1. It is right to tax people on what they spend, NOT what they make. It then becomes their decision if they want product X bad enough to pay the tax on it. Like it or not, you are stealing money from the rich for one reason, because they have it to steal. You can dress it up anyway you want. Implement what, holding people accountable for their decisions? Sure why not? There will always be stupid people, so no matter what is done you will always have the toilet cleaners, but the will be making what they are worth, and there will not be any liberals telling them that it isn't their fault all they can do is clean toilets, it is THE Man's fault and if you vote for me I will go after him for you.CameronPoe wrote:
It is right to tax the rich more highly (not least because many rich people are rich not by virtue of hard work but simply by fortune of birth). The income/social security/estate tax take of the US for 2007 was $2trn. There are 151.4m people in the US of working age. Dividing equally that comes to $13,181 each. The minimum wage is $6.55 an hour in the US. If someone works 40 hours a week for 51 out of the 52 weeks of the year their total income comes to $13,362. That would leave them about $181 to spend on the fruits of American liberty (less than 50c a day).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?
Implement it lowing, go ahead be my guest - who needs toilet cleaners and garbage collectors anyway... lol
If your system won't even allow subsistence living or living that will enable the lower echelons of the labour force to spawn further generations of labourers then your country will die.Democracy decides. Democratic decisions are driven by the success or failure of past decisions.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.Rich people aren't evil. The cylces generally go like this: conservatives take it one way and eventually go too far, liberals take it the other way and eventually go too far, rinse and repeat. That's just the nature of the two segments of society - which is rather simplistic, suggesting that society only composes of two tranches of people.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 lowing (2008-09-11 06:38:13)
I might just be going crazy.... but u seemed to be "debating" with cam about paying taxes... and how u dont want to give ur money to others....lowing wrote:
I already explained my views a page or 2 back, if you want to discuss my views and tell me how wrong I am read that post and comment on it. You are describing a view on an issue I have not stated. I challenge you to argue again what I do say and not what you make me out to be.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Probably not.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Parasites, that's the people you think all your tax money is going towards? You do know what taxes are for right?
So lowing this thread is about a hotel turning away a soldier.... and of course ur disgusted at this (as u should be). and yet when it comes to paying taxes and improving living standards for less funtunate people ur against it? in ur oppinion poor people should just get off their fat ass and work a high paying corporate job..... i can see a few flaws in that.
So u saying u wouldn't give money to people who need it (using this as an example though obviously not all tax goes to these areas) makes u almost as bad as people who directly refuse to help someone. u just feel better about it because u living in ur nice 1acre block near the mountains wont see the people that need all the help they can get
I am debating how much I should have to give. I also am debating the theft of money from people for no other reason than because they have it to steal. This person should have t opay more t olive in this society because he has worked, risked, and EARNED more, and because he can afford it, is a bullshit reason t osteal someones money. Charity should be personal. You want a govt. to dictate how generous you arre to be with your money. You want a govt. to decide for you just how much is enough for you to make and they will scrape off the excess and redistribute it to the masses. Sorry, this is not a belief I subscribe to. The "fair" conclusion for to draws is based on what I said.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I might just be going crazy.... but u seemed to be "debating" with cam about paying taxes... and how u dont want to give ur money to others....lowing wrote:
I already explained my views a page or 2 back, if you want to discuss my views and tell me how wrong I am read that post and comment on it. You are describing a view on an issue I have not stated. I challenge you to argue again what I do say and not what you make me out to be.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Probably not.
So lowing this thread is about a hotel turning away a soldier.... and of course ur disgusted at this (as u should be). and yet when it comes to paying taxes and improving living standards for less funtunate people ur against it? in ur oppinion poor people should just get off their fat ass and work a high paying corporate job..... i can see a few flaws in that.
