First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Answer to American Economic Crisis
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/7/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

So the fact that not all of it is going into corporate profits justifies the fact that almost 50% of it is going into their pockets? If that's the case, then it's perfectly reasonable to tax people and businesses 50% of their income because they aren't taxing all of it.


50% of it does not go to corporations as profit, it gets spent on stuff like research and development, spent.

Its never reasonable to tax people and businesses 50%.



That's the kind of example I've been waiting for. But I'd have to know exactly what those "green" materials are before I can give my opinion. If it's something that prevents pollution and/or saves energy then I think it's reasonable, but if it's something that's being marketed as a "green" material when it doesn't really do anything, then it's an unfair regulation.


Its a little of both. But its unreasonable because their so expensive, is it too unreasonable to ask for those materials to become more common and less expensive before requiring them ?


Who are the ones calling Obama a communist? Republicans. What ideology do they claim to follow? Conservatism. Of course I know that not all Republicans/conservatives are hindering progress, but the majority of people who are hindering progress are Republicans/conservatives. The conservative principle of deregulation is what caused the banks to become "too big to fail," and they fact that many of them are still pushing for further deregulation of companies that aren't already regulated enough (like BP) is part of what is currently getting us into further trouble. When liberal ideologies start driving our country downhill then I'll bash them too.


Define progress, because I see progress as a smaller government, lower taxes, stronger economy, reducing deficits, cutting spending, and more small businesses, liberals are against those things last I checked.

The democrats are the ones doing all the spending and racking up all the debt if you haven't noticed.


Social justice overall has nothing to do with taxation. It involves human rights and civil liberties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

People were/are using the concept to justify why health care should be an individual right, but in general it doesn't involve redistribution of wealth. Unless, like I said earlier, you believe that giving women and minorities the right to vote to be socialist. Even if it is, is giving people individual rights a bad thing just because it's a socialist ideal?


It has everything to do with taxation lol, you obviously don't know what it is.

From wikipedia :


Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.


There's nothing wrong with civil rights and individual rights, but there's everything wrong with income and property redistribution.


The public option was dropped from the health care bill a long time ago, along with many other "socialist" policies. The main thing it does now is give the handful of drug companies in the U.S a monopoly by outlawing imported medicine, which reduces competition significantly and allows them to charge us however much they want. It will also force everyone to buy health insurance from private companies, and anyone who doesn't will be fined by the IRS, which is an example of the government and corporations working together to screw us over. The only "socialist" part of the bill is that they've expanded Medicaid to cover more people, and insurance companies now have to publicly reveal the administrative and executive expenditure, which is mainly to ensure that they aren't over-charging us just so they can stay on vacation most of the year.


The public option isn't gone, it just got modified, what do you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance is ? The public option. That it the public option. Just not a government run public option.


Some good things came from the bill, it even created some jobs, but overall the recent health care reform has just put more money into the pockets of private drug and health insurance companies, which is exactly what Republicans/conservatives want: more money in the pockets of business owners. The fact that you still think it is a socialist and unconstitutional (I don't get how you came to that conclusion) bill is an example of how well the media has deceived you and other Americans. They even gave you the misconception that poor Americans would be heavily taxed if the public option passed, when in reality taxes would have risen significantly only for wealthy people, which is why they started calling Obama a socialist trying to steal everyone's money when the only ones who would have had any significant losses are the rich people who run this country. Even with those losses they still would have been rich and still would have been in control.


It's unconsititional becuase it violates the commerce clause, which states that the federal and state government do not have the power to force anyone to buy anything from the market place. including heath insurance.

And its socialist because its universal health care.

I dunno where you have been, but almost all conservitives have been highly against this bill from the start, they don't want it, they never wanted it. And they still don't want it, they want it repealed.

I dunno if you know this or not, but not a single conservitive voted for that bill, not a single one, but the democrats were able to ram it through because they had a large enough majority.

And taxes are going to rise significantly on average people because of the value added tax that the dems have proposed. That effects everyone not just wealthy people. Everyone.


That is pretty high, but where I live it doesn't seem to be stopping people, I see land being developed and new businesses popping up all the time. So I guess my state isn't one of the ones that heavily taxes businesses, or people here just don't care that taxes are that high. But if most of those taxes are imposed by the state then you can't blame the federal government for that.


It is high, and no it doesn't stop people, but its still too high.


No, but both you and I are being forced to pay taxes that go towards bailing out banks when they fail. They are making high-risk bets with the money that people invest into them, and everyone else, including people who don't invest in them, have to pay them every time they lose to make up for their losses so they can keep gambling. So basically yes we are being forced to invest in them because we have to fix their mistakes with our tax money.


I've already said that they shouldn't have been bailed out.



It is very possible to live without it, as I described earlier. It's just that we've become too accustomed to a lifestyle that requires money, so we've been conditioned to think that we can't live without it.


Not in this country you can't, well if you want to keep a roof over your head that is.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

So the fact that not all of it is going into corporate profits justifies the fact that almost 50% of it is going into their pockets? If that's the case, then it's perfectly reasonable to tax people and businesses 50% of their income because they aren't taxing all of it.


50% of it does not go to corporations as profit, it gets spent on stuff like research and development, spent.

Its never reasonable to tax people and businesses 50%.


I keep hearing people quoting 50% US tax, where did this number come from. What tax is it? Whom is it taxing to? Last I check it was Britain that had a 50% tax hike for bank bonuses.



That's the kind of example I've been waiting for. But I'd have to know exactly what those "green" materials are before I can give my opinion. If it's something that prevents pollution and/or saves energy then I think it's reasonable, but if it's something that's being marketed as a "green" material when it doesn't really do anything, then it's an unfair regulation.


Its a little of both. But its unreasonable because their so expensive, is it too unreasonable to ask for those materials to become more common and less expensive before requiring them ?


Actually green technology is expensive short term but have proven to save costs in the long run. Its like buying a sweat-shop shoe which is cheap and a more expensive shoe but is more long lasting. If you wanna just compare price then you be buying a lot of sweat-shop shoes again and again. Some time ago, the news show US homeowners assemble their very own solar panels and innovate it further by making it move automatically so as to match the rotation of the sun, they actually save costs as power they gain credits as they provide power into the grid.

Green technology, a US innovation needs help, and government subsides to help make it affordable helps. You may not know this, but solar panels are already much cheaper but are being manufactured in China. They already build a full building installed completely in solar panel. A pity, don't you think, that a US innovation and source of job growth is already being exploited by China.



