Support NeoGAF

[Jason's Ultimatum]

But if you get rid of Corporate Income tax, guess what they have no incentive to "hide" their income, much lesser incentive to shift jobs over seas and a much greater incentive to reinvest in their companies rather then distribute dividends.

Are you really so thick headed.

Aside from that empirical studies have shown a government cannot expect to collect in taxes more than %20 of GDP, and that is already past a point of diminishing returns, as in the additional taxes hurt economic growth.

Corporate continue to rake in record profits, yet worker's wages continue to stagnant, not being able to keep up with inflation.

So yes, obviously, we need more tax cuts for corporations.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Agreed totally. It's what they do. It's how they convince the public that the spending needs to stay. It's also sad that most of the public falls for the bullshit.

That somehow, we're supposed to believe states' budgets are so lean and trim, that any cuts have to happen in essential services first. I've seen my state's budget and I will give credit that it's pretty decent, but hardly untouchable.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

*hammer slides into thread*

*glances around*

*bails the fuck out*

 

[Nerevar]

Fact: according to the government's own statistics, 14% of the population in 2003 could not read.

According to this site the illiteracy rate was about .6% in 1979

What's your point? A simple wikipedia search reveals that they're measuring different things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

A five-year, $14 million study of U.S. adult literacy involving lengthy interviews of U.S. adults, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government,[2] was released in September 1993. It involved lengthy interviews of over 26,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information.

During the same period, the US Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook [7] published that the United States had a 99% literacy rate based on census data.

So in other words, you provided a link to an article that made grossly exaggerated claims based on his or her poor reading of government research and methodology. Sounds to me like you already made up your mind and went looking for research that supported your world view. Do you also by chance happen to watch Fox News?

Perhaps you should do some research yourself on the various types of "illiteracy" used by social sciences and what they mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

 

[scorcho]

no, it doesn't, but it SHOULD. Technically the Korean war was considered a UN operation, the UN can and has been a military force aside from it's other various programs. Either way though it's certainly not OUR job to do it.

the UN has not and likely will never have a mandate from member-states to maintain its own military, only peace keeping forces as the need arises.

and considering the massive global capital and cash flows between nations/regions, and how the global economy (and as such our own) is intrinsically tied to political stability, this is all very much in the US' interest. we could stand to allow, say, the EU more operational control over their internal security, but maintaining foreign bases is still a relatively cost-efficient way to ensure the status quo remains.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. Real life isn't CIV. I can't believe I had to type that. There are tons of implications with NK going to war, with or without a base. For 1, NK at war would cut off their aid, essentially starving its own people. Kim doesn't want that.

But fine, well keep the south korea base. What about the bases in Germany. The bases in South America. What are we protecting their. Having bases is an outdated model, with no benefit for us.It s a benefit to those countries becuase of the economic boost they give, but not really for us.

2. Before the DOE, The national standards were whatever colleges demanded. Even now the national standard is essentially what public universities demand. Even with the DOE gone, you can still have a national standard. Public schools wouldn't collapse because they aren't solely funded by the fed. They will continue to be funded by local and state taxes and still be poor then if they are now.

3. Why is that surprising. Conservatives have argued for things like the fair tax for years now.

1. Obviously--my point is that even games based on strategy get it right while your fantasies of pulling out of every military base and the world political system(s) staying the same is shockingly naive.

And NK is already starving its own people, and can use the cut-off from aid as an excuse to go to war. It's circular logic, avatar. Before commenting on removing our bases, please do yourself a favor and look at their locations relative to current or previous threats (nuclear or otherwise). Not acknowledging the reason we're there is either blatant dishonesty or simple ignorance.

2. I can't continue to debate the existence of the Department of Education with Libertarians, can I? It's a logical sink-hole where the only answer is, "end it!"

3. As previously (and laboriously) noted, a "fair tax" is hardly that. The problem with calling a flat tax or its derivatives "fair" is that it doesn't acknowledge the wealth of benefits the very wealthiest derive from a strong government and a relatively-peaceful planet. Frankly, the wealthy benefit the most. Second, a so-called fair tax would actually increase taxes on the poorest Americans while decreasing taxes for the wealthiest.

It's issues like these that drive educated Americans that have an ounce of nuanced thinking completely batshit insane. These are policies designed by ultra-rich Oil-funded Republicans to convince poor white southerners (and ruralites throughout the US) that somehow the poor are the problem. That somehow THEY are at fault, aren't working hard enough, and are the problem with our nation's debt. It sad and sickening to see so many poor people (namely Southerners and Ruralites) vote against their very existence to satisfy the wishes of the wealthiest elites in our nation.

