Definition of Failure : Obama repeals Obamcare

My Research: It was a shithole no one wanted to go to long before the collapse of the auto industry. I really wanted to point to a larger trend. Every policy has been more leftist than the next over years and years. Powerful unions and inefficient working laws championed by the Dems helped kill the auto industry as well.  Libs seem to promise utopia or at least have really vivid visions, my point was I just don't feel there's enough success.

Crime follows poverty? Ok I'll go there, I'd also argue crime follows dependency. Crime follows lack of self-respect and self-worth. Teach a man to...yada yada. First these kids were brainwashed then they were failed miserably when someone should have been focusing on their economic mobility above all else.

 
Jruth said:
My Research: It was a shithole no one wanted to go to long before the collapse of the auto industry. I really wanted to point to a larger trend. Every policy has been more leftist than the next over years and years. Powerful unions and inefficient working laws championed by the Dems helped kill the auto industry as well. Libs seem to promise utopia or at least have really vivid visions, my point was I just don't feel there's enough success.
Click to expand...
Detroit WAS a lousy place, but when the auto-industry was big, people moved there to work. And Detroit grew as a result.

I would posit, based on the view of someone who worked at GM, that the real cause for the failure of Detroit has less to do with Democratic or Liberal policies, but from laziness, a sense of entitlement, and an unwillingness to compete.

Back in the 70s, they believed they were on top of the world. Whenever the weather was good, people took the day off. You learned never to buy a car assembled on Monday or Friday (Monday, because they were still in weekend-mode, and Friday, because they were eager to get off work. For a windshield, if they were supposed to glue it in 8 places, they would only do 3).

They ignored the incoming Japanese cars with their better quality and better fuel efficiency, content to tell themselves that they knew what they American public really wanted. As a result, their cars were shit too. And then everytime they lost in another area, they just retreated a little further until they basically only sold large cars like trucks.

They once tried to take apart a Japanese car and put it back together. They physically could not. But this did not scare them into working harder.

This applies to more than just the auto-industry, but for now I'll just leave it at that.

Instead of just saying that it's Republican or Democratic, it's a bit of both. Liberals support unions, which lead to higher wages. Conservatives hate immigrants who are willing to work harder for less.

 
Rasen said:
You keep saying Obama's debt, and I keep asking you about Reagan, once you factor in inflation. (About equal in terms of real-purchasing power, but Reagan quadrupled the deficit, Obama did less than that) The thing I've noticed about those figures so oft-cited is that not once do they ever seem to factor in inflation. They just look at the posted numbers and say whatever they want. Y'know how your grandparents complain about how they used to be able to buy a candy bar and a comic book for 5 cents, and now it's 3 dollars? Or why everyone laughed when Dr. Evil asked for a million dollars? Prices went up too,

And while you criticize FDR, consider that the Great Depression started in 1929, during Herbert Hoover, a Republican.

Similarly, the Great Recession started in W's administration.

I'm NOT saying either one was caused by Republicans, I'm sure it's a much more complicated mix from laws and regulations from before, as well as risky actions taken by whoever.

But my point is you appear to be blaming the person who is stuck trying to clean up the mess (putting aside whether he is doing a good or bad job), instead of trying to figure out who took the massive dump in the halls to begin with.

Maybe they did a good job helping the country, a bad job helping the country, or the country would have recovered on its own. But in all these situations, unless they made things demonstrably WORSE (hello Federal Reserve infighting), I would be MORE angry at the people who put us INTO the crappy situation in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yes I am talking about Obama's DEBT.

Just from the time he has been in office till now his own personal debt responsibility is higher than all previous presidents COMBINED. That is an astronomical stat when you think about it and being in debt doesn't allow you to put up the numbers that this guy has in so little time.

That is the problem he is making NO attempt at all at trying to clean up the mess. He is just making it even worse! You people need to stop treating him with kiddie gloves and realize he was never equipped to be president to begin. Being a crappy senator for a very short time and a community organizer is hardly qualifications for being a President.

And actually in the case of Detroit there is nobody else to blame but the Democrats, they have had solid majority control since the 1960s and it is now a Ghost town. You can keep trying to shift the blame away but it is undisputed fact that they were party who put in place policies that ruined Detroit. We wouldn't even get into all the corrupt Detroit Democratic mayors because that would be too easy.
 
RPGNinja said:
Yes I am talking about Obama's DEBT.

Just from the time he has been in office till now his own personal debt responsibility is higher than all previous presidents COMBINED. That is an astronomical stat when you think about it and being in debt doesn't allow you to put up the numbers that this guy has in so little time.

That is the problem he is making NO attempt at all at trying to clean up the mess. He is just making it even worse! You people need to stop treating him with kiddie gloves and realize he was never equipped to be president to begin. Being a crappy senator for a very short time and a community organizer is hardly qualifications for being a President.

