they might be, what is the point?11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthylowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no company
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?
govt produces wealth. it also collects it. without rich people...no wealth to collect.lowing wrote:
they might be, what is the point?11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthylowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?
you are simply wrong. The govt. has taken money from earners, and paid the companies you speak of who in turn pays its employees. That is not creating wealth. Taking from one to give to another is not creating shit , it is redistributing wealth.11 Bravo wrote:
govt produces wealth. it also collects it. without rich people...no wealth to collect.lowing wrote:
they might be, what is the point?11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthy
Now having said that. There is nothing wrong with that because it is necessary for the function of govt. national defense and that is what our taxes are supposed to provide. We are getting something for our money. Paying some one who is not producing is throwing it away.
If you want to argue that that person on welfare is spending the money therefor cycling it through our economy you are correct, but my argument then becomes, since it is MY money let me spend it and enjoy the benefit of it while it gets cycled through the economy. After all I worked for it.
sorry rich people can exist without the need of govt.11 Bravo wrote:
govt produces wealth. it also collects it. without rich people...no wealth to collect.lowing wrote:
they might be, what is the point?11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthy
the inventor of the rubics cube for example, don't recall a massive govt. order of those.
This creates debt, not wealth. I was being facetious, which obviously Lowing got.AussieReaper wrote:
Unless it is issuing government bonds.lowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.11 Bravo wrote:
without the govt...no company
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
The government prints money itself.
just saying......
Of course it's true. My conclusions are drawn from YEARS of listening since I was a kid in the 80's, not from Google searches for liberal commentary on conservative programs. As I mentioned in one of the above posts, there are exceptions to the one-sided domineering rhetoric you usually see in talk-show debates, but they aren't really all that common. I'm not saying that liberal broadcasting is any better. In great part, it's just as stuck up and self-invested as conservative radio.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Not true ! another case of 1st hand experience trumping google searchunnamednewbie13 wrote:
The left has very few 'counterparts' to offer over the radio. Go watch some Colbert. Dave Ross on Kiro FM out of Seattle is fairly liberal, but not far-left.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am looking for Rush, Haninty, Lavin[sp] counter parts from the Left to listen to. Any suggestions would be apreciated.Something right-wing media does constantly.lowing wrote:
It is boring because it is an argument that can not hold up to scrutiny. That is a fact. The left can not argue on merit of their argument, so it must resort to name calling, racist accusations, and insults in an effort to discredit their opposition.........A lot like some members of this forum.
I have been listening for about a month and the only real screaming and insults come from Randi Rhodes ( but it sounds so slutty in that gravel voice ! )
Rush Limbaugh mostly listens to The left, then pours through video and audio archives and finds tape of them contradicting themselves or evidence and past examples to prove them wrong. Then he plays it. Thats all. It might envoke some laughter.
He lets them hang themselves, like clinton pretending to cry when he sees cameras on him or falling a sleep at memorial services. Or all the Democrates Railing about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction ~ He shows Video of Leading democrates Succsessfully blocking G.W. Bush's attempts at auditing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then Crowing about it.
( I wonder what would have happened if they had not interferred ? obviously it did need attention but Fannie and Freddie were their babies and we all paid the price for democrats party loyalty. Thats one bullet they dodged ~ we didn't )
Limbaugh and Beck are about 50% comedy though Beck is tiresome and rarely makes me laugh.
The Embittered rhetoric you speak of is not there.
You may need to listen for yourself, I guarantee it would greatly change your perception and challenge views that are constantly espoused on the subject.
After hearing years of " Mean spirited ~ Bitter ~ Ignorant ~ Haters ~ Racist ~ Robots ~ uneducated ~ Millionaires ~ Rednecks etc."
Aren't you becoming the least bit suspicious ? just a little ?
Wait a sec, so the government creates debt, but doesn't create wealth?Lotta_Drool wrote:
This creates debt, not wealth. I was being facetious, which obviously Lowing got.AussieReaper wrote:
Unless it is issuing government bonds.lowing wrote:
Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.
We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
The government prints money itself.
just saying......