 

[Gaborn]

What's your point? A simple wikipedia search reveals that they're measuring different things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States




So in other words, you provided a link to an article that made grossly exaggerated claims based on his or her poor reading of government research and methodology. Sounds to me like you already made up your mind and went looking for research that supported your world view. Do you also by chance happen to watch Fox News?

Perhaps you should do some research yourself on the various types of "illiteracy" used by social sciences and what they mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

Nope, I don't watch Fox news. Sounds like you do though if you think I remind you of them. And I'm not sure that the study that YOU just cited, from 1993, is the same as the study I cited, in 2003. Although, if it is, the inability to understand information and make basic inferences is... not exactly a bad definition of illiteracy.

Panther - You REALLY think China wouldn't react if NK went to war? It's in their interests as much as it is ours to keep NK in check. The difference being NK is in their back yard, so to speak.

 

[Gallbaro]

Corporate continue to rake in record profits, yet worker's wages continue to stagnant, not being able to keep up with inflation.

So yes, obviously, we need more tax cuts for corporations.

Record profits will always happen, such is life with inflation.
Wages have increased, however the increase has been entirely focused in employee benefits such as health care, well almost entirely in health care. Only sane way to fix that issue would be to get rid of employee based health care tax incentives, which would be another wonderful by-product of getting rid of corporate income tax.

Spoiler

Employer based health care is most likely the prime reason for sky rocketing health care costs outside of an aging population, it destroyed a functional market in health care.

And you have yet to do anything but spout populist rhetoric to disprove my arguments.

 

[Jonm1010]

Nope, I don't watch Fox news. Sounds like you do though if you think I remind you of them. And I'm not sure that the study that YOU just cited, from 1993, is the same as the study I cited, in 2003. Although, if it is, the inability to understand information and make basic inferences is... not exactly a bad definition of illiteracy.

As I tried to tell you before (must have missed it). Prior to the mid 80s literacy was calculated very simply in government surveys. "Can you read and write at a basic level in ANY language." Between the mid 80s and into the 90s and beyond literacy began to be calculated much more stringently.


Defined most often as "the ability to read, write and speak in English, and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, to function in society, to achieve one's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential."

Now I know your a smart person and can obviously see why in 1979 a whole lot of people fit that first definition but once the definition is more stringent and well defined less people are going to fit into it.

 

[slidewinder]

Fact: according to the government's own statistics, 14% of the population in 2003 could not read.

According to this site the illiteracy rate was about .6% in 1979

The first link is to a take on modern study, with modern standards as to what constitutes functional literacy. The second link is to a historical reconstruction of the literacy rate according to a single, very low standard, over the period from 1870-1979.

Did you REALLY look at those two sites and say to yourself "well, there you go, literacy rate! From 99.4% down to 86% in only 24 years!" Or are you just posting such garbage in the hopes that no one is going to bother to check on it, like with your previous "support" for this position? Complete shit either way. Really, really, shitty.

 

[Pctx]

1. I stand by my assertion that it's much easier to say "cut spending!" than it is to actually name substantial cuts that are politically or militarily possible. I just like pointing out ignorant blathering.

Fine I suppose.

2. I'm for legalizing and taxing pot. It's obvious and overdue. The rest of Gaborn's ideas are libertarian utopian ideas that could never work in today's geopolitical environment, or any, for that matter. More, the flat tax is one of the Right's favorite pet ideas, mainly because it would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while increasing taxes on the very poorest. Combine that with cutting education spending and we're envisioning a world where we refuse to educate the poorest of the poor and then punish them economically for being uneducated. Awesome!

Yes Pot needs to make it into the mainstream and not be one of the taboo subjects of history past. Doing so I think would add a viable revenue stream for funding (or support of) healtcare in the current form.

In terms of the flat tax. I wouldn't say that it's anyone's pet project or idea as the ideaology of it is reshaping fundamentals of policy. If we ended up going with a let's say 15% tax across the board to all states in the Union then the Government would be freed up to do what it needs to with the money that is guaranteed to come in. How exactly is that a bad thing? Right now you have people running budgets on projections and this would give the Government hard numbers. Not to mention the fact CPA's that are in business just to find the loopholes in the tax code in order to withhold what is rightfully taxed income or profit. Your argument on cutting education spending makes little to no sense in this argument as this in theory should increase tax revenues for the Government to work with.