And actually in the case of Detroit there is nobody else to blame but the Democrats, they have had solid majority control since the 1960s and it is now a Ghost town. You can keep trying to shift the blame away but it is undisputed fact that they were party who put in place policies that ruined Detroit. We wouldn't even get into all the corrupt Detroit Democratic mayors because that would be too easy.
Click to expand...
Debt, as in what they spent so far?

Obama $6 trillion

Reagan $3 trillion

Now, here's where inflation comes in, that funny concept that everyone seems to ignore. In 1980 dollars, $3 trillion = $8.49 trillion. In 1988 dollars, $3 trillion = $5.91 trillion. Since I don't believe Reagan increased it all at once, I'm taking a middle number of 1984 dollars, $3 trillion = $6.74 trillion.

Before talking to me about kid gloves, take off your rosy "Reagan is fiscally responsible model for all" glasses.

As for Detroit, who's really shifting the blame here? It's easy to blame politicians. But if you look at the attitudes of the car-makers and their employees, it is patently obvious they were lazy and complacent. And the unwillingness to compete(i.e., work HARD) is an attitude you still see today, every time people say "buy local," or "buy American."

If Democratic policies were really to blame, don't you think something like the 2008 election would have occurred, and a Republican would have won by now? I suppose you could argue that Democratic policies let people sink into a culture of dependency. That's fair, but then we're entering a chicken-egg problem. I would argue that American laziness is the reason for their voting the way they do, and you're arguing the policies made them lazy.

But then I see the people who argue for higher minimum wages (liberals) and people who argue for protectionist trade and immigration policies (conservatives), so since I see BOTH sides arguing for something that lets them work LESS, I'm going to say the laziness isn't political. It's just how people are. And the only thing politics does is change HOW they argue for their laziness.

Don't kid yourself. Conservatives funnel money to the rich and the military. Liberals funnel money to the poor. But BOTH are lazy. Since I don't think I'll get any argument from you about the poor being lazy, here's an example of the rich: Just look at any defense contractor's project. Like the F23. Riddled with problems. Massively over-budget. There is no desire to work hard or make a quality project. It's like the car manufacturers in Detroit in the 70's, only without a foreign competitor. (And of course, even if there WAS, the military can argue: "we can't trust foreign weapons, they could have traps in them." They used that argument for Chinese computers, and while they are right about the Chinese, you can bet good money they will use the same argument no matter what, so that the military is forced to "buy American.")

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If Democratic policies were really to blame, don't you think something like the 2008 election would have occurred, and a Republican would have won by now?" No. They voted Obama in on 73 percent of the vote at the peak of horribleness. They believe some conservative policies would be worse than what they have now. I can't begin to comprehend that.

You can pass off conservative values of working hard and self-responsibility as gibberish. It's human nature, as you say, but that thinking is reinforced by policies that support that way of life.

 
Rasen said:
Debt, as in what they spent so far?

Obama $6 trillion

Reagan $3 trillion

Now, here's where inflation comes in, that funny concept that everyone seems to ignore. In 1980 dollars, $3 trillion = $8.49 trillion. In 1988 dollars, $3 trillion = $5.91 trillion. Since I don't believe Reagan increased it all at once, I'm taking a middle number of 1984 dollars, $3 trillion = $6.74 trillion.

Before talking to me about kid gloves, take off your rosy "Reagan is fiscally responsible model for all" glasses.

As for Detroit, who's really shifting the blame here? It's easy to blame politicians. But if you look at the attitudes of the car-makers and their employees, it is patently obvious they were lazy and complacent. And the unwillingness to compete(i.e., work HARD) is an attitude you still see today, every time people say "buy local," or "buy American."

If Democratic policies were really to blame, don't you think something like the 2008 election would have occurred, and a Republican would have won by now? I suppose you could argue that Democratic policies let people sink into a culture of dependency. That's fair, but then we're entering a chicken-egg problem. I would argue that American laziness is the reason for their voting the way they do, and you're arguing the policies made them lazy.

But then I see the people who argue for higher minimum wages (liberals) and people who argue for protectionist trade and immigration policies (conservatives), so since I see BOTH sides arguing for something that lets them work LESS, I'm going to say the laziness isn't political. It's just how people are. And the only thing politics does is change HOW they argue for their laziness.

