Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Politics - double split
| Politics - double split [message #400120] |
Thu, 27 August 2009 13:54  |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Goztow wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 07:40 |
However, it doesn't change the fact that 2 people just repeating the same arguments over and over is a waste of effort and ressources.
|
i think the democratic party in America would disagree with you. they spouted the same crap for over a year and got their idiot elected to the White House 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400202 is a reply to message #400199] |
Thu, 27 August 2009 22:26  |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
wow. what exactly does government do?
|
Quite a few things. Government provides services which would be unweildy or unwise to allow the private sector to deal with, like most things relating to the construction or maintenance of roads. They provide regulation in areas where it would be foolhardy not to have regulation (Like in most utility sectors, airlines, (ideally speaking) the banking/finacial sector, and many others. On a local level, they provide public-safety services like a police force and fire department (To this day I'm baffled as to why healthcare isn't included here), and otherwise ensure that society functions the way it should.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
what is it you think they're SUPPOSED to do?
|
See above.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
who do you think PAYS for what the government does?
|
Taxpayers. The people receiving the services the government provides. Also, China.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
who do you think provides jobs to people?
|
Lots of entities, including, but not limited to, the government.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
tax cuts to businesses provides capital for businesses to expand and provide more jobs to people.
|
In theory. In reality it just gives the wealthy owners of said business more "capital" to buy that fourth solid-gold hot tub.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
tax cuts to individuals allows them to keep more of their own money in their own pockets so that they can decide how they will spend their own money.
|
At the cost of a smaller safety net in the form of less services to take advantage of. Also, this point assumes that whatever the individual decides to spend his money on is the right choice (Like all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Capitalism at it's finest!)
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
when they spend that money, it creates more jobs for more people who will in turn spend more money the ultimate goal being
|
Or more solid gold hot tubs.
| spotelmo wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 22:10 |
- get this- getting more people OFF government welfare!
|
I lol'd.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400218 is a reply to message #400120] |
Thu, 27 August 2009 23:27 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yeah, but who MAKES the solid gold hot tub? Now you've just created a job for the guys who mine the gold, the guys who refine the gold, the guys who make the tub, the guys who install the tub. Not the mention the guys who do the marketing for the tub manufacturer, the guys who sell the gold to the tub maker, the landlord of the property that the tub makers rent to make tubs, the guys who laid the utility lines so that the tub makers could have water, electricity, phones, the guys who make the roads that the above people drive on to get to work... need I continue?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400236 is a reply to message #400218] |
Thu, 27 August 2009 23:47 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 23:27 |
Yeah, but who MAKES the solid gold hot tub? Now you've just created a job for the guys who mine the gold, the guys who refine the gold, the guys who make the tub, the guys who install the tub. Not the mention the guys who do the marketing for the tub manufacturer, the guys who sell the gold to the tub maker, the landlord of the property that the tub makers rent to make tubs, the guys who laid the utility lines so that the tub makers could have water, electricity, phones, the guys who make the roads that the above people drive on to get to work... need I continue?
|
That's great, but the end result is a solid gold hot tub. That money and those jobs could easily be put to a better use, like making sure people don't go bankrupt because they can't afford health insurance, let's say, or building new roads (And widdening current ones that need it), or fixing levees in New Orleans, or making sure people don't get murdered in Chicago. The list goes on and on.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400292 is a reply to message #400120] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
so now you think that government should be allowed to decide how we can/should/will spend the money that we make? if i have money, i should be able to decide what i will do with it. whether i earn it, win it, have it given to me whatever. if i want a solid gold bath tub, then that is what i should be able to spend my money on.
imagine a government where you're not allowed to decide what you get to spend your money on.
imagine some government worker in washington deciding that you don't need a PC that can run games. afterall, games like renegade are a luxury. why should you get to buy one when there are levees breaking in new orleans? or how bout that steak dinner you want to take your girl friend to? steak is a bit over priced and luxurous, isnt' it? i think maybe you should take her to burger king instead. or, better yet, eating out in general is wrong whenn there are starving children! make her peanut butter sandwich ( no jelly, that's over the top)
it may sound stupid, but there is no difference between that and telling bill gates he can't have a solid gold bath tub. he earned his money, it's his to spend. not the government's
as for government healthcare, there are so many things wrong with that! not the least of which is the fact that government can't run anything well!
in america every single person has the chance to do what they want with their life. no one is stuck being poor, no one is stuck at the bottom. there are many ways to become successful - whether you consider rich as successful, family man as successful, a good artist or a lowly priest serving god. what ever your definition of success is, you have the opportunity to be that in america. and if you want to be rich and you work hard enough and smart enough and have the right amount of luck, you can be rich and when you are - there shouldnt' be an oppressive intrusive government telling you that you can't buy a solid gold bathtub!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400293 is a reply to message #400120] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 02:18 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
(Like all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Capitalism at it's finest!)
