Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Steve on June 30, 2004, 03:55:50 AM
-
Hilary Clinton:
Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
common good? The collective?
How, How can anyone vote for these people?
They haven't offered one "solution" to things they think are problems except that they are going to raise taxes.
Dems, please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
Back on track... what? The economy is growing, more jobs have been created. Consumer confidence index is highest than it's been in years. If that's not back on track, what is? WTF?
Dems, please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
-
I have never believed in the politics of high taxation. It took Margaret Thatcher's administration to show that we do not need 83% income tax. Thanks to her administration, the top rate in Britain is now 40%. Tax receipts actually went UP because people no longer needed to become tax exiles overseas.
But the pendulum has been swinging back the other way after 7 years of Blair. More than 60 new taxes have been introduced. Business tax up £47 billion. National Insurance up £8 billion. The nation's pension funds have been raided to provide for this government's profligate spending. And the benefits? Erm.... well none, actually. Hospitals are in a worse state than before, education is in crisis, our infrastructure is crumbling. This is a government that stopped all road building in 2001, believing that everyone could "just go by public transport". :rolleyes:
So where has the money gone? Well, there are now "education advisers" in Whitehall who tell qualified teachers how their lessons should be conducted. We have "walking consultants" to tell us that walking really is good for you, and five-a-day fruit specialists to tell people that eating five pieces of fruit each day is healthier than a diet laden with fat and salt. The national health service hires on three times as many adminstrators and assorted paper shufflers than doctors and nurses.
In short, a "male hen"-up of monumental proportions. OK so this is Britain not America. But what I'm saying is look at what's happened here regarding state spending. Do not vote for higher taxes. The British experience of the past 7 years shows that it's money down the drain.
-
tax money simply creates larger government. larger government is never good.
lazs
-
Thanks for the post Beetle; it's an eye opener.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Hilary Clinton:
common good? The collective?
How, How can anyone vote for these people?
They haven't offered one "solution" to things they think are problems except that they are going to raise taxes.
Dems, please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
Back on track... what? The economy is growing, more jobs have been created. Consumer confidence index is highest than it's been in years. If that's not back on track, what is? WTF?
Dems, please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
Because they pander to the the non productive element of our society. Those that would have you not only provide for all their needs but to also provide for their recreational desires as well.
They will forever be be the base and the victims of Sen. clinton and her ilk.
There are millions of them. It's easy to go with the flow. You wouldn't believe what I see and hear almost daily. People stepping off of a boat or crossing the stream and within days they have a medicade card and are receiving free world class health care as well as financial assistance. In five years the are eligible to become citizens and dutifully march into the democratic party because what seems like poverty to us is abundance to them. The ones that forge ahead are the ones who see and aspire to greater things. Educate a new immigrant, take him to the BMW store with you.
-
Originally posted by Steve
.... please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
Forrest Gump's Mom had it down.
-
Dems, please tell me how you can vote these people into office.
Please tell me how you can vote into office people that cut taxes while increasing spending, thereby increasing the national debt, thereby requiring more tax dollars to pay interest on the national debt?
Hey, its nice to live off a credit card. You get all you want and don't have to pay for it! Oh, wait, you eventually do.
(http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt1.gif)
(http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP-large.gif)
-
Did anyone read that quote? Did it sound disjointed? Makes you wonder what she really said. Makes you wonder how people can trash Michael Moore for quotes out of context, then turn around and do the same thing.
There's a word for that... it starts with an 'H'.
-
the quote is a generalization for a bunch of ppl that start with the letter "D"
dumacrats
bush did EXACTLY what had to be done to prevent a post slick depression. between the bubble burst and 9/11 we were on the verge of a depression which would have made the great one seem trival ...
-
Obviously higher taxes are not a concern for the Democratic pary constituency. They have other priorities.
-
If ignorance was bliss. F all politicians, I'll enjoy this one from my lawn chair.
Karaya
-
The job of a politician consists of spending other people's money. That would be ALL politicians, Democrat, Republican, Independent, US, UK, whatever. They spend other peoples money.
It's what they DO, like pilots fly airplanes, forklift drivers drive forklifts, doctors try to help sick people. It's the job description.
You will NEVER be able to give them enough money to satisfy their hunger to spend ever more of your money.
So, yeah.. go ahead... give more Ripple to the alkies. Makes a lot of sense because "it's for the common good".
Of course, when was the last time anyone asked YOU what you thought would be in the "common good"? Never you say? Well, that's because they only consider THEIR idea of the "common good". In other words, "give me your money and I'll build my idea of a perfect world. No, I don't want to hear your ideas on the subject!"
:rofl
We've thrown billions at various problems over the years without changing much at all. So the solution is to throw MORE money at the same problems with the same bozos running the show.