Who are the ones calling Obama a communist? Republicans. What ideology do they claim to follow? Conservatism. Of course I know that not all Republicans/conservatives are hindering progress, but the majority of people who are hindering progress are Republicans/conservatives. The conservative principle of deregulation is what caused the banks to become "too big to fail," and they fact that many of them are still pushing for further deregulation of companies that aren't already regulated enough (like BP) is part of what is currently getting us into further trouble. When liberal ideologies start driving our country downhill then I'll bash them too.


Define progress, because I see progress as a smaller government, lower taxes, stronger economy, reducing deficits, cutting spending, and more small businesses, liberals are against those things last I checked.

The democrats are the ones doing all the spending and racking up all the debt if you haven't noticed.


Actually you make a good point, the current administration are spending but a large number of this spending is actually military spending. Remember the US is in a military conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and still have fully operational bases overseas. Rather than I tell you about it, why don't you just click on the two links below and judge for yourself.

http://psacake.com/stuff/budget.jpg
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

There is also this notion that somehow if democrats are put in charge, spending will balloon. If you look closely at history, the Clinton administration had a budge surplus but when republicans took over, government powers and government budget deficit increase. This current deficit didn't appear from nowhere and the two wars certainly didn't help there. I can say safely that both democrats and republicans are both guilty for this huge budget deficit and the republicans certainly help a lot there.




That is pretty high, but where I live it doesn't seem to be stopping people, I see land being developed and new businesses popping up all the time. So I guess my state isn't one of the ones that heavily taxes businesses, or people here just don't care that taxes are that high. But if most of those taxes are imposed by the state then you can't blame the federal government for that.


It is high, and no it doesn't stop people, but its still too high.


While US taxes may be high, tax rebates, credits and tax-exemptions are pretty high and significant too especially for businesses such as banks and energy companies. Tax rate is high because you are in a conflict in Afghanistan. Government need to get money somewhere so that Ranger or marine would have a kevlar vest or a bullet-proof windshield to protect them.




Social justice overall has nothing to do with taxation. It involves human rights and civil liberties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

People were/are using the concept to justify why health care should be an individual right, but in general it doesn't involve redistribution of wealth. Unless, like I said earlier, you believe that giving women and minorities the right to vote to be socialist. Even if it is, is giving people individual rights a bad thing just because it's a socialist ideal?


It has everything to do with taxation lol, you obviously don't know what it is.

From wikipedia :


Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.


There's nothing wrong with civil rights and individual rights, but there's everything wrong with income and property redistribution.


Social justice isn't taxation. Taxation is just one of the many tools to achieve that aim. And Social justice isn't income and property redistribution only. Its bigger than that and covers basic human rights whether it is the right to a speedy and fair trial or allow to vote despite one's gender or background or beliefs. Also before you decry income and property redistribution as purely evil, if its done to the extreme like those done in communist states, then yes, its unfair and against social justice but economics is such that if left alone, the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, If one has talent and ability one should be able to at least attend school and not restricted because one family cannot afford to send them there,

Think about this, why is it that in poor countries, the girls are not allowed to have an education. Its not purely because of belief that girls are inferior but that it was more practical to keep the girls at home where they can help rather than send them out to school.



No, but both you and I are being forced to pay taxes that go towards bailing out banks when they fail. They are making high-risk bets with the money that people invest into them, and everyone else, including people who don't invest in them, have to pay them every time they lose to make up for their losses so they can keep gambling. So basically yes we are being forced to invest in them because we have to fix their mistakes with our tax money.


I've already said that they shouldn't have been bailed out.


While I understand your concern of government getting 'bigger', my concern is of corporations and whom will monitor them when they get 'bigger' and fail like what happen in this current recession in the first place.

Also ask any economists, conservative or liberal alike, and they will tell you that if the banks were not bail out, the recession would have worsen.




It is very possible to live without it, as I described earlier. It's just that we've become too accustomed to a lifestyle that requires money, so we've been conditioned to think that we can't live without it.


Not in this country you can't, well if you want to keep a roof over your head that is.


Money is pretty important especially if you need a roof over your head but being obsessed with getting money is no good either especially if you start neglecting your family because you need to work so that you can have a roof over your head. Money is just the means for the ends.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

Northboundsnow wrote:

I keep hearing people quoting 50% US tax, where did this number come from. What tax is it? Whom is it taxing to? Last I check it was Britain that had a 50% tax hike for bank bonuses.


My neighbor owns a small business and his taxes are at 50%.


Actually green technology is expensive short term but have proven to save costs in the long run. Its like buying a sweat-shop shoe which is cheap and a more expensive shoe but is more long lasting. If you wanna just compare price then you be buying a lot of sweat-shop shoes again and again. Some time ago, the news show US homeowners assemble their very own solar panels and innovate it further by making it move automatically so as to match the rotation of the sun, they actually save costs as power they gain credits as they provide power into the grid.


Its still unnecessary, the power put into the grid by solar panels is so insignificant it doesn't mean jack.


Green technology, a US innovation needs help, and government subsides to help make it affordable helps. You may not know this, but solar panels are already much cheaper but are being manufactured in China. They already build a full building installed completely in solar panel. A pity, don't you think, that a US innovation and source of job growth is already being exploited by China.


Green technology won't be necessary for like another 100 - 200 years at our current carbon rate, and by then it will be well developed and cheep. wind, solar and hydroelectric are unable to provide enough electricity at our current demand. We need nuclear power.


Actually you make a good point, the current administration are spending but a large number of this spending is actually military spending. Remember the US is in a military conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and still have fully operational bases overseas. Rather than I tell you about it, why don't you just click on the two links below and judge for yourself.

http://psacake.com/stuff/budget.jpg
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

There is also this notion that somehow if democrats are put in charge, spending will balloon. If you look closely at history, the Clinton administration had a budge surplus but when republicans took over, government powers and government budget deficit increase. This current deficit didn't appear from nowhere and the two wars certainly didn't help there. I can say safely that both democrats and republicans are both guilty for this huge budget deficit and the republicans certainly help a lot there.


Obama has spent about a trillion dollars lol, and it didn't accomplish jack shit. No jobs were created. It didn't reduce the unemployment any. and in fact unemployment increased.

Republicans spend yes, everyone spends, but the democrats spend more than republicans do.



While US taxes may be high, tax rebates, credits and tax-exemptions are pretty high and significant too especially for businesses such as banks and energy companies. Tax rate is high because you are in a conflict in Afghanistan. Government need to get money somewhere so that Ranger or marine would have a kevlar vest or a bullet-proof windshield to protect them.


Oh, I was under the impression that that's what the military budget of 500 billion dollars was for.


