OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
+3
Ptolemy
Disturbed
Nihil
7 posters
Jedi vs Sith :: General :: Rancor Pit
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
this is a disaster, this could bring down many countries because of hedge funds, legalized by the Reagan era deregulators, and now that they are legal, they can bet against the US treasury and the TREASURIES of any sovereign nation. Now they are on the verge of TRULY bring back the Gold Standard and a world recession GREATER than any other we have ever seen so that they can become rich. This is free market capitalism at its best and worst, its the freest, but it really is stupid and is going to ruin our lives.
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
oh shit, that actually does seems scary, gotta give it a look
Disturbed- Forum Enforcer
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -67
Posts : 2967
Experience Points : 10657
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
so hedge funds are the reason for the global recession? and it's all Regan's fault. Maybe we should just have a central bank like the soviets did before thier down fall, oh thats right we do. Maybe we should nationalize the auto industry and offer socialized health care... oh thats right we do. So The amount of borrowing and printing money of socialist states has nothing to do with the in ability of those states to pay their bills?
I have news for you Nihil, we are in a downward spiral now, partialy fed by the policies over the last 12 years or so. You want to se the result of Kensian economics? look at Greece. something closer to home? try Michigan or California. those states have been using your Kensian system for 40 + years and look where they are. Unemployment 12% and higher and the people with money are leaving in droves. the states are going to have to file bankruptcy. this is because of state level policies not federal.
you want an example of Adam Smith's theory and free markets? look at Texas, and for the most part Florida. they do not even have a state income tax and they are running a surplus in the state budgets 8.5% unemployment. Lower taxes encourages economic growth, Higher taxes DISCOURAGE economic growth.
The economic system you worship ruins economies and forces people to rely on government.
THAT LEGITIMATELY scares me.
I have news for you Nihil, we are in a downward spiral now, partialy fed by the policies over the last 12 years or so. You want to se the result of Kensian economics? look at Greece. something closer to home? try Michigan or California. those states have been using your Kensian system for 40 + years and look where they are. Unemployment 12% and higher and the people with money are leaving in droves. the states are going to have to file bankruptcy. this is because of state level policies not federal.
you want an example of Adam Smith's theory and free markets? look at Texas, and for the most part Florida. they do not even have a state income tax and they are running a surplus in the state budgets 8.5% unemployment. Lower taxes encourages economic growth, Higher taxes DISCOURAGE economic growth.
The economic system you worship ruins economies and forces people to rely on government.
THAT LEGITIMATELY scares me.
Ptolemy- Chancellor - Masters Council
- Join date : 2009-10-22
+Light/-Dark : 95
Posts : 4649
Experience Points : 16069
Location : MN
Comments :
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
URGH....WHY DONT YOU AMERICANS JUST STAY IN AMERICA? YOU RUIN evth...
Dray The Fingerless- Senate Representative
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : 265
Posts : 10355
Experience Points : 27155
Location : your FACE is a location.
Comments : FIRST!
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Dray The Fingerless wrote:URGH....WHY DONT YOU AMERICANS JUST STAY IN AMERICA? YOU RUIN evth...
I would be more than happy to stop buying loyalty with a dollar... believe me
Ptolemy- Chancellor - Masters Council
- Join date : 2009-10-22
+Light/-Dark : 95
Posts : 4649
Experience Points : 16069
Location : MN
Comments :
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Ptolemy, this isn't abotu taxes and EVERYONE knows that taxes discourage growth, the only reason that we have them is to fund projects that we agree is acceptable morally and economically in a pseudo social contract.
And Ptolemy, don't get me started on economics, the system I "worship" is not a "Free market" it is capitalism, in the sense that people are not always rational, besides I didn't say that they caused this global recession. I mean comon, its so obvious. Think about it, you put money into a system and what does it do? Die? Thats like saying that saving money is good for the economy, its not, that causes what is called a liquidity trap.
Greece is not the result of Keynesian economics, also, the mass borrowing and such is not the cause of them not being able to pay their bills in the Keynesian theory, rather, during times of economic upswing, they borrowed, when they should have been taxing. Ptolemy, guess who is better at keeping their babies alive than the U.S? Cuba, ya thats right, we don't do as well at keeping our babies alive as well as any other industrialized country, unless you want that to keep happening, then fine, otherwise, socialized medicine, STALIN killed people who didn't provide to the system, that is what you are advocating, because if people don't work and don't have enough money you say, let them die. That is Stalinist.
California has a Republican governor, think again, no republican does Keynesian economics and Michigan has been in poor shape for a while since the Auto industry died up there.
Guess what? Montana has a 405 Million dollar surplus, and they are run by a Democrat, hmmmm? sounds pretty good right? And, honestly, Reagan was a Keynesian in disguise because, by increasing the size of the government with massive military spending, he initiated a Keynesian multiplyer, so, if like Keynesian economics, then you should like reagan for his spending. But guess what he kept on spending rather than taxing in the time of inflation and general prosperity that comes after a fiscal stimulus and that made a giant debt.
here allow me to repost this post I made a long time ago
Its hard to argue with you when you don't listen to the facts, even before this Bush didn't do enough and our unregulated banks caused us to crash.
You have what I call the "Cold War" mentality of hypernationalism, listen, we were founded on taxes, Whiskey Rebellion? Hell, Washington even did TARIFFS! and you are saying free trade? OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DIDNT DO IT EITHER!
And Ptolemy, don't get me started on economics, the system I "worship" is not a "Free market" it is capitalism, in the sense that people are not always rational, besides I didn't say that they caused this global recession. I mean comon, its so obvious. Think about it, you put money into a system and what does it do? Die? Thats like saying that saving money is good for the economy, its not, that causes what is called a liquidity trap.
Greece is not the result of Keynesian economics, also, the mass borrowing and such is not the cause of them not being able to pay their bills in the Keynesian theory, rather, during times of economic upswing, they borrowed, when they should have been taxing. Ptolemy, guess who is better at keeping their babies alive than the U.S? Cuba, ya thats right, we don't do as well at keeping our babies alive as well as any other industrialized country, unless you want that to keep happening, then fine, otherwise, socialized medicine, STALIN killed people who didn't provide to the system, that is what you are advocating, because if people don't work and don't have enough money you say, let them die. That is Stalinist.