Saw the CBS news things on the Bush/Kerry "education plans". Kerry's solution is to throw twice as much money as Bush to the same incompetents that have squandered BILLIONS over the last decades while "improving" (NOT!) our schools.
You can be sure of this: either way the schools will still suck because the folks "improving" them are basically incompetent tardlings.
The only difference will be the size of the bill you pay.
-
Lance.
Keep that up and they will get you rated restricted so kids wont be exposed to your dangerous ideas.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tax money simply creates larger government. larger government is never good.
lazs
Are you not the one who supported a billion dollar tax?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Lance.
Keep that up and they will get you rated restricted so kids wont be exposed to your dangerous ideas.
All Moore had to do to avoid that rating was edit out the repeated use of motherf*****. Guess editing was just too much of an affront to his journalistic integrity. :rolleyes:
-
Did anyone read that quote? Did it sound disjointed? Makes you wonder what she really said. Makes you wonder how people can trash Michael Moore for quotes out of context, then turn around and do the same thing.
What a tard you are. Come right out and call me a liar, don't mince words.
It's the exact quote, *******.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/29/politics0307EDT0010.DTL
Denied!
-
Originally posted by VOR
Thanks for the post Beetle; it's an eye opener.
Ask Beetle what the current rate of inflation and what the current unemployment figures are for the UK.
-
oh and I forgot to add - what is the current income tax on $58,000 in the US - here's it's 22% and you get healthcare and education thrown in.
-
Originally posted by Steve
What a tard you are. Come right out and call me a liar, don't mince words.
It's the exact quote, *******.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/29/politics0307EDT0010.DTL
Denied!
I never thought you edited it Steve. And now I'm sure you would have been incapable *******.
-
"what is the current income tax on $58,000 in the US - here's it's 22% and you get healthcare and education thrown in."
That would fall into the 25% Federal tax bracket in the US. No healthcare thrown in. Education from kindergarten to high school is handled at the state level. Most Americans also have to pay social security, real estate, personal property and state income taxes on top of that. and before you can get away with anything left over they also nail you with taxes on your phone services, electrical usage and on just about everything you purchase.
-
In short, a "male hen"-up of monumental proportions.
You probably meant "male chicken", but in a thread about Hillary this type of mistake is understandable.
-
You guys just going to ignore Lance’s post?.. I can’t explain it any better, we now have a $500 billion deficit which causes interest rates to rise. A large part of this deficit is due to Bush’s tax cuts. In the meantime the Repubs actually increased spending causing the deficit to rise even more. What happens?.. You end up paying more to service the interest rate than to pay the debt. What else happens?.. The higher interest rates scare away potential new investors.
Why big business would prefer to not have a balanced budget is beyond me. The more money is freed up to buy new equipment and to train new workers helps float everybody’s boat and lessens the need for social services.
What Sen. Clinton might be suggesting here is to bring back to 38% cap on income tax on folks who make over 200k$ a year and can afford it. Seems to me people this wealthy wouldn’t mind giving back a little to the country that made them rich. A balanced budget would bring more wealth to them and would negate the higher tax rate they would pay.
To refute my argument, you need to explain how to balance the budget in other ways. If you suggest cutting social services, follow this train of thought to a logical conclusion. Would cutting social services like public health care end up costing tax payers more or less in the long run?.
Oh I could run w/ Toads comments on public schools.. but I’m buying redwood stain and trim for my new house in OV today.
-
Cutting social services would force many currently enjoying a free ride to get a job and start paying taxes. Hey, that would help to reduce the deficit, right?
-
I can’t explain it any better, we now have a $500 billion deficit which causes interest rates to rise.
Why don't you explain it better by citing the last time large deficits caused interest rates to rise? And how can you pretend to believe that letting government tax us even more than they already do will reduce the deficit? The only thing that reduces the deficit is economic growth and higher taxes hold down economic growth.
-
Why cut social services at home? It's sickening to think you'd rather screw over someone who needs support in order to get at the few who do not while millions are wasted trucking sailboat fuel in the desert and billions are sent to countries such as Isreal and to fund the attack on Iraq.
-
Westy, I happen to believe that many of those sucking the social services teat would be much happier if they became self sufficient and no longer slaves to the democratic party. Certainly the enslavers will never recognize or acknowledge this.
-
Why don't you explain it better by citing the last time large deficits caused interest rates to rise?
Late 80s, I remember buying a brand new '86 Dodge Ram 50 pickup and interest rates were 17%.. I ended up spending about 4k$ more for that truck.
And how can you pretend to believe that letting government tax us even more than they already do will reduce the deficit?
A) Not us.. folks making over 200 grand a year.
