TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- McCain's VP pick
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper 350million americans x 1% x 12 bucks each tax increase = 42M Why even bother raising taxes and making it an election issue for such a small amt of money? And I beileve Orko was talking about paying the same % of taxes, not the same $.

well I never majored in economics, but I think it's a little bit more complicated than just adding in 42 million. Besides, the top 1% earn over $600,000, while the top 5% earn $250,000 or above. Hence Obama's pledge that everyone who makes under $250,000 will have their taxes go down.

A flat tax is the "same % of taxes". It would be something similar to everyone getting taxed about %17 across the board. It might sound appealing, but only conservative nutjobs like Preston Manning actually have put something like that forward in their campaign.

Did you not just say 12 bucks a head increase in taxes?

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Nope, sorry. My family members not rich, we just are not poor anymore (middle class). I said nothing about being rich, just about breaking into a new tax bracket. But what I am saying is that they are no less entitled to keep their money. Very simple. If somebody has found a more efficient and effective way of sustaining them selves, they should not be peanalised for it. That is the whole idea behind a capitalist society. People who find the more efficient way are rewarded. For the economic cycles, it is not automatic. Read what I said: I said the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. It is not one thing. It is many things. The government can in fact work with or work against market forces, for good and bad. Don't be so quick to blame JUST the party, or to promote JUST the party. Look at the economy as a whole, and look at other market forces. You know..like a d.com bubble crash? Or the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 80's. The local government is not 100% for the current state of economic affairs. I'm not even saying that. I was just refuting the position that the rich should automatically pay more because others cannot afford to live. As if, it is the rich people's fault for being rich. Fuck that. I do agree with the progressive tax system. I just hate when people stipulate that all rich people are greedy and should have their money taxed to hell. While we are at it. Three degrees and you will top out there? lol

wow dude poking fun at someone's education? High class. Is there something wrong with being an educator...? No I'm not rich, but I enjoy what I do and, more importantly, I am not over worked. I have more than enough to get by and I am truly content. Can you say the same?

I find your view on our "capitalist society" very disturbing. So, once you get to a certain tax bracket, it's ok not to care about anyone else anymore? Canadian society is becoming increasingly selfish and individualistic and people like are the reason. You can't look beyond your cheque book and how much taxes you pay. It's really sad to see that people can't look beyond that anymore.

I never said the local government is in 100% control of their economy. Only an idiot would suggest that. But the Americans currently are still the world's wealthiest nation and their government has made blatantly wrong decisions since Bush took over. Both distastrous economic AND foreign policy have contributed to this. I have never bought into the theory that the economy is this mysterious thing that shouldn't be fucked with. When it's not working properly (as it clearly is not for millions of Americans right now), something needs to be done.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Did you not just say 12 bucks a head increase in taxes?

yes, for those who make over $250,000. It's those who make over $600,000 who see a significant increase. Again, I'm not the expert...I just have seen it broken down on various American news agencies. I"m sure it's available to read somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I find your view on our "capitalist society" very disturbing. So, once you get to a certain tax bracket, it's ok not to care about anyone else anymore? Canadian society is becoming increasingly selfish and individualistic and people like are the reason. You can't look beyond your cheque book and how much taxes you pay. It's really sad to see that people can't look beyond that anymore.

You have such an incredible gift at misconstruing other people's words, I am amazed. You completly accuse people of stuff, they have not said, or do not mean. Read again:

quote:

But what I am saying is that they are no less entitled to keep their money.

quote:

Nobody is less entitled to their money

quote:

you are forgetting that they are ALREADY paying more in that progressive tax system.

quote:

I do agree with the progressive tax system.