California has a Republican governor, think again, no republican does Keynesian economics and Michigan has been in poor shape for a while since the Auto industry died up there.
Guess what? Montana has a 405 Million dollar surplus, and they are run by a Democrat, hmmmm? sounds pretty good right? And, honestly, Reagan was a Keynesian in disguise because, by increasing the size of the government with massive military spending, he initiated a Keynesian multiplyer, so, if like Keynesian economics, then you should like reagan for his spending. But guess what he kept on spending rather than taxing in the time of inflation and general prosperity that comes after a fiscal stimulus and that made a giant debt.
here allow me to repost this post I made a long time ago
Nihil wrote:No, but i have devoted hours of my life to its study and have found the most conclusive results with Keynesians
Like i was saying Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and many others have been able to thoroughly outmaneuver conservative and supply-sider economists through economic math, graphs, and logic.
In fact, I'll do something right now that i haven't done before...
Chronology
1920s-1930s Economic boom, partly fueled by heavy borrowing by stock-market investors, is followed by the Crash of 1929. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal launches the first major government programs aimed at stimulating the economy.
October 1929 Stock market crashes. . . . Banks begin to fail as debtors default on their loans, and panicking depositors try to withdraw their money.
1932 Industrial production falls 45 percent from 1929 levels as the Great Depression begins and spreads worldwide. . . . Roosevelt is elected to his first term.
1933 Twenty-five percent of all U.S. workers are unemployed. . . . Roosevelt and Congress establish Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps and Tennessee Valley Authority to employ laid-off workers and create new public infrastructure.
1934 Heavy government spending enables Sweden to become the first nation to recover from the Depression.
1935 U.S. unemployment rate declines to 20 percent.
1936 Roosevelt is reelected in a landslide. . . . U.S. unemployment rate is just under 17 percent. . . . Military spending pulls Germany out of the Depression.
1937 Unemployment rate falls to 14 percent. . . . Rising federal deficits prompt Roosevelt to cut back on federal public-works spending.
1938 Economic growth slows again as unemployment rises to 19 percent.
1939 Economic growth revives, and unemployment falls to 17 percent as U.S. defense spending rises in anticipation of war.
1940s-1950s Federal spending on World War II and Interstate Highway System helps keep unemployment low.
1941 U.S. manufacturing output is up 50 percent over 1939. **
"The Obama administration has wisely chosen to make rebuilding public infrastructure the centerpiece of its stimulus package. The proposal includes funding not only for traditional infrastructure, like repairing roads and bridges, but also for green infrastructure such as weatherizing and retrofitting buildings to reduce energy consumption and modernization of the nation's electric grid.
Infrastructure is extremely effective as a stimulus since shovel-ready projects can start to create jobs soon after they are authorized. These projects put money in workers' pockets that they will spend. As a result, infrastructure spending has a substantial multiplier effect.
Moodys.com estimated the multiplier for infrastructure projects at 1.59, meaning that we will get $1.59 of additional economic output for each dollar spent on infrastructure. By comparison, the multiplier for payroll tax cuts is less than 1.0 and for business tax cuts just 0.3. This gap is likely to be even larger now, since many families will use tax cuts to rebuild their savings after losing most of their wealth in the housing crash.
Ideally, the spending will go to projects that would have been undertaken in any case, even if not immediately. For example, thousands of schools across the country desperately need repairs, such as new roofs or plumbing. And a considerable backlog of repairs to roads and bridges can be drawn down through this stimulus package.
There are also a large number of energy-conserving improvements that can pay for themselves in three or four years. For example, standard home retrofits cost around $3,000, and typically produce annual savings in the range of $750 to $1,000. If the federal government can provide incentives to encourage individuals, businesses and governments to carry through retrofits, there will be enduring benefits in reduced energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
But two notable pitfalls endanger this path. First, there will be some waste and corruption. That happens when you spend hundreds of billions of dollars. President Obama is establishing mechanisms to minimize this problem by ensuring that the process of disbursing funds is as open as possible.
The other risk is that we will spend money on environmentally harmful projects, such as highways that encourage suburban sprawl. This can and must be prevented. We can tolerate some waste, since it is important that money be spent quickly. But it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars in ways that will worsen our environmental problems."*
"A stimulus package similar to the one Congress approved should create between 3.3 million and 4.1 million jobs over the next two years — around 1.3 million of them from public-works programs — according to Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joseph Biden. More than 90 percent of the jobs created will be in the private sector, about a third of them in construction and manufacturing."***
History demonstrates a strong link between infrastructure investment and economic growth, according to an analysis prepared by University of Massachusetts Professor of Economics Robert Pollin and Associate Research Professor James Heintz for the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Between 1950 and 1979, U.S. public investment in infrastructure like transportation and electricity transmission grew by an annual average 4 percent, while annual growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) averaged around 4.1 percent, Pollin and Heintz said. By contrast, between 1980 and 2007 growth in infrastructure investment slowed to 2.3 percent annually while GDP growth slowed to an annual average of 2.9 percent. ****
*= Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research. Written for CQ Researcher, February 2009
**= CQ Researcher, Marcia Clemmitt
***=Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” Transition Office of Barack Obama, Jan. 9, 2009, http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf.
****=CQ Researcher, Marcia Clemmitt
All research done by me for my school project from CQ researcher, very much in favor of stimulus.
Not to mention the famous californian governor supports this idea
“This is the most perfect time . . . to lay out a plan to rebuild America, just like Roosevelt has done because it would stimulate the economy and it would create a tremendous amount of jobs,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., told CNN. “It's not spending. It's an investment” in a stronger economy, he said.
Its hard to argue with you when you don't listen to the facts, even before this Bush didn't do enough and our unregulated banks caused us to crash.
You have what I call the "Cold War" mentality of hypernationalism, listen, we were founded on taxes, Whiskey Rebellion? Hell, Washington even did TARIFFS! and you are saying free trade? OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DIDNT DO IT EITHER!
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Fuck America, I'm going to go live with Dray and raise chickens.
Drist- Sith Approval Committee
- Join date : 2010-04-26
+Light/-Dark : 4
Posts : 1052
Experience Points : 7036
Location : FL, US.
