|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 12, 2005 18:27:29 GMT -5
Or foodfights, pitiably...
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 14, 2005 13:01:29 GMT -5
wait... are you inferring that American factories in the late 1800's/ early 1900's werent responsible for the inhuman policies they imparted?
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 14, 2005 15:27:00 GMT -5
No, I'm inferring there weren't enough food fights in American factories in the late 1800's/ early 1900's, and that the chinese are not free to throw food fights
Actually, what I was referring to was ancient and medieval chinese child slavery while evil, has to be put in a different moral context then it would be today. The managers and owners ofAmerican factories in the late 1800's/ early 1900's are all going to burn in the pits of hell, not that I'm' a unionist or anything like that
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Dec 27, 2005 5:06:42 GMT -5
Also, Mr. Freeman pointed out recently that the media works to make Americans "stupider" by cramming in reality TV and other entertainment shows so no one cares about how the economy is doing. I find this terribly ironic since the media appears to be more liberal than conservative, and this thread seems pretty pro-liberal. Another point: If conservatives wanted to benefit the rich (and they are stereotyped as rich) would not they raise taxes and embezzle? With how cold-hearted, bigoted and selfish many of you are making them seem, would this not be the logical and most likely action for them? Now, I know that our current President is not the best person for the office, but I prefer him to his opposition. He is helping to keep the general "moral fiber" of the country together. Of course, many of you see that as bigoted, bassackwards and stupid. What many of you seem to be unaware of is that when a country's morals have reached a low point, the country tends to fall apart from within. As many of you can probably tell, I am a Conservative Republican because I believe in the majority of the Republican ideals. Obviously, if I disagreed with them, I would not claim to be part of the Grand Old Party. Now, flame me all you want. Heck, you'll probably even use big words and indirect assalts simply to make yourselves seem in the right.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Dec 27, 2005 10:31:03 GMT -5
no, thats not the most logical, staying on the legal side is much more logical if you spend well. . . . . .not that long thinking about it (in the range of less than 10 seconds)
i disagree that bush is holding together the "general moral fiber", unless you don't mean something other than being christian, which would make me laugh. hard.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 28, 2005 3:40:25 GMT -5
I find this terribly ironic since the media appears to be more liberal than conservative, and this thread seems pretty pro-liberal. Another point: If conservatives wanted to benefit the rich (and they are stereotyped as rich) would not they raise taxes and embezzle? With how cold-hearted, bigoted and selfish many of you are making them seem, would this not be the logical and most likely action for them? 1. The media is felt to be horribly liberal to conservatives, and horribly conservative to liberals. Suck it up. 2. Republicans are mostly composed of, yes, Rich people, AND the lower classes who find their "tax cuts" and conservative social policies appealing. Conservatives benefit the rich by cutting the taxes TO the rich, not to the poor- Math question: A Republican makes a million a year from the business he is CEO of, as well as from his stock options. He is taxed 60% of his income. If this tax is reduced by 50%, how much does he save?
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Dec 28, 2005 23:33:53 GMT -5
He saves 10% of a million. I take it you wanted a better, more solid answer? Whip out the calculator find out that he saves $100,000.
Have any of you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life." I wish someone would apply this to government without being labelled a fascist, cold-hearted bigot.
Bush is keeping the moral fiber of this country together by representing the country's beliefs. The moral fiber, in this country, would be the ideals it was founded on. The ideals, mind you, that many of the founding fathers said that this country's government would not hold together well if they were absent or replaced. Look it up if you don't believe me. \
Now, democracy works by representing the people, correct? Yes. Bush was voted in because the majority of those who voted were able to make the electoral college elect Bush. Him as president pleases the most of the country. Sure, this may not be the best decision, but that is what democracy does: pleases the majority of the people.
"Why do republicans keep getting elected?" Oh, because in these past years, the country has found itself best represented by Repulbicans. Now, I'll quote you: "Suck it up"
Democracy works if the citizens work with whats happening, not sit back, complain and protest. Sure, us Republicans have not all learned that lesson, but if you find yourselves so correct and right, make yourselves better.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Dec 29, 2005 2:21:06 GMT -5
how the hell is he holding up the beliefs of the founding fathers
for starters hes VIOLATING one thing that the founding fathers were extremely worried about by trying to expand his own powers extensively (single person with power over everyone else) and sacrificing liberties of the populace
additionally, i believe you're making a foolish assumption that all the people complaining are democrats. if you think that, you're incredibly wrong.
that sounds a lot like something i heard an idiot say a while back along the lines of "so what, he got elected. now deal with his f**k ups". lets apply this mentality to this country's origins: "so what if the king is an donkey hole and treats everyone like shit, hes king, we lowly beings have no right to rebel and start a country that would be based on the ideals of people governing themselves!"
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 29, 2005 12:40:06 GMT -5
Yes, democracy does supposedly represent the majority, and you'll notice that I didn't attack the system, I attacked the beliefs of the Majority. And I have sucked it up, I moved, I don't live in the US. And if the moral fibre of the country is made of selfservingness, lieing, violence, bigotry, radical religion, and the desecration of what the founding fathers wrote, then I'm glad I moved.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 29, 2005 19:28:55 GMT -5
Ok. Since the argument of self sufficiency is one of the main arguments I hear coming from republicans in defense of their party policies, along with moral fiber, let me at least point out the other side of the argument. I would also like to add that I do not believe the democratic party as it stands is really much better than the republican party. Now on to the argument.
As far as teaching a man to fish to eat for the rest of his life, you could apply that maxim backwards and say take a mans money and teach him to work if you apply the maxim to inheritance. If you really want almost no taxes, and you want people to work, and more importantly, earn what they make (ie not sponsor the people too lazy to work, while rewarding those who work diligently) then I believe that to be fair, you have to let people start on a close to fair footing. Its much harder for a poor son of an immigrant to be successful than it is for the son of a rich business owner, and most of the time the rich son can even not work at all and still live better than the poor immigrants son. So, taxing inheritance is probably something that needs to be done if you want to give people a fair footing. However, the downside of that is it means that the parent who worked hard to provide for his children, is being stripped of his work.
So, assuming that circumstances are not going to be equal for each person, the best way that the government can make each person receive a close to equal opportunity is by providing good social services to everyone, the most important for equal opportunity being education and a solid income for the child so that he can focus on education (instead of skipping school to work and make enough money to help support his family). The thing is, the only way the government can do those things, as well as provide social services like roads, electricity etc, is by taxing people.
Many times, you will find that people are willing to work hard, they just need the opportunity to work. The government can give them that opportunity through its various social services. If the government pays for the nursing of an old grandfather who has alzheimers, it means that the family of that grandparent can work instead of looking after the grandmother, the children can go to school instead of working, and in general allow the family a much brighter future. If the government can give people incentives to work, then more jobs are created as people start businesses, more people can and will work, and productivity will go up. Those same dollars invested into creating incentives to work, can even be partially made back in taxes. The point is, there are a huge amount of things that are most efficient when the government does it, and if you want there to be fairness, then taxing is a necessety. As a result, cutting taxes might be good and might be bad, it depends how much is needed to spend on those social services that are crucial that the government does. As long as people realize the purpose of taxes as being to raise the funds necessary to provide valuable social services then raising them and lowering them becomes necessary only as a method to raise those funds.
The only other utility of taxes is to fix for economic failures (ie externalities). When a factory produces candy at a certain cost, and the cost to society is higher because of pollution (which isnt factored into the personal cost of the factory) Then the government needs to tax (or if the externality is positive subsidize) the good or the consumer so that the socially optimal quantity is produced. This has nothing to do with income taxes though, but its just another use of taxes.I
|
|