power to control those programs reside. the expansion of liberty demands that such charitable causes be gradually taken over by the private sector and placed in the hands of regional authority. this country is on the opposite course, centralizing that authority at the expense of the individual's freedom of choice. the quest for moral solutions to the ills of society is leading to the creation of the same sort of totalitarian regime that has failed time and again in nations across the globe.

I have no problem with a graduated flat tax. Face it, the more you make the more you give up. I'm not saying rob the rich, but make them ante up. Most of the corporate CEOs could afford to pay 50% flat and still live high off the hog. Thieves must pay their far share.

i'd say you haven't the faintest idea what the term "flat tax" means. what you describe is the progressive taxation that penalizes success, inhibiting growth for the sake of some illusory concept of "fairness". while you may deny it, what you are really saying is "steal from the rich to give to the poor" and your reasoning is based on the same tired rhetoric of envy that all of modern liberalism is based on. you equate the accumulation of wealth with evil and seem to see some inherent nobility in poverty.

the debt owed by the successful is one of ethics and of gratitude, not of the law, and the use of government's force to exact revenge on the mob's chosen scapegoats is no more moral than the outright theft you claim to abhor. just because the rich can afford to pay does not mean that we should be allowed to demand the payment of such usurious taxation under the threat of government's violent force. we should not allow some vague notion of social benefit to override the inviolate freedom of choice and personal ownership of self that is promised to us all by the constitution. we may praise those who engage in charity and damn those who hold the material above the welfare of their neighbor, but to demand conformity through force is nothing more than the mob's sin of envy. perhaps you would have us all believe that we are nothing more than beasts of the herd, but i certainly hope that we are capable of better.