|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 10:28:15 GMT -6
What do you guys propose we do? Lower taxes and borrow more money from China?
How do you expect to pay our nations increasing deficit without raising taxes? Maybe we should start a war with Iran or Russia and keep racking up that debt.
Correct me if I am wrong but when Clinto left office we had a surplus in the national budget. With Bush's tax cuts and excessive spending (which CANNOT bode well with any real conservative), we are in a position where we cannot afford to lower taxes anymore. Like it or not a very large percentage of our country is entering retirement over the next several years and many of them are ill prepared for retirement. Getting a job as a greeter at Wal Mart may seem like a lucrative job once all of these retirees are fighting for any low skilled, physically "non-demanding" job.
Everyone wants lower taxes but nobody is forced to accept the fact that we, as a nation, cannot afford to lower taxes. I am fully in support of rich people who live lavish lifestyles (as BTR said, the top .5%) carrying a heavier weight of the load.
I don't agree with a flat tax because many people get taken advantage of by corporations. I realize they do not possess the skills to make $200k and never will. So what, some people are naturally not intelligent or more skilled at manual labor jobs. Maybe in your minds they don't deserve to live a good life, and I do not mean to imply that the human resources of the smart and able are not to be valued. I will say though that many of these people live modestly and are having a hard enough time to get by so why should they be penalized over the silver spoon and naturally gifted types.
Also, while these proles can justifiably be criticized for their lack of responsiblity, some of them simply do not know any better than to be placed in their lot in life. You guys all seem to be arguing that you are upset because you are in a higher tax bracket and you are upset about these changes, basically that you are looking out for yourselves, which is fine and human nature. As a person in a lower income tax bracket I am looking out for myself too, and could give two shits if your demographic has to pay more in taxes. There are ALOT more people in my situation than yours and we represent the greater number of American people.
As far as everyone's taxes going up when the Bush tax cuts expire, I am fine with that. Those tax cuts and the economic policies of teh Bush administration were terribly irresponsible. Kind of funny that they price themselves as "conservatives" and are spending ungodly amounts outside of the US, all while lowering taxes for the rich. That is about as responsible as an individual running up thousands of dollars in credit card debt or buying a house while reducing their hours at work.
Bottom line is that I don't agree with you guys. We represent different segments of the population. I do sympathize with the fact that you are being taxed at a higher rate even though you have put in many years of dedicated effort and earned a higher standard of living. Still, you're after tax income if you are making $200k+ is way beyond the overall salaries of the average American worker, so don't pretend like you are being forced to live in Shantytown because that is a farce.
You can throw as many statistics as you like and I do and will read the articles you post here and it does help me have a more well rounded knowledge of what is going on. I also do understand better some of the flaws in the plan Obama is proposing and you have done a good job of shedding light on your position. Still, I think (and I am entitled to an opinon, have a shred of respect for that) that the nation will be better off under an Obama administration than McCain. As BTR had said numerous times before, it is like picking the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world I would vote for Ron Paul.
And for the billionth time, I am mostly proposing a high tax increase on the elite, so quit throwing mud about people making ~200k, they are upper middle class citizens and not who I am talking about wantin to jack taxes up on. I do understand that Obama's plan would effect these people negatively but, again, 97% (go ahead and dig up some stats, prove me wrong, I am only trying to illutrate a point) of the country does not fall in this category. I think that 97% of people are more important than the remaining 3%.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Oct 29, 2008 10:31:56 GMT -6
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. " ----------- Anonymous
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 10:33:47 GMT -6
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. " ----------- Anonymous Like I said before, I could care less if the homeless guy died on the street, someone could use a job cleaning up their dead bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 29, 2008 10:36:12 GMT -6
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. " ----------- Anonymous Damn Prom! Good job pal!
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 10:44:07 GMT -6
I don't think you guys are even reading my posts. I have stated over and over that I am not looking out for the homless people, I'm looking out for the average American. I could care less about the homeless pieces of shit and wellfare freeloaders. Unfortunately they are included somewhat in what I see as the better of two imperfect options we have.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Oct 29, 2008 10:45:08 GMT -6
Note that this quote does not deny that the homeless person (we're using extremes here) is in need, but the actual practice of the redistrubition of wealth is not as simple some make it seem.
