TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Tough Questions
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The Tough Questions

Okay liberals lets say you guys get your way and you set up a huge high percentage income tax on the wealthy classes, okay. What stops all the wealthy from just saying to hell with this shit, we're leaving, or we are simply just not going to work anymore? If there are no wealthy there to pay the taxes than you have nobody to fund your damn bs programs.

You liberals come across a terrorist that you know has layed a nuclear weapon in a major city in your country. This nuclear weapon is on a timer and this terrorist is the only one that knows how to disarm it. How do you get that information from him?

Re: The Tough Questions

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay liberals lets say you guys get your way and you set up a huge high percentage income tax on the wealthy classes, okay. What stops all the wealthy from just saying to hell with this shit, we're leaving, or we are simply just not going to work anymore? If there are no wealthy there to pay the taxes than you have nobody to fund your damn bs programs.

Ooo, I love unrealistic hypotheticals! So the wealthy stop working, huh? Why would they do that?

And our "damn bs programs" just so happen to be YOUR damn bs programs, unless you have some secret means to pay for the highways, our elderly's Medicare, our military, our libraries, and other gov't programs you cute little Conservatives also love to use.

And if you don't mind, could you please send me your Social Security check in the mail every month when you retire? Seems to me that you really don't want it, so I'm sure you're okay if I use it. Fair enough, champ?

quote:

You liberals come across a terrorist that you know has layed a nuclear weapon in a major city in your country. This nuclear weapon is on a timer and this terrorist is the only one that knows how to disarm it. How do you get that information from him?

By tickling his feet and rubbing his weenie?

Interesting scenario, really - what a pity that despite all the torturing we have done, we haven't found shit about bin Laden, nor have we been able to quell the insurgents in Iraq. And I guess we just have to dismiss all those darn studies that clearly demonstrate that torture methodology to extract information most often leads to inaccurate and unverifiable info.

But I know that's not what you darn Bush/Gonzales apologists wanna hear, so just ignore everything I just said, not that this is anything knew for folks like yourself.

But to answer your question, I would likely support whatever means is necessary to get that info. Unfortunately torture has never seemed to work in order to get the right info.

Re: The Tough Questions

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay liberals lets say you guys get your way and you set up a huge high percentage income tax on the wealthy classes, okay. What stops all the wealthy from just saying to hell with this shit, we're leaving, or we are simply just not going to work anymore? If there are no wealthy there to pay the taxes than you have nobody to fund your damn bs programs.

Why on Earth would they stop working?! You pay tax over the level that tax is set at. So if you say, tax �20,000 at 20%, and �40,000 at 40%, you would only pay 40% on anything over 40% (ie if you earn �45,000 you would pay 40% on only �5,000) Therefore, no wealthy people would stop work as they would still be filthy rich so there.

But as you will probably get upset if I dont answer you I will!

What would happen is that I will get a very highly paid job, as will lots of other people who before would not have had that oppertunity!

quote:

You liberals come across a terrorist that you know has layed a nuclear weapon in a major city in your country. This nuclear weapon is on a timer and this terrorist is the only one that knows how to disarm it. How do you get that information from him?

What MisterOpus1 said...

LOL I was thinking of moving to america just because I'll probebly be earning alot and can't be arsed paying for other people actually.

Try Norway one of my flatmates was telling me about the tax rates there and holy shit you wouldn't belive it. Though if you lose your job you still get paid the same (or atleast you did until recently).

What I'm saying is I dunno where they'd go where they would be taxed less.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish LOL I was thinking of moving to america just because I'll probebly be earning alot and can't be arsed paying for other people actually. Try Norway one of my flatmates was telling me about the tax rates there and holy shit you wouldn't belive it. Though if you lose your job you still get paid the same (or atleast you did until recently). What I'm saying is I dunno where they'd go where they would be taxed less.

Thats why the standard of living is so much better on the continent than it is in the UK. We follow the US economic model and pay a lot less income tax than in Europe, and the effect? We are the fucking shit hole of Europe, apart from Italy obviously.

