Charles Lindsey Posted November 13, 2002 Report Posted November 13, 2002 quote:Did you ever read David Weber's Honor Harrington series?I recently read the first one. It cycled through in the grocery store offerings and I bought it. I thought it was decent to very good depending on parts. I liked the "taking responsibility" part in the first of it and the ingenuity to pull it off. I liked the last battle where the little frigate won against a much stronger enemy ship. However the first part of the chase scene was sort of bogus to me. How could such a small frigate win against a disguised enemy cruiser? But the author resolved it well enough. He did kill too many of his characters for my liking though.
Menchise Posted November 13, 2002 Author Report Posted November 13, 2002 quote:My concern is, you are looking in all the wrong places for the purpose. I'll agree to an extent that people's economic/social/political conditions around the world have an influence on their actions. My concern is that you seek to alleviate these conditions over time. While our leaders could be thinking about 'Why no one likes us?' 'Why everyone wants to kill us?', Terrorists could be slamming planes into buildings, blowing up stuff, etc. Here's my take on it - I don't care why they did it. If I know who did it, I would strike back and decimate them to the point where they would be unlikely to mount so well an attack the next time. If they wanted more, and the next time seized hostages, shot up a school, whatever - Terrorism right back into their face. Drop bombs on their homes, destroy their will to fight.First, one of the reasons why the terrorism occurs in the first place is because nobody asks those questions. Secondly, I've already made an unchallenged argument that the war will do nothing to stop terrorists from slamming planes into buildings, blowing up stuff, etc. quote:If their country is in the pits, they need to think of something better to do themselves before pissing off the big dog. Like getting a job, or improving their own country.You just had to assume that they're layabouts on welfare, eh? Wake up, $iLk! quote:Would you enlighten us on how slamming airliners into the World Trade Center helped boost their way of life?It doesn't. I already responded to this in length in my previous post to you. Does anyone read my posts anymore, or do you just imagine what I wrote? quote:Saddam has ignored ALL UN resolutions, he interfered with Instpectors and IS developing weapons of mass destruction. His MAIN goal has always been the complete control of the middle east, himself in charge of course, and the total destruction of Israel. WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, PERIOD!!Jaguar, repeating assertions already addressed by counter-argument without responding to counter-argument is not substantial. I did not provide those links so that you could ignore them and repeat yourself. quote:Saddam supports and finances terrorism ALL around the world, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to just name a few, but he is the one that helps them the mostSaudi Arabia is the primary source of funding for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and it's a US ally in the region. Iraq is not a primary helper, and unlike Saudi Arabia, it had no involvement in 9/11 (FAQ C3). quote:he is also the one that has allowed Al Quaeda operatives to test and practice with Chemical and biological weapons WITHIN Iraq itself. They have also practiced hijacking and blowing up airliners within Iraq as well. 6-10 high ranking Al Quaeda members are within Baghdad as I type, put up in the best hotels, and being trained by Iraqi intelligence on where, when and whom to strike. Saddam's government is what allows terrorists to do a lot of what they do, he finances them, he gives them weapons, and he IS going to give them a WMD in the near future. Count on it.Your claims are impossible, because Saddam is an enemy of Al Qaeda. His government is secular, and Al Qaeda is Islamic fundamentalist. Al Qaeda is primarily funded by Saudi Arabia, another enemy of Saddam. He would not support an organization that aims to overthrow him (FAQ B4, C3), especially when such actions would provoke the US to attack him. quote:The Palestinian suicide bombers are financed DIRECTLY from Saddam Housien, he writes them checks for $25,000 each time one of them blows themselves up.Correction: he writes checks to the families of the suicide bombers, not to the terrorist organizations who equip the bombers, hence he is not financing them directly or even indirectly. The whole exercise is one of Saddam's propaganda tactics to make him appear to be an ally of the Palestinian cause. quote:He has gained himself quite a bit of time, what does he have in store? You do NOT want to know, but if we do not get rid of his WMD's and KILL him outright, we are going to find out.Circular argument: you have no substantial claim that Saddam has WMD. When I provided a counter-argument to your claim, you merely ignored it and repeated your assertions. You also ignored the entire argument expressed in FAQ C9, which indicates that if Saddam did have WMD, an invasion would force him into the one situation where he would use it. The fact that Bush can't wait to put Saddam into that situation is also proof that Saddam does not have WMD, and Bush knows it. quote:This war is not about economics, this war is not about food, this war is not about the palestinians. This war is about Islam, if you are not Muslim, YOU ARE A TARGET, if you give them money, if you give them food, if you fall down on your knees and beg for mercy, THEY ARE GOING TO KILL YOU, unless you are Muslim. This is a war between the western Judeo Christian countries and fundamentalist Muslims. The only way this is ever going to end is when they run out of fundamentalists, or we can put them out of commission. How do we do that? BY DESTROYING THEM and those that support them. Iraq is first, after that, Iran will fall of it's own accord, The house of Saud will disintegrate, and then we will be getting somewhere.Your argument contradicts itself, because the Iraqi government is not an Islamic fundamentalist regime. In fact, the US strengthened its alliance with Saddam in 1980 by supporting his war against the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. Your claim that this war is all about religion has no substance whatsoever. Your assertion that this war is not about economics also has no substance, especially in the face of unchallenged arguments to the contrary. quote:Oh, and Menchise, FYI, Iraq is smuggling through Syria and Jordan, NOT Turkey. Get your facts straight. Anything that comes through Turkey is marked Jordan mfr, or Syrian, NOT Iraqi. Anything marked Iraqi, or traceable to Iraq, is confiscated if it hits Turkish Soil. I KNOW this to be true. Again, that is all I will say about that.Read this. quote:It isn't safe but safer than without the military. If the respective agencies stay vigilant the risk of being bombed is much lower than if you have no significant protection, you can hardly argue about that. If these fundies are so eager to die, Bush might as well spare them the hassle of "travelling" to the US, and kill them right were they are now. The result is the same minus several thousand dead American civilians. Of course there will be casualties but unlike civilians, the military is well trained and the equipped plus they are doing their job.FAQ B2
Menchise Posted November 13, 2002 Author Report Posted November 13, 2002 quote:Bush Should Have Stopped It -- But Not That Way!: Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!!FAQ B2 quote:How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend?: We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something.FAQ A2 quote:If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace!FAQ A7 quote:Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance: No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!FAQ C8 quote:It's About The Ordinary People: The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea.FAQ A3 quote:Keep Moving That Goalpost: If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.FAQ A1 quote:Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators:Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered.FAQ B2 (again) quote:Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism: Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic.Hawkins has his opponents mixed up: David Duke is not an anti-war leftist. Leftists are against the Israeli government for its horrendous oppression of the Palestinians, which lead to the rise of terrorism in the first place. This does not mean that leftists are anti-Semitic. A particularly relevant example of this is the growing anti-war movement in the Israeli Defense Forces (known as the refuseniks). According to Amnesty International's 2002 report on Israel, "At least 33 Jewish and Druze citizens of Israel who refused to perform military service or to serve in the Occupied Territories were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of up to four and a half months. They were prisoners of conscience." Does this mean that the Israeli government is anti-Semitic? Whether or not the actions of the Palestinians are terroristic depends on two factors: 1) Whether or not the target is military 