BF2S Forums This is pretty damn pathetic.....Wounded soldier refused a hotel room.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

No one can stand alone yer right, a society needs productive people without which it could not survive. An animal can live an entire lifetime without a parasite attached to it.

Who said society doesn't need productive people? It is in human nature to be productive and to better oneself. Socialist Europe has sustained decent economic growth rates for years and continues to do so.

I think Gordon Gecko summed America up well: "Greed is good."

In Europe we are more concerned with advancing together as we evidently have been doing.

I know well that this completely flies in the face of the very 'concept' of America so to discuss or argue the matter is totally and utterly pointless.

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Who said society doesn't need productive people? It is in human nature to be productive and to better oneself. Socialist Europe has sustained decent economic growth rates for years and continues to do so.

I think Gordon Gecko summed America up well: "Greed is good."

In Europe we are more concerned with advancing together as we evidently have been doing.

I know well that this completely flies in the face of the very 'concept' of America so to discuss or argue the matter is totally and utterly pointless.

Ok, so tell me what roll the parasites that are attached to you play in your little heaven. Other than rob you from your earned income.

Like I said it is not greed it is freedom of choice. Freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for us as individuals. You rely on the govt. to that for you, to tell you and act for you as to what is best for you while you pay them to do so, and you are welcome to it.

I dont think I've ever asked this question before.

lowing, are you an anarchist?  Because it sure sounds like it 9/10 times.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, so tell me what roll the parasites that are attached to you play in your little heaven. Other than rob you from your earned income.

Like I said it is not greed it is freedom of choice. Freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for us as individuals. You rely on the govt. to that for you, to tell you and act for you as to what is best for you while you pay them to do so, and you are welcome to it.

Ireland has an unemployment rate comparable to that of the US. So whatever level of parasitism there might be in your country - a functioning socialist regime doesn't increase it.

We have all the choice in the world lowing. We just pay a higher price to live in a nice society, that's all - a society of plenty, a society of opportunity, a society where art is appreciated for arts sake not for dollar value, a society where people have spare time to enjoy the world in which they live for the relatively short time they spend on said world. You pay a price to live in a society also, it's just not quite as high. Consequently you live in a less 'nice' society. I would never regard taxes as 'my' money. It's a necessary cost - it is not yours to choose to spend on whatever you want: that would be anarchy or pure democracy leading to total anarchy. Like it or not the same holds true for you: you can't keep the whole chunk lowing - if it wasn't for that tax chunk you would be prowling fields hunting down springbok with spears.

PS If it were not for completely free third level education - no fees, no nothing - my parents would not have afforded to sent me to university to become an engineer working in an important job, earning large sums of money and repaying that debt through my ample taxes. Thank you socialism - levelling the playing field so all have an equal (or as near as possible to equal) opportunity.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam, what makes you think I do not "live in a nice society"? Do you have something I do not have? In fact I might have something you don't. I have an achre of land near the moutains and a 2200 sq ft home ( not counting my full basement)  with a wrap around porch. and I am a typical American.

I have no problem paying taxes Cam, Taxes is/was never the issue. The issue is, I pay ENOUGH taxes. The Liberal solution for EVERYTHING is to tax their way out of it. Punish the achievers to cover the costs of the NON-achievers.  This is and always has been my argument. We pay enough taxes but more is always needed for the liberals.

Typical Americans own an acre of land near the mountains and a 2200 sq ft home, eh? lol. I have been to America ye know. I'm not dumb. Typical American? lol You sound like John McCain: "I can't quite recall how many houses I own..." Pffft

No, the liberal solution is not to tax their way out of everything because this 'liberal' knows that SOMETIMES tax increases are called for and SOMETIMES tax decreases are called for. The economy is a dynamic uncontrollable beast that needs different treatment at different times, as appropriate. I have read economics ye know. Tax does not PUNISH achievers. Tax is THE PRICE TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY. Complain about it all you want but it ain't going away and democracy will dictate whether it increase or decreases and the economic wellbeing of your nation will demonstrate whether the people in that democracy were correct or incorrect in their choice.

PS Isn't Obama promising TAX CUTS for the middle class??

Last edited by lowing (2008-09-09 12:11:18)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry Cam, I am a typical American middle class home owner. Most middle class Americans do not live in rented apts. we own homes on property.

Perhaps a symptom of the fact that you live in a vast almost totally empty nation, as opposed to the crowded teeming birthplace of modern civilisation? The clue being the fact millions set sail to look for additional land in the 1400s....

I could easily have bought - but I saw this whole shitfest in the housing market in the pipeline way off, and I am far better off for it. Perhaps I will use my saving in business rather than in bricks and mortar.

So you're middle class: you must be delighted with Obama's planned tax cuts then, eh?

lowing wrote:

Cam when you tax an individual MORE than you do another individual to enjoy the same freedoms, then you ARE punishing the achiever. I would buy your bullshit if the "cost to live in a society" were the same for everyone.