Opus you didn't even fucking answer the first question. You only said that they wouldn't stop working, so many of you guys want super high percentage taxes on the wealthy, right? For an example of taxing the guys to oblivion, lets say you guys somehow get a tax through that everybody making over 200 grand a year gets taxed at 70 percent while everybody below 200 grand gets taxed at 45 percent. What happens if all the wealthy people leave or stop working. Believe me there are plenty of places they can go. The U.S. would atleast only be 40 or so percent. Cayman Islands have no tax, you can find plenty of countries in latin america with low or no income tax. Luxembourg I think has super low income tax(correct me if I'm wrong)could be Lichten. Hong Kong has 15 percent. And Russia has I think either 15 or 20 percent(thats the case but still to much red tape in Russia). Tickling feet and rubbing his weenie, huh. In liberal world would you would be burned at the stake. We don't torture. We have perfected humane ways of not doing that. If you don't talk we provide the bare minimum of food maintain nutrition, you do talk you eat 3 big meals a day. You don't talk you will probably have to live in low or hot temperature cell, nothing even close to dangerous at all but is discomforting(basically either goosebumps or sweating their ass off). We can't have women sweet talk them because that is called sexual coercion. Just think of it, we are so evil of people we even draped an Israeli flag around one detainee, wow the horror.

Don't call these extreme hypotheticals either. Both events are highly plausible and you well know that.

Who would hire you to work if there are no wealthy people owning Microsoft, McDs, GM, or Sony? No high paying jobs to get.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Opus you didn't even fucking answer the first question. You only said that they wouldn't stop working, so many of you guys want super high percentage taxes on the wealthy, right? For an example of taxing the guys to oblivion, lets say you guys somehow get a tax through that everybody making over 200 grand a year gets taxed at 70 percent while everybody below 200 grand gets taxed at 45 percent. What happens if all the wealthy people leave or stop working. Believe me there are plenty of places they can go. The U.S. would atleast only be 40 or so percent. Cayman Islands have no tax, you can find plenty of countries in latin america with low or no income tax. Luxembourg I think has super low income tax(correct me if I'm wrong)could be Lichten. Hong Kong has 15 percent. And Russia has I think either 15 or 20 percent(thats the case but still to much red tape in Russia). Tickling feet and rubbing his weenie, huh. In liberal world would you would be burned at the stake. We don't torture. We have perfected humane ways of not doing that. If you don't talk we provide the bare minimum of food maintain nutrition, you do talk you eat 3 big meals a day. You don't talk you will probably have to live in low or hot temperature cell, nothing even close to dangerous at all but is discomforting(basically either goosebumps or sweating their ass off). We can't have women sweet talk them because that is called sexual coercion. Just think of it, we are so evil of people we even draped an Israeli flag around one detainee, wow the horror. Don't call these extreme hypotheticals either. Both events are highly plausible and you well know that. Who would hire you to work if there are no wealthy people owning Microsoft, McDs, GM, or Sony? No high paying jobs to get.

what if all the workers stopped working, then the rich people wouldnt make any money? or what if all the workers stopped buying the rich's products, then they couldnt use that either... etc, only because you are rich doesnt mean that you are independent, its all about working together...

First of all that shit happens all the time its called a strike. To answer you question what if the workers stopped working. Well the if would be they would starve first. The rich would move to a country that did have workers working or would hold out until the workers realised they needed to work to survive.

Lets face it, higher tax brackets provide a disincentive for those in that bracket to work less... Not only that, it provides disincentive for those below the highest bracket to not work any harder. That's the reality of progressive tax systems. But, the question go begging... who is the most capable of paying tax?? The answer would have to be the rich, simply because the marginal benefit of money decreases as you earn more (ie. earning you first dollar is more valuable to you than earning your 100,000th dollar).

If you want to get technical on the issue lets note that flat-tax systems are much less distortive to the market than progressive taxes. ie. you can raise the same amount of revenue under a flat-tax system as you did a progressive system, without distorting the market as much. Now this is all and well in economic theory, but remember that we live in a democracy and the people rarely know what's best for them when it comes to economics.

The US income tax system is much more worker friendly than that of Australia. From what i remember (correct me if i'm wrong) the top tax bracket in the US is at $300k and is taxed at about 30%. In Australia we get taxed 47% after $80k (it was $57k last year if i remember, but they lifted it this year). This, by no means, suggests that Australian workers will stop working. Australians, in fact, are amongst the hardest workers in the world (if you go by hours worked per week).