So u saying u wouldn't give money to people who need it (using this as an example though obviously not all tax goes to these areas) makes u almost as bad as people who directly refuse to help someone. u just feel better about it because u living in ur nice 1acre block near the mountains wont see the people that need all the help they can get
so although u never said "i dont give money to people who need it" seems like a fair conclusion to draw... but hey wat would i know... im a liberal u must be right.
and by the way before in the thread when u were going on about "What would a SF liberal think blah blah blah" and then accused us of avoiding the question and just saying u were generalising etc.... mabye its because we arnt SF liberals so we cant say wat they would think.... and yet when a SF liberal did say wat he thought... u shot him down because it didnt contribute to ur argument.... so plz dont patronize me on arguing an issue that wasnt stated.
Ludicrous. Scenario: Economic downturn -> people stop spending -> tax take decreases -> vicious spiral bankrupts country. lol. Not big on thinking things through, eh?lowing wrote:
1. It is right to tax people on what they spend, NOT what they make.
Why is your job so much more important than poorer peoples jobs? Why is your work 'harder' than unblocking toilets, shifting garbage or working in a factory?lowing wrote:
It then becomes their decision if they want product X bad enough to pay the tax on it. Like it or not, you are stealing money from the rich for one reason, because they have it to steal. You can dress it up anyway you want. Implement what, holding people accountable for their decisions? Sure why not? There will always be stupid people, so no matter what is done you will always have the toilet cleaners, but the will be making what they are worth, and there will not be any liberals telling them that it isn't their fault all they can do is clean toilets, it is THE Man's fault and if you vote for me I will go after him for you.
Well you can take that view, that's your prerogative. I don't share your view. It's as simple as that.lowing wrote:
2. Sighhhhhhhhhhhh, Cam, I know this, which is why I am AGAINST liberal/socialist doctrine. I know how the world works Cam, it is my opinion that liberals try and STEAL money from those that have it.
I'm sure you're exaggerating. Most of 'leftist' (lol) America seek to balance the national budget - ye know: paying your dues. I thought you were all about not living beyond your means: let's face it, living beyond your means is exactly what America always does under a Republican administration.lowing wrote:
3. That did not address what I said, I said there has never been a "cycle" where a fuckin liberal doesn't want to take more from those that have more.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-11 11:50:02)
1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lolCameronPoe wrote:
Ludicrous. Scenario: Economic downturn -> people stop spending -> tax take decreases -> vicious spiral bankrupts country. lol. Not big on thinking things through, eh?lowing wrote:
1. It is right to tax people on what they spend, NOT what they make.Why is your job so much more important than poorer peoples jobs? Why is your work 'harder' than unblocking toilets, shifting garbage or working in a factory?lowing wrote:
It then becomes their decision if they want product X bad enough to pay the tax on it. Like it or not, you are stealing money from the rich for one reason, because they have it to steal. You can dress it up anyway you want. Implement what, holding people accountable for their decisions? Sure why not? There will always be stupid people, so no matter what is done you will always have the toilet cleaners, but the will be making what they are worth, and there will not be any liberals telling them that it isn't their fault all they can do is clean toilets, it is THE Man's fault and if you vote for me I will go after him for you.
Coming up with a system of taxation for every product known to man seems like something from a soviet nightmare. How ON EARTH do you imagine you could possibly work such a thing or EVER balance a budget (or even come near to it). You really are out there on this one. lol. If you implement the system and, because of various economic climate factors, you notice that demand for products decreases and your tax take consequently decreases then, presumably, you increase tax on products, thus decreasing demand for the products even more, spiralling viciously until you have even doctors and lawyers living a subsistence life. Reducing taxes to increase tax take would presumably end in tears also - where would it end: zero tax on anything? Not to mention that there is no guarantee demand would increase if the economic times were particularly uncertain. Charming.
YOU MUST TAX SOMETHING THAT IS BY AND LARGE GUARANTEED OR CONSISTENT - demand being a fickle beast - otherwise your tax take may fall short of government spending (and especially so during an economic dip, thus worsening matters). You already have a tax on spending - it's called VAT here (sales tax where you are I think). A balanced approach: taxing earning and spending - balance.
Answer me this lowing: what happens when no-one wants to spend because of economic turmoil? You ask China to spot you a trillion?
Could any proposal possibly have a bigger direct impact on inflation?
