Name them. Otherwise I can't tell what the fuck you're talking about.lowing wrote:
Pick any one ya want, Cam.CameronPoe wrote:
Which two groups are you talking about here lowing?lowing wrote:
When you say in one sentence that a group of people are insignificant and then use that same group as a shining example to prove your points, makes your argument weaker, quite simple really.
For the last 10 minutes I've been trying to come up with a reply, but alas, I cannot. It feels like an overwhelming task to explain how a system works to some.
You're on your own, I give up.
You're on your own, I give up.
I need around tree fiddy.
Make a comparison lowing ... do you share within your own family ? ... does the fruits of the total labour of the family get shared equally ? ... hold that thought and think a tad bigger ... it's basically what we do for eachother ...lowing wrote:
Taxes for the masses Cam, not from one person to another for no other reason than to share HIS money with HER. Sorry, like it or not there is difference between paying taxes, and wealth redistribution.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm afraid it is lowing and always has been or hadn't you noticed? You do have a banded tax structure I gather. It is precisely the role of an elected government to dictate taxation policy when it receives a mandate, whether you like it or not. The US is not your idea of the US - it is what I said before: a dynamic entity that ebbs and flows in line with the changing sentiments and concerns of the collective (as with any respresentative democracy), i.e. the majority will.lowing wrote:
And sharing the wealth is EXACTLY what Obama wants to do. It is not the govts. job ( in the US anyway) to take money from one person and give it to another.
The millitary have a phrase that goes: Leave no man behind!
Why shouldn't that phrase apply to the society ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It isn't wealth redistribution for F#@!'s sake.
No one is seizing anyones assets and redistributing them. Someone's net worth will simply go up at a different rate than before on a progressive scale. We've almost always had a progressive scale, as long as there has been an IRS (oh, and its complimentary wealth transferring system the Fed.).
No one is seizing anyones assets and redistributing them. Someone's net worth will simply go up at a different rate than before on a progressive scale. We've almost always had a progressive scale, as long as there has been an IRS (oh, and its complimentary wealth transferring system the Fed.).
HUH, that isn't how it works.Braddock wrote:
I get the impression that lowing labours under the illusion that all Americans pay exactly the same amount of tax and that every ordinary working stiff gets the same tax breaks as your average fortune 500 CEO.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm afraid it is lowing and always has been or hadn't you noticed? You do have a banded tax structure I gather. It is precisely the role of an elected government to dictate taxation policy when it receives a mandate, whether you like it or not. The US is not your idea of the US - it is what I said before: a dynamic entity that ebbs and flows in line with the changing sentiments and concerns of the collective (as with any respresentative democracy), i.e. the majority will.lowing wrote:
And sharing the wealth is EXACTLY what Obama wants to do. It is not the govts. job ( in the US anyway) to take money from one person and give it to another.
The upper income pays the majority of the tax, both in percent and in amount. I pay more than probably eight to ten people combined (on here). I pay both more and a greater percentage.
But, I own THE WORK PRODUCT of my employees - they do not own the fruit of their labor. I do. It is unfair to begin with. So that is why the person who owns the fruit of the labor product pays. Because philanthropy is a continuous flow of money from the labor-class to the capitalist who legally owns the fruit of their labor. Philanthropy at the top, occasional acts of shame whereby a capitalist gives back money that he has been taking from others; in the system; his whole life, pales in comparison to philanthropy in the labor class; that is a continuous wealth-transferring event.
________
If you then add the Fed into system, you'll find that increases in the money supply directly transfer existing net-worth wealth from everyone to the financial/corporate sector. As long as the money supply is increasing the labor and lower class are the ones getting a forced redistribution of wealth imposed upon them - continuously. (That of course does not take into account globalization, exploitation, interest profit on money-alone, speculative volatility, how corporations bypass reforms/regulations, etc).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-20 12:14:08)
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
one can make the argument that that alien civilization couldnt have reached that level of technology with socialismBraddock wrote:
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
but surely if everyone had a higher standard of living, there'd likely be more educated people, who'd be more likely to create space travel tech?God Save the Queen wrote:
one can make the argument that that alien civilization couldnt have reached that level of technology with socialismBraddock wrote:
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
not taking sides tbh
On could make an argument that these are red herrings and not arguments.God Save the Queen wrote:
one can make the argument that that alien civilization couldnt have reached that level of technology with socialismBraddock wrote:
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
I dont eat seafoodtopal63 wrote:
On could make an argument that these are red herrings and not arguments.God Save the Queen wrote:
one can make the argument that that alien civilization couldnt have reached that level of technology with socialismBraddock wrote:
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
Never mind socialists... wasn't the first man in space a Communist?God Save the Queen wrote:
one can make the argument that that alien civilization couldnt have reached that level of technology with socialismBraddock wrote:
If aliens were observing planet earth and saw on one side a group of humans that operate a dog eat dog economic system where the strongest survive and the weakest are eaten and on the other side another group of humans that attempt to overcome their selfish and destructive, primal instincts in order to raise living standards collectively as a society which ones do you think the aliens would consider more evolved?
