quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X That's a different story, tho it would be nice to have no taxes and everything rely on private businesses, but that Libertarian view wouldn't work. Taxes shouldn't be wasted in social programs and MORE welfare, and more Social Security.

So are you against corporate welfare, the welfare you don't hear about, where costs are socialized, but profits are privatized? A ton of money goes toward corporate giants in the form of tax incentives to build plants in various jurisdictions. (I know, a vague, sweeping generalization, but we're on a message board.) It's easy to point the finger at individual people who are seen as leeches, but how about the big boys of welfare?

And as far as private businesses, do you think they would offer essential services to small rural communities at affordable prices?

___________________
This is what you came for.

Last edited by Wurm on Apr-15-2003 at 15:23

Center-Ish-Left-Ist

___________________
Check My Music

I used to be vaguely left, but the current lefty circus has drawn me more to the right.

quote:

Howard Zinn can write a book about whatever he wants. Yes, America is that free of a country. Howard Zinn, however, is not the embodiement of liberals everywhere. Why you keep mentioning him is beyond me.

Maybe it's just me but it seems wrong to write history according to someone's bias of misinformation.

quote:

I never said that all college or well educated people are liberals, so I never felt it necessary to address Scalia's education. Hmm, its a known fact that as a person's education increases, their views shift to the left. I am a very educated person.

You mentioned Ralph Nader so I mentioned Scalia.

quote:

Actually, you're right about this proportion. All I can argue is that eventually money, for those who are astronomically wealthy, becomes more about status than actual functionality. One of the reasons behind taxation is to help regulate wealth . Should tax breaks consistently be benefitting the wealthy, I fail to see how this goal of semi-equality can be met.

Bill Clinton was at a press conference and what he talked of was of a socialist nation. A reporter asked," Mr.Clinton, can you name a successful Economic Socialist nation?" There was a pause and Mr.Clinton's answer was "No" which was followed by his jibber jabber gib-el-dee-gop and got away once more decieving America. I always thought taxation was to "give it to the ppl" as most liberals do.

quote:

So are you against corporate welfare, the welfare you don't hear about, where costs are socialized, but profits are privatized? A ton of money goes toward corporate giants in the form of tax incentives to build plants in various jurisdictions. (I know, a vague, sweeping generalization, but we're on a message board.) It's easy to point the finger at individual people who are seen as leeches, but how about the big boys of welfare?

This is addressed to D'Paul's last quote and Wurm.

Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks.

quote:

BTW, why would anyone settle for being dirt poor and having to live on welfare? No person can rely on welfare to meet the basic needs of survival. This means no home, poor clothing, and poor nutrition or hunger. How will this make a person lazy and reliant on the government? If anything, people use welfare as a means to supplement their jobs and move up the economic ladder. Besides, most people eligible for welfare don't take it anyway because they are ashamed or the application process is far too complicated.

I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks. I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

You're focussing your attention in the wrong places.

Microsoft is not an example of greatness. The whole idea of an icon was stolen from Apple.

Welfare to individuals is a drop in the bucket compared to welfare to corporations, most of whom have CEOs raking in 7-8 figure salaries while cutting personnel to 'trim the fat'. If you quote to me from the book of Microsoft, then I could quote to you from the book of Enron.

___________________
This is what you came for.

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Maybe it's just me but it seems wrong to write history according to someone's bias of misinformation.

No matter what you read about history, you're getting someone's opinion on what really happened. History is a set of lies agreed upon. Andrew Jackson is on the 20 dollar bill, yet he was one of the most racist presidents in America's brief existence. This is the man who is responsible for the trail of tears and he is glorified at any place there is a cash register.

