Republican wants media to stop covering poor people

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Donuthole:
S&P's credit downgrade was attributed to two things: the trajectory of deficit in relation to GDP, and the broken political system. The sheer amount of it never entered the equation, simply because we've continued to pay the bills. I assume you know how credit works? Our rating was a slight downgrade; we're certainly not in junk territory like Greece.

No we are not as bad as Greece. But we are getting there. And the more we borrow the more we will be.

Jeremy Meadows:

Donuthole:
S&P's credit downgrade was attributed to two things: the trajectory of deficit in relation to GDP, and the broken political system. The sheer amount of it never entered the equation, simply because we've continued to pay the bills. I assume you know how credit works? Our rating was a slight downgrade; we're certainly not in junk territory like Greece.

No we are not as bad as Greece. But we are getting there. And the more we borrow the more we will be.

We're not even remotely close to being as bad as Greece. Greece's deficit as a percentage of GDP is 165.3%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece

We're certainly not on a sustainable path; however, we're also climbing out of a recession.

Jeremy Meadows:
So he's trying to say that our inflation is low?

No, he's simply pointing out the accurate fact that inflation is low, according to every indicator. Currently, it's hovering between 2 and 3% - historically considered a very low, albeit stable, rate. This is also a good source, if you don't like Krugman. I'm going to just assume you know why having 0% or lower inflation is a bad thing.

Me living my life and just seeing the prices rise myself proves otherwise.

As Donut pointed out, this is not necessarily an indication of inflation.

This is also coming from the say guy I see articles he writes that bash capitalism or america in general. Why would I listen to him?

Where does Krugman bash capitalism? I mean, sure, he bashes American Laissez-Faire capitalism, and the unsustainable economic policy of the republican party, but you know what? I would too, because it's fucking retarded and has been shown to not be evidence-based. The evidence all shows that it doesn't work.

Also in case you didn't notice the goverment credit rating is actually starting to go down.Just got downgraded in fact. Because people like me and the people that let them borrow money are starting to realize they will never ever pay it off. And it will continue to get worse if they keep borrowing with no hope of return.

I disagree with Donut, you actually kinda nailed the reasons why we got downgraded: it had nothing to do with the fact that we were borrowing too much, and everything to do with the fact that people like you thought we would never be able to pay it off.

No, seriously, check out the S&P report. It's pretty clear that next to the debt, the main issue was:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

[...]

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

So yes. Less to do with the debt, and more to do with people like you being worried about it! Do you understand now why I blame the republican party for lowering the USA's credit rating?

Um yeah, there is a reason too. Companies have to mantian a level of profit. Pure and simple, no profit=no more company. And with govermenmt regulations, higher taxes, and still high gas prices (which of course move all of their product) they have to keep those prices high to maintain a profit. They can't cut those things out so they have to cut out workers. Not pleasent, but it's true.

K, first of all, the government has nothing to do with gas prices. Those happen to be a world-wide thing; blame OPEC for that. Government regulation is actually being slashed left and right. And taxes? Dude, fuck off, you know damn well that taxes are at their lowest they have been since WWII.

Stagnant:

K, first of all, the government has nothing to do with gas prices. Those happen to be a world-wide thing; blame OPEC for that. Government regulation is actually being slashed left and right. And taxes? Dude, fuck off, you know damn well that taxes are at their lowest they have been since WWII.

Goverment can not set gas prices true. But they can regulate where and how much people can or not drill from land or off shore. Goverment restrictions is one of the reason BP had to drill so deep for oil and that was one of the reason why it such a bitch to fix when something went wrong. And you can fuck off if you think goverment regulations are being slashed. What the fuck you think Obamacare is? More goverment regulations on the private sector. Also in may of last year corporate taxes are over 30% for compaines. We are one of the highest in the world for that as well.

Well maybe the private sector could get its shit together so government regulations won't be needed anymore. I know it sounds out of this world, but "the government" isn't a supreme omnipotent congregation of transcendental overlords (version count: 4); and it's usually in the government's to have things running smoothly. Also, "the government" has to look out for more interests than just businesses and their profits so why the fuck are people surprised its resources are spread thin? OH! I KNOW! Because fuck anything that has nothing directly to do with me, right!