2) Whether or not it's in the Occupied Territories If the Palestinians are attacking military targets in the Occupied Territories, then it's not terrorism, because Israeli occupation is not a defensive act and it's not legal. The fact that Hawkins calls it a "land dispute" clearly demonstrates his ignorance of this. If the Palestinians are attacking civilians, then it's terrorism, and cannot be justified. If the Palestinians are attacking within Israel's borders, then it's terrorism, and cannot be justified, unless the Israeli government annexes the Occupied Territories, but that would never happen. quote:Remember Who The Real Enemies Are: Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people.FAQ A9, A10 quote:Show Me Osama's Corpse: Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive.That is still a debatable issue, and not a significant one either. quote:Solutions? Uh....: When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old.FAQ C6 quote:Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For: Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power).A minority of anti-war leftists do say that, but they're not taken seriously by other anti-war leftists, especially since an argument as foolish as that would justify a war if the military was pro-war. quote:There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam!: Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then.FAQ C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 quote:War For Oil!: This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another!I don't know where Hawkins gets the 2.1 percent figure, but it's still not an effective rebuttal to the anti-war left's claim that the war on Iraq is a war for oil. Oil companies are multi-national, hence they sell to more countries than just America, and a big slice of an oligopoly on the world's second largest oil reserve means significant profit for the controlling interests. As for Afghanistan, see FAQ B17. quote:We'll Destabilize the Middle-East: It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is REALLY SERIOUS!!!Hawkins exaggerates the anti-war argument regarding destabilization. The argument is "that elements closer in ideology to al Qaeda and the Taliban would rise in prominence and power, perhaps even to take over additional states." After the attack on Afghanistan, additional states were not taken over, but there has been a rise in the prominence and power of Islamic fundamentalism (e.g. the unexpected gains of the MMA in the October elections in Pakistan).
Guest $iLk Posted November 13, 2002 Report Posted November 13, 2002 quote: You just had to assume that they're layabouts on welfare, eh? Wake up, $iLk! I'm just repeating what you yourself regurgitate - that the reason people are doing these things is because there isn't equal distribution of wealth throughout the world and it's 'unfair' 'unjust' 'unkind' etc. What I assert, is that they should focus on improving their country and their own responsibilities instead of seeking someone to blame for their own screwups. It isn't anyone's fault but their own that they choose to live in third world status. quote:Are we really getting anywhere....no. Of course not, the columnist you quoted attacks the 13 year old for taking a cheap shot at Daschle, then precedes to take a cheap shot at Bush. Hypocrits hypocrits hypocrits. It's okay when the liberal does it, but when a conservative does it it's : (Hate,Greed,Racism,Exploitation) etc.
Guest Posted November 13, 2002 Report Posted November 13, 2002 Menchise, I have no idea how you got to be so ill informed. Saddam is directly helping AlQuaeda, there is proof, you are just choosing to ignore it. Saddam sees them as a stepping stone to power, they will weaken those countries that they attack and they will be all the more easily taken over by himself. You live in some sort of dream land, come into the real world please. I skim through your posts, because some of them are just plain silly, just like Lotharrs. I find them amusing, but ignorance is not that amusing, so they are becoming less and less so as we continue this argument.
Starfighter08 Posted November 13, 2002 Report Posted November 13, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Thank God we get some new blood up in here.....New blood? Nope, I've been registered for quite some time. It's just that I decided to see if the "vets" are still araound . quote: The ultimate irony may be that "capitalism" is only prolonging the inevitable by exporting reality...shielded by a monopolized "free press".The inevitable? What would that be and why is it ironic? quote: I am a first year student....and that doesn't make me privy to much but the occasional emotional outburst sheathed in "logic"....but...if one, anyone... cares to look, they can see that something is hiding under the white wash of "free market progress"...and it doesn't resemble anything like liberty.....The free market isn't making that much progress if you look at it. I mean how often has one country complained about an other one before the WTO and still the rulings of that body are hardly ever implemented. An important prerequisite of a free market is available information/transparency. Just because something else is implemented under the disguise of "free market" doesn't make the idea of a free market a bad one. There are just too few well educated people who spot the lie and even fewer who actually want a really free market. quote: I am not impressed by Neocon ideas that flood the mass media via "objective" corporate funded "think tanks" of merchant princes who spew toxic ideologies under the happy face of a "free market"....no thanks....the burning frame of a wonderful future has pushed too many "anti-American" American thinkers to looking a bit deeper then FOX news would think is appropriate.You always have to be suspicious about any source you read, no matter if it's a corporate funded think tank or an environmental pressure group. They have an agenda to push and this will usually have a serious impact on what they "produce". But dismissing something out of hand without actually looking if it has any merit at all seems a bit too hasty. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to treat every piece of propaganda as if it had any scientific validity. quote: The idea of representation of the people by the people is moving farther and farther away from....."the people".....I suppose once upon a time that was ok....but today I think we could see a serious problem from those "undesirables" (props to DL) who want a say in government....they really should have just left it to the white land owners.....why cant people realize property is more important then ethicslike duh!?!?Representation is moving farther away from the people because they don't care about the political issues anymore. If I'm not completely wrong most people in the US vote for the guy who had the better campaign (say:) show, who looks better or who was able to dig up more dirt about the others. If such behaviour by politicians is not only accepted but even rewarded by the electorate no wonder that the trend reinforces itself. By letting politicians decieve/blind them, people give up their representation to whoever has enough money to buy an election. It takes two for a tango. It is also true in this case, people get the gov't they deserve and nothing better. quote: One could also say seething hostility...150 million strong....I don't think they are all watching Friends reruns with the happy face...... Sorry, don't know what you're speaking about. quote: Consent of the governed....on a global scale....I don't think God will bless fortress America.Who needs god? Oh wait, we're speaking about the US and it's "divine veil of protection" here. Fortress America has certainly a better chance of protecting it's citizens than undefended America. Additionally see my comment about aggressively pursuing one's interests around the world in my previous post. quote: Yupthis is the best part of a whole screwed up ideology....it's tragic in consequence but revolutionary in effect.....stupidity and greed go hand in hand....what I can say. power corrupts....It's not revolutionary at all. It has been around as long as money. Progressive taxes are a rather new idea. Don't agree that it's stupid, it's just a different notion of fairness: fair because everyone pays the same amount ->lumpsum tax fair because everyone pays the same fraction of his income ->flat rate tax fair because everyone has the same burden to carry ("ends the race equally tired") ->progressive tax If we want to discuss the modus of taxation I think we have to say why we think one or the other is fair and based on what values and not just say "flat taxes are stupid" Lotharr or "progressive taxes are unfair because they are progressive". That's you oh female lizard. quote: Did you ever watch T2?Hu? quote: Why can't that be at the hands of scientific / human advancement rather then.. look dear, they some how managed to reinvent that shiny thing for the twenty fifth time WOW!!! Lets buy a new one!!!only realize the their credit is maxed out.I think a free society should allow people to buy that shiny thing if they think they want another one. Who are you to press your values about usefulness or appropriateness on others? PS: What are you studying?