B) It has already happened. The Economic Stimulation package of 1993 went a long way to balancing the budget. That's not by me that's from Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan.
The only thing that reduces the deficit is economic growth and higher taxes hold down economic growth.
The only thing?.. Keep in mind corporate taxes have been reduced as well so the government is not bringing in receipts needed to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is the key to economic growth as witnessed in the late ’90s.
-
I agree to some extent. Drastic social welfare changes need to be made in this country. But IMO those who are lazy and are taking advantage of the current system in order to park thier tulips on a couch to watch the Jerry Springer show while collect $1800/mo are not nearly as bad as the foreign "interests" freely given access to some bigger teat by the US government.
-
Wait a second before you go blaming all the social programs for the current fiscal situation. This administration has gone thru money like **** thru a goose and somebody has to start paying for it. I don't like higher taxes, you don't like higher taxes. You spend, you pay. You can't just ignore the bill when it comes due. They never go away by themselves.
The extra money you pay in will be to pay for the war on terror. Did you think freedom is free?
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06042004/normal_propaganda001.jpg)
-
six... I supported all bussiness play by the same rules. I did not support tax exemption based on race.
ten bears... you do know that the interest rate was as high as 19% under carter.
also... in england they are taxed even more heavily than us on everytday items they are even taxed on television! How would you like to pay nearly $6 a gallon for gasoline with most of it going for taxes.
so what do they get for all that tax burden? crappy health care (don't even mentin dentistry) and crappy roads.
oh.. and someone want to explain just what these wasteful things are that the bush administration is spending all this money on?
lazs
-
Late 80s, I remember buying a brand new '86 Dodge Ram 50 pickup and interest rates were 17%..
Interests rates were high from the late 70's theough the mid-80's because of double-digit inflation, not because of deficits. Inflation died and the interest rates have come down despite continuous deficit spending.
A) Not us.. folks making over 200 grand a year.
Ah, I see "us" as being the US taxpayer, you see "us" as being those who make less than $200K/year. Conservative/liberal.
Balancing the budget is the key to economic growth as witnessed in the late ’90s.
Exactly backwards. The booming economy made the deficit go away (on paper) very briefly. If raising taxes created an economic boom wouldn't all the evil greedy corporations be in favor of it?
ra
-
A graphic to aid in seeing where our tax dollars go:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
(http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY05.jpg)
This is the one provided by the US Govt. Either way we're spending a lot of money on "Social Services".
(http://www.warresisters.org/images/FY05_deception.jpg)
-
so klinton gutted the military and increased welfare and social programs... we then needed to build the military back up but were stuck with his permanent social programs. If Bush simply cut the military in half he would be seen on paper as the president that spent the least.
If you were to look at where most of the 40% taxes or so of social welfare programs that we will be paying for for the rest of ours and our childrens lives originated... you will see that allmost every one was started by a democrat. democrats start em and the rest of us pay for em forever.
lazs
-
Social Security and Medicare make up 41% according to the graph. Social Security is your money you already paid in and Medicare is the medical for seniors that they paid for years. Should we steal their money from them? It's not a welfare program. :rolleyes:
You can't blame everything on Clinton even tho you think it's cool.
-
There are a LOT of people using that Social Security money but have never paid in a dime.
-
There is some fraud, I agree. It should be investigated and procecuted IMHO. There are also LOTS of children that recieve SSI and I have no problem with that. Those that can will pay in later. The crippled children that can't we will just have to pay for. You need to have some compassion and charity for those that truly need it. For those that don't and are milking the system, go after them and procecute. That's just my wacko liberal opinion.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
For those that don't and are milking the system, go after them and procecute. That's just my wacko liberal opinion.
Quickest way to kill this snake is by cutting off it's head, or, voting the democrats out of office.
-
I agree with the cutting off the head of the spending snake...in this case GWBinc.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are a LOT of people using that Social Security money but have never paid in a dime.
Damn blind kids. Why can't they just beg on the street like in Mexico?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are a LOT of people using that Social Security money but have never paid in a dime.
Anyone who steps foot in this country illeally or otherwise is immediately rewarded by social services. you are 100% correct there.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Social Security is your money you already paid in
A minor point here. Most of the people who have been on SS a long time have gotten back more than they put in, even accounting for inflation/interest. Benefits have grown far beyond what was envisioned when they set the collection rate.
-
Yuck it up. I'm not for depriving needy kids, just their lazy "bipolar" parents on disability.
-
Toad, yes it is possible, but not the norm. Stupid medical advancements.
Iron, you and I agree on that point. A theif is a theif.
-
If the money the government took from me to prop up a disastrous Social Security program had, instead, been placed in my teacher retirement program I could retire with three times the money that I will eventually get.