Also--- if you haven't learned by now... The rich will always get more rich and the poor will always continue to be poor. The opportunity is up to the person in this country to do something about and that sir is not the responsiblity of the Government to fix. If it is, then I suppose you support Government Nanny States and funds to people being permanently on welfare of which is appauling to me.

3. It's been proven time and again that cutting taxes during a recession/depression is actually the most absurd thing a government can do. I don't know the result of the reciprocal, though. Just pointing out the hyperbole of "the most absurd thing a government could do," when we were barely 8 million votes and a heart attack away from having a Sarah Palin Presidency.

Sure, cutting taxes is just as absurd but that has already been done. I'm looking at the now form of where we are. The Bush tax cuts were in fact ill advised but happened. At this point in time any meddling with increase or decrease would just hurt us further. The overall market is way too volitile to be messing with that.

4. Cute, but inaccurate. The historical precedent has been that the wealthiest Americans and members of the largest companies, firms, and corporations are the ones that will continue to find loopholes, tax breaks, and ways to get out of paying their fare share. It might surprise you to know that the wealthy benefit the most from the government, but it's true.

Smug aren't you? The rich will always pay someone money to get out paying money. This is somehow shocking to anyone? What I'm getting at (as I think with most people in this thread are either on one side or the other) is asking the question of what is fair? People not paying taxes isn't fair to me or the other guy. Me having to pay MORE money to make up for the shortfall of joe billionaire not paying his fair share is a pretty twisted view of reality but that's the game we're in now.

 

[Escape Goat]

I don't believe anyone could ever accomplish such a goal.

If the government were run like a corporation (maximize profit, minimize cost) you bet they could. But if it were it wouldn't be the government. But the problem lies in that there is no accountability for money spent. If an agency totally blows their spending on lollipops and licorice no one is to blame since Congress will just float them another check. Correcting that would be a major step in fixing the allocation of funds.

Look at normal private corporations and their budgets. Alot of times they have no idea where their assets are. Company laptops are unaccounted for and oh well! I'll just request a replacement and voila. No consequence, no problem!

 

[SlipperySlope]

This is about as fair as putting a postal surcharge on e-mail.

Shhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas.

 

[Nerevar]

Nope, I don't watch Fox news. Sounds like you do though if you think I remind you of them. And I'm not sure that the study that YOU just cited, from 1993, is the same as the study I cited, in 2003. Although, if it is, the inability to understand information and make basic inferences is... not exactly a bad definition of illiteracy.

The Fox News comment was to point out that you intentionally seek out information that reinforces your viewpoint rather than educating yourself on an issue to generate an informed opinion, I'm sorry if that went over your head. I'll try to keep the tongue-in-cheek references more direct in the future.

And yes, if you read the sources you cited (and not the inflammatory articles that linked through to them) you'd see the ED did two studies on functional illiteracy in 1992 and 2003, which is vastly different than being truly illiterate (i.e. not being able to read or write). For what it's worth, the same Wikipedia article cited a study in England that 1 in 6 adults there (i.e. 16%) were functionally illiterate, so the rates of functional literacy in the US are roughly in line with the rest of the western world. I still don't see how any of this supports your nation we should disband the ED though. In fact, everything you post seems to run counter to your own position, and seems to imply that you're not really reading your own sources...

 

[PantherLotus]

To the US specifically? Not... really, no they don't. To some of our allies? Sure, but I see China stepping in if North Korea invades South Korea, it's in China's interest to have peace on the Korean peninsula as much as it is ours. I also can't see us doing much to help Taiwan, the troops we have there, although substantial, would not be enough if China truly wanted to act. As for Russia? They can make a lot of noise now but they're still a 4th rate power now and recovering from the after effects of communism. The only reason Russia is a player at this point is because they still have a substantial number of nukes, but they're not going to use them because they know they'd be obliterated if they did.

Sorry to single out this point (congrats on getting a BA, btw), but this shows a complete misunderstanding of global politics and economics. You can't honestly think that what happens to our allies doesn't affect our economy, right?

 

[Gaborn]

Sorry to single out this point (congrats on getting a BA, btw), but this shows a complete misunderstanding of global politics and economics. You can't honestly think that what happens to our allies doesn't affect our economy, right?

