Obama admits raising taxes on wealth is bad for economy

[Slypieguy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_on_el_pr/obama_2

Quick party elites, punish him! He's backing off the class envy platform!
And even better, he is now saying his new tax cuts would go into effect immediately. Wasn't the whole argument from dems that you can't have tax cuts without raising taxes somewhere else? Oopsie

Edit: title was supposed to say "wealthy" not "wealth"

[Red Morgan]

I've always thought all taxes were bad for the economy.

[Killuminati]

I've always thought all taxes were bad for the economy.

Bullshit

[Slypieguy]

I've always thought all taxes were bad for the economy.

No silly, taxing the rich and corporations is good for the economy because you're sticking it to the fucking man. Who cares if you derive any other benefit from the taxes, those bastards will have to pay up! That'll show them, thinking they can just be successful with no consequences

[Red Morgan]

Bullshit

It's kinda common sense, isn't it? I didn't say that some taxes weren't worth it, just that the economy would run well if people had more money to spend.

[Killuminati]

It's kinda common sense, isn't it? I didn't say that some taxes weren't worth it, just that the economy would run well if people had more money to spend.

No, actually mainstream economics preaches that the income tax is a source of stability and economic growth.

[Slypieguy]

No, actually mainstream economics preaches that the income tax is a source of stability and economic growth.

Gogo Keynesian failboat

[Red Morgan]

No, actually mainstream economics preaches that the income tax is a source of stability and economic growth.

TBH, as soon as I hear someone talk about economics like it's a science, it sounds like "blah blah I want to push my political agenda blah blah and this is too complicated for most people to understand so I can get away with it blah blah" to me.

[Slypieguy]

TBH, as soon as I hear someone talk about economics like it's a science, it sounds like "blah blah I want to push my political agenda blah blah and this is too complicated for most people to understand so I can get away with bullshit blah blah" to me.

Or it actually is too complicated for most people to understand without taking any classes on it... lol

But what do I know, you're the one with the art degree :p

[Shads]

Gogo Keynesian failboat

Because we all know how good liberalizing the financial markets was for the economy ;)

[Zionist]

If somebody cut off that giant tumor on the National budget called Military spending, then taxes would be far less important.

[Killuminati]

TBH, as soon as I hear someone talk about economics like it's a science, it sounds like "blah blah I want to push my political agenda blah blah and this is too complicated for most people to understand so I can get away with bullshit blah blah" to me.

I really dislike people who consider Economics to be a dismal science. No offense, but it usually means they are rejecting fundamental principles which have been proven by human nature. I mean what if we never took Adam Smiths advice and bought the idea that mercantilism is the way to go? If we hadn't rejected the belief that in trade there are winners and losers we would be stuck in ignorance. We wouldn't have been able to trade with many countries and create prosperity through cooperation.

[MorkDaOrc]

No, actually mainstream economics preaches that the income tax is a source of stability and economic growth.

Haha, are you serious? The government taking money to spend it on useless wars, foreign aid to middle east countries, and domestic programs that just fail complety is a great alternate for people spending on goods.

GTFO

[LordTenacious]

Because we all know how good liberalizing the financial markets was for the economy ;)

No one ever complains on the way up....

[Uzik]

Obviously the solution is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Why do our corporations need to be competitive in the world market anyways?

I would much rather give that money to some 18 year old who couldn't keep her legs closed/use a condom and got knocked up a few times.

[Slypieguy]

Haha, are you serious? The government taking money to spend it on useless wars, foreign aid to middle east countries, and domestic programs that just fail complety is a great alternate for people spending on goods.

GTFO

That was his point: a lot of today's mainstream economics is a little out of touch

[Carl Ragadamn]

If somebody cut off that giant tumor on the National budget called Military spending, then taxes would be far less important.

Good Idea lets cut the one actual function of the Federal Government first. How about instead we trim all the bullshit out that was never intended at the federal level?

[Killuminati]

Haha, are you serious? The government taking money to spend it on useless wars, foreign aid to middle east countries, and domestic programs that just fail complety is a great alternate for people spending on goods.

GTFO

Um, the government is responsible for your existence and well-being. If your whole family hadn't been taxed you wouldn't have been able to afford shoes or toilet paper. In fact you would be threatening your life by not giving a percentage of your income to the government for protection.

[Slypieguy]

troll alert

[MorkDaOrc]

troll alert

Yeah, after that post there's no way it's not a troll.

[Red Morgan]

Or it actually is too complicated for most people to understand without taking any classes on it... lol

But what do I know, you're the one with the art degree :p

Ooh man, I have a profession that doesn't deal with Economics! BUUUUURRRRNNNNN!

I really dislike people who consider Economics to be a dismal science. No offense, but it usually means they are rejecting fundamental principles which have been proven by human nature. I mean what if we never took Adam Smiths advice and bought the idea that mercantilism is the way to go? If we hadn't rejected the belief that in trade there are winners and losers we would be stuck in ignorance. We wouldn't have been able to trade with many countries and create prosperity through cooperation.

If economics is such a solid science, how come nobody can agree on it? I'm not saying it's utter bullshit, but I think it's so nebulous that it gives way too much wiggle room for people to promote their own agendas. Trickledowneconomicsamirite?

[Carl Ragadamn]

troll alert

What? Kill has never trolled even once in all his posts here.

[Uzik]

Um, the government is responsible for your existence and well-being. If your whole family hadn't been taxed you wouldn't have been able to afford shoes or toilet paper. In fact you would be threatening your life by not giving a percentage of your income to the government for protection.

FYI, the USA did fine without an income tax before WWI.

State governments used to have those responsibilities, but now the federal fucks are trying to expand.

We need more local government, less big brother.

Cut federal, raise state.

Cut corporate tax, eliminate welfare.

[Capricious]

What the hell is going on in this thread?

[Zionist]

Good Idea lets cut the one actual function of the Federal Government first. How about instead we trim all the bullshit out that was never intended at the federal level?

The Feds do alot more then run the military. Military spending has gone awry to the point where it's like they ship the bullets in gold-laced satten crates. The economic impacts of the Iraq war already hit over 2 trillion, combined with billions more dollars going to build bases and take care of our troops in place slike Japan, South Korea, etc.


Then of course there is foreign aid, along with the 850 billion dollars Obama plans to give the UN to fight "world poverty". This coming from a nation over 9 trillion dollars in debt.

[LordTenacious]

If economics is such a solid science, how come nobody can agree on it? I'm not saying it's utter bullshit, but I think it's so nebulous that it gives way too much wiggle room for people to promote their own agendas. Trickledowneconomicsamirite?

It's because economics isn't a solid science because once you boil away all the bullshit it is really just a study of people. I could go into a long-winded explanation but screw that, I got class in a bit.

[Carl Ragadamn]

The Feds do alot more then run the military. Military spending has gone awry to the point where it's like they ship the bullets in gold-laced satten crates. The economic impacts of the Iraq war already hit over 2 trillion, combined with billions more dollars going to build bases and take care of our troops in place slike Japan, South Korea, etc.


Then of course there is foreign aid, along with the 850 billion dollars Obama plans to give the UN to fight "world poverty". This coming froma nation over 9 trillion dollars in debt.

I was stating that Defense is one of the very few roles of the Federal government, so its not a good place for massive cuts. Instead lets disband all the stuff that was added under the interstate commerce clause. Then we can disband federal social programs. The result would be 0% income tax at the federal level.

[Slypieguy]

Ooh man, I have a profession that doesn't deal with Economics! BUUUUURRRRNNNNN!


Well it's easy to rag on something as not credible when you've never had any formal education on it yourself. (And yes I am assuming that you never had any upper level econ class based on the fact that you were in school for art, correct me if I'm wrong). It's kind of like all the religious folk with zero science background trying to discredit evolutionary theory

[Ziegler]

Good Idea lets cut the one actual function of the Federal Government first. How about instead we trim all the bullshit out that was never intended at the federal level?

You're one of those guys who thinks the Constitution matters....arent ya?:sly:

[Caffy]

I thought this thread was about Obama saying he's been wrong his entire life, and that everything he's ever said about tax policy was wrong.

[Shads]

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Horny monkeys are smearing each other with shit out of excitement that the cage guy is going to feed them real Kenyan bananas.

[LordTenacious]

Kenyan bananas? Fuck that shit, I want some Panama Bananas.

And thus, economics was born.

[Zionist]

I was stating that Defense is one of the very few roles of the Federal government, so its not a good place for massive cuts. Instead lets disband all the stuff that was added under the interstate commerce clause. Then we can disband federal social programs. The result would be 0% income tax at the federal level.

Social programs that many people are dependant on, like it or not. And subsidies? I know alot of people will miss those.


Military spending is overgrown, unchecked, and sucking out a large portion of the money in this country. Let's set aside the large amount of money already wasted on Iraq, how about the ever-flowing amount of money still going to Iraq and Afghanastan, and to our bases around the globe.


The U.S. spends more money on the military then the 3 or so nations behind us combined.

[Killuminati]

If economics is such a solid science, how come nobody can agree on it? I'm not saying it's utter bullshit, but I think it's so nebulous that it gives way too much wiggle room for people to promote their own agendas. Trickledowneconomicsamirite?

Um, in what discipline do you find unanimous agreement? There are scientists, historians, and many different people in other professions which don't agree on certain issues. Also, yes, economics can become political, but frankly that is thanks to the government institution. In fact the economics that reigns today is entirely government loving and it tries to justify a lot of things that wouldn't fly if you actually learn the basic principles of Economics. For example the myth that government spending specifically military spending causes an economic boom.

Also, yes, the science is about the study of human beings and their actions.

[Shads]

Also, yes, the science is about the study of human beings and their actions.

That's the only part of your post that is actually true. Different economic schools have different underlying assumptions and methods to prove their point, hence they should all be taken with a pinch of salt but with also with an open mind. Hence saying that such and such school of economics is shit (whereas it has proven its worth under certain historic conditions) is just politicking.

[Capricious]

Social programs that many people are dependant on, like it or not. And subsidies? I know alot of people will miss those.


Military spending is overgrown, unchecked, and sucking out a large portion of the money in this country. Let's set aside the large amount of money already wasted on Iraq, how about the ever-flowing amount of money still going to Iraq and Afghanastan, and to our bases around the globe.


The U.S. spends more money on the military then the 3 or so nations behind us combined.

Or, just 86 them all.

[Uzik]

Social programs that many people are dependant on, like it or not. And subsidies? I know alot of people will miss those.


Military spending is overgrown, unchecked, and sucking out a large portion of the money in this country. Let's set aside the large amount of money already wasted on Iraq, how about the ever-flowing amount of money still going to Iraq and Afghanastan, and to our bases around the globe.


The U.S. spends more money on the military then the 3 or so nations behind us combined.


You are missing the point.

The federal government is given the right to fund and army. It doesn't say they should fund social programs and give money to foreign countries though. In fact, I think the founding fathers would be fucking pissed off to see how much we give to ungrateful nations.

[Killuminati]

That's the only part of your post that is actually true. Different economic schools have different underlying assumptions and methods to prove their point, hence they should all be taken with a pinch of salt but with also with an open mind. Hence saying that such and such school of economics is shit (whereas it has proven its worth under certain historic conditions) is just politicking.

You should have said that with your marxist sig instead. Please explain to me how Keynesian Economics isn't built on the assumptions that the government corrects every problem where the market fails? Also these "assumptions" as you call them are usually theories that have been proven. However when it comes to things like marxist theories specifically the labor theory of value, history and logic wtfpwnts you.

[Entreri]

Economics is a social science. Like all social sciences it is very open to interpretation. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't necessarily bad for the economy. It can be, or it can be good. That's the thing with social sciences, there are huge numbers of variables, trends and people can be too unpredictable. If you raised taxes on the wealthy then gave it to another country, yeah that would probably be bad. If you give it to an 18 year old slut as referenced earlier, that will still stimulate the economy. Or maybe you use it to provide financial aid, giving you a more educated population.

If there was actually one perfect method for economic policies everyone would support it. There are principles that have been proven, but they are at the core of economics and still support many policies. (Any economics class you take will be biased, like all social science classes, which way the bias goes depends on the teacher)

[Red Morgan]

Well it's easy to rag on something as not credible when you've never had any formal education on it yourself. (And yes I am assuming that you never had any upper level econ class based on the fact that you were in school for art, correct me if I'm wrong). It's kind of like all the religious folk with zero science background trying to discredit evolutionary theory

lol Wut? That would make sense if I was trying to discredit a particular economic theory. I'm not getting into nitty gritty details that require advanced knowledge of economics, I'm saying that I think it's widely open to interpretation and people abuse that.

BTW, is that similar to someone with zero experience in physics commenting on Global Warming?

Um, in what discipline do you find unanimous agreement? There are scientists, historians, and many different people in other professions which don't agree on certain issues. Also, yes, economics can become political, but frankly that is thanks to the government institution. In fact the economics that reigns today is entirely government loving and it tries to justify a lot of things that wouldn't fly if you actually learn the basic principles of Economics. For example the myth that government spending specifically military spending causes an economic boom.

Also, yes, the science is about the study of human beings and their actions.

Well as you said, it's political... so I don't know what problem you're having with my skepticism here. It's pretty clear that your own philosophy on economics has been shaped by your own politics. That doesn't mean you're full of shit, but I'm sure as hell going to question your motivation.

[Entreri]

In fact, I think the founding fathers would be fucking pissed off to see how much we give to ungrateful nations.

People need to stop misrepresenting the founding fathers as being one mindset. The founding fathers disagreed as much as if you took a random group of politicians today.

[Shads]

You should have said that with your marxist sig instead.

FYI Marxism adheres to the view that History and the evolution of human societies is a gradual process. It doesn't claim other economic systems are "wrong" logically, it just says that they are imperfect and obsolete. Also FYI, I'm not a Marxist :)

[Zionist]

You are missing the point.

The federal government is given the right to fund and army. It doesn't say they should fund social programs and give money to foreign countries though. In fact, I think the founding fathers would be fucking pissed off to see how much we give to ungrateful nations.

Yes, they have that "right" and they've fucked up on their job. Even when the Democrats took Congress in 06', the gravy train for the military has not stopped.

You can cut social programs, welfare, healthcare, subsidies, and tax everyone up the ass, but you still won't be solving the main problem. Cut into foreign aid and military spending, and you won't need to change roles.

[Killuminati]

FYI Marxism adheres to the view that History and the evolution of human societies is a gradual process. It doesn't claim other economic systems are "wrong" logically, it just says that they are imperfect and obsolete. Also FYI, I'm not a Marxist :)

Social democrat, fabian socialists, and etc

All the same thing, and originating from the same hatred for capitalism.

[LordTenacious]

Well, this thread took a turn that I wasn't expecting. I was expecting this to turn into another "DEMS V REPUBS" flame fest and instead it became a discussion on the merits of economics.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

[Matriel]

Social programs that many people are dependant on, like it or not. And subsidies? I know alot of people will miss those.


Military spending is overgrown, unchecked, and sucking out a large portion of the money in this country. Let's set aside the large amount of money already wasted on Iraq, how about the ever-flowing amount of money still going to Iraq and Afghanastan, and to our bases around the globe.


The U.S. spends more money on the military then the 3 or so nations behind us combined.

That must be why the GAO is screaming that military spending is going to bankrupt us by 2019 or so. Oh wait, that's because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[Uzik]

Yes, they have that "right" and they've fucked up on their job. Even when the Democrats took Congress in 06', the gravy train for the military has not stopped.

You can cut social programs, welfare, healthcare, subsidies, and tax everyone up the ass, but you still won't be solving the main problem. Cut into foreign aid and military spending, and you won't need to change roles.

But we should change roles.

The federal government sucks at providing services. Those things should be done at a local level by people who better understand the needs of the community.

A good example would be looking at the local response to the CA wildfires, and the federal response to Katrina.

[Red Morgan]

Well, this thread took a turn that I wasn't expecting. I was expecting this to turn into another "DEMS V REPUBS" flame fest and instead it became a discussion on the merits of economics.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

I have a PHD in Voodoo Threadonomics. Another day, another thread successfully derailed.

[LordTenacious]

All natural disasters first line of defense are supposed to be the state government but the government of Louisiana pissed away all the money that was supposed to go into the leeves and well, we know what happened.

However, this isn't a debate on Katrina so I digress.

[Battle]

If econ were a hard science then we could figure out exactly what we need to do to get us out of this slump and do it. Unfortunately it isnt. It is more like psychology trying to figure out how to fix a retard.

[Zionist]

That must be why the GAO is screaming that military spending is going to bankrupt us by 2019 or so. Oh wait, that's because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

*sigh*........

