[QUOTE=Explosions;29162577]I hate to say it, but Glaber actually hit the nail on the head.[/QUOTE]
:psyboom:
[QUOTE=Pepin;29160944]I feel as though a big issue with this whole debate are the extreme sides. For some reason people believe that taxing the rich would solve the issue entirely, which just isn't true. The really rich have various ways of keeping their money, and even if the situation was ideal, the revenue gained would not nearly be enough to put any substantial dent in the issue. There are also big issues with large firings, no hirings, and rich people leaving the country after tax increases, but again: let's assume an ideal situation. I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but I am very opposed to the idea that it is the best action we can take because the outcome people are portraying from it just isn't realistic.
Take the other extreme of that and they say that there should be no tax increase at all because it is simply a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This issue I have with this is that it states a truth about the issue being created from a spending problem, but that does not somehow justify no increase in taxes.
To make an analogy, imagine you were in dept because you were spending more than you had. It makes sense to cut your spending to help solve the problem. But it also makes sense to create more revenue by getting a second job. You need a balance between spending and revenue. There isn't just one solution to the problem. You need to address both problems. If you don't address your spending problem you are only going to need to get a third job later down the road.[/QUOTE]
This man speaks the truth, facepunchers would learn something useful, by reading this.
Nah. We're screwed.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
[i]However[/i], the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax][b]FairTax[/b][/url] would help out a great deal. It might get people actually motivated to do something when they see how much money they're actually flushing down that toilet they call the government.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
Good sir, are you familiar with a little book called "The Gospel of Wealth", by Andrew Carnegie?
[QUOTE=Pepin;29161060]This graph demonstrates that throwing money at a problem does not fix it.
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/2v3r6mc.gif[/img_thumb]
Good luck justifying a department who's only gain is the amount of money they spend.[/QUOTE]
You do now that as time passes, school curriculum gets harder?
[QUOTE=Shooter;29162785]Nah. We're screwed.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
[i]However[/i], the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax][b]FairTax[/b][/url] would help out a great deal. It might get people actually motivated to do something when they see how much money they're actually flushing down that toilet they call the government.[/QUOTE]
Can you idiots stop advocating for a regressive tax system
please
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29159770]raise
taxes
on
the
rich[/QUOTE]
"The rich" make up less than 1% of the nation's population. If you raise all of their taxes and lower taxes for everybody else, not much is going to change. There are better ways to cut down on spending than to just raise taxes on people who climbed the corporate ladder one way or another. The first and most obvious solution should be to get the fuck out of the middle east and stop spending so much god damn money on defense since Al Qaeda have been spending their days laughing their asses off at how ridiculously unnecessary our airport security is.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;29163634]Good sir, are you familiar with a little book called "The Gospel of Wealth", by Andrew Carnegie?[/QUOTE]
Never heard about it until you asked.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29162374]Do you? Socialism in theory works. Communism in theory works. Both have been proven to fail due to human greed and corruption. neither of which are ever accounted for as seen with the Former USSR and Germany. If Socialism worked, there would still be a USSR.
You know what, how about you read this?:
[url]http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2010/04/socialismtotalitarian.html[/url]
See bold. Oh and just to let you know, the trickle down theory also works for negative effects too.
Name one thing you think I think I'm entitled too.
Got a application link? I could use the job.[/QUOTE]
It's really funny you think the USSR was socialist.
And it's really funny you think that it doesn't work. Countries all around Scandanavia must be crushed to hear that they're not working. Canada is crushed for sure, as I read that, the city crumbled around me because of the realization that socialism = totalitarianism and that it's failed 100% in every aspect ever.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
You argue by making the system you despise into a system that it's not and then you rant about it. Not only that, but you ignore modern life AND history, I didn't know it was possible to rewrite the world for yourself.
Apparently socialism doesn't work, but unregulated capitalism does :confused:
Also this
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Plh0BlUtnTI/TSNqqwy1hZI/AAAAAAAABVA/ECs9KWW_jeg/s640/Charts_Taxes_Income_Top+Rates_Cartoon_Historical-Perspective-on-Top-Tax-Rate.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29164665]It's really funny you think the USSR was socialist.