I have deep respect for Australians, Dupz. Yes you guys have your government problems, but just the same as I find the Irish people some of the most friendly, everything I have heard, gathered, and watched regarding the Australian people is always of great esteem. Its good news to hear that you guys raised the ceiling on your progressive tax system. Based on what I have heard I also think that Australia will probably be one of the first countries to toss aside much of the somewhat socialistic practices and move farther and farther towards the market.

p.s. thanx for the help in Iraq.

Ok lets think about this:

1) You stop taxing rich at a higher rate.

2) = less tax income

3) so you tax the lower income brackets to get the money back

4) they need to be paid more

5) everything costs more (note including exports.....) because of higher tax rates (and hence higher pay) for low level workers and possibly business

6) inability to compete on a international market, less foreign investment (as everything labour costs more)

You don't need to tax the lower incomes to get the money back though. The economy will grow faster. More money in the private sector means that less of each dollar gets funneled to the government after every transaction. So what happens is that after each transaction the one receiving the money for the good has more money to go spend on what he wants this spreads to the rest of the economy. Because of less money being taken out of every dollar going to go to the federal government, more transactions occur. More AFTER TAX INCOME means that more people are buying more tvs, etc. Every time this happens everybody's standards of livings rise. Higher standards of living = more income to tax only difference at a lower level. To demonstrate taxing one person making 50 grand at 50 percent = 25 grand to government. After the compounding of grouth over maybe 15 years after tax cuts implemented that same person adjusted as same dollars as previous example would be 100 grand at 25 percent = same amount of money to the government. After the number of years that the revenue going to the government become = then it was actually beneficial to government in gross revenue for those tax cuts to be in place because they receive more there after each year in that lower tax then if the 50 percent was kept for the years all those years. Hopefully you can understand this, I probably could have put it a little easier.

You see what you have just stumbled upon is one great truth about taxation. It affects everybody. No matter what sector of the economy you tax rich, poor, whatever, everybody feels it. You tax the rich well everybody's wages go down and prices go up because they will figure that as another cost they have to endure. If you tax the middle class or poor or whatever then, wages have to be raised yes which is beneficial there, but then they can't compete with ultra low wages in the other countries. The thing is though if you had to choose a low wealthy tax vs. a low middle class/poor tax the low wealthy tax is more beneficial to the society as a whole because of what we know regarding the heirarchy of spending--Direct creation of business and employment, then investment, then consumer spending and saving.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I have deep respect for Australians, Dupz. Yes you guys have your government problems, but just the same as I find the Irish people some of the most friendly, everything I have heard, gathered, and watched regarding the Australian people is always of great esteem. Its good news to hear that you guys raised the ceiling on your progressive tax system. Based on what I have heard I also think that Australia will probably be one of the first countries to toss aside much of the somewhat socialistic practices and move farther and farther towards the market. p.s. thanx for the help in Iraq.

yeah, Australia is currently in negotiations with a whole bunch of countries for some more open-market trade deals.. I gotta give it to the current Liberal government for their market economy reforms, but I still voted for the other party... I'm not a big fan of our support for the US in the war, leading me to vote for the other guys, but your thanks is still much appreciated

That is something I have noticed with many liberal governments in the last few years. Due to them I think noticing some of their failures and such economically, they have started down the path that the conservatives have been saying they must go down for many many years. I don't understand how people think that liberals are good on economy if all they are going to do is reluctantly go down a conservative economic path?

You know its hard to get a lot of good information about other countries on the web since like almost all of the web is U.S. Could you fill me in on a lot of the Australian economic systems? Sales taxes, property taxes, income, estate, etc. I am pretty sure you have national healthcare, so explain how yours works, how easy it is to get seperate plans. What you have for social security. Um, education funding. The major parties and what they endorse, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby That is something I have noticed with many liberal governments in the last few years. Due to them I think noticing some of their failures and such economically, they have started down the path that the conservatives have been saying they must go down for many many years. I don't understand how people think that liberals are good on economy if all they are going to do is reluctantly go down a conservative economic path? You know its hard to get a lot of good information about other countries on the web since like almost all of the web is U.S. Could you fill me in on a lot of the Australian economic systems? Sales taxes, property taxes, income, estate, etc. I am pretty sure you have national healthcare, so explain how yours works, how easy it is to get seperate plans. What you have for social security. Um, education funding. The major parties and what they endorse, etc.

