Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Politics - double split
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400405 is a reply to message #400404] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 10:33   |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 12:27 |
So basically you are saying that Successful people should be punished for being successful
|
No I'm saying they should pay their fair share spot says they should pay less because they are successful. How is them paying more taxes when they have more money to pay said taxes is a punishment? at the end of the day it doesn't really effect them in any negative way.
whats good for the economy is not whats good for the individual it's whats good for the hole. Is long as we are doing simply whats good for "me" whats good for everybody goes by the way side if you can't see that your a blind fool.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 10:33] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400435 is a reply to message #400120] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 11:51 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
dragon, your argument would hold some merit if we weren't talking about percentages of income or if we were talking about theoretical dollars. you say the rich don't pay taxes because of loopholes but the fact remains that they pay 90% of the dollars going into the government.
you say the poor pay more in taxes but the truth is, the poor pay nothing in taxes while the rich pay 30% of their income in taxes.
the rich are already paying more than their "fair share" in taxes.
your marxist statements about how the rich would crumble if the poor decided not to take it any more is for the most part true. however the poor would suffer sooner, longer and worse than the rich because it is the rich who are giving the poor their money.
what i don't get, is how you guys are preaching about how government is good but rich people are bad. you do realize that the government is made up of rich people, right? government isn't some magical entity that just exists in a mgaic kingdom. you're basicly saying that all this money and power should be given over to a bunch of middleaged (mostly)white guys so that they can decide what to do to your life. you don't like rich guys, you don't like corporations because their evil and take all your money and leave you with nothing yet somehow you think the government is any different. how many government officials can you name that aren't rich? hell, the hero of the left ted kennedy just died. he's been in office for almost 50 years. his salary as a senator is less than $200k yet he was a millionaire. it would seem that he'd only end up as middle class with that small salary yet he had millions.
i still haven't seen anyone list 3 things that the government does well and efficiently.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400438 is a reply to message #400435] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 12:01 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
aaaa putting words in my mouth there spot. When have I ever said I liked or even trusted the government? They don't give a shit about the country as a hole either.
The poor don't pay much in taxes it's the middle class that gets raped in the ass. They get no governmental help at all unlike the poor and no breaks like the rich. Soon enough their will be no middle class so that argument wont mean anything.
By the way my family is in the shitter because of the bureaucratic bullshit in the country where the corporations are basically above the law.
look up the Dana cooperation and what they did to their retired employees.
I'd like you to tell me how they earned that money in any way shape or form when they were more then likely born rich in the first place.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 12:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400456 is a reply to message #400438] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 14:04 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| darkdragon wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 15:01 |
I'd like you to tell me how they earned that money in any way shape or form when they were more then likely born rich in the first place.
|
by "they" do you mean all the rich? if so, it looks to me like you're making assumptions without any facts to back them up. there are thousands of millionaires in this country. do you think they were all born rich? there are millions of peole who are considered "wealthy" by the obama administration (earn over $250k per year) do you really think they're actually "rich"? do you think they were born making that money? do you think they should be paying such a large percentage of their income in taxes? i agree the middleclass get screwed more than anyone in this country. they often don't have the power of the rich or even the power of the poor and they are too busy working to put food on the table to take the time to educate themselves about what the government is doing to their lives and then act upon it.
that still doesn't mean that we need more government or that the rich should pay more taxes to the government. what it means is that we need to elect officials who will actually have our interests in mind when making decisions that affect our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400458 is a reply to message #400323] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 14:14 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 05:26 |
It was the government regulations that allowed them to get the loans... When ever the government gets in the private sector it goes bad.
|
I believe you're mistaken. It's the lack of government regulations that allowed them to get loans. Regulations tend to be restrictive (And with good reason). If it allows more than it restricts, it isn't a regulation.
| kadoosh wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 05:26 |
PS Dover get over your wealth envy...it's disturbing.
