DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 17, 2008, 03:02:30 PM
-
Given in 3 different formats, Obama's, Hill's, and Edwards, all pushing the class warfare rhetoric to it's utmost shrillest & ugliest. Basically, "...it's not fair that 'the rich' have more than you. Elect me, and I'll make it my top priority to take $$$$ from them, and to give it to you.". Obama presents it with the most "class", pun intended, while Hill's trying to woo them with the tears
Our founders must be rolling in their graves at this garbage >:(
-
So you don't think Donald Trump and Paris Hilton should pay taxes?
-
<<"...it's not fair that 'the rich' have more than you. Elect me, and I'll make it my top priority to take $$$$ from them, and to give it to you.">>
Makes sense to me. They've got waaaaay too much money and the poor have way too little. They gotta pay more. Lots more. Well said. No reason in the world why the children of the poor should be disadvantaged in health care, education or housing and no reason for the rich to be spoiled, overindulged and pampered. Level the playing field here.
-
all pushing the class warfare rhetoric to it's utmost shrillest & ugliest
:'(
Where's my violin so I can play a dirge.
No wait. There is a such thing as class struggle! I only wish they'd do more than pay lip service to it.
Count me in with Mike and XO. We should tax Dick Cheney, the CEO's of CACI, Titan, Halliburton KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater (all of whom - except Cheney I have no idea about - made at least $27,000,000 just last year) much more than we do currently.
Class exists. Class struggle exists. Calling it "warfare" and "ugly" doesn't make it go away. Having a city like Detroit with 82% African-Americans whose per capita income is only $14,000 per year is hard to throw a blanket over Sirs.
We should have free universities, universal healthcare, free schooling and training for those who lose their jobs, publicly owned utilities, just to name a few. And no tax shelters and breaks for the wealthy.
-
<<Count me in with Mike and XO. We should tax Dick Cheney, the CEO's of CACI, Titan, Halliburton KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater (all of whom - except Cheney I have no idea about - made at least $27,000,000 just last year) much more than we do currently.>>
Cheney, Bush, the CACI, Titan, KBR, etc. CEOs should actually be thrown in jail, put on trial for their lives for war crimes, crimes against humanity, various atrocities, including torture, massacre, rape and murder, executed if found guilty and their estates confiscated and distributed to all the victims of their wars of aggression. Taxing them is just letting them get away with murder.
People who oughtta be taxed more are legitimate businessmen, some of whom I actually admire, guys like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, George Soros, etc.
-
The rich have too much money.
Anyone who buys a $6000 shower curtain should have all their money taken away.
Paying that much money for something so worthless should be considered a crime when there are veterans and children sleeping in the streets in ANY country.
If everyone in the world could have a $6000 shower curtain, I'd be fine with it but no one should have anything so vulgar while a child goes hungry.
-
War on Greed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW7eyNX55-E
-
The rich have too much money.
Anyone who buys a $6000 shower curtain should have all their money taken away.
Paying that much money for something so worthless should be considered a crime when there are veterans and children sleeping in the streets in ANY country.
If everyone in the world could have a $6000 shower curtain, I'd be fine with it but no one should have anything so vulgar while a child goes hungry.
The guy that bought the $6000 shower curtain is in jail for buying a $6000 dollar shower curtain , shower curtain artizens are dismayed to find a ceiling on the value of their work.
All over the world shower curtain makers were elated at the remarkable price paid , they bought champaigne , they read brochures from the colledges that thei children could now aspire to attend, but lo , over the horizon arose the angry mob and jailed the Shower curtain buyer for his foolishness, Shower curtain makers and shower curtain distributors and their children are destined to remain poor.
-
Choice....absolutely choice, and great, albeit, expected responses
"The rich" have too much money (boy, the jealously is nearly tangible)
Class struggle exists (which of course translates into the need to facilitate said class warfare, further dividing America as much as possible into "the evil rich" vs everyone else)
And it's quite apparent that the stump speech makes perfect sense to Tee, though Xo's blurb made no sense what-so-ever. Someone was claiming that "the rich" shouldn't pay any taxes??
As I said, our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves with what the Dems have done to the notion what government is supposed to do. Kinda like how the NAACP and folks like Sharpton & Jackson have mutated MLK Jr's message of civil rights & equality, regardless of race
-
<<Class struggle exists (which of course translates into the need to facilitate said class warfare, further dividing America as much as possible into "the evil rich" vs everyone else)>>
Hilarious. Prior to the evil Democrats and their diabolical stump speech (written, apparently by none other than our own sirs! Go figure) there was minimal division between the rich and the poor. Their children attended the same schools, ate the same food and went to the same expensive dentists for their braces. They played on the same soccer teams and vacationed together in Europe during the summer vacation and in West Palm or Daytona during the spring break. Surfed together on the same beaches. The divisions were barely perceptible.
Then came the evil Democrats. Their stump speeches inflamed all the ugly passions of the class war. Sadly, the wonderful, glorious rich of America were set apart from their poor and middle class brethren and sistren. Dissension had come to the land. And the rich wept bitter tears. And the evil Democrats smirked. While the Founding Fathers rotated in their graves at speeds approachng 36,000 rpm.
-
(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7Be9c7cea1-1dd7-4e65-a77f-f156b7a42f01%7D.gif)
-
Well said, Tee.
There is a class struggle, just as there was always a struggle between the nobility and the commoners. Lately, they have been getting richer and richer, while the rest of the country has grown poorer.
If allowed to continue, you end up with a mess like Czarist Russia or Venezuela, and then there comes a Lenin or a Hugo Chavez to end it all. So it is better if we just tax them in accordance with the huge wealth that a system than can never be fair has provided them through chance.
-
Sad, but consistent
-
Choice....absolutely choice, and great, albeit, expected responses
"The rich" have too much money (boy, the jealously is nearly tangible)
Class struggle exists (which of course translates into the need to facilitate said class warfare, further dividing America as much as possible into "the evil rich" vs everyone else)
And it's quite apparent that the stump speech makes perfect sense to Tee, though Xo's blurb made no sense what-so-ever. Someone was claiming that "the rich" shouldn't pay any taxes??
As I said, our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves with what the Dems have done to the notion what government is supposed to do. Kinda like how the NAACP and folks like Sharpton & Jackson have mutated MLK Jr's message of civil rights & equality, regardless of race
Some of the Founding Father's rolled over in their graves when they saw black women voting Sirs.
What is it that you think should happen? The poor should thank every wealthy person that graces them with their presence? Maybe we should have a holiday to thank the fabulously wealthy? We'll call it Tinkle Down Day!
Why do you think this should be? WHy should class and class struggle be completely ignored as if it does not exist?
And it is funny to me that you think it is jealousy that drives everything. I'm certainly not a materialistic person and I have not seen anything to indicate that Mike, XO, or Brass are pining for a fleet of Mercedes SUV's or $6,000 shower curtains.
It is about equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
Right now in Iraq there are U.S. Army soldiers who overeat on purpose to gain enough weight to receive an honorable discharge. It takes far too long to process a dishonorable discharge. Then they return to Iraq and work for one of the contractors making a six figure salary doing exactly the same job as they did for the military. You want to know what is killing recruitment and morale in Iraq? Class struggle.
You can piss down people's backs and tell them it is raining for only so long.