Sorry lowing, I don't want to live in a country that has black markets for milk and bread.Well you can take that view, that's your prerogative. I don't share your view. It's as simple as that.lowing wrote:
2. Sighhhhhhhhhhhh, Cam, I know this, which is why I am AGAINST liberal/socialist doctrine. I know how the world works Cam, it is my opinion that liberals try and STEAL money from those that have it.I'm sure you're exaggerating. Most of 'leftist' (lol) America seek to balance the national budget - ye know: paying your dues. I thought you were all about not living beyond your means: let's face it, living beyond your means is exactly what America always does under a Republican administration.lowing wrote:
3. That did not address what I said, I said there has never been a "cycle" where a fuckin liberal doesn't want to take more from those that have more.
Hey, at least it doesn't cause economic destruction.1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lol
But people who are wealthy (upper middle class - upper class) earned there money through oppurtunity. they got a good education. they came home to a meal everynight in a nice comfortable home. those people by default are going to be wealthier all their life because of this.... less fortunate people need help from the everyday, weathier people.lowing wrote:
I am debating how much I should have to give. I also am debating the theft of money from people for no other reason than because they have it to steal. This person should have t opay more t olive in this society because he has worked, risked, and EARNED more, and because he can afford it, is a bullshit reason t osteal someones money. Charity should be personal. You want a govt. to dictate how generous you arre to be with your money. You want a govt. to decide for you just how much is enough for you to make and they will scrape off the excess and redistribute it to the masses. Sorry, this is not a belief I subscribe to. The "fair" conclusion for to draws is based on what I said.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I might just be going crazy.... but u seemed to be "debating" with cam about paying taxes... and how u dont want to give ur money to others....lowing wrote:
I already explained my views a page or 2 back, if you want to discuss my views and tell me how wrong I am read that post and comment on it. You are describing a view on an issue I have not stated. I challenge you to argue again what I do say and not what you make me out to be.
so although u never said "i dont give money to people who need it" seems like a fair conclusion to draw... but hey wat would i know... im a liberal u must be right.
and by the way before in the thread when u were going on about "What would a SF liberal think blah blah blah" and then accused us of avoiding the question and just saying u were generalising etc.... mabye its because we arnt SF liberals so we cant say wat they would think.... and yet when a SF liberal did say wat he thought... u shot him down because it didnt contribute to ur argument.... so plz dont patronize me on arguing an issue that wasnt stated.
I didn't shoot him down for having an opinion, I shot him down because I asked him to back his opinion up, like I did, with evidence that SF is something history and the present proves it is not. When asked for this, he decided I wasn't worth arguing with and ran for the woodwork.
No: corporations and rich individuals are separate issues. Corporate tax != Income tax.lowing wrote:
1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lol
No it isn't. Tax the rich an appropriate amount - not 'the ever living shit' - in order for society not to degenerate into a revolution (we've had too many revolutions over the centuries).lowing wrote:
2. I agree a balanced approach, but to you a balanced appraoch is t ofuck the ever living shit outta the rich for no other reason than because you can, and they can afford t olet you.
Yeah because selling below cost price is a recipe for economic success...lowing wrote:
