[QUOTE=Wayword;23268452]But where do you draw the line?
Why is a bit of free ratings bad?[/QUOTE]
It's not bad, they just don't mean shit until they actually start effecting how they treat you in a practical sense.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268454]many do.[/QUOTE]
But that's the point.
You could tax them instead of just having them give to charities, and there you'd be able to afford healthcare.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;23268463]On Defense[/QUOTE]
And many other things too.
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;23268456]Which is unjust. You shouldn't punish people for succeeding. And you can always pull the "Well, they inherited all that money and don't deserve it." Fine, that's true. but there's no way to weed out the ones that actually earned the money and those who just got lucky.
If I do a good job and make a lot of money, the government shouldn't take that much away.
That's redistribution of wealth.
If we're going to be socialist let's just be socialist already.[/QUOTE]
How is that a punishment? Besides, if you're making 30 million and they tax half of it you're still making 15 million dollars, per year. And that's just your salary, that's not including dividends, bonuses, royalties and whatever else you might be raking in. You can tax the rich higher but that doesn't mean you have to take all their money away.
They're still making a boatload more than any regular person can dream of making in their lifetime.
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;23268456]Which is unjust. You shouldn't punish people for succeeding. And you can always pull the "Well, they inherited all that money and don't deserve it." Fine, that's true. but there's no way to weed out the ones that actually earned the money and those who just got lucky.
If I do a good job and make a lot of money, the government shouldn't take that much away.
That's redistribution of wealth.
If we're going to be socialist let's just be socialist already.[/QUOTE]
it's not injust
[QUOTE=Wayword;23268472]But that's the point.
You could tax them instead of just having them give to charities, and there you'd be able to afford healthcare.[/QUOTE]
What's the problem with charities? They at least manage the money better than the federal government.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268467]It's not bad, they just don't mean shit until they actually start effecting how they treat you in a practical sense.[/QUOTE]
But once again, where do you draw the line?
9/11 happened because people hated you.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268474]And many other things too.[/QUOTE]
yes but about half of all spending goes to defense
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268487]What's the problem with charities? They at least manage the money better than the federal government.[/QUOTE]
Nothing, but just because some nice people give away their money, doesn't mean they all do.
People are still dieing of preventable things.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268487]What's the problem with charities? They at least manage the money better than the federal government.[/QUOTE]
Charities don't fix the problem
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268440]Exactly, we don't need tax increases or decreases, we're at a happy medium right now.
We're just spending like madmen which isn't very good.[/QUOTE]
Wars are expensive.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268474]And many other things too.[/QUOTE]
between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion spent on defense in fiscal year 2010
and it's the biggest part of the budget
[QUOTE=Wayword;23268494]But once again, where do you draw the line?
9/11 happened because radical islamics hated you.[/QUOTE]
ffy
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;23268395]ohhh ok so you're better than them I see.[/QUOTE]
you're trolling at this point
[QUOTE=Habsburg;23268506]Charities don't fix the problem[/QUOTE]
Nor does the government.
We can't become dependent on the government.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;23268513]Wars are expensive.[/QUOTE]
So are government bailouts.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;23268513]Wars are expensive.[/QUOTE]
yep, fighting two wars and then cutting taxes
brilliant idea
So basically the tea party with valid complaints?
Awesome
[QUOTE=dogmachines;23268529]So are government bailouts.[/QUOTE]
so your solution is just to do nothing and let the problems amplify?
Just get the fuck out of iraq, stop getting shit from colt, find out ways of reducing costs, there we go.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268517]ffy[/QUOTE]
scapegoating, it's a far more complicated issue than just that
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268526]Nor does the government.
We can't become dependent on the government.[/QUOTE]
and you base this on..? you seem to have a lot of anti-government rhetoric.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268517]ffy[/QUOTE]
When you boil it down, you guys didn't prevent a huge disaster which occured people people across the world hate you.
[QUOTE=JDK721;23268542]so your solution is just to do nothing and let the problems amplify?[/QUOTE]
Bailing out companies is a stupid idea in every way. A bigger and more successful company will buy out the failing one.
GM, and other assorted banks that got bailouts, would be bought out eventually.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268526]Nor does the government.
We can't become dependent on the government.[/QUOTE]
Raising taxes on the rich would make the government dependent on the people, as it should be. Money from taxes doesn't go exclusively to social welfare problems, it can pay for what needs paying for. If taxes were raised on the extremely rich we could at least lower the deficit a bit, and maybe pay of some of our national debt once we get spending in check.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268526]Nor does the government.
We can't become dependent on the government.[/QUOTE]
don't be ridiculous
Why is it that whenever some study shows that a tiny portion of the population owns a huge amount of the wealth we act all surprised and feel threatened yet we always seem to forget that fact when debating taxes?
[QUOTE=Wayword;23268556]When you boil it down, you guys didn't prevent a huge disaster which occured people people across the world hate you.[/QUOTE]
Terrorists will be terrorists.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;23268561]Bailing out companies is a stupid idea in every way.[/QUOTE]
so just let the companies fail and have tens of thousands of jobs gone forever?
and I'd like a source on your statement
[QUOTE=dogmachines;23268565]Raising taxes on the rich would make the government dependent on the people, as it should be. Money from taxes doesn't go exclusively to social welfare problems, it can pay for what needs paying for. If taxes were raised on the extremely rich we could at least lower the deficit a bit, and maybe pay of some of our national debt once we get spending in check.[/QUOTE]
instead of raising taxes, why don't we just cut spending?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