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
bitch, dem chickens be for real mah b-boy. seriously thou, America wants those pipelines of oils to go thru the Aegean Sea, so they pressurin Greece to sell them seas to Turkey(America's lil pet bitch) so they can have them oil pipelines thru the sea. But the Greeks will DIE before they sell their shit.(Lets hope they dont prove me wrong).
Dray The Fingerless- Senate Representative
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : 265
Posts : 10355
Experience Points : 27155
Location : your FACE is a location.
Comments : FIRST!
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
The problem is you have not real world experience. You run your house or your business, i do not care how big the business, the way our government is run now and it will fail. Did you know as late as the mid 1800's that private charities carried the burden of caring for the poor? the poorest citizen of the US are still better off than the richest in other countries and much better off than the poor anywhere else in the world. How is it compassionate to require someone to give up their dignity for a government hand out when we all would be better off if they were productive members of society.
You say i want people to die if they are not? you equate me with a communist? how is it wanting people to join the rest of us out in the work force producing, wishing them dead? those that are disabled are not considered. Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs.
Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will.
Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? I ask you what aspects do we count they do not? I doubt seriously that the standards are the same.
Wikipedia says The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with
and is among the best predictors of state failure. IMR is also a
useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and
is a component of the physical quality of life index. But the
method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries
based on the way they define a live birth and how many
premature infants are born in the country.
Wikipedia goes on to say The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the
denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic
for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States,
Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as
alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according
to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,
some other countries differ in these practices.
As you have said statistics can show anything you want them to either in reporting or through compilation. I think if standards were similar so would the statistics.
Over population.com says this The
primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the
United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd
category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday.
In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40
percent of infants die before they are even a day old.
Why? Because the United States also easily has the most
intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth
weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United
States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps
detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of
infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if
an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a
doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive
that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality
rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence
of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In many countries, however, (including many European
countries) such severe medical intervention would not be
attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was,
this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.
That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality
statistics.
You say i want people to die if they are not? you equate me with a communist? how is it wanting people to join the rest of us out in the work force producing, wishing them dead? those that are disabled are not considered. Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs.
Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will.
Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? I ask you what aspects do we count they do not? I doubt seriously that the standards are the same.
Wikipedia says The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with
and is among the best predictors of state failure. IMR is also a
useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and
is a component of the physical quality of life index. But the
method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries
based on the way they define a live birth and how many
premature infants are born in the country.
Wikipedia goes on to say The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the
denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic
for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States,
Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as
alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according
to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,
some other countries differ in these practices.
As you have said statistics can show anything you want them to either in reporting or through compilation. I think if standards were similar so would the statistics.
Over population.com says this The
primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the
United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd
category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday.
In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40
percent of infants die before they are even a day old.
Why? Because the United States also easily has the most
intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth
weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United
States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps
detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of
infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if
an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a
doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive
that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality
rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence
of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In many countries, however, (including many European
countries) such severe medical intervention would not be
attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was,
this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.
That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality
statistics.
Ptolemy- Chancellor - Masters Council
- Join date : 2009-10-22
+Light/-Dark : 95
Posts : 4649
Experience Points : 16069
Location : MN
Comments :
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
also, good for Europe, they don't waste time and money trying to raise the dead, either way, that would really just add up to a rounding error, not even putting the U.S at the top. Oh and Guess what? Sweden is ranked fourth lowest in Infant Mortality rates, soooooo ya, obviously we know what is going on,
also, good for Europe, they don't waste time and money trying to raise the dead, either way, that would really just add up to a rounding error, not even putting the U.S at the top. Oh and Guess what? Sweden is ranked fourth lowest in Infant Mortality rates, soooooo ya, obviously we know what is going on,
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
The problem is you have not real world experience. You run your house or your business, i do not care how big the business, the way our government is run now and it will fail. Did you know as late as the mid 1800's that private charities carried the burden of caring for the poor? the poorest citizen of the US are still better off than the richest in other countries and much better off than the poor anywhere else in the world. How is it compassionate to require someone to give up their dignity for a government hand out when we all would be better off if they were productive members of society.
You say i want people to die if they are not? you equate me with a communist? how is it wanting people to join the rest of us out in the work force producing, wishing them dead? those that are disabled are not considered. Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs.
Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will.
Ptolemy your lack of historic knowledge for the 1800s seems to be poor, listen, in the 1800s CHILDREN were working and LOOSING LIMBS and DYING in CAPITALIST FACTORIES! Also, the poor the United States are not better off, where did you get that information? For the largest industrialized and economic powerhouse in the world by a sizeable amount we have a HDI of only 0.956:
Norway 0.971 (▲ 1)
Australia 0.970 (▲ 2)
Iceland 0.969 (▼ 2)
Canada 0.966 (▼ 1)
Ireland 0.965 (▬)
Netherlands 0.964 (▬)
Sweden 0.963 (▬)
France 0.961 (▲ 3)
Switzerland 0.960 (▬)
Japan 0.960 (▬)
Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3)
Finland 0.959 (▲ 1)
United States 0.956 (▼ 1)
That was 2009
in 2008
Iceland 0.968 (▬)
Norway 0.968 (▬)
Canada 0.967 (▲ 1)
Australia 0.965 (▼ 1)
Ireland 0.960 (▬)
Netherlands 0.958 (▲ 3)
Sweden 0.958 (▼ 1)
Japan 0.956 (▬)
Luxembourg 0.956 (▲ 9)
Switzerland 0.955 (▼ 3)
France 0.955 (▼ 1)
Finland 0.954 (▼ 1)
Denmark 0.952 (▲ 1)
Austria 0.951 (▲ 1)
United States 0.950 (▼ 3)
Spain 0.949 (▼ 3)
Belgium 0.948 (▼ 1)
Greece 0.947 (▲ 6)
Italy 0.945 (▲ 1)
New Zealand 0.944 (▼ 1)
United Kingdom 0.942 (▼ 4)
Hong Kong 0.942 (▼ 1)
soo ya.
"How is it compassionate to require someone to give up their dignity for a government hand out when we all would be better off if they were productive members of society."
Because they would DIE otherwise, and they can accept welfare or not. Let me ask you this, would you rather be taxed or spend the money? either way it goes towards a cause, but in the government way, we make a lot more money for those desperately in need.
"Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs."