Geez. In those three degrees, did you ever learn to consider the other side of the argument? Stop accusing people of things. Read what they are writing. Stop calling people names. Stop giving people labels. And for god sakes please read: With Good Reason . Your arguments will make a lot more sense when you stop degrading others with your labels.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko You have such an incredible gift at misconstruing other people's words, I am amazed. You completly accuse people of stuff, they have not said, or do not mean. Read again: Geez. In those three degrees, did you ever learn to consider the other side of the argument? Stop accusing people of things. Read what they are writing. Stop calling people names. Stop giving people labels. And for god sakes please read: With Good Reason . Your arguments will make a lot more sense when you stop degrading others with your labels.

Dude, your posts had an obvious tone of elitism that I just had to expose. Poking fun at education and wages just takes the cake. I might be stubborn, but I also don't feel the need to point out how rich and well off I am or how hard I've worked.

I'm quite familiar with the "other side" of the argument when it comes to politics. I have been voting for close to ten years and I do not agree with the principles of right wing politics. I don't understand what's wrong with using "labels". How else do you propose that we define our political system?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I also don't feel the need to point out how rich and well off I am or how hard I've worked.

You just pointed out that you have 3 degrees and will clear six figures.

quote:

Originally posted by DannyPINK I don't understand the idea of lowering taxes when the government is bleeding billions of dollars each month on the war alone.

And they're bleeding billions of dollars each month on social programs, too. The thing is, governments are the only entities with the authority and ability to run military operations, whereas the private sector is perfectly capable of taking on most of the other things that governments piss away taxpayer money on.

Anyway, lowering the tax rate doesn't necessarily lower tax revenues by the same amount - people may spend that money anyway, or they may invest it at a high rate of return and end up paying more taxes at the end of the day. If you want to talk about economics then you have to be able to consider long-term effects of a policy and not just the immediate result.

quote:

If the top 5% has a problem with paying a little extra then they can really go fuck themselves. It's as simple as that.

Yes, real simple. Whenever you don't actually have a case to make, just tell people to go fuck themselves. Those top 5% usually aren't spending the extra 50 million on fancy cars, they're investing it in areas that provide income and jobs for other people. Some of them even give to charity!

You do realize that the super-rich hardly pay any taxes at all, right? When you have that much money to throw around, it's ridiculously easy to find tax shelters. You own a few dozen corporations and trust funds and expense everything and make it look like you actually had no personal income at all. Inflated rates in the upper tax brackets only prevent the middle class from "moving up" in times of inflation.

quote:

And Sarah Palin (to get back on topic) is a dumb bitch from podunk Alaska

Is that your scientific assessment?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I had to laugh when McCain couldn't answer a reporter's question about how many houses he had.

It is funny - I admit it - but the Obama campaigners are dreaming if they think that the number of houses McCain owns is somehow going to affect the election. Everybody knows you have to be pretty wealthy to run for prez.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper You just pointed out that you have 3 degrees and will clear six figures.

Maybe if he stopped pissing away money and time on school and got a fucking job, he might have a little more earning potential.

quote:

Originally posted by DannyPINK Barack Obama came from the same beginnings as a lot of people in this country who are trying to do better than the previous generation.

So did Bill Gates, Tom Cruise, Fran�ois Pinault, John D. Rockefeller, Steve Jobs, Ralph Lauren, and Eminem. What's your point exactly?


(I thought this one deserved a separate reply, because it was just that ridiculous)

quote:

I find your view on our "capitalist society" very disturbing. So, once you get to a certain tax bracket, it's ok not to care about anyone else anymore? Canadian society is becoming increasingly selfish and individualistic and people like are the reason. You can't look beyond your cheque book and how much taxes you pay. It's really sad to see that people can't look beyond that anymore.

People that accuse rich people of 'not caring about others' just because they actually want to keep the money they earn should put THEIR money where their mouth is, take THEIR tax-breaks, and give it away to a noble cause they support. NO ONE should be forced to pay for government-run social programs that do little else but allow lazy people to get by on the working-man's dollar.