Cut-throat capitalism follows the rules of the animal kingdom a little too closely for my liking.
who won the space race?
ofcourse if you ask them, they say "what race?"
ofcourse if you ask them, they say "what race?"
PS: The soviets got there first.
There is no such thing as capitalism in a vacuum. All by itself. A corporate entity exists at the discretion of the Nation that gave charter to it. There is no such thing as capitalism without socialism. It is merely the level of balance that makes it tolerable.
Slavery is capitalism. Whereby the plantation owners then trade the work product in a so-called free-market. Obviously this socialism is not the kind of balance we want. Nor do we want the other end of the spectrum, no market incentives, communism without capitalism (extreme socialism).
There is no such thing as capitalism in a vacuum. All by itself. A corporate entity exists at the discretion of the Nation that gave charter to it. There is no such thing as capitalism without socialism. It is merely the level of balance that makes it tolerable.
Slavery is capitalism. Whereby the plantation owners then trade the work product in a so-called free-market. Obviously this socialism is not the kind of balance we want. Nor do we want the other end of the spectrum, no market incentives, communism without capitalism (extreme socialism).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-20 10:20:58)
Yuri Gagarin.God Save the Queen wrote:
who won the space race?
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.Varegg wrote:
Socialism never hurt anybody, your egocentric lifestyle ends with Obama *Muhahahahahahaha*
The waiting lists become shorter as funds are directed towards public healthcare.mikkel wrote:
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.Varegg wrote:
Socialism never hurt anybody, your egocentric lifestyle ends with Obama *Muhahahahahahaha*
I need around tree fiddy.
What waiting lists?mikkel wrote:
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.Varegg wrote:
Socialism never hurt anybody, your egocentric lifestyle ends with Obama *Muhahahahahahaha*
Obama is the only candidate talking about actually addressing the failures of an entirely privatised healthcare system. McCain wants to give $5000 to every citizen to purchase health insurance? Well that's a fat lot of good to someone with diabetes who the insurance companies won't touch with a barge poll... these kind of people can't even get on a list.
No, the waiting lists become longer. The most developed welfare states with the most comprehensive socialised healthcare programmes have more people dying waiting for treatment than almost all other developed countries.DonFck wrote:
The waiting lists become shorter as funds are directed towards public healthcare.mikkel wrote:
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.Varegg wrote:
Socialism never hurt anybody, your egocentric lifestyle ends with Obama *Muhahahahahahaha*
^^^HUH??????? We spend more per capita than any nation on earth:
And yet we do not rank well - even though were are spending more. Part of the need to socialize some of the system, is the profit problem: Insurance Co.s, Admin., Drug companies, lack of preventative incentives, etc.
Here is a side by side comparison with say Canada:
And yet we do not rank well - even though were are spending more. Part of the need to socialize some of the system, is the profit problem: Insurance Co.s, Admin., Drug companies, lack of preventative incentives, etc.
Here is a side by side comparison with say Canada:
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-20 10:20:17)
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-20 10:12:39)
Interestingly enough, I have yet to experience this. Having lived my entire life in one of "the most developed welfare states with the most comprehensive socialised healthcare programmes" (as you put it), I should have noticed that by now.. Hmm..mikkel wrote:
No, the waiting lists become longer. The most developed welfare states with the most comprehensive socialised healthcare programmes have more people dying waiting for treatment than almost all other developed countries.DonFck wrote:
The waiting lists become shorter as funds are directed towards public healthcare.mikkel wrote:
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.
I need around tree fiddy.
Examples ?mikkel wrote:
No, the waiting lists become longer. The most developed welfare states with the most comprehensive socialised healthcare programmes have more people dying waiting for treatment than almost all other developed countries.DonFck wrote:
The waiting lists become shorter as funds are directed towards public healthcare.mikkel wrote:
Except for the people dying on waiting lists.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Best paid doctors perhaps or does the money fill up the accounts belonging to health insurance companies ... somehow you must be spending it wrong ...topal63 wrote:
^^^HUH??????? We spend more per capita than any nation on earth:
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/WHO_rankings.jpg
Here is a side by side comparison with say Canada:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/images/issue … canada.gif
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
We're all ears Mikkel... ?Varegg wrote:
Examples ?mikkel wrote:
No, the waiting lists become longer. The most developed welfare states with the most comprehensive socialised healthcare programmes have more people dying waiting for treatment than almost all other developed countries.DonFck wrote:
The waiting lists become shorter as funds are directed towards public healthcare.
Without a doubt... that's the fact jack.Varegg wrote:
Best paid doctors perhaps ... somehow you must be speding it wrong ...topal63 wrote:
^^^HUH??????? We spend more per capita than any nation on earth:
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/WHO_rankings.jpg
Here is a side by side comparison with say Canada:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/images/issue … canada.gif
____
Part of the need to socialize some of the system, is the profit problem: Insurance Co.s, Admin., Drug companies, lack of preventative incentives (which in many cases would mean doctors making less), etc.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-20 10:19:49)