-
Choice....absolutely choice, and great, albeit, expected responses
"The rich" have too much money (boy, the jealously is nearly tangible)
Class struggle exists (which of course translates into the need to facilitate said class warfare, further dividing America as much as possible into "the evil rich" vs everyone else)
And it's quite apparent that the stump speech makes perfect sense to Tee, though Xo's blurb made no sense what-so-ever. Someone was claiming that "the rich" shouldn't pay any taxes??
As I said, our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves with what the Dems have done to the notion what government is supposed to do. Kinda like how the NAACP and folks like Sharpton & Jackson have mutated MLK Jr's message of civil rights & equality, regardless of race
What is it that you think should happen? The poor should thank every wealthy person that graces them with their presence? Maybe we should have a holiday to thank the fabulously wealthy? We'll call it Tinkle Down Day!
You really want to know? You realize Js that "poor people" don't employ many others. They in fact are in need of "the rich" to provide the opportunities for those who don't have the initiative to go it alone. Maybe we need a "let's appreciate the amount of taxes the rich pays" day. The utter egregious distortions made with the class warfare garbage is enough to give a person a migraine. The idea that the rich don't pay "their fair share" is utterly pathetic, when you look at the % amount they do, compared to "the poor". It's a little like the conversation you were having with Prince regarding foreign employment situations. Sticking it to "the rich" actually hurts "the poor", by taking jobs away, making more and more "poor". Which of course feeds the notion of how the government is necessary to "fix the disparity", when in reality the greatest chance you can give "the poor" is to largely get Government out of the way. Let the market work, let free enterprise work, let competition work.
But playing this asanine jealousy game of emotion, and how terrible it is that there are rich people, and it's not fair that there are and we aren't, is simply immoral, in my book
-
We should tax Dick Cheney, much more than we do currently.
Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than you've ever made in your life.
As long as you are living in a dream world, using the IRS to go after your political enemies, I would love to see a 75% marginal rate slapped onto hypocrites like Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Streisand and Micheal Moore. And watch them scream about how unfair it is. I would love it.
-
<<Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than you've ever made in your life. >>
Now why don't you tell us how much he "probably" avoided and/or evaded in taxes, which is undoubtedly more than you've ever made in your life.
-
You really want to know? You realize Js that "poor people" don't employ many others. They in fact are in need of "the rich" to provide the opportunities for those who don't have the initiative to go it alone. Maybe we need a "let's appreciate the amount of taxes the rich pays" day. The utter egregious distortions made with the class warfare garbage is enough to give a person a migraine. The idea that the rich don't pay "their fair share" is utterly pathetic, when you look at the % amount they do, compared to "the poor". It's a little like the conversation you were having with Prince regarding foreign employment situations. Sticking it to "the rich" actually hurts "the poor", by taking jobs away, making more and more "poor". Which of course feeds the notion of how the government is necessary to "fix the disparity", when in reality the greatest chance you can give "the poor" is to largely get Government out of the way. Let the market work, let free enterprise work, let competition work.
But playing this asanine jealousy game of emotion, and how terrible it is that there are rich people, and it's not fair that there are and we aren't, is simply immoral, in my book
First of all, it is not terrible that there are rich people and no one is jealous. The "emotional" aspects of this are entirely invented by you (and the right-wing). Ask Tee, Brass, XO if they are jealous. I suspect you already know the answer.
Second, this notion of "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way" has been tried. It was done in Chile in the 70's. It was done in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil at the same time. Government was cut in amazing amounts as quickly as possible. Public holdings were privatised like a fire sale at rock bottom prices. Social security was privatised, schools were turned over to the private sector, almost nothing was left for the people.
Do you know what the result was? Were the Chilean people suddenly wealthy? Were the poor suddenly better off?
No. Almost half fell below the poverty line. Half the population. Unemployment reached a third of the working population - 33%! Inflation was in the thousands of percent! The top 10% saw their wealth increase 83% during the time period of 1974 to 1990. The rest saw their wealth decrease in real terms.
That was the result of your "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way."
So forgive me if I don't believe that equality will come from Sir's theory on why the wealthy need their orifices licked. Today Chile, despite rolling back most of those ridiculous programs is still one of the worst ranking countries in terms of economic equality.
The best? Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
Are we somehow dumber than the Scandinavians? We cannot figure out how to have equality and a great quality of life? We like seeing desperately poor people? We like the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor falling by the wayside?
-
Now why don't you tell us how much he "probably" avoided and/or evaded in taxes, which is undoubtedly more than you've ever made in your life.
Cheney didn't evade any taxes, unlike Marc Rich who the left's hero Bill Clinton pardoned.
I support a 15% flat tax that would probably make multi millions pay more in taxes than they do now. Rather than paying tax attorneys and accountants money to figure out all of the loopholes, it would be more cost effective just to pay the 15%.
-
<<Cheney didn't evade any taxes . . . >>
You don't know that and I don't know that. In any event, you didn't even address how much taxes Cheney "probably" avoided, willing though you were to hazard a guess of what he "probably" paid.
-
You don't know that and I don't know that.
I know it because there is no evidence of it. There is evidence that Marc Rich evaded taxes, and he received a pardon from Bill Clinton, probably because Denise Rich waved her boobs in his face.
In any event, you didn't even address how much taxes Cheney "probably" avoided, willing though you were to hazard a guess of what he "probably" paid.
I avoided paying some taxes because I have a good accountant. Most people do and that isn't a big deal. It's the system we have.
Join with me and support a 15% flat tax and put accountants and tax attorneys out of business.
I stand by my original statement that Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than JS ever made, and he gave more to charity too.
-
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, reported income of $36,086,635, on which they paid $14,295,058 in federal income taxes, or 39.6 percent.
-------------
This is from 2005. This is more than their fair share in my opinion. The Cheneys paid more in taxes in one year than JS would probably earn in 14 lifetimes.
-
<<I know it [that Cheney didn't evade taxes] because there is no evidence of it.>>
According to that theory, all tax evasion is detected and evidence of it found by authorities. There is no tax evasion that occurs without being found out. With all due respect, that is nonsense.
<<There is evidence that Marc Rich evaded taxes, and he received a pardon from Bill Clinton, probably because Denise Rich waved her boobs in his face.>>
You don't know that, either. You've never even seen Denise Rich's boobs.
<<Most people do [avoid paying taxes] and that isn't a big deal. It's the system we have.>>
So if it's no big deal, how come you avoided telling us how much tax Cheney "probably" avoided paying?
<<Join with me and support a 15% flat tax and put accountants and tax attorneys out of business. >>
You don't need a flat tax, you just need a tax that'll make the rich pay more; and you'd never put accountants and tax attorneys out of business, even with a flat tax on income - - they'd be up all night, figuring out the new basics - - what's "flat" mean, what's "tax" mean, what's "flat tax" mean, what's income, what's tax, how many way does the flat tax violate the Constitution , what other statutes does it violate, etc., etc., etc. It never ends.
<<I stand by my original statement that Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than JS ever made, and he gave more to charity too.>>
That's OK, I stand by the idea that he probably avoided and/or evaded more tax than YOU ever made in YOUR life and that he never gave a nickel in charity that didn't earn him a further tax break. This clown doesn't even want to give his own daughter the same civil rights that every other American enjoys, and he's suddenly a great philanthropist? What's his favourite charity, Fags Fry in Hell?