I know a family in Hamilton where both parents are on 'disabilities' pay, one parent is on welfare, the father does landscaping jobs for extra cash that isn't claimed for taxes, they don't pay GST because they're status indians, and they go and piss their money away in the Bingo hall every night. I know another family that makes more money than MY parents, yet they live in co-op housing. They don't need that type of support, if my parents can get by on LESS, how the hell do they get to claim that they need government support? Because they don't know how to say 'no' the big-screen TV and new cars they can't afford? If one family like that exists (and I already know TWO), thousands more do too, and you know why it pisses me off? Because they're living off of OUR tax-dollars. And generally, it's politicians on the left that support these types of expenses.

When people (not even just rich people, hell it pisses me off, and I'm far from rich) see these types of actions, it proves that millions of dollars of our money are being pissed away on people who don't deserve it, and we want that money BACK. You know why *I* want that money back? Because the X number of dollars that the government wastes to support these lazy fucks could be much better used by MYSELF to help out a family-in-need that I know and trust, or support a cause I wholeheartedly support.

Aside from that, we have an education system that needs fixing, a health-care system that needs fixing, an underfunded military, an infrastructure 'crisis' looming, etc. etc. etc. And Liberal politicians want to create social daycare and other publicly-funded programs to piss away even more of our money!?

Before they raise taxes on the upper-class who, I wholeheartedly agree, CAN afford it. I want to see the government spend our money WISELY. What one can not do with 10 dollars, one surely will not do with 100 dollars either, sure, the 100 bucks goes further than 10, but does it really fix the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 You're basing this on what, exactly? Have you actually looked at Obama's tax plan? I'll break it down for you. The only people's taxes who will go up are those who make over $250,000 annually. How many of us here make that? How many Americans make that per year? About five percent, to be exact. Do you know how much people's taxes will go up who make between 250,000 and 600,000 per year? About twelve dollars.

My father earns $250,000 a year but he happened to spend the majority of his life busting his ass to make that much. He isn't the top 1% earner in his company nor is he greedy. He also spends most of his time travelling, on the phone until 11pm and in meetings to the point of exhaustion from working so hard so he has a comfortable retirement for my mother and I and could provide his kids with a great life since he didn't have that. Is it really fair to give higher taxes to my dad who's worked as hard as someone else who makes less money just because his salary is higher?

What about doctors who are still in debt from school who make that much? A doctorate loan can cost up to $150,000 and I don't think that's going to be paid overnight. The average debt for a college graduate has soared 50% in the past decade. Just because that doctor gets a high salary he gets a nice slap in the face with higher taxes?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Re. Taxes: Unfortunately tax relief has an immediate, quantifiable benefit to Americans, and that gets votes rather than a policy that takes your money and promises to spend it on certain social benefits that can't really be measured. A tax cut is money in pocket and boy do americans need it right now.

You summed it up quite nicely

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper You just pointed out that you have 3 degrees and will clear six figures.

um...yeah in response to being berated with how hard he's worked, how much money he earns, how he doesn't want to pay taxes, etc. context you know?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam People that accuse rich people of 'not caring about others' just because they actually want to keep the money they earn should put THEIR money where their mouth is, take THEIR tax-breaks, and give it away to a noble cause they support. NO ONE should be forced to pay for government-run social programs that do little else but allow lazy people to get by on the working-man's dollar. I know a family in Hamilton where both parents are on 'disabilities' pay, one parent is on welfare, the father does landscaping jobs for extra cash that isn't claimed for taxes, they don't pay GST because they're status indians, and they go and piss their money away in the Bingo hall every night. I know another family that makes more money than MY parents, yet they live in co-op housing. They don't need that type of support, if my parents can get by on LESS, how the hell do they get to claim that they need government support? Because they don't know how to say 'no' the big-screen TV and new cars they can't afford? If one family like that exists (and I already know TWO), thousands more do too, and you know why it pisses me off? Because they're living off of OUR tax-dollars. And generally, it's politicians on the left that support these types of expenses. When people (not even just rich people, hell it pisses me off, and I'm far from rich) see these types of actions, it proves that millions of dollars of our money are being pissed away on people who don't deserve it, and we want that money BACK. You know why *I* want that money back? Because the X number of dollars that the government wastes to support these lazy fucks could be much better used by MYSELF to help out a family-in-need that I know and trust, or support a cause I wholeheartedly support. Aside from that, we have an education system that needs fixing, a health-care system that needs fixing, an underfunded military, an infrastructure 'crisis' looming, etc. etc. etc. And Liberal politicians want to create social daycare and other publicly-funded programs to piss away even more of our money!? Before they raise taxes on the upper-class who, I wholeheartedly agree, CAN afford it. I want to see the government spend our money WISELY. What one can not do with 10 dollars, one surely will not do with 100 dollars either, sure, the 100 bucks goes further than 10, but does it really fix the problem?