|
HAR HAR
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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)
|
And again, in a perfect world, you'd be right, but clearly it's not just them that bears the consequences of their actions. To some extent we all do. This is what I'm trying to get across. We're not just a collection of isolated individuals. We're a society, and we need to behave accordingling.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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!"
|
Since we're having this discussion in the context of the size of government (and the amount of taxes that should be payed, accordingling), I'll assume that the point you're making is that the current amount is the best amount, and even if
If that is, indeed, what you're trying to say, then all I have to do is point the the multitude of more successful states, in particular (again) the Scandonavian nations.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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,
|
Perhaps, but not at the level he could, or more accurately at the level he's expected to in the consumer culture the United States in which he holds (Held?) the position of "Richest man". By and large most of his money goes to charity and other worthy causes, which is the case with some of the wealthier class, but sadly not many.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
i don't know what type of tub he has (do you?)
|
I don't know what kind of tub he has either. I do know, however, that he does not have a solid gold bath tub.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
but then i can't name a person with a gold bathtub(can you?)
|
And I can name someone with a solid gold bath tub. She is the CEO and owner of a "small business" that employs about seven people.
| 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.
|
My bad. I was distracted in the process of writing my response and I coincidently moved on to the next point without ever finishing my thought.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
can you tell me 3 things that government runs well?
|
Admittedly, it would be easier for me to tell you three things that foreign governments run well than to name three things that the US government runs well. The only relevent difference I can point out is that most foreign governments (The one's I'm talking about, anyway) are better funded because of a higher tax rate. It can't be anything else. Aren't we the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world?
It's curious, really. Republicans want a small, feeble government because government supposedly can't do anything right, and in the process of creating small government they only further limit it's ability to do things right. A self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
not all rich are getting richer and not all poor are getting poorer.
|
Not all, of course, but a large enough percentage to produce a very noticeable trend. Isn't that enough? It would be a true disaster if it was ALL rich getting richer and ALL poor 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.[/quote]
You're assuming that all (Or most. Whatever word you want to use. I don't care) rich make good decisions and all (Or most. Whatever) poor make bad decisions.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
So we shouldn't tax the poor, and the rich should pick up the slack for them. I'm glad we're on the same page.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
That's absurd. Using that logic, since it's the engine of a car that makes it go, you could operate a car without any seats in it. You might be technically right, but have you ever tried it? Every bit helps, and none of it should be written off.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
You seem to have this concept of tax money disappearing into some kind of void or something. This isn't the case at all. It's put to use providing services and subsidizing goods that consumers use. For example, with a single-payer system of health care (Paid for by tax dollers), a citizen wouldn't have to worry about some kind of unforeseen hospital bill interfereing with his ability to put food on the table. Also, because of heavy government subsidies on corn, the average American can buy a huge tub of Coke (With free refills!) for an absurdly cheap price, since Coke is mostly water and High Fructose Corn Syrup. Without such subsidies, it wouldn't be practical to super-size a meal.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
the richest americans pay over 90% of the taxes in this country.
|
Bullshit.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
33%, if I'm not mistaken. Or was it 36%? I can't remember, so please do look it up. In any case, it's by far the lowest tax rate of any developed nation, so don't even begin to bitch about that being a high number.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
that's just federal income tax - not including local and state taxes.
|
State and local income taxes (Where they exist, because they don't exist everywhere) are typically a lot lower than federal income taxes. This is mostly because state and local governments tend to rely more on taxes like sales tax which fall a lot harder on the lower and middle class, or flat taxes and revenues collected through things like parking tickets, which fall on the poor even harder.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
More bullshit. Who made this "estimate"?
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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?
|
There's a stark difference between the kind of work a CEO does--like taking the occasional phone call while golfing--and (for lack of a better word) real work. It is neither physically nor especially mentally exausting
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
This might be hard for you to wrap your mind around, but there is such a thing as too much freedom. Most philosophers say - and I agree (And I'm sure you do too) - that freedoms should end at the moment they infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others. This very much applies to the current financial crisis. The freedom of some to spend their money what they want (In this case, homes they couldn't afford) brought down the economy. Dare I say that's too much freedom?