And it's really funny you think that it doesn't work. Countries all around Scandanavia must be crushed to hear that they're not working. Canada is crushed for sure, as I read that, the city crumbled around me because of the realization that socialism = totalitarianism and that it's failed 100% in every aspect ever.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
You argue by making the system you despise into a system that it's not and then you rant about it. Not only that, but you ignore modern life AND history, I didn't know it was possible to rewrite the world for yourself.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but My history books has the USSR as Socialist. When you unabbreviate it (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), you find Socialist right in the name.
When something has Socialist right in the name, how can you not think it's Socialist?
You might be right about it not being Socialist, but in the case of the USSR, it needs backing up with links as it's not common knowledge and the name could be misleading. Unless it really is what the name implies.
My history books also have the USSR crumbling too. Possibly as a result of either Socialism or Communism. Hard for me to remember as I had to return my school books at the end of the school year from Elementary through High school and I didn't take any history classes out side of art related classes in College.
[b][u]CUT MILITARY SPENDING[/u][/b]
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;29162374]
See bold. Oh and just to let you know, the trickle down theory also works for negative effects too.
[/QUOTE]
the trickle down theory doesn't work at all.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29165093]I don't know about you, but My history books has the USSR as Socialist. When you unabbreviate it (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), you find Socialist right in the name.
When something has Socialist right in the name, how can you not think it's Socialist?
You might be right about it not being Socialist, but in the case of the USSR, it needs backing up with links as it's not common knowledge and the name could be misleading. Unless it really is what the name implies.[/QUOTE]
So do you believe that the National Socialist German Workers' Party was truly and secretly socialist rather than authoritarian? Wow man, you're in need of some good education. Though, you're right in that the USSR intended to be Socialist but ended up very totalitarian.
Is deficit another word for debt?
I guess the Democratic Republic of North Korea really is a democratic republic!
:v:
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tampong;29165414]Is deficit another word for debt?[/QUOTE]
No. Deficit usually refers to how much more the government is spending in than getting its budget, whereas debt usually refers to how much the government owes overall.
So the deficit is the yearly increase in debt.
ITT further confirmation that Glaber is an idiot
His posts look like the troll ones that aren't entirely convincing so you can sort of see through the cracks that he's playing us all
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
Oh god no not socialist views
wouldn't want your country to be a good place to live in or anything
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;29165093]I don't know about you, but My history books has the USSR as Socialist. When you unabbreviate it (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), you find Socialist right in the name.
When something has Socialist right in the name, how can you not think it's Socialist?
You might be right about it not being Socialist, but in the case of the USSR, it needs backing up with links as it's not common knowledge and the name could be misleading. Unless it really is what the name implies.
My history books also have the USSR crumbling too. Possibly as a result of either Socialism or Communism. Hard for me to remember as I had to return my school books at the end of the school year from Elementary through High school and I didn't take any history classes out side of art related classes in College.[/QUOTE]
you also find democratic, in the democratic people's republic of north korea
we've had this discussion before, names don't mean dick.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because more Socialist perspectives and attributes in government are going to turn the united States into the Fascist Totalitarian Glenn-Beck-esque Police State of your nightmares. Oh, and this doesn't count the dozens upon dozens of services the government has run by the government for the people, that would count under the standard definitions of 'socialism.' I'm saying that because the main thing Free Market Capitalism has accomplished for us in the last two decades or so since Reagan is steadily drive the country towards the ground in one way or another and steadily transform this nation into a Plutocracy that solely benefits Mega Corps and Corrupt Corporate Executives.
So yeah, Socialism != Dictatorship. Capitalism = Possible Plutocracy would be a better equation.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
Those socialist views may just save your country boyo.
Do you even pay taxes yet, Glaber? Or does mom and dad do that for you?
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
and what do you mean 'your country'?
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
Ahaha
not doing everything to kill poor people=/=socialism
not you country either.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29162374]Do you? Socialism in theory works. Communism in theory works. Both have been proven to fail due to human greed and corruption. neither of which are ever accounted for as seen with the Former USSR and Germany. If Socialism worked, there would still be a USSR.
You know what, how about you read this?:
[B][url]http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2010/04/socialismtotalitarian[/url].[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahaha :v: Look at what kind of source that is. Seriously man.