You have an idealised view of the world. You believe you live in an equal opportunity society when you quite patently obviously don't (neither do I). The children of people who worked hard to make a good nest egg have a MORE THAN EQUAL opportunity than those born into a less fortunate background. It's quite simple really. If we followed your path rich and poor would diverge wildly and you would have about 5% of the nation uber rich, 5% of the nation middle class and 80% of the nation in rags. I've been to nations where they've taken your approach lowing: try visting Latin America....

lowing wrote:

What you are suggesting is that a person with money SHOULD pay more for a gallon of milk for no other reason than because he can AFFORD to pay more. and how is that ideology not punishment?

No that's ludicrous. The free market should dictate the price of a gallon of milk. Taxation != Milk. Weird analogy.

lowing wrote:

No Cam not a wierd anology.

You say it is the COST of living in a society, so my question why should it cost a person who works hard to build a life to live in that society more than a person who does not contribute to it? You are saying tax a person more who can afford to be taxed more because he achieved.

lowing wrote:

No I am not a fan of anything Obama. I do not need his tax cuts, if the only way he is going to replace then is by fucking someone else. What is the difference.

lowing wrote:

I do not buy into this bullshit steal from the rich to give to poor.   I buy into earning for yourself.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-09 12:37:12)

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I am more along the lines of libertarian. I am however loyal to my personal beliefs only.

And if you're a libertarian... do you support government interfering with big business?

Because big business is what the governments going to become if it doesnt.  Republicans are already turning the government into big business, except they're not quite all that libertarian.  Whats the word for that again?

ghettoperson wrote:

Lowing's idea about taxes seem to change every post. No matter who is being taxed and whether he wins or loses he gets pissed off. There's no pleasing some people.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Who are YOU or I to decide what disposible income is for anyone?

The government influences that, according to the common will, as decided by society as a whole at election time.

lowing wrote:

It is THEIR money, NOT OURS to decide what it should be spent on.

Not true, see first comment above. Part of that money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the government in accordance with the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people.

lowing wrote:

Anyway, it would appear my analogy is spot on. It SHOULD cost them more because they can AFFORD more....But this isn't punishment..get real.

Also not true. The price of commodities is completely decoupled from income taxation (except perhaps from income tax reductions fuelling inflation thereby increasing the cost of commodities).

lowing wrote:

2. Nope, my concern is that people should EARN a living not STEAL one, be it from me or anyone else in the social class chain.

Again see first comment above. If you don't like it, leave your country and found another country somewhere else that somehow magically contains no people on the breadline carrying out menial jobs.

lowing wrote:

3. Yeah I am a mercenary, to believe one should EARN their own livlihood over being spoon fed one by me while I try to EARN one for myself..

Your main problem is that you don't understand that people working equally, if not harder, than people further up the chain are struggling to pay for MILK, and other such basic commodities whereas people further up the chain, often laughing it up at an extended coffee break in some air conditioned boardroom, are struggling to pay for the megajumbo yacht as opposed to the giganto yacht. Taxing all equally could be the difference between spending every night in a cardboard box on the side of the road for the former or enabling the latter to buy a yacht with a helipad. At the end of the day the country's bills have to be paid, those whose income goes solely on the necessities for living and perhaps breeding another generation of drone workers trumps the needs of fat cats who may or may not decide to employ their ample capital in the country in which they pay taxes (on the money they forgot to shift to offshore accounts that is). Unless of course you want your nation to dissolve into an anarchic shambles.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not want a govt. ( liberals) telling me that I am not paying enough because there are still parasites left unfed.

Parasites, that's the people you think all your tax money is going towards? You do know what taxes are for right?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

In all paragraghs Cam you convienently ignore something thatI have already stated. I agree that taxes should be paid. That has never been the question. I do not want a govt. ( liberals) telling me that I am not paying enough because there are still parasites left unfed.

Well unfortunately lowing you live in a representative democracy and from time to time your wishes will not be granted. And this is not about parasites going unfed. What I understand by Obama's tax rejig is that he wishes to cut middle class taxes to stimulate demand for the kind of produce that has been hit by the current downturn in the economy, thus reinvigorating confidence in the economy leading those rich folk who are currently withholding their capital (due to the current high risk situation) to free that capital up and invest, initiating an upward cycle of growth - at which point their taxes can in turn be reduced, further stimulating growth.

lowing wrote:

My position is ENOUGH taxes are being paid. Liberals think even MORE should be paid by those that EARN more. Regardless of the fact that the rich pay MOST of the tax burdon already.

The general public - the majority of the voting public - in the nation in which live in will decide that. And yes rich people have to take the biggest share of the burden as they are most capable of doing so. There isn't one single solitary nation on earth designed in a manner different to this.

lowing wrote:

...........and YOU want more

Conveniently ignoring the fact that I earlier stated that tax policy should be dictated by dynamically changing economic reality - not hard fast unchanging economic policy.

lowing wrote:

1. I see so your argument is reduced to well, that is just the way it is.... News flash, I KNOW that is just the way it is Cam, now do you wanna argue the right or wrong of it?

lowing wrote:

2.again, you have been reduced to well that is just the way it is.....the public will decide what is best for the rich peoples money, which basically means, liberals want to decide.

lowing wrote:

3. I can not recall a single "cycle" in my adult life where liberals have said hey, we are on an upturn now, we do not want or need any more of the evil rich's money.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-10 17:20:33)