Forums » Off-Topic
------------------------------------
"BTW, Magus, that site is pure Democratic propaganda. He wants voters to be informed, and then suggest they find information on political candidates from the "Office of Democratic Whip of Congress." Nothing against Pelosi, but don't think you think that's violation of interests?"
------------------------------------
That's like saying anybody that is critical of President Bush must be Democratic propaganda. I suppose Richard Clarke, Barry Goldwater, and Pat Buchanan are all agents of Democratic propaganda too then?
He references the Democracts because Conservative economic policy is what made America this way to begin with. Naturally someone who believes the facts he has layed out would be a liberal.
-----------
all left of center, if not extremist (in MoveOn.org's case).
-----------
MoveOn.org is extremist? Please explain how.
------------------
Somehow, those who made it themselves should be taxed to give the crack addict more welfare.
--------------------
And this stereotype of all welfare recipients being crack addicts isn't toeing the Republican party line that any economic safety net should be abolished and we should all be forced to fight like mongrels for ever-shrinking scraps (wages) being doled out to us by the "invisible hand?" Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President said that "Labor should be the superior of capital if this country's economic security is to be ensured." (paraphrased) Do you honestly think todays Republican party thinks labor should be the superior of capital? There are two reasons we have a welfare safety net:
1.) Is so that we don't have legions of poor, starving people roaming our streets. What do you think a scenario like that would do to crime rates?
2.) Is so workers can compete on the basis of skill and experience instead of who is willing to work for cheap. It also helps keep wages at above a subsistence level.
And it will happen if you don't have a safety net. Adam Smith predicts it. In Wealth of Nations he says that the capitalist can, ultimately manipulate labor to do whatever he wants. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Why shouldn't the people who do the work be entitled to a fair share of the fruits of their labor? It's common sense. The one with the money holds the power. The ones without the power need to be protected.
-----------------
Fifty-one one thousandths of a percent of the population have over a million dollars, HORRORS!
-----------------
The problem here is classification. The census beaurau's economic stats are outdated. A million dollars isn't worth as much as it used to be, but that's the highest bracket they give. The concern isn't the fact that people are filing tax returns of over a million dollars, it's the fact that people file for hundereds of millions, if not billions of dollars. And the fact that so much money is in so few hands is the problem.
-------------
So we tax the rich, give to the poor. Never mind that this isn't Robin Hood!! Those that are rich in this country earned their money! A flat tax would "burden" the middle and lower classes more BECAUSE THEY PAY SO LITTLE TAX ALREADY! That is what is being unsaid! Taxes can amount to 90% for those that make several million. That is why the "rich" benefit largely from nearly any tax cut, because they're already paying so much!
----------------
I'd like to see how much a rich man's money is worth without the government infrastructure that supports it. Government honoring his currency, a government that insures his bank deposits, a government that provides infrastructure for them to use their money to invest in things, protects their envestments, gives them the service of law enforcement to protect their assets, the list goes on. The rich use just as much of the government's resources as the poor. Do you think McDonalds or any other retail chain could survive without a government built and supported interstate highway system to ensure the speedy and reliable delivery of goods? How much money do you think any overseas shipping company could make without the might of the US Navy to ensure that there is no such thing as piracy? And lets not forget the political clout a few greenbacks can get you.
But that's all moot. The government only decides what's fair when it comes to criminal proceedings as a matter of necessity. When it comes to policy, fairness goes out the window. The government's has only 3 concerns.
1.) What do we need to do to ensure that the maximum amount of our citizens can enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness?
2.) What resources do we need to do it?
3.) Where can we get those resources and where should we apply them in a manner that will enable us to ensure the maximum good with minimal harm?
And that, more than any other reason is why the rich need to pay more tax. It's not the government's place to decide who deserves the money. Everyone can come up with a reason why the deserve an extra $1000. The government decides who needs the money. And it doesn't make sense to use shift the tax burden over to the people who need it in the first place. If you want to make sure that people who can't afford it can get decent healthcare, it doesn't make much sense to tax them and make them pay for the healthcare does it? If they could afford to do that the government wouldn't neeed to provide the service in the first place.