Something I must clear up before I proceed. Our Liberal party is actually our version of the US's Republican party. The Labour party is our version of the Democrats. I have to admit though, both party's are very similar in policy and ideology (especially when it comes to economics) I mean, both are pro free-trade for instance..

Well, I'm going to have to do a little research to answer your questions on our economic systems.. but i have a heap of time on my hands tonight, so i dont really care Where do we start?

Sales Tax
We dont have a sales tax in Australia, per se, rather we have a Goods & Services Tax (GST). The GST was introduced about 5 years ago, or so, and actually replaced a whole bunch of sales taxes. Now, a GST is put on all non-essential goods and services, at a flat rate of 10%. Things that are excluded from GST are fresh foods (not processed foods like spam etc), education, and healthcare for instance.. This tax was very unpopular to start with, but has generally become accepted over the years. Although the price of many things had increased due to the GST things like imported electronics (like TV and DVD players) actually came down in price, as previous sales taxes were much higher than 10%.

Property Tax
Australia has a Land Tax, which I must admit am not very familiar with. Landowners are generally liable for land tax when the unimproved value of taxable land exceeds certain thresholds. In some states there are deductions and rebates available, depending on the use of the land. Principal places of residence are usually exempt from land tax although this is subject to certain qualifying criteria, which vary between states. Land owned and used by the following organisations are generally exempt from land tax:
- non-profit societies
- clubs and associations
- religious institutions
- public benevolent institutions, and
- charitable institutions.
(Dont get too excited, I just cut n paste that whole section )

When dealing with actual property though, I have a bit of a clue. If you buy a house as a place of residence and live in it for over a year you are exempt from any tax on its sale. If you leave the house within a year, or it is an investment property then the profit made on the sale forms part of your regular taxable income. Basically, we call it Capital Gains tax. (It's the same tax that's used when you've made a profit on the sale of shares). Capital Gains tax for individuals forms part of your regular income tax (which i will get onto in a minute), but for businesses the tax is set at a flat 30% (I think...?) rate. So, businesses pay 30% of their profits to the government every year.

Income Tax
Our income tax is similar in nature to that of the US.. by means that it's a progressive tax. Here's the tax rates that have just recently been phased out for the financial year 2003-04.

$0 � $6,000 = Nil tax
$6,001 � $21,600 = 17c for each $1 over $6,000
$21,601 - $52,000 = $2,652 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
$52,001 � $62,500 = $11,772 plus 42c for each $1 over $52,000
Over $62,500 = $16,182 plus 47c for each $1 over $62,500

Tax rates 2004-05
$0 � $6,000 = Nil tax
$6,001 � $21,600 = 17c for each $1 over $6,000
$21,601 - $58,000 = $2,652 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
$58,001 � $70,000 = $13,572 plus 42c for each $1 over $58,000
Over $70,000 = $18,612 plus 47c for each $1 over $70,000

There is an addition levy put on top of our tax to pay for our public health system (called Medicare). Normally, your Medicare levy is calculated at 1.5% of your taxable income but this rate may vary depending on your circumstances. So, essentially our top tax bracket it actually 48.5%.
Medicare is the scheme that gives Australian residents access to 'free' public health care. The amount of levy you pay is based on your taxable income and is in addition to your income tax. It isn�t reduced by any tax offsets you may be entitled to unless they are refundable tax offsets.
Our public health system is first rate. Sure, it's hard to get a bed in a public hospital for any elective surgery, but I can go see a general practitioner anywhere in Australia for free (so long as i flash my medicare card). Our private health system was actually given a rebate by the government a few years back to attract people to sign up. People were given a 30% discount on their private health premiums to provide incentive to sign up. Not sure if the rebate is still available, but because our public system is relatively good it still struggled to attract a significant amount of people. The vast majority of Australians dont have private health cover (especially the younger generations) simply because, again, our public system is still in good shape. Again, I'm not expert on healthcare so i'm not exactly sure what it is you mean by "separate plans"... sorry..