Yeah let's get into a pissing contest about which fucked up program will bankrupt us faster.

Or..we can use the logic of which is more useful:


Occupying other nations, giving money to other nations, guarding the borders of other nations with our troops, attacking other nations....

or

Providing the basic domestic programs of a modern society to OUR nations people. Am I saying healthcare/welfare/etc. are fine? Hell no. They need reworking.



But you war-hungry folks would prefer money go to an aggressive foreign policy, rather then stay here at home.

[Lethn]

It's kinda common sense, isn't it? I didn't say that some taxes weren't worth it, just that the economy would run well if people had more money to spend.

Taxes are needed to pay off the country's debt, unless you lot are willing to all foot the bill yourselves ( which I doubt many of you are ) then you might as well reduce yourselves to what the roman states were during their civil war and just live in small colonies and city states instead.

I've always wondered how America as a nation would fall, I guess this must be how.

[Zionist]

But we should change roles.

The federal government sucks at providing services. Those things should be done at a local level by people who better understand the needs of the community.

A good example would be looking at the local response to the CA wildfires, and the federal response to Katrina.

FEMA should be disbanded to the states, I agree. But again...I'm not seeing any logical money cuts.

[LordTenacious]

FEMA should be disbanded to the states, I agree. But again...I'm not seeing any logical money cuts.

The only problem is that what you see as logical money cuts are what fit in with your personal ideology. You would scream until you were blue in the face if someone said "Cut Welfare Benefits".

Sometimes, pretty much everything needs to be cut back.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Yes, they have that "right" and they've fucked up on their job. Even when the Democrats took Congress in 06', the gravy train for the military has not stopped.

You can cut social programs, welfare, healthcare, subsidies, and tax everyone up the ass, but you still won't be solving the main problem. Cut into foreign aid and military spending, and you won't need to change roles.

You do know that the Federal government gets only half its money from the income tax right? If you transfer control of all the bullshit social programs to the states and let them decide how deeply they want to go down that road, you would not need to cut the military at all. (although the would have more money for research if the brought ALL of our troops home from every country they are stationed in, and stopped all foriegn aid)

[Vinadil]

*sigh*........

Yeah let's get into a pissing contest about which fucked up program will bankrupt us faster.

Or..we can use the logic of which is more useful:


Occupying other nations, giving money to other nations, guarding the borders of other nations with our troops, attacking other nations....

or

Providing the basic domestic programs of a modern society to OUR nations people. Am I saying healthcare/welfare/etc. are fine? Hell no. They need reworking.



But you war-hungry folks would prefer money go to an aggressive foreign policy, rather then stay here at home.

I can't figure out if you are trying to have a political discussion or an economic one. But, the odds are that the money we are spending on the foreign countries is a good investment economically. I mean look at our last big investments (Germany/Japan)... they have paid off well both in goods and services. If we open up a new market to American services and a new source of cheap goods... whose to say it wasn't worth a couple trillion downpayment?

[Matriel]

*sigh*........

Yeah let's get into a pissing contest about which fucked up program will bankrupt us faster.

Or..we can use the logic of which is more useful:


Occupying other nations, giving money to other nations, guarding the borders of other nations with our troops, attacking other nations....

or

Providing the basic domestic programs of a modern society to OUR nations people. Am I saying healthcare/welfare/etc. are fine? Hell no. They need reworking.



But you war-hungry folks would prefer money go to an aggressive foreign policy, rather then stay here at home.

You should go read the GAO report. Even if we removed all military spending, we still can't maintain our current entitlement programs past 2040. Period. The numbers don't add up.

Don't get me wrong, military spending can and should be cut back, but saying it's the sole problem is just flat out stupid as fuck.

Taxes are needed to pay off the country's debt, unless you lot are willing to all foot the bill yourselves ( which I doubt many of you are ) then you might as well reduce yourselves to what the roman states were during their civil war and just live in small colonies and city states instead.

I've always wondered how America as a nation would fall, I guess this must be how.

You do realize that less than half of the US Federal government revenue comes from income taxation right? Which is still a fuckton of money. Your post reads like you don't and is thus completely incorrect and stupid.

[Zionist]

The only problem is that what you see as logical money cuts are what fit in with your personal ideology. You would scream until you were blue in the face if someone said "Cut Social Security Benefits".

Social Security is broken. I should know since my Grandpa lives off the epic 50 dollars a month (thank god for savings).


That's not a personal ideology, that's a fact. It only makes sense to war-mongors to keep the Military fat and happy to do whatever they want with our money.

[Septus]

The Constitution is not some all-knowing God. If you want to say "oh look look, they have the right so obviously you're wrong," you're an idiot. The constitution was designed to incorporate any change desired by the country.

You may disagree with social programs, but they are not *wasteful.* They redistribute wealth which raises ethical questions, but the net effect on the economy is pretty close to zero (it raises demand which is good, but depending on the source of the taxation, it could hurt American industry).

Can military spending say the same thing? Hell fucking no. It is built from the ground up to just waste money. It is used to destroy instead of build, it contracts based on commission so companies are wasteful as hell (the more they spend the more profit they make), and it is rarely used for anything short of manipulation to make up for the actions of corrupt govt. individuals who use our country as a personal piggy bank.

[Zionist]

I can't figure out if you are trying to have a political discussion or an economic one. But, the odds are that the money we are spending on the foreign countries is a good investment economically. I mean look at our last big investments (Germany/Japan)... they have paid off well both in goods and services. If we open up a new market to American services and a new source of cheap goods... whose to say it wasn't worth a couple trillion downpayment?

Japan and Germany are not trading with us because we have troops in their country, they're trading because it's a benifit between like-minded nations.


I don't see what 10,000 troops in Japan does for us in economics, nor the other thousnads of troops in other countries.

[LordTenacious]

Except for that fact that it is the government's RESPONSIBILTY (one of its few, actually) to keep a strong military.

And what's with the inflammatory labels? "War-mongor" "Conserative Extremists" etc. Is it alright if we start calling you a Maoist who wants everyone to bow down to your socialist goals?

[Capricious]

The Constitution is not some all-knowing God. If you want to say "oh look look, they have the right so obviously you're wrong," you're an idiot. The constitution was designed to incorporate any change desired by the country.

You may disagree with social programs, but they are not *wasteful.* They redistribute wealth which raises ethical questions, but the net effect on the economy is pretty close to zero (it raises demand which is good, but depending on the source of the taxation, it could hurt American industry).

Can military spending say the same thing? Hell fucking no. It is built from the ground up to just waste money. It is used to destroy instead of build, it contracts based on commission so companies are wasteful as hell (the more they spend the more profit they make), and it is rarely used for anything short of manipulation to make up for the actions of corrupt govt. individuals who use our country as a personal piggy bank.

A. Social programs are wasteful because its "acceptable" for them to run inefficiently. Plus, they aren't working...

B. No one is defending wasteful defense spending...

Except for that fact that it is the government's RESPONSIBILTY (one of its few, actually) to keep a strong military.

Actually, thats incorrect.

[Zionist]

The Constitution is not some all-knowing God. If you want to say "oh look look, they have the right so obviously you're wrong," you're an idiot. The constitution was designed to incorporate any change desired by the country.

You may disagree with social programs, but they are not *wasteful.* They redistribute wealth which raises ethical questions, but the net effect on the economy is pretty close to zero (it raises demand which is good, but depending on the source of the taxation, it could hurt American industry).

Can military spending say the same thing? Hell fucking no. It is built from the ground up to just waste money. It is used to destroy instead of build, it contracts based on commission so companies are wasteful as hell (the more they spend the more profit they make), and it is rarely used for anything short of manipulation to make up for the actions of corrupt govt. individuals who use our country as a personal piggy bank.

THIS


To your last point, i'd like to add a video for all to see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ-What soldiers in Iraq put up with when companies milk them for money.

[Killuminati]

Taxes are needed to pay off the country's debt, unless you lot are willing to all foot the bill yourselves ( which I doubt many of you are ) then you might as well reduce yourselves to what the roman states were during their civil war and just live in small colonies and city states instead.

I've always wondered how America as a nation would fall, I guess this must be how.

Taxation is slavery. It is not something which can be justified ethically. Who is to say that a man has to be forced to allow his income to be put forth for things he did not consent to? Is it right to say that since someone is earning a larger income that society is entitled to a larger pecentage of it? As human beings we own ourselves and no one can harm us or our property. If the trade process with human beings is entirely voluntary and there has been no fraud involved both human beings benefit, no? If human beings voluntarily choose to trade with each other and there is no harm done who has the right to take someones property? There is no ethical justification in stealing (taxation) in order to justify taking someones income after a transaction one must prove that the process was an injustice. If there isn't any injustice then what you have done is created a slave. Since you are saying that a man isn't entitled to his ability to own his property in peace.

The government is just like a robber who keeps waiting for you outside your home. If you refuse to pay taxes they arrest/kill you. There isn't anything ethical about the process. If man obtains his property without harming others then he shouldn't be forced to give it up.

Btw, when did I make an order for any tanks or troops to go kill off the sand people in Iraq?

[Matriel]

The Constitution is not some all-knowing God. If you want to say "oh look look, they have the right so obviously you're wrong," you're an idiot. The constitution was designed to incorporate any change desired by the country.

You may disagree with social programs, but they are not *wasteful.* They redistribute wealth which raises ethical questions, but the net effect on the economy is pretty close to zero (it raises demand which is good, but depending on the source of the taxation, it could hurt American industry).

Can military spending say the same thing? Hell fucking no. It is built from the ground up to just waste money. It is used to destroy instead of build, it contracts based on commission so companies are wasteful as hell (the more they spend the more profit they make), and it is rarely used for anything short of manipulation to make up for the actions of corrupt govt. individuals who use our country as a personal piggy bank.

I'd agree if the Constitution had actually been amended instead of twisted to meet purposes. It has only been amended a few times and none of them were for social programs.

Madison (father of said Constitution) himself said it should be looked at in historical context. The raping of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses is straight up bullshit to anyone that has any integrity.

Japan and Germany are not trading with us because we have troops in their country, they're trading because it's a benifit between like-minded nations.


I don't see what 10,000 troops in Japan does for us in economics, nor the other thousnads of troops in other countries.

Really? I can't go buy shit from Sony right fucking now? :bang::bang::bang:

[Zionist]

Except for that fact that it is the government's RESPONSIBILTY (one of its few, actually) to keep a strong military.

And what's with the inflammatory labels? "War-mongor" "Conserative Extremists" etc. Is it alright if we start calling you a Maoist who wants everyone to bow down to your socialist goals?

The government also has a responsible to manage it's money. Your logic is if somebody is operating the fire hose, they can hose down the streets to after they put out the fire. Doesn't work that way. You need to be held accountable when you spend.

Maoist? Look up "Paleo-conservative" before sticking on your labels. I mean, it's clear you support an uncontrolled military industry, so my label fits you well.

[LordTenacious]

MORE LABELS PLOX.

All you do is undermine yourself and say that people support positions they don't. Hilarity ensues.

I don't get why you treat this world as some black and white thing, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Not like I can convince you otherwise.

[Zionist]

I'd agree if the Constitution had actually been amended instead of twisted to meet purposes. It has only been amended a few times and none of them were for social programs.

Madison (father of said Constitution) himself said it should be looked at in historical context. The raping of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses is straight up bullshit to anyone that has any integrity.



Really? I can't go buy shit from Sony right fucking now? :bang::bang::bang:

What does buying from Sony have to do with shit? 10,000 troops in another country are more likely to spend in that country correct? 10,000 less people contributing to our economy.


I don't know where neo-conservatives draw out their ridiculous comparisons but it must be from somewhere.

[Matriel]

What does buying from Sony have to do with shit? 10,000 troops in another country are more likely to spend in that country correct? 10,000 less people contributing to our economy.


I don't know where neo-conservatives draw out their ridiculous comparisons but it must be from somewhere.

You just said Japan won't trade with us. Sony is a Japanese corporation. So, unless you just completely misspoke, what you said was completely incorrect.

And as someone that's actually been to Japan as a US military member, I had no problems buying anything I wanted.

Please keep saying stupid shit, I'm actually enjoying this.

[Slypieguy]

lol Wut? That would make sense if I was trying to discredit a particular economic theory. I'm not getting into nitty gritty details that require advanced knowledge of economics, I'm saying that I think it's widely open to interpretation and people abuse that.

BTW, is that similar to someone with zero experience in physics commenting on Global Warming?


Fair enough then, I can agree with that. And being that I agree, the global warming comment doesn't apply :p

[LordTenacious]

MORE LABELS PLOX.


How nice of you to oblige me Zionist (I just realized the irony of the fact that your name is just another label in these times). Many thanks, good sir.

[Lethn]

You do realize that less than half of the US Federal government revenue comes from income taxation right? Which is still a fuckton of money. Your post reads like you don't and is thus completely incorrect and stupid.

gg but if you didn't realize Obama's talking about taxing the wealthy not just middle/lower classes so that will probably mean that he will be lowering taxes for those on lower incomes in order to balance things out some more and keep people happy, though then again I'm not saying I trust the idiot because I don't trust any politicians currently in power, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries also have income tax.

The main problem is though that both countries of ours have very piss annoying governments because we are only offered two extremes but as the election dates get closer and closer it's absolutely obvious that they're both wanting the same sorts of things, not only that when it comes to conservatism these days everything pretty much revolves around tax cutting the fuck out of everything and running the country into the ground because it can't support itself. I'd personally take the democrats any day because at least they'd actually try to sort out this tax issue instead of making everything stay the way it is, also I don't know exactly what kind of argument you were trying to make by saying my post was incorrect and stupid as you didn't even bother trying to make any real point.

Also I'd like to point out that even if people are being taxed anyway it's actually been reported and we've also had news posted here about huge corporations not even bothering to pay their taxes so if you look at it that way if the only people who are paying their taxes are the little guy who can barely pay it off anyway then the government itself isn't actually going to be making money with these kind of taxes because if the people being taxed get in debt then the government itself is just going to get in debt.

[Phaethor]

The Rich (Those making over $365,000 USD per year) do pay roughly 60 percent of the taxes collected. But what the supporters of Tax Relief for the Rich fail to mention is they make about 90% of the income. So the bottom 40% of the Tax Payers only make 10% of the total Taxable income. In essence the lower and middle income citizens are picking up the slack created by Tax Shelters for the rich.

Letting the Tax Shelters to maintain their anonymity and keeping the Tax Relief on the Top 90% of Income earners is robbing the US economy of a large portion of revenue.

Whether you agree that the revenue earned from those missing taxes should go towards one program or another is pointless until the money can actually be taxed.

Best,

Phae

[Zionist]

You just said Japan won't trade with us. Sony is a Japanese corporation. So, unless you just completely misspoke, what you said was completely incorrect.

And as someone that's actually been to Japan as a US military member, I had no problems buying anything I wanted.

Please keep saying stupid shit, I'm actually enjoying this.

Wow, what a dumbass.

Japan and Germany are not trading with us because we have troops in their country, they're trading because it's a benifit between like-minded nations.


What I said. Name one time I said Japan and germany never traded with us. GG on reading.


I love it when Republicans get on the internet and play soldier.

[Zionist]

How nice of you to oblige me Zionist (I just realized the irony of the fact that your name is just another label in these times). Many thanks, good sir.


Thank you for ignoring everyone of my points, because you can not refute them. Takes pride to post after such humiliation.

[Matriel]

gg but if you didn't realize Obama's talking about taxing the wealthy not just everyone so that will probably mean that he will be lowering taxes for those on lower incomes in order to balance things out some more and keep people happy, though then again I'm not saying I trust the idiot because I don't trust any politicians currently in power, I'd also like to point out that socialist countries also have income tax.

Oh great, Obama will save me one month a year, so I'll work 4 for the government instead of 5. When I should be working 0. They make plenty of money without income taxation.

Also I'd like to point out that even if people are being taxed anyway it's actually been reported and we've also had news posted here about huge corporations not even bothering to pay their taxes so if you look at it that way if the only people who are paying their taxes are the little guy who can barely pay it off anyway then the government itself isn't actually going to be making money with these kind of taxes because if the people being taxed get in debt then the government itself is just going to get in debt.

Good for those corporations. As someone that understands basic economics, I realize that raised corporate taxes translate to raised costs to me, the end consumer. I'd rather lower prices. And honestly, I wish I could get out of paying taxes just like them.

[LordTenacious]

Yes, you totally called me out Zionist. I am so embarassed. Oh lordy, what am I to do now?

Like I said, no point in even trying to convince you otherwise, all you see the world as is "US V THEM". Black and White. Sonny and Cher.

[Matriel]

Wow, what a dumbass.




What I said. Name one time I said Japan and germany never traded with us. GG on reading.