3. What happpens when no one wants to spend? Prices drop to a level where people will start spending.
That's funny - given how much money I hand over every year to the taxman being called a 'thief' is somewhat rich... Just because I realise your model is full of holes does not make me a thief. Increasing taxes on products in your model would impinge on poor people the most - perhaps consigning them to the dustbin, even though many of them could be working extremely hard in necessary and vital jobs, whereas the rich folk just need to cut back on the ivory back scratchers. My interest is in preserving the nation and society - you appear to seek to destroy it though non-recognition of the difficulties face by those on the breadline. You may call it unfair, I call it necessary. My views also reflect my Christian heritage.lowing wrote:
4. I know you don't share my view, most thieves do not think they are doing anything wrong.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-12 04:37:59)
1. Amounts to the same thing Cam, take away the incentive for the rich to invest, risk, build, produce, cut back etc, will create the problem or is it the poor people that build up an economy, I forget.CameronPoe wrote:
No: corporations and rich individuals are separate issues. Corporate tax != Income tax.lowing wrote:
1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lolNo it isn't. Tax the rich an appropriate amount - not 'the ever living shit' - in order for society not to degenerate into a revolution (we've had too many revolutions over the centuries).lowing wrote:
2. I agree a balanced approach, but to you a balanced appraoch is t ofuck the ever living shit outta the rich for no other reason than because you can, and they can afford t olet you.Yeah because selling below cost price is a recipe for economic success...lowing wrote:
3. What happpens when no one wants to spend? Prices drop to a level where people will start spending.That's funny - given how much money I hand over every year to the taxman being called a 'thief' is somewhat rich... Just because I realise your model is full of holes does not make me a thief. Increasing taxes on products in your model would impinge on poor people the most - perhaps consigning them to the dustbin, even though many of them could be working extremely hard in necessary and vital jobs, whereas the rich folk just need to cut back on the ivory back scratchers. My interest is in preserving the nation and society - you appear to seek to destroy it though non-recognition of the difficulties face by those on the breadline. You may call it unfair, I call it necessary. My views also reflect my Christian heritage.lowing wrote:
4. I know you don't share my view, most thieves do not think they are doing anything wrong.
I am sorry Spark, my attitude is arrogant and condenscending? Here let me take my print off of bold text...........Is this better?Spark wrote:
Hey, at least it doesn't cause economic destruction.1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lol
And I seriously doubt the rich people are going to really need to curtail their necessities because of taxes. I'm not going to lose sleep over them not being able to buy their 10th mansion this month instead of next.
Beyond that I'm not going to answer any of your points while you take such an arrogant, condescending attitudes.
Yer right I do, but I am smart enough to know who is getting a free ride, who is paying for it and who is trying to take control of private money.Uzique wrote:
Lowing you suck at economics, don't quit your dayjob.
Don't quit paying taxes either.
But please quit your pathetic facade of a debate.
Thx!
How would you like it if I called you a murderer?lowing wrote:
I am sorry Spark, my attitude is arrogant and condenscending? Here let me take my print off of bold text...........Is this better?Spark wrote:
Hey, at least it doesn't cause economic destruction.1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lol
And I seriously doubt the rich people are going to really need to curtail their necessities because of taxes. I'm not going to lose sleep over them not being able to buy their 10th mansion this month instead of next.
Beyond that I'm not going to answer any of your points while you take such an arrogant, condescending attitudes.
Last edited by Spark (2008-09-12 19:14:58)
Lol.lowing wrote:
I am sorry Spark, my attitude is arrogant and condenscending? Here let me take my print off of bold text...........Is this better?Spark wrote:
Hey, at least it doesn't cause economic destruction.1. I see, so lets tax the rich to more and tax big corporations even more. Sounds great....Who d oyou thibk all of thoses exess taxes are going to paid by once the rich corporations adjust for the increased tax and reduced profit? Yup yer right, the REST of us! I guess you are not muc hon thinking things through are ya. lol
And I seriously doubt the rich people are going to really need to curtail their necessities because of taxes. I'm not going to lose sleep over them not being able to buy their 10th mansion this month instead of next.
Beyond that I'm not going to answer any of your points while you take such an arrogant, condescending attitudes.
no, that's chinese.lowing wrote:
Isn't there something in the bible about teaching a man to fish over giving him a fish?
Call me a murderer? where did that come from? Anyway, if you haven't guessed by now, you can call me anything you want Spark.Spark wrote:
How would you like it if I called you a murderer?lowing wrote:
I am sorry Spark, my attitude is arrogant and condenscending? Here let me take my print off of bold text...........Is this better?Spark wrote:
Hey, at least it doesn't cause economic destruction.
And I seriously doubt the rich people are going to really need to curtail their necessities because of taxes. I'm not going to lose sleep over them not being able to buy their 10th mansion this month instead of next.
Beyond that I'm not going to answer any of your points while you take such an arrogant, condescending attitudes.
Plus, you're not considering that while the 'default' tax rate is high, the number of tax breaks available to them is silly to the extreme.
My opinion on who gets a "free ride" is not biased The only ones in America who deserve help from the tax payers are those who are handicapped, mentally or physically, and children. There are no excuse for poverty other than that except ones shitty choices in life.Uzique wrote:
All the 'private money' in the Western world is controlled and owned by someone the minute it's printed.