I guess Norway, Sweden, France, Denmark and Finland is shit places then :saddowns:
Also, I guess all the greedy people just flock to the socalist evil places and everyone is happy in Glorious Capitalist America :pseudo:
[QUOTE=Glaber;29159639]David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't take an opinion rant from one of the guys responsible for shitty subjective paid credit evaluations and the amazing misrepresentation of loans leading to millions in losses during the recession at face value.
But, I mean, you want to listen to a guy known more for talking shit than knowing it be my guest, but then you know why nobody on this forum takes you seriously.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29161060]This graph demonstrates that throwing money at a problem does not fix it.
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/2v3r6mc.gif[/img_thumb]
Good luck justifying a department who's only gain is the amount of money they spend.[/QUOTE]
PROTIP: The biggest differences in spending are the result of spending money on things like COMPUTERS, which do not help in reading. How many COMPUTER LABS do you think a school in 1970 had? (ANSWER: Zero)
That, and the ridiculous costs for administrators.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29159770]raise
taxes
on
the
rich[/QUOTE]
no my family will be poor
[QUOTE=DSG;29164094][b]"The rich" make up less than 1% of the nation's population.[/b] If you raise all of their taxes and lower taxes for everybody else, not much is going to change. There are better ways to cut down on spending than to just raise taxes on people who climbed the corporate ladder one way or another. The first and most obvious solution should be to get the fuck out of the middle east and stop spending so much god damn money on defense since Al Qaeda have been spending their days laughing their asses off at how ridiculously unnecessary our airport security is.[/QUOTE]
And that top 1% controls more of America's wealth than the bottom 90% COMBINED.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80[/media]
[QUOTE=amute;29167947]Those socialist views may just save your country boyo.
Do you even pay taxes yet, Glaber? Or does mom and dad do that for you?
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
and what do you mean 'your country'?[/QUOTE]
I pay taxes, just recently filed them a few days ago too.
And to those who call me a troll. Why haven't you reported me if you do think I am one?
those that do, i hope your proven wrong as I do believe the stuff I post unlike the troll you think I am.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29177602]I pay taxes, just recently filed them a few days ago too.
And to those who call me a troll. Why haven't you reported me if you do think I am one?[/QUOTE]
Alright
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
reported enjoi yr ban
Socialism = Bad
Capitalism = Equally Bad
Socialism dictates the government holding all the riches and people having all the same thing- generally poverty.
Capitalism dictates the corporate elite holding all the money, while the government gladly comes along. The bottom 90% usually have the same thing- poverty, since all their money was stolen.
We can safely conclude that neither work and we must develop a better-working form of government.
Change is the key word. One of the things that attributes to America's patriotic failure is the fat,
sclerotic laziness of being "NUMBAH WUN!".
See, if you ask most people about Ronald Reagan, they'll say:
"He's a horrible economist, but restored American spirit."
Most people would say the two are a pair of good and bad, but the reality is that they are both a poisonous concoction that has caused the downward spiral the United States is, has been, and will be experiencing for at least another generation.
Know why? We're too fucking content with what we have.
We have had this horrible idea planted in our heads, that the system we have is perfect in the sense it can't get any better, and won't get any worse. Whenever this argument is brought to the debate floor, whoever dare mention changing the "perfectly flawless governmental system that our perfect founding fathers had laid before us when they signed the perfect constitution, perfectly" an anti-american. In reality, the Framers would likely grow sick of a nation which was content with their system written over two centuries ago.
True, we've had constitutional amendments, but we won't get anywhere if we don't realize that the nation needs reform.
Scrap the whole damn thing and start clean. The Framer's work can be used as a baseline, but change in order to adapt to modern environments and economies is essential to keeping countries afloat.
Consider this, Germany was practically bankrupt after WWII. However, instead of sitting on their asses like we have, they got to work and rebuilt their economy. 86% of products created in Germany are exported. The products they could make efficiently were exported and kept. Whichever products they couldn't make efficiently, they would import with the money gained from their exports.
Now, Germany is dubbed "Europe's China", without the impoverished millions in the Chinese workforce.
They recognized their problems, then rebuilt accordingly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
