PDA

View Full Version : opposed to current government. Yes or No?


Druganator
08-17-2008, 12:21 AM
id like to hear what anyone else has to say about this topic and id like to see if anyone would like to have a friendly argument to see who can defend their position

For clarification purposes, it appears this topic is about the current administration of the US. --Jae

Nedak
08-17-2008, 12:25 AM
I'm opposed to the current administration and a lot of how the government works.

HOWEVER, I do not agree with the idea of there being no government. The government needs to be changed for the better, not removed.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 12:30 AM
if it were up to me id remove every one who holds office and start from scratch with a new system of government that combines the best parts socialism and capitalism and i would adopt isolationism because whatever happens in other countries is the uns business not ours but i dont think having no form of government would help anyone

Nedak
08-17-2008, 12:38 AM
Developing Isolationism would be a fearful and uncaring way to govern.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 12:39 AM
i wouldnt be afraid of other countries i just wouldnt stick my nose into other countries business at the expense of my peoples lives

Nedak
08-17-2008, 12:40 AM
So we should do what we did in WWII and just sit back while other countries get taken over, then not do anything until we get attacked ourselves?

Druganator
08-17-2008, 12:43 AM
i see your point and im not saying that, my isolationism has nothing to do with iraq and the threat they supposedly posed which we had no way to kno was really not a threat. i just think wed be better off only attacking ppl that threaten us not themselves

Nedak
08-17-2008, 01:01 AM
Why would you need isolationism to do that? How about just being rational government, instead of making such drastic changes?

Now I see why I'm the only one debating here. :lol:

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:04 AM
yea i see ur point i guess im just so used to how stupidly our government is being run that i thot that that was what people thot a rational government was

Rev7
08-17-2008, 01:04 AM
i wouldnt be afraid of other countries i just wouldnt stick my nose into other countries business at the expense of my peoples lives
What if it concerns the safety of your country?

Sigundr
08-17-2008, 01:05 AM
Isolationism worked great for feudal Japan because they were an island, and an island is much easier to police.

We're a continent. Hell, we're PART of a continent. It'd be damn difficult if not impossible to police the borders.

Iraq, I think (don't yell at me sala), was more of a "what if" situation than an actual threat. It did, possibly, change things for the better regarding government and the ruling regime and what not.

BTW, we're part of the UN.

Rev7
08-17-2008, 01:06 AM
If I do recall we are an Imperialistic nation as well, no?

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:08 AM
and yes we are part of the un i kno that but we are essentially the only country from the un fighting in the middle east

Sigundr
08-17-2008, 01:10 AM
If I do recall we are an Imperialistic nation as well, no?

Not really. Imperialism deals more with colonies and protectorates.

...but we are essentially the only country from the un fighting in the middle east

Bull****.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:12 AM
who else? im actually wondering who else because i kno that britain helped a little bit but im not aware who else

Please use proper English and not IM speak, Druganator. It's too hard for our non-native English speakers to decipher. Thanks, Jae

Sigundr
08-17-2008, 01:15 AM
UK, Australia, Poland, Georgia. That's more than one member state.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:16 AM
georgia? is that the place that just split from russia? and i forgot about australia and poland my bad. 5 countries out of how many in the un?

Sigundr
08-17-2008, 01:22 AM
...how young are you? Georgia has been a UN member since July of '92. And split from Russia in '91.

Nedak
08-17-2008, 01:23 AM
I suggest you do more research to base your views off of Druganator.

Read some Chomsky books or something.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:26 AM
im sorry im only 17 and when i think of georgia i think of the state

Sigundr
08-17-2008, 01:29 AM
... you poor, poor culturally deficient child. Don't flame. --Jae

I suggest you stock up on European lit and take a tour round the continent. You'd be amazed at what you'd learn.

mimartin
08-17-2008, 01:43 AM
NO! While I’m not a fan of the current administration, I’m not opposed to the current government. I could not even fathom how you could redo the entire government and produce a better working model than we have now. Is it flawed? Undoubtedly, but with the divisions in this country today how flawed do you think a new government would be. We cannot even agree on how to reform Social Security, how well do you really believe we would do in writing a new Constitution?

Our founding fathers were of privilege, but they were also trying to correct the errors of what they considered an unfair system. Today, you would again have men/women of privilege writing our laws just as we have in Washington since our government foundation. By allowing them to rewrite the laws we would only be looking at 100% of corporations not paying taxes instead of 1/3 that pay them now. IMO ridiculous idea.

Druganator
08-17-2008, 01:50 AM
i plan on heading to amsterdam after i graduate and touring through europe and yes i am culturally deficient

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-17-2008, 01:53 AM
i would appoint myself emperor and make people lay in front of me when i walk so i could walk on people's backs not the dirty dirty ground

Achilles
08-17-2008, 02:02 AM
I could not even fathom how you could redo the entire government and produce a better working model than we have now.The one we have right now or the one the Framers established more than 200 years ago?

Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?