I love it when Republicans get on the internet and play soldier.

Lawl, republican. I love it when 2 dimensional political idiots try to throw out labels when they have no understanding of 3 dimensional politics.

And after re-reading one of the shittiest written sentences ever, I now understand what you were trying to say (barely). I wish you used English well, so that wouldn't have happened. So, let's go back to how you don't understand how social programs will break us and continue from there.

[Zionist]

Yes, you totally called me out Zionist. I am so embarassed. Oh lordy, what am I to do now?

You could stop spam-trolling and actually come up with a good point? Ahhh...but that would require using your own mind, instead of John McCains

[LordTenacious]

You could stop spam-trolling and actually come up with a good point? Ahhh...but that would require using your own mind, instead of John McCains
I like how you are making my "Troll-spam" right. Do continue.

[Zionist]

Lawl, republican. I love it when 2 dimensional political idiots try to throw out labels when they have no understanding of 3 dimensional politics.

And after re-reading one of the shittiest written sentences ever, I now understand what you were trying to say (barely). I wish you used English well, so that wouldn't have happened. So, let's go back to how you don't understand how social programs will break us and continue from there.

You have no comprehension of foreign policy, much less domestic spending. I would think before calling out politics.

My grammar is fine, it's your fingers hitting the enter key before your brain reads the text that is the problem here.



Good job Mr. online soldier, you serve well.

[Zionist]

Still avoiding talking about the military? Is it a sensitive subject? Yes, I thought so. Do carry on dribbling.

[Lethn]

Good for those corporations. As someone that understands basic economics, I realize that raised corporate taxes translate to raised costs to me, the end consumer. I'd rather lower prices. And honestly, I wish I could get out of paying taxes just like them.

I have finally realized that talking to you is a complete waste of time, you should maybe take some lessons from Ron Paul in economics instead of fox news and yes, I realize that was rather blunt of me but I hope that America gets run into the ground and turned into a confederation of city states because of the debts it can't pay off since I am just sick and fucking tired of trying to explain to idiotic cunts what extreme conservatism does to a country.

Take a look at the history of Britain when Margeret Thatcher and her conservatives ruled and you'll see why, I love how you only posted a few lines in response to my paragraphs as well which makes your arguments all the more moot.

Oh and by the way, if you really do understand basic economics then i'm sure you'd understand the concept of "Buy low/sell high" if a company is offering an item and over charging you for it then move to a different company that is charging less, if a company isn't popular enough then it deserves to get shut down as the product clearly is inferior to other in some way.

[Killuminati]

I have finally realized that talking to you is a complete waste of time, you should maybe take some lessons from Ron Paul in economics instead of fox news and yes, I realize that was rather blunt of me but I hope that America gets run into the ground and turned into a confederation of city states because of the debts it can't pay off since I am just sick and fucking tired of trying to explain to idiotic cunts what extreme conservatism does to a country.

Take a look at the history of Britain when Margeret Thatcher and her conservatives ruled and you'll see why.

Ron Paul would agree :p

[Septus]

Lawl, republican. I love it when 2 dimensional political idiots try to throw out labels when they have no understanding of 3 dimensional politics.

And after re-reading one of the shittiest written sentences ever, I now understand what you were trying to say (barely). I wish you used English well, so that wouldn't have happened. So, let's go back to how you don't understand how social programs will break us and continue from there.

Actually I understood his sentence instantly and kind of lol'ed at your reply :P Not to say it was a well constructed sentence, but you were obviously in some kind of typing frenzy or something to have missed that.

As for your point, it's not technically social programs that will break us, but deficit spending + "liquidity injection."

You wonder why we have to ship billions of dollars overseas - if we don't popularize our currency around the world, the dollar will be worthless at home the way we're going ;)

[LordTenacious]

Yes I am avoiding it. You can't see it, but I am cowering in fear under my desk.

Or it could be because I know that unless I fall under your party line it's pointless to try and have a discussion with you.

Does anyone else wonder why this discussion went down the tubes the second Zionist showed up?

[Matriel]

You have no comprehension of foreign policy, much less domestic spending. I would think before calling out politics.

Oh really. You're the one talking about shit that you have no understanding of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vJaHBkUEpk

Please educate yourself.

My grammar is fine, it's your fingers hitting the enter key before your brain reads the text that is the problem here.

Sure thing there Mr. "benifit." :lmao:


Good job Mr. online soldier, you serve well.

I've been eating stupid noobs like you for years.

[Matriel]

Actually I understood his sentence instantly and kind of lol'ed at your reply :P Not to say it was a well constructed sentence, but you were obviously in some kind of typing frenzy or something to have missed that.

As for your point, it's not technically social programs that will break us, but deficit spending + "liquidity injection."

You wonder why we have to ship billions of dollars overseas - if we don't popularize our currency around the world, the dollar will be worthless at home the way we're going ;)

Yes, it is exactly social programs that will break us. Excuse me while I trust the Comptroller General over some guy that doesn't understand how the Constitution works.

[Matriel]

I have finally realized that talking to you is a complete waste of time, you should maybe take some lessons from Ron Paul in economics instead of fox news and yes, I realize that was rather blunt of me but I hope that America gets run into the ground and turned into a confederation of city states because of the debts it can't pay off since I am just sick and fucking tired of trying to explain to idiotic cunts what extreme conservatism does to a country.

Take a look at the history of Britain when Margeret Thatcher and her conservatives ruled and you'll see why, I love how you only posted a few lines in response to my paragraphs as well which makes your arguments all the more moot.

Ron Paul would agree :p

I love how dumbass Lethn threw Ron Paul out there and had no understanding of the things he's said. Rofl.

[Lethn]

And I love how dumbass Matriel yet again only wrote a couple of lines, you must be running out of insults.

[Septus]

Yes, it is exactly social programs that will break us. Excuse me while I trust the Comptroller General over some guy that doesn't understand how the Constitution works.

If you're some constitution pro then why don't you go to the government and show them the truth? My guess is you'd be swallowed up by reality; it's a little easier to say "lol obviously my interpretation is correct, stupid guberment."

I'm actually against federal social programs, but it's pure stupid to pretend that our problems are "this dollar's fault" and not "that dollar's fault."

The main problem with our current social programs is that we fund it through debt and inflation rather than taxation, so every dollar we dole out weakens the very dollar we give out.

[jonyak]

If you're some constitution pro then why don't you go to the government and show them the truth? My guess is you'd be swallowed up by reality; it's a little easier to say "lol obviously my interpretation is correct, stupid guberment."

I'm actually against federal social programs, but it's pure stupid to pretend that our problems are "this dollar's fault" and not "that dollar's fault."

The main problem with our current social programs is that we fund it through debt and inflation rather than taxation, so every dollar we dole out weakens the very dollar we give out.

that would mean he would actualy have to do something and back up his talk. thats somethign alot of libertarians on this board won't do... when it comes time to act they don't. its all talk.

[Zionist]

Oh really. You're the one talking about shit that you have no understanding of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vJaHBkUEpk

Please educate yourself.



Sure thing there Mr. "benifit." :lmao:




I've been eating stupid noobs like you for years.


http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoEh7d0Rka8-Cost of the Wars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQp48idGrZA Iraq


One typo in one word is a horrendous sentence? Or are your fingers just to big for the keys?


Noobs? Hahahaha....wow. Didn't know that was soldier lingo.

[Matriel]

And I love how dumbass Matriel yet again only wrote a couple of lines, you must be running out of insults.

Why would I need to write more than a couple of lines? Your entire argument was incorrect from the start. Ron Paul has made public statements that agree with what I just posted to you and you tried to tell me that I should listen to him about the subject. Stupidity like that doesn't deserve a result.

If you're some constitution pro then why don't you go to the government and show them the truth? My guess is you'd be swallowed up by reality; it's a little easier to say "lol obviously my interpretation is correct, stupid guberment."

Lol, if people that have been in Washington speaking the truth for decades can't get it done, why would I waste my time? There's enough insanity in this world without me trying the same thing and expecting a different result.

I'm actually against federal social programs, but it's pure stupid to pretend that our problems are "this dollar's fault" and not "that dollar's fault."

Let's see. One program promises benefits to the largest and fastest growing demographic in America, while the following demographic is much smaller, but has to pay for it. Right, it must simply be the deevaluation of the dollar at fault. I agree that's a problem, but saying it's the only problem is stupid. Especially when experts are saying the same thing I am.

The main problem with our current social programs is that we fund it through debt and inflation rather than taxation, so every dollar we dole out weakens the very dollar we give out.

The very debt issue is because we're spending too fucking much on social programs to begin with.

[Killuminati]

that would mean he would actualy have to do something and back up his talk. thats somethign alot of libertarians on this board won't do... when it comes time to act they don't. its all talk.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you proposing that I wear all pink, and run into congress screaming, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!111"

[Zionist]

Yes I am avoiding it. You can't see it, but I am cowering in fear under my desk.

Or it could be because I know that unless I fall under your party line it's pointless to try and have a discussion with you.

Does anyone else wonder why this discussion went down the tubes the second Zionist showed up?

You usually believe the discussion has gone down the tube when unable to form any real counter-point. It's your class-act from what I've seen.

[Matriel]

that would mean he would actualy have to do something and back up his talk. thats somethign alot of libertarians on this board won't do... when it comes time to act they don't. its all talk.

So, you've got cameras in my house to know how active I have been in getting government changed? Or do you just like looking at my dick? Basically, you're just barking off, but big surprise there.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Was there a point that went with this? US military spending is nowhere near the biggest piece of the pie in the budget.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoEh7d0Rka8-Cost of the Wars

This is broken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQp48idGrZA-Iraq

This is also broken. Please stop being so stupid.


One typo in one word is a horrendous sentence? Or are your fingers just to big for the keys?

The sentence read very poorly outside of your shitty spelling error. I'd believe it was a typo if e wasn't across the fucking keybord from i.


Noobs? Hahahaha....wow. Didn't know that was soldier lingo.

You are a noob.

I was not a soldier.

[Lethn]

Why would I need to write more than a couple of lines? Your entire argument was incorrect from the start. Ron Paul has made public statements that agree with what I just posted to you and you tried to tell me that I should listen to him about the subject. Stupidity like that doesn't deserve a result.

Oh gawd! Really?! Care to actually make a link where he's said that Matriel is right and socialism should be destroyed? Has he said that? Noooo, in fact from what I've watched of Ron Paul he seems to be very in favour of the states having more power to themselves and less government interference but then again he is also very pro-freedom, he also thinks that Americas currency should be backed by gold again but nowhere have I seen him say that socialism is a bad idea he says he doesn't believe in barack obama because he thinks change is just a word, but honestly! Feel free to link me a vid lol :D

Oh and cry more n00b.

[Matriel]

Oh gawd! Really?! Care to actually make a link where he's said that Matriel is right and socialism should be destroyed? Has he said that? Noooo, in fact from what I've watched of Ron Paul he seems to be very in favour of the states having more power to themselves and less government interference but then again he is also very pro-freedom, he also thinks that Americas currency should be backed by gold but nowhere have I seen him say that socialism is a bad idea he says he doesn't believe in barack obama because he thinks change is just a word, but honestly! Feel free to link me a vid lol :D

Granting the states the power the 10th Amendment gives them back, would in fact destroy national socialism at the federal level in America.

Far be it for me to hope you can connect the fucking dots on a simple idea or anything though.

I love how you're trying to tell me Ron Paul's stances like I didn't volunteer for his fucking campaign. Come back here when you have a cursory understanding of the shit he has said. :bang:

[Killuminati]

Was there a point that went with this? US military spending is nowhere near the biggest piece of the pie in the budget.




Its the largest part of discretionary spending.

[Lethn]

I love how you're trying to tell me Ron Paul's stances like I didn't volunteer for his fucking campaign. Come back here when you have a cursory understanding of the shit he has said.

Translation: Wahhh! Wahhh! Wahhh! :)

Just because states would be able to rule themselves doesn't necessarily mean it would destroy communism, in fact because they'd be working in closer and smaller communities it in fact might help foster socialism, not only that, there is in fact a small island quite nearby America that is barely mentioned which has actually quite successfully *gasp* lived under communism for a long time! Holy fuck!

[Septus]

Let's see. One program promises benefits to the largest and fastest growing demographic in America, while the following demographic is much smaller, but has to pay for it. Right, it must simply be the deevaluation of the dollar at fault. I agree that's a problem, but saying it's the only problem is stupid. Especially when experts are saying the same thing I am.

Since you like pointing out bad spelling, "deevaluation" lolol.

Experts are saying we can't afford the spending on our current track. If you make $10 and spend $15, obviously you can't fucking afford it, I'm not even contesting that.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. A poor guy works for $20k a year. The government prints $10k and gives it to him. What is his real gain? If you said absolutely nothing, you're absolutely right.

Not only that, you've diminished the guy's future earnings as well (ie. why our minimum wage is actually a year by year pay cut) and paved the way for price inflation.

There are plenty of other countries with welfare systems that don't destroy their economy (and offer way better services). Canada pulls a fucking SURPLUS if I recall correctly.

[Zionist]

So, you've got cameras in my house to know how active I have been in getting government changed? Or do you just like looking at my dick? Basically, you're just barking off, but big surprise there.



Was there a point that went with this? US military spending is nowhere near the biggest piece of the pie in the budget.




This is broken.



This is also broken. Please stop being so stupid.




The sentence read very poorly outside of your shitty spelling error. I'd believe it was a typo if e wasn't across the fucking keybord from i.




You are a noob.

I was not a soldier.


It is. Did you not look at the charts? Or are you bullshitting again? Military spending has rocketed since 2001, and in 2009 will put most of the world to shame for wasteful spending.


But go on, entertain me with the idea that nobody should have health coverage, welfare, or social security.


Fixed the links, watch them.


You forgot to capitalize on both single letters.


So you admit you are a liar about being a soldier? Thank you.

[Matriel]

Its the largest part of discretionary spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html

Which is such a large chunk. :rolleyes:

The interventionist foreign policy is completely retarded. However, let's focus on shit that is actually really fucked up instead of an easy scapegoat by dummies.

Translation: Wahhh! Wahhh! Wahhh! :)

Translation you got fucking owned because you don't know shit about Ron Paul and tried to lecture me about it. Probably crying into your hair right now like a girl.

[Septus]

Granting the states the power the 10th Amendment gives them back, would in fact destroy national socialism at the federal level in America.

So we went from "socialism" to "national socialism at the federal level?" Local social programs still count as socialism imo - just more likely to be efficient.

[Zionist]

It's apparent that you would rather sink every domestic program in the country before even cutting one slice into the military budget, we get it already.

[Lethn]

Translation you got fucking owned because you don't know shit about Ron Paul and tried to lecture me about it. Probably crying into your hair right now like a girl.

I'm actually having a hell of a time right now because I got some work done today and I'm feeling in a good mood, plus your losing more and more basis' for your arguments by the minute lol in fact your not coming up with anything at all.

[Matriel]

Since you like pointing out bad spelling, "deevaluation" lolol.

Oh noes, I missed the space bar. That's the same as completely misspelling words!

Not only that, you've diminished the guy's future earnings as well (ie. why our minimum wage is actually a year by year pay cut) and paved the way for price inflation.

At least we agree that minimum wage is stupid.

There are plenty of other countries with welfare systems that don't destroy their economy (and offer way better services). Canada pulls a fucking SURPLUS if I recall correctly.

Canada has 8 people. :p Not a good comparison. Which is why it should be left to the States like the 10th Amendment dictated.

It is. Did you not look at the charts? Or are you bullshitting again? Military spending has rocketed since 2001, and in 2009 will put most of the world to shame for wasteful spending.

You mean US military spending went up while we were in a war? OMG.

Being the only country in the world that can actually force project tells me that not all of it is wasted...


But go on, entertain me with the idea that nobody should have health coverage, welfare, or social security.

This country prospered very well when none of those programs existed. But hey, 200 years later with no amendings of the Constitution, suddenly these things are rights. :bang:


So you admit you are a liar about being a soldier? Thank you.

No, I was a Marine. Not a soldier. I never once stated I was a soldier.

[Zionist]

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm


"U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one."

Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, http://old.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002279.php

[Uzik]

We should sell all our weapons in order to finance welfare IMO

[Lethn]

But Matriel wubs his second amendment rights Uzik! :rolleyes:

[Matriel]

So we went from "socialism" to "national socialism at the federal level?" Local social programs still count as socialism imo - just more likely to be efficient.

Show me where I stated just socialism in this thread that wasn't directly pointing out national socialism at a federal level? Make up my posts for me please!

It's apparent that you would rather sink every domestic program in the country before even cutting one slice into the military budget, we get it already.