Point 2; how much of the stuff that's generally blamed on "the government" is actually the fault of the opposition abusing the democratic process? When will the oppositions be called to account? Will they ever? No, of course not, people will just blame "the government" because that's the path of least resistance and least thinking required.

Everyone knows the poor are paid based on how invisible they are. This is just sound economic policy.

Jeremy Meadows:
Goverment can not set gas prices true. But they can regulate where and how much people can or not drill from land or off shore.

They can also mandate more spending in renewable energy, forcing the oil and gas industry to lower their prices to match the competition. Here's what they shouldn't do: allow for oil drilling absolutely anywhere the

Goverment restrictions is one of the reason BP had to drill so deep for oil

Citation needed.

And you can fuck off if you think goverment regulations are being slashed. What the fuck you think Obamacare is? More goverment regulations on the private sector.

Obamacare is government regulation on the private sector that has been desperately needed for the last few decades, and it's an outright travesty that it took as long as it did. Complaining about Obamacare is like complaining about predatory lending laws.

Also in may of last year corporate taxes are over 30% for compaines. We are one of the highest in the world for that as well.

And still the lowest in our history, with gigantic loopholes that allow giants like GE to get away with paying less than 0% in taxes.

Stagnant:

Obamacare is government regulation on the private sector that has been desperately needed for the last few decades, and it's an outright travesty that it took as long as it did. Complaining about Obamacare is like complaining about predatory lending laws.

I'm 100% fine with that since I don't think either one goes far enough. :)

edit: dicked up the tags

Reporters covering the poor in a country with a growing gap between rich and poor and 50 million people on food stamps? What sense does that make? That would be... relevant. Can't have that.

I recommend you watch the BBC documentary "Poor America", by the way. Some pretty amazing things in there I didn't know about before. I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was that bad and that widespread.

It's not just a "sob story" meant to garner cheap attention when it's very common and becoming even more common.

Jeremy Meadows:

So he's trying to say that our inflation is low? Me living my life and just seeing the prices rise myself proves otherwise.

Paul Krugman says inflation is low because he reads measurements that show it is. Paul Krugman does not calculate inflation. He informs us what people who collect a lot of data and crunch a lot of numbers have calculated.

You seeing prices rise proves approximately nothing. Observations of one person's life are not a useful basis to tell us what's going on in a country of 300 million.

Jeremy Meadows:

Stagnant:

K, first of all, the government has nothing to do with gas prices. Those happen to be a world-wide thing; blame OPEC for that. Government regulation is actually being slashed left and right. And taxes? Dude, fuck off, you know damn well that taxes are at their lowest they have been since WWII.

Goverment can not set gas prices true. But they can regulate where and how much people can or not drill from land or off shore. Goverment restrictions is one of the reason BP had to drill so deep for oil and that was one of the reason why it such a bitch to fix when something went wrong. And you can fuck off if you think goverment regulations are being slashed. What the fuck you think Obamacare is? More goverment regulations on the private sector. Also in may of last year corporate taxes are over 30% for compaines. We are one of the highest in the world for that as well.

What particular regulations forced BP to drill for deep oil reserves?

"Please stop making me look at poor people, humanising them makes it harder for us republicans to fuck them over on a regular basis."

Jeremy Meadows:

Leadfinger:

Jeremy Meadows:

I see what they buy and I see it on the news when they did a special about familes and food stamps. (belive it was a rock center story a few months ago).

As I suspected, propaganda.

If I may be allowed to inject a little accuracy in to this discussion, it's actually not easy to get on welfare. You can't own a car or a home-they'll make you sell it first. And if you do get on it, it's not very generous. You may receive the minimum necessary to stay alive, but no more than that. And welfare is such a tiny portion of government expenditures. The real welfare goes to corporations and major shareholders of same. You have a right to be pissed off, but it's stupid to be pissed off at other poor people while rich folks suck up your tax dollars.