Social Security is NOT a voluntary program...you pay whether you think it is an unqualified failure or not. It should have been privatized thirty years ago. That will never happen in the U.S. because there are some who realize a lot of political capital from it, scaring the old folks during every national election year with "They gonna cut your benefits!"
Why can't they just be honest with them and say "Okay...if we continue down our current path...your grandchildren will never be able to draw Social Security but will be stuck paying high taxes to pay for benefits that were paid out thirty years ago. We HAVE to make some changes in the system."
-
Seems to me people this wealthy wouldn’t mind giving back a little to the country that made them rich.
Foolish presumption. How about the poor people pay their share instead?
Why big business would prefer to not have a balanced budget is beyond me.
More foolishness. Cater had a balanced budget... the result: skyrocketing interest rates and inflation.
The higher interest rates scare away potential new investors.
Feds raised the rate 1/4% today. Wall Street's response: Up 22 points. Yup, they seem real scared. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Toad, yes it is possible, but not the norm. Stupid medical advancements.
Hardly the case. It's not caused by "stupid medical advancements." It's because benefits are far higher than planned for/covered by SS taxes.
Here:
Social Security: The Relationship of Taxes and Benefits for Past, Present, and Future Retirees (http://www.concordcoalition.org/entitlements/crs051298.html)
....Under the economic assumptions most commonly used by the Social Security Trustees and congressional policymakers, a worker who always earned an average wage, who retires at age 65 in 1998, and has a dependent spouse will recover the value of the retirement portion of his or her Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) taxes plus interest in 3.1 years; the payback times for a similar worker retiring in 2010, 2020, and 2030 are projected to be 4.3, 4.6, and 4.3 years, respectively....
It's a pretty complicated paper, with lots of factors to consider. However, it can be shown that a lot of the folks on SS get their money paidback in a relatively short time.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Seems to me people this wealthy wouldn’t mind giving back a little to the country that made them rich.
Not only that you think you have a right to steal someone else's property, but you also presume to know that the victim won't mind?
Pretty arrogant and presumptuous if you ask me.
-
One more thing.
It's not "the country" which made them rich, it's their hard work and contributions to the society. Your pay is a certificate for services rendered.
If it was "the country" which makes people rich, everybody would be rich, even you. And then perhaps you would not be that quick on raising taxes "for the common good".
-
Not that I want to get all into the details because I suck at money.
But Mietla, this one question comes to mind.
The "rich" didn't make their millions in a vaccuum... It was within a context of personal/property/tax laws etc...
Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?
-
Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?
Well I know you didn't ask me but here's my $.02
Simple: The lower income people don't pay their share of taxes, or don't pay any taxes at all. They use all the same amenities that I do as far as the privilege of living in the U.S goes, have more kids on average(I have none) and many of them are a drain on the system via any number of govt give aways. Why is it unfair for someone to pay the same amount as me in the form of a % of their income? If I pay 32%, why shouldn't everyone, especially since I am less of a drain on Govt $$$ than most lower income people? if anything, they should have to pay HIGHER taxes as they often use more govt services.
Edit: The reason the "rich" get taxed is because there are more poor voters than wealthy. It's easy for a politician to raise taxes on the rich, the poor are happy to take the money from the rich.
I had a discussion about this in an earlier thread with someone. He just couldn't understand why the wealthy received a tax cut and not the lowest of income people. He just didn't get that it's hard to cut 0 taxes any further. Then, when he finally understood, he wanted the govt to tax the wealthy and since the poor couldn't have further tax cuts, he wanted to govt to GIVE money to the poor. Redistribution at its finest.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Damn blind kids. Why can't they just beg on the street like in Mexico?
more like the kid driving the bmw selling little bags of crack while claiming he's unemployed and can't find a job or his mom to busy popping out another sibling in between jerry springer shows for that monthly increase ....
these robbers take it from your "dam blind kids".
the program doesn't need more money thrown at it, it needs the holes in it plugged..which includes those that can work, do and put into the jar instead of taking out..
-
Blind people can get money from SS without paying in, which really doesn't have anything to do with your hysterical rant about welfare queens.
We are spending more than we take in. Our pork addicted Congress can't say no, farmers are getting their billions in welfare, and our President breaks countries that we end up having to buy.
Republicans control the federal government and they are not even trying anymore to balance the budget. After all, CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA will happily buy our paper debt. When foreigners finally stop buying it, our govt. will be competing with the private sector in the finance market looking for money.
Anyway, good luck balancing the budget with SS and medicare cuts, sounds like political suicide to me.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If the money the government took from me to prop up a disastrous Social Security program had, instead, been placed in my teacher retirement program I could retire with three times the money that I will eventually get.