|
hmm now that isn't the fat cats buying gold bath tubs you're talking about here. that would be the lower paid working class who got a loan
#1 that they coulnd't afford
#2 without reading all the paper work
#3 that they didn't understand
#4 that they LIED to get
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400297 is a reply to message #400292] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 02:41 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
so now you think that government should be allowed to decide how we can/should/will spend the money that we make? if i have money, i should be able to decide what i will do with it. whether i earn it, win it, have it given to me whatever. if i want a solid gold bath tub, then that is what i should be able to spend my money on.
|
This is already the case in some (Admitedly common-sense) cases, like assault weapons. You can't spend your hard earned money on machine guns. Why? Because it does the public more harm than it does you good. Such laws are in effect beacause, at times, people have differing (Dare I say wrong?) views on what is acceptable use of their funds, which whether you like it or not, affects people beyond you and your immediate friends/family. For example, I WOULD be in support of a law that forbids people from buying houses they can't afford the payments on, because like buying a machine gun, you're causing a lot of potential harm to a lot of people while exercising your "freedom to choose".
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
imagine a government where you're not allowed to decide what you get to spend your money on.
imagine some government worker in washington deciding that you don't need a PC that can run games. afterall, games like renegade are a luxury. why should you get to buy one when there are levees breaking in new orleans? or how bout that steak dinner you want to take your girl friend to? steak is a bit over priced and luxurous, isnt' it? i think maybe you should take her to burger king instead. or, better yet, eating out in general is wrong whenn there are starving children! make her peanut butter sandwich ( no jelly, that's over the top)
|
I'm just going to write off this entire paragraph as silly ConserviFag scare tactics. In fact, I'm going to do you a favor, spot, and pretend you didn't write it. You're better than that, I know you are.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
it may sound stupid, but there is no difference between that and telling bill gates he can't have a solid gold bath tub. he earned his money, it's his to spend. not the government's
|
One of the reasons I respect Bill Gates as much as I do is because, even though he has (Had?) the highest , he doesn't (Didn't?) buy things like solid gold hot tubs.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
as for government healthcare, there are so many things wrong with that! not the least of which is the fact that government can't run anything well!
|
inb4iraqwar.
I'm going to forgive you for spouting that same retarded Regan mantra that republicans seem to be wet for. Government
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
in america every single person has the chance to do what they want with their life. no one is stuck being poor, no one is stuck at the bottom.
|
And in a perfect world, you'd be right, but reality begs to differ with you. The rich are only getting richer, and the poor are only getting poorer.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
there are many ways to become successful - whether you consider rich as successful, family man as successful, a good artist or a lowly priest serving god. what ever your definition of success is, you have the opportunity to be that in america.
|
While what you're saying here is true, it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. How do higher government taxes stop you from being artistic or being a priest? If anything you're only proving my point for me.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
and if you want to be rich and you work hard enough and smart enough and have the right amount of luck, you can be rich and when you are - there shouldnt' be an oppressive intrusive government telling you that you can't buy a solid gold bathtub!
|
"Oppressive" and "intrusive" aren't words I would use to describe a 3% tax hike on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. As evidence, I point to the Scandinavian countries which have higher taxes, yet outclass America in just about every way imaginable except maybe average weight of their citizens.
Governments are formed for a reason. Citizens pay taxes to a collective and in return they receive some kind of services in return. They know if a foreign nation invades there will be a military to stop them, they know there's a police to call if they see a crime being commited, and they know there's a fire department to call if their house is on fire (Why they shouldn't know there's a hospital to go to, I don't know). I could go as far as to say that the size of government is a measurement of civilization. Less taxes and smaller government mean less services being provided, and everyone is out for themselves in a vicious world. You might call it fair, but I call it barbaric. We're better than that.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400299 is a reply to message #400293] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 02:46 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:18 |
| Quote: |
(Like all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Capitalism at it's finest!)
|
hmm now that isn't the fat cats buying gold bath tubs you're talking about here. that would be the lower paid working class who got a loan
#1 that they coulnd't afford
#2 without reading all the paper work
#3 that they didn't understand
#4 that they LIED to get
|
I was referring to the need for government regulation in the financial sector. Certain things, like giving loans to people that they shouldn't qualify for, shouldn't be allowed.
It's very easy to put all the blame on the home buyers (And, I'll admit, a good portion of the blame does rest with them), but when it's an administration's policy to "encourage" people into becoming home buyers and when it's lucrative for banks to give such loans regardless of the secondary effects down the line, there really isn't much the individual can do. There are higher powers beyond their perception or ability to influence at work.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400323 is a reply to message #400299] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 05:26 |
kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 05:46 |
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:18 |
| Quote: |
(Like all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Capitalism at it's finest!)
|
hmm now that isn't the fat cats buying gold bath tubs you're talking about here. that would be the lower paid working class who got a loan
#1 that they coulnd't afford
#2 without reading all the paper work
#3 that they didn't understand
#4 that they LIED to get
|
I was referring to the need for government regulation in the financial sector. Certain things, like giving loans to people that they shouldn't qualify for, shouldn't be allowed.