Social Security
Our government sponsored social security system is run by Centrelink, perhaps one of the most annoying/frustrating/incompetent corporations you'll ever deal with. They provide unemployment benefits to our lazy ******s who dont want to work, but also provide things like disability pensions (which includes mental health allowances) and also family assistance type allowances (helping out single mothers and stuff). They also provide "health care cards" which provides for virtually free medication to low income earners and pensioners. I had this card once while i was at uni, and got me access to any drug on the market for under $5, while also allowing for a discount on my car registration of $150 and concessions on public transport/theatres and sporting events. Awsome deal, in my opinion.
For those at uni they provide what we call Austudy.. This is a fortnightly allowance of a few hundred dollars given to those students that come from low income families (which is put at a stupidly low level.. something like a combined family income of $30k a year would qualify you) or given to those students who live at home but earn enough money to prove independence from their parents (something like $16k for the last 18 months is the threshold). If you're studying and living out of home you can get Austudy, and also rent assistance.
All in all.. a kick arse social security system.

Education
Education funding is also fantastic in this country, although not facing a bright future. Public schooling at highschool is fairly popular, although private schools now cover about 30-40% of the market. At university the government subsidises much of the fees a student will incur. The government, until just this year actually, subsidised two-thirds of your uni fees per year.. the remainder is up to you to pay, but the government offers you a loan (with interest equal only to inflation) if you cant pay up front. You pay this money back once you start earning over $35,000 or something... but if you never earn that much, or you move overseas to work, you basically get a free uni degree. nice... For me, my uni fees were about $4000 a year and i payed them up-front (and received a 25% discount), rather than paying it once i earned enough money.
However, since this year the rebate has actually dropped to only one-third of your uni fees.. and the up-front payment discount has dropped from 25% to 20%. So, this years uni freshmen are paying somewhere around $8000 a year (i think), for you standard commerce degree.
This new deal is highly controversial and has stopped many people from coming to uni this year (making it much easier to get a spot in your local uni) Personally, I think it's a farce, but i suppose that such high subsidising is ultimately unsustainable.

Political Parties
Now, this area of specialisation is probably more suited to someone like Renegade, rather than myself... Renegade being a member of our Democrat Party (if my memory serves me correctly). The Democrats, along with the Greens, are our 2nd tier type parties behind the Labour and Liberal parties.

The policies of our Labour party can be found at:
http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Our liberal Party (and the party in power) website can be found at:
http://www.liberal.org.au/
Mozilla is playing up, so i can access their policy page for you..

Like I mentioned before, both parties are very similar, and I often find it difficult to distinguish between the two. However, I think that the Liberals are slightly more authoritarian than the Labour party in terms that they are fairly hardlined on issues of illegal immigration and indigenous reconciliation. ie.. they refuse to say 'sorry' to our natives for past attrocities and jail suspected illegal immigrants for years at a time (including children).

The Australian Democrats can be found at:
http://www.democrats.org.au/index.htm
I suppose this party is more aligned with the Labour party than the Liberal party, in the point that it's less authoritarian. They are pro-choice, pro-reconciliation (with the aboriginies), and are compasionate to the refugees. Again, this leftist style party is probably better known by Renegade than by myself.

The Greens Party are exactly that.. Green:
http://www.greens.org.au/
This party has gained much popularity in the recent election, although their economic policy is next to negligent. They want to reduce foreign investment in Australia, and are actually anti free-trade (and pro "fair" trade).. and if there is anyone who wants to argue that fair trade is better than free trade I have enough ammo to put anyone (including the most stringent of academics) back in their holes.. I am quite passionate about the topic and can rebutt your butt off
Other than their shitty economic policy their emphasis on environmental sustainability is fairly obvious..


Well, this has got to be my longest post EVER.. (i dont post nearly as much as most people on here though.. i like to read.. ) Hope this enlightens you on a little bit of Australia.

Okay appreciate the info. I self taught myself economics so yeah your right free trade is correct--it is proven by law of comparative advantage. I wish many of my party around here would learn this and I guess your liberal party too, but law of comparative advantage also applies to immigration as well. Open immigration is good(assuming customs of course for national security purposes). Um don't call a political party authoritarian though, the two are kind of oxymorons--political party; authoritarian don't match.

Centrelink--they shouldn't be only having one corp do it, they should find multiple ones that they have to compete against.

You kind of answered what I meant by seperate plans--seperate insurance plans that operate on the free market and aren't provided free from government is what I meant. You know general practionishers are no longer big in the free market economy anymore. What I mean is that if you take a look at a the U.S. that atleast is still 50 percent open market healthcare, the natural swings in the market have almost made general practioners obsolete. Everybody wants specialists today. So your and many of the other socialized healthcares out there will grow even farther in not competing with the U.S.