Check out the General Tech Discussion forum (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=691). They have some terrific info there, and I bet this would be an excellent thread topic there. --Jae

mimartin
08-17-2008, 02:21 AM
Truthfully either, I’d really like to get rid of most of the additives, but if it was a complete redo I feel today’s society would produce a worse working government than we have now even with all the additives. I’d at least like to go back to when checks and balances were not a foreign idea in Washington. :(Hopefully, that that happens 155 days, 20 Hrs and 37 min. :D

jonathan7
08-17-2008, 02:24 AM
Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?

No, because I perform regular maintenance and cull unwanted programmes, and running very strict anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes.

As such I suggest every 10 years having a governmental cull, and occasionally removing certain politicians, just because they don't seem to be doing a very good job - and I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up ;)

(My last post for 10 days as I'm off, so thought I should make it as funny as possible :D)

Corinthian
08-17-2008, 02:30 AM
Agent 47 would be wiling to provide such services, for a price.

At any rate, no. The Government needs reform, but you don't reform a government by stripping everything out and then trying to reassemble it. You know what usually happens when you do that?

1: Nothing happens.

Or

2: Now it doesn't work.

Also, Socialism has yet to really be a successful system anyway.

mimartin
08-17-2008, 02:31 AM
I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up ;)

That would at least end the debate about the death penalty in the U.S. as it would be definitely be considered cruel and usual by those in power if they were facing it. ;)

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-17-2008, 02:35 AM
The one we have right now or the one the Framers established more than 200 years ago?

Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?i run linux :cool:

Great Scott!
08-17-2008, 02:50 AM
I think our government's fine. Any attempted improvements would end up as deprovements.

Wait, deprovements isn't in the spell checker? So it's not even a word? Bah.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-17-2008, 02:57 AM
I think our government's fine. Any attempted improvements would end up as deprovements.

Wait, deprovements isn't in the spell checker? So it's not even a word? Bah.yeah well it's already getting ****tier and more corrupt everyday so uh might as well risk it

jonathan7
08-17-2008, 02:57 AM
I think our government's fine.

Did you miss, say the last half of the century?

Wait, deprovements isn't in the spell checker? So it's not even a word? Bah.

Your kidding right? Any Government that gives you George Bush as a viable Presidential candidate clearly has issues, (please note, if you think Bush has done a good job, or is a good candidate to lead a country - I very much doubt your political savvy).

(Right this really will be my last post before I go on holiday :xp:)

mur'phon
08-18-2008, 07:25 AM
As such I suggest every 10 years having a governmental cull, and occasionally removing certain politicians, just because they don't seem to be doing a very good job - and I think imposing the death penalty for under-performing politicians might buck their ideas up

You mean, like we do in elections? Only with the death penalty for loosing incubents?:D

Also, Socialism has yet to really be a successful system anyway.

Really? Ever heard of the nordic countries?

Astor
08-18-2008, 08:51 AM
who else? im actually wondering who else because i kno that britain helped a little bit but im not aware who else

A little bit? Maybe compared the US deployment of 248,000, our 46,00 troops may seem small, but that constitutes a hell of a lot more than a 'little bit'.

This is why a lot of people have problems with America, I think. Other countries get sidelined in favour of their view of things.

I've seen the same thing with World War II. If you spoke with some Americans, you'd think they fought the war single handedly.

when i think of georgia i think of the state

Try looking outside your own borders. It'll do wonders for your view of the world. :)

Da_Man_2423
08-18-2008, 09:11 AM
I've seen the same thing with World War II. If you spoke with some Americans, you'd think they fought the war single handedly.


Patriotism gets the best of people sometimes...also the fact that some people are just ignorant.

Astor
08-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Patriotism gets the best of people sometimes...also the fact that some people are just ignorant.

I don't begrudge patriotism, but I think that America would be seen in a more favourable light if it accepted that it's not just thanks to them that we're all free from oppression.

Da_Man_2423
08-18-2008, 09:53 AM
Sorry, but that's probably never going to happen. America has been a part of and has done too many things in the past to "ensure freedom", that some people are just too proud to admit that other countries have helped out too. Kids in school (my school at least) are taught about stuff that happened to America, and all the glorious (and rarely not so glorious) things that have happened to us. Other countries rarely get mentioned, and if they do, it's usually related to something evil. It's that stuff that gets stuck in everyone's minds here, because it's all we learn about.

Druganator
08-18-2008, 12:14 PM
yea i agree with you on the patriotism thing most americans think simply because when they got there the war was half over that it was because they ended it and i apologize for the little bit remark in america we dont really hear about who helped us in iraq the media just tells us how bad its going

EnderWiggin
08-18-2008, 01:49 PM
Why would you need isolationism to do that? How about just being rational government, instead of making such drastic changes?

Now I see why I'm the only one debating here. :lol:

The reason you're the only one who is debating is due to the lack of correct grammar and spelling in this thread.


Anyone here ever have to reformat their hard drive and reinstall all their software because their OS got too bogged down with junk?


Yes, but I'm the deity of my computer. I think I'll let the elimination of the government up to the country's God. :xp:

Did you miss, say the last half of the century?

Your kidding right? Any Government that gives you George Bush as a viable Presidential candidate clearly has issues, (please note, if you think Bush has done a good job, or is a good candidate to lead a country - I very much doubt your political savvy).


<3.

_EW_

ForeverNight
08-18-2008, 02:05 PM
Hey, Carter or Bush? I'd pick Bush over Carter (Or Clinton(s)) any day of the week.