It's very easy to put all the blame on the home buyers (And, I'll admit, a good portion of the blame does rest with them), but when it's an administration's policy to "encourage" people into becoming home buyers and when it's lucrative for banks to give such loans regardless of the secondary effects down the line, there really isn't much the individual can do. There are higher powers beyond their perception or ability to influence at work.
|
It was the government regulations that allowed them to get the loans... When ever the government gets in the private sector it goes bad.
PS Dover get over your wealth envy...it's disturbing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400332 is a reply to message #400297] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 05:41 |
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
so now you think that government should be allowed to decide how we can/should/will spend the money that we make? if i have money, i should be able to decide what i will do with it. whether i earn it, win it, have it given to me whatever. if i want a solid gold bath tub, then that is what i should be able to spend my money on.
|
This is already the case in some (Admitedly common-sense) cases, like assault weapons. You can't spend your hard earned money on machine guns. Why? Because it does the public more harm than it does you good. Such laws are in effect beacause, at times, people have differing (Dare I say wrong?) views on what is acceptable use of their funds, which whether you like it or not, affects people beyond you and your immediate friends/family. For example, I WOULD be in support of a law that forbids people from buying houses they can't afford the payments on, because like buying a machine gun, you're causing a lot of potential harm to a lot of people while exercising your "freedom to choose".
|
not really relevant to our conversation to compare dangerous weapons to luxury items. as for laws regarding not allowing people to buy a house they can't afford, that - for the most part- should be dealt with in the private sector. if someone gets a loan they can't afford, then they should suffer the consequences(usually foreclosure). at the same time, if a company gives a loan they shouldn't give then that company should suffer the consequences(meaning they should lose out on their investment ie. not get bailed out by taxpayers)| Quote: |
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
imagine a government where you're not allowed to decide what you get to spend your money on.
imagine some government worker in washington deciding that you don't need a PC that can run games. afterall, games like renegade are a luxury. why should you get to buy one when there are levees breaking in new orleans? or how bout that steak dinner you want to take your girl friend to? steak is a bit over priced and luxurous, isnt' it? i think maybe you should take her to burger king instead. or, better yet, eating out in general is wrong whenn there are starving children! make her peanut butter sandwich ( no jelly, that's over the top)
|
I'm just going to write off this entire paragraph as silly ConserviFag scare tactics. In fact, I'm going to do you a favor, spot, and pretend you didn't write it. You're better than that, I know you are.
|
don't write it off. it's a very valid point. at what point do you stop allowing government to decide what is and what is not luxury? is it just gold bathtubs? that's easy enough to fix - outlaw gold bathtubs! there will always be something that someone else thinks is luxurious. you probably think my GMC Envoy is luxury. perhaps you think i should drive my 4 kids around in a toyota prius? if we let you say "no gold bath tubs while kids are starving in inner chicago!" then what's to keep you from saying "no steak dinners while there's still crime in duluth!"
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
it may sound stupid, but there is no difference between that and telling bill gates he can't have a solid gold bath tub. he earned his money, it's his to spend. not the government's
One of the reasons I respect Bill Gates as much as I do is because, even though he has (Had?) the highest , he doesn't (Didn't?) buy things like solid gold hot tubs.
|
not that it matters, but he spends his money just like everyone else does. he travels first class, he goes on 2000 mile trips to go shopping, i don't know what type of tub he has (do you?) but then i can't name a person with a gold bathtub(can you?)
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
as for government healthcare, there are so many things wrong with that! not the least of which is the fact that government can't run anything well!
|
| Quote: |
inb4iraqwar.
I'm going to forgive you for spouting that same retarded Regan mantra that republicans seem to be wet for. Government
|
not sure what this means. can you tell me 3 things that government runs well?