30-40 percent private education that is good news.

Yeah thanx again and vote for the liberal party next time. You seem like a very reasonable guy--the footage from Iraq on election day spoke volumes. So give the liberal party their due credit they helped free millions of people, and deliver them another vote next election.

When dealing with the whole free/fair trade arguments it isnt all just comparative advantage issues that fair trade advocates will throw at you. They'll try and tell you that paying premium prices for goods such as Brazilian coffee beans in good for poverty in Brazil, remembering that Brazil actually has comparative advantage in coffee production.. Simple comparative advantage economics isnt going to win you an argument. I'm not going to get into it too much now, but if you're ever interested (and if anyone gives you grief about it) I wrote a paper on the issue that can help. It is a little technical in its terminology, but I have simplified a lot of it for the average joe to understand. I can send it out to you if you ever need..

Centrelink... It is government run/owned and I doubt that there'll be any interest from private firms to run the place. Competition doesnt seem a likelyhood.

On Iraq, my friend, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Being a native of the Balkans I am too used to wars and find that they solve nothing, even though at face value might be good... I just cannot stand even the thought of war..

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Opus you didn't even fucking answer the first question.

I considered your question highly unrealistic and downright silly, so no I didn't answer it. Perhaps you should state your point without silly hypotheticals, and then you might get a direct answer.

quote:

You only said that they wouldn't stop working, so many of you guys want super high percentage taxes on the wealthy, right? For an example of taxing the guys to oblivion, lets say you guys somehow get a tax through that everybody making over 200 grand a year gets taxed at 70 percent while everybody below 200 grand gets taxed at 45 percent.

Taxing them to "oblivion". Boy for some reason those darn affluent folks seem to be able to land on their feet okay, despite our progressive income tax and regressive payroll tax.

quote:

What happens if all the wealthy people leave or stop working. Believe me there are plenty of places they can go. The U.S. would atleast only be 40 or so percent. Cayman Islands have no tax, you can find plenty of countries in latin america with low or no income tax. Luxembourg I think has super low income tax(correct me if I'm wrong)could be Lichten. Hong Kong has 15 percent. And Russia has I think either 15 or 20 percent(thats the case but still to much red tape in Russia).

As pointed out here, why would they leave or stop working? You seem to have this strange premise that they would stop working because they are being taxed so high. Well they CHOOSE to continue working here, and many of them CHOOSE to evade our tax laws regardless, putting their money in the Caymans, putting their business P.O. Boxes in the Bahamas, etc. etc. We have a great deal of lost revenue as a result of these folks finding the myriad of loopholes in our tax laws, yet our President seemingly does so very little to stop them.

Now truth be told, it's not just the affluent that evades taxes and finds loopholes - certainly folks in the middle and lower class do this as well. But the revenue lost is certainly not as great for them.

Regardless, your point being is that our government relies on their tax revenue, right? And so if they quit, our government would be hurting, right? Well, so what's your point? Yes, we'd be hurting.

Surely there's reasons why they stick around in our country, right, other than having to being taxed to "oblivion"?

quote:

Tickling feet and rubbing his weenie, huh. In liberal world would you would be burned at the stake. We don't torture. We have perfected humane ways of not doing that.

Oh really? Why am I not surprised at your mere dismissive attitude at the reports that have come out of Gitmo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.?

quote:

If you don't talk we provide the bare minimum of food maintain nutrition, you do talk you eat 3 big meals a day. You don't talk you will probably have to live in low or hot temperature cell, nothing even close to dangerous at all but is discomforting(basically either goosebumps or sweating their ass off). We can't have women sweet talk them because that is called sexual coercion. Just think of it, we are so evil of people we even draped an Israeli flag around one detainee, wow the horror.

Are you seriously trying to deny the fact that we haven't tortured any individuals at all? Please fucking tell me you're kidding, right?

quote:

Don't call these extreme hypotheticals either. Both events are highly plausible and you well know that.

Umm, they are still quite hypothetical, sorry.

quote:

Who would hire you to work if there are no wealthy people owning Microsoft, McDs, GM, or Sony? No high paying jobs to get.

Why do I care? And why the strawman? I have no argument against those who have money, nor do I have any argument against those affluent who hire me. What the hell is your point here, if you ever had one?