Menchise Posted November 14, 2002 Author Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote:I'm just repeating what you yourself regurgitate - that the reason people are doing these things is because there isn't equal distribution of wealth throughout the world and it's 'unfair' 'unjust' 'unkind' etc.I did not say that. I said that the US government is allying itself with and/or puppeteering oppressive regimes in the Middle East, hence undermining human rights in the region. One of the primary motivations behind this is the acquisition of disproportionate wealth and power for its elite (e.g. the controlling interests of the oil companies). Telling Arabs to get a job is a copout, because most are either already working or trying to leave the country to find a job somewhere else, and merely getting a job and working hard is not going to change the fact that their government is a Washington-backed tyranny or oligarchy that has no sense of accountability. Now you have terrorist leaders who have their own agenda, which happens to be the same as the US government and US corporate elite: acquisition of disproportionate power. In the case of Al Qaeda's leaders, the aim is to establish their version of Islamic theocracy in the region, preferably with themselves and their allies at the top. They look around and discover huge numbers of potential recruits in the suffering populations of Washington-backed oppressive regimes, so they start projecting rhetoric that makes them look and sound sympathetic to the people, while simultaneously indoctrinating them with propaganda about Islamic theocracy. These are the basic ingredients of anti-US terrorism. Any attempt to defeat it with military force only increases the number of potential recruits for the terrorist organizations, which is one of the reasons why the 9/11 plan was implemented by Al Qaeda: to provoke the US to take military action that would substantiate the false image of sympathy that terrorist leaders are projecting to the people, as well as increasing the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy. The strategy is already working. In October, the elections in Pakistan featured surprising gains by the MMA, a coalition of Islamic fundamentalist parties. It was the largest vote for Islamic fundamentalism in the electoral history of Pakistan (six times its highest result in previous elections). Pakistan now has a hung parliament with MMA holding an equal share in the balance of power. Therefore, the US government's attempts to defeat anti-US terrorism are having the opposite effect. An invasion of Iraq will only accelerate the progress of the terror agenda, and lead to more draconian measures by neighbouring states to silence dissent. quote:Menchise, I have no idea how you got to be so ill informed. Saddam is directly helping AlQuaeda, there is proof, you are just choosing to ignore it.How can I ignore proof that does not exist? You haven't given me any sources to back up your claims. In fact, while I have responded to every article you have quoted about "why the anti-war left sucks," you have dismissed my sources without adequate reason and repeated the same old assertions. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, but don't you dare call me ignorant when I have bent over backwards to be open-minded here! quote:Saddam sees them as a stepping stone to power, they will weaken those countries that they attack and they will be all the more easily taken over by himself.He can't take over a Starbucks without losing his position entirely. Here is a direct quote from the first paragraph of FAQ C2: C2. Are U.S. leaders correct in their characterization of Saddam Hussein as a threat to world peace and security? Broadly, yes, of course they are. That is to say, Saddam Hussein, given no obstacles, could probably be relied on to hurt many more people by his actions than he already has. But he doesn't confront a situation of no obstacles. Instead, he well knows that if Iraq does anything to seriously endanger much less harm people outside its borders, it will simply be annihilated. quote:You live in some sort of dream land, come into the real world please.Don't patronize me, Jaguar. I'm in no mood to take it. [ 11-13-2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Charles Lindsey Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote:New blood? Nope, I've been registered for quite some time. I saw that. Bugs the heck out of me. Without cheating and going through your old posts I'm trying to remember you. quote:Representation is moving farther away from the people because they don't care about the political issues anymore. If I'm not completely wrong most people in the US vote for the guy who had the better campaign (say:) show, who looks better or who was able to dig up more dirt about the others. If such behaviour by politicians is not only accepted but even rewarded by the electorate no wonder that the trend reinforces itself. By letting politicians decieve/blind them, people give up their representation to whoever has enough money to buy an election. It takes two for a tango. It is also true in this case, people get the gov't they deserve and nothing better.You forgot because of what friends and family say. But I think you are mostly right. quote:fair because everyone pays the same amount ->lumpsum tax fair because everyone pays the same fraction of his income ->flat rate tax fair because everyone has the same burden to carry ("ends the race equally tired") ->progressive tax If we want to discuss the modus of taxation I think we have to say why we think one or the other is fair and based on what values and not just say "flat taxes are stupid" Lotharr or "progressive taxes are unfair because they are progressive". That's you oh female lizard. Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. No one has really explained progressive tax yet. I'm suppossing it means if you make more money you pay more taxes. There is a case for that too. If you are smart enough to make that much money than you can afford to pay it and be smart enough to maintain your income.