Dude, you make a lot of points that I agree with here. There are problems with the system and people do get away with a lot of shit while people who truly need assistance sometimes get fucked. I've seen it with my own eyes. Here's a great example. My friend in high school was from Lebanon and his parents and his sisters (6 people in total) emigrated to Canada, where they were put on social assistance in government housing, etc. So then when we're in first year, I find out that his dad goes over on "business" to England and that he had "operations" in London and Toronto. Basically, the guy is a fucking crook and getting government subsidies for his family. Plus, my friend got nearly $9,000 in OSAP, even though he wasn't born here, while I was turned down because my mom made "too much money". I was able to get a bank loan to pay my first year's tuition but government assistance going to an immigrant over say, someone born here into a working class family...it's not right and what his dad did was a blatant system-fuck. Who knows what he's up to now?

I also have major issues with our Native policy, for example, but I'd rather not get into that. I think we aren't tough enough on crime and sexual offenders in this country as well. I would rather see welfare to work programs as opposed to handouts. I've seen apartments full of welfare losers who collect their cheques every two weeks or whatever and go buy booze and drink all weekend on their patios or balconies. That element is always going to be there. But despite that, I still can't vote Conservative, because their message is just too individualistic and "fend for yourself".

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee My father earns $250,000 a year but he happened to spend the majority of his life busting his ass to make that much. He isn't the top 1% earner in his company nor is he greedy. He also spends most of his time travelling, on the phone until 11pm and in meetings to the point of exhaustion from working so hard so he has a comfortable retirement for my mother and I and could provide his kids with a great life since he didn't have that. Is it really fair to give higher taxes to my dad who's worked as hard as someone else who makes less money just because his salary is higher? What about doctors who are still in debt from school who make that much? A doctorate loan can cost up to $150,000 and I don't think that's going to be paid overnight. The average debt for a college graduate has soared 50% in the past decade. Just because that doctor gets a high salary he gets a nice slap in the face with higher taxes?

Well that's a nice story about your dad, but yeah, I think he can continue to pay the taxes he's paying and doesn't deserve a break actually. Why should he get a break when nobody else is getting one at the moment? The last eight years someone like your dad in the US HAS been getting tax breaks. It's time for the handouts to go to the people who are really hurting and if your dad makes a quarter of a million dollars, he isn't hurting. No sympathy from me here.

Why are you talking about lowering taxes but then also complaining about education debt? I am currently in a heap of student debt that will probably take me at least the next decade to pay off. You want more funding for education? Well that funding comes from tax dollars.

Interesting point about doctors...but since we have a shortage of doctors in Canada right now and most of them are leaving to the US fo higher salaries, then we SHOULD be giving tax breaks to doctors and helping them pay off their loans. That only makes sense, right? Doctors provide an essential service and we dont' have enough of them right now. But we do have enough lawyers and businessmen already getting enough tax breaks and they don't need any more.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Well that's a nice story about your dad, but yeah, I think he can continue to pay the taxes he's paying and doesn't deserve a break actually. Why should he get a break when nobody else is getting one at the moment? The last eight years someone like your dad in the US HAS been getting tax breaks. It's time for the handouts to go to the people who are really hurting and if your dad makes a quarter of a million dollars, he isn't hurting. No sympathy from me here.