We agree here I think everyone does, I don't like that people can exploit welfare, but then again, people can exploit private organizations for handouts too. Besides, if a woman has more kids, are we really going to let them die or take them away? You of all people should abhor taking the kids away. Also: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" I can't put it any simpler, making a law respecting religion is illegal, therefore, we cannot make a law such as "national bible day" and shit like that. Besides, if the private organizations cannot provide for the poor, THEN WHO WILL? thats where the government comes in anyways.
"Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will."
That is the greatest bunch of bologna I've ever heard, that is SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS! Have you ever heard the "starve the beast" equation: "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2][3] to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare." ~Wiki
tell me how that is logical? How can you decrease taxes while increasing revenue when the revenue remains linear and the income goes down at any "x" rate? How do you call penalization for money a deterrent? It so stupid, I'll tell you why, if your wages go down, you are angry, BUT, relative to the inflation index, they could actually NOT be going down, but you don't consider that, the idea of RATIONALITY is misleading at times, if people can make more money they DAMN WELL WILL!
Also, Socialism doesn't work, I never said that I thought that Joe over there should make the same wages as my dad because Joe slept through school while my dad grew from a poor family to grow into one of the lead scientists at P&G and has made several computer programs, not even his area of expertise! to help the company whilst being the head of research and other things at his division department in organic chemistry. I'm saying that Socialism and Capitalism don't work, at least NOT in their base forms, besides, PROGRESS is the key to humanity, don't make me recite 10000 years of history, because I will if it makes you stop arguing economic fallacies.
You say i want people to die if they are not? you equate me with a communist? how is it wanting people to join the rest of us out in the work force producing, wishing them dead? those that are disabled are not considered. Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs.
Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will.
Ptolemy your lack of historic knowledge for the 1800s seems to be poor, listen, in the 1800s CHILDREN were working and LOOSING LIMBS and DYING in CAPITALIST FACTORIES! Also, the poor the United States are not better off, where did you get that information? For the largest industrialized and economic powerhouse in the world by a sizeable amount we have a HDI of only 0.956:
Norway 0.971 (▲ 1)
Australia 0.970 (▲ 2)
Iceland 0.969 (▼ 2)
Canada 0.966 (▼ 1)
Ireland 0.965 (▬)
Netherlands 0.964 (▬)
Sweden 0.963 (▬)
France 0.961 (▲ 3)
Switzerland 0.960 (▬)
Japan 0.960 (▬)
Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3)
Finland 0.959 (▲ 1)
United States 0.956 (▼ 1)
That was 2009
in 2008
Iceland 0.968 (▬)
Norway 0.968 (▬)
Canada 0.967 (▲ 1)
Australia 0.965 (▼ 1)
Ireland 0.960 (▬)
Netherlands 0.958 (▲ 3)
Sweden 0.958 (▼ 1)
Japan 0.956 (▬)
Luxembourg 0.956 (▲ 9)
Switzerland 0.955 (▼ 3)
France 0.955 (▼ 1)
Finland 0.954 (▼ 1)
Denmark 0.952 (▲ 1)
Austria 0.951 (▲ 1)
United States 0.950 (▼ 3)
Spain 0.949 (▼ 3)
Belgium 0.948 (▼ 1)
Greece 0.947 (▲ 6)
Italy 0.945 (▲ 1)
New Zealand 0.944 (▼ 1)
United Kingdom 0.942 (▼ 4)
Hong Kong 0.942 (▼ 1)
soo ya.
"How is it compassionate to require someone to give up their dignity for a government hand out when we all would be better off if they were productive members of society."
Because they would DIE otherwise, and they can accept welfare or not. Let me ask you this, would you rather be taxed or spend the money? either way it goes towards a cause, but in the government way, we make a lot more money for those desperately in need.
"Bible says we are to take care of widows and orphans, the infirm and the poor. Government has no business doing that. Government welfare gave us the mentality that if the man is not in the picture and the woman keeps having kids they can get more in payments from the government. Government welfare has destroyed the family and given our children the mentality that everyone 'owes' them something be. and the government will be there to take care of them. The folks that do not have now do not want and they do not want because the government takes care of their needs."
We agree here I think everyone does, I don't like that people can exploit welfare, but then again, people can exploit private organizations for handouts too. Besides, if a woman has more kids, are we really going to let them die or take them away? You of all people should abhor taking the kids away. Also: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" I can't put it any simpler, making a law respecting religion is illegal, therefore, we cannot make a law such as "national bible day" and shit like that. Besides, if the private organizations cannot provide for the poor, THEN WHO WILL? thats where the government comes in anyways.
"Lower taxes means prosperity for more people. Lower taxes will also increase revenue to the state treasury because when people are not penalized for making more money they will and, while the percentage goes down, the amount that percentage is drawn on will increase. Reagan proved this in the 80's. Socialism does not work, it never has and never will."
That is the greatest bunch of bologna I've ever heard, that is SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS! Have you ever heard the "starve the beast" equation: "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2][3] to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare." ~Wiki
tell me how that is logical? How can you decrease taxes while increasing revenue when the revenue remains linear and the income goes down at any "x" rate? How do you call penalization for money a deterrent? It so stupid, I'll tell you why, if your wages go down, you are angry, BUT, relative to the inflation index, they could actually NOT be going down, but you don't consider that, the idea of RATIONALITY is misleading at times, if people can make more money they DAMN WELL WILL!
Also, Socialism doesn't work, I never said that I thought that Joe over there should make the same wages as my dad because Joe slept through school while my dad grew from a poor family to grow into one of the lead scientists at P&G and has made several computer programs, not even his area of expertise! to help the company whilst being the head of research and other things at his division department in organic chemistry. I'm saying that Socialism and Capitalism don't work, at least NOT in their base forms, besides, PROGRESS is the key to humanity, don't make me recite 10000 years of history, because I will if it makes you stop arguing economic fallacies.
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
i agree wid dray
Disturbed- Forum Enforcer
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -67
Posts : 2967
Experience Points : 10657
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
HAHA!
NOW WITHOUT POLITICAL COMMENTARY!
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Finally, another thing
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2
*HEADSHOT*
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2
*HEADSHOT*
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
The problem with your economic model is that you believe that the government can do a better job of spending my money than i can. Taking my money through taxes and giving it to some one else (from each according to their ability to each according to their need) is socialism.