Social Security is NOT a voluntary program...you pay whether you think it is an unqualified failure or not. It should have been privatized thirty years ago. That will never happen in the U.S. because there are some who realize a lot of political capital from it, scaring the old folks during every national election year with "They gonna cut your benefits!"
Why can't they just be honest with them and say "Okay...if we continue down our current path...your grandchildren will never be able to draw Social Security but will be stuck paying high taxes to pay for benefits that were paid out thirty years ago. We HAVE to make some changes in the system."
Ya... I get irked every time I think about Grammy and Grampy enjoying MY dime knowing I'll probably never see it back.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The "rich" didn't make their millions in a vaccuum... It was within a context of personal/property/tax laws etc...
not sure what you are trying to say here. The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet.
People prosper despite the government, not because of it. Everybody has the same opportunities, some chose to take risks and work their bellybutton off for a potential filet mignon in a future, others prefer government provided bowl of rice. And those are the ones who whine when the see someone eating a filet.
Unless you think there should be no taxation whatsoever, or that somehow the perfect formula has been discovered, why is any adjustment even slightly unfavorable to the rich taken as such an afront?
no one is arguing for no taxation. Government has certain legitimate functions as well as obligations to the people, so it need funds, but...
1. everybody has to pay taxes.
2. the government is not allowed to give the funds collected from one group of people and redistribute it to others. Especially that the way it is right now, they take from the producers (thus discouraging hard work and punishing a success), and they give the funds away to those who choose not to produce (thus encouraging lack of initiative and dependency on others and rewarding failure).
"Blind Kids" is a bogus (but highly emotional) argument. And it has to be emotional, because you just can;t justify an income redistribution using reason, common sense and a fundamental morality.
-
Originally posted by mietla
And it has to be emotional, because you just can;t justify an income redistribution using reason, common sense and a fundamental morality.
:rofl
Golly gee! How can they discuss anything with you if you set requirements like that?
-
Originally posted by mietla
The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet.
Lets go back 200 years, and use the richest guy on earth as an example. How would Gates have fared, ridin' the range, so to speak?
Hows about now, if there weren't laws? How would Gates fare hand to hand against someone in Alphabet City?
Or... Lets put them both in a forest miles away from nowhere and see who can provide for their family.
It's un-questionable that the rich earn/inherit within a context of laws. (It also turns out that the rich actually write the laws).
Mietla (u the one looking for a gun to protect his family last year?), I'll go as far as to say that you'd prolly be dead by now if it weren't for the government. So I'd lay off the "take all the freedoms from us" bull*****.
"The only contribution the government made to the success of the successful is to not take all the freedoms from us, ... yet. .." Patoohey
-
you a cheerleader now Toad?
-
Lets go back 200 years, and use the richest guy on earth as an example. How would Gates have fared, ridin' the range, so to speak?
Rediculous. There were business opportunities 200 years ago. He probably would have found success in mass goat shearing or something....maybe invented a better firearm or plow.
It's un-questionable that the rich earn/inherit within a context of laws. (It also turns out that the rich actually write the laws).
What's your point? The people that right laws are educated. Does it really seem like a coincidence that educated people tend to get "rich"?
I will not speak for Mietla but I DO feel that govt has burrowed too deeply into the personal lives of your average American.
-
Okay my bad.
Go back 2000 years.
Then whip on back here and tell me the government has hampered yer ability to make money.
-
Wait Nash, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying my govt is a hindrance to making money. I'm sorry about being vague.
Just differed on a couple of your points.
as I said, I do feel Govt has become too intrusive.
I also recognize that without laws and infrastructure govt provides, via my taxes, that I would not enjoy nearly the standard of living that I do today.
again, sorry about clouding the issue.
-
Aint yer fault Steve. Mostly mine for taking the argument down to a base level. But with Mietla I think that needs to be established first.
-
Nash, screw you! Post funny stuff you boob....
-
Hey, if I was a boob I'd never leave my bed. :D
-
Just an aside, as Bill Gates hasn't sold the vast majority of his Microsoft holdings the vast majority of his wealth has grown without his paying taxes on it.
The taxes are not due until he sells his stock.
-
Originally posted by Nash
you a cheerleader now Toad?
No more (or less either, I guess) than you are.
I just thought that was a funny line. So apropos to almost all the discussions here.
-
Golly gee! How can they discuss anything with you if you set requirements like that?
Kinda like that was apropos to what you just said?
Go fight cougars mountain man.
-
Don't like it do ya?
I'm sorta gettin' into it, ya know?
-
What was it Nuke said? The barn predicts rain?
Makes as much sense anyways. Go ahead get into it... Groove to the nonsense.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Patoohey
How can I question such a powerful argument?