Except 1. Major news coporations most of the time have a leftist agenda. So to somehow say someone with a leftist agenda suddenly does a propaganda story for the right is....kinda stupid.

And 2. I was mostly talking about food stamps and not welfare. One is much easy to get into then the other but both are still riddled with people screwing the system over. Also rich don't suck my tax dollars. They pay more then I do while I get a check back from the goverment.

Not to pile on, but...
1. Major news corporations are just that, corporations. They serve corporate interests. If they have a bias, it's to laziness and sensationalism, not liberalism.
2. Rich people do suck up your tax dollars. They do so by not paying their fair share of taxes while reaping disproportionate benefits. It's working people that are stuck with the tab in the form of a huge and growing deficit.

Stagnant:

Citation needed.

Obamacare is government regulation on the private sector that has been desperately needed for the last few decades, and it's an outright travesty that it took as long as it did. Complaining about Obamacare is like complaining about predatory lending laws.

Boy you sure love saying that don't you? How about you look up the regulations on off shore drilling. Also I don't need the goverment to help with my healthcare. I can go to the hospital whenever I want, for whatever reason. And I can pay it off just like the rest of my bills. Why do I need the goverment breaking our constitution to "fix" that?

Leadfinger:

Jeremy Meadows:

Leadfinger:
As I suspected, propaganda.

If I may be allowed to inject a little accuracy in to this discussion, it's actually not easy to get on welfare. You can't own a car or a home-they'll make you sell it first. And if you do get on it, it's not very generous. You may receive the minimum necessary to stay alive, but no more than that. And welfare is such a tiny portion of government expenditures. The real welfare goes to corporations and major shareholders of same. You have a right to be pissed off, but it's stupid to be pissed off at other poor people while rich folks suck up your tax dollars.

Except 1. Major news coporations most of the time have a leftist agenda. So to somehow say someone with a leftist agenda suddenly does a propaganda story for the right is....kinda stupid.

And 2. I was mostly talking about food stamps and not welfare. One is much easy to get into then the other but both are still riddled with people screwing the system over. Also rich don't suck my tax dollars. They pay more then I do while I get a check back from the goverment.

Not to pile on, but...
1. Major news corporations are just that, corporations. They serve corporate interests. If they have a bias, it's to laziness and sensationalism, not liberalism.
2. Rich people do suck up your tax dollars. They do so by not paying their fair share of taxes while reaping disproportionate benefits. It's working people that are stuck with the tab in the form of a huge and growing deficit.

People do love talking about "fair share" don't they? The top 1% already pay over 40% of all taxes while people like me pay nothing. Is that fair? No, if people want fair taxes then why not support a flat tax? Same rate for everyone, That's Fair. That's the definition of fair.

Jeremy Meadows:
People do love talking about "fair share" don't they? The top 1% already pay over 40% of all taxes while people like me pay nothing. Is that fair? No, if people want fair taxes then why not support a flat tax? Same rate for everyone, That's Fair. That's the definition of fair.

You sad sap, you bought right into it, didn't you?
Do you honestly think 30% off a million dollar income hurts as much as 30% off your income hurts you? You already have to pay for basic needs like food, clothing, electricity, water, perhaps rent and gas etc. etc. etc..
Once your basic needs are met, little remains. Not so for the rich.
It's perfectly fair to shave off more of the top. The fact that you don't pay income tax means nothing when you pay payroll tax, sales tax plays a much bigger part in your overall budget and so on. Hell, many of the rich effectively already pay less relative taxes than the poor because of how capital gains, a major source of income in that range, are taxed in the USA, at ridiculously low rates.
And that's without even talking about loopholes yet, legal and otherwise.
It's so disheartening to see, time and time again, the people being mislead to fight against their own interests. And with such success, it's staggering. The Republican elites and their owners at least have good reasons to favour these kinds of policies because they will make them even richer, but normal folks really shouldn't fall for that.

Jeremy Meadows:
Boy you sure love saying that don't you?

Hey, it fits the bill, and is more polite than "Source that or GTFO", or, as said below...

How about you look up the regulations on off shore drilling.

"How about you stop wasting my fucking time and back up your claim?"