Social justice isn't taxation. Taxation is just one of the many tools to achieve that aim. And Social justice isn't income and property redistribution only. Its bigger than that and covers basic human rights whether it is the right to a speedy and fair trial or allow to vote despite one's gender or background or beliefs. Also before you decry income and property redistribution as purely evil, if its done to the extreme like those done in communist states, then yes, its unfair and against social justice but economics is such that if left alone, the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, If one has talent and ability one should be able to at least attend school and not restricted because one family cannot afford to send them there,


The rich get richer and so do the poor. Every year the number of millionaires in this country increases, and people in poverty in this country, almost all of them have a color tv, refrigerator and air conditioning, bet you didn't know what. I remember reading that somewhere. Almost all of the people in poverty in this country have their basic needs met.

Its unfair to tax hard working small business owners and to take away their money and property to give it to others. They are the foundation of the economy, it will hurt the economy to do that. So what if they have a big house, multiple cars and 10 million dollars, they've earned it, its theirs, nobody has any right to take that away from them.

If you work hard, basically anyone can become rich, if you don't work hard, you get jack shit. People who don't work shouldn't get a free ride from the tax payers, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for the education and housing of some lazy fucker who won't get a job to put himself through college. Get a job or gtfo, I have to work to go to school, why shouldn't he ?


Also ask any economists, conservative or liberal alike, and they will tell you that if the banks were not bail out, the recession would have worsen.


The recession has worsened anyway.


Money is pretty important especially if you need a roof over your head but being obsessed with getting money is no good either especially if you start neglecting your family because you need to work so that you can have a roof over your head. Money is just the means for the ends.


You need a job if you want a roof and food.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Northboundsnow wrote:

I keep hearing people quoting 50% US tax, where did this number come from. What tax is it? Whom is it taxing to? Last I check it was Britain that had a 50% tax hike for bank bonuses.


My neighbor owns a small business and his taxes are at 50%.


Since you know your neighbor, and he has a small business, feel free to share his tax form for his small business with us or if it you feel its sensitive, provide a sample or an outline of what is being taxed.

1. What kind of small business does he own?
2. How many employees does he have?

Last I check there is no such 50% tax for small business, but there is a 50% tax rebate for small businesses. If there are discrepancies you should advice him to seek an accountant or a financial assistance to review his finance.




Actually green technology is expensive short term but have proven to save costs in the long run. Its like buying a sweat-shop shoe which is cheap and a more expensive shoe but is more long lasting. If you wanna just compare price then you be buying a lot of sweat-shop shoes again and again. Some time ago, the news show US homeowners assemble their very own solar panels and innovate it further by making it move automatically so as to match the rotation of the sun, they actually save costs as power they gain credits as they provide power into the grid.


Its still unnecessary, the power put into the grid by solar panels is so insignificant it doesn't mean jack.


Every little bit helps and if a little bit of green technology and common sense means it may not mean much for the power grid but there are savings for the single individual home who apply little bits of green technology.




Green technology, a US innovation needs help, and government subsides to help make it affordable helps. You may not know this, but solar panels are already much cheaper but are being manufactured in China. They already build a full building installed completely in solar panel. A pity, don't you think, that a US innovation and source of job growth is already being exploited by China.


Green technology won't be necessary for like another 100 - 200 years at our current carbon rate, and by then it will be well developed and cheep. wind, solar and hydroelectric are unable to provide enough electricity at our current demand. We need nuclear power.


Hence the tragedy from the point that I am making that you fail to grasp, where America has the potential to be the leader for innovation in Green technology, instead the market leader now falls squarely on Germany, Switzerland and China. Rather than banking on cheap technology and direct competition to China, US should bank on what they are generally good at, innovation.

Nuclear power, requires considerable investment especially for treatment of waste products. I am undecided on the nuclear option because of my past knowledge of the Chernobyl disaster.



Actually you make a good point, the current administration are spending but a large number of this spending is actually military spending. Remember the US is in a military conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and still have fully operational bases overseas. Rather than I tell you about it, why don't you just click on the two links below and judge for yourself.

http://psacake.com/stuff/budget.jpg
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

There is also this notion that somehow if democrats are put in charge, spending will balloon. If you look closely at history, the Clinton administration had a budge surplus but when republicans took over, government powers and government budget deficit increase. This current deficit didn't appear from nowhere and the two wars certainly didn't help there. I can say safely that both democrats and republicans are both guilty for this huge budget deficit and the republicans certainly help a lot there.


Obama has spent about a trillion dollars lol, and it didn't accomplish jack shit. No jobs were created. It didn't reduce the unemployment any. and in fact unemployment increased.

Republicans spend yes, everyone spends, but the democrats spend more than republicans do.


Funny you didn't read the last post, who expanded government powers ('small government --> Large government") and turn a budget surplus into a huge budget deficit when republicans control the presidency, the house and the senate. You said its democrats yet history says otherwise.




While US taxes may be high, tax rebates, credits and tax-exemptions are pretty high and significant too especially for businesses such as banks and energy companies. Tax rate is high because you are in a conflict in Afghanistan. Government need to get money somewhere so that Ranger or marine would have a kevlar vest or a bullet-proof windshield to protect them.


Oh, I was under the impression that that's what the military budget of 500 billion dollars was for.


Really you didn't think it was excessive, especially some of those programs? And rather than spending money fighting abroad trying to police the world, you didn't think the money would be better spent getting the house in order.



Social justice isn't taxation. Taxation is just one of the many tools to achieve that aim. And Social justice isn't income and property redistribution only. Its bigger than that and covers basic human rights whether it is the right to a speedy and fair trial or allow to vote despite one's gender or background or beliefs. Also before you decry income and property redistribution as purely evil, if its done to the extreme like those done in communist states, then yes, its unfair and against social justice but economics is such that if left alone, the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, If one has talent and ability one should be able to at least attend school and not restricted because one family cannot afford to send them there,


The rich get richer and so do the poor. Every year the number of millionaires in this country increases, and people in poverty in this country, almost all of them have a color tv, refrigerator and air conditioning, bet you didn't know what. I remember reading that somewhere. Almost all of the people in poverty in this country have their basic needs met.

Its unfair to tax hard working small business owners and to take away their money and property to give it to others. They are the foundation of the economy, it will hurt the economy to do that. So what if they have a big house, multiple cars and 10 million dollars, they've earned it, its theirs, nobody has any right to take that away from them.

If you work hard, basically anyone can become rich, if you don't work hard, you get jack shit. People who don't work shouldn't get a free ride from the tax payers, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for the education and housing of some lazy fucker who won't get a job to put himself through college. Get a job or gtfo, I have to work to go to school, why shouldn't he ?