And I don't really think your definition of a "free ride" is unbiased and fair to people of all backgrounds and situations, you can't just apply a blanket-rule to an entire socio-economic class of working class or impoverished people that would benefit from a more 'empathetic' fiscal and tax policy.
Technically, everyone is "paying for it". Just everyone is paying a scalar and fair amount of money into the system from which they all take many benefits and enjoy many luxuries. People pay by their means and their capacity to contribute, it's equally as unfair to apply a flatrate tax for all (as well as very cumbersome in terms of economic regulation). I can see where your fundamental 'belief' comes from and what your underlying point is about tax and benefits/tax cuts- but really your viewpoint isn't practically integrated into any fiscal or economic policy. I'm sure a lot of people share your bitter sentiments about taxation but the reason nothing's ever done about it is because it's practically impossible to devise a sound and economically-viable alternative. Of course there are other parties and other 'alternatives' in the sense that these disadvantaged people from the lower socio-economic bands simply drop through the net and die off in what is effectively the silent political endorsement of Darwinian economics. But that simply doesn't work either on any level.
No it doesn't amount to the same thing at all. Corporation tax is completely separate from income tax. Period. To answer your question: both rich people and poor people build up an economy. Rich provide capital, poor provide labour, both provide demand for produce. If you don't recognise these undisputable facts then I'm afraid the argument must end here. It's a two way street - thus we can't have a system that ONLY favours the rich. Favouring one segment ends in one of two things: fascist dictatorship or communist dictatorship.lowing wrote:
1. Amounts to the same thing Cam, take away the incentive for the rich to invest, risk, build, produce, cut back etc, will create the problem or is it the poor people that build up an economy, I forget.
The rich do carry the tax burden and rightly so. We came through several millennia of social, political and economic development and this is the system that has evolved to prevent the dissolution of our nations into anarchy. I don't think, for instance, that making the rich carry more of the burden in Ireland is currently the right recipe for economic progress, but like I said (and you ignored) - taxation policy is dictated by current circumstance. Sometimes increasing taxes on the rich is necessary, sometimes it isn't.lowing wrote:
2. Uh Cam I already showed you where the rich carry the overwhelming tax burden already, yet you still want to take more. It is time the poor start earning the free ride. You want welfare, then get out an clean the streets, wash windows on govt. buildings whatever.
A demand driven economy of your description would mean pure Darwinian subsistence living. No thanks.lowing wrote:
3. Nope, it is called supply and demand and it works.
Well I'm afraid representative democracy does decide FOR YOU and you can cry and whine about it all you fucking like. Get over it. It's the best system we've got for preventing anarchy and lifting us out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.lowing wrote:
4. Gee I wonder what taxes would be on a yacht, or a high priced car or a plane. I am sure that it has to be higher than that of the lastest gaming machine that the poor poverty stricken people of America will buy on credit.
What I call unfair is to have a govt. in place in America that decides FOR YOU when you have earned enough and will then scrape away whatever they deem in excess to pay for those that did NOT work, risk, earn, sacrifice.etc...