Don't kid yourself. Conservatives funnel money to the rich and the military. Liberals funnel money to the poor. But BOTH are lazy. Since I don't think I'll get any argument from you about the poor being lazy, here's an example of the rich: Just look at any defense contractor's project. Like the F23. Riddled with problems. Massively over-budget. There is no desire to work hard or make a quality project. It's like the car manufacturers in Detroit in the 70's, only without a foreign competitor. (And of course, even if there WAS, the military can argue: "we can't trust foreign weapons, they could have traps in them." They used that argument for Chinese computers, and while they are right about the Chinese, you can bet good money they will use the same argument no matter what, so that the military is forced to "buy American.")
Click to expand...
Actually what is funny is that last paragraph is not even an example of the rich. That is an example of MASSIVE government spending. Something the liberals and Neo Cons like Bush are guilty of. And we all know which party is more of a champion of big government. There are alot of Pro Military Democrats.

You can't bash the rich when it comes to taxes because they already pay the majority share of it. Just like when they tried to conjure up that class warfare BS with Occupy Wallstreet which died almost as soon as it started since it was all contrived.

Speaking of a culture of dependency that is EXACTLY what Obama's plan has been all along for Obamacare, once people get on it like a drug addict it will be hard to turn back.
 
RPGNinja said:
Actually what is funny is that last paragraph is not even an example of the rich. That is an example of MASSIVE government spending. Something the liberals and Neo Cons like Bush are guilty of. And we all know which party is more of a champion of big government. There are alot of Pro Military Democrats.

You can't bash the rich when it comes to taxes because they already pay the majority share of it. Just like when they tried to conjure up that class warfare BS with Occupy Wallstreet which died almost as soon as it started since it was all contrived.

Speaking of a culture of dependency that is EXACTLY what Obama's plan has been all along for Obamacare, once people get on it like a drug addict it will be hard to turn back.
Click to expand...
WTF you're like a cartoon character.

Do you just take your criticism of the ACA from tv/radio hosts? It's a pretty weak pro-business piece of legislation. Who is getting "addicted"? The asshole with a chronic illness who can finally buy insurance?

I'm curious, are you a nasty rich guy or just confused?

 
willardhaven said:
WTF you're like a cartoon character.

Do you just take your criticism of the ACA from tv/radio hosts? It's a pretty weak pro-business piece of legislation. Who is getting "addicted"? The asshole with a chronic illness who can finally buy insurance?

I'm curious, are you a nasty rich guy or just confused?
Click to expand...
I don't even make 10 dollars an hour at my current job. Far from rich. Do you just learning to MSNBC all day to find your talking points? Yeah good luck "finally buying insurance" when you couldn't even log onto the site and your premiums will skyrocket and you will lose your current plan after being promised that it wasn't going to happen. Seriously you might want to look at yourself first because you sound like you have been living in a cave.

Do you even realize how Obamacare works? It has to rely on the younger people to sign up to even have a shot at succeeding. Add into that that most young people would rather pay the penalty then sign up and you have a recipe for a disaster among other things.
 
RPGNinja said:
I don't even make 10 dollars an hour at my current job. Far from rich. Do you just learning to MSNBC all day to find your talking points? Yeah good luck "finally buying insurance" when you couldn't even log onto the site and your premiums will skyrocket and you will lose your current plan after being promised that it wasn't going to happen. Seriously you might want to look at yourself first because you sound like you have been living in a cave.

It is funny though that you can't even dispute what I said about the rich paying the majority of the taxes because everyone knows its true. Taxing the rich even more won't solve any of our problems. Its the same damn idea with throwing more and more money at education and we keep getting worse and worse students.

Do you even realize how Obamacare works? It has to rely on the younger people to sign up to even have a shot at succeeding. Add into that that most young people would rather pay the penalty then sign up and you have a recipe for a disaster among other things.
Click to expand...
 
Utter train wreck. Life is short. When the stupid hits a threshold, better to just let it go.

It's.... so incredibly awful.
 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Yeah rich people need to pay more money because the rest of us are poor.
Click to expand...
Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Some days I wonder why so many Vs. Old timers don't post anymore. Today is not one of those days.
Click to expand...
I still read the threads every once in a while. It's worth it just to see the occasional goofs, like when the conservatives/republicans/libertarians (whatever they want to be called these days) end up arguing with each other because there's no one else to argue with. Kind of like this gem:
mrsilkunderwear said:
Yeah rich people need to pay more money because the rest of us are poor.
Click to expand...
RPGNinja said:
Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".
Click to expand...
 
Msut77 said:
I dont see the rich paying more in taxes being a valid point when they have the majority of the money.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the point. It's to make the people that say arbitrarily the rich need to pay more with no previous knowledge of how much they actually pay already think a little bit more. And delve deeper into what is a much more complicated topic.

 
Jruth said:
I don't think that's the point. It's to make the people that say arbitrarily the rich need to pay more with no previous knowledge of how much they actually pay already think a little bit more. And delve deeper into what is a much more complicated topic.
Click to expand...
That isnt an argument.