It's apparent that you like making up my arguments for me. I'm for cutting back military spending, adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy, and getting rid of all federal social programs because they are fucked. All of that would free up more than enough funds to do away with the income tax.

I'm actually having a hell of a time right now because I got some work done today and I'm feeling in a good mood, plus your losing more and more basis' for your arguments by the minute lol in fact your not coming up with anything at all.

Okay kid. Let me know when you actually understand what Ron Paul is/was talking about. Then we'll have a discussion. It will require some reading though.

[Matriel]

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm


"U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one."

Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, http://old.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002279.php

Comparing the US military to other countries that have no ability to force project like it's an honest comparison is quite hilarious.

[Lethn]

Okay kid. Let me know when you actually understand what Ron Paul is/was talking about. Then we'll have a discussion. It will require some reading though.

Oooooo kid, did I just manage to anger you? That's usually what adults start doing when they can't even back up their arguments against someone younger than them, though I'm actually 18 so legally in countries I'm an adult lawl!

How about you perhaps start telling me what I've said about Ron Paul is wrong then? I noticed that you completely dodged the arguments after I pointed out all these things about him to you.

[Zionist]

Oh noes, I missed the space bar. That's the same as completely misspelling words!



At least we agree that minimum wage is stupid.



Canada has 8 people. :p Not a good comparison. Which is why it should be left to the States like the 10th Amendment dictated.



You mean US military spending went up while we were in a war? OMG.

Being the only country in the world that can actually force project tells me that not all of it is wasted...




This country prospered very well when none of those programs existed. But hey, 200 years later with no amendings of the Constitution, suddenly these things are rights. :bang:




No, I was a Marine. Not a soldier. I never once stated I was a soldier.


Yes, wars there were "OMG" lies. Unless you have some WMD's to show me.


Things have kind of changed since the days we were getting around on 2 horse power. Unless you can eliminate disease, poverty, drugs, and age?


Yes, you did. You claimed you were also statione din Japan. Keyboard warriors don't really tilt me.

[Zionist]

Comparing the US military to other countries that have no ability to force project like it's an honest comparison is quite hilarious.

Oh...now we can't compare military budgets? We can compare healthcare and social security though right? I wonder how much more information you're going to ignore. Pretty much all you're willing to listen to his Bush, McCain, and the GAO.

Now much for an open mind.

[Matriel]

Yes, wars there were "OMG" lies. Unless you have some WMD's to show me.

The basis for the war in Iraq doesn't change that it existed and costs money. I'm not even talking about the war. I certainly don't support it. Please stop saying stupid shit.

Things have kind of changed since the days we were getting around on 2 horse power. Unless you can eliminate disease, poverty, drugs, and age?

Then amend the US constitution to say that these things are now rights. The process was clearly put in place. It has been amended in the past. Everyone thinks the rules shouldn't apply as long as it's something they support.


Yes, you did. You claimed you were also statione din Japan. Keyboard warriors don't really tilt me.

Yes, I went through 2 exercises in Japan. One in Okinawa and the other at Iwakuni. I never once stated I was a soldier. If you can point out where I said I was a soldier, I'll paypal you money you dumb son of a bitch.

[palo god]

No, actually mainstream economics preaches that the income tax is a source of stability and economic growth.

You would have to be completely retarded to believe that.

[Lethn]

To be fair he did actually state he served as a marine lawl

Oh and Matriel, care to give me a link to a video stating what I said about Ron Paul was false? Honestyl, I don't mind being proved wrong with genuine proof.

p.s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

Oh and note he says that the current economic system is "Designed for the elite"

[Zionist]

The basis for the war in Iraq doesn't change that it existed and costs money. I'm not even talking about the war. I certainly don't support it. Please stop saying stupid shit.



Then amend the US constitution to say that these things are now rights. The process was clearly put in place. It has been amended in the past. Everyone thinks the rules shouldn't apply as long as it's something they support.




Yes, I went through 2 exercises in Japan. One in Okinawa and the other at Iwakuni. I never once stated I was a soldier. If you can point out where I said I was a soldier, I'll paypal you money you dumb son of a bitch.


Nope, we can't change money spent, yet you support more money going into the war. I guess that contradicts your "anti war stance".


Hehe, yeah, we need the Constitution to setup for us basic government and state programs in the 21st century. Boy, if you people get your way we're going to become like the Soviet Union.


Hang on just a second Mr. soldier/marine/online warrior.


And as someone that's actually been to Japan as a US military member, I had no problems buying anything I wanted.

[Matriel]

Oooooo kid, did I just manage to anger you? That's usually what adults start doing when they can't even back up their arguments against someone younger than them, though I'm actually 18 so legally in countries I'm an adult lawl!

I called you a kid because you're being a stupid kid. You haven't made an argument in 5 or 6 posts.

How about you perhaps start telling me what I've said about Ron Paul is wrong then? I noticed that you completely dodged the arguments after I pointed out all these things about him to you.

You said what I said was incorrect and that I should listen to Ron Paul. When that statement is one that Ron Paul has himself said in so many words.

You can point out his stances to me (most of which I share) all fucking day, but that never becomes an argument that he doesn't believe in income taxation on the individual or on massive corporation taxation. Ever. It's not even an argument. You're just pointing out other things he believes in. Woop de fucking do.

Oh...now we can't compare military budgets? We can compare healthcare and social security though right? I wonder how much more information you're going to ignore. Pretty much all you're willing to listen to his Bush, McCain, and the GAO.

Now much for an open mind.

When did I say you couldn't compare budgets? I said that comparing them is not an honest comparison. Zomg, the US has a much higher per capita budget than Norway. But then again, the US can fucking force project, which costs money. No one else can. The closest is the UK.

Lol, typical reponse, Bush and McCain. People I don't support and have never voted for. I love when you little 2 dimensional political noobs run out of gas and throw out your typical other party insults.

[Zionist]

Soldier and not marine?


"A soldier is a general English term that refers to a member of a land component of national armed forces. In most societies of the world, "soldier" is also a general term for any member of the land forces including commissioned or Non-commissioned officers."


That's just petty isn't it? Definitions>Neo-conservatives


Still waiting for proof on that though.

[Matriel]

T
Oh and Matriel, care to give me a link to a video stating what I said about Ron Paul was false? Honestyl, I don't mind being proved wrong with genuine proof.

p.s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

Oh and note he says that the current economic system is "Designed for the elite"

"you should maybe take some lessons from Ron Paul in economics instead of fox news "

I was espousing Ron Paul economics you fucking dunce. You would know this if you had read any of his books and gotten past shallow youtube videos that barely break the surface of his stances.

Nope, we can't change money spent, yet you support more money going into the war. I guess that contradicts your "anti war stance".

Where did I say I support more money going into war? Show it to me.

I said I want to stop the programs that will bankrupt us more than anything, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, you can't do this two sided bullshit argument stuff with me. Just because I'm against one thing, doesn't make me for another. I'm calling a spade a spade.


Hehe, yeah, we need the Constitution to setup for us basic government and state programs in the 21st century. Boy, if you people get your way we're going to become like the Soviet Union.

Then amend the one we have. The process was set in place.

Hang on just a second Mr. soldier/marine/online warrior.

Marine. It has been stated several times. Please try to understand English.

[Matriel]

Soldier and not marine?


"A soldier is a general English term that refers to a member of a land component of national armed forces. In most societies of the world, "soldier" is also a general term for any member of the land forces including commissioned or Non-commissioned officers."


That's just petty isn't it? Definitions>Neo-conservatives


Still waiting for proof on that though.

Yes, please keep telling me how US Marine culture works like you have a fucking clue.

Marines are not soldiers. A soldier is a member of the US Army. Airmen are members of the US Air Force. Sailors are members of the US Navy. Marines are part of the US Marine Corps.

Better idea. Go to the nearest Marine base and tell them they are all soldiers for me. Enjoy your ass beating.

[Zionist]

When did I say you couldn't compare budgets? I said that comparing them is not an honest comparison. Zomg, the US has a much higher per capita budget than Norway. But then again, the US can fucking force project, which costs money. No one else can. The closest is the UK.

Lol, typical reponse, Bush and McCain. People I don't support and have never voted for. I love when you little 2 dimensional political noobs run out of gas and throw out your typical other party insults.

Hahaha...wow. Yes, let's ignore all the graphs and statistics detailing how much money we blow vs. every othe rnation on earth. Are you saying the U.S. does not spend an enormous amount of money on it's military? Mor ethen the 10 nations behind us combined?


It's true. You only listen to what they say. Anything else you call "socialist propaganda". Which is why time and time again you've said the military budget is fine. Calling a spade a spade, won't sugarcoat it for you.

[Matriel]

Hahaha...wow. Yes, let's ignore all the graphs and statistics detailing how much money we blow vs. every othe rnation on earth. Are you saying the U.S. does not spend an enormous amount of money on it's military? Mor ethen the 10 nations behind us combined?

I never said the US doesn't spend an enormous amoutn of money on the military. I said comparing the US military budget against countries that can't force project is stupid. If you want to make the argument that we need to have a non-interventionist foreign policy and not need the power to force project and thus spend less money that's an argument. Saying the other 10 countries don't spend as much as we do is just stupid repeatings that you got from someone.

Oh noes, I spend 10 times more than my neighbor on video games. I'd better nerf my video game budget. Fucking stupidest arguments ever.


It's true. You only listen to what they say. Anything else you call "socialist propaganda". Which is why time and time again you've said the military budget is fine. Calling a spade a spade, won't sugarcoat it for you.

Please point out where I said socialist propaganda. I'll wait all day for you to produce some of these magical posts I've supposedly put on these forums.

I've said the military budget isn't the biggest fiscal problem the US has and it is not. Only fucking morons parrot that shit.

[Zionist]

"you should maybe take some lessons from Ron Paul in economics instead of fox news "

I was espousing Ron Paul economics you fucking dunce. You would know this if you had read any of his books and gotten past shallow youtube videos that barely break the surface of his stances.



Where did I say I support more money going into war? Show it to me.

I said I want to stop the programs that will bankrupt us more than anything, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, you can't do this two sided bullshit argument stuff with me. Just because I'm against one thing, doesn't make me for another. I'm calling a spade a spade.




Then amend the one we have. The process was set in place.



Marine. It has been stated several times. Please try to understand English.


You said the military budget did not need cutting vs. Medicare, social security, or welfare. The Iraq war is part of that budget, believe it or not. As I said, you would sooner sink the entire state programs of the United States then touch the military's fat wallet.


We don't need a constitutional amendment for approval to provide basic public services.


Read my definition.

[Lethn]

I said I want to stop the programs that will bankrupt us more than anything, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, you can't do this two sided bullshit argument stuff with me. Just because I'm against one thing, doesn't make me for another. I'm calling a spade a spade.

Oh my fucking god, did you just say that? :D That seriously just proved what your saying is bullshit, Ron Paul has stated several times in his videos on television and in interviews that it is in fact the artificial inflation of the economy and the fact that people are relying on paper money that isn't backed by anything real, where as YOU have been saying it is the fault of socialist programs, there's a huge difference in what you two are saying and you can go mouthing off denying my words as bullshit but I think I pretty much proved you wrong on this one.

Also I never said anything about you being two sided, I said the government itself is two sided, you however are acting exactly like a neo-conservative.

[Septus]

Oh noes, I missed the space bar. That's the same as completely misspelling words!

The word you were looking for was devaluation. Not de evaluation (space bar?).



At least we agree that minimum wage is stupid.

I don't know if I'd go that far, it definitely ensures a decent standard of living. It's just completely useless in our current framework since our inflationary spending rapes it. (By inflationary I mean injecting new liquidity, not spending that is accounted for via taxation).

An alternative could be to just abolish minimum wage in favor of some other form of increased govt. revenue to fund education/training programs for said poor folk, or simply have promote better fiscal policy so that $1 is actually worth something; but that reveals the true dilemma: We need poor, stupid people to stay poor and stupid or else no one will be left to do the menial work for the minimal cost we're accustomed to.


Canada has 8 people. :p Not a good comparison. Which is why it should be left to the States like the 10th Amendment dictated.

That's besides the point. Their program is paid for CORRECTLY so it isn't a destructive force on their economy.

That is exactly the opposite of what you assume.

[mantoe]

It is quite entertaining to read Matriel's thorough trouncing of Senor Zionist. However, do any of you remember that old locked thread (too lazy to link) where Surly and Sr. Zionist argued for pages about Hitler?
It's apparent that you like making up my arguments for me.
Matriel, you just said it right there. Surly noted the same. The boy's eyes see what they want to see and then his brain "processes" the information to fit his narrow tunnel view of reality. You just can't open some peoples' eyes to see outside of their safety nets. You can try though, and I am enjoying this thread.

[Zionist]

Yes, please keep telling me how US Marine culture works like you have a fucking clue.

Marines are not soldiers. A soldier is a member of the US Army. Airmen are members of the US Air Force. Sailors are members of the US Navy. Marines are part of the US Marine Corps.

Better idea. Go to the nearest Marine base and tell them they are all soldiers for me. Enjoy your ass beating.


Marine culture? So far none of us even have proof you are part of that culture.


If Marines don't know the definition of soldier then I think I have more to fear then an ass beating. Though, I think they do know the definition, but you do not.

[Lethn]

It is quite entertaining to read Matriel's thorough trouncing of Senor Zionist. However, do any of you remember that old locked thread (too lazy to link) where Surly and Sr. Zionist argued for pages about Hitler?

Matriel, you just said it right there. Surly noted the same. The boy's eyes see what they want to see and then his brain "processes" the information to fit his narrow tunnel view of reality. You just can't open some peoples' eyes to see outside of their safety nets. You can try though, and I am enjoying this thread.

Zionist does tend to put words into other peoples mouths quite a bit, but at least I come up with decent stuff, that's why Matriels clearly having such a hard time replying to me ;)

[Zionist]

Ahh...another member of TDBC come to the rescue? Is that entire group built on Judeophobic right-wing Republicans?

[Exidium]

Obviously the solution is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Why do our corporations need to be competitive in the world market anyways?

I would much rather give that money to some 18 year old who couldn't keep her legs closed/use a condom and got knocked up a few times.

qft. We think alike bro. I guess that is why we wind up in the same threads arguing with the same dipshits.

[Zionist]

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending


I post the links, you ignore.


Neo-con mantra:

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spends more money on the military then the leading 10 nations behind us.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spent over 2 trillion dollars thus far on the Iraq War.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. sends money to Egypt, Israel, Clolumbia, Saudi Arabia, and other nations who do not need it.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spends 47% of the world's military budget, but only makes up 21% of it's GDP.

Ignore the fact that billions of dollars are spent each year in occupation of over 80 countries


Ignore it all, and hope it goes away.



Edit.

[Lethn]

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor in my view is a silly concept... Now taking from the rich and giving to the hard working however.

[Matriel]

You said the military budget did not need cutting vs. Medicare, social security, or welfare. The Iraq war is part of that budget, believe it or not. As I said, you would sooner sink the entire state programs of the United States then touch the military's fat wallet.

Where did I say that? Stop fucking making shit up.


We don't need a constitutional amendment for approval to provide basic public services.

Welfare, healthcare, etc are more than basic public services. Anything not expressly granted to the Fed was granted to the states. 10th amendment.

Read my definition.

Yes, the one where you told me how the US military works. Right.

Oh my fucking god, did you just say that? :D That seriously just proved what your saying is bullshit, Ron Paul has stated several times in his videos on television and in interviews that it is in fact the artificial inflation of the economy and the fact that people are relying on paper money that isn't backed by anything real, where as YOU have been saying it is the fault of socialist programs, there's a huge difference in what you two are saying and you can go mouthing off denying my words as bullshit but I think I pretty much proved you wrong on this one.

Does it hurt your brain to be so aggressively stupid? 1) I've stated in this thread that inflation is a problem. 2) What I've stated about these programs is that they will break us. I linked a video about it, you should watch us. Even if inflation stopped today, these programs would still bankrupt the government in the future because of the demographic changes of the US.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

Read that fuckface. Enjoy.


I don't know if I'd go that far, it definitely ensures a decent standard of living. It's just completely useless in our current framework since our inflationary spending rapes it. (By inflationary I mean injecting new liquidity, not spending that is accounted for via taxation).

It doesn't enforce a standard of living. It just pushes the standard down when all the costs are moved around with the associated wage changes.

An alternative could be to just abolish minimum wage in favor of some other form of increased govt. revenue to fund education/training programs for said poor folk, but that reveals the true dilemma: We need poor, stupid people to stay poor and stupid or else no one will be left to do the menial work for the minimal cost we're accustomed to.

People that want to better themselves will.