.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Oct 29, 2008 10:46:42 GMT -6
I don't think you guys are even reading my posts. I have stated over and over that I am not looking out for the homless people, I'm looking out for the average American. I could care less about the homeless pieces of shit and wellfare freeloaders. Unfortunately they are included somewhat in what I see as the better of two imperfect options we have. My quote wasn't really pointed at anybody in particular.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Oct 29, 2008 10:53:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 29, 2008 11:00:40 GMT -6
Let me re-ask, but without numbers. These are honest questions I have. Not trying to change your mind, but gauge where you are at.
For those in favor of redistribution, at what levels does the redistribution stop? What point/level defines who is deemed "distributor" vs who is "recipient"?
Does your stance change if all but the yet to be defined bottom level are distributors and only the bottom level are "recipients" with all levels "contributing"?
Does your stance change if you were to fall in neither category but somehow "recipients" end up at levels beyond where you are?
At what point in time does redistribution accomplish its goals? What marks successful redistributioning?
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 11:24:43 GMT -6
Let me re-ask, but without numbers. These are honest questions I have. Not trying to change your mind, but gauge where you are at. For those in favor of redistribution, at what levels does the redistribution stop? What point/level defines who is deemed "distributor" vs who is "recipient"? Does your stance change if all but the yet to be defined bottom level are distributors and only the bottom level are "recipients" with all levels "contributing"? Does your stance change if you were to fall in neither category but somehow "recipients" end up at levels beyond where you are? At what point in time does redistribution accomplish its goals? What marks successful redistributioning? I'll try to answer these the best I can. 1) I think a good wealth distribution would be as follows: 15% of pop. in top 1/3rd 50% of pop. in mid 1/3rd 35% of pop. in low 1/3rd 2) In a country with taxes and social services (including roads, police, military, wellfare, medicare, social security, etc.) war are all distributors and recipeints. 3) That is just a retarded suggestion that anyone would prefer to have the "recipients" be better off than the distributors. Although you could make the argument that the "super rich" live in this position already. 4) I think I answered that in the first response. How would you answer the same question? Keep it simple too if you can.
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 29, 2008 11:54:27 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply twine. I am curious as to what other's who favor redist might think.
I'm not going to speak to your reply and just leave as is -- I'm guessing you and I could prob. go back and forth ad nauseum on pros/cons and differences of opinions.
Had one clarification -- no need for you to reply back on, but on the first set of questions was thinking more in terms of income stratas or layers (eg, $100-$200,000; 200,001-400,000; etc)of how to define who distributes vs who doesn't. Just a clarification of my line of thought.
I don't favor redistribution, so I don't really have an ultimate distribution or bell of where people should fall into. Like most other things (eg stock market), I tend to fall into the category of let the chips fall where they may. Let things take their own course and where we end up is where we end up. No need to "bail out", subsidize, etc. If things suck, let the suckiness run its course and we'll eventually come back around.
Kind of a chicken-s**t answer I know (in that I wasn't real specific), but I don't really have a problem with wealth inequality as to me it is more motivating than trying to achieve proportional distributions.
This will prob. be my last post on this.... (and there was much rejoicing)....
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 12:02:05 GMT -6
I'm done with this thread too. . . (even more rejoicing). . .
