|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Darth Liberus 
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,02:17 |
|
   |
that's unfortunate, because your posts generally end up helping me prove the point I'm trying to make.
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,02:25 |
|
 |
ok I'll do the first few, just for your sake. 
I think I'd rather pay more taxes rather than live in the mess we're in now.
better check up your economic history. the mess we're in now was created by high taxes and government interference.
Not that I especially like paying them, but giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory.
ok saying that the tax cut was a bad idea is one thing, we can discuss that. but calling it irresponsible just sounds rediculous. how is it irresponsible to give people back their own money which belongs to them? is it LESS irresponsible to just LOOSE ~20 BILLION dollars? (will find link later)
I will admit that there were a lot of tax & spend liberals from the 1930's to the 1970's, but there's very few of us left who believe in that system.
ok except "very few of us left" should be replaced with "nearly all mainstream liberals"
That's why we got our asses kicked. The Republicans have deregulated the hell out of everything, spending money without collecting it first, and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST*, and look at the mess we're in.
a) trickle down economics has NOTHING to do with MAKE MONEY FAST as you put it. quite the opposite.
b) the mess we are in is due to clinton's piss poor domestic policy. the only reason why it is not worse is because of reagan's brilliant economic policy.
c) the greatest period of economic growth in the history of the WORLD was the industrial revolution, when laizze-faire capitalism was at its height.
thats all for now, back to fluid dynamics bleh...
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Wiley
©0®ŽŲ®4+3 whŲ®3
Group: Members
Posts: 1268
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,03:00 |
|
|
 3-->| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 01 July 2002,163) | | giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory. |
True that ...they should have given the money out based on the % you paid in. I got fux0r3d!
| Quote | | and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST* |
It was called Trickle-down for a reason ...not Gush-down
| Quote | | the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole |
I need roads & bridges, some national defence to keep the Canadians out (yeah ..we see you), a national park or two so I can relax, and schools that learned our dumb inner city youth (and please don't make their poor grammer into it's own language to make them appear smarter). Other then that I think we can cut out a big chunk of wasteful programs that I'm paying for.
| Quote | | the profit motive can degrade into raw greed. |
As long as it promotes spending and the circulation of money I don't see a problem. All the problems come in when people stop wildly spending and consuming.
| Quote | | I mean truly *PUBLIC* services that benefit everybody... things like roads, education, national defense... and public healthcare |
Wow ...I really shoulda read this all before replying. Anyway, I agree ...but it's gotta stop there. My political agenda is very short ...If I have to pay taxes then I want to be taxed on a fixed percent with everybody else. Any surplus monies I have will be reinvested in the economy and thus help people without money far more then any of the government programs. Viva La Trickle!! I mean, every year I unwillingly employ at least two guys to hand out job applications to people that don't want to work ...I want that money back!! Sure my views are self promoting, but I am an admitted selfish bastard. I'm a registered Republican because
1. They try to help me keep my money
2. They have far better junkmail
But once I get to keep some of my money that currently goes to taxes I swear I will get some thearapy.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,05:09 |
|
|
| Quote (Wiley @ 01 July 2002,19:00) | | Quote | | the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole |
I need roads & bridges, some national defence to keep the Canadians out (yeah ..we see you), a national park or two so I can relax, and schools that learned our dumb inner city youth (and please don't make their poor grammer into it's own language to make them appear smarter). Other then that I think we can cut out a big chunk of wasteful programs that I'm paying for. |
I agree with you about the wasteful spending. There are soooo many fucked up little programs out there (there is actually one to study humming birds! . If we were to cut those kind of programs, then we could keep the good programs (including programs to help people find jobs) and our taxes would be more efficient (if not lower). Only problem is, is that neither party is trying to do that. The Republicans go in and cut taxes, give refunds of money that could be spent in better places (think fireman and police), and start cutting funds to schools (thus the voucher system looks better; different rant). The Democrats come in a raise taxes and just spend, spend, spend (wait, both of them do THAT part). So, there is no culling of the wasteful programs, and there won't be as long as we keep electing the same kind of people, over and over and over and over again.