"BTW, Magus, that site is pure Democratic propaganda. He wants voters to be informed, and then suggest they find information on political candidates from the "Office of Democratic Whip of Congress." Nothing against Pelosi, but don't think you think that's violation of interests?"
------------------------------------
That's like saying anybody that is critical of President Bush must be Democratic propaganda. I suppose Richard Clarke, Barry Goldwater, and Pat Buchanan are all agents of Democratic propaganda too then?
He references the Democracts because Conservative economic policy is what made America this way to begin with. Naturally someone who believes the facts he has layed out would be a liberal.
-----------
all left of center, if not extremist (in MoveOn.org's case).
-----------
MoveOn.org is extremist? Please explain how.
------------------
Somehow, those who made it themselves should be taxed to give the crack addict more welfare.
--------------------
And this stereotype of all welfare recipients being crack addicts isn't toeing the Republican party line that any economic safety net should be abolished and we should all be forced to fight like mongrels for ever-shrinking scraps (wages) being doled out to us by the "invisible hand?" Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President said that "Labor should be the superior of capital if this country's economic security is to be ensured." (paraphrased) Do you honestly think todays Republican party thinks labor should be the superior of capital? There are two reasons we have a welfare safety net:
1.) Is so that we don't have legions of poor, starving people roaming our streets. What do you think a scenario like that would do to crime rates?
2.) Is so workers can compete on the basis of skill and experience instead of who is willing to work for cheap. It also helps keep wages at above a subsistence level.
And it will happen if you don't have a safety net. Adam Smith predicts it. In Wealth of Nations he says that the capitalist can, ultimately manipulate labor to do whatever he wants. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Why shouldn't the people who do the work be entitled to a fair share of the fruits of their labor? It's common sense. The one with the money holds the power. The ones without the power need to be protected.
-----------------
Fifty-one one thousandths of a percent of the population have over a million dollars, HORRORS!
-----------------
The problem here is classification. The census beaurau's economic stats are outdated. A million dollars isn't worth as much as it used to be, but that's the highest bracket they give. The concern isn't the fact that people are filing tax returns of over a million dollars, it's the fact that people file for hundereds of millions, if not billions of dollars. And the fact that so much money is in so few hands is the problem.
-------------
So we tax the rich, give to the poor. Never mind that this isn't Robin Hood!! Those that are rich in this country earned their money! A flat tax would "burden" the middle and lower classes more BECAUSE THEY PAY SO LITTLE TAX ALREADY! That is what is being unsaid! Taxes can amount to 90% for those that make several million. That is why the "rich" benefit largely from nearly any tax cut, because they're already paying so much!
----------------
I'd like to see how much a rich man's money is worth without the government infrastructure that supports it. Government honoring his currency, a government that insures his bank deposits, a government that provides infrastructure for them to use their money to invest in things, protects their envestments, gives them the service of law enforcement to protect their assets, the list goes on. The rich use just as much of the government's resources as the poor. Do you think McDonalds or any other retail chain could survive without a government built and supported interstate highway system to ensure the speedy and reliable delivery of goods? How much money do you think any overseas shipping company could make without the might of the US Navy to ensure that there is no such thing as piracy? And lets not forget the political clout a few greenbacks can get you.
But that's all moot. The government only decides what's fair when it comes to criminal proceedings as a matter of necessity. When it comes to policy, fairness goes out the window. The government's has only 3 concerns.
1.) What do we need to do to ensure that the maximum amount of our citizens can enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness?
2.) What resources do we need to do it?
3.) Where can we get those resources and where should we apply them in a manner that will enable us to ensure the maximum good with minimal harm?
And that, more than any other reason is why the rich need to pay more tax. It's not the government's place to decide who deserves the money. Everyone can come up with a reason why the deserve an extra $1000. The government decides who needs the money. And it doesn't make sense to use shift the tax burden over to the people who need it in the first place. If you want to make sure that people who can't afford it can get decent healthcare, it doesn't make much sense to tax them and make them pay for the healthcare does it? If they could afford to do that the government wouldn't neeed to provide the service in the first place.