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 12:59:42 GMT -6
1) What do you guys propose we do? Lower taxes and borrow more money from China? How do you expect to pay our nations increasing deficit without raising taxes? Maybe we should start a war with Iran or Russia and keep racking up that debt. 2) Correct me if I am wrong but when Clinto left office we had a surplus in the national budget. With Bush's tax cuts and excessive spending (which CANNOT bode well with any real conservative), we are in a position where we cannot afford to lower taxes anymore. Like it or not a very large percentage of our country is entering retirement over the next several years and many of them are ill prepared for retirement. Getting a job as a greeter at Wal Mart may seem like a lucrative job once all of these retirees are fighting for any low skilled, physically "non-demanding" job. 3) Everyone wants lower taxes but nobody is forced to accept the fact that we, as a nation, cannot afford to lower taxes. I am fully in support of rich people who live lavish lifestyles (as BTR said, the top .5%) carrying a heavier weight of the load. 4) I don't agree with a flat tax because many people get taken advantage of by corporations. I realize they do not possess the skills to make $200k and never will. So what, some people are naturally not intelligent or more skilled at manual labor jobs. Maybe in your minds they don't deserve to live a good life, and I do not mean to imply that the human resources of the smart and able are not to be valued. I will say though that many of these people live modestly and are having a hard enough time to get by so why should they be penalized over the silver spoon and naturally gifted types. 5) Also, while these proles can justifiably be criticized for their lack of responsiblity, some of them simply do not know any better than to be placed in their lot in life. You guys all seem to be arguing that you are upset because you are in a higher tax bracket and you are upset about these changes, basically that you are looking out for yourselves, which is fine and human nature. As a person in a lower income tax bracket I am looking out for myself too, and could give two shits if your demographic has to pay more in taxes. There are ALOT more people in my situation than yours and we represent the greater number of American people. 6) As far as everyone's taxes going up when the Bush tax cuts expire, I am fine with that. Those tax cuts and the economic policies of teh Bush administration were terribly irresponsible. Kind of funny that they price themselves as "conservatives" and are spending ungodly amounts outside of the US, all while lowering taxes for the rich. That is about as responsible as an individual running up thousands of dollars in credit card debt or buying a house while reducing their hours at work. 7) Bottom line is that I don't agree with you guys. We represent different segments of the population. I do sympathize with the fact that you are being taxed at a higher rate even though you have put in many years of dedicated effort and earned a higher standard of living. Still, you're after tax income if you are making $200k+ is way beyond the overall salaries of the average American worker, so don't pretend like you are being forced to live in Shantytown because that is a farce. You can throw as many statistics as you like and I do and will read the articles you post here and it does help me have a more well rounded knowledge of what is going on. I also do understand better some of the flaws in the plan Obama is proposing and you have done a good job of shedding light on your position. Still, I think (and I am entitled to an opinon, have a shred of respect for that) that the nation will be better off under an Obama administration than McCain. As BTR had said numerous times before, it is like picking the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world I would vote for Ron Paul. 8) And for the billionth time, I am mostly proposing a high tax increase on the elite, so quit throwing mud about people making ~200k, they are upper middle class citizens and not who I am talking about wantin to jack taxes up on. I do understand that Obama's plan would effect these people negatively but, again, 97% (go ahead and dig up some stats, prove me wrong, I am only trying to illutrate a point) of the country does not fall in this category. I think that 97% of people are more important than the remaining 3%. 1) I don't think our country has a revenue intake problem, with its roughly $2.7 trillion in federal tax receipts. I think the country has more of a spending problem than a taxing problem. 2) Clinton did have a surplus when SS funds were added in, but at the time, we had a massive boom in economic activity related to the tech boom. The people who are now nearing retirement are going to have adjust their expectations. Social Security has crowded out private incentives to save for the future. The age at which benefits may be taken must be increased drastically, the government simply as a matter of policy cannot afford to support a really high percentage of people who do not work from the time they are 65 until their death. That support includes SS and Medicare, it is too expensive and it is in your best interest to say "NO" to high taxes and "NO" to the shift of your income to the elderly. Here's a little tidbit, old people control most of the wealth in the country already. 