-
<<Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, reported income of $36,086,635, on which they paid $14,295,058 in federal income taxes, or 39.6 percent.>>
What? This guy pockets $22 MILLION after taxes, for a good year's work, and that's FAIR? 45 (or is it now 47) million Americans without health care, and Cheney and thousands of guys like him get to pocket $22 million, or just under $450,000 per week for a good week's work. You show me anybody whose work is worth $450,000 per week. This is positively obscene. His tax rate oughtta be 98%, but what the hell, let it be 96%, THAT is a fair tax rate.
It's unbelievable what kind of shit you people are willing to put up with from your ruling class. You have to be the biggest suckers the world has ever known.
-
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, reported income of $36,086,635, on which they paid $14,295,058 in federal income taxes, or 39.6 percent.
-------------
This is from 2005. This is more than their fair share in my opinion. The Cheneys paid more in taxes in one year than JS would probably earn in 14 lifetimes.
Erm...so what?
This makes Dick Cheney somehow a better human being? The fact that Cheney is wealthier is supposed to upset me, or something, I think it is rather common knowledge that Cheney is in the top 1%.
And that means what exactly?
By the way RR, don't come on here and make shit up.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AND MRS. CHENEY
RELEASE 2006 INCOME TAX RETURN
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2006 today.
The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2006 of $413,326 on taxable income of $1,614,862. During the course of 2006 the Cheneys paid $464,789 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. The Cheneys elected to apply the resulting $51,463 tax overpayment to their 2007 estimated tax payments.
The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President?s $208,575 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports a pension benefit of $27,500, which the Vice President received as a former director of Union Pacific Corporation. The Vice President became eligible for this benefit in 2006 when he turned 65. The tax return also reports Mrs. Cheney?s book royalty income, which includes a partial royalty advance on a book she is writing about growing up in Wyoming. It also reports wage and salary income from her continuing work at the American Enterprise Institute and a pension benefit of $32,000, which she received as a former director of Reader?s Digest. The amounts of the pension benefits received by the Vice President and by Mrs. Cheney are fixed and will not increase or decrease based on changes in the earnings or revenues of either company.
That is a total tax percentage of 25.6%, not 39.6%. Do you even know how income tax works?
-
According to that theory, all tax evasion is detected and evidence of it found by authorities. There is no tax evasion that occurs without being found out. With all due respect, that is nonsense.
Unless you have some type of proof that Cheney evaded taxes, you are lying. With all respect.
You don't know that, either. You've never even seen Denise Rich's boobs.
Yes I have. They are probably behind Marc Rich's pardon.
(http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2518.jpg)
So if it's no big deal, how come you avoided telling us how much tax Cheney "probably" avoided paying?
It's no doubt less than John Kerry and his wife "probably" avoided.
You don't need a flat tax, you just need a tax that'll make the rich pay more;
How much should Cheney pay? He's already paying close to 40%.
and you'd never put accountants and tax attorneys out of business, even with a flat tax on income
There would be no use for their services because you could fill out your own taxes on an index card.
"That's OK, I stand by the idea that he probably avoided and/or evaded more tax than YOU ever made in YOUR life and that he never gave a nickel in charity that didn't earn him a further tax break."
Cheney already paid his fair share in taxes.
This clown doesn't even want to give his own daughter the same civil rights that every other American enjoys, and he's suddenly a great philanthropist? What's his favourite charity, Fags Fry in Hell?
Cheney supports civil unions.
-
How much should Cheney pay? He's already paying close to 40%.
No, he's paying 25.6%.
-
The fact that Cheney is wealthier is supposed to upset me, or something
I think is does upset you. You are probably jealous.
-
No, he's paying 25.6%.
He paid close to 40% in '05. He paid millions of dollars in taxes that year. He paid close to $500k last year. He paid more money in taxes than you could ever dream of earning.
He should pay no more than 15% and neither should you.
-
No, he's paying 25.6%.
He paid close to 40% in '05. He paid millions of dollars in taxes that year. He paid close to $500k last year. He paid more money in taxes than you could ever dream of earning.
He should pay no more than 15% and neither should you.
Again you are just making things up. Don't lie about public information.
Here is the Cheney's tax return for 2005:
Tax Document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060414_cheney_taxes.pdf)
The Cheney's earned $8.824 million and paid $529,636 in taxes. They actually qualified for a $1.79 million refund.
Got any more bullshit?
-
The 40% figure was from 2000 when Cheney worked in the private sector. I misread it.
-
The Cheney's paid $529,636 in taxes.
You should be thanking the Cheneys, not trying to punish them. They have contributed millions to the federal government over the years. To all of those government handouts that you liberals love so much.
-
The Cheneys managed to make so much money because Halliburton managed to pilfer (entirely legally, I suppose) even huger amounts from the taxpayers. I am not going to bless the Cheneys for anything.
In addition to the 8 million they made in 2006, they still have most of the 21.7 million they made in 2004.
21,700,000 a year is the same as 59,452 per day, or 7,431 per 8 hour day, 27.44 per minute. $41.28 per second, if we assume that they were productive 24/7/365.
Mr and Mrs Cheney probably make a lot more than most average Americans while pissing and taking dumps. How it possible to justify their feasting so heartily at the public troughs as to justify this?
Remember that Halliburton earned most of its money on government contracts when Dick was President of Halliburton. Had he never served in Olebush's and Ford's cabinets, there is no way they would hire him to preside over Halliburton. He was hired because of his influence peddling abilities, NOT because of his managerial skills.
-
So Xo, where's all the hatred aimed at Hollywood, and the $20+million per movie an actor gets for pretending to be someone else? And to Professional athletes like Tiger and ARod, making $20+million for hitting small white balls with a club?? Where's the outrage? Where's the demand they be given massive pay cuts since they're literally just playing games
-
The one thing that can be said of overpaid actors and sports figures is that their salaries come from VOLUNTARY payments by consumers. Dick Cheney made his bazillions as a result of his influence peddling.
The economic system is by its very nature unfair. There are no fair economic systems.
The healthiest societies appear to be those of the Scandinavian nations, such as Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, which tax the wealthy rather heavily, but which provide adequate subsidies so that no one suffers hunger, death and illness from a lack of adequate medical treatment or poor housing. Observe that none of these nations is particularly rich in natural resources, certainly not as rich as the US is, and that the average Icelander, Norsky, Dane, Swede and Finn lives a middle class existence with affordable education, medical and housing for all.
The poorest are the Iraqis, Bosnians and such that have arrived in these countries more recently.
-
The one thing that can be said of overpaid actors and sports figures is that their salaries come from VOLUNTARY payments by consumers. Dick Cheney made his bazillions as a result of his influence peddling.
There's no difference. Tiger, ARod and Tom Cruise made their "bazillians" by peddling their talents, be it hitting a ball with a club or playacting. And we won't even touch on their endorsements. Your opinion of what Cheney does or doesn't peddle is noted, the point being no one was forcing the $$ on anyone or TAKING money from someone else to give them. They are all voluntary payments, be it from fans or salary
So again, where's the equivalent venting of outrage??
-
Tee said:
Cheney's tax rate oughtta be 98%, but what the hell, let it be 96%, THAT is a fair tax rate.
What is raising the taxes on one man going to accomplish besides bringing a few million more into the treasury? This is based on animus against Mr. Cheney, and nothing more. It's his money. He earned it. It's not your money and it certainly isn't JS's, although you act as if it is. Cheney has paid plenty in taxes. Millions over the years. He paid 40% in 2000. It's time that John Edwards, Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell start paying their fair share. Why aren't they -- the loudmouthed liberals -- voluntarily sending money into the federal government? Nothing is stopping them from sending in more.