That's besides the point. Their program is paid for CORRECTLY so it isn't a destructive force on their economy.

That is exactly the opposite of what you assume.

It is paid for in a system that's nowhere near as big with very few people. Canada also doesn't have the quite looming Baby Boomer destruction cloud coming either.

I've stated on these forums before that socialism type shit works in localized levels where it can stay moderately efficient. The US Federal Government is not one of those as shown by our current budget nightmares and inefficiencies. Programs with billion dollar budgets that can't keep e coli off the shelves.

[Matriel]

Marine culture? So far none of us even have proof you are part of that culture.

Lol, from the guy that says Marines are soldiers. Rofl. I'm sure some of the other former Marines on here can chime in on that bullshit soon enough.

If Marines don't know the definition of soldier then I think I have more to fear then an ass beating. Though, I think they do know the definition, but you do not.

Marines are not soldiers. Please, seriously go to the nearest Marine base and try to educate them for me.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Lol, I liked how the site redid the entire pie chart, linked the official pie chart and said it was wrong. That's awesome.


Neo-con mantra:

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spends more money on the military then the leading 10 nations behind us.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spent over 2 trillion dollars thus far on the Iraq War.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. sends money to Egypt, Israel, Clolumbia, Saudi Arabia, and other nations who do not need it.

Ignore the fact that the U.S. spends 47% of the world's military budget, but only makes up 21% of it's GDP.

Ignore the fact that billions of dollars are spent each year in occupation of over 80 countries


Ignore it all, and hope it goes away.



Edit.

Please point out where I said any of that was untrue? Again for those of us that can read simple English, I've stated that US defense spending is far from our biggest fiscal problem. Which is completely backed up by the GAO...

[Lethn]

Does it hurt your brain to be so aggressively stupid? 1) I've stated in this thread that inflation is a problem. 2) What I've stated about these programs is that they will break us. I linked a video about it, you should watch us. Even if inflation stopped today, these programs would still bankrupt the government in the future because of the demographic changes of the US.

One thing you certainly have to bear in mind is that I never said that socialist programs were the answer to all the inflation problems, but your saying and you have been saying that socialist programs should be destroyed completely and that is utter bullshit, it has been proven in several countries that healthcare and education programs do work so you've pretty much brought us back to square one because this is exactly where we started and if you weren't so much of a moron that likes to think that tax cutting the fuck out of everything is also a good idea even though everyone may actually need these types of things in a financial crisis.

I'm seriously going to laugh if you end up breaking your leg or something during an inflation and post a complaint here about it because you couldn't get any healthcare and are going to have to hop on one leg for the rest of your life.

[Zionist]

Where did I say that? Stop fucking making shit up.




Welfare, healthcare, etc are more than basic public services. Anything not expressly granted to the Fed was granted to the states. 10th amendment.



Yes, the one where you told me how the US military works. Right.



Does it hurt your brain to be so aggressively stupid? 1) I've stated in this thread that inflation is a problem. 2) What I've stated about these programs is that they will break us. I linked a video about it, you should watch us. Even if inflation stopped today, these programs would still bankrupt the government in the future because of the demographic changes of the US.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

Read that fuckface. Enjoy.




It doesn't enforce a standard of living. It just pushes the standard down when all the costs are moved around with the associated wage changes.



People that want to better themselves will.




It is paid for in a system that's nowhere near as big with very few people. Canada also doesn't have the quite looming Baby Boomer destruction cloud coming either.

I've stated on these forums before that socialism type shit works in localized levels where it can stay moderately efficient. The US Federal Government is not one of those as shown by our current budget nightmares and inefficiencies. Programs with billion dollar budgets that can't keep e coli off the shelves.


That must be why the GAO is screaming that military spending is going to bankrupt us by 2019 or so. Oh wait, that's because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.


Check-mate. And I believe it's you who claimed I said Japan never trades with America. Hypocrite?


States-ponsored programs include social welfare. When the Feds handled it, it got fucked up. No constitutional amendment forbids the federals from handleing these programs.


The definition of military branches outweighs your beliefs.



Military spending isn't the only thing that causes inflation smartass, and I never said it was. I said social progrmas need a cut, but the military needs a big slash.


The U.S. accounts for more global military spending then contribution in GDP. That's an overlap.


I never said the Federal government handled social programs well, infact, I stated the opposite.

[Matriel]

One thing you certainly have to bear in mind is that I never said that socialist programs were the answer to all the inflation problems, but your saying and you have been saying that socialist programs should be destroyed completely and that is utter bullshit, it has been proven in several countries that healthcare and education programs do work so you've pretty much brought us back to square one because this is exactly where we started and if you weren't so much of a moron that likes to think that tax cutting the fuck out of everything is also a good idea even though everyone may actually need these types of things in a financial crisis.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

Read please.

I'm seriously going to laugh if you end up breaking your leg or something during an inflation and post a complaint here about it because you couldn't get any healthcare and are going to have to hop on one leg for the rest of your life.

I have great healthcare because I'm successful. Sucks for you.

[Lethn]

Awww! You've completely resorted to one liner comments and spamming! how cute! You do realize that if the economy inflates and your money becomes worthless the company who provides your healthcare will get shut down and go bankrupt right? :D

It wouldn't even matter if you were rich and successful because all that money would become worthless overnight.

[Matriel]

Check-mate. And I believe it's you who claimed I said Japan never trades with America. Hypocrite?

Yes, you quoted where I stated which 3 progams were going to bankrupt America. Now, please show me where I said that means we don't need military spending reductions? I'm waiting.


States-ponsored programs include social welfare. When the Feds handled it, it got fucked up. No constitutional amendment forbids the federals from handleing these programs.

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.

Please read.


The definition of military branches outweighs your beliefs.

It isn't an individual belief. It's the belief of the US military.



Military spending isn't the only thing that causes inflation smartass, and I never said it was. I said social progrmas need a cut, but the military needs a big slash.

Military spending isn't what is going to bankrupt us.

The U.S. accounts for more global military spending then contribution in GDP. That's an overlap.


The US is the only country that can force project. So, no fucking shit they spend more than everyone else. :bang:

[surGeonFFS]

Raising taxes is allways bad for the economy, period. That's not to say it isn't a good idea, the economy isn't the be all end all of society. Besides, if you can raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes for the rest then that will probably be better for the economy. Especially a consumer economy like the US'. You also have x billions in debt.

McCain isn't any better on the economy. Obama is still the lesser evil imo.

[Matriel]

Awww! You've completely resorted to one liner comments and spamming! how cute! You do realize that if the economy inflates and your money becomes worthless the company who provides your healthcare will get shut down and go bankrupt right? :D

When are you going to address that Ron Paul agrees with what I said? Since you told me I should start getting my economic advice from Ron Paul and not Fox News like a fucking idiot.

I'm still waiting.

[Zionist]

Lol, from the guy that says Marines are soldiers. Rofl. I'm sure some of the other former Marines on here can chime in on that bullshit soon enough.



Marines are not soldiers. Please, seriously go to the nearest Marine base and try to educate them for me.



Lol, I liked how the site redid the entire pie chart, linked the official pie chart and said it was wrong. That's awesome.




Please point out where I said any of that was untrue? Again for those of us that can read simple English, I've stated that US defense spending is far from our biggest fiscal problem. Which is completely backed up by the GAO...


Yes, we get it already. You're a big-shot marine who believes the dictionary can be compromised by a good online ass beating. E-Hooyah!


Yes, that will work. Tough talk over the internet. Maybe I should also inform those Marine sthat some guy on a gaming off-topic forum is impersonating them.


The chart was updated, not "contradicted". Also, I quoted the ifnormation below the chart section.


Read the above quote of yours. The GAO, the GAO, the GAO...boy, who knew a think-tank was your only linebacker? Hell, according to Ron Paul, the man who you claim to support, says foreign policy has dented u the most.

[Lethn]

Show me where he has stated that socialist programs are a completely bad idea then? He has stated that government spending is bad but where exactly has he stated that states spending money for socialist programs is bad for that matter?

I'm still waiting, go on, prove me wrong.

[Septus]

It doesn't enforce a standard of living. It just pushes the standard down when all the costs are moved around with the associated wage changes.


Yes, costs would attempt to reflect the artificial wage increase, but the poor man in question is still paid more and is not forced to buy products from the company who has to increase its costs to pay him (if that makes any sense).

But obviously this brings to light the problem with trying to have a free global market when various governments have conflicting policy. The only way for us to truly "compete" with said countries is to subject our own population to the opponents' standard of living (dismal).

What I mean is, without a minimum wage, our lower class's standard of living would fall to that of Mexico fairly quickly. There is no reason to hire free humans when we have slave equivalents. We have this problem even now via outsourcing, which I feel a free market does not address (because it's amoral - it has no measure of protection against "slavery").


People that want to better themselves will.

Unless every cent they make goes towards staying alive, in which case the programs have to at least be OFFERED for them.


It is paid for in a system that's nowhere near as big with very few people. Canada also doesn't have the quite looming Baby Boomer destruction cloud coming either.

I've got no disagreements there. Our entire budget (social programs included) have been run like shit. We're going to incur the biggest deficit in all of human history soon (I'm sure we already have, but we're going to set a new record).


I've stated on these forums before that socialism type shit works in localized levels where it can stay moderately efficient. The US Federal Government is not one of those as shown by our current budget nightmares and inefficiencies. Programs with billion dollar budgets that can't keep e coli off the shelves.

Well the inherent problem is that it's hard to win on a "raise taxes" platform, so the government abused inflation because that isn't as readily apparent to the vast majority of people who only pay attention to the amount withheld.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Soldier and not marine?


"A soldier is a general English term that refers to a member of a land component of national armed forces. In most societies of the world, "soldier" is also a general term for any member of the land forces including commissioned or Non-commissioned officers."


That's just petty isn't it? Definitions>Neo-conservatives


Still waiting for proof on that though.

Lol at calling Matriel a neocon...GL on that.

[Matriel]

Yes, we get it already. You're a big-shot marine who believes the dictionary can be compromised by a good online ass beating. E-Hooyah!

Marines don't say hooyah either. That's the faggot ass Army. I love how you have no understanding of the US military, but think you can tell me about it.


Yes, that will work. Tough talk over the internet. Maybe I should also inform those Marine sthat some guy on a gaming off-topic forum is impersonating them.

Yes, I have my DD 214 still numbnuts. As well as a tattoo and pictures. I'm really worried about some clueless hack on the Internet telling me 4 years of my life didn't exist.


The chart was updated, not "contradicted". Also, I quoted the ifnormation below the chart section.

Where was it updated on the .gov websites?


Read the above quote of yours. The GAO, the GAO, the GAO...boy, who knew a think-tank was your only linebacker? Hell, according to Ron Paul, the man who you claim to support, says foreign policy has dented u the most.

Lol, the GAO isn't a think tank. You really should educate yourself.

Also, read up on Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

[Zionist]

Yes, you quoted where I stated which 3 progams were going to bankrupt America. Now, please show me where I said that means we don't need military spending reductions? I'm waiting.




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.

Please read.




It isn't an individual belief. It's the belief of the US military.





Military spending isn't what is going to bankrupt us.



The US is the only country that can force project. So, no fucking shit they spend more than everyone else. :bang:


That was the quote where you made it clear that social programs need cutting, not the military.


Do you know the Federalist papers are? Yeah, they are the forerunners to state control. State-run social progrmas were never guaranteed by the Constitution.


The dictionary should edit itself then to comply with your belief of the belief of the U.S. Military then.


Over-powered military budgets can ruin us, yes they can. The Soviets, although they fell for many reasons, had a fat military budget aswell.


Here we go again with force projection, which doesn't null any of my above statements. So you're syaing force projection accounts for the disgusting amount of military spending.

[Lethn]

Come on then Matriel you shitbag, honestly, where's the stupid and witty responses that have no meaning or basis behind them I've been waiting for?

[Matriel]

Show me where he has stated that socialist programs are a completely bad idea then? He has stated that government spending is bad but where exactly has he stated that states spending money for socialist programs is bad for that matter?

I'm still waiting, go on, prove me wrong.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul80.html

Gosh damn this is so much fun.

Yes, costs would attempt to reflect the artificial wage increase, but the poor man in question is still paid more and is not forced to buy products from the company who has to increase its costs to pay him (if that makes any sense).

Gotta buy it somewhere no?

But obviously this brings to light the problem with trying to have a free global market when various governments have conflicting policy. The only way for us to truly "compete" with said countries is to subject our own population to the opponents' standard of living (dismal).

I'd agree if our standard of living wasn't awesome before we started trying to enforce a standard of living.

What I mean is, without a minimum wage, our lower class's standard of living would fall to that of Mexico fairly quickly. There is no reason to hire free humans when we have slave equivalents. We have this problem even now via outsourcing, which I feel a free market does not address (because it's amoral - it has no measure of protection against "slavery").

You think that people will work as slave equivalents in America? I disagree with that one. That's how unions were formed.


Unless every cent they make goes towards staying alive, in which case the programs have to at least be OFFERED for them.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Forcing me to be responsible for people I have no contact with is wrong.


Well the inherent problem is that it's hard to win on a "raise taxes" platform, so the government abused inflation because that isn't as readily apparent to the vast majority of people who only pay attention to the amount withheld.

Raising taxes isn't the answer. The answer is to stop spending like drunken Marines in Thailand for the first time.

[Lethn]

in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals

I win

[Matriel]

That was the quote where you made it clear that social programs need cutting, not the military.

The quote clearly stated that 3 social programs are going to bankrupt us. That is it. Nothing else was stated except what you've made up.


Do you know the Federalist papers are? Yeah, they are the forerunners to state control. State-run social progrmas were never guaranteed by the Constitution.

Lol, what do the Federalist papers have to do with the 10th amendment. At least the 2nd part of this fractured idea is correct. Social programs were never granted by the Constitution!


Over-powered military budgets can ruin us, yes they can. The Soviets, although they fell for many reasons, had a fat military budget aswell.

Let me know when they can force project. They can't.


Here we go again with force projection, which doesn't null any of my above statements. So you're syaing force projection accounts for the disgusting amount of military spending.

Of course it does if you aren't obtuse. One country has no military capability outside of regional defense and the other can fight anywhere in the world with overwhelming force. Right, let's compare their budgets like that makes sense. :rolleyes:

[Matriel]

I win

No you don't. That's what I've been saying all along. 10th amendment. Only mentioned it like a million times in this thread moron.

[Zionist]

Marines don't say hooyah either. That's the faggot ass Army. I love how you have no understanding of the US military, but think you can tell me about it.




Yes, I have my DD 214 still numbnuts. As well as a tattoo and pictures. I'm really worried about some clueless hack on the Internet telling me 4 years of my life didn't exist.




Where was it updated on the .gov websites?




Lol, the GAO isn't a think tank. You really should educate yourself.

Also, read up on Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html


And I love how people can use fiber optic cables as a means of flashing an e-peen.


*claps* bravo. You read the recruiting pamphlet to! Does that mean I can be an e-marine to? I'm thinking E-Delta Force though. It's much more thrilling.


It's .html, and I didn't see any government sponsored statistics that contradict my findings.


I love how your Mr. Rcokwell and the GAO never relaly discuss the military budget as opposed to economics.


You have one paper of Ron Paul talking about economics, I can find dozens of what he has to say on foreign policy.

[Matriel]

And I love how people can use fiber optic cables as a means of flashing an e-peen.

I didn't say it made me better than you (although I am better than you). I said that it gives me insight on how Japan is because I was there as a military person.

I love how you're so insecure you take anything I say as some kind of e-peen flashing to try and discredit me and thus feel slightly better about how shitty you are.


*claps* bravo. You read the recruiting pamphlet to! Does that mean I can be an e-marine to? I'm thinking E-Delta Force though. It's much more thrilling.

Too.

Go to Parris Island. They'll help you with becoming a Marine.


It's .html, and I didn't see any government sponsored statistics that contradict my findings.

Really. On a random website that totally changed the government's budget chart you didn't see government statistics about it? :lmao:


I love how your Mr. Rcokwell and the GAO never relaly discuss the military budget as opposed to economics.

The GAO has said a lot about military spending. As well as Ron Paul. They've also said that it's not our biggest fiscal issue. Sorry that you can't accept reality.

You have one paper of Ron Paul talking about economics, I can find dozens of what he has to say on foreign policy.

Yeah, find me one that contradicts anything I've said.

[Zionist]

The quote clearly stated that 3 social programs are going to bankrupt us. That is it. Nothing else was stated except what you've made up.




Lol, what do the Federalist papers have to do with the 10th amendment. At least the 2nd part of this fractured idea is correct. Social programs were never granted by the Constitution!




Let me know when they can force project. They can't.