Of course it "affects our economy," war anywhere affects everywhere else to some extent. The question is whether that is worth American lives to maintain. Like I said, I don't see North Korea actually invading SK without a very very strong response by China, and if you think we're the ONLY force capable of "policing the world" then I think you're being extremely short sighted.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I agree with the post that said that we should remove the Social security wage base and cut military spending. Add in a higher top marginal tax rate and a higher capital gains tax and we're cooking.

 

[PantherLotus]

Of course it "affects our economy," war anywhere affects everywhere else to some extent. The question is whether that is worth American lives to maintain. Like I said, I don't see North Korea actually invading SK without a very very strong response by China, and if you think we're the ONLY force capable of "policing the world" then I think you're being extremely short sighted.

I thought the question was how much we should spend doing so? How many American lives have been lost in South Korea, Japan, and Germany over the past...40 years?

And where is the idea that China is not North Korea's ally coming from? Are you familiar with pretty much every policy discussion with North Korea since the 80s? (china got thay back, yo)

 

[Kittonwy]

Corporate continue to rake in record profits, yet worker's wages continue to stagnant, not being able to keep up with inflation.

So yes, obviously, we need more tax cuts for corporations.

So you would rather the workers have no jobs instead of being what you would consider to be "underpaid", because these workers don't exist in a vacuum, they're competing against workers in other countries who earn much less.

It's not about what you think is "morally just", but about what would be viable to keep people working. Big corporations aren't obligated to provide jobs for your country, investors aren't obligated to provide investment capital for your country, jobs go wherever it is cheapest to hire and investment capital go where it can make the most profit.

 

[Kittonwy]

I agree with the post that said that we should remove the Social security wage base and cut military spending. Add in a higher top marginal tax rate and a higher capital gains tax and we're cooking.

If you cut military spending where would that work force go? If you raise top marginal tax rate and capital gains tax, you'll see investment capital flow out of America.

 

[Gaborn]

I thought the question was how much we should spend doing so? How many American lives have been lost in South Korea, Japan, and Germany over the past...40 years?

And where is the idea that China is not North Korea's ally coming from? Are you familiar with pretty much every policy discussion with North Korea since the 80s? (china got thay back, yo)

Fair enough, that's two questions. Blood and treasure. Neither way is it worth having a huge american presence around the world.

China is North Korea's ally, but they still have an interest in stability on the Korean peninsula, they've used their subsidizing a huge portion of the Korean food supply in the past as pressure to get the regime to fall in line, I have very little doubt they would do anything to keep NK from attacking SK because a war there now would be directly harming China's interests. Just because someone is your ally does not mean if they act against your interests they stay that way. We used Saddam in the 70s and 80s to basically fight a proxy war against Iran, then they acted against our interests and invaded in Kuwait and look what happened.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Cutting back on our foreign escapades and going back to a pre-WWII military level is the key to actually competing long term with Asia economically. We should not be in SK, Europe, Japan, or anywhere else. We should pull out of NATO and go back to the Monroe Doctrine of only worrying about what goes down in the Americas.

 

[slidewinder]

If you raise top marginal tax rate and capital gains tax, you'll see investment capital flow out of America.

No, you'd see wages for the vast majority of Americans rise in the short term, and a more resilient economy in the long term.

 

[Gatekeeper]

If this bullshit passes, I'm just going to begin lobbying my state Congress to pass a bill making it illegal for other states to collect sales tax from businesses based here if said business does not have a physical presence in the state attempting to collect.

If they're attempting to completely close the loophole that TAXPAYERS are exploiting, they should require all businesses in states w/o sales tax to collect residency information from all customers who visit a B&M location.

 

[McNei1y]

Why does this need to happen? Hooray, lets tax more shit...

 

[Zero Hero]

If you cut military spending where would that work force go? If you raise top marginal tax rate and capital gains tax, you'll see investment capital flow out of America.

Since Bush's top marginal tax cut in 03, all America has seen is an accelerated flow of capital out of America. That is why I have a hard time with this line of thinking. Are you in line with the "cutting taxes boost tax revenue" class too?

 

[PantherLotus]

So you would rather the workers have no jobs instead of being what you would consider to be "underpaid", because these workers don't exist in a vacuum, they're competing against workers in other countries who earn much less.