History teaches this lesson over and over; In times of great hardship people often readily give their intangible, insubstantial "freedom" in return for material security and well being. What good does freedom do you if you're dying of starvation?
tl;dr -- More freedom isn't necessarily always a good thing.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:02 |
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.
|
Please do. I find a lot of your numbers hard to believe.
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 06:32 |
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.
|
Clearly it's the Democrats' fault for pointing out the huge inequalities (And they ARE a bad thing, according to economists), and not the Republicans' fault for creating the problem in the first place.
| kadoosh wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 10:27 |
So basically you are saying that Successful people should be punished for being successful
|
If you call having enough money to buy a solid gold hot tub a punishment. I hear this point over and over again, yet I've never met a rich person who has lost incentive in being rich because of the "high" taxes on them and their income; And I've met quite a few rich people.
Edit: Fixed some quotes.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 14:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400469 is a reply to message #400457] |
Fri, 28 August 2009 15:31 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 14:07 |
i'd appreciate you sending me a link to what you'd like me to read about dana corporation. from a quick browsing, it seems their a parts supplier that went into bankruptcy and reorganized things including retirement plans.
|
Well most of what they did isn't exactly documented anywhere where I can find anyway. Mainly what they did was cut their dam pensions and take away their health insurance. here's the thing that pisses me off the most. They moved all their assets overseas before they went bankrupt went bankrupt brought the shit back and went on operating like nothing ever happened.
how do I know this my grandpa worked their my Father worked there my uncle worked their and so on. I would have more then likely have gotten a job there if it wasn't for my personal problems and the shit they pulled afew years ago.
Personally I don't prescribe to the class war that you seem to think I do I want to abandon the hole concept of classes and have everyone be = like our country was founded to be.
Dover I suggest you read our constitution and figure out what our government is allowed to do and what they aren't it doesn't give us rights it limits the governments power.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 15:35] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400581 is a reply to message #400469] |
Sat, 29 August 2009 07:56 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| darkdragon wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 18:31 |
| spotelmo wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 14:07 |
i'd appreciate you sending me a link to what you'd like me to read about dana corporation. from a quick browsing, it seems their a parts supplier that went into bankruptcy and reorganized things including retirement plans.
|
Well most of what they did isn't exactly documented anywhere where I can find anyway. Mainly what they did was cut their dam pensions and take away their health insurance. here's the thing that pisses me off the most. They moved all their assets overseas before they went bankrupt went bankrupt brought the shit back and went on operating like nothing ever happened.
how do I know this my grandpa worked their my Father worked there my uncle worked their and so on. I would have more then likely have gotten a job there if it wasn't for my personal problems and the shit they pulled afew years ago.
Personally I don't prescribe to the class war that you seem to think I do I want to abandon the hole concept of classes and have everyone be = like our country was founded to be.
Dover I suggest you read our constitution and figure out what our government is allowed to do and what they aren't it doesn't give us rights it limits the governments power.
|
if you had proof of any of that, i'm sure the courts and regulators would have loved to see it.
i know it sucks "knowing" something but not being able to prove it. for example, i "know" that the former CEO and senior vice president of the company i work for worked a shady underhanded deal to split up and then sell off the company in order to make themselves millions of dollars out of the deal. i can't prove it, but it was quite obvious in my opinion. you'll never catch me saying that people in corporations are all good people. people are people. whether they be in government, business or wherever. they are nearly always looking out for how they can gain something for themselves or make more money or position themself into more power. that's why SOME government regulation is necessary. however, there is a difference between government regulating things out of necessity and government taking over things that it has no business taking over. it is excessive government regulation and the reaching of government into aspects of our life that it has no business being in that i have a problem with.
as for your statment | Quote: |
Personally I don't prescribe to the class war that you seem to think I do I want to abandon the hole concept of classes and have everyone be = like our country was founded to be.