When you do not penalize people for taking risk and succeeding (taxes) more will take the chance and, as a percentage, more will succeed. When that happens they will make more money. Let me give you some simple math here.
if you pay 20% in taxes on $50,000 you will pay $10000 in taxes
$50,000x.20=$10000
if you pay 10% on $100000 you pay..... yes thats right $10000
$100,000x.10=$10,000
You see what happened here? they made more money and paid the same taxes. when you have to pay a higher percentage of your income to uncle sam you have no incentive to work harder. Remove or lessen that penalty and people get to work, take risks and are rewarded or punished depending on the free market. when a technology or service is both cost effective and popular it will sell. then money is made. Higher taxes discourage this process and hurts the economy.
And taking people off the public dole will not kill them. It will FORCE them to get to work. If taxes are lower, businesses will expand and hire people to handle the work the expansion brings.
Book knowledge is great but real life is always different. massive borrowing and spending to support government spending is bringing the EU to it knees.
When you do not penalize people for taking risk and succeeding (taxes) more will take the chance and, as a percentage, more will succeed. When that happens they will make more money. Let me give you some simple math here.
if you pay 20% in taxes on $50,000 you will pay $10000 in taxes
$50,000x.20=$10000
if you pay 10% on $100000 you pay..... yes thats right $10000
$100,000x.10=$10,000
You see what happened here? they made more money and paid the same taxes. when you have to pay a higher percentage of your income to uncle sam you have no incentive to work harder. Remove or lessen that penalty and people get to work, take risks and are rewarded or punished depending on the free market. when a technology or service is both cost effective and popular it will sell. then money is made. Higher taxes discourage this process and hurts the economy.
And taking people off the public dole will not kill them. It will FORCE them to get to work. If taxes are lower, businesses will expand and hire people to handle the work the expansion brings.
Book knowledge is great but real life is always different. massive borrowing and spending to support government spending is bringing the EU to it knees.
Ptolemy- Chancellor - Masters Council
- Join date : 2009-10-22
+Light/-Dark : 95
Posts : 4649
Experience Points : 16069
Location : MN
Comments :
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Ya, risks are fine, and if you look at the economy right now and the banks, you realize that people sure as hell have been taking them, therefore, your point it moot, people have been taking business risks that have brought OUR economy to its knees.
also your math skills are OFF, FAIL, you pay the same amount of TAXES but you MAKE MORE MONEY! 50,000x0.20 =10,000 which is the amount you SUBTRACT from 50,000. And besides, our tax system is graduated, if you make 100,000 you will pay less than a person making 250,000, but even then the difference in the standard of living is large, the person making 250,000 dollars will still make more money. Also, i just explained to you how this works, go reread my section, I said that people see their wages as nominal, that is, without thought to the inflation index, so everyone thinks that making more money is better, its so simple. Right now, this is just right wing cheap talk that gets no where when you look at the facts and history.
The dole you speak of, taking people off of it will kill them, because there are no jobs to be had because people are spending within their means, meaning that the amount of money going back into the economy is not enough to allow full employment. Besides, taxes are, in fact, like the free market in that they are spent and they generate wealth through their spending, that is basic MACROECONOMICS. Taxes, when used as a transfer payment, always go back into the economy sooner than if they had remained as a rich person's own money.
So, what would Jesus do? "It is harder for a rich person to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"
ya, Jesus would support me, because I want to give all people a higher standard of living and unemployment benefits. You are basically complaining about giving money to the poor because you have been trained by Fox news, and other things I'm sure, to think that way, that private can do it better, and make more money, than a government institution.
^All Facts
also your math skills are OFF, FAIL, you pay the same amount of TAXES but you MAKE MORE MONEY! 50,000x0.20 =10,000 which is the amount you SUBTRACT from 50,000. And besides, our tax system is graduated, if you make 100,000 you will pay less than a person making 250,000, but even then the difference in the standard of living is large, the person making 250,000 dollars will still make more money. Also, i just explained to you how this works, go reread my section, I said that people see their wages as nominal, that is, without thought to the inflation index, so everyone thinks that making more money is better, its so simple. Right now, this is just right wing cheap talk that gets no where when you look at the facts and history.
The dole you speak of, taking people off of it will kill them, because there are no jobs to be had because people are spending within their means, meaning that the amount of money going back into the economy is not enough to allow full employment. Besides, taxes are, in fact, like the free market in that they are spent and they generate wealth through their spending, that is basic MACROECONOMICS. Taxes, when used as a transfer payment, always go back into the economy sooner than if they had remained as a rich person's own money.
So, what would Jesus do? "It is harder for a rich person to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"
ya, Jesus would support me, because I want to give all people a higher standard of living and unemployment benefits. You are basically complaining about giving money to the poor because you have been trained by Fox news, and other things I'm sure, to think that way, that private can do it better, and make more money, than a government institution.
^All Facts
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Nihil I find that playing kind of dirty
Disturbed- Forum Enforcer
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -67
Posts : 2967
Experience Points : 10657
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
He's kinda right, your in a shithole because private took over your Central Bank 100 years ago. i think that kinda shows how bad private can do.
Dray The Fingerless- Senate Representative
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : 265
Posts : 10355
Experience Points : 27155
Location : your FACE is a location.
Comments : FIRST!
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Nihil wrote:
So, what would Jesus do? "It is harder for a rich person to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"
ya, Jesus would support me, because I want to give all people a higher standard of living and unemployment benefits. You are basically complaining about giving money to the poor because you have been trained by Fox news, and other things I'm sure, to think that way, that private can do it better, and make more money, than a government institution.