Provide any evidence that we have used any form of torture. We haven't even in Abu Ghraib the people were made to get naked, eww oh shit everybody we are so evil. Even then the administration came down hard on the people in charge at the prison. Come on Opus lets hear all the evil details on the U.S. interrogation. Um ready go...

I can give countless examples of rich people saying we've had enough of this shit. Even your own statement shows they do that when they send their moneys to places like the Caymans. If you close the loophole they'll just take their money and move to the Caymans than they aren't "acting on a loophole" when they stick it in a Cayman account.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Provide any evidence that we have used any form of torture. We haven't even in Abu Ghraib the people were made to get naked, eww oh shit everybody we are so evil. Even then the administration came down hard on the people in charge at the prison. Come on Opus lets hear all the evil details on the U.S. interrogation. Um ready go...

Ok ... here's some:

quote:

(1) (U) Physical Abuse. Several Soldiers reported that they witnessed physical abuse of detainees. Some examples include slapping, kicking, twisting the hands of a detainee who was hand-cuffed to cause pain, throwing balls at restrained internees, placing gloved hand over the nose and mouth of an internee to restrict breathing, �poking� at an internee�s injured leg, and forcing an internee to stand while handcuffed in such a way as to dislocate his shoulder. These actions are clearly in violation of applicable laws and regulations. (2) (U) Use of Dogs. The use of military working dogs in a confinement facility can be effective and permissible under AR 190-12 as a means of controlling the internee population. When dogs are used to threaten and terrify detainees, there is a clear violation of applicable laws and regulations. One such impermissible practice was an alleged contest between the two Army dog handlers to see who could make the internees urinate or defecate in the presence of the dogs. An incident of clearly abusive use of the dogs occurred when a dog was allowed in the cell of two male juveniles and allowed to go �nuts.� Both juveniles were screaming and crying with the youngest and smallest trying to hide behind the other juvenile. (Reference Annex B, Appendix 1,SOLDIER-17).... e. (U) The physical and sexual abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib are by far the most serious. The abuses spanned from direct physical assault, such as delivering head blows rendering detainees unconscious, to sexual posing and forced participation in group masturbation. At the extremes were the death of a detainee in OGA custody, an alleged rape committed by a US translator and observed by a female Soldier, and the alleged sexual assault of an unknown female. They were perpetrated or witnessed by individuals or small groups. Such abuse can not be directly tied to a systemic US approach to torture or approved treatment of detainees. The MPs being investigated claim their actions came at the direction of MI. Although self- serving, these claims do have some basis in fact. The climate created at Abu Ghraib provided the opportunity for such abuse to occur and to continue undiscovered by higher authority for a long period of time. What started as undressing and humiliation, stress and physical training (PT), carried over into sexual and physical assaults by a small group of morally corrupt and unsupervised Soldiers and civilians. Twenty-four (24) serious incidents of physical and sexual abuse occurred from 20 September through 13 December 2003. The incidents identified in this investigation include some of the same abuses identified in the MG Taguba investigation; however, this investigation adds several previously unreported events. A direct comparison cannot be made of the abuses cited in the MG Taguba report and this one.... 4) (U) Incident #4. ... DETAINEE-08 stated the next evening he was transported by CPL Graner, 372 MP CO MP, to the shower room, which was commonly used for interrogations. When the interrogation ended, his female interrogator left, and DETAINEE-08 claims CPL Graner and another MP, who meets the description of SSG Fredrick, then threw pepper in DETAINEE-08�s face and beat him for half an hour. DETAINEE-08 recalled being beaten with a chair until it broke, hit in the chest, kicked, and choked until he lost consciousness... (5) (U) Incident #5. In October 2003, DETAINEE-07, reported alleged multiple incidents of physical abuse while in Abu Ghraib. DETAINEE-07 was an MI Hold and considered of potentially high value. He was interrogated on 8, 21, and 29 October; 4 and 23 November and 5 December 2003. DETAINEE-07�s claims of physical abuse (hitting) started on his first day of arrival. He was left naked in his cell for extended periods, cuffed in his cell in stressful positions (�High cuffed�), left with a bag over his head for extended periods, and denied bedding or blankets. DETAINEE-07 described being made to �bark like a dog, being forced to crawl on his stomach while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck causing unconsciousness.� On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was tied to a window in his cell and forced to wear women�s underwear on his head. On yet another occasion, DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while MPs jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body. DETAINEE-04 witnessed the abuse with the chem-light. During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE-07 and two female MPs were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs. ... (7) (U) Incident #7. On 4 November 2003, a CIA detainee, DETAINEE-28 died in custody in Tier 1B. Allegedly, a Navy SEAL Team had captured him during a joint TF-121/CIA mission. DETAINEE-28 was suspected of having been involved in an attack against the ICRC and had numerous weapons with him at the time of his apprehension. He was reportedly resisting arrest, and a SEAL Team member butt-stroked him on the side of the head to suppress the threat he posed. CIA representatives brought DETAINEE-28 into Abu Ghraib sometime around 0430 to 0530 without notifying JIDC Operations, in accordance with a supposed verbal agreement with the CIA. While all the details of DETAINEE-28�s death are still not known (CIA, DOJ, and CID have yet to complete and release the results of their investigations), SPC Stevanus, an MP on duty at the Hard Site at the time DETAINEE-28 was brought in, stated that two CIA representatives came in with DETAINEE-28 and he was placed in a shower room (in Tier 1B). About 30 to 45 minutes later, SPC Stevanus was summoned to the shower stall, and when he arrived, DETAINEE-28 appeared to be dead. SPC Stevanus removed the sandbag which was over DETAINEE-28�s head and checked for the detainee�s pulse. He found none. He un-cuffed DETAINEE-28 called for medical assistance, and notified his chain of command. LTC Jordan stated that he was informed of the death shortly thereafter, at approximately 0715 hours. LTC Jordan arrived at the Hard Site and talked to CIVILIAN03, an Iraqi prison medical doctor, who informed him DETAINEE-28 was dead. LTC Jordan stated that DETAINEE-28 was in the Tier 1B shower stall, face down, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. LTC Jordan�s version of the handcuffs conflicts with SPC Stevanus� account that he un-cuffed DETAINEE-28. This incident remains under CID and CIA investigation.