|
our country wasn't founded for everyone to be equal, it was founded with the idea that everyone is equal under the law. people aren't equal, some are smarter, some are luckier, some are prettier, some have messed up psychological problems, some are born with more than others. we aren't equal, but under the law we're supposed to be treated equally. most of us know that it often doesn't seem like we're treated equally under the law. a rich white man who steals millions of dollars from his company's pension plan may get 5 years in a minimum security prison while a poor black man who steals a car might get 12 years in a med - max security prison. but the thing is, that has nothing really to do with the law or the constitution that has to do with PEOPLE. it is people (judges, lawyers,jurors, probation office workers, correction officials) who decided to put one in a minimum security country club while putting the other away for hard time. when the PEOPLE start educating themselves about what is going on and start holding those in charge responsible for their actions, that is when we'll see the country being run the way it's supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400782 is a reply to message #400664] |
Sun, 30 August 2009 04:51 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You mean the government being in places they aren's suppose to be like oh telling you what you can do in your own home. IE gay married drug prohibition and so on.
Now where the government is suppose to be one of the things the Constitution gives our government the power for is. The general welfare of the people healthcare would fall under that I believe so anyway. By the way I do in fact believe that welfare doesn't fall under that. Universal healthcare would help everybody unlike every other form of welfare we have .
I simple want our government to stop doing the shit that helps the few and start doing the stuff that helps the whole. That and stop doing the shit that helps NO ONE .
I don't want more government I want less government in whole.
[Updated on: Sun, 30 August 2009 04:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400791 is a reply to message #400782] |
Sun, 30 August 2009 05:51 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| darkdragon wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 07:51 |
You mean the government being in places they aren's suppose to be like oh telling you what you can do in your own home. IE gay married drug prohibition and so on.
|
i agree they shouldn't be allowed to decide who can get married. but drug use hurts more than just the person using the drugs so that is something the government should be involved in.
| Quote: |
Now where the government is suppose to be one of the things the Constitution gives our government the power for is. The general welfare of the people healthcare would fall under that I believe so anyway. By the way I do in fact believe that welfare doesn't fall under that. Universal healthcare would help everybody unlike every other form of welfare we have .
|
i disagree. it wouldn't help those who work in the health care industry, it wouldn't help those who currently enjoy the standard of care that they have, it woulnd't help those who have to pay for it.
| Quote: |
I simple want our government to stop doing the shit that helps the few and start doing the stuff that helps the whole. That and stop doing the shit that helps NO ONE .
I don't want more government I want less government in whole.
|
gotta agree with you there
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400795 is a reply to message #400791] |
Sun, 30 August 2009 07:07 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
umm you do relies the USA murder rate is mostly drug dealers killing other drug dealers and people getting caught in the crossfire . It's the law that caused that problem not the other way around . look up what happened the last prohibition and why we stopped it. If you find we stopped it for any other reason then it doesn't work and it caused far more problems then it solved let me know.
yes it would hurt the health industry no more 500 dollar bandages boo fucking hoo. No more price gouging because it's something people can't go without oh I'm so in tears over that.
By the way I have governmental health insurgence right now. I have just as good standard of care as you do shit compared to 75 other industrialized nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400829 is a reply to message #400820] |
Sun, 30 August 2009 11:13 |
darkdragon
Messages: 39
Registered: October 2008
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 12:13 |
i think crimson should just delete this debate forum just like we did over at apathbeyond. i've never seen more overly-opinionated teenagers on issues they know nothing about than in the renegade community.
|
I'm 21 teenager I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Splitting the record - about the virtual lock [message #400851 is a reply to message #400820] |
Sun, 30 August 2009 12:31 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 12:13 |
i think crimson should just delete this debate forum just like we did over at apathbeyond. i've never seen more overly-opinionated teenagers on issues they know nothing about than in the renegade community.
|
K SHEEP
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 21 20:42:02 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01258 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