How rich are we talking about here, middle class rich like what you define or filthy rich like the top 5%. And most scholarships or social programs aren't free ride, some you are attached to companies or to government jobs upon graduation, thus repayment of loans. Some scholarships only provide the bare necessity. And these programs target the very poor who may have not the opportunity. Reread my last post where I describe the poor countries where girls are not able to get basic education or go to schools. The social programs aren't for any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants a free ride.

If you are a citizen of country at war, are you really naive to think that taxes would be low.



Also ask any economists, conservative or liberal alike, and they will tell you that if the banks were not bail out, the recession would have worsen.


The recession has worsened anyway.


You said that the recession has worsened yet you said that millionaires are increasing? That doesn't make any sense.

If you expect miracles somehow that the economy would magically recover and start growth again, the last Great depression took 10 years to recover, now with current world economies all linked to one another, with even the current Greek debt crisis or any other surprises from other economies around the world, could potentially set the recovery back even further Its a tough ride and we are all in it together.




Money is pretty important especially if you need a roof over your head but being obsessed with getting money is no good either especially if you start neglecting your family because you need to work so that you can have a roof over your head. Money is just the means for the ends.


You need a job if you want a roof and food.


Jobs are important and working hard is important too, but being obsessed with getting money is no good either, just ask all the latch kids babies. Money is just money and the means to an end, ultimately its family and loved ones that are important.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Northboundsnow wrote:

Since you know your neighbor, and he has a small business, feel free to share his tax form for his small business with us or if it you feel its sensitive, provide a sample or an outline of what is being taxed.

1. What kind of small business does he own?
2. How many employees does he have?

Last I check there is no such 50% tax for small business, but there is a 50% tax rebate for small businesses. If there are discrepancies you should advice him to seek an accountant or a financial assistance to review his finance.


When I asked him how high his taxes are, he said his combined federal state and local taxes come to around 50%.

Lets see 50% taxes would be.

Federal income tax: 25 - 28%
State income tax: 9.5%
State sales tax: 10%

That's 44-47%, then there's, gas taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, utility taxes ect. So yeah, about 50%

He is a contractor has right now has like 5 employees. cause there's no work.


Every little bit helps and if a little bit of green technology and common sense means it may not mean much for the power grid but there are savings for the single individual home who apply little bits of green technology.


Well that's true.


Hence the tragedy from the point that I am making that you fail to grasp, where America has the potential to be the leader for innovation in Green technology, instead the market leader now falls squarely on Germany, Switzerland and China. Rather than banking on cheap technology and direct competition to China, US should bank on what they are generally good at, innovation.


There's nothing wrong with developing this green technology, I just have a problem with mandating it.


Nuclear power, requires considerable investment especially for treatment of waste products. I am undecided on the nuclear option because of my past knowledge of the Chernobyl disaster.


Well that just shows how little you and everyone else know about nuclear power plants, In a modern nuclear plant, an event like Chernobyl will never happen again, Chernobyl happened because 2 idiots decided that it would be a good idea to remove the cooling water and raise the fuel rods(Increases fission, which increases heat production, and since theres no cooling water to take that heat away, a core meltdown happened), a modern reactor would never ever ever ever let you do that. Modern reactors are so safe and well designed you can actually crash a 747 into the reactor and it will be undamaged. There perfectly safe.


Funny you didn't read the last post, who expanded government powers ('small government --> Large government") and turn a budget surplus into a huge budget deficit when republicans control the presidency, the house and the senate. You said its democrats yet history says otherwise.


Who spent a trillion extra dollars in 18 months ? Obama, What did Obama accomplish by doing that ? Nothing. No jobs were created.

And who controlled the house and the senate, oh right, democrats.

And have they done anything to try to cut spending or deficits, no, they actually increased it further.


Really you didn't think it was excessive, especially some of those programs? And rather than spending money fighting abroad trying to police the world, you didn't think the money would be better spent getting the house in order.


Getting the house in order is simple, in simple terms, vote the problem people out and vote solution people in.


How rich are we talking about here, middle class rich like what you define or filthy rich like the top 5%. And most scholarships or social programs aren't free ride, some you are attached to companies or to government jobs upon graduation, thus repayment of loans. Some scholarships only provide the bare necessity. And these programs target the very poor who may have not the opportunity. Reread my last post where I describe the poor countries where girls are not able to get basic education or go to schools. The social programs aren't for any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants a free ride.



But those same programs take away from the small businessmen. They've earned what they have, its there's you can't possibly justify taking their stuff away from them.

And when I say rich, i mean multi-millionaire+ rich. That's not uncommon for business owners. Some of them can make 500k - 2mil a year.


If you are a citizen of country at war, are you really naive to think that taxes would be low.


Taxes are high even when were not at war, and they don't go back down either, they keep going up but they don't go back down. There has to be a fucking limit somewhere otherwise we'll all be paying 90% in taxes. 50% is way too high.



You said that the recession has worsened yet you said that millionaires are increasing? That doesn't make any sense.

If you expect miracles somehow that the economy would magically recover and start growth again, the last Great depression took 10 years to recover, now with current world economies all linked to one another, with even the current Greek debt crisis or any other surprises from other economies around the world, could potentially set the recovery back even further Its a tough ride and we are all in it together.


The way to fix the economy, is to cut spending, reduce taxes and temporary deregulate businesses. That created jobs, we need to create jobs, obama has created no jobs, none, we've actually lost 8 million jobs during his presidency.

And yes pretty much every year were not in a recession the number of millionaires increases.

Nobodys asking for mirales, they don't exist, were just asking for the retards in charge to do something about the economy, and they don't nothing useful just made it worse.


Jobs are important and working hard is important too, but being obsessed with getting money is no good either, just ask all the latch kids babies. Money is just money and the means to an end, ultimately its family and loved ones that are important.


That's true, but if you don't have a roof over your head or food, family can wait until you do.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:

50% of it does not go to corporations as profit, it gets spent on stuff like research and development, spent.


I already explained in an earlier post that 47% of the current military budget is being spent on products and services that come from private defense contractors, which means a large portion of your tax money is being paid to private companies just from that. Try actually reading my posts.



Its a little of both. But its unreasonable because their so expensive, is it too unreasonable to ask for those materials to become more common and less expensive before requiring them ?


In order for them to become common and less expensive is if money is invested into them, and seeing as how most businesses won't invest in green materials willingly, then requiring them to is one way to make them cheaper. Also, as Northboundsnow said, those materials save money over time.