But there must be one thing that everyone needs to learn: there are a lot more poor people in this country than rich people. If we could HELP raise those people out of poverty, they would become functional members of society. There would be more goods produced and consumed if the lowest class of people had more finacial strength. If we give more to the rich, their spending habits change so little, it's just a waste! If we take the money we would have given to one rich family, and spread it evenly around programs that help educate and train the poor, we could have tens if not hundreds of families spending more money on groceries, cars, and taxes because they were able to get better jobs and earn more income. Thus, the economy would become stronger, and the people would be happier. Now, how is that bad for our country? Instead of 'Trickle Down', why not 'Trickle Up'?
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
wix
politically unstable
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,08:16 |
|
|
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 01 July 2002,16) | I think I'd rather pay more taxes rather than live in the mess we're in now. Not that I especially like paying them, but giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory.
We could've dramatically cut our payments on the national debt simply by using the surplus to pay it down. Had we paid it down, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much interest and principal on the debt, which means that the taxpayers get more value from their tax dollars.
Makes sense, right? A lot more than sending everyone a few hundred bucks while simultaneously cutting taxes and praying that it will stimulate the economy SO MUCH that you won't have to worry about getting enough tax money ever again.
I will admit that there were a lot of tax & spend liberals from the 1930's to the 1970's, but there's very few of us left who believe in that system. We got the hint when the Reaganites marched in and shoved laissez-faire capitalism and Voodoo Economics on everyone.
So yeah, back then we raised taxes a bit too high, and we had so much money to spend we didn't pay as much attention to where it was going as we should've been. That's why we got our asses kicked. The Republicans have deregulated the hell out of everything, spending money without collecting it first, and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST*, and look at the mess we're in.
For twenty years now we've been trying to kick these fuckups out of power, and we've spent the past twenty years developing good, responsible economic plans. Things like "don't spend money you don't have" and "don't spend money on things you don't need."
i.e. deficit spending is bad. unbalanced budgets are bad. spending money on programs like Star Wars is bad.
We still think the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole, but we now recognize that to be beneficial to people, it has to be beneficial to businesses and the economy as well. Beyond that, we want those services to be efficient and customer-friendly.
Business is not a bad thing. I personally find profit to be a great motivator. I want a nice house and a good car and lots of l33t tech kit. But it does have one downside - the profit motive can degrade into raw greed. Take a look around you right now and see what's happened to the economy - the means of production are there, the money to buy things is there, but nobody wants to invest in *anything* because the future is so uncertain. When fraud and deception is rampant, people hang on to their money instead of spending it & keeping the economy moving... who wants to give their money to a thief?
So while Republicans feel that the government should be at the mercy of business, we feel that good government should be a role model for business. Government services should be as efficient, responsive, and friendly as possible, so that businesses strive to do the same.
As for the services it should provide, I'll leave that for another post, but rest assured that I mean truly *PUBLIC* services that benefit everybody... things like roads, education, national defense... and public healthcare, but that's a flamewar of its own. |
DL, uh, what economic history did you study? I realize that we all get a nice little dose of laizze-faire capitalism bashing in college, but you really have to read a bit deeper. Smith and Rand might need revision but the principals are sound.
The first thing I would argue is that the government only has the money to tax for what it must provide, and the 'surplus' is keyword for: "We overcharged everyone," and that to me means it's time to refund people's money.
Your point about the tax and spend liberals being gone these days is pretty funny, but I guess the same thing is true about conservatives. Both sides want to spend a lot of money. Only truely fiscally conservative members of congress actually allow for a ballanced budget (remember though, that the conservative members of congress pushed the Ballanced Budget Act through congress). Liberals and Social conservatives alike both subject themselves to what Bastiat calls "False Philanthropy," eg, a false love of people. They pretend to love the people so much that they feal they must 'help' them along because they are incapable of doing so themselves.
Unfortuantely you fall prey to the most common push by the demogouge: "The rich are greedy, evil and out to screw you." It was the GREED of the MASSES not the rich that called for the 16th amendment and income taxes. The GREED of the masses who demanded more rediculous and unneeded regulation (which has done enourmous amounts of harm to our economy).