What fantasy land are you two living in where 2 - 1 = 1 but 2 + 1 = 2
easy, you can still go into debt spending someone else's money.. what is so hard about understanding that?AussieReaper wrote:
Wait a sec, so the government creates debt, but doesn't create wealth?Lotta_Drool wrote:
This creates debt, not wealth. I was being facetious, which obviously Lowing got.AussieReaper wrote:
Unless it is issuing government bonds.
What fantasy land are you two living in where 2 - 1 = 1 but 2 + 1 = 2
Yer a fuckin liberal you should know all about spending someone else's money
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 16:50:15)
Okay, well I'm just going to point you to what you should be reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy
Because right now I don't think you have any idea how or why the government adopts a expansionary, or a contractionary monetary policy to controlling things like interest rates, price stabilisation, unemployment levels...
You just think they government takes money and then it disappears into a black hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy
Because right now I don't think you have any idea how or why the government adopts a expansionary, or a contractionary monetary policy to controlling things like interest rates, price stabilisation, unemployment levels...
You just think they government takes money and then it disappears into a black hole.
lol, never said that. not once. Go back and read what I actually posted. Argue against that if you please.AussieReaper wrote:
Okay, well I'm just going to point you to what you should be reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy
Because right now I don't think you have any idea how or why the government adopts a expansionary, or a contractionary monetary policy to controlling things like interest rates, price stabilisation, unemployment levels...
You just think they government takes money and then it disappears into a black hole.
Nice.lowing wrote:
Yer a fuckin liberal you should know all about spending someone else's money
Wasn't it you who argued the left turn to insults because they can't support their own arguments?
Guess not.
Oh, wait it was you.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p3427052lowing wrote:
It is boring because it is an argument that can not hold up to scrutiny. That is a fact. The left can not argue on merit of their argument, so it must resort to name calling, racist accusations, and insults in an effort to discredit their opposition.........A lot like some members of this forum.
Guess this fucking liberal just got told.
you did see the right? I was clowning with you Aussie. Sorry if you took offense. I apologize then.AussieReaper wrote:
Nice.lowing wrote:
Yer a fuckin liberal you should know all about spending someone else's money
Wasn't it you who argued the left turn to insults because they can't support their own arguments?
Guess not.
Oh, wait it was you.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p3427052lowing wrote:
It is boring because it is an argument that can not hold up to scrutiny. That is a fact. The left can not argue on merit of their argument, so it must resort to name calling, racist accusations, and insults in an effort to discredit their opposition.........A lot like some members of this forum.
Guess this fucking liberal just got told.
by the way....I have been making my arguments
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 17:00:43)
You've been making arguments but haven't supported them.
The government does creates wealth, it's shown by the effects that the spending and revenue levels have when you see food prices and interest rates rise and fall. It's one of the most basic economic principals and I have no idea how you're unable to see it.
To get out of a recession a government will increase expediture. By your theory, that should make the recession worse.
The government does creates wealth, it's shown by the effects that the spending and revenue levels have when you see food prices and interest rates rise and fall. It's one of the most basic economic principals and I have no idea how you're unable to see it.
To get out of a recession a government will increase expediture. By your theory, that should make the recession worse.
Aussie, collecting spending and manipulating OTHER PEOPLES MONEY is not creating anything. And yes the govt has made the recession worse by not letting businesses and citizens KEEP there money to build and spend. and actually we wouldn't be in this recession if not for govt. intervention in the first placeAussieReaper wrote:
You've been making arguments but haven't supported them.
The government does creates wealth, it's shown by the effects that the spending and revenue levels have when you see food prices and interest rates rise and fall. It's one of the most basic economic principals and I have no idea how you're unable to see it.
To get out of a recession a government will increase expediture. By your theory, that should make the recession worse.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-16 17:19:36)
That and the World depends on it too !Dilbert_X wrote:
Defense spending is also an open pipe, but apparently it doesn't matter since it 'gets back into the economy'.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
not all of it. N.Y.C. Housing projects is like burning it, so is Welfare and the National Endowment for the Arts. The list is endless, like an open pipe.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then all taxes are fine, since the money gets recycled into the economy.
listening ( almost 30 years ago ) to who ?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Of course it's true. My conclusions are drawn from YEARS of listening since I was a kid in the 80's, not from Google searches for liberal commentary on conservative programs. As I mentioned in one of the above posts, there are exceptions to the one-sided domineering rhetoric you usually see in talk-show debates, but they aren't really all that common. I'm not saying that liberal broadcasting is any better. In great part, it's just as stuck up and self-invested as conservative radio.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Not true ! another case of 1st hand experience trumping google searchunnamednewbie13 wrote:
The left has very few 'counterparts' to offer over the radio. Go watch some Colbert. Dave Ross on Kiro FM out of Seattle is fairly liberal, but not far-left.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am looking for Rush, Haninty, Lavin[sp] counter parts from the Left to listen to. Any suggestions would be apreciated.
Something right-wing media does constantly.
I have been listening for about a month and the only real screaming and insults come from Randi Rhodes ( but it sounds so slutty in that gravel voice ! )
Rush Limbaugh mostly listens to The left, then pours through video and audio archives and finds tape of them contradicting themselves or evidence and past examples to prove them wrong. Then he plays it. Thats all. It might envoke some laughter.
He lets them hang themselves, like clinton pretending to cry when he sees cameras on him or falling a sleep at memorial services. Or all the Democrates Railing about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction ~ He shows Video of Leading democrates Succsessfully blocking G.W. Bush's attempts at auditing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then Crowing about it.
( I wonder what would have happened if they had not interferred ? obviously it did need attention but Fannie and Freddie were their babies and we all paid the price for democrats party loyalty. Thats one bullet they dodged ~ we didn't )
Limbaugh and Beck are about 50% comedy though Beck is tiresome and rarely makes me laugh.
The Embittered rhetoric you speak of is not there.
You may need to listen for yourself, I guarantee it would greatly change your perception and challenge views that are constantly espoused on the subject.
After hearing years of " Mean spirited ~ Bitter ~ Ignorant ~ Haters ~ Racist ~ Robots ~ uneducated ~ Millionaires ~ Rednecks etc."
Aren't you becoming the least bit suspicious ? just a little ?
*sigh*
As unnecessary as this is, since I started listening: Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Levin, Savage, Beck, O'really, Schlessinger, et al. And no, I'm not going to go dig up transcripts.
As unnecessary as this is, since I started listening: Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Levin, Savage, Beck, O'really, Schlessinger, et al. And no, I'm not going to go dig up transcripts.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom".
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "
'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "
'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."
^^ Nice t-shirt slogans/bumper stickers
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
brb.lowing wrote:
"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."
ima move all my stocks to Costco or something.
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.lowing wrote:
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "
'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah, no kidding.... Apparently, only the private sector has the ability to benefit society by "spreading the wealth."Dilbert_X wrote:
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.lowing wrote:
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "
'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Another humorous aspect to all this is that a lot of America's rise to prominence after WW2 was built on massive infrastructure improvements from public spending -- like the interstate highway system. If we had taken the advice of Austrian school economists back then, our highway system would be much smaller in scope, and our growth would have been much more limited as a result.
Conversely, the government seems unable to stop multi-taxing and charging small businesses for almost every aspect of their operation, which doesn't really help employment rates. Creating jobs is a great way to to both grow and spread the wealth.
This is true, but part of the problem involves our division of governmental responsibilities.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Conversely, the government seems unable to stop multi-taxing and charging small businesses for almost every aspect of their operation, which doesn't really help employment rates. Creating jobs is a great way to to both grow and spread the wealth.
In a lot of other countries, taxation is more even across subnational units. America has some of the most widely varying taxation among its states of any country in the First World. This is part of why some states end up taxing the hell out of small businesses while others tax very little. The more that funding for local amenities gets shifted to state governments, the more highly populated states have to tax their citizens -- while at the same time, more federal money per capita gets spent in less populated states (creating welfare queens like New Mexico).
This is part of why it's hard to effectively govern a nation as large as ours. In smaller nations, there is less discrepancy in cost of living and less of a fiscal imbalance between subnational units -- which makes taxation more functional and evenhanded -- with a greater emphasis on federal taxation and management rather than state taxes and management.
Which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Whatever the govt. does, whatever it spends, however it regulates or legislates it does so with money generated by someone other than itself. Period.Dilbert_X wrote:
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.lowing wrote:
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "
'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.