-
Well, I despise Dick asshole Cheney and everything he stands for. Halliburton extorts money from the gummint and gets paid with my tax dollars. Tom Cruise only gets my money of I watch his movies, so this is vastly different in my book.
I will agree that both Cheney and Cruise be taxed dollar for dollar at the same rate, which should be higher than the average guy, becaue as I said, the system is not fair and the only way to make it more so is by taxing those who benefit from their good fortune at a higher rate in keeping with said advantage.
If you want to be equally outraged, I am afraid I will still despise Cheney more than Cruise, because he is more despicable. Cruise has never mongered a dumb war, only jumped on Oprah's couch.
If this violates your somewhat warped sense of fairness, all I can say is "tough bungies", go ahead and feel violated if it makes you happy. I hate Dick Cheney, and also abhor, despise, loathe and abominate him. There is much to abominate about the man.
-
XO said:
Remember that Halliburton earned most of its money on government contracts when Dick was President of Halliburton.
Awarded by the Clinton administration.
Cheney has earned a lot of money and he has paid a lot of money in taxes. He also gave up about $30 million a year to go into public service.
-
Cheney has earned a lot of money and he has paid a lot of money in taxes. He also gave up about $30 million a year to go into public service.
===========================================================
How utterly selfless of him. I am totally unimpressed. The world would be a vastly better place if the abominable asshole had never been spawned.
He is an annoying old bastard who has done irreprable harm to thousands of Americans and Iraqis. He can take his sense of public spiritedness and ram it up his ample butt.
Twice, rotated, and thrice more again.
-
Well, I despise Dick asshole Cheney and everything he stands for.
So, it has prescious little to do with the $$ anyone makes, it has largely to do with whom you deem an a$$hole or not. Strange how pretty much all those you deem such have an (R) after their name. Perhaps you're also under the derranged belief system Republicans want women to die of cancer, as well.
-
The one thing that can be said of overpaid actors and sports figures is that their salaries come from VOLUNTARY payments by consumers. Dick Cheney made his bazillions as a result of his influence peddling.
There's no difference. Tiger, ARod and Tom Cruise made their "bazillians" by peddling their talents, be it hitting a ball with a club or playacting. And we won't even touch on their endorsements. Your opinion of what Cheney does or doesn't peddle is noted, the point being no one was forcing the $$ on anyone or TAKING money from someone else to give them. They are all voluntary payments, be it from fans or salary
So again, where's the equivalent venting of outrage??
Why wouldn't these people pay the higher rate as well? They make the income then they pay the higher rate (actually A-Rod and Tiger made a hell of a lot more than Cheney and should pay more in taxes). I have no clue what Tom Cruise makes. But certainly if he makes enough to fit into the top percentiles, then he should pay more in taxes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
And if that is such a destructive concept, why do Scandinavian nations do so well?
Denmark:
Infant Mortality Rate 4.51 per 1,000
Life Expectancy 77.79 years
Unemployment 2.8%
Welfare State: 29.2% of GDP
Tax Burden: 47.7% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 63%
Inflation: 1.7%
GDP Growth: 3.5%
Gini-Coefficient: 24.7 (Best in the world)
Balance of Payments: $4.9 Billion (positive = surplus)
The United States:
Infant Mortality Rate: 6.4 deaths per 1,000
Life Expectancy: 78 Years
Unemployment Rate: 4.5%
Inflation: 2.5%
Tax Burden: 29% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 35%
Welfare State: 14.8% of GDP
GDP Growth 3.2%
Gini-Coefficient: 40.8 (Right behind Ghana and Turkmenistan)
Balance of Payments: -$811 Billion
Why is Denmark so much better at this than we are?
-
Js, perhaps you missed the point......where's the outrage at what they make, analogus to what Cheney supposedly makes. Cheney is railed on as some supposed bazzillionaire, while folks much more welathy than he, at much younger ages get not a hint of outrage.
-
The rich have too much money.
Anyone who buys a $6000 shower curtain should have all their money taken away.
Paying that much money for something so worthless should be considered a crime when there are veterans and children sleeping in the streets in ANY country.
If everyone in the world could have a $6000 shower curtain, I'd be fine with it but no one should have anything so vulgar while a child goes hungry.
However, if we tax them too heavily, what would stop them from simply locking up and going overseas, taking their businesses (and jobs) with them?
-
The rich have too much money.
Anyone who buys a $6000 shower curtain should have all their money taken away.
Paying that much money for something so worthless should be considered a crime when there are veterans and children sleeping in the streets in ANY country.
If everyone in the world could have a $6000 shower curtain, I'd be fine with it but no one should have anything so vulgar while a child goes hungry.
Whoa! It is THEIR money; if they want to do it, it is certainly THEIR perogative.
-
We should tax Dick Cheney, much more than we do currently.
Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than you've ever made in your life.
As long as you are living in a dream world, using the IRS to go after your political enemies, I would love to see a 75% marginal rate slapped onto hypocrites like Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Streisand and Micheal Moore. And watch them scream about how unfair it is. I would love it.
Buy, THAT would be something to see!
-
The one thing that can be said of overpaid actors and sports figures is that their salaries come from VOLUNTARY payments by consumers. Dick Cheney made his bazillions as a result of his influence peddling.
There's no difference. Tiger, ARod and Tom Cruise made their "bazillians" by peddling their talents, be it hitting a ball with a club or playacting. And we won't even touch on their endorsements. Your opinion of what Cheney does or doesn't peddle is noted, the point being no one was forcing the $$ on anyone or TAKING money from someone else to give them. They are all voluntary payments, be it from fans or salary
So again, where's the equivalent venting of outrage??
Why wouldn't these people pay the higher rate as well? They make the income then they pay the higher rate (actually A-Rod and Tiger made a hell of a lot more than Cheney and should pay more in taxes). I have no clue what Tom Cruise makes. But certainly if he makes enough to fit into the top percentiles, then he should pay more in taxes.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
And if that is such a destructive concept, why do Scandinavian nations do so well?
Denmark:
Infant Mortality Rate 4.51 per 1,000
Life Expectancy 77.79 years
Unemployment 2.8%
Welfare State: 29.2% of GDP
Tax Burden: 47.7% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 63%
Inflation: 1.7%
GDP Growth: 3.5%
Gini-Coefficient: 24.7 (Best in the world)
Balance of Payments: $4.9 Billion (positive = surplus)
The United States:
Infant Mortality Rate: 6.4 deaths per 1,000
Life Expectancy: 78 Years
Unemployment Rate: 4.5%
Inflation: 2.5%
Tax Burden: 29% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 35%
Welfare State: 14.8% of GDP
GDP Growth 3.2%
Gini-Coefficient: 40.8 (Right behind Ghana and Turkmenistan)
Balance of Payments: -$811 Billion
Why is Denmark so much better at this than we are?
Of course, THIS is why so many people want to move to those countries and not the U.S.
-
Actually, quite a few people do move to Scandinavia and they take in quite a few refugees. As a percentage of total population they take in as many as we do.
I ask again, why can they do it and we cannot?
And if their welfare policies and taxing the wealthy is so horrible and destructive, then why is Denmark's economy doing so well? Why are Denmark, Sweden, and Norway able to take care of their people whereas we cannot?