Tell me what you think about Big Tobacco spending inordinant amounts of money to slander the Tobacco Act a few years ago? Their distortions told people that this act would tax people with incomes under $30,000 at disproportionately high rates. Yes, it would have, had they been smokers. The tax would have only been levied on cigarettes. Also, the money generated would have almost entirely gone to cancer research. How about the Telecommunications Bill of a few years ago? It was hailed on corporate owned media outlets as a bipartisan bill that would cut costs to consumers. Unfortunately, it failed to mention that there was a provision that requires all new telephones to be pre-wired for government wire taps. In addition, there is a provision that bars local governments from banning cellular telephone towers or from restricting them because of radiation-associated health hazards. This means they get to take our land and use it for cell phone towers no matter what the risk is to society. But who cares right? They're rich, and they've made it, so they don't need any restrictions as to how much they can distort the truth.

Now tell me that Howard Zinn is wrong for writing a book, which he explicitly expains is in his perspective, that chronicles our history.

quote:

You mentioned Ralph Nader so I mentioned Scalia.

No, you mentioned Scalia, so I mentioned Nader. Nader is not the joke that Ross Perot was, so I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that no one takes him seriously. He is an educated man with a proven track record.

quote:

Bill Clinton was at a press conference and what he talked of was of a socialist nation. A reporter asked," Mr.Clinton, can you name a successful Economic Socialist nation?" There was a pause and Mr.Clinton's answer was "No" which was followed by his jibber jabber gib-el-dee-gop and got away once more decieving America. I always thought taxation was to "give it to the ppl" as most liberals do.

Are you calling me a socialist? I'm not an advocate for a socialist republic nor former President Clinton. I don't know why Republicans or conservatives in general sit there and bash Clinton. The guy was a conservative in a liberal guise. He backed away from legislation that would put restrictions on big business, he didn't care about the environment, he didn't allow for gay marriages, and he never cut defense spending. The only thing he did do was marginally raise taxes (I'd like to point out that liberals don't advocate for tax hikes. We just believe that they rarely ever stimulate the economy and history proves us right) and give a little relief to government sponsored social programs. This alone a liberal does not make. By the way, there isn't a single pure socialist country in the world. Most follow a secretly fascist (or extremely conservative) regime.

quote:

This is addressed to D'Paul's last quote and Wurm. Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks.

I believe my friend Wurm covered this particular portion of your response. I'd just like to add that corporations are not people shouldn't get tax breaks. People get tax breaks and how they choose to use it, reinvestment, savings, or consuming it, is up to them. I would also like to say that Bill Gates has not always had the best product available, but has had the funds to kill the competition and distort truths. Windows fucks up on me more than it should and was promised. Gates' profits also goes to more marketing for his rehashed product lines such as Microsoft Office.

quote:

I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

Nice choice of language. Welfare in this country is a very poorly run institution and no one seems to pay enough attention to make actual reform. Cutting money, though, will not make the program any better. There would be less incentive for the people running the show to streamline the process and make it so that the people who need help receive it. Cutting the program all together would just show we don't care. We should just get guns and kill off all those whom we know are gonna fail in life, right? I mean money isn't the only means of helping the needy, but most well off taxpaying citizens don't put in the time and effort to help either. Neither should they have to, hence, taxation.

I devote a lot of time to helping out the underpriveledged, so I've encountered a lot of people on welfare and working minimum-wage jobs at the same time. On weekends, you'll see me at soup kitchens, habitat for humanity, the YMCA, or various other places that seek to aid the homeless and/or poor. For this one person you mention that gets $700 a month for nothing, I encounter roughly 200 people a month that are getting $100 from welfare and working at least 2 jobs to support themselves and their children. Basically, you found one person that is exploiting the system and has an outside resource for money. The men and women I mentioned don't have any crutches to fall back on. Don't distrust everyone because of this one lady.

quote:

Originally posted by D'Paul Democrats aren't the left in my book. If they are in yours, I can see where you're coming from.

There are John Breax democrats, and then there are Diane Finestine/Hillary clinton democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Interesting how 80% of the jews voted for Gore. I thought jews were generally more right winged, at least judging by these boards .

AL Gore's running mate was a jew. Maybe that explains things.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Apr-19-2003 at 03:40