Define progress, because I see progress as a smaller government, lower taxes, stronger economy, reducing deficits, cutting spending, and more small businesses, liberals are against those things last I checked.


1. I've given examples of how smaller government has hindered progress (deregulation of banks). I'm against the term "small government" because it is an arbitrary term and no one can clearly define it. There are places where government intervention is necessary, and there are places where it is a burden. There are areas where government involvement needs to be increased and places where it needs to be reduced in order to obtain progress. I don't classify myself as a liberal or a democrat, but I'm against small and big government, because general adjectives like those don't accurately describe the role of a government. Like I said earlier, you can't use the same tool to fix every problem, and anyone who does is hindering progress, which includes people who support "smaller" or "bigger" governments.

2. A true liberal would be against this war, and getting out of the war lowers taxes, so they must not be against that.

3. No one is against a stronger economy, it's just that everyone has a different idea of how to make it stronger.

4. You do realize that reducing the deficit means increasing taxes, right? Cutting spending alone is not going to get us out of debt. So based on that alone your definition of progress defeats itself.

5. Again, getting out of the war= less military spending= cutting spending. Yet everyone (based on my experience) who talks about cutting spending never supports cutting military spending for some reason.

6. No one is against small business either, it's just that liberals want to regulate them to an extent that prevents them from treating workers unfairly and selling harmful products, while conservatives support letting them do whatever they want, even if it means harming their workers.
I'm guessing you haven't checked up on the state of U.S political ideologies in a while.


The democrats are the ones doing all the spending and racking up all the debt if you haven't noticed.


Obama's finance committee, the ones who wrote the budget, is composed of mostly fiscal conservatives. So any government spending through the 2010 fiscal year was drafted and supported by your fellow conservatives, including Republicans. Even if one side is spending more than the other (which is impossible since any proposed spending has to be approved by at least a few Republicans) neither side is trying to reduce the spending.



From wikipedia :


Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.


There's nothing wrong with civil rights and individual rights, but there's everything wrong with income and property redistribution.


You do realize that income redistribution is why we're able to have things like social security and subsidies for businesses, including the farming subsidies that are used to grow much of the food you eat, right? Without it you wouldn't be able to eat unless you grew your own food, and you wouldn't be able to retire comfortably.


The public option isn't gone, it just got modified, what do you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance is ? The public option. That it the public option. Just not a government run public option.


If it's not government run, then it's not public. If we are buying from private companies, then it is private insurance. So it's not the public option that everyone was fighting so hard to get rid of, it is the only option and it gives money to private business owners, which is what you want, right?


It's unconsititional becuase it violates the commerce clause, which states that the federal and state government do not have the power to force anyone to buy anything from the market place. including heath insurance.


We're forced to by car insurance, but I don't see anyone fighting against that. Why is that?


And its socialist because its universal health care.


It's not universal because it doesn't cover everyone, since it's still not cheap enough for everyone to be able to afford it, and it's not socialist because our taxes aren't being used to run the private insurance companies.


I dunno where you have been, but almost all conservitives have been highly against this bill from the start, they don't want it, they never wanted it. And they still don't want it, they want it repealed.


I know that they are still against it, but it doesn't change the fact that the bill was heavily amended and watered down by Republicans in order to appeal to them. Yet most of them still didn't vote for it despite the fact that it was altered to fit their demands, because they are so blinded by their ideology and party alliance, which is yet another example of how they are hindering progress.


I dunno if you know this or not, but not a single conservitive voted for that bill, not a single one, but the democrats were able to ram it through because they had a large enough majority.


Then that means that not all of the Republicans are conservative, because at least one of them would have to have voted for it in the Senate in order for it to pass, and that's assuming that every single Democrat voted for it, which I know didn't happen. I forget names but there were a couple of Democratic senators who opposed the bill. Nothing can get passed in the Senate without some Republican support.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

I already explained in an earlier post that 47% of the current military budget is being spent on products and services that come from private defense contractors, which means a large portion of your tax money is being paid to private companies just from that. Try actually reading my posts.


That's because their are companies who specialize in making certain products of types of products, its cheaper to buy premade products from a company that makes it then it is to go out an buy all the required equipment that you would need if you were to build it yourself.

Which is cheaper, buying a single CPU from intel, or buying all the equipment required for you to make the exact same cpu yourself, then the materials needed to make the cpu ?

The government doesn't build anything themselves because its not cost efficient for them to. It would cost even more money for them to do that.

And I see nothing wrong with the government using private industry for stuff. It cheeper, and more efficient. Maybe 500 billion is a little too much for a military budget, but it would be 3 trillion if the government had to manufacture everything themselves.



1. I've given examples of how smaller government has hindered progress (deregulation of banks). I'm against the term "small government" because it is an arbitrary term and no one can clearly define it. There are places where government intervention is necessary, and there are places where it is a burden. There are areas where government involvement needs to be increased and places where it needs to be reduced in order to obtain progress. I don't classify myself as a liberal or a democrat, but I'm against small and big government, because general adjectives like those don't accurately describe the role of a government. Like I said earlier, you can't use the same tool to fix every problem, and anyone who does is hindering progress, which includes people who support "smaller" or "bigger" governments.

2. A true liberal would be against this war, and getting out of the war lowers taxes, so they must not be against that.

3. No one is against a stronger economy, it's just that everyone has a different idea of how to make it stronger.

4. You do realize that reducing the deficit means increasing taxes, right? Cutting spending alone is not going to get us out of debt. So based on that alone your definition of progress defeats itself.

5. Again, getting out of the war= less military spending= cutting spending. Yet everyone (based on my experience) who talks about cutting spending never supports cutting military spending for some reason.

6. No one is against small business either, it's just that liberals want to regulate them to an extent that prevents them from treating workers unfairly and selling harmful products, while conservatives support letting them do whatever they want, even if it means harming their workers.
I'm guessing you haven't checked up on the state of U.S political ideologies in a while.


1. Regulation of banks is also on of the reasons were in this mess, because the government required the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, that's what caused the housing market collapse. So regulation is just as bad as deregulation.

2. A true liberal is against many things that collide with one another.

3. Higher taxes cause a weaker economy. liberals generally want higher taxes, thus they are against a strong economy.

4. Not necessarily. just means it takes longer to pay back.

5. Funding a military is not as simply as paying your soldiers, and building guns, its also the development of new military technology which is expensive. That's where a lot of the money goes.

6, That's not true at all. Conservitives don't want that. You know nothing of what a conservitive is. I know many many conservitives who wouldn't want workers harmed or exploited. And there's nothing wrong with selling a harmful product, just need to include a disclaimer and a warning label, if the user ignores the warning label and misused it, and gets hurt, its his fault not the manufactures.



Obama's finance committee, the ones who wrote the budget, is composed of mostly fiscal conservatives. So any government spending through the 2010 fiscal year was drafted and supported by your fellow conservatives, including Republicans. Even if one side is spending more than the other (which is impossible since any proposed spending has to be approved by at least a few Republicans) neither side is trying to reduce the spending.


Neither side has done anything to cut spending, including your fellow liberals.


You do realize that income redistribution is why we're able to have things like social security and subsidies for businesses, including the farming subsidies that are used to grow much of the food you eat, right? Without it you wouldn't be able to eat unless you grew your own food, and you wouldn't be able to retire comfortably.


You support taking money away from hard working people to give it to people who don't work ? When I think of income redistrobution i think of confiscation of personal wealth from hard working small and medium sized business people through taxation and giving it to lazy people who are too lazy to get a job but not lazy enough to not complain about having no money. I don't support that one bit. You have every right to the money you make, nobody should be able to take your hard earned money and give it to other people. That gives birth to the free rider problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem


The way I see it is get a job and pay your taxes like everyone else or shut up about having no money.


If it's not government run, then it's not public. If we are buying from private companies, then it is private insurance. So it's not the public option that everyone was fighting so hard to get rid of, it is the only option and it gives money to private business owners, which is what you want, right?


I don't really care about giving money to anyone other than me. And I don't own a business. So no I could care less about giving money to business owners. Besides even if I did own a business my only interest would be the success of my business not other businesses unless they directly effected me. My primary concern would be the success of my business, then the success of my suppliers(can always get new suppliers if you have to), then lastly after that comes other businesses.


We're forced to by car insurance, but I don't see anyone fighting against that. Why is that?


Your not forced to own a car or own a license or even drive, thus you are not forced to buy car insurance. Its different.


It's not universal because it doesn't cover everyone, since it's still not cheap enough for everyone to be able to afford it, and it's not socialist because our taxes aren't being used to run the private insurance companies.


Well the the bill was a complete and utter failure.


I know that they are still against it, but it doesn't change the fact that the bill was heavily amended and watered down by Republicans in order to appeal to them. Yet most of them still didn't vote for it despite the fact that it was altered to fit their demands, because they are so blinded by their ideology and party alliance, which is yet another example of how they are hindering progress.


Liberals are the exact same, blinded by their own ideology.

Everyone is blined by their ideology lol.

You keep generalizing conservitives as a single entity. You can't do that. Not all conservitives are unwilling like that, not all conservitives are like you describe at all, most aren't in fact, only the most extreme one are.

If you can generalize all conservitives like then, then i can generalize all liberals as communists.


Then that means that not all of the Republicans are conservative, because at least one of them would have to have voted for it in the Senate in order for it to pass, and that's assuming that every single Democrat voted for it, which I know didn't happen. I forget names but there were a couple of Democratic senators who opposed the bill. Nothing can get passed in the Senate without some Republican support.


Well of course not all rebpublicans are conservitive.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:
That's because their are companies who specialize in making certain products of types of products, its cheaper to buy premade products from a company that makes it then it is to go out an buy all the required equipment that you would need if you were to build it yourself.

Which is cheaper, buying a single CPU from intel, or buying all the equipment required for you to make the exact same cpu yourself, then the materials needed to make the cpu ?

The government doesn't build anything themselves because its not cost efficient for them to. It would cost even more money for them to do that.

And I see nothing wrong with the government using private industry for stuff. It cheeper, and more efficient. Maybe 500 billion is a little too much for a military budget, but it would be 3 trillion if the government had to manufacture everything themselves.


I realize that and I agree that the government buying things from private companies is a good idea. But by supporting that, you are supporting government spending, which you keep saying that you're against. My point is not that the government shouldn't rely on private industry, it's that the government is spending too much money on the military budget just to benefit private industries, which is irresponsible government spending.


1. Regulation of banks is also on of the reasons were in this mess, because the government required the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, that's what caused the housing market collapse. So regulation is just as bad as deregulation.

2. A true liberal is against many things that collide with one another.

3. Higher taxes cause a weaker economy. liberals generally want higher taxes, thus they are against a strong economy.

4. Not necessarily. just means it takes longer to pay back.

5. Funding a military is not as simply as paying your soldiers, and building guns, its also the development of new military technology which is expensive. That's where a lot of the money goes.

6, That's not true at all. Conservitives don't want that. You know nothing of what a conservitive is. I know many many conservitives who wouldn't want workers harmed or exploited. And there's nothing wrong with selling a harmful product, just need to include a disclaimer and a warning label, if the user ignores the warning label and misused it, and gets hurt, its his fault not the manufactures.


1. That is true, and it is an example of harmful regulation, which supports my point that simply saying "more regulation" or "less regulation" doesn't help anything. It's not about whether there are too many or not enough regulations, but whether the regulations in place are sufficient enough to keep business practices fair and ethical while not being so strict that they cause they business to fail.

2. The same can be said about every other political ideology, which is why I believe it is foolish to only follow all of the principles of one of them and completely reject all the principles of all the other ones.

3. As I demonstrated before, Bush's huge tax cuts for the rich helped contribute to the recent recession and didn't help anyone but the wealthy people who already have plenty of money. So, again, it's not about if they are too high or too low, but if they are efficient and necessary and doing what they are meant to accomplish.

4. If we cut spending on top of lowering taxes, that means funding for public programs will severely reduce, so things like education, social security, and other government-funded programs that are vital to the general well-being of this country will lose a lot of money and become ineffective.

5. I know that, but if we stopped the war then that means less military spending, which means less government spending, which could or could not mean lower taxes. We would save the $300+ billion that I pointed out earlier that is going funding this war.

6. I know many conservatives who don't care if workers are harmed or exploited, which is why they allow companies like BP to cut corners and neglect safety regulations, which leads to things like the current oil spill, and they also support things like banning unions, getting rid of minimum wage, among many other things that will do nothing more but hurt workers and consumers for the sake of maximizing profits. I'm sure there are conservatives who don't support those things, but they aren't the ones in Washington D.C who are playing a major role in policy making.




Neither side has done anything to cut spending, including your fellow liberals.


The first part is true, but I explained earlier that I don't identify myself as liberal. I know I'm spouting a lot of liberal points, but I don't strictly adhere to all the principles of the liberal ideology in all situations as a true liberal would.


You support taking money away from hard working people to give it to people who don't work ?


We already do that, the government takes your tax money and gives it to old and/or disabled people. Even if someone is beyond retiring age and still able to work, they can still receive social security benefits.


When I think of income redistrobution i think of confiscation of personal wealth from hard working small and medium sized business people through taxation and giving it to lazy people who are too lazy to get a job but not lazy enough to not complain about having no money. I don't support that one bit. You have every right to the money you make, nobody should be able to take your hard earned money and give it to other people. That gives birth to the free rider problem


I don't support that, but I get the feeling that you feel that anyone who receives any sort of government aid, like welfare, must be lazy and not working. It is true that some people exploit the welfare system so that they don't have to work, but the majority of people who are/were on welfare use it as a last resort supplement because they can't get by on 2-3 minimum wage jobs. My family used to be on it, and I've known other people's who families are/were on it, and we all worked hard to get better jobs and earn more money because it's not fun being on welfare. I know from experience how embarrassing and inefficient it is to have to rely on food stamps and wear old tattered clothes from thrift stores, but without that we would have ended up on the streets and probably died. Only the laziest bums in the world would be satisfied with that kind of lifestyle, but fortunately there aren't a ton of people who are that lazy. I realize that there are crazy things like 5th generation welfare families that abuse the system, but it's not fair to eliminate it completely and harm the people who aren't abusing it and need it to get by and improve their lives.



The way I see it is get a job and pay your taxes like everyone else or shut up about having no money.


I feel the same way, but sadly not all people earn enough from their job(s) to get by without some assistance from federal programs, as I explained earlier.


Well the the bill was a complete and utter failure.


I wouldn't say it was a complete failure, it did create a few jobs (very few), which is what everyone wants. But it's definitely not as strong as it could have or should have been IMO.


You keep generalizing conservitives as a single entity. You can't do that. Not all conservitives are unwilling like that, not all conservitives are like you describe at all, most aren't in fact, only the most extreme one are.


I keep doing that because most of our senators and House representatives, along with other influential figures like Glenn Beck and Rush LImbaugh, are those extremist conservatives who fit my descriptions. I realize that not all conservatives are extremists, but unfortunately extremist conservatives have more power and influence than moderate conservatives at this time. So I wrongly use the word "conservative" in reference to the extremists who are influencing our public policy and spouting propaganda that is shaping the opinion of many people in this nation, because they are the only ones I keep hearing.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

I realize that and I agree that the government buying things from private companies is a good idea. But by supporting that, you are supporting government spending, which you keep saying that you're against. My point is not that the government shouldn't rely on private industry, it's that the government is spending too much money on the military budget just to benefit private industries, which is irresponsible government spending.


The way I see it is that money goes to fund research and development of military technology like scram cannons and particle accelerators.
A lot of the materials for those projects does come from private industry, so if does benefit private industry, but at the same time its not like the money is being wasted on unnecessary things. As technology advances weapons like a typical gun quickly becomes obsolete and outdated. If you don't keep developing new technology you fall behind. And that can potentially be the demise of said country.



1. That is true, and it is an example of harmful regulation, which supports my point that simply saying "more regulation" or "less regulation" doesn't help anything. It's not about whether there are too many or not enough regulations, but whether the regulations in place are sufficient enough to keep business practices fair and ethical while not being so strict that they cause they business to fail.

2. The same can be said about every other political ideology, which is why I believe it is foolish to only follow all of the principles of one of them and completely reject all the principles of all the other ones.

3. As I demonstrated before, Bush's huge tax cuts for the rich helped contribute to the recent recession and didn't help anyone but the wealthy people who already have plenty of money. So, again, it's not about if they are too high or too low, but if they are efficient and necessary and doing what they are meant to accomplish.

4. If we cut spending on top of lowering taxes, that means funding for public programs will severely reduce, so things like education, social security, and other government-funded programs that are vital to the general well-being of this country will lose a lot of money and become ineffective.

5. I know that, but if we stopped the war then that means less military spending, which means less government spending, which could or could not mean lower taxes. We would save the $300+ billion that I pointed out earlier that is going funding this war.

6. I know many conservatives who don't care if workers are harmed or exploited, which is why they allow companies like BP to cut corners and neglect safety regulations, which leads to things like the current oil spill, and they also support things like banning unions, getting rid of minimum wage, among many other things that will do nothing more but hurt workers and consumers for the sake of maximizing profits. I'm sure there are conservatives who don't support those things, but they aren't the ones in Washington D.C who are playing a major role in policy making.


1. I agree, but people(liberals generally) want to regulate businesses to the extreme where they can't operate efficiently and productively. Which is harmful to the economy. The same people like lots of regulations of other things like chemicals that don't need it and such.

2. I agree. I follow the same principle (most of the time anyway). Execpt for some key issues.

3. Not all wealthy people are billionaires you know. Some of these 'wealthy' people are just business owners trying to scrape by, as their expenses are higher than most. Mortage, 3k - 10k, rent 3k - 5k, insurances - 500 - 2k, utilities 100 - 1k, so they need to make at least like 9k a month just to get buy. Not all these 'wealthy' people are sitting on massive hoards of gold and diamonds like people make them out to be, some are, yes, but not all of them. Just pointing that out.

4. Meh, education and stuff should never be cut, but there are a lot of programs costing monie but doing nothing or are a duplicate, so kill those. Our government doesn't know the meaning of cost efficient.

5. Meh, war is expensive, those tanks cost a pretty penny, and so do the people operating them. The war is occurring, its going to keep on occurring for decades, so just give it up already. not gonna change lol.

6. I know conservitives who do care, in fact most do, besides, if the worker is harmed, you have to find a new one if its harmed badly enough.

Well I have a split view on unions, do you have any idea how fucking expensive they are ? And they lock you in a contract for like years. They can bankrupt companies because the companies can't afford them. But on the other hand, people get sweet benefits, and good pay. But you don't have to be in a union to get those things.

What I believe your refering to are 'extremist social conservitives'.


The first part is true, but I explained earlier that I don't identify myself as liberal. I know I'm spouting a lot of liberal points, but I don't strictly adhere to all the principles of the liberal ideology in all situations as a true liberal would.


You sure spout a lot of liberal stuff for someone who's not a liberal.



We already do that, the government takes your tax money and gives it to old and/or disabled people. Even if someone is beyond retiring age and still able to work, they can still receive social security benefits.


That's not what I mean, I mean giving it to lazy freeloaders. I object to giving tax payers monies to lazy freeloaders.


I don't support that, but I get the feeling that you feel that anyone who receives any sort of government aid, like welfare, must be lazy and not working. It is true that some people exploit the welfare system so that they don't have to work, but the majority of people who are/were on welfare use it as a last resort supplement because they can't get by on 2-3 minimum wage jobs. My family used to be on it, and I've known other people's who families are/were on it, and we all worked hard to get better jobs and earn more money because it's not fun being on welfare. I know from experience how embarrassing and inefficient it is to have to rely on food stamps and wear old tattered clothes from thrift stores, but without that we would have ended up on the streets and probably died. Only the laziest bums in the world would be satisfied with that kind of lifestyle, but fortunately there aren't a ton of people who are that lazy. I realize that there are crazy things like 5th generation welfare families that abuse the system, but it's not fair to eliminate it completely and harm the people who aren't abusing it and need it to get by and improve their lives.


No that's not what I mean, I know as well that welfare(as well as the other simillar things, like SSI, social security, ect) is nessasry for some people. But I'm specifically targeting the lazy freeloaders who abuse the system. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that.

I'm talking about the people who sit on their ass all day and play video games and watch tv, ect, all paid for by the taxpayers. Freeloaders.


I feel the same way, but sadly not all people earn enough from their job(s) to get by without some assistance from federal programs, as I explained earlier.


We all have to live within our means, the government should follow this too, but they don't.

If you have to work 3+ jobs to break even, you should ponder on going back to school, a education is the key to a good job, and student loans are now a federal thing so that's an option.



I wouldn't say it was a complete failure, it did create a few jobs (very few), which is what everyone wants. But it's definitely not as strong as it could have or should have been IMO.


Government run health care isn't the answer, its not the magical solid gold key, you can get denied health care cause its too expensive, and if that health care is something you need, your government just put you in front of the firing squad because you are not cost efficient. You just got left 4 dead lol.


You keep generalizing conservitives as a single entity. You can't do that. Not all conservitives are unwilling like that, not all conservitives are like you describe at all, most aren't in fact, only the most extreme one are.



I keep doing that because most of our senators and House representatives, along with other influential figures like Glenn Beck and Rush LImbaugh, are those extremist conservatives who fit my descriptions. I realize that not all conservatives are extremists, but unfortunately extremist conservatives have more power and influence than moderate conservatives at this time. So I wrongly use the word "conservative" in reference to the extremists who are influencing our public policy and spouting propaganda that is shaping the opinion of many people in this nation, because they are the only ones I keep hearing.


What exactly have they said, I get the impression that you haven't actually listened to either one of them but are forming options solely on the propaganda against them.

65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10
This whole mess started with invading Europe not smart lots of good able body American would die. Here as solution first we empty or prison in to Afghanistan. Every time an illegal get caught ship them there to, people on SSI and food stamps we give them a choice work Afghanistan or death. Billions saved and the Muslims will have a hissy fit. Hundreds of billion saved, this point is as silly as what started it.
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:




You keep generalizing conservitives as a single entity. You can't do that. Not all conservitives are unwilling like that, not all conservitives are like you describe at all, most aren't in fact, only the most extreme one are.



I keep doing that because most of our senators and House representatives, along with other influential figures like Glenn Beck and Rush LImbaugh, are those extremist conservatives who fit my descriptions. I realize that not all conservatives are extremists, but unfortunately extremist conservatives have more power and influence than moderate conservatives at this time. So I wrongly use the word "conservative" in reference to the extremists who are influencing our public policy and spouting propaganda that is shaping the opinion of many people in this nation, because they are the only ones I keep hearing.


What exactly have they said, I get the impression that you haven't actually listened to either one of them but are forming options solely on the propaganda against them.
You're the one to talk, when all you had been saying were all based on their policies, which had proven to be full of contradictions as well as biased opinions.

Seriously, I just don't think those right-wing extremists had any real sense just what kind of polices makes human society works. When all they have are sound-bites and propaganda that are illogical and unrealistic, kinda reminds me whatever that you've been saying insofar.


tarakelly wrote:

This whole mess started with invading Europe not smart lots of good able body American would die. Here as solution first we empty or prison in to Afghanistan. Every time an illegal get caught ship them there to, people on SSI and food stamps we give them a choice work Afghanistan or death. Billions saved and the Muslims will have a hissy fit. Hundreds of billion saved, this point is as silly as what started it.
It was as silly as it was in fact a part of the human history, when human dignity was undermined by economic exploitation known as looting. And you're not helping anyone with your insensitivity, when there are life scientists who are making real social difference in your prison as we speak.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

DomFortress wrote:

Seriously, I just don't think those right-wing extremists had any real sense just what kind of polices makes human society works. When all they have are sound-bites and propaganda that are illogical and unrealistic, kinda reminds me whatever that you've been saying insofar.


Left wing politics don't work either, just look at the disaster called greese. That's what happens when liberals are allowed to run a country.

You need policies from both sides.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/9/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Seriously, I just don't think those right-wing extremists had any real sense just what kind of polices makes human society works. When all they have are sound-bites and propaganda that are illogical and unrealistic, kinda reminds me whatever that you've been saying insofar.


Left wing politics don't work either, just look at the disaster called greese. That's what happens when liberals are allowed to run a country.

You need policies from both sides.


Nahh we need someone who is not going to take Policies from ether side.. In stead find something that works instead.

Left wing & Right wing have one thing in common, both sides are morons that have no clue what there doing an should be removed from the system.

But then I am for Big Aggressive style changes in order to fix the long term damage from both the parties in power.
Posted 7/9/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Left wing politics don't work either, just look at the disaster called greese. That's what happens when liberals are allowed to run a country.

You need policies from both sides.
Not only that you used an unrelated and fictional reference, you're now referring to yet another sound-bite. Only this time it's from the other side of the argument.

Do you know what you sound like right now? A career politician with no real sense of direction nor personal conviction, who's trying to secure votes with the most catchy sound-bite available. In short, the right type of idiot for the American government.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't that cause like...a war?


Yes, that is essentially the point-

while many people assume that War is a bad thing, there are visionaries who see the benefits of martial affairs.

1-Economically- When America entered the Second World War, we were in a recession, over 10% of the population were out of work, and, in general, life sucked. But the government had then conscripted all males between the ages of 18-30 or so, thus employing them. Likewise, for war, we needed the tools and the instruments of war, and so those closed factories were up and running again, producing weapons to sell to Uncle Sam, making money, then paying their workers (formerly housewives) , who, as most housewives, seeing that eggs are half priced, begin to shop, regenerating the economy and pulling us out of the recession.

2- Ecologically- less people= less competition for resources and less pollution.

3- Looting, as I mentioned above.


Wouldn't a lot of people be killed over something so pointless? The US needs to clean up their own mess, not take it from another country.


Beside, it is not at all pointless- we are doing to fill up our coffer.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.