Raven Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote: If we want to discuss the modus of taxation I think we have to say why we think one or the other is fair and based on what values and not just say "flat taxes are stupid" Lotharr or "progressive taxes are unfair because they are progressive". That's you oh female lizard. LMAO, call me a lizard will you As far as it goes, I don't support progressive taxes simply because they are inherently unfair, they punish success and generally make life miserable. After all, what's the point of being wealthy if not to avoid having to carry a heavy burden? I would like to advocate lumpsum taxes as requiring being the fairest, requiring the same from everyone, but truth be told if the government was limited by how much it could get off of the poor it would come to a grinding halt. Besides, flat rate taxes also have the advantage of encouraging the government to promote a strong and stable economy. quote: Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. Deductions (what you erroneously call loopholes) are there for the specific reason of giving tax breaks to people and businesses for various things, they are a desired part of the system and they serve a purpose. quote: No one has really explained progressive tax yet. I'm suppossing it means if you make more money you pay more taxes. There is a case for that too. If you are smart enough to make that much money than you can afford to pay it and be smart enough to maintain your income. Progressive taxes are those that use all that nonsense about tax brackets, ultimately resulting in people who make more money paying a considerably larger percent of there money. As for being fair because wealthy individuals are able to make more money, how would you like it if you showed up for work one day and your boss said that you had to work longer hours then everyone else because you're so good at your job?
Soback Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 One of my friends actually refused to work at his regular job for a while because he racked up so much income for that year that 2 thousand $ more would get him into the next tax bracket and he would loose a ton of money. So how does it figure out? Work more, get taxed even more? Yeah, what an idea. Sounds to me like a way to control your income instead of making a fair taxasion.
Starfighter08 Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: I saw that. Bugs the heck out of me. Without cheating and going through your old posts I'm trying to remember you. I couldn't even remember what were my last posts about and when I posted them thus I did a search. It seems that I was here in march and before that I was away from the forum for 9 months. Besides somebody with 30 posts is hardly remembered (unless he is a weirdo or something like that). quote: You forgot because of what friends and family say. But I think you are mostly right. Funny that I forgot about that. Just a few days ago some relatives asked me about the upcoming public vote on 24. November quote: Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. No one has really explained progressive tax yet. I'm suppossing it means if you make more money you pay more taxes. There is a case for that too. If you are smart enough to make that much money than you can afford to pay it and be smart enough to maintain your income.In public finance a progressive tax is defined as a tax where the marginal taxrate is larger than the average tax rate. For non economists the answer would be: the more you earn the higher the taxrate that is applied for you.
Kevin Trotter Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 Fun *gulp...* Fun huh? *looks in closet for his old cammy gear and jump boots then happily remembers he's too old to draft* whew! These guys never go! but are always ready to send someone else. BTW nobody has anything to say about the Moyer piece? *silence* thats what I thought. Look ,Saddam is an ******* and I have many times said he has to go , but what is our current policy regarding North Korea who admits to having WOMD? Anyone mention India and Pakistan lately? and who is this Bin Laden guy? he looks like a player , maybe we should go smoke him too..huh? what? oh yeah he's dead or that's what some would have had us to believe. Look Im ex-military and don't mind an occassional round of international whack-a-mole but lets keep the players straight on the scorecard. And let's ease up on the rah rah your not as American as I am routine too. I don't see anyone lining up to enlist or reenlist so lets not forget our place .. on the sidelines.
Lotharr Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Of course not, the columnist you quoted attacks the 13 year old for taking a cheap shot at Daschle, then precedes to take a cheap shot at Bush. Hypocrits hypocrits hypocrits. Really I just wanted to demonstrate the point, counter point, crap that I find mostly useless....I only posted what Moyers said because I watch that whole show and he had two Harvard PhDs on talking about what happens to a country when it declares for Empire.then a real piece of investigative journalism on Wal Mart and their abuse of labor. I found it exhilarating in contrast to the thought vacuum created by corporate mass media (and he does make a hell of a point) This isn't conspiracy theory...because conspiracy would imply some wrong doing....the consolidation of media is considered progress by the in crowd. quote: New blood? Nope, I've been registered for quite some time. It's just that I decided to see if the "vets" are still araound . I was only talking about this thread. quote: The inevitable? What would that be and why is it ironic? The inevitable collapse or implosion by a system that can't really go any other way....currently I believe that the idea of a forever expanding economy is not possible in the reality of a finite biosphere and limited resources. It would be ironic because all those "enfranchised" that are high on the crack of the "free market" may end up getting their heads chopped off (figuratively...hopefully) or wrecking the planet....but I'm sure theyll sing....scream...then whimper...the praises of freedom and democracy until the end..... quote: You always have to be suspicious about any source you read, no matter if it's a corporate funded think tank or an environmental pressure group I guess I'd rather be on the side of caution when the stakes are global. But I would agree with the idea of objectivityhowever mainstream noiseermedia only focuses on market issues and that is wrong. quote: It is also true in this case, people get the gov't they deserve and nothing better. No....when you have a narrow group that control the highways and byways of information, then do there utmost to insure election of those who share their views.....once those people are elected (imagine that) they make it as difficult as possible for any new groups to participate effectively....you have millions of people who don't want to vote because instinctually they know it doesn't matter anyway..... I believe Americans via corporate mass media are taught to equate "democracy" with various toiletry options....not politics. Alternatives are starting to come out and I hope this trend will continue....but they face the enormous task of dismantling two entrenched political institutions that represent so many different ideologies that it clear why today it comes down to ....good, bad, all, or nothing type thinking...a political climate of emotions and symbols that truly bring out the best in people...and in the end do not serve anyone but those who perpetuate this false notion of "choice". quote: Sorry, don't know what you're speaking about I hope you never do. quote: Fortress America has certainly a better chance of protecting it's citizens than undefended America Well I guess we gotta part ways on this....I think we should be rigorously strengthening international institutions that promote democracy, justice, and peace....not hunker down...send out the legion every ten years or so, and have the best damn black op network on the market and hope for the best. quote: It's not revolutionary at all. It has been around as long as money. Progressive taxes are a rather new idea. Don't agree that it's stupid, it's just a different notion of fairness Call it what you will but I believe wealth hording is ultimately destructive....but you keep the lingo changing and the average citizen ignorant and maybe it can work.... quote: Hu? Like say a huge multi national corporation is the liquid terminator....running around killing those who get in the way but accomplishing the mission....then you blow it to hell with some kind of legislation. We can then observe the little globs that start coming back together slowly at first but quickly in the end....a bit goofy but a good visual of corporate consolidation. quote: I think a free society should allow people to buy that shiny thing if they think they want another one. Who are you to press your values about usefulness or appropriateness on others? I'm not pressing anything....the press is coming from the value machine of free market ideology that is forcing its way into every medium it can infiltrate with an army of PR reps...happy meals... heavy tank divisions....ooops...and smiles.I meant smiles. quote: PS: What are you studying? Nothing definite yet....but law, sociology, or economics are possibilities. Maybe after a few more years Ill chill out but I dont knowI think Jag would agree that the liberal brainwashing will only get worse..moo ha ha.. [ 11-14-2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Lotharr Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 quote: These guys never go! but are always ready to send someone else Just in case anyone missed it the first time check out America's "warriors" and how they unserved...er...dissserved....uh...punked out? No Bob that's not the kind of spin we're looking for on this one... No comment? No comment. http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
Guest Posted November 14, 2002 Report Posted November 14, 2002 Lotharr, The WalMart thing, you will not catch me in one of those stores. I hate Walmart with a passion, for the very reasons you mentioned. The only way that I can make it clear that I disagree with the way they treat their people and DESTROY every community they go into, is to not shop there.