Why do you feel the need to twist around words? Does it help you feel better since the point you are making is obviously ridiculous?

I never said my father should get a tax break. I said he shouldn't be getting taxed higher because of his income. He worked his ass off to get where he is and how is it fair that he gets taxed higher and someone who makes $240,000 doesn't? I could care less whether or not you sympathize him. He doesn't need any sympathy he works hard because he knows that's how you get anywhere in this world.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Interesting point about doctors...but since we have a shortage of doctors in Canada right now and most of them are leaving to the US fo higher salaries, then we SHOULD be giving tax breaks to doctors and helping them pay off their loans. That only makes sense, right? Doctors provide an essential service and we dont' have enough of them right now. But we do have enough lawyers and businessmen already getting enough tax breaks and they don't need any more.

Many doctors entering the field in US make over $250,000 so how is it fair that they get taxed higher when they're in a pile of student debts? With Obama's little plan they most certainly would and if he wants to instill this medical system for everyone then the US will need all of the doctors they can get so I don't think higher taxes because on their salaries is going to attract them.

Interesting story

quote:

Gordon Brown has broken with British convention and made clear that he favours Barack Obama as the next US President. In a departure from the usual self-denying ordinance of Prime Ministers past, Brown has written an article for The Monitor magazine in which he praises Obama's plans to get the US out of the housing slump. Referring to the anxieties facing voters across the globe during the economic slowdown, he says: "Around the world, it is progressive politicians who are grappling with these challenges....In the electrifying US Presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times. To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession." There is not a single mention of McCain or his own plans to help tackle the impact of the slowdown. As this is an article written by the PM himself, no one can claim he is being quoted out of context or misrepresented. I'm sure that Number 10 will be hastily issuing messages soon to try to restore a sense of balance once the gaffe has been pointed out - but the words are out there now. Unlike T Blair (who infuriated Labour MPs by failing to attack Bush), Gordon has strong and deep links to the Dems, but as soon as he became PM he had to bury all that and be extremely careful not to endorse either candidate. A natural ally of Hillary Clinton, he has been as wowed by Obama as others in the Labour Party. Yet he must know that a McCain presidency is just as likely in a tight race. It seems in this article he just couldn't help himself and let slip what he really thought. Lets see if the Dems in the US seize on his support....

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Many doctors entering the field in US make over $250,000 so how is it fair that they get taxed higher when they're in a pile of student debts? With Obama's little plan they most certainly would and if he wants to instill this medical system for everyone then the US will need all of the doctors they can get so I don't think higher taxes because on their salaries is going to attract them.

It's useless to argue with these people because you're not even starting from the same premise.

Capitalist Logic:
1. Individuals make financial decisions according to their individual needs; this is a totally immutable fact of human nature.
2. As a result, value is always determined by the laws of supply and demand, and money naturally flows to sectors that are most highly valued.
3. Labour that is highly specialized, dangerous, or otherwise difficult to find workers for, will naturally receive higher wages.
4. Competence and diligence are rare, specialized qualities, and those most competent tend to find the most success in their chosen industry.
5. Therefore, people earning high incomes and corporations earning high profits are probably very good at what they do, and end up creating more overall wealth in society. We should be happy for them.

Socialist Logic:
1. Individuals act on their own needs only because of social norms. Even if it is human nature, they can and should learn to act according to social responsibility and other altruistic principles.
2. Inequities in value discourage legitimate competition. Therefore, money should flow to where it is needed most, in order to give everyone a chance.
3. Economics is a zero-sum game and whatever money goes to one entity is being taken away from another. Employers may exploit employees and corporations may exploit customers to raise profits.
4. Most successful people are merely lucky or inherited their wealth or title. They have to be lucky, since everybody else is working against them.
5. Therefore, financially successful people have a responsibility to share their success with the less fortunate, and successful corporations should be helping to foot the bill for "higher" causes (public health, social programs, the environment, etc.)