See, isn't "citation needed" so much nicer?

Also I don't need the goverment to help with my healthcare. I can go to the hospital whenever I want, for whatever reason. And I can pay it off just like the rest of my bills. Why do I need the goverment breaking our constitution to "fix" that?

You don't. However, this wouldn't be a problem if everyone didn't. To be clear: I don't give a flying fuck if you think you can manage your own health care, just like I don't give a flying fuck whether or not my 5-year-old thinks he can juggle butcher knives. "I can pay it off". Yeah. It's real easy to maintain a solid job when you are paralyzed from the waist down, or going through chemotherapy, and wheelchairs and cancer drugs are real affordable.

The USA's health care system is, by every standard, absolutely abysmal, and Obamacare is a step to repair this. It's a shitty, tiny step where we really should have gone far further, but, well, guess who blocked true socialized single payer health care (such as is present in just about all of the top 20 states on the WHO's index), or even a public option (such as is present in almost every modern country that isn't the USA and that doesn't have single-payer)? Yep. Your party.

Jeremy Meadows:

Leadfinger:

Jeremy Meadows:

Except 1. Major news coporations most of the time have a leftist agenda. So to somehow say someone with a leftist agenda suddenly does a propaganda story for the right is....kinda stupid.

And 2. I was mostly talking about food stamps and not welfare. One is much easy to get into then the other but both are still riddled with people screwing the system over. Also rich don't suck my tax dollars. They pay more then I do while I get a check back from the goverment.

Not to pile on, but...
1. Major news corporations are just that, corporations. They serve corporate interests. If they have a bias, it's to laziness and sensationalism, not liberalism.
2. Rich people do suck up your tax dollars. They do so by not paying their fair share of taxes while reaping disproportionate benefits. It's working people that are stuck with the tab in the form of a huge and growing deficit.

People do love talking about "fair share" don't they? The top 1% already pay over 40% of all taxes while people like me pay nothing. Is that fair? No, if people want fair taxes then why not support a flat tax? Same rate for everyone, That's Fair. That's the definition of fair.

It's not true that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes. Michelle Bachmann made this claim, but you should know better than to believe her. Actually, the 1% only pay 28.1% of federal taxes, yet this small group controls over 40% of the wealth of the U.S. And they still benefit disproportionately from the government in the form of corporate subsidies, bank bailouts, and so on.

Also, you pay taxes. You may not pay federal income tax, you may not pay state income taxes, but you probably pay sales tax, and you probably pay property tax, either directly or as part of your rent.

A flat tax is not fair. Here's why-the marginal utility of a dollar decreases as income increases; a flat tax will, therefore, in utilitarian terms, impose a lower tax rate on high-income earners. In addition, a revenue neutral flat tax would lower taxes on the rich, which would have to be made up by increasing taxes on the poor and middle class, who are already suffering in this poor economy. So, as you can see, the flat tax is really a reverse Robin Hood scheme that takes the very bread from the mouths of the poor so that rich people may pay less in taxes.

Jeremy Meadows:

Stagnant:

Citation needed.

Obamacare is government regulation on the private sector that has been desperately needed for the last few decades, and it's an outright travesty that it took as long as it did. Complaining about Obamacare is like complaining about predatory lending laws.

Boy you sure love saying that don't you? How about you look up the regulations on off shore drilling. Also I don't need the goverment to help with my healthcare. I can go to the hospital whenever I want, for whatever reason. And I can pay it off just like the rest of my bills. Why do I need the goverment breaking our constitution to "fix" that?

It's not "Breaking" the constitution Heisenberg. And you having access to what passes for healthcare doesn't help the literally millions of Americans who didn't have coverage, not to mention the fact that the uninsured cost America far FAR more than what it would cost to just insure everyone. Private insurers have too many liberties and are ran too much like a business when healthcare should focus on what is best for the patient, not what is best for the wallet. The fact that insurers were allowed to refuse coverage to people who already had health problems was inexcusable. Obama's been taking small steps but we still have a long way to go before our healthcare is something more than an embarrassing joke for a democratic society.