You also seem to miss the point of the Government when you talk about services. I don't get good service at the DMV because the DMV is a monopoly, run by the government. If I complain, no one cares, because JOB SECURITY and ECONOMIC SECTOR CONTROL. If I don't like the DMV, or the IRS, too bad. If I don't like welfare, I can't just pull my money out of the system (like I could with private charities). Hence the republican's trying to make things open to competiton. I'm talking about positive competion-- not fraud and deception (clearly the government has the right to stop this ) Why can't the government just stick to stopping fraud, since you even say bussiness is good unless it degrades into these things. Personally, I'd rather have my shitty HMO than a government healthcare program run like the DMV.
And lastly, I'd love to get into economic theory with you, but I'm sure that you can read around a bit to find out that personal economics differ somewhat from government econmics. Deficit spending ISN'T always bad, and in many cases can actually be far more beneficial to a country.
Enough ranting ... read Capitalism and Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand vs Declarations of Independance, cross examing the american ideology by Howard Zinn. Rand is a fiscal conservative (founder of the Objectivist philosophy), and Zinn is a socialist. Both will present the best arguements for both sides that you can find (in my opinion of course). If after reading them both you are still swayed the liberal persuasion (which I could understand, Zinn is a very persuasive writer)... then I'm willing to talk.
--------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,08:38 |
|
|
I'm tired of people on both parties making it sound like everyone who believes what the other party is arguing has been coerced.
That is all.
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,11:59 |
|
|
*blink*
/me reads wix's post again...
*blink*
/me resists urge to smack this troll into next week. must... keep... thread... on... topic...
for those of you unfamiliar with Ayn Rand, you may find a very pro-Objectivism site here. I'm sure you'll want to convert, since Objectivism is the only logical and moral system in existence.
and remember... if you listen to Liberals, you're a filthy Communist!
so, uh, Wiley, demonk, you've both got some good points there... I'll reply to your posts later, after my blood pressure has returned to normal 
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,12:10 |
|
|
*sigh* DSL falls back on his classic flame the other guy technique when he gets the pants beat off him in the debate. does this mean "I win"?
| Quote | | If we could HELP raise those people out of poverty, |
see, theres your problem. it is not the duty of american citizens to give up half of our income for a 200 billion farm bill or the however large welfare programs. it is up to the poor to work hard to become rich, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. by "helping" them you are actually just keeping them down and KEEPING them poor.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,12:21 |
|
|
CatKnight's Technique for Winning an Argument
1. Quote original post, then completely ignore it. Post some nonsense theory and random quotes that push your beliefs instead. Imply that your opponent has been "brainwashed" by liberals in an attempt to discredit him.
2. Act surprised when opponent flames you for being a troll and refuses to answer your irrelevant post.
3. Declare "victory" because opponent obviously isn't smart enough to reply to your brilliant argument, and has resorted to flaming instead.
4. Pat yourself on the back for honestly believing that people are stupid enough to fall for this shit.
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,13:38 |
|
|
Trickle-up doesn't work.
If you give people who paid no taxes a gigantic fat handout, they spend it on throw-away consumable goods that stimulate the economy for about five minutes, but never generate any wealth beyond that. Even if supply increased to meet demand, once the money runs out, the demand dries up, the supply goes to waste, and we spiral downward.
Rich people, like 'em or not, are masters at investing. They put their money into things that will make them more money in the future. So a rich guy who owns some big huge company gets a few million dollars in taxes back from the IRS, that rich guy might've gotten 4 million $, but he'd rather have 10, so he invests his money into advancing and increasing the production in his business. To do that, he has to hire more people, and the people he already had move up a notch or two on the pay scale. Now he's producing more stuff (of course he is, he wants the profit of selling it), he's employing more people at slightly higher wages who then go out and buy the stuff, who give him more profit, so he invests some of it back again into his own business to try to make more money, so he hires more people, he bumps up the ones he has, they have more money, they're buying more stuff.
This doesn't create a spending frenzy on consumable goods like handing out money to poor people does, it happens more gradually, but the effects last a hell of a lot longer and are better for the economy in the long run. The problem we're having is that short-run economists want to run the whole thing. Why worry about things 10 years from now if we can make it look good next month?
The 'next month' solution would be fine if the timeline we live in were short. But it's not.
I prefer trickle-down.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