3) So then you think Barack's plan is bad and you would support my playa hater tax? 4) Not sure what you mean. 5) This is the Wesley Mouch mindset, we have the majority so we are right. You're a young man, you'll make a come up, your earning power will increase as you advance in life. You'll be one of the "rich" guys, too. Even if it's not the top 1% or 2% or 10%, the percentage line that is "rich" will creep to meet you at some point in your life (probably very soon). At that point, you'll have wished that there was something in the Republic to protect you from majoritarian excesses. Too bad the Constitution doesn't do that anymore. The problem with majoritarian excesses is that the political process uses majoritarian force to promise a majority a substantial quantity of goodies from the public treasure chest. It has been estimated that currently roughly 1/3 of workers bear no income tax burden, and that number will increase to 48% under Obama's proposals (I suspect he'll zing those top 75% fat cats with more taxes so that number may be off). That raises serious concerns to me, at what point do those who do not pay taxes become the majority? If those who pay no taxes are the majority, what is to prevent them from voting for more and goodies from the government, that they know they'll never pay for? If the prole class then gets massive goodies from the treasury based solely on "need" and they have a better standard of living than the next step up, where is the incentive for that next stepped up class to work? Upward lazy prole drift is a very real possibility. 6) Bush is a fiscal liberal. I firmly believe extreme fiscal liberalism is a bad idea. The guy shouldn't have spent so much cash, but the game in DC is all a money grab, everyone who is sent there is sent with the purpose of bringing as much pork home as they can. No candidate either party puts up will ever change that. 7) I am optimistic about the future, you'll be doing fine. We represent the same segment of the population, those who are about to get effed in the A by entitlement payments to baby boomers. 8) I think everybody is important, not just 97% of the population.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Oct 29, 2008 15:12:50 GMT -6
8) I think everybody is important, not just 97% of the population.
Then you don't believe in a true representative democracy which our country is.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 15:26:29 GMT -6
8) I think everybody is important, not just 97% of the population. Then you don't believe in a true representative democracy which our country is. Uhhh, contrary to what your liberal arts professors brainwashed you with, there is a piece of paper called the Constitution which is supposed to protect the minority against the majoritarian excesses. When I hear leftist politicians talk about how their plan is right because it helps 95% of the people at the expense of 5% of the people, I have to think the Dixiecrat forefathers of the modern Democrat Party are happy that the argument of "majority rules" has trumped the Constitution. A proud day for our constitutional republic, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Oct 29, 2008 15:51:36 GMT -6
8) I think everybody is important, not just 97% of the population. Then you don't believe in a true representative democracy which our country is. Uhhh, contrary to what your liberal arts professors brainwashed you with, there is a piece of paper called the Constitution which is supposed to protect the minority against the majoritarian excesses. When I hear leftist politicians talk about how their plan is right because it helps 95% of the people at the expense of 5% of the people, I have to think the Dixiecrat forefathers of the modern Democrat Party are happy that the argument of "majority rules" has trumped the Constitution. A proud day for our constitutional republic, indeed. The majority rules concept was set up when our government was formed. Yes, there is a Constitution that is our ultimate set of rules; however, the functionality of our Senate and House are based on a "majority rules" concept. 51 votes beats 49 votes on a piece of legislation.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 16:05:44 GMT -6
Uhhh, contrary to what your liberal arts professors brainwashed you with, there is a piece of paper called the Constitution which is supposed to protect the minority against the majoritarian excesses. When I hear leftist politicians talk about how their plan is right because it helps 95% of the people at the expense of 5% of the people, I have to think the Dixiecrat forefathers of the modern Democrat Party are happy that the argument of "majority rules" has trumped the Constitution. A proud day for our constitutional republic, indeed. The majority rules concept was set up when our government was formed. Yes, there is a Constitution that is our ultimate set of rules; however, the functionality of our Senate and House are based on a "majority rules" concept. 51 votes beats 49 votes on a piece of legislation. Really, 51 beats 49? Do you know what beats the 51? Do you know that it protects everyone, not just those in the majority? So back to my point, I think everybody is important, not just 97% of the population. Don't worry lp, if 97% of the population wants to use big government power to come after you, some asshole strict constructionalist Federalist Society conservative small government prick like me will stick up for you against mob rule.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Oct 29, 2008 19:33:11 GMT -6