Of course that's super-simplified but you get the idea. You're somewhere between points 4 and 5. It's a futile argument if you already disagree on the preceding points. More importantly, he learned all of this stuff in college and has three degrees in it so it obviously has to be right.

Not that I'm not enjoying watching this unfold, but you ought to know that it's just going to go on forever until someone (probably you) gives up.

don't know if any of you have watched it yet, but really, if you want answers on what kind of VP pick this is, just watch her first interview.

Charles Gibson interview with Sarah Palin

I'm surprised she can string a sentence together. What a farce US politics has become. Just think, she's showed about the same level of intelligence as George W in this interview, with far less independent thought, what happens if the oldest man as president goes down? Scary stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy don't know if any of you have watched it yet, but really, if you want answers on what kind of VP pick this is, just watch her first interview. Charles Gibson interview with Sarah Palin

They even put up a big disclaimer that the interview was edited and that the "money shots" were taken out of context. What's your point with this?

And nobody gives a shit that McCain is "old". Seriously, get over it, we've heard that talking point so many times already. He's no more likely to die in office from old age than Obama is from being black.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut They even put up a big disclaimer that the interview was edited and that the "money shots" were taken out of context. What's your point with this? And nobody gives a shit that McCain is "old". Seriously, get over it, we've heard that talking point so many times already. He's no more likely to die in office from old age than Obama is from being black.

All I'm saying is that a someone in their 70's has less time on their biological clock. It more likely [outside of assassination] that McCain would be somehow incapacitated in office than Obama. That being said, this is the person who'd step in to fill those shoes.

The disclaimer you speak of is nothing more than ABC's editting explicitly stated by the poster of the video. Besides, there isn't much to be taken "out of context"; she can't respond to specific questions is the point to be taken out from this video. He asks a question like "do we have the right to cross the Afghan-Pakistani border without explicit permission of the Pakistani to strike at Al Queda?" And her response being that of buzzword Bush-esque dogma "fight the terrorist that want to destroy us and our allies". Or when asks how her and McCain's economic policy is different than that of the GOP, she merely states "lower taxes, less government interference, smaller government" which in itself is no different than ANY Republican economic plan! Responses like that, no matter what the editting only serves to show she has the qualifications of a mule for the executive office she is now potentially in-line for.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy she can't respond to specific questions is the point to be taken out from this video.

No, the point to be taken is that anyone can be made to look stupid with enough editing.

And you're right: lower taxes, smaller government, less interference IS the general Republican platform. That's a good thing - you don't want a divided party. It's just too bad that Bush had so much trouble sticking to that platform.

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Why do you feel the need to twist around words? Does it help you feel better since the point you are making is obviously ridiculous? I never said my father should get a tax break. I said he shouldn't be getting taxed higher because of his income. He worked his ass off to get where he is and how is it fair that he gets taxed higher and someone who makes $240,000 doesn't? I could care less whether or not you sympathize him. He doesn't need any sympathy he works hard because he knows that's how you get anywhere in this world. Many doctors entering the field in US make over $250,000 so how is it fair that they get taxed higher when they're in a pile of student debts? With Obama's little plan they most certainly would and if he wants to instill this medical system for everyone then the US will need all of the doctors they can get so I don't think higher taxes because on their salaries is going to attract them.

I really don't see how I'm twisting your words here. You're going on about how hard your dad works (and I'm sure he does), but he's doing quite well compared to most people and I do not believe he needs any more tax breaks. In fact, he can afford to pay the twelve dollar increase that Obama proposes for those who make $250,000 per year. Are you really that upset about twelve dollars? That's more important than a universal healthcare plan, revamped economic policy and a 180 on DISASTROUS American foreign policy? That's part of my point...people vote way too much based on getting a few hundred dollars in tax rebates. There are much larger things to consider here...you know, like this ridiculous war on terror that McCain keeps blathering on about and now thinks he can start fucking with Iran and South Korea and his VP pick is even talking about going to war with Russia!! But you're more concerned with your dad paying twelve dollars in taxes per year...it kinda proves my point.