 
RPGNinja said:
Wow that is such a great response. And do you really think that extra money that the rich are being taxed goes into your wallet? Get some common sense.

Taxing the rich even more isn't going to help anybody, it is all for symbolism to make you think everything is going to be "fair".
Click to expand...
Obviously sarcasm

 
The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of total income taxes in 2010. Yet they don't use the majority of the services. We have the most rich people than any other country. How did we come to have the most rich people? By embracing capitalism and free market ideals more than anyone else. We are by miles the most successful country in human history.

Wah there's so many rich people; as we type on our nice laptops. Wah America's so shitty, as we enjoy Xbox Live and luxuries our parents didn't even have.

 
Jruth said:
The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of total income taxes in 2010. Yet they don't use the majority of the services. We have the most rich people than any other country. How did we come to have the most rich people? By embracing capitalism and free market ideals more than anyone else. We are by miles the most successful country in human history.
Click to expand...
I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?

I guess being the sole industrialized country that wasn't completely ravaged by WW2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with where we are now.

Wah there's so many rich people; as we type on our nice laptops. Wah America's so shitty, as we enjoy Xbox Live and luxuries our parents didn't even have.
Click to expand...
How many people are in that 10% and what percentage are they of the population?

Btw, depending on the age of a person's parents, those things didn't exist when they were young, so that's a dumb point on your part. One of the dumbest you've ever made actually. Aren't you only 17? You were 3 years old when the original xbox was released and 8 years old when the 360 was released. Please, tell us more about how little people had at 17 that are now twice your age. Hell, my PS1 is older than you are. :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying to find an argument that makes sense to square off with in this thread. I can't find one.

The rich have an extremely disproportionate amount of the capital in this country, ergo they pay the most in actual taxes. Even then the percent they pay relative to their income is incredibly low by our historical standard.

So what's your point Jruth? That I pay too much even though my effective tax rate is not only way below marginal tax rate but miles below the rate in historical standards? I don't get it.

Shit, my 20 month old son probably got a bigger tax break on his accounts than you did last year. He returned 21% tax free on his investments. If he paid his parents marginal rate he would have paid four figures on capital gains in taxes. Of course he wouldn't pay that because capital gains tax is 15% so my 10%'er drooling toddler would pay less in taxes on income than a McDonald's manager so, you know, lol.

You can always spot a poor arguing for rich people. They're the ones that think the rich pay anywhere near sticker price.
 
dohdough said:
I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?
Click to expand...
I swear it was less than a month ago where someone asked what percentage of taxes the rich should be paying and some other member of this forum went off on a rant about how that's not a real question, is a strawman, etc., etc... I wonder if that same person is willing to step in now and say the same thing....
 
UncleBob said:
I swear it was less than a month ago where someone asked what percentage of taxes the rich should be paying and some other member of this forum went off on a rant about how that's not a real question, is a strawman, etc., etc... I wonder if that same person is willing to step in now and say the same thing....
Click to expand...
Well if I understand your snark correctly, I'd say Ronald Reagan argued pretty decisively for a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich via his expansion of the EITC, AKA the poor people tax break so they don't pay taxes. He called the tax bill it was a major part of "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress". It's one of the few things that libs and conservatives largely agreed on then and largely agree on now, 30 years later.

It's weird that I'm old enough to remember when conservatives enacted legislation that they now hate and yet they have absolutely no idea why they enacted it in the first place and if put on the spot, would almost certainly swear that it was a Democrat that did it.

There was a reason. But then again, well, we're talking about a group that half the time don't understand the difference between marginal and effective. Nuance is the least of our problems.

 
dohdough said:
I love it when you people play with math because you never really understand the numbers. What is the bar to hit that 10% and how much of the wealth do they control? If they control 90% of the wealth or make 90% of the income, what share should they be paying? How about if the had 100%? What about 50%?

I guess being the sole industrialized country that wasn't completely ravaged by WW2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with where we are now.

How many people are in that 10% and what percentage are they of the population?

Btw, depending on the age of a person's parents, those things didn't exist when they were young, so that's a dumb point on your part. One of the dumbest you've ever made actually. Aren't you only 17? You were 3 years old when the original xbox was released and 8 years old when the 360 was released. Please, tell us more about how little people had at 17 that are now twice your age. Hell, my PS1 is older than you are. :rofl:
Click to expand...
It's not even relevant to me nor do I care. Your envy drives those sorts of questions. We as Americans benefit from having all these rich people to pay for our services and at least keep up with Obama's deficits which it is documented the amount of money you would need to confiscate to keep up with his debts alone. No other country can benefit like us, Why? Because they never had rich people to begin with. Why? Because they're anti-capitalism and punish the rich.