While he hasn't done the best job possible, he's still done an okay job. Many people seem to hate him with a zeal that frightens me... why? I don't know. Maybe they're just bitter... :giveup:

Anyway, I am unopposed to our current government. The only thing I would suggest is an amendment to the Constitution limiting the amount of terms that you can serve in the House and the Senate, after all, that's where the real power lies.

But, other than that... I'd say we have a damn good system. Not the best, but a far cry from the worst.

mimartin
08-18-2008, 05:48 PM
Hey, Carter or Bush? I'd pick Bush over Carter (Or Clinton(s)) any day of the week. :lol::lol: :rolleyes:

The only thing I would suggest is an amendment to the Constitution limiting the amount of terms that you can serve in the House and the Senate, after all, that's where the real power lies. A Constitutional amendment for term limits is never going to happen and that is my promise to America. The politician can promise all they want, but once they get into office why would they limit their own time in office.

Oh, the way the government should work is that the three branches of government share power and keep a check on the other. So the real power should be with all of the above. Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.

Rev7
08-19-2008, 01:51 AM
Not really. Imperialism deals more with colonies and protectorates.

Erm... (http://www.sagehistory.net/worldpower/imperialism.htm)

The first paragraph is were my point is...
Historian Paul Kennedy has called the emergence of the U.S. as player on world stage the most decisive change in late 19th century. America saw herself with a "special moral endowment" and felt justified in projecting influence beyond her borders. Americans still avoid "entangling alliances" but feel free to get more actively involved.

Achilles
08-19-2008, 02:26 AM
:lol::lol: :rolleyes: *looks at ForeverNight's profile. Looks at date of birth. Moves on.*

Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.Wow, you make it sound as though the Republican Congress (with help from people like Bush's old Texas political buddy, Tom Delay) weren't handing the Executive Branch unrestricted power on a silver platter.

Druganator
08-19-2008, 02:45 AM
i thought that congress is currently and had been for at least 4 years democratic i mean i may be wrong but from what i understand congress has been very Liberal

Achilles
08-19-2008, 02:55 AM
Congress switched to "Democratic control" in the mid-term elections of 2006, however I think it's important to remember that Dems only hold a slight simple majority. Republicans can (and do) exert more power than most people realize, simply because they hear "Democratic Congress" and assume that means that the Dems get to call all the shots.

Here's an example to illustrate my point:

The Democratic Caucus wants to push through Initiative XYZ. They need a simple majority for it to pass, however if the Republican President doesn't like it, then he can veto the Bill, at which point it can still become a law, but only if Congress can rally a 2/3 majority to override the Presidential veto. All the Republicans have to do is not vote for the override and the President gets what he wants. What's more, the Republicans could then sit back and deride the Democrats for being ineffective and score political points for the next election. So theoretically, one could argue that Republicans are still calling the shots even though they "lost" both the Senate and the House.

I hope that helps.

Astor
08-19-2008, 03:54 AM
*looks at ForeverNight's profile. Looks at date of birth. Moves on.*

Surely you're not discounting people's opinions based on age?

Achilles
08-19-2008, 03:58 AM
"discounting"? No.

EnderWiggin
08-19-2008, 07:46 AM
Surely you're not discounting people's opinions based on age?

Perhaps he was giving him a break due to his nievete.

_EW_

Darth InSidious
08-19-2008, 09:49 AM
Yes.

I should probably qualify, though, that I'm opposed to all American self-governance on grounds of gross recklessness.

And I challenge anyone here to tell me I'm without cause to think so.

o_Q

Achilles
08-19-2008, 11:00 AM
I accept your challenge :D

Darth InSidious
08-19-2008, 11:11 AM
"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand —but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.' "

En garde, sir. :p

Achilles
08-19-2008, 11:14 AM
Oh, him. I thought the topic was self-governance, not specific, soon to be self-corrected results. :xp:

Darth InSidious
08-19-2008, 11:20 AM
Well, if you're going to classify current events as 'soon to be self-corrected results', how about Smoot-Hawley, then? :xp:

Achilles
08-19-2008, 11:31 AM
But again, this doesn't address the larger philosophical issue that you raised, self-governance. I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could cherry-pick less than stellar choices made by members of your government (both current or past), however I also know that such an argument would have very little to do with building a case against monarchy (if I were inclined to do so).

I'm willing to bet that if we're both honest, we'll agree that no form of government is perfect. My contention would be that all government is inherently self-government and that "hands on self-government" is less reckless than "hands off self-government", which would speak more directly to the discussion I thought we would be having :D

Darth InSidious
08-19-2008, 11:33 AM
Mmm... nope, sorry. I was just implying that the US should be run directly from Whitehall. :p


But again, this doesn't address the larger philosophical issue that you raised, self-governance. I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could cherry-pick less than stellar choices made by members of your government (both current or past),
You and me both...

however I also know that such an argument would have very little to do with building a case against monarchy (if I were inclined to do so).
Building a case against monarchy? I think I missed the turning that led to that... >.>

I'm willing to bet that if we're both honest, we'll agree that no form of government is perfect.
In all honesty, yes, I'd agree to that. It's a bit too easy a position to argue, though. :xp:

My contention would be that all government is inherently self-government
It depends on whether you count colonies and dominions as part of 'self', I suppose... :p

and that "hands on self-government" is less reckless than "hands off self-government", which would speak more directly to the discussion I thought we would be having :D
... Would it save time if I just said 'yes'? :p

Sigundr
08-19-2008, 11:57 AM
Erm... (http://www.sagehistory.net/worldpower/imperialism.htm)


All those dates are in the eighteen hundreds. I'm referring to modern day America.