-
By responding to the 20 or so lines I wrote before those three words maybe?
-
Originally posted by Nash
By responding to the 20 or so lines I wrote before those three words maybe?
to get another Patoohey ?
well, ok I'll bite...
Lets go back 200 years, and use the richest guy on earth as an example. How would Gates have fared, ridin' the range, so to speak?
He would succeed no doubt. It's a personality, drive, ambition and hard work, not the government provided toilet paper that makes you succeed.
An intelligent and bright person makes the best out of what he has. He does not wait for others (especially the government) to provide him "a proper environment".
Hows about now, if there weren't laws? How would Gates fare hand to hand against someone in Alphabet City?
No idea what you are talking about. Hand to hand? Alphabet City?
Or... Lets put them both in a forest miles away from nowhere and see who can provide for their family.
You provide for your family, I'll provide for mine. How else?
This entire notion of yours, of hypothetically moving someone 200 years back and trying to imply that although he is successful today he would fail then is just plain silly.
Just because I do not ride a horse well, nor am I any good with a sword and on top of it my latin sucks, you want to imply that I would be an utter failure in Ancient Rome?
It's un-questionable that the rich earn/inherit within a context of laws.
Yes, but it does not mean that that owe the government a percentage of their income as a tribute.
I do accept a notion of taxes as a "membership fee" in a society, but I will never accept a notion of income/wealth redistribution and equality of outcome doctrine.
Mietla (u the one looking for a gun to protect his family last year?), I'll go as far as to say that you'd prolly be dead by now if it weren't for the government.
Huh? Dead? why? because I drank some Drano due to a lack of government warning label on a bottle? or maybe strangled myself with the shoe laces length of which exceeded the government regulations?
So I'd lay off the "take all the freedoms from us" bull*****.
Maybe you do not care about your liberties, I do care about mine.
Guess what, you are free to give up your freedom, but you have no right to enslave me or steal from me.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Wait Nash, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying my govt is a hindrance to making money. I'm sorry about being vague.
Just differed on a couple of your points.
as I said, I do feel Govt has become too intrusive.
I also recognize that without laws and infrastructure govt provides, via my taxes, that I would not enjoy nearly the standard of living that I do today.
again, sorry about clouding the issue.
Wanna see a Democrat skate around a topic? Ask one why they believe in Confiscatory Taxes? The look they give is worth $1,000.
Karaya
-
Taken in a whole history of time situation... Bill Gates would either get eaten by a dinosaur, break his neck simply wearing a helmet in the crusades, or be somebody's cowgirl love slave.
The so-called lack of your liberties keeps people from taking what you have.
There's only a finite amount of resources on the continent. You think you should own them cuz yer smart. Others would take them cuz they're bigger than you.
Very simplistic, but whatever... The government, made up of smart pasty frail men, created a system by which smart frail pasty men can control the resources and make money.
Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not. I'd be dead too. And in the natural order of things, why shouldn't brains overcome brawn? Thing is, without the government, they wouldn't.
So you especially should learn to love them.
Absoshreckinglutely taxes should be a form of redistribution of wealth.
There are a lot of folks not as bright as you. Yeah I know it's a drag... but what's to be done about them? Make them think at your level? Make them function at your level? Give me a break. All men were NOT created equal.
But lotsa them can beat the hell outta you... Can plant bombs... can riot... can loot...
There's a BALANCE that needs to be struck. Sorry for the reality check.
And the line shifts this way and that way... It's about trying to take as much as you can whilst giving only so much away as not to dramatically piss off the rest.
As it stands? Your foes sit on couches watching TV. You have them right where you shrecking want them. It's not science so much as art.
Go ahead step over that line. Take more... Send 'em to the streets... Lets see what happens.
What kind of gun did you end up deciding upon?
-
And in the natural order of things, why shouldn't brains overcome brawn? Thing is, without the government, they wouldn't.
Beg to differ.
Elephants are stronger, Cheetas are faster, Dolphins swim better, Ducks can fly, we humans have greater intellegence.
Which species is dominant?
Brains overpower all. Even without government.
-
you feel like putting that theory to the anarchy test?
-
You saying cheetas have a more developed governmental system?
-
You sayin' we should abolish the government and let the smart fight the tough? Why?
Good as is, no?
-
So we shouldn't have developed smart weapons. The dumb bombs were good enough.
All the development of smarter machines and educated citizenry will be lost as soon as some country decides to physically train their citizenry to use their brawn rather than their brains.
Out smarting the competition is passe' when it comes to competetion, the rule of thumb now is work harder, not smarter.
Okay, whatever.
-
That seems so out of context that frankly I didn't get it.