Of course it does if you aren't obtuse. One country has no military capability outside of regional defense and the other can fight anywhere in the world with overwhelming force. Right, let's compare their budgets like that makes sense. :rolleyes:

I claimed the military budget need the biggest cutting, as it was the most useless, and you said otherwise. Therfore, you disagreed and contradicted yourself.


Did you not point out where I linked your argument for social programs to the roots of State powers? The Constitution has put no ban on either the Federal or State programs. Hence why the Federals now control said programs.


The soviets never had force projection? What was Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia all about then? They had global strike power just as the U.S. did.


The only reason the country's behind us are no longer global occupators is because they were thrown out of their own colony's, simple as.


And global occupation fits in the budget aswell, and it needs to end. Unless you want more radical religous fucks hijacking planes.

[Lethn]

Okay, so you've been saying this 10th amendement stuff constantly throughout the thread, but what about this?

I said I want to stop the programs that will bankrupt us more than anything, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

You sir are a hypocrite, because you both say that you'd rather see social programs completely gone but then you go on about how you'd rather there be no taxes at all and that corporations can go ahead and not pay their taxes either when it is in fact pretty much the rich and corporate elite that are supposedly meant to be benifiting from all this.

I think you need to calm down, stop drinking so much caffeine and shooting guns all over the place and take a good look at what your posting before you decide to say that I'm stupid.

p.s. I fucking win you hypocrite, you've been making up bullshit this whole time, I think you need to get your political stances sorted.

[Matriel]

Okay, so you've been saying this 10th amendement stuff constantly throughout the thread, but what about this?

All 3 of those are federal programs....thanks for playing dummy.

You sir are a hypocrite, because you both say that you'd rather see social programs completely gone but then you go on about how you'd rather there be no taxes at all and that corporations can go ahead and not pay their taxes either when it is in fact pretty much the rich and corporate elite that are supposedly meant to be benifiting from all this.

How is that hypocritical? I'm against social programs and the taxes that pay for them... Do you know what hypocrite means or were you just throwing out words that might sound smart and mean?

I think you need to calm down, stop drinking so much caffeine and shooting guns all over the place and take a good look at what your posting before you decide to say that I'm stupid.

p.s. I fucking win you hypocrite.

I don't drink caffeine. I just dislike weenie kids that are ignorant and pretend they know what they are talking about.

[Zionist]

I didn't say it made me better than you (although I am better than you). I said that it gives me insight on how Japan is because I was there as a military person.

I love how you're so insecure you take anything I say as some kind of e-peen flashing to try and discredit me and thus feel slightly better about how shitty you are.




Too.

Go to Parris Island. They'll help you with becoming a Marine.




Really. On a random website that totally changed the government's budget chart you didn't see government statistics about it? :lmao:




The GAO has said a lot about military spending. As well as Ron Paul. They've also said that it's not our biggest fiscal issue. Sorry that you can't accept reality.



Yeah, find me one that contradicts anything I've said.


I'm not the one who has to go declaring myself part of the military on a game forum to make a point about something. I mean really, your whole attmept at flattering me was dumb in the first place because you didn't read what I said about trading with Japan.


Will they beat me up to? Or are you going to whip a mega e-peen statement and threaten to "hunt me down". Only YouTube and FF can provide such quality disgrace.


You didn't notice the link saying "source: For 2001 to 2008 from Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.org"


Contrary, unless Ron Paul's a hypocrite, he did say if we cut spending on an imperialist foreign policy, taxes and other programs could be fixed.


Contradict? Where RP talks about economics and foreign policy?


We'll take this to PM, and let everyone else haggle over BO.

[Matriel]

I'm not the one who has to go declaring myself part of the military on a game forum to make a point about something. I mean really, your whole attmept at flattering me was dumb in the first place because you didn't read what I said about trading with Japan.

If I have life experience with something, it would only make sense to state what that is. Maybe one day you will have life experiences that you can use to relate to things.


Will they beat me up to? Or are you going to whip a mega e-peen statement and threaten to "hunt me down". Only YouTube and FF can provide such quality disgrace.

Yes, Drill Instructors will beat you up. That is part of boot camp afterall.

Lol threaten you? Wtf. You really love making up what people say don't you?


You didn't notice the link saying "source: For 2001 to 2008 from Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.org"

Yes, I'm sure they are giving an unbiased look at military spending.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century. The Center is funded by grants from private foundations and the generosity of thousands of individual donors.


Contrary, unless Ron Paul's a hypocrite, he did say if we cut spending on an imperialist foreign policy, taxes and other programs could be fixed.

Show me a link to him saying that. Show it to me. Cmon.

We'll take this to PM, and let everyone else haggle over BO.

I'm not PMing with your stupid ass. The only reason I'm even responding to you is because it's so easy to make you look retarded.

[Lethn]

How is that hypocritical? I'm against social programs and the taxes that pay for them

What I object to is how you basically meandered about how everything you said is what Ron Paul said, Ron Paul has never said that he is completely against social programs, what he HAS said is that he is against federal spending, when he mentioned the social programs that the federal government had put in he was using them as examples of reasons of why the economy is currently failing.

Your just basically twisting everything Ron Paul has been saying in a pathetic e-peen effort that isn't even working he has never stated that socialist programs are a bad idea, feel free to link me to something that isn't that article that doesn't even back that argument of yours if you want.

[Zionist]

If I have life experience with something, it would only make sense to state what that is. Maybe one day you will have life experiences that you can use to relate to things.




Yes, Drill Instructors will beat you up. That is part of boot camp afterall.

Lol threaten you? Wtf. You really love making up what people say don't you?




Yes, I'm sure they are giving an unbiased look at military spending.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century. The Center is funded by grants from private foundations and the generosity of thousands of individual donors.




Show me a link to him saying that. Show it to me. Cmon.



I'm not PMing with your stupid ass. The only reason I'm even responding to you is because it's so easy to make you look retarded.


Except talking about lifes experience over a fucking pixel screen is about as much fail as you can get. I must've met at LEAST 4 pro-war "military men" on this forum, all with an inability to prove their statements. Funny how you find so many soldier Republicans on ForumFall


Do you know the difference between stating something happened and something might happen? I sense a straw man statement afoot.


Yes, they lobby to reduce the swelling of the big-headed pro-war nutbags in Washington. How dispicable! Anti-war you say?


Very well, I'll collect some videos and texts.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/08/18/how-foreign-policy-affects-gas-prices/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4hKqTikqM



Then you want a derailment? Your way E-Military.

[Matriel]

What I object to is how you basically meandered about how everything you said is what Ron Paul said, Ron Paul has never said that he is completely against social programs, what he HAS said is that he is against federal spending, when he mentioned the social programs that the federal government had put in he was using them as examples of reasons of why the economy is currently failing.

Your just basically twisting everything Ron Paul has been saying in a pathetic e-peen effort that isn't even working he has never stated that socialist programs are a bad idea, feel free to link me to something that isn't that article that doesn't even back that argument of yours if you want.

So, basically you're telling me I'm not a hypocrite and you had no idea what it means. Check.

Btw, from that last link I sent you.

"By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to levy excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is "Not Yours to Give.''

Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding."

Bolded a key word for you.

[Shamoke]

Contrary, unless Ron Paul's a hypocrite, he did say if we cut spending on an imperialist foreign policy, taxes and other programs could be fixed.

Ron Paul kind of said that, but you are slanting it to make your argument. What Ron Paul said is that as president he would have the power to stop the foreign wars, and bring all our troops home from foreign bases. That would cut down a lot of money. Then he would try to fix the social programs (he is looking at it as a president, so he doesn't actually have total power and can not fix social programs without congresses help) which people have paid into, so the people that have paid into them will get their money as per the agreement they have with their government. After that he would phase out these programs by making them optional. In the meantime he would cut other programs as well as the military so tax programs could be done away with (income tax).

Ron Paul is talking about the practical application of his philosophy. Ron Paul does want to get rid of social programs, but he can't just cut them because that will probably result in a bigger problem since the US has been using these programs for the last 70+ years. So in reality to do away with these programs one must fix them first, then get rid of them.

[Killuminati]

Lethn, seriously dude you don't know what you are talking about. Ron Paul learned his stuff from guys who came from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Its the most anti-socialist think tank on the fucking planet. I know because I freaking fap to it every night....

*FAP FAP FAP* Bastiat *FAP FAP FAP* Rothbard *FAP FAP FAP* Hayek.

The only thing you have correct is that he wasn't necessarily opposed to universal healthcare at the state level because of states rights. However he would get his fucking ass out of texas if they had it.

[Matriel]

Except talking about lifes experience over a fucking pixel screen is about as much fail as you can get. I must've met at LEAST 4 pro-war "military men" on this forum, all with an inability to prove their statements. Funny how you find so many soldier Republicans on ForumFall

Funny how your only argument when I leave you standing there dumbfounded is that I'm a Republican. I am not.


Do you know the difference between stating something happened and something might happen? I sense a straw man statement afoot.

All I know is that you can't post without making up something I've said. It's rather annoying. I guess you've found a good way to troll. Make up the other guy's posts for him.

Yes, they lobby to reduce the swelling of the big-headed pro-war nutbags in Washington. How dispicable! Anti-war you say?

I didn't say that anti-war was despicable. I said that that group isn't an unbiased source.


Very well, I'll collect some videos and texts.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/08/18/how-foreign-policy-affects-gas-prices/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4hKqTikqM



Then you want a derailment? Your way E-Military.

I love how none of those say that if we changed our foreign policy we'd be able to afford all these social programs. Which again as pointed out by the GAO and Ron Paul is not possible. The Baby Boomers are going to break the system.

[Septus]

Gotta buy it somewhere no?

Well that's kind of erroneous. If you work at burger king you can still buy raw foods and cook yourself. If you're a janitor at Microsoft you don't have to buy Microsoft Office. Etc.


I'd agree if our standard of living wasn't awesome before we started trying to enforce a standard of living.

We didn't have a globalist agenda either. Implement some sort of social/subsidy tariffs and I will accept a completely free market in America hands down.



You think that people will work as slave equivalents in America? I disagree with that one. That's how unions were formed.

Depends wholly on the industry. unions require a huge percentage of the potential working population to do anything useful - which is fairly impossible for unskilled labor.


Two wrongs don't make a right. Forcing me to be responsible for people I have no contact with is wrong.

Well I guess this is where ethics clash. I feel people should at least have access to the same resources in order to realize their potential. Otherwise it's really no better than a caste system - everything you don't want the lower caste to have, you simply price out of their range.


Raising taxes isn't the answer. The answer is to stop spending like drunken Marines in Thailand for the first time.

Ideally, that would be my favored solution too. Cut military spending by 50%, substitute welfare with employment aid (ie. we only help you if you have a job, in which case we offer support for training, child care, etc), substitute DOE with tuition vouchers, and start phasing govt. programs back to the state level (personally I would like it if the federal govt only redistributed state taxes over the various states and handled interstate affairs like freeways, commerce, military, etc)

I still don't think we can pay off our obligations (Social Security mainly) without raising taxes, but I haven't done the math.

[Surly]

If somebody cut off that giant tumor on the National budget called Military spending, then taxes would be far less important.How do you figure? We've reached a point, now, where if you took government spending down to ZERO DOLLARS and Income Tax was the only governmental income (makes up the majority of it by far), we'd still be running a deficit because of interest payments on the national debt. Income tax doesn't even cover the curb of inflation anymore.

[Lethn]

Killuminati for the most part that's the main sodding thing I've been arguing all this thead, I never actually said I disagreed with him on the local governments and states in fact I very sarcastically stated that if he really wanted to tax cut the fuck out of the country then the country should just turn into a confederation of states and colonies but hey no one pays attention to anything I read anyway.

Oh and Matriel, fine I give up, your just putting words into my mouth like the 'kid' your making me out to be anyway which is rather pathetic, this doesn't mean you won though, I've got work to be getting on with, it just means that I'm sick of arguing with an extremist neo-conservative who pretty much believes that launching America into tiny states with no real leadership or direction is actually going to be a good thing, for the people as a whole.

I pretty much won when you decided to start spamming pointless articles like a retard anyway.

[Zionist]

Funny how your only argument when I leave you standing there dumbfounded is that I'm a Republican. I am not.




All I know is that you can't post without making up something I've said. It's rather annoying. I guess you've found a good way to troll. Make up the other guy's posts for him.



I didn't say that anti-war was despicable. I said that that group isn't an unbiased source.




I love how none of those say that if we changed our foreign policy we'd be able to afford all these social programs. Which again as pointed out by the GAO and Ron Paul is not possible. The Baby Boomers are going to break the system.


GG on ignoring a big chunk of my text. Boy, this online military stuff sure sounds worth it if you're trying to out-shout other people.


Straw man #2: When unable to handle contradictory statements, make sure to mock grammar, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing, and go into mob-rule mentality.


And pro-government is unbiased? That's the opposite side of the arms control fence. Or is that just some anarchist pro-statist mantra talking?



Afford these social programs? Who said that? I said that they made it clear that foreign policy heavily affects domestic policy, and you demanded links that Ron Paul agreed.


Talk about making things up?

[Matriel]

Well that's kind of erroneous. If you work at burger king you can still buy raw foods and cook yourself. If you're a janitor at Microsoft you don't have to buy Microsoft Office. Etc.

No, the money that's coming in at a higher rate across the board, still has to be spent somewhere across the board. It just raises costs across the board.


Depends wholly on the industry. unions require a huge percentage of the potential working population to do anything useful - which is fairly impossible for unskilled labor.

Are you serious? Fucking grocery baggers at Kroger have a union...


Well I guess this is where ethics clash. I feel people should at least have access to the same resources in order to realize their potential. Otherwise it's really no better than a caste system - everything you don't want the lower caste to have, you simply price out of their range.

And then someone steps in and fills the market void. If education is priced out of poor people's grasp, I could open a school that's cheaper for them and make money off of it.


Ideally, that would be my favored solution too. Cut military spending by 50%, substitute welfare with employment aid (ie. we only help you if you have a job, in which case we offer support for training, child care, etc), substitute DOE with tuition vouchers.

I still don't think we can pay off our obligations (Social Security mainly) without raising taxes, but I haven't done the math.

Something is going to happen at some point. And I doubt the Nintendo generation stands for doubled taxes.

[Ziegler]

I'd just like to say...

Yes,. I would rather my federal government buy bullets and insert them into foreign entities and their civilians that pissed off my leaders than give it to some lazy fuckwhore who didnt pay attention in school and thinks it is the right of every person to have medical insurance.

Neo-con
war-monger
redneck
bible thumper
list
goes
on

Doesnt matter what you call me, it wont change my feelings. Dont want any help from the government, and dont want them helping other bastards out either. Kill the fuckers in other countries...that's the government's job.

[Zionist]

How do you figure? We've reached a point, now, where if you took government spending down to ZERO DOLLARS and Income Tax was the only governmental income (makes up the majority of it by far), we'd still be running a deficit because of interest payments on the national debt. Income tax doesn't even cover the curb of inflation anymore.

I opposed the income tax increase because contrary to other statements, it does not pay for schools or highways. We're projected to spend 200 billion dollars on the military in 2009, and that's assuming we're out of Iraq and we don't start another war.


Edit: And less pissed off radical nutjobs


My question: Why oppose cutting military spending? Will it get rid of the debt? Hell no, we have 9 trillion dollars in the hole. Will it help? Yes. No more cash goes to foreign aid, bases, new bases, Iraq, Nuclear Weapons, horrible military projects, and you've saved a future trillion dollars or so.

[Matriel]

Oh and Matriel, fine I give up, your just putting words into my mouth like the 'kid' your making me out to be anyway which is rather pathetic, this doesn't mean you won though, I've got work to be getting on with, it just means that I'm sick of arguing with an extremist neo-conservative who pretty much believes that launching America into tiny states with no real leadership or direction is actually going to be a good thing, for the people as a whole.

I pretty much won when you decided to start spamming pointless articles like a retard anyway.

Lol what. Pointing out where Ron Paul said exactly what I was saying means you won when you told me I should learn economics from him? That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read on these forums. Seriously, that was worse than the 4 monthes of jobless Airius Droc's aggressive stupidity.

GG on ignoring a big chunk of my text. Boy, this online military stuff sure sounds worth it if you're trying to out-shout other people.

What big chunk of text? You said a whole bunch of stuff about former military people all being the same and then called me a Republican. I am not a Republican even though I am former military. You're just throwing out personal insults and hoping you strike home because you have no argument.


Straw man #2: When unable to handle contradictory statements, make sure to mock grammar, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing, and go into mob-rule mentality.

Mob rule mentality? Rofl, what does that even mean? Flail around some more moron.