Are they just that much more intelligent than us?
-
I notice that in any rational discussion involving the relative merits of Amerikkkan capitalism versus European style socialism, sirs ultimately by-passes the facts and figures and goes for the "killer argument" [in his mind] that the U.S. is attracting so many more people to its shores than Denmark et al. are to theirs.
I think it's worth pointing out to sirs and to anyone else attracted by such a moronic argument that, unlike Denmark, the U.S.A. shares a long and permeable border with Mexico, which in turn shares a border with Guatemala, which in turn shares a border with El Salvador and Honduras, etc. Basically, the U.S. is bordered by and accessible to large populations of extremely impoverished Latins, mainly Mexicans, who have a little less problem getting to the U.S. border than getting to Denmark. It's quite likely also that more of them speak English than Danish.
In contrast to the U.S.A., Denmark shares a land border with . . . GERMANY, not exactly impoverished or desperate to get out of the "hell-hole" of a Third World country. The only other country close enough to flood Denmark with refugees (but - - inexplicably - - doesn't) is Sweden.
I think sirs' argument has great appeal - - but only to someone who is totally ignorant of geography.
-
Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC. Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?
But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others. And that's supposed to be wrong. On what planet?
-
However, if we tax them too heavily, what would stop them from simply locking up and going overseas, taking their businesses (and jobs) with them?
==================================
I am all for Dick asshole Cheney locking up and going abroad.
I wonder how many jobs would accompany him?
Perhaps he could monger a war between, say, Togo and Tonga, Malaysia and the Maldives. At least we'd be rid of him.
-
<<Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. >>
Geeze, I didn't realize. My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden? or Denmark? or Viet Nam? or Iraq?
<<This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, . . . >>
Enforcing international will? What happened, did George Will go international? Seriously, I'm pleased to see that some logic must be seeping into your head from somewhere, against all your efforts to ward it off, because you seem to have given up the absurd pretence that the U.S. was somehow interested in enforcing international law. So now it's "international will" is it? Like the widely expressed international desire for the U.S. to invade Iraq and dictate not only its basic form of government but that it pass a hydrocarbons law friendly to foreign investment in the industry?
<< . . . thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........>>
Threats related largely to your continuing interference in and aggression against the persons making the threats. Defending yourselves against self-created enemies, which Denmark, Sweden et al. haven't been so foolish as to create in the first place.
<<Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?>>
I think the Russians could beat the Swedes. It would be tougher for China. And this is the business of the U.S.A. because . . . ? And Amerikkka devotes what part of its military budget to defending Sweden? Sweden can take care of itself. It prefers diplomatic means. They must work because Russia has never invaded it. (In fact, Sweden invaded Russia but that was in centuries past and the Russians seem to have gotten over it.) Sweden does not need to defend itself because it does not threaten other countries, invade them, change their regimes, blockade them, starve them etc. Whaddaya know? A peaceful, rational, non-violent way of dealing with other nations and resolving your differences with them. Maybe Amerikkka should try it. Might save them a few bucks in military hardware somewhere down the line. Then maybe they could afford to adopt some of the advanced social welfare methods of Scandinavia and finally become as civilized as they are.
Oh, and I meant to ask you - - do you think it's time for the Swedes and Danes to put up a coastal fence to keep out seaborne Mexicans and Cubans?
-
My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden? or Denmark? or Viet Nam? or Iraq?
That's ok, you don't live here, so we forgive your lapse.
From Article VI:
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
We have treaties with those countries that obligate us to defend them. This clause incorporates that defense into the Constitution.
-
Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC. Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?
But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others. And that's supposed to be wrong. On what planet?
LOL
Seriously?
That is your argument?
You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?
Hundreds of thousands of people murdered, brutally tortured (that's just by Suharto in Indonesia alone!) and we had to?
That's why Scandinavians can take care of their people + refugees and asylum seekers, but we can't?
Honestly Sirs, if that is the real reason then it is a far, FAR, greater crime perpetrated on the people of this country and the world as a whole than simply being less competent in running a country than the Danes or the Swedes. Being incompetent is one matter, spending money that could actually make every American's life better and prevent desperate poverty on fucking countries for the last fifty years is an outright crime against history.
To think that you are using it as a valid excuse is horrifying. We had top support some of the worst police states that have ever scarred the face of the Earth? Not just support them, mind you, install the sons of bitches! Many times with no communist threat and removing democratically elected officials!
And y'all use it as an excuse?
Russia and China? What sovereign country did they invade last?
-
Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC. Hypothetically, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You think Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?
But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others. And that's supposed to be wrong. On what planet?
Seriously? That is your argument?
One of many....Seriously
You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?
Not quite, but excellent distortion of my point. :-\
-
According to that theory, all tax evasion is detected and evidence of it found by authorities. There is no tax evasion that occurs without being found out. With all due respect, that is nonsense.
Unless you have some type of proof that Cheney evaded taxes, you are lying. With all respect.
You don't know that, either. You've never even seen Denise Rich's boobs.
Yes I have. They are probably behind Marc Rich's pardon.
(http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2518.jpg)
So if it's no big deal, how come you avoided telling us how much tax Cheney "probably" avoided paying?
It's no doubt less than John Kerry and his wife "probably" avoided.
You don't need a flat tax, you just need a tax that'll make the rich pay more;
How much should Cheney pay? He's already paying close to 40%.
and you'd never put accountants and tax attorneys out of business, even with a flat tax on income
There would be no use for their services because you could fill out your own taxes on an index card.
"That's OK, I stand by the idea that he probably avoided and/or evaded more tax than YOU ever made in YOUR life and that he never gave a nickel in charity that didn't earn him a further tax break."
Cheney already paid his fair share in taxes.
This clown doesn't even want to give his own daughter the same civil rights that every other American enjoys, and he's suddenly a great philanthropist? What's his favourite charity, Fags Fry in Hell?
Cheney supports civil unions.
Gee, THAT's my wife! How did you get that picture? I tohguht I had it safely locked away....
-
I notice that in any rational discussion involving the relative merits of Amerikkkan capitalism versus European style socialism, sirs ultimately by-passes the facts and figures and goes for the "killer argument" [in his mind] that the U.S. is attracting so many more people to its shores than Denmark et al. are to theirs.
I think it's worth pointing out to sirs and to anyone else attracted by such a moronic argument that, unlike Denmark, the U.S.A. shares a long and permeable border with Mexico, which in turn shares a border with Guatemala, which in turn shares a border with El Salvador and Honduras, etc. Basically, the U.S. is bordered by and accessible to large populations of extremely impoverished Latins, mainly Mexicans, who have a little less problem getting to the U.S. border than getting to Denmark. It's quite likely also that more of them speak English than Danish.
In contrast to the U.S.A., Denmark shares a land border with . . . GERMANY, not exactly impoverished or desperate to get out of the "hell-hole" of a Third World country. The only other country close enough to flood Denmark with refugees (but - - inexplicably - - doesn't) is Sweden.
I think sirs' argument has great appeal - - but only to someone who is totally ignorant of geography.
Actually, MT, this is a good argument. Is there a way to tell if you can somehow eliminate the phyiscla geography issue?
-
<<Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. >>
Geeze, I didn't realize. My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden? or Denmark? or Viet Nam? or Iraq?