I'm 20 so I was 7 when the original Xbox came out. Yea I agree they didn't exist when they were young, and our evil capitalism didn't stop these delightful advancements from happening. I mean what's Socialism's advancements in these areas? Where's Socialism's advancements in Science? Until you find one, I will invoke Occam's razor in that the simpler solution should always be preferred until it can be substituted with more complex reasoning. Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember being in my mid 20's and being a pretty raging libertarian. The inconsistencies really, really bothered me though. Like it seemed like the people that should have been on "our" side really weren't. Ayn Rand. Alan Greenspan. Adam Smith. Milton Friedman. They all broke down in (sometimes bizarre) ways that made me wonder why they would do or think such absurd things. I could never square why they would do it. Friedman argued for a guaranteed basic income. That's so goddamn communist that maybe it comes back around to being libertarian because... huh? wtf man.

It really bothered me that I was arguing for a system that has never functionally existed. All the commie shitbags would always wave their hands and suddenly the managed economies of the 20th century didn't apply or have to be answered for. They didn't count! No true Scotsman! But in reality, they had gotten much closer to reality than anything anywhere near what I was advocating for. And then I thought history is a long time and with virtually no libertarianism government expressing in our human history at any level, it occurred to me that libertarianism obviously cannot be a natural state.

I once had a college class where the prof and I would battle all class every class. She asked me to lunch and with a pen and paper, told me she wanted me to explain exactly what I wanted from a political and economic system. I delivered libertarian paradise. At the end of an exhaustive session, she asked how we would handle national defense. As I spoke, I realized how completely absurd the situation was. Here I was, a military veteran, explaining to a Hawaiian lychee farm owning Sociology hippy prof that trade would make it unnecessary but we would have defense covenants and why the fuck is she snickering under her breath and omg I'm stark raving fucking mad aren't I.

Hiding behind Occam's razor is not good enough. Do better.

Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.
Click to expand...

[citation needed]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
I remember being in my mid 20's and being a pretty raging libertarian. The inconsistencies really, really bothered me though. Like it seemed like the people that should have been on "our" side really weren't. Ayn Rand. Alan Greenspan. Adam Smith. Milton Friedman. They all broke down in (sometimes bizarre) ways that made me wonder why they would do or think such absurd things. I could never square why they would do it. Friedman argued for a guaranteed basic income. That's so goddamn communist that maybe it comes back around to being libertarian because... huh? wtf man.

It really bothered me that I was arguing for a system that has never functionally existed. All the commie shitbags would always wave their hands and suddenly the managed economies of the 20th century didn't apply or have to be answered for. They didn't count! No true Scotsman! But in reality, they had gotten much closer to reality than anything anywhere near what I was advocating for. And then I thought history is a long time and with virtually no libertarianism government expressing in our human history at any level, it occurred to me that libertarianism obviously cannot be a natural state.

I once had a college class where the prof and I would battle all class every class. She asked me to lunch and with a pen and paper, told me she wanted me to explain exactly what I wanted from a political and economic system. I delivered libertarian paradise. At the end of an exhaustive session, she asked how we would handle national defense. As I spoke, I realized how completely absurd the situation was. Here I was, a military veteran, explaining to a Hawaiian lychee farm owning Sociology hippy prof that trade would make it unnecessary but we would have defense covenants and why the fuck is she snickering under her breath and omg I'm stark raving fucking mad aren't I.

Hiding behind Occam's razor is not good enough. Do better.





[citation needed]
Click to expand...
I had a similar journey except mine was also heavily influenced by the realization that wealth allows people to exploit those with less wealth. From my first year in college when one of our professors showed us Rpger and Me I had hated Michael Moore only to end up realizing that through all his over the top showmanship, he actually made some valid points regarding the rich exploiting those without wealth. Our political system is the only equalizing factor in the equation and the only form of power the 1%ers actually have any amount of fear regarding.
 
speedracer said:
Well if I understand your snark correctly, I'd say Ronald Reagan argued pretty decisively for a higher percentage of the taxes being paid by the rich via his expansion of the EITC, AKA the poor people tax break so they don't pay taxes. He called the tax bill it was a major part of "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress". It's one of the few things that libs and conservatives largely agreed on then and largely agree on now, 30 years later.
Click to expand...
All that and you completely failed to answer DD's question - how much taxes should the rich pay? "More" isn't really an answer.
 
Real talk, man. If you had asked ANYONE on this forum a question and they replied with "no, u", you would laugh them off the board as a troll, etc.

DD's question is "How much should the rich pay in taxes."
 
UncleBob said:
Real talk, man. If you had asked ANYONE on this forum a question and they replied with "no, u", you would laugh them off the board as a troll, etc.