Druganator
08-19-2008, 01:00 PM
yes thank u for the clarification i had never thot of it like that now i can tell all of my conservative frends that complain about it being democrats fault nothing gets done to suck my expletive

Achilles
08-19-2008, 01:02 PM
Mmm... nope, sorry. I was just implying that the US should be run directly from Whitehall. :p I'm sure that you and I both have some ideas about what it would take to make the world a better place. One or two of them may even overlap :D

You and me both... You already have. :)

Building a case against monarchy? I think I missed the turning that led to that... >.> No, you didn't. :) As I qualified earlier, "if I were inclined to do so".

In all honesty, yes, I'd agree to that. It's a bit too easy a position to argue, though. :xp:It is, which is why I felt confident accepting your challenge.

It depends on whether you count colonies and dominions as part of 'self', I suppose... :p Yes, if one considers such labels as a key part of the point.

... Would it save time if I just said 'yes'? :pOh indeed! A great many discussions could be truncated by simply agreeing with me at the onset :D:xp:

ForeverNight
08-19-2008, 01:16 PM
Perhaps he was giving him a break due to his nievete

That hurts, Ender, that really hurts!

But, with everything I've read over Carter's years in the Whitehouse compared to what I know about Bush's years in the Whitehouse... Carter did more damage than Bush has -as far as I think.

Clinton... Well, do I really need to explain that one?

Oh, the way the government should work is that the three branches of government share power and keep a check on the other. So the real power should be with all of the above. Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.


And yet the Legislative Branch can force the President into making deals.... Wow, that's a whole lotta power the Executive Branch has...

Don't get me wrong, the Executive Branch has power, but in order to get stuff done, you need the Legislative Branch at least sated enough to follow your suggestions.

:lol::lol::rolleyes:

Alright... what does that mean? I'm not that well versed in speaking with Smilies, so if you could type out what you're trying to say that would help me out a little bit.

mimartin
08-19-2008, 01:48 PM
And yet the Legislative Branch can force the President into making deals.... Wow, that's a whole lotta power the Executive Branch has... One word: Veto!

So the executive branch really isnít forced into anything. The two branches should have to work together to get laws passed. Checks and Balances.

Not good enough two words: executive privilege. Opps. Got around the Legislative branch with that one.

More? Two more words: Signing Statement. Now the president has the power to modify the meaning of a law. Sounds like the Judicial and legislative branch lost a little power there to me.
Don't get me wrong, the Executive Branch has power, but in order to get stuff done, you need the Legislative Branch at least sated enough to follow your suggestions. Yes and your point. Sounds like you are saying the Executive Branch does not have real power unless it is a dictatorship. The system is design so that the Executive and Legislative branches must work together to get anything done. The problem is Presidents try to get around this little detail in order to push their agenda. In reality they should be working together to push the Americans people agenda through.
Alright... what does that mean? I'm not that well versed in speaking with Smilies, so if you could type out what you're trying to say that would help me out a little bit. I thought you made one of the best jokes I've read here in a while. The :rolleyes: was in off chance you were serious.

ForeverNight
08-19-2008, 02:19 PM
Ahhh.... nope, sorry to disappoint, no joke. But, thanks, I don't spend as much time in forums where smilies are used a lot in order to read them and understand.

One word: Veto!

Veto's can be overturned by a 2/3's majority in the Senate.

executive privilege. Opps. Got around the Legislative branch with that one.

Correct me if I'm wrong (And I have the feeling I am) but the two times (off the top of my head) that Executive Privilage has been claimed, it's been shot down... maybe I'm just not thinking of the right times... in any case, it bears further reading.

Signing Statement. Now the president has the power to modify the meaning of a law.

And then the court of Public Opinion comes in. If the President modifies it too much, then the Public will go nuts, and the President could be in some serious trouble next election cycle. (Unless he's in his second term). And we all know how much Politico's love getting into office.

Yes and your point. Sounds like you are saying the Executive Branch does not have real power unless it is a dictatorship. The system is design so that the Executive and Legislative branches must work together to get anything done. The problem is Presidents try to get around this little detail in order to push their agenda. In reality they should be working together to push the Americans people agenda through.

However, in order for this to work, Congress must want to get along with the President. And, not trying to say that only Congress is guilty of this, since they're not, the President must want to get along with Congress too.

But, in the case of where the Congress is controlled by a wide margin by the Opposite Party, then the President's going to have to make a whole lotta deals and make a whole lotta overtures to the people in control.