About your Christian heritage ( I thought you were not religious but hey) Isn't there something in the bible about teaching a man to fish over giving him a fish?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 07:36:33)
1. Cam, the rich do not provide the capital, the MIDDLE CLASS provides the labor and the poor provide nothing. Society can not function without the rich or the middle class, the poor however are the ones you insist we all work for and drag along while they contribute nothing except a fucking VOTE to put into office a socialist who tells them the rich will pay more for them if they only vote him in.CameronPoe wrote:
No it doesn't amount to the same thing at all. Corporation tax is completely separate from income tax. Period. To answer your question: both rich people and poor people build up an economy. Rich provide capital, poor provide labour, both provide demand for produce. If you don't recognise these undisputable facts then I'm afraid the argument must end here. It's a two way street - thus we can't have a system that ONLY favours the rich. Favouring one segment ends in one of two things: fascist dictatorship or communist dictatorship.lowing wrote:
1. Amounts to the same thing Cam, take away the incentive for the rich to invest, risk, build, produce, cut back etc, will create the problem or is it the poor people that build up an economy, I forget.The rich do carry the tax burden and rightly so. We came through several millennia of social, political and economic development and this is the system that has evolved to prevent the dissolution of our nations into anarchy. I don't think, for instance, that making the rich carry more of the burden in Ireland is currently the right recipe for economic progress, but like I said (and you ignored) - taxation policy is dictated by current circumstance. Sometimes increasing taxes on the rich is necessary, sometimes it isn't.lowing wrote:
2. Uh Cam I already showed you where the rich carry the overwhelming tax burden already, yet you still want to take more. It is time the poor start earning the free ride. You want welfare, then get out an clean the streets, wash windows on govt. buildings whatever.A demand driven economy of your description would mean pure Darwinian subsistence living. No thanks.lowing wrote:
3. Nope, it is called supply and demand and it works.Well I'm afraid representative democracy does decide FOR YOU and you can cry and whine about it all you fucking like. Get over it. It's the best system we've got for preventing anarchy and lifting us out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.lowing wrote:
4. Gee I wonder what taxes would be on a yacht, or a high priced car or a plane. I am sure that it has to be higher than that of the lastest gaming machine that the poor poverty stricken people of America will buy on credit.
What I call unfair is to have a govt. in place in America that decides FOR YOU when you have earned enough and will then scrape away whatever they deem in excess to pay for those that did NOT work, risk, earn, sacrifice.etc...
About your Christian heritage ( I thought you were not religious but hey) Isn't there something in the bible about teaching a man to fish over giving him a fish?
I am an atheist but as I underwent some of the Christian brainwashing as a child I have many of the core values of Christianity instilled in me. Christ said nothing about teaching a man to fish. Christ did however deplore materialism and encouraged giving up all your riches to ease the suffering of others. Now I don't agree with that but the general sentiment of not treating money as your god I would concur with.
Are you seriously telling me that middle class people work in McDonalds, vaccuum office buildings, gather garbage, sweep streets, clean toilets, work behind checkout desks and do odd-jobs like plastering and bricklaying? Get a fucking reality check. Middle class people are accountants, lawyers, engineers, doctors, scientists, technicians, managers, actuaries, teachers, lecturers, journalists, etc. Now I realise why you're so off the wall with your theories: you're completely disconnected from reality.lowing wrote:
1. Cam, the rich do not provide the capital, the MIDDLE CLASS provides the labor and the poor provide nothing. Society can not function without the rich or the middle class, the poor however are the ones you insist we all work for and drag along while they contribute nothing except a fucking VOTE to put into office a socialist who tells them the rich will pay more for them if they only vote him in.
It's not a punishment. If not for this system the country would probably collapse - just as feudalism was brought crashing down when the poor had enough of the privileged exploiting them for labour at bare subsistence levels. And when the country collapses your riches won't be any good to you whatsoever, unless of course you managed to get the last plane out of it. The stability of your nation enables you to become rich. So effectively it's repaying that debt.lowing wrote:
2. You say rightly so, I say it is punishment for being rich. Obama says to nail the rich for more money is "Neighborliness". He wants to force the rich to be nice. He doesn't say the world will collapse if they do not. He is saying the govt. will dictate FOR YOU how nice you should be, how much is too much earnings. Yeah, this is the America I wanna live in. You may love the govt. controlling you in this way Cam, I however, do not.
When the rich makes a profit we all win! lol. Yeah, especially when they ship all the jobs out to the latest dirt poor country. lol. We might 'all win' if they were bound by law to commit all of their profits to inward reinvestment, but of course no such laws exist and their profits may or may not benefit the people of the nation in which they reside.lowing wrote:
3. How so, a service/ product is supplied, if people want it they will pay for it, they more they pay the more the rich makes a profit, when the rich makes a profit, we all win.
I'm just spelling out the reality of the situation. That's all.lowing wrote:
4. There you go, reverting back to your argument that "well, that is just the way it is"..I already know that Cam, but that does not mean I think it is right. Hence the debate.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 14:50:46)