Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thank you Representatives... for not Representing Me!
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 16 of 18 (621585)
06-27-2011 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by DBlevins
06-27-2011 1:01 AM


Re: Stop with the socialist nonsense
That quote sounds eerily prophetic......

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:01 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 17 of 18 (621586)
06-27-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
06-26-2011 11:37 AM


Coyote writes:
quote:
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
There are so many things wrong with this statement, it's hard to know where to begin. It is naught but an attempt to put a nice spin on, "Taxes are evil." And yet, when taxes were higher, the poverty rate was lower. Notice, that doesn't mean the wealthy weren't wealthy. It simply means the wealthy were paying more taxes.
By your logic, Reagan was a Socialist since the tax rates under him were higher than they are today. Is that you're point: Reagan was a Socialist?
Then what on earth does that make Nixon? Taxes were higher under him.
And by god, that makes Eisenhower a god damned Commie. 90% top tax rate.
quote:
What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving.
Incorrect. Again, there is so much wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to begin. It is nothing but an attempt to put a nice spin on the idea that we are in a zero-sum game.
We are not. The wealthy consume much more of the resources and government services than they pay for. So if we do follow your logic, then we must start taxing the rich more and the poor less because the rich are receiving without working what the poor are working for without receiving.
quote:
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
Incorrect. Again, there is so much wrong with this that it is hard to know where to begin. It is nothing but a variation of the previous point, that we are in a zero-sum game. And yet, we are not. It also presumes that the government is "taking" something when in fact, it is the custodian for it in the first place.
For example, you do not own the radio frequency spectrum. Instead, the government holds it in trust for use by the people. It's what allows you to buy a broadcast license and make sure that your neighbor doesn't build a bigger, more powerful tower next to yours and drown out your signal. The government functions to allow you to act as an independent agent and is not "taking" anything that you wouldn't have to spend in the first place.
quote:
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Well, why didn't the bankers figure that out during the mortgage crisis? That was the entire scheme after all: Take the mortgage, divide it into a bunch of pieces, and then sell them off. They got rich in doing so and took the economy down with it. So if you really believe this, then you are in support of returning the regulations that were removed that would have prevented such deals, yes?
But again, there is so much wrong with that statement that it is hard to know where to begin. It's nothing more than an attempt to put a nice spin on the idea that "Taxes are evil" and "The poor are poor because they want to be."
But again, this isn't true. The wealthy consume more of the resources and government services than they pay for. The only became wealthy because they divided the poor.
quote:
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
See, here we go again. It is nothing more than an attempt to put a nice spin on the claim that "The poor are poor because they want to be." Reality shows the exact opposite. It's why Europe in general and Germany in particular are doing so much better than the United States: They have much stronger social safety nets than we do. It's why their health care is better, their employment rates are better, their technology is better, etc., etc.
It's why the country did better under Clinton when taxes were higher.
And, of course, by your logic Reagan was a Socialist, Nixon was uber-left, and Eisenhower was a god damned Commie.
quote:
John Galt was right.
So why can't we find anybody who has "gone Galt" and done well? If you truly believe that, then what you are doing here? Withdraw from the world. Take your supernatural powers of "making" and go home. Surely you'll be able to get your food on your own. Your electricity will be created by the strength of your "making not taking" abilities. The water will magically flow out of the ground at your command and be perfectly safe to consume. You will be able to have your own private roads that will take you where you need to go without that pesky government to maintain them. You will completely abandon the government-created Internet in order to form your own electronic communication system that will somehow connect to everyone else. That car will be abandoned due to the governmental regulations that make it safe and standard so that you don't have to rely upon a sole provider of fuel compatible with it.
And you will never, ever go to court to adjudicate any dispute you might find yourself in.
You seriously have no idea just how much you depend upon the government, do you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 06-26-2011 11:37 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 18 of 18 (621587)
06-27-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
06-26-2011 6:37 PM


Phat writes:
quote:
what incentive is there to even get wealthy if you have to hand half of it back?
Um...because you'll be wealthy?
Are you seriously claiming that you wouldn't take a raise in your income if it might bump you up into another tax bracket? You'd still have more money in your pocket at the end of the day...in fact, significantly more...but because you'll now have to pay another 2% more in taxes, you'll give it all up in a fit of pique?
Fine. Give it to me. You earn the money and put it into my account. I'll pay the taxes on it. I will be happy to have my income double and pay out an extra 5% in taxes than not have my income double at all.
quote:
Do we have proof that " the wealthy hold out on paying a cent more of their hard-stolen loot"?
Yes. Tax rates are among the lowest we've ever seen. And yet despite all the attempts to have the rich "trickle down" their wealth, it doesn't happen. This makes perfect sense, after all. If you already have more money than you can spend, someone giving you more does not give you any reason to spend it. Businesses are already sitting on huge amounts of cash and yet they continue to hold off in any sort of production.
Why? Because demand is so low. Why? Because the poor and middle class don't have any money to spend. It's all gone to the wealthy. If you want to stimulate production, you have to stimulate the sectors of the economy that will spend it which means the poor and middle classes, not the wealthy. The wealthy already have plenty of money to spend. They don't need any more and their activities, as we have seen over the past 10 years, have not contributed to the economy. They are, in fact, slowing it down and making things worse.
If returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels is Socialism, just what on earth does that make Reagan who had higher rates? Or Nixon who had 70% top income-tax levels? I guess Eisenhower was a god damned Communist with his 90% top tax bracket.
How much further does the economy have to slide before you consider the possibility that the Republican-based policies that drive it are the cause of the problem rather than the solution?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 06-26-2011 6:37 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024