DD's question is "How much should the rich pay in taxes."
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're asking for because I don't understand the utility of the answer so I thought that if you gave an answer, I could work backwards. That's not an unreasonable request unless you don't have an answer. I gave the oft hated reason poor people get tax rebates because I thought it illustrated the fact that Ronald Reagan signed a bill that not only exempted poors from paying taxes but actually incentivized work via direct transfer payments.

So you don't want that. That's dodging. OK. What do you want Bob? What does an answer look like in your mind? I've never shied away from a conversation and typically write about a thousand words too many when I do. So why is it difficult to get an answer to your own question?

That's not a loaded question. I just am curious. Withholding my opinion is something I've never been accused of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jruth said:
It's not even relevant to me nor do I care. Your envy drives those sorts of questions. We as Americans benefit from having all these rich people to pay for our services and at least keep up with Obama's deficits which it is documented the amount of money you would need to confiscate to keep up with his debts alone. No other country can benefit like us, Why? Because they never had rich people to begin with. Why? Because they're anti-capitalism and punish the rich.
Click to expand...
You're the one that wanted to use those data points to defend your "argument," so now they don't matter because of some strange idea that anyone that's critical about the rich has "wealth envy?" :rofl: That's your answer to going deeper into evidence that YOU provided? The aftermath of WW2 doesn't matter either? Holy shit, dude, we're talking about some pretty basic history here. Where do/did you go to school so I know never to send my child anywhere near there.

It also seems like you don't really have a good understanding of what socialism and capitalism are either. Hint: no country is one or the other.


I'm 20 so I was 7 when the original Xbox came out. Yea I agree they didn't exist when they were young, and our evil capitalism didn't stop these delightful advancements from happening. I mean what's Socialism's advancements in these areas? Where's Socialism's advancements in Science? Until you find one, I will invoke Occam's razor in that the simpler solution should always be preferred until it can be substituted with more complex reasoning. Meaning I'm not comfortable with the very involved concept of confiscating money by the state when the simpler solution has proven effective.
Click to expand...
When you decide to define capitalism and socialism for us, you'll pretty much highlight exactly how ignorant you are about them and why your argument falls apart. I'll be waiting.

edit: Oh and since we're confessing our former conservative streaks, I was a self-described libertarian for a Very short stint in highschool. I was up late one night and caught Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and I heard him call himself a libertarian because he believed in more liberty. I was pretty ignorant about political parties until I was about maybe 19 and even more so when I was 14 or 15 when I saw this particular section of the show. Anywho, I said to myself that I believe in having more freedumz too, so I am now a libertarian and that was that. I never thought about it again until I was 19 and I started watching the show sporadically and realized how dumb it was to label yourself something that you know jack shit about.

I also called myself a homosexual once when I was in the 5th grade because my mother and teacher were piss poor in explaining what it meant by saying that it was boys that like boys. My reasoning was that my best friend is a dude and I like him(cause he's my friend...duh!) so I was a homosexual. Then my best friend was like "Yeah! I'm a homosexual too!" This was the mid-80's, so sex-ed and awareness weren't exactly at their peak. Good times...good times... :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your first rather predictable argument didn't make any sense, that's why I dismissed it. Everyone know's they are already paying percentage wise more than other classes. So whats YOUR point? So it doesn't matter, to me, how much of their income you wanna tax if it's still more than a flat tax. And they're paying more into the collective pot than the rest of us. Sorta cut's to the core of conservatism don't ya know. You are completely misrepresenting my point.

Seriously? Your only argument is based on the assumption I don't the definitions of capitalism and socialism? Last time I checked the two are still in pretty stark contrast to your dismay I'm sure. I mean how many elements of socialism in our current system has caused such advancements? If you wanna go on record in saying that America of all places is predominantly socialist, go ahead.

I don't know Japan got nuked a couple times and they seem to offer more to the world than any two bit socialist could dream of.

 
Jruth said:
Your first rather predictable argument didn't make any sense, that's why I dismissed it. Everyone know's they are already paying percentage wise more than other classes. So whats YOUR point? So it doesn't matter, to me, how much of their income you wanna tax if it's still more than a flat tax. And they're paying more into the collective pot than the rest of us. Sorta cut's to the core of conservatism don't ya know. You are completely misrepresenting my point.
Click to expand...
No, I am illustrating your point as given: full of holes.

Here's the thing: Personal utility does not equal personal benefit.

Your perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads that allow me to get to and from work as much as my employees do because we use the same roads, so we should pay the same taxes. QED

My perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads more than my employees because I also get the added benefit of the roads for deliveries of my baked goods to market, transport of baking supplies, and take all the profits despite not being the one driving.

Simple analogy, but I think it illustrates my point very well: that it's rarely that simple and more often than not, layered.