Skeleon:

You sad sap, you bought right into it, didn't you?
Do you honestly think 30% off a million dollar income hurts as much as 30% off your income hurts you? You already have to pay for basic needs like food, clothing, electricity, water, perhaps rent and gas etc. etc. etc..
Once your basic needs are met, little remains. Not so for the rich.
It's perfectly fair to shave off more of the top. The fact that you don't pay income tax means nothing when you pay payroll tax, sales tax plays a much bigger part in your overall budget and so on. Hell, many of the rich effectively already pay less relative taxes than the poor because of how capital gains, a major source of income in that range, are taxed in the USA, at ridiculously low rates.
And that's without even talking about loopholes yet, legal and otherwise.
It's so disheartening to see, time and time again, the people being mislead to fight against their own interests. And with such success, it's staggering. The Republican elites and their owners at least have good reasons to favour these kinds of policies because they will make them even richer, but normal folks really shouldn't fall for that.

If that was the case I would actually have to be shelling out more money at april 15th instead of getting a check wouldn't I?

So let's just be clear then, if you don't want a fair flat tax rate, stop saying "fair" all the time. Because that's not what you want. You want inequality.

Stagnant:

Jeremy Meadows:
Boy you sure love saying that don't you?

Hey, it fits the bill, and is more polite than "Source that or GTFO", or, as said below...

How about you look up the regulations on off shore drilling.

"How about you stop wasting my fucking time and back up your claim?"

See, isn't "citation needed" so much nicer?

Also I don't need the goverment to help with my healthcare. I can go to the hospital whenever I want, for whatever reason. And I can pay it off just like the rest of my bills. Why do I need the goverment breaking our constitution to "fix" that?

You don't. However, this wouldn't be a problem if everyone didn't. To be clear: I don't give a flying fuck if you think you can manage your own health care, just like I don't give a flying fuck whether or not my 5-year-old thinks he can juggle butcher knives. "I can pay it off". Yeah. It's real easy to maintain a solid job when you are paralyzed from the waist down, or going through chemotherapy, and wheelchairs and cancer drugs are real affordable.

The USA's health care system is, by every standard, absolutely abysmal, and Obamacare is a step to repair this. It's a shitty, tiny step where we really should have gone far further, but, well, guess who blocked true socialized single payer health care (such as is present in just about all of the top 20 states on the WHO's index), or even a public option (such as is present in almost every modern country that isn't the USA and that doesn't have single-payer)? Yep. Your party.

How about I stop being your baby sitter/teacher and make you learn for yourself instead of spoon feeding you everything like your used to. And you know what else? i'm done debating with someone who can't even complete a sentence without cussing at the other person.

Jeremy Meadows:
If that was the case I would actually have to be shelling out more money at april 15th instead of getting a check wouldn't I?

Because you still get a few scraps, you think I'm wrong? Is that all?
No, no you wouldn't. But when the day is done, you'll have a much, much, much tinier relative margin left to put back into the economy, to play around with or to invest. And by the way? A lot of people run out of money rather quickly after everything basic is taken care of, so quickly that they even need food stamps and other support to afford the rest of the basic needs and the occasional luxury item.

So let's just be clear then, if you don't want a fair flat tax rate, stop saying "fair" all the time. Because that's not what you want. You want inequality.

That's because your notion of "fair" is so simplistic and wrong-headed that we can never come to an agreement. If you decide not to look at actual circumstances that poor versus rich people live in, then sure, flat tax is the fairest, because it's simply the same relative amount. But if you actually decided to think about it and try to come up with what is fair in practice, you'd see just how regressive flat taxes are. Hell, you already have a regressive tax system where the rich pay less in relative taxes than the poor, how is this fair, either?
But see, the sad thing is not that you support such policies per se. As I said before, there are plenty of valid motivations to support such a policy.
But you stated yourself that you are rather poor (at least to the point of being exempt from the income taxes), so your support just doesn't make sense. Stop sabotaging yourself in the name of hollow, dead principles that nowadays only serve to bleed you and yours dry.
Until the populace at large realizes that these ideals that are still propagated from the top down do not allow for the American Dream to flourish, do not allow for vertical mobility, do not allow for equality of opportunity, things are only going to get worse and worse in the USA.
The USA are the richest country in the world and yet you have a relation and gap between rich and poor that's more and more comparable to a third world nation, you already have 50 million people on food stamps. And things are only going to get worse if you stay on this anti-labour, anti-economy, self-destructive course.
And, quite a bit more egoistically, the worst thing about it to me is that you're going to pull the rest of us down with you in a globalized economy.