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
in america every single person has the chance to do what they want with their life. no one is stuck being poor, no one is stuck at the bottom.
|
| Quote: |
And in a perfect world, you'd be right, but reality begs to differ with you. The rich are only getting richer, and the poor are only getting poorer.
|
not all rich are getting richer and not all poor are getting poorer. but it makes sense that once you hve money it's easier to keep/grow it. it also makes sense that often the bad decisions that made the poor poor will keep them in poverty. i can tell you that without being taxed, fined and fee'd to death the poor would have an easier time getting out of poverty. tell me - how many times have you heard a story of a person getting out of poverty by using government assistence(legally) sure, people have been on government assistence at tough times in their life, but it is their hard work and or luck that got them out of it - not the small government check that comes in the mail.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
there are many ways to become successful - whether you consider rich as successful, family man as successful, a good artist or a lowly priest serving god. what ever your definition of success is, you have the opportunity to be that in america.
|
| Quote: |
While what you're saying here is true, it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. How do higher government taxes stop you from being artistic or being a priest? If anything you're only proving my point for me.
|
higher government taxes make it so that you have to work harder to afford even the basic necessities in life. it is harder to spend time doing what you love (painting for example) when you are spending so much time trying to put food on the table.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:13 |
and if you want to be rich and you work hard enough and smart enough and have the right amount of luck, you can be rich and when you are - there shouldnt' be an oppressive intrusive government telling you that you can't buy a solid gold bathtub!
|
| Quote: |
"Oppressive" and "intrusive" aren't words I would use to describe a 3% tax hike on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. As evidence, I point to the Scandinavian countries which have higher taxes, yet outclass America in just about every way imaginable except maybe average weight of their citizens.
|
the richest americans pay over 90% of the taxes in this country. i'd have to look up the exact numbers ( and i will later ) but once the bush tax cuts expire over 30% of the money the top earners make will go to federal taxes. that's just federal income tax - not including local and state taxes. once the proposed obama taxes go into effect, it's estimated that somem americans will pay over 50% in taxes. that means over half of what they make in wages will be handed over to the government. how'd you like it if you worked over 70 hours a week(most ceo's do so) and had to pay over half of what you make to the government?
| Quote: |
Governments are formed for a reason. Citizens pay taxes to a collective and in return they receive some kind of services in return. They know if a foreign nation invades there will be a military to stop them, they know there's a police to call if they see a crime being commited, and they know there's a fire department to call if their house is on fire (Why they shouldn't know there's a hospital to go to, I don't know). I could go as far as to say that the size of government is a measurement of civilization. Less taxes and smaller government mean less services being provided, and everyone is out for themselves in a vicious world. You might call it fair, but I call it barbaric. We're better than that.
|
most philosophers say - and i agree - that government is by definition an entity that restricts its citizens freedom. smaller government means more freedom. less taxes = MORE REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT! this is because when the people keep more of their money they get more innovative and create more jobs which means more revenue to the government.
i hope i got the quotes right this time, i keep trying but i keep messing up. i have to go to bed soon. but i'll try to post facts with sources regarding tax rates and such later.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 06:27] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400349 is a reply to message #400323] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 06:32 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 08:26 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 05:46 |
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 02:18 |
| Quote: |
(Like all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Capitalism at it's finest!)
|
hmm now that isn't the fat cats buying gold bath tubs you're talking about here. that would be the lower paid working class who got a loan
#1 that they coulnd't afford
#2 without reading all the paper work
#3 that they didn't understand
#4 that they LIED to get
|
I was referring to the need for government regulation in the financial sector. Certain things, like giving loans to people that they shouldn't qualify for, shouldn't be allowed.
It's very easy to put all the blame on the home buyers (And, I'll admit, a good portion of the blame does rest with them), but when it's an administration's policy to "encourage" people into becoming home buyers and when it's lucrative for banks to give such loans regardless of the secondary effects down the line, there really isn't much the individual can do. There are higher powers beyond their perception or ability to influence at work.
|
It was the government regulations that allowed them to get the loans... When ever the government gets in the private sector it goes bad.
PS Dover get over your wealth envy...it's disturbing.
|
i gotta agree here!
the democrat party should be very proud of themselves, the lessons taught by karl marx have finally worked for them. they've been preaching this class warfare since the end of Clinton's term. it didn't work for gore, didn't work for kerry, definitely didn't work for edwards, but it's working very well for obama.
the scary thing is, those who are participating in this class envy crap don't even recognize they're doing it or that it's a bad thing. makes you wonder when as americans we started teaching our kids this in the home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400395 is a reply to message #400349] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 09:43 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Spot do you know why those people pay so much more income tax then the poor bastards who don't have any income?
It's because they earn 90% of the money earned in this country. Even if it was a flat % tax they'd be paying billions more in taxes because they make that much more.
It's not like paying those taxes hurts someone whos average yearly income could feed a family of 4 for life.
By the way you forget to mentioned all the tax breaks and loop hole that allow those people who you say pay such high taxes to pay next to no taxes in reality.
Their is a reason our government is run by the corporations. The people like you who truly think it's good for everybody to let the rich get as rich as they want no matter who suffers because of it.
You know where all that money in the rich peoples bank accounts come from the poor. If the working class decided they had enough of working their asses off for nothing the rich fuckers would come falling down pretty fast but guess what never gonna happen because the working class needs that money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 05:05:24 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01501 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
.