Seriously? Your only argument is based on the assumption I don't the definitions of capitalism and socialism? Last time I checked the two are still in pretty stark contrast to your dismay I'm sure. I mean how many elements of socialism in our current system has caused such advancements? If you wanna go on record in saying that America of all places is predominantly socialist, go ahead.
Click to expand...
The government is responsible for funding research and the development of technologies that created computers, the internet, and many of the things that allow us to be as wired/wireless as we are today. The space program wasn't funded by private industry, you know.

edit: Now give us your working definitions of those two terms.

I don't know Japan got nuked a couple times and they seem to offer more to the world than any two bit socialist could dream of.
Click to expand...
Yeah...if Japan had help, who knows how much more advanced they'd be now! :roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I am illustrating your point as given: full of holes.

Here's the thing: Personal utility does not equal personal benefit.

Your perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads that allow me to get to and from work as much as my employees do because we use the same roads, so we should pay the same taxes. QED

My perspective: If I own a bakery, I benefit from the roads more than my employees because I also get the added benefit of the roads for deliveries of my baked goods to market, transport of baking supplies, and take all the profits despite not being the one driving.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the hell I would care who benefits more from the road. Not to mention they are NOT paying the same taxes. Not now and not in a flat tax system. And the capitalist, free market entrepreneur baker afforded you the luxury of having actual roads instead of dirt one's.

The government is responsible for funding research and the development of technologies that created computers, the internet, and many of the things that allow us to be as wired/wireless as we are today. The space program wasn't funded by private industry, you know.
Click to expand...
Oh god not that old trope again. We all know Al Gore created the internet :rofl: . Not only is that a big leap and very little to do with socialism but to assume America's private industry, the most dominant the world has ever seen couldn't have done some/all of those things is bullshit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jruth said:
I don't understand why the hell I would care who benefits more from the road. Not to mention they are NOT paying the same taxes. Not now and not in a flat tax system. And the capitalist, free market entrepreneur baker afforded you the luxury of having actual roads instead of dirt one's.
Click to expand...
And where did the baker acquire the capital for the business? Conjuring out of thin air? Are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs founded their corporations from nothing but their sole brains and spare parts in some shitty garage in the ghetto?

I'm making a distinction between "personal usage" and "benefit" instead of using "usage" as a blanket term to confuse you. They're both "usage" in a general sense, so we agree that the business owner should pay more? I know this sounds pretty basic, but you screw up some pretty basic stuff.

Oh god not that old trope again. We all know Al Gore created the internet :rofl: . Not only is that a big leap and very little to do with socialism but to assume America's private industry, the most dominant the world has ever seen couldn't have done some/all of those things is bullshit.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that DARPA was a private company with private funding. If I was going to say that Gore created the internet, I would've just said Gore created the internet by writing and compiling code with Tommy Lee Jones in Texas.

The manufacturing industry of the US was the only one left that was worth a damn after the rest of the world was bombed to hell and back. Last man standing on a shitpile eventually became the dominant industrial base of the world while everyone else was rebuilding? Nah...that sounds like pure bullshit, amirite?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
I don't understand what you're asking for because I don't understand the utility of the answer so I thought that if you gave an answer, I could work backwards.
Click to expand...
You're the one that stepped up and thought you'd give answering DD's question a shot. If you simply cannot provide an answer, then that's fine. It's a complicated question that some folks are content with saying "more" or "less" and leaving it at that, in spite of the fact that they never really provided any kind of an answer.

That's not an unreasonable request unless you don't have an answer.
Click to expand...
Again, "no, u" isn't an answer.

I gave the oft hated reason poor people get tax rebates because I thought it illustrated the fact that Ronald Reagan signed a bill that not only exempted poors from paying taxes but actually incentivized work via direct transfer payments.
Click to expand...
Which is all well and good, but has zero to do with the question: "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

So you don't want that. That's dodging. OK. What do you want Bob? What does an answer look like in your mind? I've never shied away from a conversation and typically write about a thousand words too many when I do. So why is it difficult to get an answer to your own question?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of ways you could answer this - and it would depend on your individual philosophy as to how taxes should be assessed and paid. You could say that people should pay X% per year based on $Y of income. X% per year based off of $Y Net Worth. You could use either (or both) of those on some sort of sliding-scale (X% for the first $Y, 2X% for the next $2Y, etc.) You could say folks should pay $Y per-head flat rate. You could go with a consumption-based tax where it's X% per $Y spent. It could be a production-tax, like a VAT Tax. There's all kinds of possibilities. It comes down to the question DD asked - "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

It's a very complicated question - and I don't purpose to have the exact answer (though I do have a few thoughts that feed into the answer)... but then, I never asked for the answer. DD did. And, about a month ago, someone else asked the same question, and a certain someone on this forum jumped down that person's throat for asking the question because blah, blah, trolling, blah, blah, blah. I was just curious if that same someone was going to speak up when DD asked the same question.

By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?
 
And where did the baker acquire the capital for the business? Conjuring out of thin air? Are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs founded their corporations from nothing but their sole brains and spare parts in some shitty garage in the ghetto? | I'm making a distinction between "personal usage" and "benefit" instead of using "usage" as a blanket term to confuse you. They're both "usage" in a general sense, so we agree that the business owner should pay more? I know this sounds pretty basic, but you screw up some pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please, fill me in.

Yeah the baker should pay more, one of the beauties of the flat tax is that all that profit he's "hoarding" he would end up paying more than if he had less profit and wasn't "greedy", as the caricature you like so much. You make 100 dollars you put in 10, you make 1000 you put in 100. It is more complicated than that, however.

I didn't realize that DARPA was a private company with private funding. If I was going to say that Gore created the internet, I would've just said Gore created the internet by writing and compiling code with Tommy Lee Jones in Texas.

The manufacturing industry of the US was the only one left that was worth a damn after the rest of the world was bombed to hell and back. Last man standing on a shitpile eventually became the dominant industrial base of the world while everyone else was rebuilding? Nah...that sounds like pure bullshit, amirite?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the military's original version of the internet is nothing like it is now. It was used as a form of communication through the military. If you wanna claim we wouldn't have the internet, which is a fairly simple concept all things considered; now or even 10 years ago without government I won't buy that as a solid argument. That's a logical fallacy I can't remember the name of.

Private over government any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Weren't we the wealthiest nation before WW2? That had nothing to do with freedom and free market ideals? Getting back to the point. Do you wanna claim back then, if we were socialist, we would even have a manufacturing industry? Or the economic boom after the war, if we were socialist? The UK was bombed, Japan was bombed. Those two CAPITALIST countries came back strong. How long does it take for socialism to take effect? When will we see the Utopian effects.

Japan has nation wide socialized medicine and fees are set by the government. So uh, yea.
Click to expand...
Now what does that have to do with advancements in technology or the Sciences? And as we know America develops the best medicine and medical research than anyone else, that other countries steal from us.

 
UncleBob said:
By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?
Click to expand...
Didn't Ronald Reagan increase per capita spending more than Obama?

 
Jruth said:
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please, fill me in.
Click to expand...
I don't think I will unless you're willing to pay me write a few thousand words on history and theory of money.

Yeah the baker should pay more, one of the beauties of the flat tax is that all that profit he's "hoarding" he would end up paying more than if he had less profit and wasn't "greedy", as the caricature you like so much. You make 100 dollars you put in 10, you make 1000 you put in 100. It is more complicated than that, however.
Click to expand...
Of course it's more complicated than that because of a concept called marginal utility, which is why a flat tax will never really work.

If I remember correctly the military's original version of the internet is nothing like it is now. It was used as a form of communication through the military. If you wanna claim we wouldn't have the internet, which is a fairly simple concept all things considered; now or even 10 years ago without government I won't buy that as a solid argument. That's a logical fallacy I can't remember the name of.
Private over government any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the concept of evolution or do you prefer the term "EVILution?"

Btw, most things are "simple concepts" once they've been figured out. If you tried to explain how a microwave heats up food to someone in the 18th century, you'd probably be committed to an asylum.


Weren't we the wealthiest nation before WW2? That had nothing to do with freedom and free market ideals? Getting back to the point. Do you wanna claim back then, if we were socialist, we would even have a manufacturing industry? Or the economic boom after the war, if we were socialist? The UK was bombed, Japan was bombed. Those two CAPITALIST countries came back strong. How long does it take for socialism to take effect? When will we see the Utopian effects.
Click to expand...
I'd say that African slaves and Native Americans would disagree about the "freedom" part of your comment. Nor would all of the people that died due to lack of regulations during the Industrial Revolution have much good to say about "free market ideals."

Would you call the USSR communist or socialist? Did they have any industry?

As for the UK and Japan, did they do it all on their own?

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the period between WW1 and WW2 because you don't seem to know jack about it.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your working definitions of capitalism and socialism.

Now what does that have to do with advancements in technology or the Sciences? And as we know America develops the best medicine and medical research than anyone else, that other countries steal from us.
Click to expand...
Who do you think pays for those advances and where most of those advances come from? If your answer are anything but the government paying universities to do research, you're sadly mistaken.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though I am against Obamacare it is good we got a discussion going on this topic because it is literally one of the most important issues currently and could really shape the foundation of the country going forward (IMO for the worst)

I will have some more talking points later I am just currently in the middle of a hectic work week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top