Oh, and the period after point, was that supposed to be a comma?

jrrtoken
08-19-2008, 04:26 PM
Communism, anyone? Contrary to popular belief, pure communism really hasn't been implemented yet. Sure, Lenin attempted it, but his mistake was introducing communism overnight (so to speak). If communism was to be truly implemented, it should be done so gradually over the period of many years, so that the people can gradually learn to accept lack of personal space. :)

mur'phon
08-19-2008, 05:27 PM
Ever wondered why "pure" communism haven't been implemented? It isn't for a lack of trying;)

Achilles
08-19-2008, 05:33 PM
If communism was to be truly implemented, it should be done so gradually over the period of many years, so that the people can gradually learn to accept lack of personal space. :)Meh, I respectfully disagree. You may be right, however I suspect that "true" communism only works on small scales. I think the problem with large-scale communism is that it doesn't account for human nature. Once in-group bias begins to take over, it's difficult to maintain any sense of altruism.

But that's is my opinion and nothing more.

Jae Onasi
08-19-2008, 06:48 PM
Communism--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.

Achilles
08-19-2008, 06:52 PM
Communism--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Communist Manifesto also :xp:

KinchyB
08-19-2008, 07:02 PM
Welfare, Social Security--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.

Corrected :)

Grrr^10 to welfare...that's all I can muster.

Achilles
08-19-2008, 07:07 PM
At least in communism, they expect everyone to contribute.

mimartin
08-19-2008, 07:11 PM
Corrected :)Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

At least in communism, they expect everyone to contribute.
Surely, you are not suggesting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.:carms:

Jae Onasi
08-19-2008, 07:13 PM
Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Communist Manifesto also :xp:

The ideal is a wonderful picture of utopian peace, harmony, and happiness--but as you noted it doesn't take into account human nature.

@KinchyB--WI implemented workfare so that the recipient has to do something in the work sector to earn the welfare check. That I can live with, even if the work rules are, I think, overly lenient. I know some people just have really bad things happen to them through no fault of their own, and I'm happy with welfare/workfare being there as an emergency sort of safety net. However, that's all it should really be--just used for emergencies, not as a long-term lifestyle.

Edit: I agree with mimartin--Social Security I've paid into already, though I doubt I'll see the return of the dollars I've paid in when I actually retire after the baby boomers burn through it all.

Achilles
08-19-2008, 07:20 PM
Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system. We have money paid into welfare too. It doesn't come out of our paychecks separately like SS does, but still.

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends. Agreed. My mom was on welfare and working full time. I think they call the demographic "working poor" nowadays.

I suspect that wasn't Kinchy's point though.

Surely, you are not subjecting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.:carms:You're right. I don't know what came over me there. :)

KinchyB
08-19-2008, 07:34 PM
Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

Once Social Security is optional it'll be off my "things I really hate and wish would go away more than Texas" list. 'Til then, Social Security is a complete waste of my money. Simple fact of the matter is when I'm at a point in my life when I need it most (After contributing Thousands of dollars to it that are better invested in other endeavors to begin with) it won't be there. Quite honestly, if someone isn't smart enough to save money for retirement they shouldn't retire.

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

Alright, channeling Achilles...Fallacy of False Cause.

Edit:
I suspect that wasn't Kinchy's point though.

Nope...specifically...going to get personal for a sec...some of my family is on welfare. Not because they have to, but because they choose to. And they have been for a while. Every now and again someone well also get a call from them asking for money...no hi, how are you...how are things...just straight to the dinero. They are a complete drain on society and for the most part a waste of space. So, when I think of welfare... I think of them...then I get irritated. :xp:

jrrtoken
08-19-2008, 07:46 PM
Communism and You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo6jdKLHSnY)

Druganator
08-19-2008, 09:20 PM
Dear Everyone,

I apologize for my former lack of grammar, spelling and, of course, punctuation in this and other threads. I will strive to use correct grammar and punctuation in my future posts.

Sincerely,Druganator

Arcesious
08-19-2008, 10:38 PM
Indeed... I disapprove of it... I guess.

Totenkopf
08-21-2008, 05:58 PM
Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.


Surely, you are not suggesting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.:carms:

You are aware that nonproductive members (for whatever reasons, both legit and otherwise) of society collect from SS, no?

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-21-2008, 07:35 PM
Indeed... I disapprove of it... I guess.there you have it, direct from a member of the age group once known as the conscience of the nation: "i guess".

Druganator
08-21-2008, 10:35 PM
i was born on welfare, not because my parents were lazy or because they didnt work it was bcuz my parents had two unplanned childeren. my sister and i and could not get hired by anyone cuz my mother was pregnant and my dad got laid off like 4 times bcauz he was just a driver for various delivery companies and welfare is the only reason we got anywhere

mimartin
08-21-2008, 10:52 PM
You are aware that nonproductive members (for whatever reasons, both legit and otherwise) of society collect from SS, no?Yes, I am. I am also aware that productive members die before ever collecting SS.

Personally, I am against paying welfare, social security, food stamps, unemployment, etc…. to people that are just too lazy to work. However, I am more against denying those benefits to people that have a legitimate need or who are innocent (like children). Are you saying we should allow our citizens to starve or live on the streets in order to make sure those that should not receive benefits don’t receive them?

If we want to cut out welfare completely, then may I suggest cutting out corporate welfare first.