It's not about what you think is "morally just", but about what would be viable to keep people working. Big corporations aren't obligated to provide jobs for your country, investors aren't obligated to provide investment capital for your country, jobs go wherever it is cheapest to hire and investment capital go where it can make the most profit.

Are you against a minimum wage?

 

[PantherLotus]

Cutting back on our foreign escapades and going back to a pre-WWII military level is the key to actually competing long term with Asia economically. We should not be in SK, Europe, Japan, or anywhere else. We should pull out of NATO and go back to the Monroe Doctrine of only worrying about what goes down in the Americas.

...because only what happens in this hemisphere actually affects us? Serious or lulz about NATO?

 

[PantherLotus]

China is North Korea's ally, but they still have an interest in stability on the Korean peninsula, they've used their subsidizing a huge portion of the Korean food supply in the past as pressure to get the regime to fall in line, I have very little doubt they would do anything to keep NK from attacking SK because a war there now would be directly harming China's interests. Just because someone is your ally does not mean if they act against your interests they stay that way. We used Saddam in the 70s and 80s to basically fight a proxy war against Iran, then they acted against our interests and invaded in Kuwait and look what happened.

Great answer. Also, the reason we're in Japan, Germany, South Korean, Iraq, Israel and even Afghanistan. Stability is money.

The funny thing to me is this line of thought from libertarians that implies the US would not be affected by removing ourselves from world affairs, or that somehow the changes (world war) would be worth it.

 

[Nerevar]

It's not about what you think is "morally just", but about what would be viable to keep people working. Big corporations aren't obligated to provide jobs for your country, investors aren't obligated to provide investment capital for your country, jobs go wherever it is cheapest to hire and investment capital go where it can make the most profit.

Do you have anything even remotely resembling proof for this? The marginal tax rate is currently the lowest it's been since (more or less) before WWI. I think the correlation between tax rate and growth is much more complicated than you believe.

Why does this need to happen? Hooray, lets tax more shit...

... is this a joke? You're legally required to pay these taxes now, you probably just don't do it. All this bill is trying to do is force internet retailers to track sales tax rates on their own, as relying on American citizens to do the right thing and pay the taxes they're supposed to clearly has failed.

 

[Rentahamster]

Great answer. Also, the reason we're in Japan, Germany, South Korean, Iraq, Israel and even Afghanistan. Stability is money.

The funny thing to me is this line of thought from libertarians that implies the US would not be affected by removing ourselves from world affairs, or that somehow the changes (world war) would be worth it.

Do you find plausible the argument that continued US military hegemony has a possibility of increasing the likelihood of a world war? Or is it generally the case that more US military presence around the world = stability?

 

[Gaborn]

Great answer. Also, the reason we're in Japan, Germany, South Korean, Iraq, Israel and even Afghanistan. Stability is money.

Technically the Afghanistan war and the whole situation with Al Qaeda may not have happened if we weren't in Iraq. If you look at Bin Laden's manifesto he issued a while back the main reason he "declared war" on the US is because of his unhappiness with our air bases in Saudi Arabia we started after the first Gulf War. Our presence around the world has always and will always be a dual edged sword (see also Japan's unhappiness with our Okinawa base and the unhappiness in Iraq over our continuing presence).

The funny thing to me is this line of thought from libertarians that implies the US would not be affected by removing ourselves from world affairs, or that somehow the changes (world war) would be worth it.

I think you're reaching here quite a bit. You can't assume there would be a "world war" if the US withdrew their bases around the world. Even if there was the possibility I'm sure China would be more than happy to police a large swathe of the world. And frankly, I say let them do it, see how much luck they have with it.

 

[PantherLotus]

Do you find plausible the argument that continued US military hegemony has a possibility of increasing the likelihood of a world war? Or is it generally the case that more US military presence around the world = stability?

That's a good question, though I don't believe those are necessarily mutually exclusive options.

My moderately-educated opinion is that the US' best interest is to maintain international control via military spheres of influence (containment and deterrent-based bases) while balancing that with international cooperation and globalization via the UN, G8, WHO, WMF, etc. The idea is to maintain absolute military dominance but making the world feel like it has a choice in the matter. Cynical, I know.

Specifically, I think we need to maintain our current military presence(s) and visibility level in some areas while deferring more to the international community in others. I think we need to work to avoid castigating military threats and pushing them towards a mutually-purposed alliance. I think Israel, Iran, and North Korea are the United States' biggest problems, and that's acknowledging the clusterfuck in the Afghani-Pakistani region.