^All Facts
Anyone else offended by this? I know I am. You are taking what Jesus said and twisted it to fit your agenda and goals. Yes, we are to give to the less fortunate, yes we are to make lives easier for those who are struggling and we're doing that. What the heck do you think the charities for and why people donate money? Socialism is NOT the answer to help other people. Like it's been said and proven by facts, you tax the big business, they will leave because there is absolutely no reason for them to stick around and you know what that means? Loss of jobs, more people on the streets because they can't pay for their house. People living off of unemployment which hikes taxes more and keeps the government in control. Do not tell me that I or my dad for that matter have been "trained" do not assume you know every single detail of how we operate when it comes to politics. Unlike most, we do research beyond fox news, beyond the liberal media to get our facts. And what's wrong with Fox News? Is it because it's not as liberal as CNN? or MSNBC? What this is right here, is not complaining about giving money to the poor. What we're complaining about is big government. Government thats going to start regulating health care and the money I get from loans for college. The government has too much control. In New York, they have started regulating how much salt you can put on your food. GOVERNMENT regulations. Do not tell me that is not too controlling. Also, they will start regulating how loaned money can be spent in terms of a college education. Eventually, they will tell me where I am going to go to school and what I am going to be learning if I accept government money. Government taxing us MORE to give to the poor is not the solution. Keep taxing big business, see if they stick around and when they leave and millions lose jobs, the unemployment rate will sky rocket. It's already the highest its been in a long time. Socialism is NOT the answer. We have been told BY A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT that socialism wasn't the answer. What does that tell you? Shouldn't that raise red flags that a government elsewhere who is following socialism and implementing its policies says, this isn't answer? Stealing from paul to pay peter isn't right. Charging Bob higher taxes because he is being successful in life to pay joe because all joe does is sit around on unemployment while refusing to work, is unfair.
Aragorn- Grand Master of the Jedi Order
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -79
Posts : 3288
Experience Points : 12262
Location : a book pertaining to some academic subject
Comments : Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack. ~ Sun Tzu
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. ~ Sun Tzu
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
yes that's why I said I thought that was playing rather dirty
Disturbed- Forum Enforcer
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -67
Posts : 2967
Experience Points : 10657
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Aragorn wrote:Nihil wrote:
So, what would Jesus do? "It is harder for a rich person to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"
ya, Jesus would support me, because I want to give all people a higher standard of living and unemployment benefits. You are basically complaining about giving money to the poor because you have been trained by Fox news, and other things I'm sure, to think that way, that private can do it better, and make more money, than a government institution.
^All Facts
Anyone else offended by this? I know I am. You are taking what Jesus said and twisted it to fit your agenda and goals. Yes, we are to give to the less fortunate, yes we are to make lives easier for those who are struggling and we're doing that. What the heck do you think the charities for and why people donate money? Socialism is NOT the answer to help other people. Like it's been said and proven by facts, you tax the big business, they will leave because there is absolutely no reason for them to stick around and you know what that means? Loss of jobs, more people on the streets because they can't pay for their house. People living off of unemployment which hikes taxes more and keeps the government in control. Do not tell me that I or my dad for that matter have been "trained" do not assume you know every single detail of how we operate when it comes to politics. Unlike most, we do research beyond fox news, beyond the liberal media to get our facts. And what's wrong with Fox News? Is it because it's not as liberal as CNN? or MSNBC? What this is right here, is not complaining about giving money to the poor. What we're complaining about is big government. Government thats going to start regulating health care and the money I get from loans for college. The government has too much control. In New York, they have started regulating how much salt you can put on your food. GOVERNMENT regulations. Do not tell me that is not too controlling. Also, they will start regulating how loaned money can be spent in terms of a college education. Eventually, they will tell me where I am going to go to school and what I am going to be learning if I accept government money. Government taxing us MORE to give to the poor is not the solution. Keep taxing big business, see if they stick around and when they leave and millions lose jobs, the unemployment rate will sky rocket. It's already the highest its been in a long time. Socialism is NOT the answer. We have been told BY A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT that socialism wasn't the answer. What does that tell you? Shouldn't that raise red flags that a government elsewhere who is following socialism and implementing its policies says, this isn't answer? Stealing from paul to pay peter isn't right. Charging Bob higher taxes because he is being successful in life to pay joe because all joe does is sit around on unemployment while refusing to work, is unfair.
again, I never said socialism was the answer, this is just another thing that conservatives do, yell socialism.
Also, You guys think that this nation was founded on religious principles and that we should run this nation as if it was a biblical one, so I just used YOUR LOGIC against you, I'm sorry if you found Jesus' words offensive. "What the heck do you think the charities for and why people donate money?" You obviously can't remember the fact, like Dray pointed out, that our central bank is privatized, and we were fucked over by that. Basically, Dray makes an excellent point I didn't think of, that the privatization of our central bank has caused greed in their hands, and greed makes the rich not give to the poor.
"Like it's been said and proven by facts, you tax the big business, they will leave because there is absolutely no reason for them to stick around and you know what that means? Loss of jobs, more people on the streets because they can't pay for their house. People living off of unemployment which hikes taxes more and keeps the government in control. "
THIS is called the infamous RACE TO THE BOTTOM, look it up, it is where societies compete at the cost of daily standard of living to get the best businesses. That is a fact, that people's lives get worse, how good of you to think about that and want to do that.
"Do not tell me that I or my dad for that matter have been "trained" do not assume you know every single detail of how we operate when it comes to politics. Unlike most, we do research beyond fox news, beyond the liberal media to get our facts. And what's wrong with Fox News? Is it because it's not as liberal as CNN? or MSNBC?"
You have no Fucking idea how screwed up their message is, they are conspiracy theorist lauders and they even said that the "Obama Biden coincidence with Osama bin laden?" that is so fucking stupid I can't express it, also, the documentary "OutFoxed" though liberal, so take it with a dose of cyanide? (w/e the expression is)
That is why foxnews sucks.
"Government thats going to start regulating health care and the money I get from loans for college. The government has too much control. In New York, they have started regulating how much salt you can put on your food. GOVERNMENT regulations. Do not tell me that is not too controlling. Also, they will start regulating how loaned money can be spent in terms of a college education. Eventually, they will tell me where I am going to go to school and what I am going to be learning if I accept government money. Government taxing us MORE to give to the poor is not the solution. Keep taxing big business, see if they stick around and when they leave and millions lose jobs, the unemployment rate will sky rocket. It's already the highest its been in a long time. Socialism is NOT the answer. We have been told BY A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT that socialism wasn't the answer. What does that tell you? Shouldn't that raise red flags that a government elsewhere who is following socialism and implementing its policies says, this isn't answer? Stealing from paul to pay peter isn't right. Charging Bob higher taxes because he is being successful in life to pay joe because all joe does is sit around on unemployment while refusing to work, is unfair."
Again, more of the same rightwing arguments "stealing" well guess fucking what THEY'VE GOT THEIR FUCKING NAMES ON THE US LEGAL TENDER! ITS NOT EVEN "YOUR" MONEY IN THAT SENSE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO PRIVATIZE THAT TOO! Let me tell you, techincally, you donating to charity is stealing if the government can't take a fraction of your income to do it for you, that is the perverse logic you are using.