<<This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, . . . >>
Enforcing international will? What happened, did George Will go international? Seriously, I'm pleased to see that some logic must be seeping into your head from somewhere, against all your efforts to ward it off, because you seem to have given up the absurd pretence that the U.S. was somehow interested in enforcing international law. So now it's "international will" is it? Like the widely expressed international desire for the U.S. to invade Iraq and dictate not only its basic form of government but that it pass a hydrocarbons law friendly to foreign investment in the industry?
<< . . . thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........>>
Threats related largely to your continuing interference in and aggression against the persons making the threats. Defending yourselves against self-created enemies, which Denmark, Sweden et al. haven't been so foolish as to create in the first place.
<<Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?>>
I think the Russians could beat the Swedes. It would be tougher for China. And this is the business of the U.S.A. because . . . ? And Amerikkka devotes what part of its military budget to defending Sweden? Sweden can take care of itself. It prefers diplomatic means. They must work because Russia has never invaded it. (In fact, Sweden invaded Russia but that was in centuries past and the Russians seem to have gotten over it.) Sweden does not need to defend itself because it does not threaten other countries, invade them, change their regimes, blockade them, starve them etc. Whaddaya know? A peaceful, rational, non-violent way of dealing with other nations and resolving your differences with them. Maybe Amerikkka should try it. Might save them a few bucks in military hardware somewhere down the line. Then maybe they could afford to adopt some of the advanced social welfare methods of Scandinavia and finally become as civilized as they are.
Oh, and I meant to ask you - - do you think it's time for the Swedes and Danes to put up a coastal fence to keep out seaborne Mexicans and Cubans?
MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reason SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.
Also, it is true in my mid that we do need to pursue more diplomatic means than perhaps we have lately. That being the case, sometimes you simply have to SQUASH someone if diplomacy fails. If that event transpires, you must have the RAW POWER to do it. Not before it inecessary, but when it is, you must be willing to swing that stick HARD.
-
Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves. This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S. The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC. Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily? If they were to ask of course. You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?
But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others. And that's supposed to be wrong. On what planet?
LOL
Seriously?
That is your argument?
You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?
Hundreds of thousands of people murdered, brutally tortured (that's just by Suharto in Indonesia alone!) and we had to?
That's why Scandinavians can take care of their people + refugees and asylum seekers, but we can't?
Honestly Sirs, if that is the real reason then it is a far, FAR, greater crime perpetrated on the people of this country and the world as a whole than simply being less competent in running a country than the Danes or the Swedes. Being incompetent is one matter, spending money that could actually make every American's life better and prevent desperate poverty on fucking countries for the last fifty years is an outright crime against history.
To think that you are using it as a valid excuse is horrifying. We had top support some of the worst police states that have ever scarred the face of the Earth? Not just support them, mind you, install the sons of bitches! Many times with no communist threat and removing democratically elected officials!
And y'all use it as an excuse?
Russia and China? What sovereign country did they invade last?
I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.
-
MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.
Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.
-
MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.
Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.
Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.
-
Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.
Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.
Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak. Right? That is the reason we invade countries, right?
-
I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.
Love it or leave it? ::)
People would rather be here than there? What people? Your statement is far too broad to possibly prove in any meaningful way.
And I'm not being Euro-centric. I'm giving very specific nations along with specific data. I am then asking a simple question: why can the Swedes and Danes develop such a society, and we cannot? Clearly it is not that the economics don't work - because they do. Denmark is in fine economic shape. So, you can take care of your people, without sacrificing your economy.
The only argument I've heard is that we are obligated to invade other nations or destroy them by subjecting them to tyranny as has been our history. That is a possibility. My counter argument is that our government should take care of her people and not destroy the lives of other peoples.
The other argument I hear is: love it or leave it. Classic Cold War crap.
I remain unconvinced that this country cannot remove poverty from its shores, but for some reason that is viewed as a bad idea. That nations like those of Scandinavia can do a good job as welfare states must be some anomaly that cannot be reproduced anywhere else. Apparently they are just that much more brilliant than we are.
-
Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.
Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.
Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak. Right? That is the reason we invade countries, right?
I don't recall ever saying that.
In fact, we rarely invade anywhere.
-
Also, Norway has a large oil reserve.
Well, obviously since the U.S. is apparently this big evil oil grabbing monster, our troops must be massing on Norway's borders, as we speak. Right? That is the reason we invade countries, right?
I don't recall ever saying that. In fact, we rarely invade anywhere.
That's what the left keeps claiming.......that the prime reason we went into Iraq was to take the oil. and yet we haven't even done that. Somehow, Bush is this criminal mastermind of getting all these other countries and their governments to to go along with the WMD facade, not to mention the vast majority of our congress, since they all knew Saddam never really had them, yet somehow isn't smart enough to actually procure the oil for America with the greatest military on the globe, or even plant a few WMD and claim "look, see Saddam did have them"
Which is it? Looking for consistency here, from your side
-
Class warfare? I say social contract. Watch as it plays out. The question is whether the Bush Republicans have breached the contract. My vote is a resounding "Yes!"
-
Class warfare? I say social contract. Watch as it plays out. The question is whether the Bush Republicans have breached the contract. My vote is a resounding "Yes!"
Ahh, gotta love the new age leftest terms, to sway one's soul. It's not class warfare, its a "social contract". It's not raising taxes, it's "revenue enhancements". It's not conservatism, its "naziism"
-
I never said any of those negative things. And the "social contract," a pregnant idea in the history of democracy, goes back at least to Jean Jacques Rousseau and the currents swirling at the founding of our great nation.
-
I never said you did. I said gotta love the new age leftest terms, to sway one's soul. It's not class warfare, its a "social contract". It's not raising taxes, it's "revenue enhancements". It's not conservatism, its "naziism". You're simply contributing to it, is all.
-
Beware, Sirs, and this is directed precisely at you: the goons of the right are about to make their exit from the national scene. THAT negative comment I embrace.
-
And we thank you for your opinion, and nothing more, of what you consider goons.
-
I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.
Love it or leave it? ::)
People would rather be here than there? What people? Your statement is far too broad to possibly prove in any meaningful way.
And I'm not being Euro-centric. I'm giving very specific nations along with specific data. I am then asking a simple question: why can the Swedes and Danes develop such a society, and we cannot? Clearly it is not that the economics don't work - because they do. Denmark is in fine economic shape. So, you can take care of your people, without sacrificing your economy.
The only argument I've heard is that we are obligated to invade other nations or destroy them by subjecting them to tyranny as has been our history. That is a possibility. My counter argument is that our government should take care of her people and not destroy the lives of other peoples.
The other argument I hear is: love it or leave it. Classic Cold War crap.
I remain unconvinced that this country cannot remove poverty from its shores, but for some reason that is viewed as a bad idea. That nations like those of Scandinavia can do a good job as welfare states must be some anomaly that cannot be reproduced anywhere else. Apparently they are just that much more brilliant than we are.
Okay, I'[ll provide another reason, one you won't like, namely those countries have forsaken their Godly heritage. If we made ourself into their likeness, we would exhibit the values they espouse. And I would postulate their view of Christianity and the sanctity of Life and Marriage is definitely skewed.
-
Beware, Sirs, and this is directed precisely at you: the goons of the right are about to make their exit from the national scene. THAT negative comment I embrace.
And another Johnson Great Society will take its place. Arrrgh!
-
MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.
Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.
Besides, the craftmanshift in that country is extraordinary.
There are some ball bearings, for instance, coming from Sweden which are worth more than their weight in diamonds.
Ever heard of Swedish steel?
-
Besides, the craftmanshift in that country is extraordinary.
There are some ball bearings, for instance, coming from Sweden which are worth more than their weight in diamonds.
Ever heard of Swedish steel?
All of that can be picked up and moved. He was mentioning natural resources - things that you would have to go to Sweden to get.
-
Okay, I'[ll provide another reason, one you won't like, namely those countries have forsaken their Godly heritage. If we made ourself into their likeness, we would exhibit the values they espouse. And I would postulate their view of Christianity and the sanctity of Life and Marriage is definitely skewed.
===================================================================
So, are you suggesting that the lack of serious poverty in Scandinavia is due to their "forsaking their Godly heritage"?
If so,
How many poor people could we raise out of poverty by permitting same-sex civil unions?
How many if we passed an amendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest or rape?
-
Okay, I'[ll provide another reason, one you won't like, namely those countries have forsaken their Godly heritage. If we made ourself into their likeness, we would exhibit the values they espouse. And I would postulate their view of Christianity and the sanctity of Life and Marriage is definitely skewed.
===================================================================
So, are you suggesting that the lack of serious poverty in Scandinavia is due to their "forsaking their Godly heritage"?
If so,
How many poor people could we raise out of poverty by permitting same-sex civil unions?
How many if we passed an amendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest or rape?
No, I am saying I disagree with how they have their society set up in ways that violate the way I view Scripture. That's all. Others have their opinions and that is fine. Their societal "openness" in some moral areas disturbs me.
I obviously feel that to a large degree our Government, as one example, should follow certain basic Biblical concepts. But, we have discussed this here many times in the past so I'll let it lie at that.
However, that view also conlficts with my view that Government should pretty much leave people alone, so I am continually in somewhat of a quandry. Then again, life isn't easy and I am waxing philosophical so I will cease and desist.
-
I am wondering if some people lack a "Godly heritage" Perhaps Scandinavians have something more like a "Viking heritage".
Should Thais and Tibetans continue with respect for their "Buddhist heritage" or should they go seek a "Godly heritage"?
I am for letting people make their own personal choices. I don't really see much difference philosophically between the government banning gay marriages and lifting all restrictions on stoning queers, or refusing to fund stem cell research and banning it altogether.
If the Bible is the absolute truth, then hey, go with the Bible: it's the word of God. Let's stone gays, disrespectful children and immoral women, 'cause God says quite clearly that's what we oughta do. While were at it, let's ban pork, shrimp and cheeseburgers, along with fabrics made of two or more fibers. God says we should. Go ahead, throw Jimmy Dean in the slammer for selling pork products. The more delicious they are, the more the chance that SATAN is behind them being delicious. I mean, pork sausage is not Godly, so it must be Satanic.
-
Besides, the craftmanshift in that country is extraordinary.
There are some ball bearings, for instance, coming from Sweden which are worth more than their weight in diamonds.
Ever heard of Swedish steel?
All of that can be picked up and moved. He was mentioning natural resources - things that you would have to go to Sweden to get.
Thank you!
-
Ami: <<We have treaties with those countries [Denmark, Sweden, Viet Nam, Iraq] that obligate us to defend them. >>
I'll give ya 25% which is a failing mark in any academic institution I ever attended. You have a treaty obligating the defence of Denmark (NATO), none with Sweden and none with South Viet Nam (which wasn't even a country before you tried to make it one after invading it) and none with Iraq.
To sirs, who seems to believe that U.S. failure to invade Norway for its oil is proof that the U.S. could not have invaded Iraq for ITS oil, I guess it's akin to the robber's defence that he couldn't have robbed the bank because if he was really a robber, he would have robbed the the shoeshine stand across the street from it too.
For the record, here's the Wikipedia listing of the world's top ten oil reserves - -
in order:
Saudi Arabia
Canada
Iraq
UAE and Kuwait (tied for 4th)
United Arab Emirates
Venezuela
Russia
United States
Mexico
Norway doesn't even make the top ten. I think Canada's no. 2 because of the tar sands, which have a helluva lot of oil but are very difficult to exploit because it isn't just lying around in liquid pools waiting to be pumped up to the surface. If you eliminated the tar sands from the count, Iraq would be no. 2 on the list.
-
I think Canada's no. 2 because of the tar sands, which have a helluva lot of oil but are very difficult to exploit because it isn't just lying around in liquid pools waiting to be pumped up to the surface
Most of the foreign oil that the U.S. uses comes from Canada, who is also our #1 trading partner (and we theirs). As I understand it, there is a movement underway to begin developing and refining the Alberta tar sands, along with a natural gas pipeline construction in BC and Alberta (I am considering a job offer related to that construction).
-
Norway doesn't even make the top ten.
Most of Norway's oil is under the ocean, and reserves are a lot harder to prove when they are underwater and untapped.
The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.
-
The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I misspoke, I meant the Alberta oil shale. My bad.
-
The big deal these days in Canada is not the Athabaska tar sands, but the oil shale in Alberta, which seems to be easier to exploit. They say than nearly every Newfie family has one or more members making big loonies and sending money back home to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I misspoke, I meant the Alberta oil shale. My bad.
==========================================
Actually, no, it seems that oil sands are easier to process than oil shale. I thought it was the other way around, but it appears that the opposite is true.
They seem to use different names (oil sands, tar sands) for the same thing, which is a tad confusing.
I know I'd invest in oil sands rather than tar sands, so this appears to be due to attracting investors.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060424/24oil.htm
-
Whichever it is, I know that it's in Alberta.
-
Second, this notion of "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way" has been tried. It was done in Chile in the 70's. It was done in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil at the same time. Government was cut in amazing amounts as quickly as possible. Public holdings were privatised like a fire sale at rock bottom prices. Social security was privatised, schools were turned over to the private sector, almost nothing was left for the people.
Do you know what the result was? Were the Chilean people suddenly wealthy? Were the poor suddenly better off?
No. Almost half fell below the poverty line. Half the population. Unemployment reached a third of the working population - 33%! Inflation was in the thousands of percent! The top 10% saw their wealth increase 83% during the time period of 1974 to 1990. The rest saw their wealth decrease in real terms.
That was the result of your "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way."
Yeah, transitions to free markets from command and control economies work that way. Same thing happened when Reagan did it here, and Thatcher did it in the U.K.
And in those places, like in Chile, the result was 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. I'll point out that Chile's still privatized Social Security system pays greater returns than ours does.
So forgive me if I don't believe that equality will come from Sir's theory on why the wealthy need their orifices licked. Today Chile, despite rolling back most of those ridiculous programs is still one of the worst ranking countries in terms of economic equality.
The best? Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
Are we somehow dumber than the Scandinavians? We cannot figure out how to have equality and a great quality of life? We like seeing desperately poor people? We like the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor falling by the wayside?
Why should I be interested in economic equality? Get back to me when everybody's contribution to the economy is equal.
Tell me again - what are you doing for me that you think I should pay taxes on the fruits of my labor to provide for your needs?
If you were getting rewarded commensurate with your contributions, you'd be keeping the Titanic company.
And by the way - we aren't dumber than the Scandinavians, especially when we are Scandinavians. See Minnesota - not much poverty among Scandinavians there, either. Does that tell you anything?