And I think we should consider the implication of a technologically advancing India, China, and even Africa when thinking about the future of terrorism prevention. I believe education and the eradication of poverty are the clearest ways to do so, though I admit those being the pipe dreams of a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal.

 

[Gallbaro]

No, you'd see wages for the vast majority of Americans rise in the short term, and a more resilient economy in the long term.

If you raise the highest marginal tax rate that would increase the wages of everyone else? What the fuck are you smoking?

All that would do is raise the compensation for the top earners as companies would have to pay them more to compensate for the higher tax rate.

 

[Kittonwy]

No, you'd see wages for the vast majority of Americans rise in the short term, and a more resilient economy in the long term.

Where would the money come from to support such a wage increase? You will either lose jobs, lose investment capital, or likely both, not sure how that would result in a more "resilient" economy.

 

[gcubed]

If you cut military spending where would that work force go? If you raise top marginal tax rate and capital gains tax, you'll see investment capital flow out of America.

people adapt. This was brought up in another thread... what you are arguing for is digging holes and refilling them, only this way we are overpaying for useless war machines. So again your only argument to not cut military funding is for employment... which = stimulus. So yes you are for stimulus, as long as its military

 

[Kittonwy]

Do you have anything even remotely resembling proof for this? The marginal tax rate is currently the lowest it's been since (more or less) before WWI. I think the correlation between tax rate and growth is much more complicated than you believe.

Not sure how complicated you can make it appear so that you can honestly spin an increase in tax rate to result in more economic growth.

 

[avatar299]

1. Obviously--my point is that even games based on strategy get it right while your fantasies of pulling out of every military base and the world political system(s) staying the same is shockingly naive.

And NK is already starving its own people, and can use the cut-off from aid as an excuse to go to war. It's circular logic, avatar. Before commenting on removing our bases, please do yourself a favor and look at their locations relative to current or previous threats (nuclear or otherwise). Not acknowledging the reason we're there is either blatant dishonesty or simple ignorance.

2. I can't continue to debate the existence of the Department of Education with Libertarians, can I? It's a logical sink-hole where the only answer is, "end it!"

3. As previously (and laboriously) noted, a "fair tax" is hardly that. The problem with calling a flat tax or its derivatives "fair" is that it doesn't acknowledge the wealth of benefits the very wealthiest derive from a strong government and a relatively-peaceful planet. Frankly, the wealthy benefit the most. Second, a so-called fair tax would actually increase taxes on the poorest Americans while decreasing taxes for the wealthiest.

It's issues like these that drive educated Americans that have an ounce of nuanced thinking completely batshit insane. These are policies designed by ultra-rich Oil-funded Republicans to convince poor white southerners (and ruralites throughout the US) that somehow the poor are the problem. That somehow THEY are at fault, aren't working hard enough, and are the problem with our nation's debt. It sad and sickening to see so many poor people (namely Southerners and Ruralites) vote against their very existence to satisfy the wishes of the wealthiest elites in our nation.

1. No Civ gets it wrong. Civ doesn't factor in economic realities, Civ doesn't factor in public opinion nor does Civ factor in free trade. You can win any game in Civ by isolating yourself, growing a military, allying with the closet country and going on a war spree. Essentially according to Civ NK is the model we should follow.

The world will stay mostly the same because the world is tied together due to globalization. Very few countries are willing to go to war because it will destroy their economic ability to grow. Europe is a good example of that. The WW2 allies don't have bases in Germany, but they do have trade agreements.

NK people are starving due to their anti-market policies. Kim doesn't want that. If he did, he wouldn't be allowing small market reforms in there now. We just had a thread on this not even 2 weeks ago.

The vast majority of our bases aren't near enemies. In fact i'm willing to bet you couldn't name 10 bases that are guarding countries that are our enemies.

2. What the fuck have you debated? You admitted you don't know how education works. Your argument was nothing more than "Hey's lets call a bunch of red states poor and stupid."

3. Way to miss the fucking point. You said conservatives don't argue for sales. tax. i said they did, case in point the fair tax. I don't give a shit if you think the fair tax is fair. Is it a sales tax, yes or no?

blah blah blah the rest is democratic rhetoric I've heard a 1000 times and your typical anti south, anti rural, you don't have the balls to admit but anti-caucasian bullshit

 

[slidewinder]

If you raise the highest marginal tax rate that would increase the wages of everyone else? What the fuck are you smoking?