Raven Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote: The inevitable collapse or implosion by a system that can't really go any other way....currently I believe that the idea of a forever expanding economy is not possible in the reality of a finite biosphere and limited resources. I disagree darling, both because advancing technology will always be opening new markets and revolutionizing old ones, and because while we may be currently limited biosphere, we eventually will expand into space. quote: It would be ironic because all those "enfranchised" that are high on the crack of the "free market" may end up getting their heads chopped off (figuratively...hopefully) or wrecking the planet....but I'm sure they?ll sing....scream...then whimper...the praises of freedom and democracy until the end..... Um... sure... I believe you..., honest... I keep hearing about how unstable things are and how we will inevitably be cast down, but I don't see any sign of this happening. Seams more like wishful thinking then anything else. quote: I believe Americans via corporate mass media are taught to equate "democracy" with various toiletry options....not politics. Not to decry the importance of toiletry options, but you're not making much sense. quote: Alternatives are starting to come out and I hope this trend will continue....but they face the enormous task of dismantling two entrenched political institutions that represent so many different ideologies that it clear why today it comes down to ....good, bad, all, or nothing type thinking...a political climate of emotions and symbols that truly bring out the ?best? in people...and in the end do not serve anyone but those who perpetuate this false notion of "choice". Alternatives? You mean like socialism or communism? Or perhaps you just want a more democratic government, which is ultimately mob rule; again it's rather hard to follow what you're saying because you don't really say much of anything. You really have the makings of a grade A loony you know, you mumble and rant without really making any sense for those of us who don't know whatever secret leftist code you're couching everything you say in. quote: Well I guess we gotta part ways on this....I think we should be rigorously strengthening international institutions that promote democracy, justice, and peace....not hunker down...send out the legion every ten years or so, and have the best damn black op network on the market and hope for the best. Well, I honestly think we should be more willing to use military force then we are, but then that's just my evil militaristic warmongering conservative view. And what's wrong with a good black op network? Would you rather we had a bad one? quote: Call it what you will but I believe wealth hording is ultimately destructive....but you keep the lingo changing and the average citizen ignorant and maybe it can work.... Wealth hording? You mean like going to some remote cave and piling all of your wealth up and sleeping on it? Seriously though, what good is wealth if you "hoard" it? Generally money is used either to make more money, to gain other types of power (namely political), or to improve quality of life. All of these things require using money, not hoarding it. Oh, I'm sorry, you're not talking about hoarding wealth at all, it's another weird leftist code for having money. Or perhaps it's hording because people shouldn't be able to acquire large sums of money, after all it needs to be redistributed to those noble working class types?
Lotharr Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 I'm gonna regret this I'm sure.... quote: keep hearing about how unstable things are and how we will inevitably be cast down, but I don't see any sign of this happening. Seams more like wishful thinking then anything else. So this current reccession thingy that was at first supposed to recover like magic....hasn't....and the curret desire to liberate vast quantities of oil...er....poeple doesn't ring a bell? And I suppose a growing collection of personel from all over world ready to put their personal satey on line by showing up at WTO and G-8 meetings to face a hostile police force doesn't mean a thing eh? That's just off the top....are you realy that blind? quote: but you're not making much sense Well perhaps not to you but I don't count that as much of a loss.... quote: evil militaristic warmongering conservative view There are large sectors of "conservative" America who do not agree with imperialism....or to say euphemistically...never ending police actions etc. Yup...I'm against super concentrations of wealth....it corrupts people, institutions, and reality....just look at media, politics, and notions of corporate governance...if we could get them to stop subverting government and mocking a free press I suppose I would be happy. But we most definitely have got to comprehensively remove money from politics to restore legitimacy to this system..and to get the politicians to focus on their job and not making money for the next election. We then have to move to insure real checks on political corruption by creating effective agencies to police these criminals who walk around in nice suits and have little American flags pined to their lapels handing out bribes and jobs.... We have a duty to refocus media back to objective and investigative work an open the most important market of all....the one of ideas. Give choice to the people by expanding forums for different political parties and let the chips fall. We need to get the local populations in a potential economic "investment" area to be equal partners in the decision making process. We have to decentralize power and enforce ecological common sense over short term profit motives. Obviously this is against everything you believe in so I won't be put out when you poo poo these ideas. But if we want to revitalize this country and seek to protect the world I think these would be good places to start. These idea are an effort to put government back in the hands of people..the people government is supposed to be about in the first place.we can have the republic, a better and more responsible economy, and keep our individualism in the workplace and at home.but people have to start thinking realistically about where the real threats areand what kinds of changes are meaningful and inclusive. [ 11-14-2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Raven Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote: So this current reccession thingy that was at first supposed to recover like magic....hasn't....and the curret desire to liberate vast quantities of oil...er....poeple doesn't ring a bell? And I suppose a growing collection of personel from all over world ready to put their personal satey on line by showing up at WTO and G-8 meetings to face a hostile police force doesn't mean a thing eh? Well, as for the recession, I'm not worried, no one ever promised that our economy would be all peaches and cream all the time, and I, for one, am willing to ride it out. As for objections to the WTO and such not, just because some people protest doesn't mean they are backed by the rest of the population, again, I'm not worried. The most they can accomplish is a riot, which will simply further discredit them. quote: Well perhaps not to you but I don't count that as much of a loss.... Hey, I'm sorry, I don't speak leftist code jargon, my apologies. quote: Yup...I'm against super concentrations of wealth....it corrupts people, institutions, and reality....just look at media, politics, and notions of corporate governance...if we could get them to stop subverting government and mocking a free press I suppose I would be happy. Ok, so some people will succeed and end up with lots of wealth (at least assuming a system which is conducive to success, the alternative being one in which there is no point to success), what do you suggest we do? Take it from them simply because they are successful? That seams more then a little unjust. quote: But we most definitely have got to comprehensively remove money from politics to restore legitimacy to this system?..and to get the politicians to focus on their job and not making money for the next election. How about get politicians to focus on the constitution. Oh yea, the constitution doesn't allow for nonsensical social programs so we absolutely can't support it. quote: We then have to move to insure real checks on political corruption by creating effective agencies to police these criminals who walk around in nice suits and have little American flags pined to their lapels handing out bribes and jobs.... This has been done before, with rather limited success, so I doubt there is going to be any astoundingly successful watchdog organization appearing any time soon. quote: We have to decentralize power and enforce ecological common sense over short term profit motives. With this I agree, at least to some extent, destroying our environment isn't an option. quote: Obviously this is against everything you believe in so I won't be put out when you poo poo these ideas. But if we want to revitalize this country and seek to protect the world I think these would be good places to start. Well, remind me again why we are supposed to protect the world? quote: These idea are an effort to put government back in the hands of people?..the people government is supposed to be about in the first place?.we can have the republic, a better and more responsible economy, and keep our individualism in the workplace and at home?.but people have to start thinking realistically about where the real threats are?and what kinds of changes are meaningful and inclusive. And how, exactly, are we supposed to do this? Besides, I don't like the idea of placing much political power in the hands of the people, mob rule simply isn't on my list of things to experience.