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 01:22 AM
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. One doesn't have to sever all people from a "benefit" to prevent it's being misused. Where do you stand on the topic of means testing? As to corporate welfare, please provide specific examples of what you're referring to and explain how the removal of said welfare would not then be reflected back into the price the consumer gets hit with when the product/service hits the marketplace (sort of like soak the "rich corporation" with exorbitant taxes that won't miraculously show up in the retail prices either).

mimartin
08-22-2008, 02:30 AM
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. One doesn't have to sever all people from a "benefit" to prevent it's being misused. I draw my conclusion from experience. The experience of setting in a 1980s high school economic class as the teachers escort students out of class to go to the local junior college to register for class because the President had just signed a bill that would no longer allow it SS to help pay for college tuition. These students, in a college prep class, who had already lost a parent that paid into SS, were losing the benefit so that we could practice voodoo economics and cut the taxes of the rich. Where do you stand on the topic of means testing? Have no clue, which is why I wrote I am more against denying than making sure the lazy do not receive the benefit. So we are clear, I would rather the system be too loose and allow someone to exploit the system, than be too tight and deny benefits to someone that has a legitimate need. Unless they invent a machine to read minds or hire massive amounts of investigators then I really do not know where we could draw the line. As to corporate welfare, please provide specific examples of what you're referring to and explain how the removal of said welfare would not then be reflected back into the price the consumer gets hit with when the product/service hits the marketplace (sort of like soak the "rich corporation" with exorbitant taxes that won't miraculously show up in the retail prices either).

Right now, I would just be happy if “Rich Corporation” even paid taxes.

I was speaking more to bailing out corporation every time they do something stupid. Recent example: The banking industry makes ridicules variable loans to people that clearly cannot afford the property if the interest rates goes any higher and then when foreclosures start going up they don’t have to worry because Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer will bail them out. I happen to believe in survival of the fittest in the business world at least. We could also look at savings and loans, the airline industry, auto manufactures and a segment that I am hypocritical about the American farming industry (I actually agree with this one and don’t think we do enough)….

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 05:11 AM
You misunderstood my question, but perhaps you were only being somewhat rhetorical. I meant that you appeared to suggest I was against any government help. Means testing is the concept that if you make above a certain level of income, or have a certain level of wealth, that you'd be disqualified from collecting SSI (which, as a tax, was originally created to be a safety net in the first place).

Unfortunately for your example, those "voodoo economics" raised more more for the federal coffers than the dems could raise with their draconian rates. Can't blame Reagan for the fact that a dem controlled congress wouldn't cut it's spending habit back.

You realize, though, that those taxes would only be reflected in the final cost of their products, right? Corps don't really pay any taxes, people do. I do, however, agree that Washington should let some of these outfits collapse and be bought out by someone in the private sector. Farming is predominantly agribiz now, just another "big biz".

mimartin
08-22-2008, 08:44 AM
I meant that you appeared to suggest I was against any government help. Sorry did not mean to imply you felt this way. I was merely speaking to those in power. Actions speak loader than rhetoric and their actions tell me they are more concern with the wealthy than helping American citizens.


Means testing is the concept that if you make above a certain level of income, or have a certain level of wealth, that you'd be disqualified from collecting SSI (which, as a tax, was originally created to be a safety net in the first place). I know what means test is, I am just against it being used in the case of SS. While you are correct, about what SS was designed to be in the first place, that is not what it became. If we were to set a specific date in the distant future to say this is were SS again becomes merely a safety net, then maybe. Before that, the Federal Government should put back the money it has stolen from SS and the interest lost. That money was not theirs to spend as they saw fit. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress that did this with a Republican President, but it was called a ďconservative CongressĒ and a conservative President. Neither was really the case, because by definition a conservative would not do this, neo-conservative is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately for your example, those "voodoo economics" raised more more for the federal coffers than the dems could raise with their draconian rates. Yea, but where was that Money coming from? The middle class and poor had to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. What happen to the middle class during this time? Hint this was the start of the decline of the middle class. Voodoo Economics is the governmentís way to reassign wealth. Only instead of moving wealth to those that will spend the money (poor) the wealth is moved from the hardest working Americans to the rich. I am personally against the government moving the money up or down and believe productivity and ingenuity should be rewarded instead of rewarding someone just because they inherited some money.

Do Republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ronald Reagan played congress like a fiddle. If he was truly a conservative, he would not have submitted the budgets he did to congress and he would have used his power to cut their spending.


Farming is predominantly agribiz now, just another "big biz".Yes it is, and what happen to food prices as the American farmer disapeared.

What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

Web Rider
08-22-2008, 03:22 PM
What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

No, the correct answer is that you can probably buy from company B. If company A already gives you the best deal, and after raising it's price is still less, or comparatively more affordable than buying from somebody else, you really don't have much of a choice.

The same stands for the consumer, you can only save and purchase a lower cost version of the same, or comparable product if one exists on the market.

I was speaking more to bailing out corporation every time they do something stupid. Recent example: The banking industry makes ridicules variable loans to people that clearly cannot afford the property if the interest rates goes any higher and then when foreclosures start going up they donít have to worry because Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer will bail them out. I happen to believe in survival of the fittest in the business world at least. We could also look at savings and loans, the airline industry, auto manufactures and a segment that I am hypocritical about the American farming industry (I actually agree with this one and donít think we do enough)Ö.