-
I'll give ya 25% which is a failing mark in any academic institution I ever attended. You have a treaty obligating the defence of Denmark (NATO), none with Sweden and none with South Viet Nam (which wasn't even a country before you tried to make it one after invading it) and none with Iraq.
Haven't looked up South Viet Nam or Iraq, but Sweden is a member of WEU, which coordinates defense between some non-NATO European countries and NATO.
-
My point regarding the tar sands was simply that Iraq would have been no. 2 on the list if the hard-to-extract stuff tar sands, oil shale, whatever) wasn't counted.
As far as the U.S. being obligated to defend Sweden, I have to ask Ami, how does Sweden's status in WEU, "co-ordinating defences" with NATO convert into a U.S. obligation to defend them?
-
As far as the U.S. being obligated to defend Sweden, I have to ask Ami, how does Sweden's status in WEU, "co-ordinating defences" with NATO convert into a U.S. obligation to defend them?
WEU and NATO have a treaty to coordinate defense among their member states. US is part of NATO.
-
Coordinating defenses is not a duty to defend. If the U.S. chooses not to put up any defence to an attack on Sweden which does not involve an attack on NATO members, there is no duty to defend Sweden and if the US chooses not to defend Sweden, there are no defences to be coordinated. End of story.
-
Coordinating defenses is not a duty to defend. If the U.S. chooses not to put up any defence to an attack on Sweden which does not involve an attack on NATO members, there is no duty to defend Sweden and if the US chooses not to defend Sweden, there are no defences to be coordinated. End of story.
Well, NATO requires the member countries to coordinate defense of each other. Guess that means that no countries in NATO are obligated to defend each other, either.
-
<<Well, NATO requires the member countries to coordinate defense of each other. Guess that means that no countries in NATO are obligated to defend each other, either.>>
Exceptionally sloppy logic. NATO's charter obliges the NATO allies to defend one another. It may also oblige them to co-ordinate their defences (I'll take your word on that) but the one does not exclude the other.
You usually know better than that. I'll put it down to the lateness of the hour.
-
Second, this notion of "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way" has been tried. It was done in Chile in the 70's. It was done in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil at the same time. Government was cut in amazing amounts as quickly as possible. Public holdings were privatised like a fire sale at rock bottom prices. Social security was privatised, schools were turned over to the private sector, almost nothing was left for the people.
Do you know what the result was? Were the Chilean people suddenly wealthy? Were the poor suddenly better off?
No. Almost half fell below the poverty line. Half the population. Unemployment reached a third of the working population - 33%! Inflation was in the thousands of percent! The top 10% saw their wealth increase 83% during the time period of 1974 to 1990. The rest saw their wealth decrease in real terms.
That was the result of your "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way."
Yeah, transitions to free markets from command and control economies work that way. Same thing happened when Reagan did it here, and Thatcher did it in the U.K.
And in those places, like in Chile, the result was 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. I'll point out that Chile's still privatized Social Security system pays greater returns than ours does.
There are so many blatant lies packed in there, it is difficult to know where to begin.
First, the Chicago School economics of the Southern Cone (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil) all failed miserably. In fact, Pinochet had to severely reverse course and ended up removing the "Chicago Boys" from their ministerial posts and reverse many of the policies they had made to turn Chile into a free market dystopia. The constant drumming of Milton Friedman, Harberger, and the rest of the free market gang had delivered nothing but terrible economic conditions for Chile by the 10th anniversary of the coup. Pinochet, never a man of numbers, but certainly a man of Fascist action, grew very disillusioned with the poor results when he was promised positive things. Hell, Friedman himself had promised results in "months" back in a letter from 1975!
And the funny thing is that none of the radical free market reforms would have been possible without police states, death camps, and what Argentinian courts later ruled as genocide against specific political groups. They weren't communists as the juntas in those countries constantly claimed. The communist movements had been crushed within days of the coups (or in the case of Argentina, actually crushed before the coup!). They were farmers, trade union leaders, peasants, writers, musicians, poets, journalists, and university professors. 80% of the people killed by those fascist governments were peasants or farmers that were unarmed.
Chicago School economics and Milton Friedman's formula for free markets to equal free people was a cover for authoritarian rule. The people in those countries had voted again and again for politicians and leaders that represented the workers and the welfare state. In fact, Allende had made significant gains in the midterm election before the 1973 coup. All of those nations required police states, terror, torture, and fear to become capitalist and promote Chicago School economics.
Thatcher made major changes in U.K. society, I'll grant that. She was loathed by most Brits, even a good portion of her own party could not wait to throw her out (which they did). Her economic policies were ruinous and in the long-term Britain may be more neoliberal, but it is a welfare state. The NHS remains, Maggie herself defended the farm subsidies (Tory voters, don't you know), she was also a big environmentalist, which surprises many people. In fact, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did far more towards neoliberalism in the UK than Maggie ever did. Most of the benefits still remain.
Ronnie talked a better game than he ever played. His policies were nearly Keynesian in action, but he spoke like one of Milt's boys. In reality he spent government largesse like there was no tomorrow. Whereas the Fascist states of the Southern Cone really did cut their government in size and spending, Reagan did no such thing (and it should be noted that Maggie did not either, in fact she spent a higher percentage of public spending per GDP than James Callaghan or Harold Wilson!). Unlike Maggie, Reagan faced no real society that was opposed to his thinking.
So forgive me if I don't believe that equality will come from Sir's theory on why the wealthy need their orifices licked. Today Chile, despite rolling back most of those ridiculous programs is still one of the worst ranking countries in terms of economic equality.
The best? Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
Are we somehow dumber than the Scandinavians? We cannot figure out how to have equality and a great quality of life? We like seeing desperately poor people? We like the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor falling by the wayside?
Why should I be interested in economic equality? Get back to me when everybody's contribution to the economy is equal.
Tell me again - what are you doing for me that you think I should pay taxes on the fruits of my labor to provide for your needs?
If you were getting rewarded commensurate with your contributions, you'd be keeping the Titanic company.
And by the way - we aren't dumber than the Scandinavians, especially when we are Scandinavians. See Minnesota - not much poverty among Scandinavians there, either. Does that tell you anything?
To answer the last question first. No, other than Scandinavians seem a hell of a lot smarter. Apparently welfare economics work just fine and without recourse to police states and death camps too. That's a nice touch in my book.
You don't have to be interested in economic equality. You can spit on homeless people if that is what gets you hot and bothered, but for many of us we do not like the idea of a few who are massively wealthy and the rest who are struggling and poor. You can make up myths about Chile if you like, but the truth is that Chicago School, i.e. Milton Friedman economics was atttempted and it crashed and burned - and took thousands of lives with it.
It isn't about me. It never has been. I do reasonably well, thank you. It is about those who don't. Those who work hard, but cannot make ends meet for their families. Those that society has left behind.
We must be dumber than the Scandinavians, otherwise why are they able to run their nations so much better?
-
We must be dumber than the Scandinavians, otherwise why are they able to run their nations so much better?
Lotsa Vodka
-
I think that as a rule, Scandinavia is run better than the US because the people are better informed and less tolerant of greed, incompetence and corruption. There is also a basic egalitarian streak running through these countries. PM Olaf Palme used to wear shirts that his wife has unsewn and resewn the cuffs and collars on, to emphasize his opposition to waste and his pechant for thrift. There is this phenomenon called 'Royal Swedish Envy', in which a person will not be recognized as superior unless he proves it, such as by winning the Nobel Prize and other awards decided upon by experts.