Guest $iLk Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 Individual Self Government is what this country was meant to be. Centralized Federal Government is not. The power should rest in the hands of the states, the Federal government should be to the states what the United Nations is to the United States. Government begins with the individual, and locally. How is someone sitting on their fat arse up in Washington supposed to know or care what I want? Sure I can write my Alabama senators and Representatives, but the other 49 state senators and Representatives don't give a crap.
Starfighter08 Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: The inevitable collapse or implosion by a system that can't really go any other way....currently I believe that the idea of a forever expanding economy is not possible in the reality of a finite biosphere and limited resources.Every time the economy falls into a recession, the communists crawl out of their holes and say capitalism will fail now. Considering economic growth over the last 100 years (looking at half logarithmical graph that is) shows that the only really significant recession was the Great Depression with a "growth rate" of -15% in 1932. At the moment we are just complaining about growth having slowed down. The declining quantities of resources and land are drags on growth, but technological progress is a spur to growth. As long as the spur created by technological progress is larger than the drag, then there is sustained growth. That is exactly what happened over the past few centuries. Nordhaus (1992) estimated the drag of land and ressource limitation to be about a quarter of a percentage point. Only a quarter of this drag is because of limited land, the rest is due to limited energy ressources. Pollution is an externality, which means that polluters don't have to pay those who they damage and thus there is nothing to prevent pollution from rising. In theory the correct policy would be to estimate the dollar value of the damages caused by pollution and tax pollution by that amount (and clean up the damage with the proceeds). This would bring private and social costs in line and result in a socially optimal amount of pollution. quote: It would be ironic because all those "enfranchised" that are high on the crack of the "free market" may end up getting their heads chopped off (figuratively...hopefully) or wrecking the planet....but I'm sure theyll sing....scream...then whimper...the praises of freedom and democracy until the end.....There's nothing ironic about that. It always happens when the commies take power. quote: I guess I'd rather be on the side of caution when the stakes are global. But I would agree with the idea of objectivityhowever mainstream noiseermedia only focuses on market issues and that is wrong.The opportunity costs of forgone growth/aggregated wealth have also to be taken into account while erring on the safe side. Which doesn't mean that you don't have to be careful. Actually I think the concept of "think globally, act locally" to be a reasonable one. quote: No....when you have a narrow group that control the highways and byways of information, then do there utmost to insure election of those who share their views.....once those people are elected (imagine that) they make it as difficult as possible for any new groups to participate effectively....you have millions of people who don't want to vote because instinctually they know it doesn't matter anyway.....We live in the information age. The world in the future will be even more divided between those who have access to informations and those who don't. I think education plays a key role here to assure that poor people can participate in the political and social live of a country and be productive. However if they don't care to about that, they get what they deserve. I don't believe in forcing people to success. quote: I believe Americans via corporate mass media are taught to equate "democracy" with various toiletry options....not politics.That hasn't much to do with what I said. Having choices (in every aspect) is what makes life worthwile. Of course this is also linked with resposibility. quote: Alternatives are starting to come out and I hope this trend will continue....but they face the enormous task of dismantling two entrenched political institutions that represent so many different ideologies that it clear why today it comes down to ....good, bad, all, or nothing type thinking...a political climate of emotions and symbols that truly bring out the best in people...and in the end do not serve anyone but those who perpetuate this false notion of "choice".That seems to be characteristic for two party states (median voter theorem). I prefer the European style with several parties, where you have a choice. Additionally, using notions like good, bad etc. IMO has no place in the policy making process of an enlightened people. Politics should be about problem solving on a rational base. That doesn't mean that people's emotions shouldn't be considered but making them the core of politics makes reasonable discussions and solution finding impossible. If I want to see/hear about the fight of good vs. evil I watch Star Wars or play Age of Wonders. quote: Well I guess we gotta part ways on this....I think we should be rigorously strengthening international institutions that promote democracy, justice, and peace....not hunker down...send out the legion every ten years or so, and have the best damn black op network on the market and hope for the best.These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. I'd say they are complementary. Strenghening international institutions/democracy/welfare helps to prevent attacks but it has some serious problems. 1. What if some countries/rulers don't want to join? Do you want to use military force? 2. Even if most countries agree, it takes quite some time until the effects will show, during which there will still be people who will want to "get" you. 3. Should we even reach this point, there will always be people who you just can't please no matter what you say/do and that who will not hesitate to use force against you. That's where Fortress America/Europe comes in. As a last line of defense (which should include discovering threats before they hit you). quote: Call it what you will but I believe wealth hording is ultimately destructive....but you keep the lingo changing and the average citizen ignorant and maybe it can work....Hoarding? I know only one guy who keeps his money at home to take a bath in it from time to time. Dagobert Duck. Most people, especially wealthy ones, invest their money. In the process jobs are created and goods and services are produced. Another advantage of having a wealthy class of people is that they invest in highly risky, potentially rewarding enterprises. If the project/company falls flat they just lose their investment but if it's a success there will be new products, cures etc. Their reward for risking their money is that they become even wealthier. If you consider the fact that for every successfull venture company there are several failures, you can easily conclude that the gov't or the poor people cannot afford to invest in such risky enterprises. quote: Like say a huge multi national corporation is the liquid terminator....running around killing those who get in the way but accomplishing the mission....then you blow it to hell with some kind of legislation. We can then observe the little globs that start coming back together slowly at first but quickly in the end....a bit goofy but a good visual of corporate consolidation.And like the marxist concentration theory this has some logical flaws. There isn't just one liquid terminator, there are many and every day several completely new ones are created. They all compete with more or less the same means for the same markets. Only where you have increasing returns to scale (that is were being bigger really makes you better off) can you observe one company reaching a critical mass and then aquiring a monopoly. Even a monopoly has some sort of competition, namely by proto firms. If the incumbent company sets it's prices too high, a new company will enter the market. To allow something like that to happen, you have to assure easy entry into markets. quote: I'm not pressing anything....the press is coming from the value machine of free market ideology that is forcing its way into every medium it can infiltrate with an army of PR reps...happy meals... heavy tank divisions....ooops...and smiles.I meant smiles.But they can't force somebody to buy, they just can try to persuade people. quote: Nothing definite yet....but law, sociology, or economics are possibilities. Maybe after a few more years Ill chill out but I dont knowI think Jag would agree that the liberal brainwashing will only get worse..moo ha ha..LOL.