Plenty more in the Army report:
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/doc...fay82504rpt.pdf

Rape, beatings, sodomy ... very humane.

I do apologize for the pathetic attempt at a war by Clinton in the Balkans. He didn't want is poll numbers to go down so he kept the war at 40 thousand feet. If they truly wanted to fix the Balkans for good they could have.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I do apologize for the pathetic attempt at a war by Clinton in the Balkans. He didn't want is poll numbers to go down so he kept the war at 40 thousand feet. If they truly wanted to fix the Balkans for good they could have.

What the fuck does Clinton and the Balkans have anything to do with what Occ posted, sir?

I thought Clinton did good in prompting some action but because of the half heartedness, liberals are coming back to the conservatives saying that we might have to go back in again. Wars do accomplish when they are faught whole heartedly. In our case: Revolutionary War establishes us. Civil War kept the country together and ended slavery. WWII ended German and Japanese imperialism. These wars produced great results, I apologize that a half hearted war by the U.S. soured you regarding the good results many wars can produce.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I thought Clinton did good in prompting some action but because of the half heartedness, liberals are coming back to the conservatives saying that we might have to go back in again. Wars do accomplish when they are faught whole heartedly. In our case: Revolutionary War establishes us. Civil War kept the country together and ended slavery. WWII ended German and Japanese imperialism. These wars produced great results, I apologize that a half hearted war by the U.S. soured you regarding the good results many wars can produce.

And what the fuck does that have to do with what Occ posted....ie...the evidence that torture did take place....or are you a total asshole in denial that it ever took place....

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I thought Clinton did good in prompting some action but because of the half heartedness, liberals are coming back to the conservatives saying that we might have to go back in again. Wars do accomplish when they are faught whole heartedly. In our case: Revolutionary War establishes us. Civil War kept the country together and ended slavery. WWII ended German and Japanese imperialism. These wars produced great results, I apologize that a half hearted war by the U.S. soured you regarding the good results many wars can produce.

Hehe this is simply priceless, you offer up gem after gem after gem. And who lead the half-heartedness movement during the Balkan war?? The Republicans!! Remember that whole conservative movement against nation building?

quote:

Yankee Go Home Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it. Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said. 1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition. 2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate." 3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience." 4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." 5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed." 6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons." 7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy." 8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out." 9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon." Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time. http://slate.msn.com/?id=27730

Next ...

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