About doctors getting taxed in the US...where do you think those doctors are going to go? So they have to pay a few more thousand dollars in taxes every year and that means they'll all just leave and the system will be broken? A lot of doctors in the US make way too much money to begin with, especially specialists and the cost of medical care in the US had led to the situation where you have about fifty million people with inadequate coverage.

My family doctor here is in the same position that you point out regarding debt. He's a younger guy who probably has about $150,000 in medical school and student living expenses. He came from a family of doctors who made him pay his own school and he doesn't ever bitch about our system. He doesn't mind paying the taxes that he pays because he believes in the institution in which he works and I respect him for that. he's still doing a hell of a lot better than most Canadians, just like your dad is doing a hell of a lot better than most Americans, even though you might think he pays too much at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's useless to argue with these people because you're not even starting from the same premise. Capitalist Logic: 1. Individuals make financial decisions according to their individual needs; this is a totally immutable fact of human nature. 2. As a result, value is always determined by the laws of supply and demand, and money naturally flows to sectors that are most highly valued. 3. Labour that is highly specialized, dangerous, or otherwise difficult to find workers for, will naturally receive higher wages. 4. Competence and diligence are rare, specialized qualities, and those most competent tend to find the most success in their chosen industry. 5. Therefore, people earning high incomes and corporations earning high profits are probably very good at what they do, and end up creating more overall wealth in society. We should be happy for them. Socialist Logic: 1. Individuals act on their own needs only because of social norms. Even if it is human nature, they can and should learn to act according to social responsibility and other altruistic principles. 2. Inequities in value discourage legitimate competition. Therefore, money should flow to where it is needed most, in order to give everyone a chance. 3. Economics is a zero-sum game and whatever money goes to one entity is being taken away from another. Employers may exploit employees and corporations may exploit customers to raise profits. 4. Most successful people are merely lucky or inherited their wealth or title. They have to be lucky, since everybody else is working against them. 5. Therefore, financially successful people have a responsibility to share their success with the less fortunate, and successful corporations should be helping to foot the bill for "higher" causes (public health, social programs, the environment, etc.) Of course that's super-simplified but you get the idea. You're somewhere between points 4 and 5. It's a futile argument if you already disagree on the preceding points. More importantly, he learned all of this stuff in college and has three degrees in it so it obviously has to be right. Not that I'm not enjoying watching this unfold, but you ought to know that it's just going to go on forever until someone (probably you) gives up.

Dude, you're still the guy who thinks Bush and McCain aren't neoconservatives.

Don't you think it's possible to blend the two streams together? Canada is a capitalist society with socialist programs...why is that a bad thing? All you ever do is bitch and whine about "socialists" and left wingers, bla bla bla. It's like you came right out of 1950s McCarthyism.

People running corporations are very good at what they do eh? Hmm...tell that to the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who just had their companies taken over by the federal government after piss poor management. In a lot of cases, white collar salaries are fucking ridiculous.

Why do you ridicule my education all the time? I went to university by the way, not college. Big difference. I might be able to take that as a sign that you aren't educated at all, but who knows.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No, the point to be taken is that anyone can be made to look stupid with enough editing. And you're right: lower taxes, smaller government, less interference IS the general Republican platform. That's a good thing - you don't want a divided party. It's just too bad that Bush had so much trouble sticking to that platform.

The level of editting your thinking of would leave Sarah Pilan looking like Isaac Hayes in his ceremonial removal from South Park. It's not like they cut her off in the middle of her sentences to string together completely different responses, nor changed the questions after she was interviewed, nor cut and pasted her responses from one question to another. She looked bad, and it was her own fault.

As for the response of the Republican economic platform, the question was how would her strategy differ from the GOP, clearly she didn't answer that question either. It was a fair question, the US economy isn't doing so well, so her response was to fix it by offering no difference in strategy to the ones who brought it to it's current state?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.