Reality.

All that would do is raise the compensation for the top earners as companies would have to pay them more to compensate for the higher tax rate.

Wow. Get THAT shit away from me, crazy guy.

Where would the money come from to support such a wage increase?

The people who funneled those wages evermore into their own pockets over the last 30-odd years.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. No Civ gets it wrong. Civ doesn't factor in economic realities, Civ doesn't factor in public opinion nor does Civ factor in free trade. You can win any game in Civ by isolating yourself, growing a military, allying with the closet country and going on a war spree. Essentially according to Civ NK is the model we should follow.

The world will stay mostly the same because the world is tied together due to globalization. Very few countries are willing to go to war because it will destroy their economic ability to grow. Europe is a good example of that. The WW2 allies don't have bases in Germany, but they do have trade agreements.

NK people are starving due to their anti-market policies. Kim doesn't want that. If he did, he wouldn't be allowing small market reforms in there now. We just had a thread on this not even 2 weeks ago.

The vast majority of our bases aren't near enemies. In fact i'm willing to bet you couldn't name 10 bases that are guarding countries that are our enemies.

2. What the fuck have you debated? You admitted you don't know how education works. Your argument was nothing more than "Hey's lets call a bunch of red states poor and stupid."

3. Way to miss the fucking point. You said conservatives don't argue for sales. tax. i said they did, case in point the fair tax. I don't give a shit if you think the fair tax is fair. Is it a sales tax, yes or no?

blah blah blah the rest is democratic rhetoric I've heard a 1000 times and your typical anti south, anti rural, you don't have the balls to admit but anti-caucasian bullshit

:lol :lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

blah blah blah the rest is democratic rhetoric I've heard a 1000 times and your typical anti south, anti rural, you don't have the balls to admit but anti-caucasian bullshit

oh boy

andherewego.gif

 

[scorcho]

blah blah blah the rest is democratic rhetoric I've heard a 1000 times and your typical anti south, anti rural, you don't have the balls to admit but anti-caucasian bullshit

i'm sorry, but :lol

 

[slidewinder]

Man, it's so HARD being a white guy! Where can I turn for some commiseration but ALL OF AM RADIO for starters? RAGE WHINE BITCH! I am a member of the bitchiest fucking bunch of motherfuckers to ever walk this earth!

 

[Kittonwy]

people adapt. This was brought up in another thread... what you are arguing for is digging holes and refilling them, only this way we are overpaying for useless war machines. So again your only argument to not cut military funding is for employment... which = stimulus. So yes you are for stimulus, as long as its military

My argument is for cutting everything, including repealing the national healthcare plan, not just military spending, the reality is that if you only target military spending you WILL ending up with unemployed soldiers and workers building military equipments/vehicles who will never be able to find the same level of quality employment and benefits, and then you will end up having to take care of those people.

Who's to say the war machine is "useless"? It's a way for America to influence and control world policy.

 

[Zero Hero]

blah blah blah the rest is democratic rhetoric I've heard a 1000 times and your typical anti south, anti rural, you don't have the balls to admit but anti-caucasian bullshit

Not enough lols available to convey an appropriate reaction.

 

[avatar299]

:lol :lol

When you don't have an argument, post :lol .

 

[TomServo]

... is this a joke? You're legally required to pay these taxes now, you probably just don't do it. All this bill is trying to do is force internet retailers to track sales tax rates on their own, as relying on American citizens to do the right thing and pay the taxes they're supposed to clearly has failed.

I meant to pay them, but TurboTax made an error.

 

[GaimeGuy]

My argument is for cutting everything, including repealing the national healthcare plan, not just military spending, the reality is that if you only target military spending you WILL ending up with unemployed soldiers and workers building military equipments/vehicles who will never be able to find the same level of quality employment and benefits, and then you will end up having to take care of those people.

Who's to say the war machine is "useless"? It's a way for America to influence and control world policy.

I'd prefer those jobs be used for something a little more utilitarian, like infrastructure, education, and public transportation, for example

 

[Gallbaro]

Reality.

Wow. Get THAT shit away from me, crazy guy.

The people who funneled those wages evermore into their own pockets over the last 30-odd years.

I do not think it is a wild guess to assume you have not training in Micro Economics.

 

[PantherLotus]

I do not think it is a wild guess to assume you have not training in Micro Economics.

I'm taking a wild guess to assume you "have not training" in Macro Economics?