Smart vs Dumb bombs? I was talking about people.
As for your 2nd sentence, try taking a highly trained unit into China. I still dunno what that has to do with anything. :)
Yer third sentence wanders right off the cliff... I don't get the connection/relevance.
Could be (prolly is) me.
-
I was paralleling the development of human technology with the development (over obviously a much longer period) of human physiology.
Not only does Darwin select the more intellegent but so does our society and so does our technocracy.
Brains always beat brawn.
-
Civilization as it stands has made Darwin irrellevant.
-
Natural selection still takes place.
Jessica Simpson not withstanding, (there are always exceptions to the rule) are you going to pick the smart girl or the one who is dumb as a post?
-
Nash, give it up. This is who you are debating.
(http://milwaukeeballet.org/images/brick-wall-left_06.jpg)
-
With proper planning one can figure a way through a brick wall. The use of tools like a bulldozer or dynamite requires smarts, or could use my fists and pound on the wall all day and make no progress. Thanks for making my case RPM.
-
Absoshreckinglutely taxes should be a form of redistribution of wealth.
Why?
This is dangerous. Get socialist, take away the incentive (more money) to excel and all you have is an unmotivated workplace and a stagnating economy. Remember the U.S.S.R.?
I'm not going to bust my rump to make more money just so you can take a bunch of it away and give it to Joe Loser. I'll just pull up a park bench and some newspapers and move in next to Mr. Loser if that's the case. Let me practice holding my hand out, I've never done it before.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Absoshreckinglutely taxes should be a form of redistribution of wealth.
forget the labels. This statement alone makes this conversation most probably pointless... but what the heck.
I'll live in my world and you stay in yours.
There is a difference though. If a taker disappears, not only it will not affect the rest of us, but we wouldn't even notice it.
If, on the other hand, the producer disappears, the takers have to replace him, or at the very least make the rest of the producers to work harder to make up the difference.
BTW, what makes you think that smart people are automatically meak? Wishfull thinking? Perhaps a smarter than you guy can kick your bellybutton in a hand to hand combat as well?
Or would that be a double injustice ?
Why would you accept an exploitation of one person by another? Because the loser is stronger that an achiever?
That was the governing principle for tens of thousands of years, is this what you are advocating? Extortion is justified simply because it is possible?
.
-
(http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/robin_hood_01.jpg)
Robin Hood Was Not A Democrat (http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5964)
"If you were to believe the hyperbole spouting from the spin doctors of the Democrat party, the agenda of leftist leadership revolves around taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Tax cuts benefit the wealthy, they say. Heartless conservatives have no compassion for the lowest strata of society, they cry. Our goal is to help the helpless, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, they rant....
The left's reaction to the Bush Tax Cut is an obvious example of this class warfare. Tom Daschle appears on TV, speaking of the myriad citizens who will be hurt by tax relief. Grinning like a Cheshire, he barely contains his glee at the opportunity to label the Bush Administration as uncaring. While speaking of the largesse that would go to the rich (aka; those with jobs) and the necessities stolen from the poor, there is something Tiny Tom forgets to mention.
The only people who receive a tax break are those who pay taxes. Daschle and company, unbelievably, are complaining that the tax break is not applied to those who DON'T pay taxes. They want more money for those who DON'T contribute, who live off the crusts and crumbs they dribble out in return for support of the Donkey Party....
Sadly, those already dependent upon government hand-outs, who have little hope, will continue to buy the myth of Democrats as latter-day Robin Hoods. Sadly, they have yet to realize that the Merry Men of the left have filed a change of address. They now lounge within the highest tower of the most opulent castle, jingling their coins and laughing at the peons below who beg for their scraps."
-
Originally posted by Nash
Groove to the nonsense.
Well, I'm studying under a good teacher.
Plus, after reading the rest of the thread since, it's clear there's no need for me to jump in. Looks to me like the smarts and strong, brawny strength of Mietla and Holden are triumphing against minimal opposition.
You did lots better with your shoot 'em on sight, my irrational fear of mountain lions controls my trigger finger because they're eating North America thread. edit
-
nash.. you are a silly man..
If resources are finite then we certainly didn't reach that point 2000 or 200 or even today yet. It is a moot point.
U seem to be saying that the only choices are anarchy or total redistribution or wealth... communism/socialism. This is silly...
Since we are talking about the U.S. (u are talking about the U.S.) we have a constitution. It was written 200 years ago and limits the powers of government. It was never meant to redistribute wealth. Redistributing wealth helps no one.
Under our constitution anyone could and did prosper without the redistribution of wealth.