Also, your IRRATIONAL fear of the government is ridiculous! Its so pathetic! There are LAWS that keep us from regulating too much, for pity's sake, read your damn material before you spout shit, also, if things get too bad ALL, A MAJORITY OF THE, PEOPLE WILL RISE UP!
"Government taxing us MORE to give to the poor is not the solution. Keep taxing big business, see if they stick around and when they leave and millions lose jobs, the unemployment rate will sky rocket. It's already the highest its been in a long time. Socialism is NOT the answer. We have been told BY A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT that socialism wasn't the answer. What does that tell you? Shouldn't that raise red flags that a government elsewhere who is following socialism and implementing its policies says, this isn't answer? Stealing from paul to pay peter isn't right. Charging Bob higher taxes because he is being successful in life to pay joe because all joe does is sit around on unemployment while refusing to work, is unfair."
Why do you think I'm not advocating socialism, I feel the need to repeat, the poor, "I have no rational argument and no facts" catch phrase of SOCIALIST! I am by all means not a SOCIALIST! Charge Bob because JOE WILL DIE YOU STALINIST! IF JOE DOESNT PROVIDE TO THE SYSTEM THEN YOU SAY LET HIM DIE! THAT IS STALINIST COMMUNISM!
You are right that taxing people more is not the answer, but in a moderated way, IT IS! but, technically, in a recession, borrowing money, you know what, forget it because even if I tell you facts, put up an IS/LM model, you will still find a way to call me a socialist and come back without facts, I mean, did you even read my first post with all the information about Keynesian economics and stimulus spending? Its like facts don't work on you guys and you just go back to the right wing catch phrase "SOCIALIST" or "ARGH TAXES" its hard to argue when you don't provide facts.
Listen guys, come back with facts so we can have an actual INTELLIGENT DEBATE, I'm sure then that we can all find something new out.
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
ummm I think I presented you with facts and this IS an intelligent debate. The only problem is you absolutely, positively refuse to see any other side because it's automatically wrong. That's proven by all this. You said that fox news were conspiracy theorists? So what if they say the Obama/Biden thing. It's funny, but that doesn't make them conspiracy theorists. They are more neutral than CNN or MSNBC. They are the epitome of the liberal bias media. Fox News is conservative yes, but they present that facts and let you decide. For God sake, they have shows with flaming liberals as the anchor. Hannity and Combs ring any bells. That statement is not screwed up in anyway shape or form. You are taking one statement ONE BLOODY STATEMENT and completely judging the ENTIRE station. That is not an intelligent thing to do as you can't read one sentence in a book a say "This book sucks". That's twisting one phrase to fit your agenda in making a point. Twisting facts to judge something is not the way to debate, Nihil.
My fear of the government is not misplaced. I have read up on my facts. I don't post unless I know my facts and what I am talking about, accusing me of anything else is pure arrogance. Again, you're assuming you know me and how I operate, you need to stop making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Seriously. To address the laws, if we had laws in place, why is the government regulating the caloric intake in New York. Why are they limiting how much salt you can put on food? Do not tell me there are laws in place. You don't see much of it now because you look solely at one side, the liberal side because that's how you are being taught in teh school system. I know, I am going to college that preaches liberal ideals and concepts. The difference is, I look at both sides and decide, I don't stick with just Fox News or just CNN like everybody else does because of apathy or nurture a general lack of caring.
"Why do you think I'm not advocating socialism, I feel the need to repeat, the poor, "I have no rational argument and no facts" catch phrase of SOCIALIST! I am by all means not a SOCIALIST! Charge Bob because JOE WILL DIE YOU STALINIST! IF JOE DOESNT PROVIDE TO THE SYSTEM THEN YOU SAY LET HIM DIE! THAT IS STALINIST COMMUNISM!"
This is not what I said at all. Stop twisting my words. What I said was that it's not right to take money from bob to pay joe when all joe is doing is sitting on unemployment not caring enough to find work because the government provides enough money. I didn't say anything about killing them or calling them useless. Thats not communism.
"Also, You guys think that this nation was founded on religious principles and that we should run this nation as if it was a biblical one, so I just used YOUR LOGIC against you, I'm sorry if you found Jesus' words offensive. "What the heck do you think the charities for and why people donate money?" You obviously can't remember the fact, like Dray pointed out, that our central bank is privatized, and we were fucked over by that. Basically, Dray makes an excellent point I didn't think of, that the privatization of our central bank has caused greed in their hands, and greed makes the rich not give to the poor."
This nation WAS founded on biblical principles and it was working pretty darn well I would say. We don't HAVE to follow biblical principles in running the country but it did start out that way. You didn't use any logic against me at all. Stop assuming you know everything and that you got me, because you don't. As my dad said before, arrogance doesn't become you. I don't have everything figured out either, don't misunderstand me.
My fear of the government is not misplaced. I have read up on my facts. I don't post unless I know my facts and what I am talking about, accusing me of anything else is pure arrogance. Again, you're assuming you know me and how I operate, you need to stop making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Seriously. To address the laws, if we had laws in place, why is the government regulating the caloric intake in New York. Why are they limiting how much salt you can put on food? Do not tell me there are laws in place. You don't see much of it now because you look solely at one side, the liberal side because that's how you are being taught in teh school system. I know, I am going to college that preaches liberal ideals and concepts. The difference is, I look at both sides and decide, I don't stick with just Fox News or just CNN like everybody else does because of apathy or nurture a general lack of caring.
"Why do you think I'm not advocating socialism, I feel the need to repeat, the poor, "I have no rational argument and no facts" catch phrase of SOCIALIST! I am by all means not a SOCIALIST! Charge Bob because JOE WILL DIE YOU STALINIST! IF JOE DOESNT PROVIDE TO THE SYSTEM THEN YOU SAY LET HIM DIE! THAT IS STALINIST COMMUNISM!"
This is not what I said at all. Stop twisting my words. What I said was that it's not right to take money from bob to pay joe when all joe is doing is sitting on unemployment not caring enough to find work because the government provides enough money. I didn't say anything about killing them or calling them useless. Thats not communism.
"Also, You guys think that this nation was founded on religious principles and that we should run this nation as if it was a biblical one, so I just used YOUR LOGIC against you, I'm sorry if you found Jesus' words offensive. "What the heck do you think the charities for and why people donate money?" You obviously can't remember the fact, like Dray pointed out, that our central bank is privatized, and we were fucked over by that. Basically, Dray makes an excellent point I didn't think of, that the privatization of our central bank has caused greed in their hands, and greed makes the rich not give to the poor."
This nation WAS founded on biblical principles and it was working pretty darn well I would say. We don't HAVE to follow biblical principles in running the country but it did start out that way. You didn't use any logic against me at all. Stop assuming you know everything and that you got me, because you don't. As my dad said before, arrogance doesn't become you. I don't have everything figured out either, don't misunderstand me.
Aragorn- Grand Master of the Jedi Order
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : -79
Posts : 3288
Experience Points : 12262
Location : a book pertaining to some academic subject
Comments : Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack. ~ Sun Tzu
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. ~ Sun Tzu
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Actually, your founding fathers made sure any bible or religious references were off your initial and founding documents. Later on you added shit like the "Under God" thing and all, because they did not believe in a religious attached government.
Dray The Fingerless- Senate Representative
- Join date : 2009-10-21
+Light/-Dark : 265
Posts : 10355
Experience Points : 27155
Location : your FACE is a location.
Comments : FIRST!
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
The constitution doesn't even mention God, I think it is important to note that our founding fathers WERE like the atheists of their day, almost, because most of them, as Ptolemy pointed out a while back, were Deists.
I also just exposed how fox news isn't like a news station to you through those two clips, how can you argue against that? I have NO PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING CONSERVATIVE! my problem is that they TWIST THE NEWS! My grandpa is turning into a militant Nazi because of watching that channel, albeit, he has Alzheimer's but it exacerbates the problem.
"To address the laws, if we had laws in place, why is the government regulating the caloric intake in New York. Why are they limiting how much salt you can put on food? Do not tell me there are laws in place. You don't see much of it now because you look solely at one side, the liberal side because that's how you are being taught in teh school system. I know, I am going to college that preaches liberal ideals and concepts. The difference is, I look at both sides and decide, I don't stick with just Fox News or just CNN like everybody else does because of apathy or nurture a general lack of caring. "
The reason they are limiting the caloric intake of citizens is because it is incredibly unhealthy and causing us to have exorbitant health care costs. Now, I feel that the way you put that sort of changes its meaning, they are actually regulating the amount of salt in a meal, not how much YOU as a person take in. This is serious because it can lead to deaths, so the government is protecting us, I believe there that we just have a difference in opinions. Also, the school can't teach any liberal or conservative doctrine because it would open the school as an international open forum, thus allowing porn stars to advertise there and such, and that is against the rules, so they can't do that, that is why my science teacher said I couldn't put up political action pamphlets around the school to clean up our city river. Another reason that "liberal" ideas are taught is because they are facts, sadly enough for many conservatives, facts that conservatives choose to ignore. At first it was that the earth was the center of the universe, then about 400 years later the church accepted that, and now its evolution and then it will be something else etcetera.
"This is not what I said at all. Stop twisting my words. What I said was that it's not right to take money from bob to pay joe when all joe is doing is sitting on unemployment not caring enough to find work because the government provides enough money. I didn't say anything about killing them or calling them useless. Thats not communism."
I believe that I did "twist" your words a bit, but, to be fair, the result is the same, joe DIES!! We are founded upon rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if we don't give life, then we have strayed from our original purpose, that is how our opinions conflict, because while you choose liberty I choose life, salt intake thingy.
I also just exposed how fox news isn't like a news station to you through those two clips, how can you argue against that? I have NO PROBLEM WITH THEM BEING CONSERVATIVE! my problem is that they TWIST THE NEWS! My grandpa is turning into a militant Nazi because of watching that channel, albeit, he has Alzheimer's but it exacerbates the problem.
"To address the laws, if we had laws in place, why is the government regulating the caloric intake in New York. Why are they limiting how much salt you can put on food? Do not tell me there are laws in place. You don't see much of it now because you look solely at one side, the liberal side because that's how you are being taught in teh school system. I know, I am going to college that preaches liberal ideals and concepts. The difference is, I look at both sides and decide, I don't stick with just Fox News or just CNN like everybody else does because of apathy or nurture a general lack of caring. "
The reason they are limiting the caloric intake of citizens is because it is incredibly unhealthy and causing us to have exorbitant health care costs. Now, I feel that the way you put that sort of changes its meaning, they are actually regulating the amount of salt in a meal, not how much YOU as a person take in. This is serious because it can lead to deaths, so the government is protecting us, I believe there that we just have a difference in opinions. Also, the school can't teach any liberal or conservative doctrine because it would open the school as an international open forum, thus allowing porn stars to advertise there and such, and that is against the rules, so they can't do that, that is why my science teacher said I couldn't put up political action pamphlets around the school to clean up our city river. Another reason that "liberal" ideas are taught is because they are facts, sadly enough for many conservatives, facts that conservatives choose to ignore. At first it was that the earth was the center of the universe, then about 400 years later the church accepted that, and now its evolution and then it will be something else etcetera.
"This is not what I said at all. Stop twisting my words. What I said was that it's not right to take money from bob to pay joe when all joe is doing is sitting on unemployment not caring enough to find work because the government provides enough money. I didn't say anything about killing them or calling them useless. Thats not communism."
I believe that I did "twist" your words a bit, but, to be fair, the result is the same, joe DIES!! We are founded upon rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if we don't give life, then we have strayed from our original purpose, that is how our opinions conflict, because while you choose liberty I choose life, salt intake thingy.
Nihil- Join date : 2009-10-23
+Light/-Dark : -912
Posts : 4431
Experience Points : 12475
Location : Arkansas
Comments : https://www.facebook.com/mattbcarr
Re: OK, this LEGITIMATELY scares me!
Nihil you are starting again? I may be noob at american politics but am sure for one - your life would be easier if u stop arguing for a while?
BgFighter/Ghost- Join date : 2009-10-22
+Light/-Dark : -1022
Posts : 3514
Experience Points : 9871
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Jedi vs Sith :: General :: Rancor Pit
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum