BF2S Forums here ya go, get the homeless registered to vote for Obama

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

You touch on the biggest illusion of it all, "free". Nothing is free, the EARNERS are the ones paying for all that "FREE" services you so proudly hail.

The US has capitalism with a conscience. We have social services, we have grants, low interest loans, etc for anyone to endulge in. The EARNERS are already paying out the ass for this shit. Now, here come the liberals telling the poor and the rich that the rich and the middle class are not paying ENOUGH to help. Instead of tellng the poor they need to do more to help themselves.

And Norway certainly seems to have its citizens, dependant on its govt. doesn't it? How proud they must be

When I say free I mean free in the sense that their taxes have already paid for it.

You say the earners are paying for all of these services and that the freeloaders just milk the system and yet Norway's unemployment rate is only 2.4%, beating Capitalist USA's rate of 4.8%, so the argument that such a system doesn't work and only encourages laziness doesn't hold true. And whether you like it or not Norway has one of the highest standards of living in the world...that's what people want at the end of the day.

Yeah Braddock, I know what you meant as to what "free" means. It still ISN'T FREE. The EARNERS are flipping the bill for everyone else. Or in Norway the rich do not pay any more taxes than the middle class. What percentage of tax is paid for by the rich as compared to everyone else? Like I said, the EARNERS are paying for all of Norway's "free" shit.

Of course Norway should have a high standard of living, so does a lion in a zoo. But the lion still is dependant on its keepers isn't it?

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'm presuming you prefer the rules of the jungle to that of the zoo - kill or be killed, let the weak perish and all that?

Probably more along the lines of "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish".

He's repeatedly stated that he thinks the government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (mentally/physically handicapped), but shouldn't hand out benefits to those who CAN care for themselves but choose not to.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

(my girlfriend works in early childhood education and she is always going on about the Scandinavian systems and Norway in particular).

Clearly your girlfriend is a commie just like you.

Braddock wrote:

In Europe the Governments work for the people so technically the power is still with the people, if they don't like how the 'zoo keepers' are running the zoo they vote in new zoo keepers!

Don't know if you've been watching the news for the last two years, but we do the same thing in the States.

Braddock wrote:

I'm presuming you

prefer the rules of the jungle to that of the zoo - kill or be killed, let the weak perish and all that?

Probably more along the lines of "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish".

He's repeatedly stated that he thinks the government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (mentally/physically handicapped), but shouldn't hand out benefits to those who CAN care for themselves but choose not to.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

When I say free I mean free in the sense that their taxes have already paid for it.

You say the earners are paying for all of these services and that the freeloaders just milk the system and yet Norway's unemployment rate is only 2.4%, beating Capitalist USA's rate of 4.8%, so the argument that such a system doesn't work and only encourages laziness doesn't hold true. And whether you like it or not Norway has one of the highest standards of living in the world...that's what people want at the end of the day.

Yeah Braddock, I know what you meant as to what "free" means. It still ISN'T FREE. The EARNERS are flipping the bill for everyone else. Or in Norway the rich do not pay any more taxes than the middle class. What percentage of tax is paid for by the rich as compared to everyone else? Like I said, the EARNERS are paying for all of Norway's "free" shit.

Of course Norway should have a high standard of living, so does a lion in a zoo. But the lion still is dependant on its keepers isn't it?

You look at the situation in Norway negatively because of all the 'power' that you say lies in the hands of the Government but what I would argue is that Norway's tax system creates a society with lots of safety nets that enable people to rise to the top level of society with help all along the way - and the help doesn't stop when you get to the top, for example Norway have the best benefits and support for couples having and raising children and their childcare system is renowned for its high level of quality (my girlfriend works in early childhood education and she is always going on about the Scandinavian systems and Norway in particular). In Europe the Governments work for the people so technically the power is still with the people, if they don't like how the 'zoo keepers' are running the zoo they vote in new zoo keepers!

I'm presuming you prefer the rules of the jungle to that of the zoo - kill or be killed, let the weak perish and all that?

lowing wrote:

Can Norway vote in freedom over merely a different zoo keeper? Regardless, they are "kept" are they not?

I take it you like the illusion of freedom, and prosperity over actually being able to decide shit for yourself without govt. interferance. That is ok I guess, it is how zoo animals should be dealt with, ya know, kept safe and warm by their keepers rather than allowed the freedom to roam.

Do you think the successful really need a govt. safety net? Nope, only those that are not responsible enough to manage their own lives need govt. safety nets.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Can Norway vote in freedom over merely a different zoo keeper? Regardless, they are "kept" are they not?

I take it you like the illusion of freedom, and prosperity over actually being able to decide shit for yourself without govt. interferance. That is ok I guess, it is how zoo animals should be dealt with, ya know, kept safe and warm by their keepers rather than allowed the freedom to roam.

Do you think the successful really need a govt. safety net? Nope, only those that are not responsible enough to manage their own lives need govt. safety nets.

You're beginning to sound more and more like an anarchist or libertarian lowing. It's quite funny really, we Europeans continually complain that you are controlled by a quasi-police state with a semi-fascist regime encroaching on your freedoms while you Americans claim we are controlled by our Governments because of the way they invade our personal affairs by dictating the levels of taxation and social welfare when at the end of the day ye are quite happy living in America and we are all quite happy here in Europe! Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I don't see our European style of Government as overly controlling at all to be quite honest. We all need some form of Government and things like tax are a necessity if you want to live in a progressive society and given this fact I am happy to live in a society where the tax money raised is used to implement systems that help care for society and for those that may find themselves in times of need. If we had astronomical unemployment rates and low standards of living I'd have to be completely ignorant of your argument to think I'm right but the fact is we have good employment levels and high living standards here.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Can Norway vote in freedom over merely a different zoo keeper? Regardless, they are "kept" are they not?

I take it you like the illusion of freedom, and prosperity over actually being able to decide shit for yourself without govt. interferance. That is ok I guess, it is how zoo animals should be dealt with, ya know, kept safe and warm by their keepers rather than allowed the freedom to roam.

Do you think the successful really need a govt. safety net? Nope, only those that are not responsible enough to manage their own lives need govt. safety nets.

You're beginning to sound more and more like an anarchist or libertarian lowing. It's quite funny really, we Europeans continually complain that you are controlled by a quasi-police state with a semi-fascist regime encroaching on your freedoms while you Americans claim we are controlled by our Governments because of the way they invade our personal affairs by dictating the levels of taxation and social welfare when at the end of the day ye are quite happy living in America and we are all quite happy here in Europe! Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I don't see our European style of Government as overly controlling at all to be quite honest. We all need some form of Government and things like tax are a necessity if you want to live in a progressive society and given this fact I am happy to live in a society where the tax money raised is used to implement systems that help care for society and for those that may find themselves in times of need. If we had astronomical unemployment rates and low standards of living I'd have to be completely ignorant of your argument to think I'm right but the fact is we have good employment levels and high living standards here.

Yes you might, and it is the rich that is flipping the bill for all of that, unless of course they are not the ones that pay the majority of the taxes, with a higher percentage of their income going for services that benifit programs that THEY don't need. In other words, it is the rich who are being punished for being rich.

If you do not see your govt. being controlling, then what do you think will happen to you all if all of a sudden they stopped all the hand outs? you would all panic and have no idea what to do with yourselves and you would run to the govt. begging them to take you back under their protection.....Yeah Braddock, they have control.

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Can Norway vote in freedom over merely a different zoo keeper? Regardless, they are "kept" are they not?

I take it you like the illusion of freedom, and prosperity over actually being able to decide shit for yourself without govt. interferance. That is ok I guess, it is how zoo animals should be dealt with, ya know, kept safe and warm by their keepers rather than allowed the freedom to roam.

Do you think the successful really need a govt. safety net? Nope, only those that are not responsible enough to manage their own lives need govt. safety nets.

Norway is a unique situation.  Scandinavia in general is socialist in mindset because of cultural unity.  When everybody is on the same page in terms of cultural values and is simultaneously educated and prosperous, socialism works like a charm.  Countries like Norway and Sweden are small enough and culturally homogeneous enough to have a very well functioning socialist system while having a highly competitive marketplace.  Finland actually has one of the most competitive economies in the world.

Of course, when you're as big and culturally diverse as America, you generally have no other choice but to err more on the side of capitalism.

You make a good point about Norway and socialism in general - Norway's system is the system of an evolved society and people. You have to be all on the same page and in a collectively strong position (in terms of education, cultural attitudes and awareness and so on) to make the system work and quite frankly it's the kind of society I believe we as evolved human beings should really aim for.

I agree with you about size being an issue for certain socio-economic formats - a bit like how Russia was probably just too darn big for Communism while Cuba have managed to at least keep the wheels on the Commie train for the last half a century.

One problem with Finland's fantastic economy is a little company called Nokia. They make up a colossal percentage of the economy and you know what they say about eggs and baskets. Heaven forbid they ever go under.

lowing wrote:

I doubt that Turqouise, ya see, I bet the tax on a 200,000 dollar car, or a yacht, or a private jet, or a multi-million dollar manison(s) is a hellove a lot more that that on a 100,000 dollar house, a 20,000 dollar car and a canoe. PLUS the rich alos need the same everyday expendatures that everyone else does.  So the rich pay more sales tax, AND more income tax, therefore they carry the burdon of carrying society's social programs, not you or me, or any other wroking stiff.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-24 18:38:14)

lowing wrote:

I doubt that Turqouise, ya see, I bet the tax on a 200,000 dollar car, or a yacht, or a private jet, or a multi-million dollar manison(s) is a hellove a lot more that that on a 100,000 dollar house, a 20,000 dollar car and a canoe. PLUS the rich alos need the same everyday expendatures that everyone else does.  So the rich pay more sales tax, AND more income tax, therefore they carry the burdon of carrying society's social programs, not you or me, or any other wroking stiff.

Braddock wrote:

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

I doubt that Turqouise, ya see, I bet the tax on a 200,000 dollar car, or a yacht, or a private jet, or a multi-million dollar manison(s) is a hellove a lot more that that on a 100,000 dollar house, a 20,000 dollar car and a canoe. PLUS the rich alos need the same everyday expendatures that everyone else does.  So the rich pay more sales tax, AND more income tax, therefore they carry the burdon of carrying society's social programs, not you or me, or any other wroking stiff.

You're always talking about 'the rich paying for the poor', but do you actually know how many 'rich' there are in teh US and in the EU, compared to how many 'poor'?

It seems sometimes as though lowing thinks lower income people don't pay any tax or something. I have worked in minimum wage jobs during college and I feel very sorry for people who are in those positions long term, for example I used to work as a security guard and, like most other jobs, you are allowed to work a 40hour working week - anything above that counts as overtime and some companies pay accordingly for overtime (but not all when I was working in that line of business). Now a 40hour a week security guards job doesn't pay very much at all so how does one improve their wage packet? Overtime you would have thought...I worked many a 70-80 hour week and the kicker was that the more hours you put in the more the tax man got so 30-40 extra hours work usually only resulted in an extra 150euro or so so don't claim that working class people don't contribute to the tax system.

In fact one amendment I would gladly see to the Irish welfare system would be to allow for lower income workers to avail of limited social assistance like a medical card or increased tax breaks for those with families. Those people have it tough.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You're always talking about 'the rich paying for the poor', but do you actually know how many 'rich' there are in teh US and in the EU, compared to how many 'poor'?

It seems sometimes as though lowing thinks lower income people don't pay any tax or something. I have worked in minimum wage jobs during college and I feel very sorry for people who are in those positions long term, for example I used to work as a security guard and, like most other jobs, you are allowed to work a 40hour working week - anything above that counts as overtime and some companies pay accordingly for overtime (but not all when I was working in that line of business). Now a 40hour a week security guards job doesn't pay very much at all so how does one improve their wage packet? Overtime you would have thought...I worked many a 70-80 hour week and the kicker was that the more hours you put in the more the tax man got so 30-40 extra hours work usually only resulted in an extra 150euro or so so don't claim that working class people don't contribute to the tax system.

In fact one amendment I would gladly see to the Irish welfare system would be to allow for lower income workers to avail of limited social assistance like a medical card or increased tax breaks for those with families. Those people have it tough.

"What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."


Taken from: http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no … -the-taxes