What do you guys propose we do? Lower taxes and borrow more money from China? How do you expect to pay our nations increasing deficit without raising taxes? Maybe we should start a war with Iran or Russia and keep racking up that debt. Correct me if I am wrong but when Clinto left office we had a surplus in the national budget. With Bush's tax cuts and excessive spending (which CANNOT bode well with any real conservative), we are in a position where we cannot afford to lower taxes anymore. Like it or not a very large percentage of our country is entering retirement over the next several years and many of them are ill prepared for retirement. Getting a job as a greeter at Wal Mart may seem like a lucrative job once all of these retirees are fighting for any low skilled, physically "non-demanding" job. Everyone wants lower taxes but nobody is forced to accept the fact that we, as a nation, cannot afford to lower taxes. I am fully in support of rich people who live lavish lifestyles (as BTR said, the top .5%) carrying a heavier weight of the load. I don't agree with a flat tax because many people get taken advantage of by corporations. I realize they do not possess the skills to make $200k and never will. So what, some people are naturally not intelligent or more skilled at manual labor jobs. Maybe in your minds they don't deserve to live a good life, and I do not mean to imply that the human resources of the smart and able are not to be valued. I will say though that many of these people live modestly and are having a hard enough time to get by so why should they be penalized over the silver spoon and naturally gifted types. Also, while these proles can justifiably be criticized for their lack of responsiblity, some of them simply do not know any better than to be placed in their lot in life. You guys all seem to be arguing that you are upset because you are in a higher tax bracket and you are upset about these changes, basically that you are looking out for yourselves, which is fine and human nature. As a person in a lower income tax bracket I am looking out for myself too, and could give two shits if your demographic has to pay more in taxes. There are ALOT more people in my situation than yours and we represent the greater number of American people. As far as everyone's taxes going up when the Bush tax cuts expire, I am fine with that. Those tax cuts and the economic policies of teh Bush administration were terribly irresponsible. Kind of funny that they price themselves as "conservatives" and are spending ungodly amounts outside of the US, all while lowering taxes for the rich. That is about as responsible as an individual running up thousands of dollars in credit card debt or buying a house while reducing their hours at work. Bottom line is that I don't agree with you guys. We represent different segments of the population. I do sympathize with the fact that you are being taxed at a higher rate even though you have put in many years of dedicated effort and earned a higher standard of living. Still, you're after tax income if you are making $200k+ is way beyond the overall salaries of the average American worker, so don't pretend like you are being forced to live in Shantytown because that is a farce. You can throw as many statistics as you like and I do and will read the articles you post here and it does help me have a more well rounded knowledge of what is going on. I also do understand better some of the flaws in the plan Obama is proposing and you have done a good job of shedding light on your position. Still, I think (and I am entitled to an opinon, have a shred of respect for that) that the nation will be better off under an Obama administration than McCain. As BTR had said numerous times before, it is like picking the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world I would vote for Ron Paul. And for the billionth time, I am mostly proposing a high tax increase on the elite, so quit throwing mud about people making ~200k, they are upper middle class citizens and not who I am talking about wantin to jack taxes up on. I do understand that Obama's plan would effect these people negatively but, again, 97% (go ahead and dig up some stats, prove me wrong, I am only trying to illutrate a point) of the country does not fall in this category. I think that 97% of people are more important than the remaining 3%. Yo, Twine. Not trying to change your mind or beat this dead horse any further but...The Bush Tax Cuts allowed the most tax revenue ever to be collected. Higher taxes stifle business and the jobs they create. Lower taxes stimulate business. I'll stop there. Anyways, I don't agree that we represent different segments of the population. I'm one of those physical labor guys you mentioned before though I also happen to be Da Boss. I don't come from money, I've paid my own way starting at the age of 17 and I started my own extremely successful business about 12 years ago. Lots and lots of hard work, time, stress and getting kicked in the nuts every so often has led to a very comfortable income. Even when I had next to nothing, I never thought the people above me on the economic ladder should contribute to my well-being so I do look at higher taxes(in general) and speading the wealth as punishing my hard earned success. And yeah, I get that The Wrap's hater bracket proposal would be your top choice.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 21:01:36 GMT -6
Whoa Bawney, back the truck up. The fact that the Bush tax cuts in fact made the tax code more progressive and increased revenue has no place in this discussion. The liberal mind thinks the GDP pie is fixed, and the focus should be on equality of distribution, not growth of the pie.