There is a special exception made for banks on the simple logic that the average person has so much money wrapped up in them. Part of the logic here was learned from the Great Depression, the banks buckeled and Joe Schmo consumer lost. When 2000 dollars in your savings will literally define the next two months of your life, the collapse of a bank is devastating.

I agree that for normal industries, this is a fine way to look at them most of the time(there's always an exception for one reason or another), but if I've got 10k and 9k of it's in the bank, when that bank goes under, I've only got 1k. In a nutshell that means all the bills, expenses and other stuff I have go unpaid. Which for a single person, this has a very small effect.

Since banks can do this to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people at once if they crash, that's a serious problem you're looking at, and is exactly why banks are bailed out when they start to flounder.

But then that's also why more stringent rules were passed recently on who gets loans and what kinds of loans can be given. I agree that in general, a bad business practice should lead to the demise of a company. But those loans are made with the money people let the banks hold, and if they give it away, and then they fall, they've not nothing, and now you've got nothing too.

Sure there are protections in place, but that's like waiting for a Katrina check. It's coming. It might take 10 years but it's coming.

...or not.

Anyway I'm sure you're aware of that and it probably only adds fuel to your fire of dislike for the situation.

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 04:15 PM
I know what means test is, I am just against it being used in the case of SS. While you are correct, about what SS was designed to be in the first place, that is not what it became. If we were to set a specific date in the distant future to say this is were SS again becomes merely a safety net, then maybe. Before that, the Federal Government should put back the money it has stolen from SS and the interest lost. That money was not theirs to spend as they saw fit. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress that did this with a Republican President, but it was called a ďconservative CongressĒ and a conservative President. Neither was really the case, because by definition a conservative would not do this, neo-conservative is another matter entirely.

Ok, but was thrown off by your "no clue" comment. However, not remotely sure how you conclude that Reagan had a "conservative congress" (don't recall them ever being referred to that way), lest you're referring to the first 6yrs of W.




Yea, but where was that Money coming from? The middle class and poor had to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. What happen to the middle class during this time? Hint this was the start of the decline of the middle class. Voodoo Economics is the governmentís way to reassign wealth. Only instead of moving wealth to those that will spend the money (poor) the wealth is moved from the hardest working Americans to the rich. I am personally against the government moving the money up or down and believe productivity and ingenuity should be rewarded instead of rewarding someone just because they inherited some money.

As I recall, the lowering of capital gains tax rates freed up money that sat in tax shelters and another source was no doubt the dem idea of raising payroll taxes that Reagan signed off on. Despite this influx, Congress wouldn't mend its spending addiction. Don't get idea I'm lionizing RWR. He made some real bonehead moves as well. Two of which come to mind are the illegal amnesty he signed on with and the debacle at Beruit. Still, since when is not stealing inherited money from lucky people in the form of high taxes a reward?


Do Republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ronald Reagan played congress like a fiddle. If he was truly a conservative, he would not have submitted the budgets he did to congress and he would have used his power to cut their spending.

Probably about as often (or more so) than dems. :D As the Presidential veto isn't irreversible, not really sure what he could have done.


What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

Yes, but you are not taxed at one rate and your competitors at another. You are also not a big corporation, right? If GM gets hit with higher taxes, so will Ford and Chrysler and those will be reflected in current or future prices. Hitting Exxon, Shell, etc...with a draconian windfall profits tax will only cause prices to go up. Either to make up for the immediate loss or b/c the money taken by congress won't be available for reinvestment. Less money to expand means less opportunity for people's IRAs and less ability for the industry to bring more supply to the market to combat future disruption possibilities. All lead to higher prices, in addition to any increase in the price of crude.

mimartin
08-22-2008, 04:26 PM
No, the correct answer is that you can probably buy from company B. If company A already gives you the best deal, and after raising it's price is still less, or comparatively more affordable than buying from somebody else, you really don't have much of a choice. No, if B is lower than A I'm buying from B. If Office Max is cheaper than Walmart on copy paper, what kind of business sense does it make to buy the paper from Walmart?

Now if the product or the service gets to high, I can always cut back or look for an alternative.

Right now 2/3 of corporation are not paying any taxes. I’m not planning on buying a motor home, but I’m paying a share of the producers of Motor Homes taxes now. These companies still receive benefits (use of infrastructure...), but pay none of the expense of maintaining that infrastructure. Sure you can say that it will raise the cost of goods sold to consumers, but if you are not going to purchase those products why would you care if the price goes up? At least when you tax everyone fairly you spread out the cost. So a motor home goes up or shoes go up what do I care if my taxes go down, unlike paying Uncle Sam I have a choice if I spend my money on shoes or a motor home.

Web Rider
08-22-2008, 04:48 PM
Except that those things do not exist in a closed system. The price of a motor home goes up, why? Because the price of parts and labor went up. Why? because the price of something that depends on went up.

You may not care if the price of shoes goes up, but when the price of shoes going up causes the price of labor to go up, which increases the cost of just about everything, now do you care?