Democratic propaganda. Hahaha. What? Here's more Democratic propaganda:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
So, because he links to the NYT and Washington Post, which presumably you would call liberal publications, anything he says is untrue? I don't think I've ever heard Christian Science Monitor being called left of center before, but... you seem to have a strange definition of center. Is center the dividing line between Republicans and Democrats, where there are petty squabbles about how many troops to send to Iraq and whether or not affirmative action is a good idea? MoveOn.org is extremist? What, because they dare to claim it's wrong to invade other countries? Shocking, I know.
Yes, all liberals really want is to take away all of the rich's money and give it to crack-addict welfare mothers, who will never want to work because they are lazy. Never mind that our defense expenditudes, rapidly expanding in light of our recent overseas crusades, far overshadow any actual welfare spending. More Democratic propaganda:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0
http://www.cbo.gov/factsheets/FactSheets2004b.cfm
The _whole point_ here is that your .051% of the population owns 90% of the wealth in the country. Does having liberal or conservative views suddenly make that true or untrue? It's not "have a million dollars", it's "have a million dollars of income". Is that really that big of a problem? Well, you don't seem to think so.
Perhaps you might even imagine you have some chance in hell of becoming part of that .051%.
It wouldn't matter at all that some people have several orders of magnitude of money than others if those with money weren't our defacto leaders, making policy decisions that work for them and against everyone else. But conservatives either deny that they are, or don't think their policies hurt anyone, so everything is just peachy.
The reality is the senators and congressmen of the Democratic party are as much a part of the same .051% of the US population as those in the Republican party, and the state governors, CEOs, and moneylenders. Anytime you use words like 'partisan' (which by default is directed towards the Democratic party) to comment on income distribution it is absolutely ridiculous.
By the way, the only reason income taxes would ever reach anything close to 90% for those who make several million is because of things like capital gains tax. They 'earn' several million simply by having several billion gaining interest. Most of the time, though, the richest 1% of our country who earn money simply by having money have practically no tax burden because their money is tied up into some kind of tax shelter (i.e. their own corporation, where they can claim every expenditure as deductible), or is simply invested overseas.
"Those that are rich in this country earned their money!!" you say. Some of them may have actually earned all that money, but most people in this situation simply inherited it. The present Bush family is a good example.
Of course, naming an example doesn't mean it's the rule, not the exception. Just like naming examples of poor people with rags-to-riches stories doesn't mean that it's the rule, not the exception. Is the entire bottom 20% of our wage earners making $5000/year lazy incompetents? Must be! What's wrong with them? Why don't they go to college or something? If they live in a cardboard box outside campus, they could probably even afford it!
Now, by me posting this, you will naturally conclude that I am a liberal and, by extension, I hate America, just like Ann Coulter says. The thing is, I'm so sick of seeing formulaic political discourse like "here's some liberal logic! ha ha ha! Those liberals sure are stupid! Look at the partisan things he says! If we could just stop giving away all our money to welfare mothers, we could slash taxes like crazy!"
So I'm posting a response with an alternate view, pointing out flaws in your argument and I'm anxious to see your response (as long as you leave out the "extremist" BS. Here is an extremist for you: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859). I've left plenty of unsubstantiated points, but I have more pressing things to do than to research fiscal policy all day long.
EDIT: Oh, hi there, Magus. I was waiting for you to trounce on that, but you didn't. But now you did.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
So, because he links to the NYT and Washington Post, which presumably you would call liberal publications, anything he says is untrue? I don't think I've ever heard Christian Science Monitor being called left of center before, but... you seem to have a strange definition of center. Is center the dividing line between Republicans and Democrats, where there are petty squabbles about how many troops to send to Iraq and whether or not affirmative action is a good idea? MoveOn.org is extremist? What, because they dare to claim it's wrong to invade other countries? Shocking, I know.
Yes, all liberals really want is to take away all of the rich's money and give it to crack-addict welfare mothers, who will never want to work because they are lazy. Never mind that our defense expenditudes, rapidly expanding in light of our recent overseas crusades, far overshadow any actual welfare spending. More Democratic propaganda:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0
http://www.cbo.gov/factsheets/FactSheets2004b.cfm
The _whole point_ here is that your .051% of the population owns 90% of the wealth in the country. Does having liberal or conservative views suddenly make that true or untrue? It's not "have a million dollars", it's "have a million dollars of income". Is that really that big of a problem? Well, you don't seem to think so.