Starfighter08 Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: How about get politicians to focus on the constitution. Oh yea, the constitution doesn't allow for nonsensical social programs so we absolutely can't support it.Does the constitution prohibit such programs? What about problems that weren't known back then like pollution? IIRC the founding fathers had an isolationist agrarian country in mind when they framed the constitution and I don't think you want to go back to that. quote: And how, exactly, are we supposed to do this? Besides, I don't like the idea of placing much political power in the hands of the people, mob rule simply isn't on my list of things to experience.I've seen you using the term "mob rule" several times now. Where would you draw the line between democracy and mob rule? Would you consider a democracy where people can vote on policies/issues, and can call for a vote by collecting a certain amount of signatures a mob rule? [ 11-15-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]
Raven Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote: Does the constitution prohibit such programs? What about problems that weren't known back then like pollution? IIRC the founding fathers had an isolationist agrarian country in mind when they framed the constitution and I don't think you want to go back to that. Well yes, in a way. The constitution gives a number of very explicit powers to the federal government, as well as the general welfare clause which is usually distended in a truly awful way to justify a lot of social programs. But it isn't permitted to give money to the poor, or any other type of social program. While I admit that the constitution is in need of some maintenance and updating, this should be done through the nicely outlined procedures in the constitution itself, not by simply ignoring it. As Jag will no doubt be delighted to tell you (repeatedly if necessary) such social programs are the responsibility of the states and should be left that way. quote: I've seen you using the term "mob rule" several times now. Where would you draw the line between democracy and mob rule? Would you consider a democracy where people can vote on policies/issues, and can call for a vote by collecting a certain amount of signatures a mob rule? I'm not sure it's something hard and fast, and I haven't really sat down and decided what exactly constitutes mob rule, but I would say one of the lines is drawn when people can directly vote on policy, so yes, that is at least the beginnings of mob rule. Another beginning is the changing of election methods that allow our country to be more democratic, such as voting for senators, or, as people have been discussing for as long as I have been alive but thankfully has yet to happen, dismantling the electoral college. My problem with mob rule is twofold, first we have the problem of the people voting money out of the treasury and into there pockets. This is both dangerous in what it could become and rather unpleasant at the moment. The second, and truly core, issue is that most people are quite simply not qualified to have anything to do with our government at all. In all honesty, I believe that there should be some basic requirements to be able to vote above and beyond citizenship, nothing that would deter someone who wanted to, but enough that only people who have any business voting do so. Perhaps some type of yearly written exam, something anyone who follows politics could easily handle, and some type of requirement pertaining to who can vote based off of there wealth (something like the old policy of only allowing land owners to vote, but more comprehensive). Having people who don't know what the there doing voting for candidates is bad enough, but having them able to vote on policy as well is more then a little scary.
Starfighter08 Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Well yes, in a way. The constitution gives a number of very explicit powers to the federal government, as well as the general welfare clause which is usually distended in a truly awful way to justify a lot of social programs. But it isn't permitted to give money to the poor, or any other type of social program. While I admit that the constitution is in need of some maintenance and updating, this should be done through the nicely outlined procedures in the constitution itself, not by simply ignoring it. As Jag will no doubt be delighted to tell you (repeatedly if necessary) such social programs are the responsibility of the states and should be left that way.Interesting. In my neck of the wood social security is organized at federal level and executed at state/communal level. What about states that have a lot of poor people but also do poorly themselfs (agrarian states for example) would they get help from the feds? quote: I'm not sure it's something hard and fast, and I haven't really sat down and decided what exactly constitutes mob rule, but I would say one of the lines is drawn when people can directly vote on policy, so yes, that is at least the beginnings of mob rule.LOL. It seems I live in a country where the mob rules. However it shouldn't surprise anybody since it started off as an act of rebellion against a noble dynasty. quote: Another beginning is the changing of election methods that allow our country to be more democratic, such as voting for senators, or, as people have been discussing for as long as I have been alive but thankfully has yet to happen, dismantling the electoral college.As long as you've been alive? How long do dragons live anyway? Hey just kidding. quote: My problem with mob rule is twofold, first we have the problem of the people voting money out of the treasury and into there pockets. This is both dangerous in what it could become and rather unpleasant at the moment.Depends on the mob. Sometimes I have the impression that our electorate (although most of the people aren't qualified to run a country) is even more farsighted that our gov't. Over the last few years it voted to decrease spending and increase taxes to keep the deficit in check (in one case even against the will of Parliament). quote: The second, and truly core, issue is that most people are quite simply not qualified to have anything to do with our government at all. In all honesty, I believe that there should be some basic requirements to be able to vote above and beyond citizenship, nothing that would deter someone who wanted to, but enough that only people who have any business voting do so. Perhaps some type of yearly written exam, something anyone who follows politics could easily handle, and some type of requirement pertaining to who can vote based off of there wealth (something like the old policy of only allowing land owners to vote, but more comprehensive). Having people who don't know what the there doing voting for candidates is bad enough, but having them able to vote on policy as well is more then a little scary.Qualification is indeed a problem. Although an educated elite is better suited to make decisions than the populace I think they are also more prone to abuse the power they have. "Mob rule" might lead to some stupid policies but it keeps checks and balances in place. In the end I don't know which one produces the more desirable results although sometimes I wonder as well.