And pro-government is unbiased? That's the opposite side of the arms control fence. Or is that just some anarchist pro-statist mantra talking?

A plain jane report on spending is rather unbiased imo. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the government is printing bullshit, but considering they are fleecing America and flaunting it in their faces with deficit spending, I doubt it.


Afford these social programs? Who said that? I said that they made it clear that foreign policy heavily affects domestic policy, and you demanded links that Ron Paul agreed.


Talk about making things up?

"he did say if we cut spending on an imperialist foreign policy, taxes and other programs could be fixed."

Maybe you should remember what you said.

[Septus]

How do you figure? We've reached a point, now, where if you took government spending down to ZERO DOLLARS and Income Tax was the only governmental income (makes up the majority of it by far), we'd still be running a deficit because of interest payments on the national debt. Income tax doesn't even cover the curb of inflation anymore.

Blatantly false.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

[Matriel]

My question: Why oppose cutting military spending? Will it get rid of the debt? Hell no, we have 9 trillion dollars in the hole. Will it help? Yes. No more cash goes to foreign aid, bases, new bases, Iraq, Nuclear Weapons, horrible military projects, and you've saved a future trillion dollars or so.

Who here has opposed cutting military spending? Seems like that argument is only in your mind.

[Zionist]

Lol what. Pointing out where Ron Paul said exactly what I was saying means you won when you told me I should learn economics from him? That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read on these forums. Seriously, that was worse than the 4 monthes of jobless Airius Droc's aggressive stupidity.



What big chunk of text? You said a whole bunch of stuff about former military people all being the same and then called me a Republican. I am not a Republican even though I am former military. You're just throwing out personal insults and hoping you strike home because you have no argument.




Mob rule mentality? Rofl, what does that even mean? Flail around some more moron.




A plain jane report on spending is rather unbiased imo. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the government is printing bullshit, but considering they are fleecing America and flaunting it in their faces with deficit spending, I doubt it.




"he did say if we cut spending on an imperialist foreign policy, taxes and other programs could be fixed."

Maybe you should remember what you said.


Ahh....backtrack. First ad hominem remark? Made by...you. Starting what you can't finish again? I referenced the other 4 mystical e-soldiers as Conservative. You're not reading again.


Yes...ignoring my points, yet again. I'll give you the definition if you want? Or are "marines" above that kind of thing still?


The government says it can handle a war and you expect them to be truthful and say "We need to scale back the military"? Very odd how supposedly anything you post, or anything from .gov is reliable, while all my information is "biased".


=/=-Not equal.


Difference between saying "the country is fixed" and saying "foreign policy will help will social programs and the economy".


It is you, who can not read.

[Septus]

No, the money that's coming in at a higher rate across the board, still has to be spent somewhere across the board. It just raises costs across the board.

Can you elaborate, I can't really understand what you're saying. I'm saying that the only company that needs to increase its prices is the one incurring the cost of the artificial minimum wage.

It does not mean the poor person has zero net gain, because the poor person does not have to buy said products. He can buy products from industries that do not have a major cost of unskilled labor (which means the artificial min. wage has not affected their pricing), or he can buy foreign (lol, irony? :P).


Are you serious? Fucking grocery baggers at Kroger have a union...

It probably depends on the density of the place you're talking about. I'm guessing you live in some area with a very low population. Basically, it's hard to unionize when your employer can simply hire a new group of people with very little ramp up time (because it's unskilled labor).


And then someone steps in and fills the market void. If education is priced out of poor people's grasp, I could open a school that's cheaper for them and make money off of it.

There's no market for educating people with no money. If you find a way to make a profit, please let me know.


Something is going to happen at some point. And I doubt the Nintendo generation stands for doubled taxes.

It's kind of sad but I'm considering renouncing my citizenship depending on the next 4 years; I don't want the US government to pull some bullshit like they did with our consulate in China and force me to pay taxes even if I flee the country.

[Zionist]

Who here has opposed cutting military spending? Seems like that argument is only in your mind.

For everytime you post your crap on how we need to cut back social programs, you are opposing my view of slashing the entire foreign policy base to a reasonable amount.


200 more nuclear weapons is not reasonable, nor is a false war, nor is giving money to countries who don't need it, nor is destabilizing other governments, nor is putting up 750 global bases.

You keep posting in opposition to the above, so it is you who is delusional.

[Matriel]

For everytime you post your crap on how we need to cut back social programs, you are opposing my view of slashing the entire foreign policy base to a reasonable amount.


200 more nuclear weapons is not reasonable, nor is a false war, nor is giving money to countries who don't need it, nor is destabilizing other governments, nor is putting up 750 global bases.

You keep posting in opposition to the above, so it is you who is delusional.

That doesn't correlate in the slightest. I'm against scaling back social programs and foreign policy.

Too bad you can't be smart enough to think more complex than Democrat and Republican.

[Lysandor]

Haha, are you serious? The government taking money to spend it on useless wars, foreign aid to middle east countries, and domestic programs that just fail complety is a great alternate for people spending on goods.

GTFO

None of the money that is stolen from your paycheck goes to fund wars.

[Slypieguy]

For everytime you post your crap on how we need to cut back social programs, you are opposing my view of slashing the entire foreign policy base to a reasonable amount.


Lol, no he isn't, idiot. That's just like the people who are like "zomg if you want domestic drilling you are automatically against alternative energy!!"

Guess what, it is possible to be correct on two issues at the same time.

[Zionist]

That doesn't correlate in the slightest. I'm against scaling back social programs and foreign policy.

Too bad you can't be smart enough to think more complex than Democrat and Republican.

You're against scaling back social programs and foreign policy? Then what the hell have you been posting all this time?? Your whole point for bringing up the GAO was to say it was social programs we needed to cut back, not the military like I stated.


And to bad you can't be smart enough to realize when your cause is dead.

[Zionist]

Lol, no he isn't, idiot. That's just like the people who are like "zomg if you want domestic drilling you are automatically against alternative energy!!"

Guess what, it is possible to be correct on two issues at the same time.

=/=


I said to cut the military, he said to cut social. That's what the bitch fest has been about, that you have chosen to take part of.


The difference between me and you guys is I recognize that imperialist foreign policy is not only costed us in terms of money, but lives and reputation.


Does our social programs account for 47% of the worlds spenditure compared to our 12% GDP? Ruh-roh!

[Septus]

=/=


I said to cut the military, he said to cut social. That's what the bitch fest has been about, that you have chosen to take part of.

So we're agreed, cut both.

[Slypieguy]

=/=


I said to cut the military, he said to cut social. That's what the bitch fest has been about, that you have chosen to take part of.

I didn't read the whole thread, I just know that you must be a noob if you didn't know captain libertarian Matriel is for cutting back military spending

And the guy trying to explain Ron Paul to him was pretty priceless

[Zionist]

I didn't read the whole thread, I just know that you must be a noob if you didn't know captain libertarian Matriel is for cutting back military spending

And the guy trying to explain Ron Paul to him was pretty priceless

Ahh....last-page flipper. No explanation needed here.


Not very Libertarian to talk about the epic banning of social programs, while not even thinking for more then 3 seconds about what foreign policy has cost us.

47% of the world's military spending, 12% of it's GDP. You won't find figures like that in many other places.

[Battle]

Phew, I finally caught up to this thread!

Sucks, it seems to be dying now.

Matriel pwns OT again!

[Zionist]

Again, feel free to find any statistics like the Military.

Fiscal year spending budget to 2009:

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

[Teth]

Raising taxes is less necessary than closing the fucking loopholes that allow such gross tax-dodging.

[Thaeds]

I would much rather give that money to some 18 year old who couldn't keep her legs closed/use a condom and got knocked up a few times.

You mean you want to pay child support? Ambitious.

[Thrill_KIll]

omg....


1) A Marine is NOT a soldier. They are a Marine. Army personnel are soldiers. If you knew DICK about anything, you'd see this simple point you felt the need to go on a 5 page rant about all the while screaming, "I'm smmaartteerr that yyyyeeewwww!!!!"

Dumb ass.....


2) Nowhere did anyone say they were against cutting back military spending, they just said it is not wise to totally cut all funding for it, when there are many better places to start, like our ungodly failing list of social programs that are so abused and over funded it's just gotten flat out pathetic.

Dumb ass......

3) You do realise that while inflated, to simply do away with all our research funding for the military would cost us TONS of things that you enjoy on a daily basis, right? By all means, trim the fat, but you don't talk about doing away entirely with the one program that acutally has a function that serves our country on MANY levels.




I'm glad to see you are still steadily putting words into people's mouth there Zionist. You are on the fast track to being the new dumbass on Forumfall!


LOL....."I'm a paleo-conservative.....everyone else is a neo-con!"


hahahahahahahahahaha

[The Cougar]

Oh wow, Lethn is really making some great points today. No, really. Stupidity never was this evident.

in fact from what I've watched of Ron Paul he seems to be very in favour of the states having more power to themselves and less government interference but then again he is also very pro-freedom, he also thinks that Americas currency should be backed by gold again but nowhere have I seen him say that socialism is a bad idea [...] Feel free to link me a vid lol

Hey! Pssst! Lethn! Listen, I have to tell you something important before you continue... You know Ron Paul? Well... it turns out he doesn't only exist on YouTube!

Really though, you seriously have no reading comprehension and are completely blind to the points Matriel is making. It's amazing that you can say the things you do with a straight face. Just... wow.

Am I the only one barely being able to restrain my laughter when reading his posts?

[Carl Ragadamn]

Raising taxes is less necessary than closing the fucking loopholes that allow such gross tax-dodging.

Without the blue name, its just not the same for me.

[Slypieguy]

Ahh....last-page flipper. No explanation needed here.


Not very Libertarian to talk about the epic banning of social programs, while not even thinking for more then 3 seconds about what foreign policy has cost us.

47% of the world's military spending, 12% of it's GDP. You won't find figures like that in many other places.

Yea, sorry I didn't feel like reading 100 posts of matriel telling you where your foot is relative to your ass.

Anyway, it's a given that any libertarian wants to cut military and social program spending (except maybe Mike Gravel), so I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Maybe you're arguing that it should be a higher priority to cut military spending than social program spending?

[Fylraen]

lol at the original post. So Obama says he'd wait one whole year after taking office and let the Bush tax cuts expire. Whoooptie doo.

[Matriel]

You're against scaling back social programs and foreign policy? Then what the hell have you been posting all this time?? Your whole point for bringing up the GAO was to say it was social programs we needed to cut back, not the military like I stated.


And to bad you can't be smart enough to realize when your cause is dead.

If you hadn't been too busy trying to say I'm a Republican and making up my responses, you would have clearly read that our social programs are a bigger issue than our military spending.

Which is why I mentioned waht the GAO said. Our military spending is too high. Our foreign policy is buttfuck retarded, but neither of them are going to brankrupt the fucking country.

It is better to attack the biggest elephant in the room first if you ask me.

[Beorg]

It's kinda common sense, isn't it? I didn't say that some taxes weren't worth it, just that the economy would run well if people had more money to spend.


You have to consider that the government needs some of it. Nobody likes taxes, but you'll want the workforce paying taxes when you're old and grey. America needs things--new roads (*cough* Pennsylvania!), new weapons, new defences, Social Security, military benefits for GIs; the list is long.

[Taroth]

Posting in a legendary thread; Matriel fighting the good fight with Surly/Teth dropping in for support.

Keep at it Lethn/Zionist. You guys are completely right in every way and don't let anyone prove you wrong.

As you were!

[Septus]

Yea, sorry I didn't feel like reading 100 posts of matriel telling you where your foot is relative to your ass.

Anyway, it's a given that any libertarian wants to cut military and social program spending (except maybe Mike Gravel), so I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Maybe you're arguing that it should be a higher priority to cut military spending than social program spending?

Well in my eyes it would at least be *easier* to cut military spending.

Stopping Social Security right now would be idiotic. We have to meet the obligations of the baby boomers soon, we'll need all the revenue we can get. (That or we can just cancel Social Security and increase taxes to at least set the precedent that youngins aren't guaranteed social security in the future). Plus I'm not entirely sure it's a bad idea (in theory). It was only a problem because there was no law preventing government assholes from dipping their hand in the cookie jar.

Welfare has a bigger problem; that is, too many people depend on it. I like Ron Paul's idea of phasing it out, but if you're trying to actually cut spending via cutting welfare, you're going to have millions of poor people rioting and stealing - that's lose lose.

Medicare/aid sort of suffers from the same problems as Social Security. I don't know too much about it (ie. how efficiently it runs, how many people are dependent on it, etc), but at the very least I don't think you could just cancel it in a year.

A quick *GLANCE* at the military shows HUGE areas for improvement.

1. Eliminate no-bid contracts (I'm sure everyone here has seen the Iraq War Profiteering video).

2. Restructure contract payments (ie. pay per project, instead of paying in a manner which encourages wasteful spending).

3. Close down bases in Europe. I can understand Japan, Korea, etc, but Europe? I personally would pull the fuck out of the Middle East too. It's the most expensive place to occupy, and we're doing nothing good there except abusing our power to keep the dollar from breaking.

There's a trillion dollars. Thank me later.

PS: @Matriel - I replied at the top of page 13 (default settings). Don't run out on me bitch :P

[Jarkovii]

Um, the government is responsible for your existence and well-being. If your whole family hadn't been taxed you wouldn't have been able to afford shoes or toilet paper. In fact you would be threatening your life by not giving a percentage of your income to the government for protection.

lol wut?

[Cyle]

Gogo Keynesian failboat

And people called Russel Kurk a modern day genious.

But still Reagan called us all "Kaynesians"

Fuck Maynard Keynes and his bullshit disaster nazi theories.

[Slypieguy]

3. Close down bases in Europe. I can understand Japan, Korea, etc, but Europe? I personally would pull the fuck out of the Middle East too. It's the most expensive place to occupy, and we're doing nothing good there except abusing our power to keep the dollar from breaking.


Wait, we should have bases in Japan and Korea, but not the middle east?? I'm just curious what your logic is there. And yes I'm too lazy to reply to the rest of your post. I don't care which one is easier to cut, they both need to be cut.

[Vanno]

Who let Airius Droc make all these alts?

[Teth]

Without the blue name, its just not the same for me.
I could bring that back with the Retired Staff group if I wanted to. No italics, but still blue. However! I prefer to tote the guild tag. I may end up going back to the blue simply for ease of tracking my own posts in a thread, though...I miss that.

Posting in a legendary thread; Matriel fighting the good fight with Surly/Teth dropping in for support.
I don't know if you could exactly call me "dropping in for support". Those who have been around for a while know that as a Sovjet Canuckistani I'm hardly adverse to taxation and social services. That said, it seems more efficient to me to leave taxes where they are and instead seek to minimize abuses & circumventions in the system. Making the system work closer to how it is supposed to in theory > "well shit it's broken so let's just keep gearing it up further so we can compensate to some degree for its brokenness".

Rationalization is fair for some and whatnot.

[Foxodi]

Socialism is cool.

That is all :D (its either this or 14pages of bullcrap... oh wait..)

[Kusghuul]

Gogo Keynesian failboat

Odd how Norway then has such a high standard of living and such high tax.

[Weeking]

Odd how Norway then has such a high standard of living and such high tax.

No it's not. We have oil.

Taxes are bad for the economy, the progressive income tax is the worst as it discourages working many hours or studying getting a higher paying job.

[Kusghuul]

No it's not. We have oil.

Taxes are bad for the economy, the progressive income tax is the worst as it discourages working many hours or studying getting a higher paying job.

Was just "sette ting på spissen," but I agree with you really. I'm for removing "formue skatt" (Savings tax)and "arveavgift," (inheritance tax) as I deign them incredibly unfair, as I don't think you should be punished for not spending money, or that your children have to pay tax for you dying. Also reducing alcohol tax (somehow, champagne is cheaper here than in Britain. Go figure) as it's incredibly expensive and, in my opinion, encourages binge drinking. Also keeping the government's wine/spirits monopolies open for more than a few hours each day would be something I would like. Allowing shops to sell beer after 8 o'clock on weekdays and 6 o'clock on Saturdays would be good. And fucking keeping our shops open on Sunday. I'm used to living in the UK; I'm constantly fucked on Sundays due to an inability to buy food.

EDIT: And yes, I'm also against the progressive income tax. I think the difference between poor and rich taxating should change slightly; my uncle, who's a dentist, doesn't work Fridays for tax reasons. Go figure.

[Ghostpaw]

This thread was an amazingly fun read. Especially the .gov site on budget and spending. Also, it is strange that a topic with Obama in its name would not have his named mentioned for 10+ pages.