Perhaps you might even imagine you have some chance in hell of becoming part of that .051%.
It wouldn't matter at all that some people have several orders of magnitude of money than others if those with money weren't our defacto leaders, making policy decisions that work for them and against everyone else. But conservatives either deny that they are, or don't think their policies hurt anyone, so everything is just peachy.
The reality is the senators and congressmen of the Democratic party are as much a part of the same .051% of the US population as those in the Republican party, and the state governors, CEOs, and moneylenders. Anytime you use words like 'partisan' (which by default is directed towards the Democratic party) to comment on income distribution it is absolutely ridiculous.
By the way, the only reason income taxes would ever reach anything close to 90% for those who make several million is because of things like capital gains tax. They 'earn' several million simply by having several billion gaining interest. Most of the time, though, the richest 1% of our country who earn money simply by having money have practically no tax burden because their money is tied up into some kind of tax shelter (i.e. their own corporation, where they can claim every expenditure as deductible), or is simply invested overseas.
"Those that are rich in this country earned their money!!" you say. Some of them may have actually earned all that money, but most people in this situation simply inherited it. The present Bush family is a good example.
Of course, naming an example doesn't mean it's the rule, not the exception. Just like naming examples of poor people with rags-to-riches stories doesn't mean that it's the rule, not the exception. Is the entire bottom 20% of our wage earners making $5000/year lazy incompetents? Must be! What's wrong with them? Why don't they go to college or something? If they live in a cardboard box outside campus, they could probably even afford it!
Now, by me posting this, you will naturally conclude that I am a liberal and, by extension, I hate America, just like Ann Coulter says. The thing is, I'm so sick of seeing formulaic political discourse like "here's some liberal logic! ha ha ha! Those liberals sure are stupid! Look at the partisan things he says! If we could just stop giving away all our money to welfare mothers, we could slash taxes like crazy!"
So I'm posting a response with an alternate view, pointing out flaws in your argument and I'm anxious to see your response (as long as you leave out the "extremist" BS. Here is an extremist for you: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859). I've left plenty of unsubstantiated points, but I have more pressing things to do than to research fiscal policy all day long.
EDIT: Oh, hi there, Magus. I was waiting for you to trounce on that, but you didn't. But now you did.
I apologize if I repeat somethign here because I dont possess the time to read through the posts here in great detail. I skimmed many.
Patriot Act: Okay, what can be said about it?
The Patriot Act was technically illegally inacted soon after Sept. 11th 2001. Due to the emotional overload many were expierencing, blinders to the question "Should we do this?" came on and the bill was passed into law.
Now technically, the Patriot Act DOESNT exist because legally it cannot. The Patriot Act violates the US Consitution which states it is the highest law in the land. Thus, unless they add an amendment or edit and amendmant in the US Constitution, the Patriot Act is technically illegal, thus is was never written and passed.
Also, should anyone ever be charged under the Patriot Act, they could very well cite the Consitution and go to the US Supreme Court and challenge to legitimacy of the Act to exist.
The Patriot Act will probably be overturned the first time it's actually used in a courtroom or if a democratic president (eg John Kerry) is elected.
USA
PRO: "Freedom" to a limited extent
American dollar has high exchange rate to MOST countries
Large everything (as stated before)
America is resonably well protected by Armed Forces
No real threat of attack considering militaristic responce it would trigger
CON: We have a President with his head so far up his *** he cant see daylight
WE've been lied to constantly since the FIRST bush, (that includes Clinton in there)
Our voters are morons, Bush lied during his campaghn, Florida SHOULD never have been the deciding factor, it should have been a Gore landslide.
Electoral College, 'nuff said
Checks and Balance System not working (Senate and House OFTEN side with the President)
UN based here
Bush
Okay, thats enough bashing bush. But look at the statistics:
Bush has disolved more international treaties than any other US President, ever!
America was KICKED OUT of the World Court for Camp X-ray, Cuba
Over 600 US Soldiers have died since the "End Of Major Conflict in Iraq", uhhh, where the hell is Fallujah on Bush's map?