And I don't think you read a thing I wrote about companies A and B. Of course you'll buy from B if it's cheaper, but that wasn't my point so I'm assuming you didn't catch it. My point was that you can only buy from somebody else and save if there is somebody else from whom whatever you want costs less. If costs go up everywhere, you're stuck with what they're charging.

And since you hadn't addressed "cutting back" I did not likewise address it either. Sure you can cut back. But you can't keep cutting back, at some point your operation will be running so bare bones that it's impossible to cut. You'll have to do the same thing everyone else does, raise prices.

mimartin
08-22-2008, 05:34 PM
The price of a motor home goes up, why? Because they now have to pay taxes. Because the price of parts and labor went up. Why? Good the workers need a raise and with their taxes going down they have more buying power. :D No, I understand what you are saying.
You may not care if the price of shoes goes up, but when the price of shoes going up causes the price of labor to go up, which increases the cost of just about everything, now do you care? Yes, I know. But I have a choice to purchase anything or nothing. Taxes I have to pay. No choice. So I’d rather spread the tax burden out. No one deserves a free ride. Not the 70 year-old women with 50 cats or the billion dollar corporation. I’m also not advocating taxing businesses out of existence. They could still write off capital improvement, investments, cost of doing business… I’m only saying let them earn their tax free status by investing in jobs and faculties in this country. Giving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas is not my idea of smart politics or smart business. 2/3 not paying taxes.
If costs go up everywhere, you're stuck with what they're charging.. No, I understand but not everyone is going to go up. Unless we are talking about goods control by a monopoly, then someone will always be lower. And since you hadn't addressed "cutting back" I did not likewise address it either. Sure you can cut back. But you can't keep cutting back, at some point your operation will be running so bare bones that it's impossible to cut. You'll have to do the same thing everyone else does, raise prices. Sure, but not necessarily. In the paper example, I can use an alternative, electronic documents and electronic signatures. Necessity breeds ingenuity.

mur'phon
08-22-2008, 05:47 PM
If GM gets hit with higher taxes, so will Ford and Chrysler and those will be reflected in current or future prices.

Not neccesarly, companies are loth to increase prices for fear of being the only one who does so, or pushing consumers to substitute their product for another if possible. It only applies when either A: The companies can't lover the price without becoming unproffitable. B: there is no substitute or the companies are agreeing (possibly ilegal) on a set price.
On a side note, I'm not sure those companies you listed wil be abe to set any prices in the future:D

Hitting Exxon, Shell, etc...with a draconian windfall profits tax will only cause prices to go up. Either to make up for the immediate loss or b/c the money taken by congress won't be available for reinvestment. Less money to expand means less opportunity for people's IRAs and less ability for the industry to bring more supply to the market to combat future disruption possibilities. All lead to higher prices, in addition to any increase in the price of crude.

Again, it depends on what the competitors do, sometimes it wors, sometimes it dosen't.

mimartin
08-22-2008, 05:57 PM
Ok, but was thrown off by your "no clue" comment. However, not remotely sure how you conclude that Reagan had a "conservative congress" (don't recall them ever being referred to that way), lest you're referring to the first 6yrs of W. Iím a conservative democratic, most the southern states had democratic in congress and most of these were conservative democratic. Many also defected over to the Dark Side during the Reagan years. Everyone blaming the Democratic need to also look at Mr. Reaganís election results. Bush had around 50 percent and said he had a mandate, not true. Reagan did have a mandate.

Totenkopf
08-22-2008, 07:00 PM
Not neccesarly, companies are loth to increase prices for fear of being the only one who does so, or pushing consumers to substitute their product for another if possible. It only applies when either A: The companies can't lover the price without becoming unproffitable. B: there is no substitute or the companies are agreeing (possibly ilegal) on a set price.
On a side note, I'm not sure those companies you listed wil be abe to set any prices in the future:D

Yeah, the "cabal" will probably be Honda, Toyota and Hundyai. :D Usually, though, when one is talking about hitting corporations with higher taxes they aren't talking about only one company. If Ford got hit with higher taxes it would likely be the same with the others in the "tax the big corporations" scenario. There are already price fluctuations between similiar products from different American companies, but they aren't so great that one of them has been forced out of business because of that discrepancy (usually the problems lie elsewhere). If Detroit is already having a hard time being competitive, what point in increasing its tax burden less you wish to put them out of business (the consumer will probably balk at the tax induced price increase and look elsewhere). So, unless you're looking to increase the welfare rolls......



Again, it depends on what the competitors do, sometimes it wors, sometimes it dosen't.

Doesn't really matter so much what the competitors will do (likely try to milk as much profit as the situation allows) in the oil situation. Fact is that the tax increase on the corporation will end up being paid by the consumer. Esp since oil is almost monopolistic in the energy sector anyway. Nevermind its myriad other uses/markets.

Everyone blaming the Democratic need to also look at Mr. Reaganís election results. Bush had around 50 percent and said he had a mandate, not true. Reagan did have a mandate.

Clinton claimed a mandate and had fewer votes than Bush (W), so not sure what that proves. One need only look at Reagan's opponents to understand why he won both elections. ;) Still, it holds true that the president proposes and the congress disposes. All budgetary crises ultimately land at the feet of Congress. That's part of the reason for the current disaffection w/in the rep party over the behavior of the so called "conservative congress" under Bush.