[Kraven]

If somebody cut off that giant tumor on the National budget called Military spending, then taxes would be far less important.

Did I just hear you admit to being a sleeper cell terrorist?

[Lictor]

Its the largest part of discretionary spending.

This discussion is pointless. It's McCain, who wins the election and the shit will go on and on and on... No Change folks!

[losinglife]

Something is going to happen at some point. And I doubt the Nintendo generation stands for doubled taxes.

Ive seen you toss this around before a few times. Honestly, i dunno if thats really the case anymore. Maybe at one time this woulda been correct, but i just dont see that generation, tho selfish, to actually DO anything about it.

[losinglife]

America needs things--new roads (*cough* Pennsylvania!),

heheheeh truer words have never been spoken, but that is paid for thru gas taxes.

[Killuminati]

Ive seen you toss this around before a few times. Honestly, i dunno if thats really the case anymore. Maybe at one time this woulda been correct, but i just dont see that generation, tho selfish, to actually DO anything about it.

I'm confused...how was the nintendo generation selfish? :confused:

[Septus]

Wait, we should have bases in Japan and Korea, but not the middle east?? I'm just curious what your logic is there. And yes I'm too lazy to reply to the rest of your post. I don't care which one is easier to cut, they both need to be cut.

Yes, they both need to be cut. But we need to lower spending NOW, and the system with the most WASTE (ie. can be cut immediately) is military. If you know of some ways to immediately cut welfare/medicare/etc then I'm all for it, but just yanking the money away from the people dependent on it won't work. It would probably create a lot more bad than good. (Basically, cutting social spending has to be a long term endeavor, ie. allow opting out of SS, refine standards on welfare so as to create an incentive to get OFF of it, etc)

As for my logic on military, I understand our desire for strategic foreign outposts, but I think it would be a lot cheaper and acceptable to the world if we set them up in regions that are not in states of perpetual conflict.

We have enough NATO countries to have a presence all around the world without pissing off millions of people. Our actions in the Middle East specifically are created to export our debt/inflation onto other countries.

[Vanno]

Taxes are bad for the economy, the progressive income tax is the worst as it discourages working many hours or studying getting a higher paying job.

Ridiculous. A progressive marginal income tax is not keeping me from wanting to make more income, trust that. It might give a very marginal disincentive. Secondly, the assumption that more work hours are desirable is an arguable one. Lastly, we are not a labor based Economy, which is why capital gains is what matters when we are talking taxes. Capital gains are lower than most tax brackets, which is why some smart folks can pay very low effective tax rates.

That isn't to say I don't think taxes could be lower at all levels, but progressive taxes aren't the big issue most make them out to be.

[Irodim]

Obviously the solution is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Why do our corporations need to be competitive in the world market anyways?

I would much rather give that money to some 18 year old who couldn't keep her legs closed/use a condom and got knocked up a few times.

I like where your heads at.

[Slypieguy]

Lastly, we are not a labor based Economy, which is why capital gains is what matters when we are talking taxes. Capital gains are lower than most tax brackets, which is why some smart folks can pay very low effective tax rates.

Give him some time, he will raise those for sure! :)

[Matriel]

Can you elaborate, I can't really understand what you're saying. I'm saying that the only company that needs to increase its prices is the one incurring the cost of the artificial minimum wage.

It does not mean the poor person has zero net gain, because the poor person does not have to buy said products. He can buy products from industries that do not have a major cost of unskilled labor (which means the artificial min. wage has not affected their pricing), or he can buy foreign (lol, irony? :P).

Companies are interdependant upon each other. I suppose a few niche markets would avoid an increase, but across the board prices would raise in line with the increased costs.



It probably depends on the density of the place you're talking about. I'm guessing you live in some area with a very low population. Basically, it's hard to unionize when your employer can simply hire a new group of people with very little ramp up time (because it's unskilled labor).

Krogers is a chain around here. They have large stores in large cities like Cincinnati and other shitholes in Ohio, the worst state ever. They unionize down to their bag boys. Which I think we can all agree is unskilled labour.


There's no market for educating people with no money. If you find a way to make a profit, please let me know.

Very small profits on lots of customers is still good profits.


You have to consider that the government needs some of it. Nobody likes taxes, but you'll want the workforce paying taxes when you're old and grey. America needs things--new roads (*cough* Pennsylvania!), new weapons, new defences, Social Security, military benefits for GIs; the list is long.

Oh bull fucking shit. They already get over half of their funds from sources outside of income taxation. If they can't pay the bills with 1.5 trillion, they have no business having any money at all.

Roads are paid for with consumption taxes, registrations, and other fees for the most part. That's on top of income taxation.

And when I'm old, I'll depend upon the retirement plan I'm working on, not the stupid government to fuck shit up for me.

Ridiculous. A progressive marginal income tax is not keeping me from wanting to make more income, trust that. It might give a very marginal disincentive. Secondly, the assumption that more work hours are desirable is an arguable one. Lastly, we are not a labor based Economy, which is why capital gains is what matters when we are talking taxes. Capital gains are lower than most tax brackets, which is why some smart folks can pay very low effective tax rates.

That isn't to say I don't think taxes could be lower at all levels, but progressive taxes aren't the big issue most make them out to be.

Wait till you jump a couple tax brackets and feel the iron dick of the government in your ass sideways a little more. I still want to move up and make more money, but it just makes me more bitter everytime I get a raise at how much bullshit I give the government and get nothing in return.

[Vanno]

Give him some time, he will raise those for sure! :)

His plan unfortunately includes a raise in cap gains. I don't get it really; Obama's Economic council is infinitely superior to the supply side nutters over at Camp Alzheimer’s, yet they are the more business adverse of the two plans.

[Vanno]

Wait till you jump a couple tax brackets and feel the iron dick of the government in your ass sideways a little more. I still want to move up and make more money, but it just makes me more bitter everytime I get a raise at how much bullshit I give the government and get nothing in return.

Hey, nobody likes paying taxes, but to say progressive taxation decreases incentives to earn more money seems a stretch. It certainly acts to reduce the effective raises you get, but I'm not convinced most raises have much to do with increased efforts or responsibilities, so I don't really by the effort argument. Would I be in favor of a flatter tax scheme? You bet your ass.

[Phaethor]

Tax Bracket increase don't apply to your total income just to that which is above the tax bracket cut off.

For Example if you make $65,000 as a Single Person you pay:
10% on the first $8,025
15% on the $24,525 between $8,025 and $32,550
25% on the $32,450 between $32,550 and $65,000

A Total of: $12,593.75 vs. $16,250.00 if the 25% was applied to the full $65,000.

Being Married increases those Dollar Ranges. For example the 25% would increase to 28% for a single person making over $78,850 but it doesn't increase for Married couples filing jointly until they make a combined income more than $131,450.

On a separate issue in this thread... Marines (Jarheads) have been known as Soldiers since at least some time in the 17th Century. Even multiple Dictionary terms ("The Soldiers of the Sea", "serving on shipboard, as soldiers.") give credit to the fact that Marines are Soldiers.

Best,

Phae

[Slypieguy]

His plan unfortunately includes a raise in cap gains. I don't get it really; Obama's Economic council is infinitely superior to the supply side nutters over at Camp Alzheimer’s, yet they are the more business adverse of the two plans.

Which makes them... less superior...

[Matriel]

Hey, nobody likes paying taxes, but to say progressive taxation decreases incentives to earn more money seems a stretch. It certainly acts to reduce the effective raises you get, but I'm not convinced most raises have much to do with increased efforts or responsibilities, so I don't really by the effort argument. Would I be in favor of a flatter tax scheme? You bet your ass.

It hasn't totally killed my desire to make more money, but it has definitely lessened it. I still want more promotions and raises, but I really really really, don't want to give the government anymore money. Anyone that's not a statist moron would agree I don't get anything in return for my "donations," so the idea of "donating" more leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


On a separate issue in this thread... Marines (Jarheads) have been known as Soldiers since at least some time in the 17th Century. Even multiple Dictionary terms ("The Soldiers of the Sea", "serving on shipboard, as soldiers.") give credit to the fact that Marines are Soldiers.

Best,

Phae

We can dig up Major Nicholas so the Zombie Commandant can kick your ass for being wrong if you want.

[Killuminati]

Hey, nobody likes paying taxes, but to say progressive taxation decreases incentives to earn more money seems a stretch. It certainly acts to reduce the effective raises you get, but I'm not convinced most raises have much to do with increased efforts or responsibilities, so I don't really by the effort argument. Would I be in favor of a flatter tax scheme? You bet your ass.

What about the laffer curve?

[Phaethor]

We can dig up Major Nicholas so the Zombie Commandant can kick your ass for being wrong if you want.

Sure I bet he'll probably also have something to say about the book, "Soldiers of the Sea: The U.S. Marine Corps," by Col Robert D. Heinl USMC (Ret.), Annapolis, 1962. Or even better in the book The Marines, by Simmons/Moskin, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, 1998 there is a full page picture of a U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Service poster, dated May 1866 that reference Soldier at least 6 times and never once uses the term Marine.

Best,

Phae

[Septus]

Companies are interdependant upon each other. I suppose a few niche markets would avoid an increase, but across the board prices would raise in line with the increased costs.

You're exaggerating. It only largely affects companies with huge %'s of unskilled labor, and their client companies. There are *many* industries that don't rely on unskilled labor at all.

Technology, architecture, food, etc. Many companies employ unskilled labor but to a much lesser degree (ie. Your Kroger's bag boys). Increases in minimum wage would not affect their prices much at all since it is chump change compared to the volume of food being moved per store & the larger costs like delivery, electricity, etc.

To say it raises prices across the board is just a cop out to save yourself from considering the complexity.


Krogers is a chain around here. They have large stores in large cities like Cincinnati and other shitholes in Ohio, the worst state ever. They unionize down to their bag boys. Which I think we can all agree is unskilled labour.


Well, I agree it's not impossible for unskilled laborers to unionize, just a lot less feasible (there's too much competition for your job). Plus I don't see how unions are so much better than minimum wage laws. They're subject to even more corruption than the government.



Very small profits on lots of customers is still good profits.

1. Why would a broke family pay ANYTHING for your school when they get FREE public schooling already?

2. It's not "good profits" until you pay back all the costs for opening these schools. To get "lots of customers" you'd need to open schools all over the country, which costs a lot. Would you even be able to make back the cost of the school via fees/tuition by the time you needed to renovate the worn out building? Haha.

[Septus]

Which makes them... less superior...

Logic please. The economic advice is sound, but the buck stops with Obama. That means even though the advisors might say "this is how it will affect the economy, these are the #'s you have to look at," Obama may still choose to tout the party line and ignore (at least in part) the advice.

Anyone who utters "supply side economics" is a fucking retard as far as I'm concerned.

[Killuminati]

Logic please. The economic advice is sound, but the buck stops with Obama. That means even though the advisors might say "this is how it will affect the economy, these are the #'s you have to look at," Obama may still choose to tout the party line and ignore (at least in part) the advice.

Anyone who utters "supply side economics or Keynesian Economics" is a fucking retard as far as I'm concerned.

There we go

[Septus]

There we go

Haha. "Supply side economics" is what was mentioned, so it's what I replied to :P

Edit: and by the by, Keynesian economics makes a lot more sense than supply-side (even if it is full of gaping holes).

[Matriel]

Sure I bet he'll probably also have something to say about the book, "Soldiers of the Sea: The U.S. Marine Corps," by Col Robert D. Heinl USMC (Ret.), Annapolis, 1962. Or even better in the book The Marines, by Simmons/Moskin, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, 1998 there is a full page picture of a U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Service poster, dated May 1866 that reference Soldier at least 6 times and never once uses the term Marine.

Best,

Phae

Soldiers of the Sea. Clarifying that Marines are different from soldiers. Old sayings showing the difference just like it is now.

Or as the Navy used to say. Everything of a soldier, and half a sailor too.

You're exaggerating. It only largely affects companies with huge %'s of unskilled labor, and their client companies. There are *many* industries that don't rely on unskilled labor at all.

Technology, architecture, food, etc. Many companies employ unskilled labor but to a much lesser degree (ie. Your Kroger's bag boys). Increases in minimum wage would not affect their prices much at all since it is chump change compared to the volume of food being moved per store & the larger costs like delivery, electricity, etc.

To say it raises prices across the board is just a cop out to save yourself from considering the complexity.

And look at the markets that employ unskilled labour instead of being a dunce. The vast majority of those markets are used by everyone. And yes it would affect prices as profit margins have to be maintained. Especially in the case of grocery stores as they run a much slimmer profit margin than other companies.



Well, I agree it's not impossible for unskilled laborers to unionize, just a lot less feasible (there's too much competition for your job). Plus I don't see how unions are so much better than minimum wage laws. They're subject to even more corruption than the government.

It happens a lot more than you'd like to admit. There's nothing preventing unionization except the workers themselves.

Lol, unions more corrupt than the government? Haha, I think I'm going to continue laughing and not bother responding.



1. Why would a broke family pay ANYTHING for your school when they get FREE public schooling already?

Define broke. Rolling around in expensive clothing and then bitching you can't afford education doesn't compute as broke to me. Americans say they are broke if they don't have 3 cards, a big ass house, and a bunch of bullshit toys. That's not broke.

2. It's not "good profits" until you pay back all the costs for opening these schools. To get "lots of customers" you'd need to open schools all over the country, which costs a lot. Would you even be able to make back the cost of the school via fees/tuition by the time you needed to renovate the worn out building? Haha.

Right, so no one has ever run any industry on lower profits because of start up costs. Oh wait, back in reality.

[Septus]

And look at the markets that employ unskilled labour instead of being a dunce. The vast majority of those markets are used by everyone. And yes it would affect prices as profit margins have to be maintained. Especially in the case of grocery stores as they run a much slimmer profit margin than other companies.

Yes grocery stores run on a slimmer profit margin. But the % of their price that is related to unskilled labor is very minimal. My point is, those receiving minimum wage receive a real gain, not an imaginary one.


Lol, unions more corrupt than the government?

In terms of wages? Yes. Unions are political beasts. Once they have a huge base, you as a worker are simply swallowed into the fold. Especially if you're not in a right-to-work state.


Define broke. Rolling around in expensive clothing and then bitching you can't afford education doesn't compute as broke to me. Americans say they are broke if they don't have 3 cards, a big ass house, and a bunch of bullshit toys. That's not broke.

I don't know what kind of anecdotal bullshit that is, but the poor people I see are rather poor. They don't wear "expensive clothing," they use the bus system (not their 3 fancy cars), they have a one story house for a rather large family, etc.

Could you point out where you get your info on poor people? Plus you neglected to address WHY they would *PAY* for your private school when they already get free schooling. Like you said, they'd rather have their fancy toys and clothes right?


Right, so no one has ever run any industry on lower profits because of start up costs. Oh wait, back in reality.

Yes, let's talk about reality. Maybe you could give me an example? Because from what I've seen, if you're going to sink the costs into building a school (expensive), you cater it towards people who have money (ie. rich people).

I went to Challenger (a private school) for most of my life, and this is what they do: they test applicants and only let in people who are already smart, they kick you out for anything remotely short of perfect behavior, and they kick you out if you don't keep up. Why? Because what they're interested in is showing prospective rich parents that they mold the cream of the crop (high average GPA, high rate of acceptance to good schools). This does not leave room for people who aren't native English speakers, are already behind by a bit (Challenger starts at pre-school level, and shoots ahead very fast. Calculus in middle school), don't have access to after-school help (ie. tutors, or parents who are at home instead of work).

How are you going to operate a school by targeting people who (a) don't have money and (b) have a free alternative?

The closest option would be making a charter school; you're still paid by the government though, and restricted as far as what you can do (DOE standards).

[bluthorn]

I liked when Obama said that he wasn't planning on taxing the rich to give to the poor. Then he goes into this thing about how a rich guy (corporate bigwig or something) could afford the higher taxes that a waitress who lives on tips could never afford. Thus increased taxes work only if used exclusivley on the rich.....?

So basicly he increases taxes on the rich people and gives it to the "poor" via healthcare etc etc.

[losinglife]

Hey, nobody likes paying taxes, but to say progressive taxation decreases incentives to earn more money seems a stretch. It certainly acts to reduce the effective raises you get, but I'm not convinced most raises have much to do with increased efforts or responsibilities, so I don't really by the effort argument. Would I be in favor of a flatter tax scheme? You bet your ass.

wait till you hit just above the cut off for the brackets, you will feel the penis penitration then.

I was making just slightly over the 15% mark, so for an extra few grand i was being raped 25% in taxes instead of 15%. FUck that noise, so i moved that few extra grand into pre-tax 401k to drop a bracket.

This isnt the case anymore tho since i have 2 jobs now.