Lotharr Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote: Individual Self Government is what this country was meant to be. Well these days it's just isn't profitable to leave the people to themselves... One function I believe government needs to reestablish is as barrier to any force that turns people into things to be used and discarded when it is no longer profitable etc etc etc And whose example are they going to follow? Celebrities, sports stars, politicians, and executives who never fail to sink just that extra bit lower? Regurgitated over and over again because media can't find a real story....sorry parents but youre not really in charge anymore.... quote: Pollution is an externality, which means that polluters don't have to pay those who they damage and thus there is nothing to prevent pollution from rising. In theory the correct policy would be to estimate the dollar value of the damages caused by pollution and tax pollution by that amount (and clean up the damage with the proceeds). This would bring private and social costs in line and result in a socially optimal amount of pollution. This is a huge problem that has to be addressed. Since the people who call the shots can't seem to choose the hard right over the easy wrong another force has to intervene. And Ill tell you if it takes the commies to save the planet.it would be ironic. A belief that technology is cure all for the environment is ultimately a gamble....that's the bottom line....and I don't believe faith is a responsible position given the current climate of super greed and all around poor ethics that infest business and all its wonderful analytical establishments. I question the current economic format when crossing the lines of personal and state sovereignty is just "doing business" I further question this idea when it has controlling interest in systems of thought and de facto media monopoly. In America corporations are seeking to fill every aspect of our society if it hasn't done so already and I don't believe this is healthy. Parents, communities, schools...reality...is taken over by business....and those people are defiantly not elected.... quote: There's nothing ironic about that. It always happens when the commies take power. Would you say an accurate description of the Soviet Union's economy as being a form of state controlled capitalism? quote: I think education plays a key role here to assure that poor people can participate in the political and social live of a country and be productive. However if they don't care to about that, they get what they deserve. I don't believe in forcing people to success. How about forcing them further into poverty? quote: Having choices (in every aspect) is what makes life worthwile. Of course this is also linked with resposibility. Well here in the US of A we are all about the former.....as long as it isn't politics, mass media, or mass transit.... quote: where you have a choice I can only imagine.... quote: These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. I'd say they are complementary. Strenghening international institutions/democracy/welfare helps to prevent attacks but it has some serious problems. I know but if we got people really thinking hard along those lines I believe it would ultimately save lives, money, and time....but this is the land of guns, guts, and god....not really...most people don't want a war but they can't help being scared with a government of deceit and a media selling tales of good vs evil....hero's and villains....thats when they aren't telling stories of a snake attack in some small town and why you should be concerned.... I am forced to ask who this system favors and why. quote: Another advantage of having a wealthy class of people is that they are fully prepared to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want....moving democracy away from the people and eroding a culture formed on higher ideals... I don't bash the idea of a free market...just the joke of the one we got today. quote: Even a monopoly has some sort of competition, namely by proto firms. If the incumbent company sets it's prices too high, a new company will enter the market. To allow something like that to happen, you have to assure easy entry into markets. I think the market could be a great thing if it weren't run by losers who shape the market reality into what they think is acceptable without consulting anyone but their peers. quote: they just can try to persuade people Come on. When the entire market (goods, services, media) is dominated by multi nationals that have outsourced most going on all production to a third world sh*t hole...pay the people crap...piss on the environment because they played lets make a deal with a dictator....and I'm left buying a shirt made in Guam by women who are treaded like cattle....shoes made by children that works more hours then I do, and a car that is a collection of parts made god knows where with an American brand name stuck on it as some kind of joke.I dont see the persuasion I see the reality. I think your talking ideal setup not reality....everything is being filtered into the system so in effect my "choice" has been incorporated and I'm left with no real options...oh wait....there are multiple type of toilet paper..and diet cherry coke is truly an amazing concoction.... Sorry I can't help the sarcasm its not directed at you personally. You seem to be very knowledgeable and I think yours to the best feedback Ive gotten on this subject...it just isn't adding up. [ 11-15-2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Charles Lindsey Posted November 15, 2002 Report Posted November 15, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: quote: Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. Deductions (what you erroneously call loopholes) are there for the specific reason of giving tax breaks to people and businesses for various things, they are a desired part of the system and they serve a purpose.Ok then, leave it at loopholes. Loophole being defined as the application of multpiple deductions resulting in a zero or even negative tax liability. Then the deductions do become loopholes and it is not erroneous to call them such. quote:As far as it goes, I don't support progressive taxes simply because they are inherently unfair, they punish success and generally make life miserable. After all, what's the point of being wealthy if not to avoid having to carry a heavy burden?But you can carry a much heavier burden than Joe Cashier and still be well off. I'm not talking about taking you right back to the poor house or everyone winds up with the same bring home pay or anything atrocious like that. Dunno about others but not me. quote:Originally posted by Starfighter08: ...In public finance a progressive tax is defined as a tax where the marginal taxrate is larger than the average tax rate. For non economists the answer would be: the more you earn the higher the taxrate that is applied for you.That's what I was trying to say but it just didn't come out right. quote:dragonlady I'm not sure it's something hard and fast, and I haven't really sat down and decided what exactly constitutes mob rule, but I would say one of the lines is drawn when people can directly vote on policy,It's called a referendum and I don't think that will happen at the federal level. We have city, county, and even state referendum's from time to time on important issues but I don't think federal policy will ever be directed by such. The same goes for voting money into your own pocket. If you really want to see mob rule just try intsituting a voting exam or poll tax you advocate. Don't shatter the illusion. quote:, dismantling the electoral college. What would be wrong with that? It would only allow the president to be elected by popular vote. Nothing more. [ 11-15-2002, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now