Pyramid Head:

Jeremy Meadows:

Stagnant:

Citation needed.

Obamacare is government regulation on the private sector that has been desperately needed for the last few decades, and it's an outright travesty that it took as long as it did. Complaining about Obamacare is like complaining about predatory lending laws.

Boy you sure love saying that don't you? How about you look up the regulations on off shore drilling. Also I don't need the goverment to help with my healthcare. I can go to the hospital whenever I want, for whatever reason. And I can pay it off just like the rest of my bills. Why do I need the goverment breaking our constitution to "fix" that?

It's not "Breaking" the constitution Heisenberg. And you having access to what passes for healthcare doesn't help the literally millions of Americans who didn't have coverage, not to mention the fact that the uninsured cost America far FAR more than what it would cost to just insure everyone. Private insurers have too many liberties and are ran too much like a business when healthcare should focus on what is best for the patient, not what is best for the wallet. The fact that insurers were allowed to refuse coverage to people who already had health problems was inexcusable. Obama's been taking small steps but we still have a long way to go before our healthcare is something more than an embarrassing joke for a democratic society.

Yes it is. The Proof

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article II of the Articles of Confederation
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled

James Madison Federalist 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The Constitution in no way authorizes the new National Healthcare Law. ObamaCare not only violates the letter of the Constitution in numerous ways it also violates the spirit of the Constitution in many fundamental ways.

Skeleon:

That's because your notion of "fair" is so simplistic and wrong-headed that we can never come to an agreement. If you decide not to look at actual circumstances that poor versus rich people live in, then sure, flat tax is the fairest, because it's simply the same relative amount. But if you actually decided to think about it and try to come up with what is fair in practice, you'd see just how regressive flat taxes are. Hell, you already have a regressive tax system where the rich pay less in relative taxes than the poor, how is this fair, either?
But see, the sad thing is not that you support such policies per se. As I said before, there are plenty of valid motivations to support such a policy.
But you stated yourself that you are rather poor (at least to the point of being exempt from the income taxes), so your support just doesn't make sense. Stop sabotaging yourself in the name of hollow, dead principles that nowadays only serve to bleed you and yours dry.
Until the populace at large realizes that these ideals that are still propagated from the top down do not allow for the American Dream to flourish, do not allow for vertical mobility, do not allow for equality of opportunity, things are only going to get worse and worse in the USA.
The USA are the richest country in the world and yet you have a relation and gap between rich and poor that's more and more comparable to a third world nation, you already have 50 million people on food stamps. And things are only going to get worse if you stay on this anti-labour, anti-economy, self-destructive course.
And, quite a bit more egoistically, the worst thing about it to me is that you're going to pull the rest of us down with you in a globalized economy.

How in the world can you even say our poor is even close to a thrid world country? The poor here have a roof over their head, food to eat, more then likely some form of entertainment (wheather it's televison, internet, video games, etc.) It is nothing NOTHING like that of a thrid world country.

Also i'm not anti-labour, or anti-economy. Quite the oppostie. I want unions broken down to the point where they are are what they are first created for. Protecting workers from unsafe places, unethically treatment, etc. I do not want and should not have my hard earned dollars being taken away to help pay for people being paid to protest something I agree with and not have to work. And I want the free market system to be freed from goverment take overs and regulations.

Jeremy Meadows:
If that was the case I would actually have to be shelling out more money at april 15th instead of getting a check wouldn't I?

So let's just be clear then, if you don't want a fair flat tax rate, stop saying "fair" all the time. Because that's not what you want. You want inequality.

I have taken you to task in the past about why flat taxes are completely and utterly unfair. Do I have to do it again?