If Bill Gates' wealth increases by 100% in the next year because the stock market turns and mine only increases 75%, that's not fair and we must stop that growth of the gap between the ultra rich and everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 29, 2008 22:55:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 29, 2008 23:24:15 GMT -6
I guess you guys have it all figured out. Congratulations!
I look forward to a BTR for president campaing with running mate Iowafan1 Palin in 2012. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Have fun blowing each other, this is getting very, very pointless to even try to have a discussion because you guys don't acknowledge any one elses point.
I agree with some of your points but think you are overly one sided with your opinions. After a while it's like listening to a little kid have a temper tantrum.
I like the attempts you make to try and convince other people that they have no idea what they are talking about by twisting language, throwing out random statistics while boldly stating they you have factual information to support all of your positions.
For example, 51% is a majority, that is a simple fact. By your attempts to state otherwise is good old-fashione doublespeak. You do have a great way of being a smuggish dick about it though, which I do give you credit for. For a while you almost had me believing that I don't know what I am talking about at all.
Also, economics is by no means a science. There is no way of truly proving the cause of effect of one tax cut or one change in policy when there are an infinate number of variables effecting economic outcomes. You guys don't know it all, but you probably knew that already.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 29, 2008 23:42:21 GMT -6
Damn Twine!....thought we were tight man...
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 30, 2008 7:41:39 GMT -6
Can't we all just get along?
LOL
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 30, 2008 8:29:13 GMT -6
I guess you guys have it all figured out. Congratulations! I look forward to a BTR for president campaing with running mate Iowafan1 Palin in 2012. It will be interesting to see what happens. Have fun blowing each other, this is getting very, very pointless to even try to have a discussion because you guys don't acknowledge any one elses point. I agree with some of your points but think you are overly one sided with your opinions. After a while it's like listening to a little kid have a temper tantrum. I like the attempts you make to try and convince other people that they have no idea what they are talking about by twisting language, throwing out random statistics while boldly stating they you have factual information to support all of your positions. For example, 51% is a majority, that is a simple fact. By your attempts to state otherwise is good old-fashione doublespeak. You do have a great way of being a smuggish dick about it though, which I do give you credit for. For a while you almost had me believing that I don't know what I am talking about at all. Also, economics is by no means a science. There is no way of truly proving the cause of effect of one tax cut or one change in policy when there are an infinate number of variables effecting economic outcomes. You guys don't know it all, but you probably knew that already. Me and Iowafan could never be Pres/VP, we won't loot the treasury for the proles, that's what you gotta do to win. I don't think either Iowafan or me have done anything tantamount to a temper tantrum, we're just challenging you to think about the implications of a society where the number of those who are living off the public trough outweigh those who are feeding the public trough and the implications of a revenue generating scheme dependent on so few people. And I'm not saying 51% is anything but a majority, I'm saying that if a majority wants to do something that is repugnant to the Constitution, it cannot do so. If you replace the word "rich" in Obama's speeches with "Jew" or "gypsy" or "handicapped" or "black" etc. such that his speech is "95% of Americans will benefit from this change in policy that only adversely affects the [Jews, blacks, handicapped etc.] who are only 5% of the population" maybe then you can see the demagoguery in action. The Constitution is in place to prevent demagoguery. I think everyone is important, that is why I am a supporter of the Constitution and opposed to demagoguery. You only support the majority, that is why you support demagoguery. If my pointing that out to you is a tantrum, so be it, but maybe you should reconsider who is having the tantrum. And I know that economics isn't an exact science and that an infinite number of variables impact economic outcomes. However, I am willing to concede imperfections in the market and favor rational regulation that has the effect of alleviating some of those imperfections, but I am also willing to admit that two parties in a voluntary exchange are generally better "deciders" of their own best interest than some "decider" in Washington DC.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 30, 2008 8:29:36 GMT -6
|
|