He lied to the American people about Iraq information
Listened only to supporters of his Iraq policy. Came into office with agenda to eliminate Saddam.
Spent Millions on Star Wars missile defense shield (including Rocket Interceptor Site here in Alaska). I've seen the information here, 1-6 Rockets work to impact their target. IF they launch, several problems have arrisen here.
Overall, Bush has been a BUllSHit president. He has been on what I liken to a powertrip since arriving in office and what scares me is that over 50% of American's still believe what he says about IRAQ and the Economy EVEN AFTER that information was proven wrong, they beleive him.
Now don't take me as a Supporter of Kerry here, Im an Independant. Certain parties have positives, certain parties have negatives, but BUSH IS THE NEGATIVE.
Also, he has quietly avoided his Vietnam-era service in teh Texas National Guard. Kerry headon confronted his Purple Heart for Shrapnel in Vietnam by releasing records. Last I heard, Bush was still withholding that information.
Patriot Act: Okay, what can be said about it?
The Patriot Act was technically illegally inacted soon after Sept. 11th 2001. Due to the emotional overload many were expierencing, blinders to the question "Should we do this?" came on and the bill was passed into law.
Now technically, the Patriot Act DOESNT exist because legally it cannot. The Patriot Act violates the US Consitution which states it is the highest law in the land. Thus, unless they add an amendment or edit and amendmant in the US Constitution, the Patriot Act is technically illegal, thus is was never written and passed.
Also, should anyone ever be charged under the Patriot Act, they could very well cite the Consitution and go to the US Supreme Court and challenge to legitimacy of the Act to exist.
The Patriot Act will probably be overturned the first time it's actually used in a courtroom or if a democratic president (eg John Kerry) is elected.
USA
PRO: "Freedom" to a limited extent
American dollar has high exchange rate to MOST countries
Large everything (as stated before)
America is resonably well protected by Armed Forces
No real threat of attack considering militaristic responce it would trigger
CON: We have a President with his head so far up his *** he cant see daylight
WE've been lied to constantly since the FIRST bush, (that includes Clinton in there)
Our voters are morons, Bush lied during his campaghn, Florida SHOULD never have been the deciding factor, it should have been a Gore landslide.
Electoral College, 'nuff said
Checks and Balance System not working (Senate and House OFTEN side with the President)
UN based here
Bush
Okay, thats enough bashing bush. But look at the statistics:
Bush has disolved more international treaties than any other US President, ever!
America was KICKED OUT of the World Court for Camp X-ray, Cuba
Over 600 US Soldiers have died since the "End Of Major Conflict in Iraq", uhhh, where the hell is Fallujah on Bush's map?
He lied to the American people about Iraq information
Listened only to supporters of his Iraq policy. Came into office with agenda to eliminate Saddam.
Spent Millions on Star Wars missile defense shield (including Rocket Interceptor Site here in Alaska). I've seen the information here, 1-6 Rockets work to impact their target. IF they launch, several problems have arrisen here.
Overall, Bush has been a BUllSHit president. He has been on what I liken to a powertrip since arriving in office and what scares me is that over 50% of American's still believe what he says about IRAQ and the Economy EVEN AFTER that information was proven wrong, they beleive him.
Now don't take me as a Supporter of Kerry here, Im an Independant. Certain parties have positives, certain parties have negatives, but BUSH IS THE NEGATIVE.
Also, he has quietly avoided his Vietnam-era service in teh Texas National Guard. Kerry headon confronted his Purple Heart for Shrapnel in Vietnam by releasing records. Last I heard, Bush was still withholding that information.
OK, I just saw the first 40 min. of "bowling in Columbine" during 'society lessons' (or whatever I should translate it to). "Yeah, I'd like to open a bank account, the one where you get a free gun". And this "war on terror" is mostly just Bush trying to clean up the mistakes of him and his predecessors.
Oh, well..
Now off to watch some healthy Dutch show where somebody is running around with his pants on his head.
Also an interesting read: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/04/27/artwork.investigated.ap/index.html
Oh, well..
Now off to watch some healthy Dutch show where somebody is running around with his pants on his head.
Also an interesting read: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/04/27/artwork.investigated.ap/index.html