Jeremy Meadows:
How about I stop being your baby sitter/teacher and make you learn for yourself instead of spoon feeding you everything like your used to. And you know what else? i'm done debating with someone who can't even complete a sentence without cussing at the other person.

How about when you say something that sounds patently ludicrous, you back it up and tell me where you got your information?

S: "The Loch Ness Monster is real!"
H: "Prove it!"
S: "Look it up yourself, I'm not your babysitter!"

Jeremy Meadows:
How in the world can you even say our poor is even close to a thrid world country? The poor here have a roof over their head, food to eat, more then likely some form of entertainment (wheather it's televison, internet, video games, etc.) It is nothing NOTHING like that of a thrid world country.

Not what I said, I said you're getting ever closer. And, again, with 50 million people dependent on federal assistance to buy friggin' food regardless of any other issues (such as the lack of vertical mobility, the bad access to healthcare, the diminishing middle class and growing lower class etc.), I think I have a valid point.

Also i'm not anti-labour, or anti-economy. Quite the oppostie. I want unions broken down to the point where they are are what they are first created for. Protecting workers from unsafe places, unethically treatment, etc. I do not want and should not have my hard earned dollars being taken away to help pay for people being paid to protest something I agree with and not have to work. And I want the free market system to be freed from goverment take overs and regulations.

But that's the trick you're falling for. What the supposedly "small government conservatives" argue for is not a free market. A free market still needs some sort of rules and somebody to punish the cheaters to remain free. What they strive for is corporatism, a union of political and economic interests, cemented in the system you have of campaign financing, legal bribery, lobbyism etc.. Profits are privatized and shared between an oligarchical elite, while the risks and losses are redirected to the taxpayer, the populace.
What do you think the bailouts by Bush and Obama were about? Why do you think there was no change in regulations afterwards? Why they, in short, basically threw money at the problem rather than adressing any of the underlying issues? Why do you think Romney is held in such high esteem by those folks?
There was no change or fix to the problem. They keep chugging on and when the next crash inevitably happens, they will take even more of your money and services and redistribute it to the top to stabilize it and keep it all from tumbling down.
You're being sucked dry and you cheer to it and oppose anyone who would try and change that situation. That's why it is so extremely sad! You're being misled and buy right into it.

Some might call coverage of poverty leftist sob stories. Those people remind me of this:

I remembered this documentary from the BBC:

It takes only 30 minutes, you should really watch it. Terrible, terrible stuff.

Skeleon:
But that's the trick you're falling for. What the supposedly "small government conservatives" argue for is not a free market. A free market still needs some sort of rules and somebody to punish the cheaters to remain free. What they strive for is corporatism, a union of political and economic interests, cemented in the system you have of campaign financing, legal bribery, lobbyism etc.. Profits are privatized and shared between an oligarchical elite, while the risks and losses are redirected to the taxpayer, the populace.
What do you think the bailouts by Bush and Obama were about? Why do you think there was no change in regulations afterwards? Why they, in short, basically threw money at the problem rather than adressing any of the underlying issues? Why do you think Romney is held in such high esteem by those folks?
There was no change or fix to the problem. They keep chugging on and when the next crash inevitably happens, they will take even more of your money and services and redistribute it to the top to stabilize it and keep it all from tumbling down.
You're being sucked dry and you cheer to it and oppose anyone who would try and change that situation. That's why it is so extremely sad! You're being misled and buy right into it.

I never agreed to the bailouts. In fact most conseratives didn't. A true supporter of the free market system would have left those businesses fail.

Jeremy Meadows:

Stagnant:

K, first of all, the government has nothing to do with gas prices. Those happen to be a world-wide thing; blame OPEC for that. Government regulation is actually being slashed left and right. And taxes? Dude, fuck off, you know damn well that taxes are at their lowest they have been since WWII.

Goverment can not set gas prices true. But they can regulate where and how much people can or not drill from land or off shore. Goverment restrictions is one of the reason BP had to drill so deep for oil and that was one of the reason why it such a bitch to fix when something went wrong.

Less than 2% of the world's oil reserves are under U.S. soil or waters. Try again.