Taxes are to pay for running the government and for raising an army. Rights are guarenteed and protected under a limited government.
government social programs help no one. Some of the most powerful governments in history have been the poorest. Canada for instance is much poorer than the U.S. and it is much more into redistribution of wealth... same for england... Former communist block countries. Cuba... all countries with strong governments that redistribute wealth. Imagine if canada had a border with mexico rather than affluent U.S.
As for SS... who is really "helped" by the pitance that is given to "blind kids" that is extorted from us workers? Who ever retires with the money that SS pays? is it possible to have a worse retirement program short of putting every dollar into company stock like enron? How quickly would we be out of debt if we simply abolished SS?
he socialist programs that were put in place by democrats and that are simple extortion are with us forever and are putting us more and more in debt... It isn't that the government does extort enough from us... it is that the government spends too much.
lazs
-
Unfortunately, the many debates on this BBS regarding this subject as well as others, have probably changed the minds of no one. I'll just debate with my vote.
-=Cheney 2008=-
Originally posted by rpm371
Nash, give it up. This is who you are debating.
(http://milwaukeeballet.org/images/brick-wall-left_06.jpg)
-
Do y'all just use this BBS to pound home your deeply held views? Is that what it is? Is it about being right? Is it about proving something to others? Changing minds?
It gets incredibly repetitive and it's shrecking boring man.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Plus, after reading the rest of the thread since, it's clear there's no need for me to jump in. Looks to me like the smarts and strong, brawny strength of Mietla and Holden are triumphing against minimal opposition.
Holden (once again) was about the only guy that got it.
Taxes as a form of protection against cavemen? Oh man... But what's the reply? Blah blah blah blah same 'ol ***** ya've said 1000's times YAWN.
"You did lots better with your shoot 'em on sight, my irrational fear of mountain lions controls my trigger finger because they're eating North America thread."
Ya win some ya lose some.
-
The thread subject is usually a good indicator of content Nash. Cliche it may be but true nonetheless, don't want to read it, don't.
-
Just have a little fun s'all I'm saying. Show some creativity. Live a little. You don't always have to be right and nobody will hurt you if you go out on a limb from time to time.
Lets face it, everything that's ever gonna be said on this BBS has already been said.
I should post a link to a 2yr old thread. People could respond with links to other threads.
It would make complete sense. Cuz it's all been done to death.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just have a little fun s'all I'm saying. Show some creativity. Live a little. You don't always have to be right and nobody will hurt you if you go out on a limb from time to time.
Lets face it, everything that's ever gonna be said on this BBS has already been said.
I should post a link to a 2yr old thread. People could respond with links to other threads.
It would make complete sense. Cuz it's all been done to death.
OK, here's something that's fun. Haven't tried the registered version yet.
http://eaglelander3d.com/
-
Yeah, we should all try to be someone we aren't.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/robin_hood_01.jpg)
Sadly, those already dependent upon government hand-outs, who have little hope, will continue to buy the myth of Democrats as latter-day Robin Hoods.
Robin Hood robbed the government officials and tax collectors, and then returned the money to the taxpayers oppressed by an arbitrary and excessive taxation.
Robin Hood was a tax cutter, far from a democrat.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, we should all try to be someone we aren't.
Absolutely. Even for only a day.
In fact... if I thought it would be possible I would suggest some kind of "Opposite Day" on the BBS. Pick a day, and for that one day on this BBS we're only allowed to say and argue for things that are completely opposite to what you would originally.
Mietla arguing for more taxation. Gsholz pointing out the merits of the Iraq invasion. SOB advocating for a more decent and spiritual society. Lazs on gun control. Etc. I think the result would be pretty neat. Both cute AND fund. Entertaining at the very least.
But alas... openning up the BBS window nowadays is akin to hittin' the play button and watching the tape run.
ps... AKIron - Cool game, thanks! I can't control the damn thing though... no idea what I'm doing wrong.
-
" alas... openning up the BBS window nowadays is akin to hittin' the play button and watching the tape run."
Definately. And sadly, even your avatar seems to have developed a skip. Or she sprained her right ankle.
-
It's so easy to do, isn't it?
In order to intelligently argue one side of an issue you have to be somewhat versed in the other side.
Anyway, enough seriousness. I shall go back to emulating some famous thread hijackers and pot-stirrers here.
:p
-
Originally posted by Nash
ps... AKIron - Cool game, thanks! I can't control the damn thing though... no idea what I'm doing wrong.
It is cool isn't it. I can land it on auto and can control motion about some of the axes but haven't landed on manual yet. Just found it today.
-
Are you using a joystick or the keyboard?
When I try and use the stick, and even though the set-up shows it functioning normally, the lander spins widly out of control.
When I try the keys, it doesn't seem to respond to any control inputs. I've tried the game about a billion times now w/o luck... but I gotta figure it out.