Jeremy Meadows:
i'm done debating with someone who can't even complete a sentence without cussing at the other person.

You have officially lost an argument when you attempt to back out because someone used the F-word. Man the fuck up, Jeremy.

[quote="Donuthole" post="528.379168.14875214
Less than 2% of the world's oil reserves are under U.S. soil or waters. Try again. [/quote]

Wrong again. Our reserves are what we have already stored up. There in a much bigger percentage in the ground that we are not allowed to get at because of goverment regulations. Can someone say Alaska?

[quote="Donuthole" post="528.379168.14875229]
You have officially lost an argument when you attempt to back out because someone used the F-word. Man the fuck up, Jeremy.[/quote]
A real man does not need to swear and cuss down a opposing view during a debate. I like trying to be at least somewhat civil to my opposititon.

Jeremy Meadows:

So let's just be clear then, if you don't want a fair flat tax rate, stop saying "fair" all the time. Because that's not what you want. You want inequality.

Flat tax isn't fair. Period. That's not up for debate. It has been explained why it isn't fair, and there are extensive sources on why it isn't fair, and all you need to do to understand why it isn't fair is have some functional literacy and common sense.

You attempts to cry "INEQUALITY!" are rather silly, because "equality" doesn't mean "same numbers all across the board", I'd have expected someone taking part in this debate to know that.

Imagine you go shopping with your 7-years-old half-brother (imagine you have one for the sake of the argument). Are you going to insist that, in the name of fairness and equality he has to carry exactly 50% of the stuff, given that he's obviously quite smaller and weaker than you? Would you consider that "fair"?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

But it has to be fair, cause you're both doing exactly 50% of the work, no? Sometimes an uneven distribution is the fair one. Same with taxes. You can't claim it's fair to have the exactly same tax rate on someone who spends 30% of their income on basic necessities and someone who spends 85% of their income on basic necessities. Well, okay you can claim that, but you'd be wrong, because it's just not fair.

A real man does not need to swear and cuss down a opposing view during a debate. I like trying to be at least somewhat civil to my opposititon.

Scotsman alert....

Vegosiux:

Jeremy Meadows:

So let's just be clear then, if you don't want a fair flat tax rate, stop saying "fair" all the time. Because that's not what you want. You want inequality.

Flat tax isn't fair. Period. That's not up for debate. It has been explained why it isn't fair, and there are extensive sources on why it isn't fair, and all you need to do to understand why it isn't fair is have some functional literacy and common sense.

You attempts to cry "INEQUALITY!" are rather silly, because "equality" doesn't mean "same numbers all across the board", I'd have expected someone taking part in this debate to know that.

Imagine you go shopping with your 7-years-old half-brother (imagine you have one for the sake of the argument). Are you going to insist that, in the name of fairness and equality he has to carry exactly 50% of the stuff, given that he's obviously quite smaller and weaker than you? Would you consider that "fair"?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

But it has to be fair, cause you're both doing exactly 50% of the work, no? Sometimes an uneven distribution is the fair one. Same with taxes. You can't claim it's fair to have the exactly same tax rate on someone who spends 30% of their income on basic necessities and someone who spends 85% of their income on basic necessities. Well, okay you can claim that, but you'd be wrong, because it's just not fair.

A real man does not need to swear and cuss down a opposing view during a debate. I like trying to be at least somewhat civil to my opposititon.

Scotsman alert....

How is robbing people just because they have more then you and grocery carrying even remotely close of a arguement? And yes it is fair. You guys dont' dont like that fact that some people make more money then you.

Jeremy Meadows:

How is robbing people just because they have more then you and grocery carrying even remotely close of a arguement?

Did you just go "ZOMG TAXES IS THEFT!!!"? I think you did. Sorry, but until you actually start reading what people write, I don't think we have much more to discuss.

And yes it is fair.

Reiterating, it's not, and it's been explained why it's not.

You guys dont' dont like that fact that some people make more money then you.

At this point I shall politely request that you stop telling me what I like or don't like. I'm a better authority on that subject, so I think you should cease and desist.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked