NationStates Jolt Archive

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

I really don’t see much of a practical difference between Democrats and Republicans, but Jesus Christ you’re going to get flak for this.

I got a better reason, Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is one of those people who is on a permemant campagin mode. See when a person wants to be elected to an office, they pander to their party and get their party base simulated. However once that person is elected, they usually shift modes to try to unite the country. Nancy has not made that shift. A perfect example of this is when Bush proposed the Social Security reform act, which was much needed, what did Nancy do, she told all the Democrats to vote against the Republicans no matter what. That is why that died in Congress. That's her as a minority House Leader, just think that will happen with her as Majority. *shudders*

I'm putting on my FlameMaster3000 and getting some popcorn for this one...

I really don’t see much of a practical difference between Democrats and Republicans, but Jesus Christ you’re going to get flak for this.

To be honest, there isn't.

Here is the only real diffrence between the two parties.

Democrats like to restrict your freedom economically

Republicans like to restrict your freedom socially

Democrats like to tax and spend

Republican like to borrow and spend.

That's basically it there.

That is why we need a new party!

To be honest, there isn't.

Here is the only real diffrence between the two parties.

Democrats like to restrict your freedom economically

Republicans like to restrict your freedom socially

Democrats like to tax and spend

Republican like to borrow and spend.

That's basically it there.

That is why we need a new party!
I don't really see much evidence of Democrats resticting economic freedoms.

I don't really see much evidence of Democrats resticting economic freedoms.

Raising taxes on the rich, well raising taxes in general, sponsering and passing bills that are designed to distribute the wealth etc.

Raising taxes on the rich, well raising taxes in general, sponsering and passing bills that are designed to distribute the wealth etc.

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?

it seems to me that a man with no money is not economically free, because he is unable to purchase anything.

Raising taxes on the rich, well raising taxes in general, sponsering and passing bills that are designed to distribute the wealth etc.
Unfortunately, despite what they say, they rarely actually do any of those things.

To be honest, there isn't.

Here is the only real diffrence between the two parties.

Democrats like to restrict your freedom economically

Republicans like to restrict your freedom socially

Democrats like to tax and spend

Republican like to borrow and spend.

That's basically it there.

That is why we need a new party!

I agree with every word of this post.

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?

it seems to me that a man with no money is not economically free, because he is unable to purchase anything.

Hey I work for my money, he can do the same. It's not the government's place to take my money and give it to people like him, it's not charity, and it's not right. Now keep in mind I do give to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the Charlotte Diosce. However I do that under my own choice, which is what should be done.

I agree with every word of this post.

Yay! :D

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?



because its my money. Its not the governments job to tell me how to spend it. And if they desparately need money, get a job! That is generally how people get money in this country.

Hey I work for my money, he can do the same.
If that were true he wouldn’t be poor.
It's not the government's place to take my money and give it to people like him,
Sure it is. It promotes stability and the public welfare. That's right in the constitution, buddy.
it's not charity, and it's not right.
Well, it certainly isn’t charity, as some are obviously too selfish for that. Whether it’s right or not doesn’t matter. It works, and nobody’s being greatly harmed.

Democrats CANNOT gain power.
They will turn us Socialist.
America has a socialist party and a capitalist party.
I vote Republican, I vote Capitalist.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge basic reasoning or historical fact.

Socialism is flawed.
It will weaken america.
Viva La Republica!!!

Anyway.
Someone misappraised the republican agenda.

Democrats like to tax and spend.
Republicans hate to tax, and are forced to spend.

If that were true he wouldn’t be poor.

Not true, doesn't work=/= not poor.


Sure it is. It promotes stability and the public welfare. That's right in the constitution, buddy.

Yea, but it also hurts the economy, and where in the consitution does it say we should have distribution of wealth?


Well, it certainly isn’t charity, as some are obviously too selfish for that. Whether it’s right or not doesn’t matter. It works, and nobody’s being greatly harmed.

Except for the people who might actually need it.

(snip)
I reread this three times and my response is still the same: "Huh?"

Anyway.
Someone misappraised the republican agenda.

Democrats like to tax and spend.
Republicans hate to tax, and are forced to spend.
How are republicans "forced to spend?" To me, it seems pretty simple. I had four dollars in my wallet today. I didn't spend a penny of it. Now I still have four dollars.

There is only one point in this entire thread I agree with, and that there is not MUCH difference between the two parties. I will take it a step further, the differences in the parties is on the edges.

Republicans are controlled by a group of people that condemn anyone and everyone for not living up to THEIR standard of a moral, decent existence. Forget the fact that these cretins are in the minority of the population of the USA, they MUST tell you how to live your life.

Democrats are controlled by a group of individuals that do not take political risks, they don't take a strong stand on matters that are key to core Democratic constituencies. They are no more weak on defense than the other party.

The Republicans have strayed very far away from smaller government and less government intrusion in people's lives, they have gotten to be worse than the Democrats at the height of their arrogance. The Republicans seem to believe it is OK to suspend Habeas Corpus, ignore precedent on the seperation of church and state, that it is ok to marginalize people who do not see things their way. The Republicans in power believe in a Wilsonian ideal pushed onto other nations at gunpoint. Most importantly, the Republicans believe that lying to the country is OK on matters of warfare. I cannot forgive this President for the raping of the Constitution and his desire to elevate the Executive above the two ther co-EQUAL branches of government. Republicans have made a hash of this nation and now comes the time for them to pay the piper. Too bad.

I feel no sorrow, and I won't miss a single one of them. The only good thing that came out of the whole sick Mark Foley thing is that the American people love to hash over a good, juicy scandal...and this one is the sickest, nastiest, juiciest tidbit to come down the pike in a long time. Mark Foley, among many others in his party has no business outside a jail cell.

I will vote for the Democrats for these and many other reasons.

You go right ahead and call me "liberal," won't hurt my feelings a bit. Oh, I guess there is a major difference to those in the parties. Soon the Republicans will be on the outside looking in again courtesy of the disaster of a President they wanted and got.

Doing nothing is better than doing something if something happens to be recking the place as per the Bush & Co. Ltd Administration modus operandi.

As for prattling about percentages of income as an infringement of one's freedom while supporting a political party under whom habeous corpus has been effectively voided, I call B.S. on that.

Evidently, "it's my money" is an untrue premise.

You dont make money, the government does. If Microsoft can impose conditions on the use of its property (as it does) then I guess the government can do the same.

Money is property of the state. As a courtesy you get to use it. This is very expediant for everyone and is the basis on which the strong foundation of every healthy modern economy is built.

There are however some conditions attached to this privledge (much like just about any other privledge you can name). If you dont like it, there is no law that forces you to conduct your trade and transacting affairs with the use of the government's tender. No doubt it would be highly inconvinient to do otherwise, which probably explains why people put up with the lesser inconvenience of the conditions attached to the use of a government's legal tender, like for instance having to pay taxes....

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.
You enjoy having a corrupt party in power?

You don't believe in "checks and balances"?

You don't support democracy?

You prefer a dictatorship?

(snip)
You go right ahead and call me "liberal," won't hurt my feelings a bit. Oh, I guess there is a major difference to those in the parties. Soon the Republicans will be on the outside looking in again courtesy of the disaster of a President they wanted and got.

I don't think this is liberal or conservative -- it's realistic.

Yea, but it also hurts the economy, and where in the consitution does it say we should have distribution of wealth?
It doesn’t hurt the economy, though. When the poor have more money, they spend it.

It doesn’t hurt the economy, though. When the poor have more money, they spend it.

That why Tax breaks work.

-snip-
Impressive.

That why Tax breaks work.
Tax breaks for the poor and the middle, yes.

You enjoy having a corrupt party in power?

You don't believe in "checks and balances"?

You don't support democracy?

You prefer a dictatorship?

They're both corrupt. Or don't you remember Congress before January 1995? It was pretty bad. Not the same kind of bad as this, but definitely not good. Voting Democrat in the general elections will not restore democracy, nor will it end Bush's reign of terror. Actually, all you're going to see is a Democratic Diktat.

Not that I'm defending the Republicans. I don't think Bush's rubber stamp is worth keeping in power. But let's not pretend its an either-or proposition. There are more parties in the country than I care to count. All we need is for everyone who votes to vote for a minor party. Both major parties will collapse. Finally.

When the poor have more money, they spend it.
They spend it all.

They're both corrupt. Or don't you remember Congress before January 1995? It was pretty bad. Not the same kind of bad as this, but definitely not good. Voting Democrat in the general elections will not restore democracy, nor will it end Bush's reign of terror. Actually, all you're going to see is a Democratic Diktat.

Not that I'm defending the Republicans. I don't think Bush's rubber stamp is worth keeping in power. But let's not pretend its an either-or proposition. There are more parties in the country than I care to count. All we need is for everyone who votes to vote for a minor party. Both major parties will collapse. Finally.

Diktat?

Diktat: A harsh, unilaterally imposed settlement with a defeated party.

OK, maybe "diktat" was a little strong, but you get what I'm saying. The Democrats will unleash their wrath at being restrained for the last 12 years, same as the Republicans did to the Democrats in 1995.

EDIT: I called it "the merry-go-round of politics." I stand by that assessment. :)

They spend it all.
Sadly, yes. Not meaning to sound like one of those Social Darwinists, but it's one of the reasons that they're poor.

Sadly, yes. Not meaning to sound like one of those Social Darwinists, but it's one of the reasons that they're poor.

Which is their own fault, so why should people who know how to manage their money keep on giving them more when we all know they'll just spend that too?

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

What agenda? The 'Bite Me' to anyone who dares to question my policies agenda? The insidious secrecy, as though the power to the U.S. President is not checked by Congress or the Courts? The 'Hey, let's help only the wealthy and screw the rest of you'? The, 'Whaddaya know, we can invade a country pre-emptively, violating two centuries of history cause, well, we're really no longer sure why we invaded Iraq or how we are going to win there'?

And, please, all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week? Talk about hyperbole! There's this thing called a veto...oh, wait, Shrub has never used it, has he?

As far as tax breaks, the progressive tax rate system is what shrank the gap between rich and poor. Tax cuts for the rich undermine the progressive tax rate and widen the gap between rich and poor. I agree with the Democrats there. But I disagree with them on the subject of across-the-board cuts.
Across-the-board tax cut =/= tax cuts for the rich.

I have no problem with a same-percentage cut in all tax rates for all tax brackets. As long as there are responsible spending cuts to balance them.

They're both corrupt. Or don't you remember Congress before January 1995? It was pretty bad. Not the same kind of bad as this, but definitely not good. Voting Democrat in the general elections will not restore democracy, nor will it end Bush's reign of terror. Actually, all you're going to see is a Democratic Diktat.

Not that I'm defending the Republicans. I don't think Bush's rubber stamp is worth keeping in power. But let's not pretend its an either-or proposition. There are more parties in the country than I care to count. All we need is for everyone who votes to vote for a minor party. Both major parties will collapse. Finally.
The problem is that unless there is a change of governing power when conduct is exceptionally bad, then that makes things worse. If you kick out really awful transgressors then there is some appearence of a limit to the things you can do. Dont kick them out and you go from being misled into a badly planned (as in 'fantasy island') war, to effective suspension of habeous corpus. Leave them in again given the chance to vote them out, and what the frig is that telling the politicoes of both parties.

No minor party will get any power in the US with the current system and political culture. It's just not going to happen. I dont see the culture becoming more conducive to minor party success in US elections without a change in the electorate/voting/representational structure. However I dont think the US would do anything productive with structural changes the way things are now; it's all just too messed up.

First things to clean up would be those utterly fraudulent computer voting systems that are being introduced, even though they are known to be a farce. Kiss democracy good bye when the machines always return the vote in the favour of a particular political party, regardless of how the actual votes were cast.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.


the situation you are describing is deadlock. as a libertarian i think deadlock is very much preferable to a single party government. it means a slower rate of growth for government programs and oppression. i would like to see a republican house against a democratic senate and white house (in 2008 of course).

They're both corrupt.
Then change them up every two years until they get the message.

Voting Democrat in the general elections will not restore democracy, nor will it end Bush's reign of terror.
Right now, I don't see America as a deomcracy, just a facade of a democracy.

Actually, all you're going to see is a Democratic Diktat.
Right now you have an arrogant Republican party running amuck...shall we call it a Republican Diktat?

Not that I'm defending the Republicans.
It would appear that way.

I don't think Bush's rubber stamp is worth keeping in power.
I totally agree. Therefore, putting Dems in control of the House will help dry out the ink on Bush's rubber stamp.

But let's not pretend its an either-or proposition.
It is either/or.

There are more parties in the country than I care to count. All we need is for everyone who votes to vote for a minor party. Both major parties will collapse. Finally.
There is no "new" dynamic party anywhere on the radar. You are proposing a pipe dream.

Right now, the best that Republicans can hope for is for disillusioned Republicans to vote for "other parties" rather than Dems. That way, they can stay in power.

Doing nothing is better than doing something if something happens to be recking the place as per the Bush & Co. Ltd Administration modus operandi.

As for prattling about percentages of income as an infringement of one's freedom while supporting a political party under whom habeous corpus has been effectively voided, I call B.S. on that.

Evidently, "it's my money" is an untrue premise.

You dont make money, the government does. If Microsoft can impose conditions on the use of its property (as it does) then I guess the government can do the same.

Money is property of the state. As a courtesy you get to use it. This is very expediant for everyone and is the basis on which the strong foundation of every healthy modern economy is built.

There are however some conditions attached to this privledge (much like just about any other privledge you can name). If you dont like it, there is no law that forces you to conduct your trade and transacting affairs with the use of the government's tender. No doubt it would be highly inconvinient to do otherwise, which probably explains why people put up with the lesser inconvenience of the conditions attached to the use of a government's legal tender, like for instance having to pay taxes....
Actually, I believe that there is a law that limits the creation of private currencies.

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

No minor party will get any power in the US with the current system and political culture. It's just not going to happen. I dont see the culture becoming more conducive to minor party success in US elections without a change in the electorate/voting/representational structure. However I dont think the US would do anything productive with structural changes the way things are now; it's all just too messed up.

You're preaching to the choir. What we need is a constitutional amendment effectively rewriting Article 1 to allow for proportional representation. But since that's not going to happen anytime soon, I'm doing what I can to sow the seeds of discontent with the current arrangement. :D

Democrats like to tax and spend.
Republicans hate to tax, and are forced to spend.

What utter nonsense, and complete crap.

For the last 20 years Republicans have spent more than anyone ever.
Do you have any idea of how much money Bush, his father, and Reagan spent?

Bush Jr alone has spent more than any Democratic President ever has.
No one forced him to do it.
This was a war of agression, that had nothing to do with 9/11, or WMD's, and Bush alone forced his own hand.

Every Republican President has spent so much money while in office, the next President, (A Democrat) has no choice but to raise taxes, in order to pay the bills of the last Republican he replaced.

There is no denying it.

If the Dems win in November, It will help to neuter the insane asshole in office, his "lame duck" period will arrive that much sooner.
I, for one, think that means a slight return to sanity.

Clearly the GOP has slit its own throats for the next election as men like Foley are already slaugthtering the parties name.
Bush will be villianized, and abandoned like rats from a sinking ship.

It would appear that way.

LOL, if you think I'm here to defend Republicans you obviously haven't read anything else I've posted over the last two days. :p I hate both major parties equally. I wish they would die, but they won't. All I can do is keep my slingshot at the ready in case I need to go up against Goliath.

LOL, if you think I'm here to defend Republicans you obviously haven't read anything else I've posted over the last two days. :p I hate both major parties equally. I wish they would die, but they won't. All I can do is keep my slingshot at the ready in case I need to go up against Goliath.

I got my swingshot ready too. Of course my swingshot is a 50 cali. rifle, but eh. :D

Actually, I believe that there is a law that limits the creation of private currencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency
But no law requiring one to transact in any form of currency whatsoever.
The issue of restricting private currency production rests on a different principal to the issue of taxing those who choose to utilise the privledge of transacting in the government's money.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

Wiping away the last six years of republican "progress" is the best possible step America could take. Then we can maybe begin to grow a set of actual moral values, in which torture is wrong, war is something to be avoided, and our freedoms are something we protect rather than surrendering them so quickly as to make the french look steadfast. Everything this president has backed has been a horrible idea, either a corporate handout, a needless act of war, or a foolish attempt to appease his faux-moralist base. I honestly don't have much faith in the democrats, but the republicans have us on a path that will lead to the destruction of this country.

But no law requiring one to transact in any form of currency whatsoever.
The issue of restricting private currency production rests on a different principal to the issue of taxing those who choose to utilise the privledge of transacting in the government's money.
First of all, it's not an entirely separate issue. If people aren't allowed to use private currencies, that makes it much more difficult to conduct business without using the government's currency. So it's kind of silly to say "Taxes are the price you pay for using the government's money," because you're not allowed to use other money.

Sure it is possible to use a complete barter system, but does the government have a right to force people to choose between a complete barter system and it's own currency? It's as if the government manufactured shoes and only allowed individuals to manufacture cheap sandals. Technically, you would still have a choice to wear exclusively nothing but cheap sandals, but it wouldn't be very practical. The problem here is that the government is unfairly limiting our options.

Secondly, your premise is completely false. If your employer gives you a car, you have to mark it as part of your income and you still pay taxes on it even though you never used US currency. Then there's the issue of property taxes. You could have an income of 0 and still owe the government money just to keep the land you already paid for.

Wiping away the last six years of republican "progress" is the best possible step America could take. Then we can maybe begin to grow a set of actual moral values, in which torture is wrong, war is something to be avoided, and our freedoms are something we protect rather than surrendering them so quickly as to make the french look steadfast. Everything this president has backed has been a horrible idea, either a corporate handout, a needless act of war, or a foolish attempt to appease his faux-moralist base. I honestly don't have much faith in the democrats, but the republicans have us on a path that will lead to the destruction of this country.

I don't think you are going to find many people here disagreeing with you. The key question is whether voting Democrat is actually going to undo that stuff. In a two-party system, such as the U.S. has, it's the most viable option, but one fraught with its own pitfalls.

First of all, it's not an entirely separate issue. If people aren't allowed to use private currencies, that makes it much more difficult to conduct business without using the government's currency.
Yes it does, but that isnt caused by taxes, nor does it cause taxes. Some countries have taxes and encourage private currencies. So the two are not necessarily linked.

So it's kind of silly to say "Taxes are the price you pay for using the government's money," because you're not allowed to use other money.
Silly or not it is how things work. The principals are seperate. One is the principal of the sovereign entity to control commerce within its boundaries (the right to restrict other currencies), the other the government's choice to tax the money that it creates, underwrites, and in most if not all cases, legally owns (in my country for instance, legal tender is the property of the Reserve Bank).
What you are looking at is an effect of the intersection of the effects of two entirely seperate principals.

Sure it is possible to use a complete barter system, but does the government have a right to force people to choose between a complete barter system and it's own currency?
Yes. The state has sovereignty, and traditionally and legally this entails the right to restrict commerce within the state's recognised territories. It is a recognised right vested in sovereignty.

It's as if the government manufactured shoes and only allowed individuals to manufacture cheap sandals. Technically, you would still have a choice to wear exclusively nothing but cheap sandals, but it wouldn't be very practical. The problem here is that the government is unfairly limiting our options.
Then that is that principal you need to address, specifically an unreasonable exercise of the authority to limit and control commerce.

Secondly, your premise is completely false. If your employer gives you a car, you have to mark it as part of your income and you still pay taxes on it even though you never used US currency.
It is entirely possible to argue a run-on effect to the conditions of use. That too works for microsoft.
The government doesnt have to argue this though because they have the right to dictate in anything that can be deemed commercial. Payment for your labour can be construed as a commercial transaction, therefore the government can decree it taxable.
Then there's the issue of property taxes. You could have an income of 0 and still owe the government money just to keep the land you already paid for.
Land is another thing that private individuals as a rule never own. Ultimate land-rights are vested in sovereignty. In fact so far as I understand the notion that authority over commerce is vested in sovereignty stems from the ultimate land-rights throughout a particular territory. Land tax is more primitive than other forms of tax, in a vague abstract sense, other forms of tax are evolutionarily 'derived' from land tax.

To take issue with land tax is seperate again to the other issues being discussed. It branches off the stem of the branch that 'rights of all commerce' stem from (further down the branch)...;)

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

So let me sum up: If the Democrats win, then everything the Republicans did will reverse and the President will not be able to do anything?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. :D

So let me sum up: If the Democrats win, then everything the Republicans did will reverse and the President will not be able to do anything?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. :D
That would be fantastic!! :D

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto.
Much like the way the US went downhill in the 90's when it had a Dem pres and a GOP congress, eh?
All the way down to the horror, the horror, of compromise, which led to the twin evils of a balanced budget and a surplus. Not to mention the lowest unemployment rate and highest home ownership rate in decades.
Lord spare us from such evil!
Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control.
What work would that be specifically?
The massive unsustainable deficit or the increasingly unwinnable War on Terror(c)?

I don't really see much evidence of Democrats resticting economic freedoms.

What do you call high taxes and complicated government regulations on business and industry? That's exactly what it is.

The President would be unable to advance his agenda.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Much like the way the US went downhill in the 90's when it had a Dem pres and a GOP congress, eh?
All the way down to the horror, the horror, of compromise, which led to the twin evils of a balanced budget and a surplus. Not to mention the lowest unemployment rate and highest home ownership rate in decades.
Lord spare us from such evil!
Yeah, such a terrible period in US history. :rolleyes:

What work would that be specifically?
The massive unsustainable deficit or the increasingly unwinnable War on Terror(c)?
Didn't you know that the insurgency in Iraq is in its' last throes?

Daily Show on Cheney's "Last Throes" statement June 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSAtv6DKFyg)

Surely the war on terror can be wrapped up soon? :rolleyes:

Much like the way the US went downhill in the 90's when it had a Dem pres and a GOP congress, eh?
All the way down to the horror, the horror, of compromise, which led to the twin evils of a balanced budget and a surplus. Not to mention the lowest unemployment rate and highest home ownership rate in decades.
Lord spare us from such evil!

What work would that be specifically?
The massive unsustainable deficit or the increasingly unwinnable War on Terror(c)?

One of my favorite campaign moments this cycle was when Rick Santorum, while attempting to evoke the horrors of a Democratic Congress, talked about the recession that followed the 1993 Clinton tax hike. Yeah--he said recession that followed.

One of my favorite campaign moments this cycle was when Rick Santorum, while attempting to evoke the horrors of a Democratic Congress, talked about the recession that followed the 1993 Clinton tax hike. Yeah--he said recession that followed.
Just you wait though - I'm willing to bet that the "Clinton recession of '93" will be repeatedly played on the airwaves and on this forum very soon.

You do know what 'Santorum' means now, of course?

Oh like the Republican control in the Senate and the House we have gone really far. They repealed a deadline for the war in Iraq. Higher taxes for the middle class (again) slashed taxes for those witha 6 didget income and refused to raise the minimun wage. All republicans can do is sit by and watch our country go down the tolit wish Bush at the flusher. Only a democratic and independant controled houes and senate can fix what Bush has done to this once great country.

You know why you shouldn't vote demorcrate is the fact of Hillary Cliton (one of the banes of my excistance). She will start her plan "sending the country to hell". Serously you shouldnt have her in office anyways.

Bush would no longer be able to push through unlawful intiatives? I don't see the problem.

You know why you shouldn't vote demorcrate is the fact of Hillary Cliton (one of the banes of my excistance). She will start her plan "sending the country to hell". Serously you shouldnt have her in office anyways.

I don't take advice of people who can't spell "Clinton" right.

You know why you shouldn't vote demorcrate is the fact of Hillary Cliton (one of the banes of my excistance). She will start her plan "sending the country to hell". Serously you shouldnt have her in office anyways.
George Bush has already sent the US to hell.....it is a place called Iraq.

Hey I work for my money, he can do the same. It's not the government's place to take my money and give it to people like him, it's not charity, and it's not right. Now keep in mind I do give to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the Charlotte Diosce. However I do that under my own choice, which is what should be done.

Right. So we can take you off the list for ever receiving unemployment insurance, and you won't need your social security check, either. Neither will you need the police, or the firemen, or emergency medical technicians, so we'll take you off that list, too.

Then you can call a private firefighting company and pay them to put out your burning house, you can employ your own police force to protect the fewer possessions you'll have for having to pay private people to do these things your taxes pay for, and if you happen to lose your job or become too injured to work... well... too bad. Your own fault for falling off a ladder/getting hit by a drunk driver/getting mugged.

This thread is going to make my head explode...

I don't take advice of people who can't spell "Clinton" right.
or
Democrat
existance
seriously
shouldn't

and of course display poor grammar.

I don't take advice of people who can't spell "Clinton" right.
I think that was a purposeful misspelling of Clinton.

Hmm.

Well, it's not as though they would have a 2/3 majority in both houses. So, although they would have a majority, it's not complete control.

And, as we've noticed with the so-called Republican "majority", they don't always vote in lock step, either. There are splits.

Pelosi is grandstanding. Sure, people who support her want to hear this - but the odds of it actually succeeding is something else.

Try overriding Presidential vetos.

That's why I think it's pretty silly when people say, "OMFG! Bush controls everything!"

Notice that he doesn't always get what he wants out of Congress. If he was really "controlling everything", he would get everything he wanted, all the time.

Hey I work for my money, he can do the same. It's not the government's place to take my money and give it to people like him, it's not charity, and it's not right.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

The writers of the Constitution would disagree.

That why Tax breaks work.

How far in debt is the US now?

I think that was a purposeful misspelling of Clinton.

Well the I feel really sorry for them...:(

How far in debt is the US now?

Has any party really got us out of debt? No.

So let me sum up: If the Democrats win, then everything the Republicans did will reverse and the President will not be able to do anything?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. :DI wish... Sadly, it will take a lot longer than that to undo the damage :(

How far in debt is the US now?

$8,548,405,662,756.47 as of 30 seconds ago. Bedcaues of Republicans stupid tax breaks to the rich.

What do you call high taxes and complicated government regulations on business and industry? That's exactly what it is.

wake up and smell the coffee. the republican party is no longer the party of rational government. they only held that title when they were OUT of power. now that they are IN power, they are more excessive than the democrats ever were.

the only thing worse than high taxes is cutting taxes in a time of record high spending and deficits. just how big a debt do you want to leave your children and grandchildren? the republicans seem to think the more the better.

you want to talk about burdensom regulations? bill frist got an "anti-internet gambling" provision tacked onto the end of the port security bill that requires your bank to monitor EVERY money transfer to make sure its not going to an offshore gambling site. this little addendum is going to cost the banks billions of dollars to impliment. oh yeah, they are in favor of small government except when its on their agenda to have it be big government.

stop living in the past. the republican party has moved on. you should too.

$8,548,405,662,756.47 as of 30 seconds ago. Bedcaues of Republicans stupid tax breaks to the rich.

Sorry, most of that debt was accrued long before the tax breaks...

Has any party really got us out of debt? No.

Oh, then I guess I must have imagined the surplus that the US had before Bush came into office. My mistake.

Has any party really got us out of debt? No.
Has any party gotten you this far into debt?
Just one.

Has any party gotten you this far into debt?
Just one.

Actually, both parties excel at it. It just depends on what they spend the money on.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America.

Totaly wrong.

The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats,

GOOD! Bush's agenda has seriously harmed the US.

congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto.

Which is as it should be. Congress and the exec. at odds is the best state of affairs for the US.

Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control.

It'll take lomnger than a week to repair what Bush has done.

So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

Nope. Bush and his goddamned christofacists backers will have this usual GOP voter voting for other candidates this time and in 2008, unless the GOP or a 3rd part puts up an accepotable candidate.

(BTW, the repliers are simple. Your post was simple. Mayhapse the replies were simple enough. If not I'll dumb them down.)

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

Congradulations on posting so many reasons people SHOULD vote Democratic.

$8,548,405,662,756.47 as of 30 seconds ago. Bedcaues of Republicans stupid tax breaks to the rich.

That really has nothing to do with the massive deficit. It's mostly because of the Iraq war.

Raising taxes on the rich,

Well, they are the ones who can afford it, and the ones who have all the tax loopholes. . .

Well, they are the ones who can afford it, and the ones who have all the tax loopholes. . .

Yes, like so many were closed during the decades of Democratic control of the House and Senate (ROFLMAO).

Oh, then I guess I must have imagined the surplus that the US had before Bush came into office. My mistake.

Actually yes, you did. There was a budget surplus if you didn't count the total debt owed, but the US was and is nowhere near paying off the actual debt.

Democrats CANNOT gain power.
They will turn us Socialist.
America has a socialist party and a capitalist party.
I vote Republican, I vote Capitalist.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge basic reasoning or historical fact.

Socialism is flawed.
It will weaken america.
Viva La Republica!!!

Anyway.
Someone misappraised the republican agenda.

Democrats like to tax and spend.
Republicans hate to tax, and are forced to spend.

Republicans are forced to spend :rolleyes: Yeah Right, President Bush had not veto not one spending bill in his life in the White House. Also If The Repubicians win in Nov, they will turn this country into a dependent nation for life

As far as tax breaks, the progressive tax rate system is what shrank the gap between rich and poor. Tax cuts for the rich undermine the progressive tax rate and widen the gap between rich and poor. I agree with the Democrats there. But I disagree with them on the subject of across-the-board cuts.
Across-the-board tax cut =/= tax cuts for the rich.


Unless the rich are not on the board yes cutting taxes across the board = tax cuts for the rich . . .

Has any party really got us out of debt? No.

Bill Clinton had us out of debt and making money.

Bill Clinton had us out of debt and making money.

Actually, the total amount of debt was not eliminated - we were just balancing the books for a short time on a yearly basis.

The trillions of dollars of debt was still in effect.

Just you wait though - I'm willing to bet that the "Clinton recession of '93" will be repeatedly played on the airwaves and on this forum very soon.

You do know what 'Santorum' means now, of course?Know? I google-bombed the hell out of it right after Dan Savage broke the definition.

And I've also been saying for months that any Dem who gets hit with the "tax hikes hurt the economy" charge should simply answer "They worked in 1993." No further elaboration, nothing. If the Republicans want to adhere to the stupid idea that tax cuts always make for a stronger economy, we ought to point to a period everyone remembers where a tax hike stimulated the economy.

Yes, like so many were closed during the decades of Democratic control of the House and Senate (ROFLMAO).

And DK jumps in with yet another statement that has nothing to do with my argument.

Actually yes, you did. There was a budget surplus if you didn't count the total debt owed, but the US was and is nowhere near paying off the actual debt.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that for a few years, on paper, Clinton had us not spending more PER YEAR than we were taking in.

Did nothing to reduce the total debt to any significant degree - that's why there are Treasury bills in circulation all over the world.

I'm sure it would have been international news if the T-bill suddenly no longer existed.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that for a few years, on paper, Clinton had us not spending more PER YEAR than we were taking in.

Did nothing to reduce the total debt to any significant degree - that's why there are Treasury bills in circulation all over the world.

I'm sure it would have been international news if the T-bill suddenly no longer existed.

It's because they don't get the difference between the deficit and the debt. Clinton had us running in the positive and making inroads--small though they were--on the national debt. Of course, we've doubled what Clinton added to the debt during his tenure just in the last 5 years.

After I saw what republicans did to our country I will never vote for one again. I'll look at independants, Greens, Constitutions whatever but If I don't know the issues I just go down the list checking the names with a (d) next to them beacuse I KNOW that republicans do nothing but bad for this country. The anti-slavery group that opposed large government is gone replaced with a corruption filled buracracy.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

Running scared, are you?

Good show.

Just you wait though - I'm willing to bet that the "Clinton recession of '93" will be repeatedly played on the airwaves and on this forum very soon.

You do know what 'Santorum' means now, of course?

Yes I do....and I find it fitting for the man's legacy that his name be forever attached to the remains of anal sex.

Running scared, are you?

Good show.
They have reason. The polls don't look good for them (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/).
For the first time since 2001, the NEWSWEEK poll shows that more Americans trust the Democrats than the GOP on moral values and the war on terror. Fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including 10 percent of Republicans, compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power. If the election were held today, 51 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat in their district versus 39 percent who would vote for the Republican. And while the race is closer among male voters (46 percent for the Democrats vs. 42 percent for the Republicans), the Democrats lead among women voters 56 to 34 percent.
And Bush? He's down to 33% approval again.

Actually, both parties excel at it. It just depends on what they spend the money on.
Great avoidance of my question.

So, I ask again:
Has any party gotten you this far into debt?



(I'll give you a clue, DK: it has three letters, starts with G, ends in P and rhymes with slop)

Great avoidance of my question.
That's his forte.

Hey, I have a wild idea! Or more of a statement!

*Delivers papers to White house*

The letter entails this;

"To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we the British Empire hereby give you notice of the revocation of your independance, effective today.

Signed
HRH Queen Elizabeth II"

You are left with no choice, it is for the better I say...:upyours:

Great avoidance of my question.

So, I ask again:
Has any party gotten you this far into debt?

(I'll give you a clue, DK: it has three letters, starts with G, ends in P and rhymes with slop)

If we figure that until the Republicans took control of the House in the early 1990s, the Democrats ran the budget, then yes, in terms of real dollars, the Democrats ran us into equivalent debt.

If we figure that until the Republicans took control of the House in the early 1990s, the Democrats ran the budget, then yes, in terms of real dollars, the Democrats ran us into equivalent debt.So Reagan had nothing to do with it?

Well, I agree.

Unless another party is formed in America, you guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side you have hippies and the other you have crazed un-educated Southerners. I say you guys pick 1 of 2 options.
1st) Revoke independance (My favourite)
2nd) Massive Coup'De'Ta, you all can bear arms... So start using them!

George -> :headbang: :mp5: <--- American People

So Reagan had nothing to do with it?

They could have stopped him, eh?

They were in complete control of the House and Senate for decades. Don't try to wiggle out of the trillions of dollars that were spent.

Or you could just vote vote for a smaller party? Everyone feels like they're throwing away their vote when they do it but I think throwing your vote away is when you vote for either of the two shitty leading parties.

They could have stopped him, eh?

They were in complete control of the House and Senate for decades. Don't try to wiggle out of the trillions of dollars that were spent.

Newt tried that, and Clinton refused to sign the budget, and the shutdown caused the Republican Congress no end of grief.

The Democratic Congress during Reagan certainly bears some of the responsibility, but not all of it as you seem to be implying--which is no surprise, by the way. However, if the Reagan economy was as wonderful as most Republicans like to argue that it was, then under your logic, the Dems actually deserve credit for it, since they were running the budget. So what's it going to be?

A lot of people don't seem to understand that for a few years, on paper, Clinton had us not spending more PER YEAR than we were taking in.
What you dont seem to understand is only incurring interest is a high acheivement, to 'balance the books' to the point of servicing interest payments so the debt merely keeps pace with inflations is genius, to actually service the debt itself, that is a friggen miracle. Bimbo though he undoubtably is, Billy-boy's track record with the nation's finances stands out as exceptional.

Did nothing to reduce the total debt to any significant degree - that's why there are Treasury bills in circulation all over the world.
Given the facts simply balancing the books was a huge and significant achievement. Your apparent failure to recognise the significance of Bimbo-bob's achievement in this regard entirely discredits anything you have to say about national budgets and deficits.

I'm sure it would have been international news if the T-bill suddenly no longer existed.
The fact is, Clinton the deficit is reduced, Bush & Co. Ltd it rises. If you care about the economy, if you care about fiscal responsibility, then on their track record throughout the last decade, the Democrates are who you'd have to support.

Well, I agree.

Unless another party is formed in America, you guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side you have hippies and the other you have crazed un-educated Southerners. I say you guys pick 1 of 2 options.
1st) Revoke independance (My favourite)
2nd) Massive Coup'De'Ta, you all can bear arms... So start using them!

George -> :headbang: :mp5: <--- American People

I haven't such a sweeping generalization in I don't know how long, thanks!

I did get a chuckle out of the Queen revoking our independence, as if it were something granted us by the Brits. And a "massive coup d'etat" in the US is called an election.

Zeegat, Inflation has nothing to do with Fiscal Policy... Its the Reserve bank that conflicts with that, so infact clinton didnt need to do any balencing by your logic....

I was abit to lazy to read through all 7 pages, I think I Did 4 or 5. Regardless. You knwo what we should do? Every single person in america needs to vote for Ralph Nader (If he runs again)! Start some sort of propganda and stuff.. have your friends vote for ralph nader.. your friends friends vote for ralph nader.. your dog vote for ralph nader! Show those jackass democrats and corrupt republicans who's boss! RALPH NADER FTW!

I haven't such a sweeping generalization in I don't know how long, thanks!

I did get a chuckle out of the Queen revoking our independence, as if it were something granted us by the Brits. And a "massive coup d'etat" in the US is called an election.


Ahh, well the Commonwealth always has a spot for the U.S.
We dont have that old mad George as our head of state anymore! That means taxes are lower under the Elizabeth Monarchy... Allthough if you join, Utah will have to be its own nation due to the fact the queen doesnt quite fancy Utah.

Zeegat, Inflation has nothing to do with Fiscal Policy... Its the Reserve bank that conflicts with that, so infact clinton didnt need to do any balencing by your logic....
What are you talking about?

Everyone here is talking about minor parties...out of interest, why is noone in America talking about proportional representation and other constitutional reform? In Britain it's a middling political issue that seems to be slowly moving up the agenda, and it seems to me America needs it a lot more, what with Mugabe-lite stuff like gerrymandering going on.

Well Zagrat, I hate to break it to you but let me explain this.
Fiscal = Government deals with
Monetary = Reserve Bank deals with, it is put there to control inflation.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

I'm deffinately voting Democrat, but for the extreme opposite reason: The Republican president and his cabinet are incompetant morons, obsessed with terrorism and utterly lacking in ability to manage our nation. I hope to god that the Democrats, when they get elected, undue all the shit the Republicans have done, which ruin this country (i.e The PATRIOT Act, which is a misnomer, the Torture Bill, which is a crime and whoever presented it should be tried for war crimes, and everything else they've done.)


I swear to god, if the Democrats are not elected, I will leave the United States, and not return until a reasonable regieme is put in power.

Everyone here is talking about minor parties...out of interest, why is noone in America talking about proportional representation and other constitutional reform? In Britain it's a middling political issue that seems to be slowly moving up the agenda, and it seems to me America needs it a lot more, what with Mugabe-lite stuff like gerrymandering going on.

Largely because if there's been one thing the two major parties have been very effective at doing together, it's reducing the potential for a third party of any stature to emerge.

Well Zagrat, I hate to break it to you but let me explain this.
Fiscal = Government deals with
Monetary = Reserve Bank deals with, it is put there to control inflation.
None of this is news to me honey. What does mystify me is what possible relevence you think this has in terms of my post...

I will leave the United States, and not return until a reasonable regieme is put in power.

You might be away for some time, in that case. Quite some time.

None of this is news to me honey. What does mystify me is what possible relevence you think this has in terms of my post...

You were saying, Clintons spending was done to level inflation, and my recent updates on this show differently.

When you take a 1st year economic's class, you will learn that government only deals with fiscal... Also when you lose your independance to the British Empire, we will teach you astronomy in Science, where you can learn that the Sun is actually a star. Recent statistics have shown 48% of Americans didnt know that.

You might be away for some time, in that case. Quite some time.

Meh, I like Hockey anyway ;)


(Looks forward to Canada)


Australian Rules Football is awsome too.....

Meh, I like Hockey anyway ;)


(Looks forward to Canada)


Australian Rules Football is awsome too.....

Its AFL, and Rugby beats it hands down...

Canada, nice choice.... Pancakes and Maple syrup! I congradulate you're joining of a Commonwealth Nation. You should also consider Gibraltar, what a nice economy they have.

Its AFL, and Rugby beats it hands down...

Canada, nice choice.... Pancakes and Maple syrup! I congradulate you're joining of a Commonwealth Nation. You should also consider Gibraltar, what a nice economy they have.

haha, not a chance in hell of me going to Gibraltar.


Canada or Australia all the way!

Which is their own fault, so why should people who know how to manage their money keep on giving them more when we all know they'll just spend that too?
It’s not their fault if they were born into background which failed to instill the willpower and knowledge necessary to handle money.

They have reason. The polls don't look good for them (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/).

And Bush? He's down to 33% approval again.

BTW, thanks for that one Nazz. :D

Ahh, well the Commonwealth always has a spot for the U.S.
We dont have that old mad George as our head of state anymore! That means taxes are lower under the Elizabeth Monarchy... Allthough if you join, Utah will have to be its own nation due to the fact the queen doesnt quite fancy Utah.

Give up Utah? Hmm ... let me think about that. Okay! :p

BTW, thanks for that one Nazz. :D

You're more than welcome. ;)

If we figure that until the Republicans took control of the House in the early 1990s, the Democrats ran the budget, then yes, in terms of real dollars, the Democrats ran us into equivalent debt.

The current account deficit now is running at about 6.6 percent of GDP, compared to 1.5 percent in 1995.

Let's look at public debt as a % of GDP over the last 25 years:
In 1980 the public debt was 33.3% of GDP ($930.2 Billion)
In 1985 the public debt was 43.9% of GDP ($1,817.4 Billion)
In 1990 the public debt was 55.9% of GDP ($3,233.3 Billion)
In 1995 the public debt was 67.2% of GDP ($4,920.5 Billion)
In 2000 the public debt was 58.0% of GDP ($5,674.2 Billion)
In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP ($7,932.7 Billion)
estimate for 2010: public debt will be 68.2% of GDP ($10,982.7 Billion)
(taken from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf)

Gee...I can only see one 5 year period, 1995-2000, there where debt fell (and fell significantly) as a % of GDP. All the other 5 yr periods, it rose markedly.
Now let's see:
which party had the presidency between 1980 to 1985, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 10%?
which party had the presidency between 1985 to 1990, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 12%?
which party had the presidency between 1990 to 1995, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 11%?
which party had the presidency between 1995 to 2000, where debt/GDP% ratio fell by 9%?
which party had the presidency between 2000 to 2005, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 7%?

Give up Utah? Hmm ... let me think about that. Okay! :p

:D glad to have you aboard! Now for our last plans in the Revocation of Independance, you all need to travel to Boston, grab american Coffee, and throw it into the harbour! BEGIN TRAVEL!
Coffee --> :gundge: <--- Throwing into Boston harbour

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?

it seems to me that a man with no money is not economically free, because he is unable to purchase anything.


Its not the giving it to people who need it thats bad ...we do it now .

ITS who gets to decide who they are going to steal it from by force and then give it to someone else thats bad.

See they must take it from ONE group to be able to just GIVE it to another.

And when you WORK real hard for the money you get ...well someone saying " YOU HAVE ENOUGH GIVE ME THE REST " will not provoke joy .

Witness in fact the recent slew of Democrats that have been elected ....

Ooops there are none...TAX cuts work..I got three in last three years and make less than 100,000.00 a year so I AM NOT FUCKING RICH .


Pelosi makes me want to hurl. But most all politicions do...so hey ...

We will see...lets vote baby..

Witness in fact the recent slew of Democrats that have been elected ....

Ooops there are none...

What recent, there hasn't been an election in 2 years.

I'll return you to this thread in 6 weeks.

As part of this Revocation;

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be contacting you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due [backdated to 1776]

The current account deficit now is running at about 6.6 percent of GDP, compared to 1.5 percent in 1995.

Let's look at public debt as a % of GDP over the last 25 years:
In 1980 the public debt was 33.3% of GDP ($930.2 Billion)
In 1985 the public debt was 43.9% of GDP ($1,817.4 Billion)
In 1990 the public debt was 55.9% of GDP ($3,233.3 Billion)
In 1995 the public debt was 67.2% of GDP ($4,920.5 Billion)
In 2000 the public debt was 58.0% of GDP ($5,674.2 Billion)
In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP ($7,932.7 Billion)
estimate for 2010: public debt will be 68.2% of GDP ($10,982.7 Billion)
(taken from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf)

Gee...I can only see one 5 year period, 1995-2000, there where debt fell (and fell significantly) as a % of GDP. All the other 5 yr periods, it rose markedly.
Now let's see:
which party had the presidency between 1980 to 1985, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 10%?
which party had the presidency between 1985 to 1990, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 12%?
which party had the presidency between 1990 to 1995, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 11%?
which party had the presidency between 1995 to 2000, where debt/GDP% ratio fell by 9%?
which party had the presidency between 2000 to 2005, where debt/GDP% ratio grew by 7%?


And the dow hit the record this week then broke it and we have the strongest economy we have ever had in the last twenty years despite wwar ...disaster and democrats..

So your numbers are really like cool and all but they mean absolutely NOTHING in the real world of HOW MUCH IS IN MY POCKET and Unemployment id below 5 percent for years...etc etc.

I laugh heartily at the man trying to show me how bad things are for economically while I am earning and keeping more of my money than I EVER did under a Democrat... Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahaaa.

Thats reality jack.

" WHATS IN YOUR WALLET " ?

If by SOME miracle or stupidity they actually do win anything that counts....they have two years to fuck things up so bad that even if Satan ran for President as a Republican it would be a landslide win FOR SATAN ...

And the dow hit the record this week then broke it and we have the strongest economy we have ever had in the last twenty years despite wwar ...disaster and democrats..

So your numbers are really like cool and all but they mean absolutely NOTHING in the real world of HOW MUCH IS IN MY POCKET and Unemployment id below 5 percent for years...etc etc.

I laugh heartily at the man trying to show me how bad things are for economically while I am earning and keeping more of my money than I EVER did under a Democrat... Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahaaa.

Thats reality jack.

" WHATS IN YOUR WALLET " ?

I agree... Every word there is true...
Not only does America do well with Republican government, they also protect your interests.. Such as invasion of Iraq (Which cost alot) but will pay off since you guys now own their oil which accounts for a large amount of the worlds oil production. You will be the last nation to still be driving cars. And when your petrol prices do reach $7 U.S, like most other nations especially in Europe then you can say, If we had democrats in here, we would have no Oil at this point in time.

I agree with every word of this post.

Then vote for the libertarian party :)

I would if I was allowed to vote...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28US%29

And the dow hit the record this week then broke it and we have the strongest economy we have ever had in the last twenty years despite wwar ...disaster and democrats..

So your numbers are really like cool and all but they mean absolutely NOTHING in the real world of HOW MUCH IS IN MY POCKET and Unemployment id below 5 percent for years...etc etc.

I laugh heartily at the man trying to show me how bad things are for economically while I am earning and keeping more of my money than I EVER did under a Democrat... Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahaaa.

Thats reality jack.

" WHATS IN YOUR WALLET " ?
Good for you. You're earning more now than previous.
Gee, I guess that means everyone is. :rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html
Real median earnings of full-time working males fell nearly 2 percent last year, according to the Census Bureau, while the real wages of working women fell by 1.3 percent.
More than one-third of homeowners are spending more than 30 percent of their income on the cost of housing, a level that pushes the edge of affordability.
The number of Americans without health coverage rose by 1.3 million last year, up to 46.6 million, according to the Census Bureau. What's worse, more than one in 10 American children are now uninsured...the cost of family health insurance, in fact, is up 87 percent since 2000.
the total cost of tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public colleges and universities has ballooned 44 percent over the past four years.

What recent, there hasn't been an election in 2 years.
shhh..don't upset him with facts and reality. You know such things only confuse and irritate the old curmudgeon.

Not to mention that as an indicator of the strength of the overall economy, the Dow is a pretty shitty one, because all it really tracks is corporate profit. And even by that measure, what was really accomplished this week? Oh yeah, it got back above where it was when Clinton was President. Whoopty-fucking-do. That means that in terms of the Dow, we've been running in place for six fucking years. Hell of a record of accomplishment there.

Good for you. You're earning more now than previous.
Gee, I guess that means everyone is. :rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html

I hate to break it to you, but it is alot worse in other nations. In most nations Housing accounts for most of Disposable Income... And you are complaining? Jeez you bring ignorance to the saying "American Pig"

Not to mention that as an indicator of the strength of the overall economy, the Dow is a pretty shitty one, because all it really tracks is corporate profit. And even by that measure, what was really accomplished this week? Oh yeah, it got back above where it was when Clinton was President. Whoopty-fucking-do. That means that in terms of the Dow, we've been running in place for six fucking years. Hell of a record of accomplishment there.

Yeah well, now they'll just find an even shittier barometer to point fingers at in blind, unwavering support of Fearless Leader®.

I keep forgetting that this is the message board from the game specifically designed for people who think they understand politics, but don't.

Do you remember the last time the President and Congress were controlled by different parties? The Clinton Era! The most economically succesful period in American history! We had a booming tech sector, welfare reform, crime rate decline, national debt decline in both actual amount and as a percent of GDP, the furthering of rights for both employed women and for homosexuals, and a foreign policy that actually worked!

If you believe that a mixed-party government is going to be some sort of Apolcalyptic stagnation, then you really need to get your facts straight. Keep in mind that the Democrats controlled Congress for FORTY YEARS STRAIGHT, through several Republican presidents.

Have you noticed when this nation has done its absolute WORST? It's when the same party controls the Executive and the Legislative branch! The Republicans, who still firmly believe that "Reaganomics" still works despite all empiricaly evidence to the contrary, have ruined the Pax Americana started in the Clinton era. The end of this era, of Libertarian-style Christian conservatism, is nothing but good for the United States.

If we're lucky, the new Democratic party will have the rocks to step up to an impeachment process. Violating the FISA Act, endangering democracy with overabundant signing statements, organizing illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay, lying under oath to the jury of Congress, dereliction of duty, and so on, those things do not bode well for the President. The GOA- Government Accountability Office, a genuine legislative entity -has actually declared openly, on the record, that the President has committed impeachable offenses, most notably the use of "subsersive propaganda," such as through the use of taxpayer money to bribe Armstrong Williams to promote No Child Left Behind, the bribing of seven Miami reporters to make up stories defaming Fidel Castro, again using taxpayer money, and the creation of TV commercials designed to look like authentic news stories promoting a privatized medical system.

The GAO does not have the power to impeach, or to otherwise check the executive branch. Fortunately, the Democratic Congress will, and it will save this country.

I hate to break it to you, but it is alot worse in other nations. In most nations Housing accounts for most of Disposable Income... And you are complaining? Jeez you bring ignorance to the saying "American Pig"

Yeah, but we're not talking about other countries. We're talking about which party will be in control of the upcoming Congress in the US. What's going on in the economies of other countries isn't exactly a hot-button issue for the US voter.

And the dow hit the record this week then broke it and we have the strongest economy we have ever had in the last twenty years despite wwar ...disaster and democrats..

So your numbers are really like cool and all but they mean absolutely NOTHING in the real world of HOW MUCH IS IN MY POCKET and Unemployment id below 5 percent for years...etc etc.

I laugh heartily at the man trying to show me how bad things are for economically while I am earning and keeping more of my money than I EVER did under a Democrat... Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahaaa.

Ok... Say you borrow $100,000 - you have $100,000 in your pocket. Does that make you $100,000 richer?

If the government borrows $5000 and puts it into your pocket through indirect means (tax cuts, increased government spending) but will have to take it back some day to pay for the loan it took out are you $5000 richer? Or do you have $5000 that you will eventually have to pay back through some means (most likely indirectly, like the governemt cutting the services it provides to you)

I always think it is funny that Democrats are considered left wing in the States. They would be far right in Belgium (which is where I am from)and in most of Europe.

What do progressive people do in America? Cry? Wait for a Democrat who manges to hide what he really thinks?

Yeah, but we're not talking about other countries. We're talking about which party will be in control of the upcoming Congress in the US. What's going on in the economies of other countries isn't exactly a hot-button issue for the US voter.

It should be.. Considering you guys have a current account deficit, and are basicly pure consumerists. you need other nations. And especially nations like Australia, China, Canada, India and Japan to provide you with goods and primary resources that you dont make on your own. Dont forget the American Economy isnt driven by America itself...

What do progressive people do in America? Cry? Wait for a Democrat who manges to hide what he really thinks?
We've done a lot of that in recent years, though lately we've done well in getting our folks into races. Again, you have to realize that even progressives in the US are to the right of what you would consider progressive, but we're making inroads.

It should be.. Considering you guys have a current account deficit, and are basicly pure consumerists. you need other nations. And especially nations like Australia, China, Canada, India and Japan to provide you with goods and primary resources that you dont make on your own. Dont forget the American Economy isnt driven by America itself...

Probably half of the US population doesn't understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt, and you want them to understand the economies of other countries? Hell, over half of the country is probably more interested in American Idol than in the midterms. You have to make do with what you've got.

Probably half of the US population doesn't understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt, and you want them to understand the economies of other countries? Hell, over half of the country is probably more interested in American Idol than in the midterms. You have to make do with what you've got.

Thats why I thank god every day, that in 40 years you will no longer be a superpower...And in 50 you will no longer exist. Have fun trying to police the world while you can. And when your population decides Education is worth the time, it will be too late.

Thats why I thank god every day, that in 40 years you will no longer be a superpower...And in 50 you will no longer exist. Have fun trying to police the world while you can. And when your population decides Education is worth the time, it will be too late.Empires have fallen and their countries have continued to exist, so I think your prophecy might be a bit off.

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?

it seems to me that a man with no money is not economically free, because he is unable to purchase anything.

Many of those who have no money have none because they don't go out and get a job. They always vote Democratic because they know they can get stuff from Democrats for free. Isn't the concept of distributing wealth communistic anyway. We have a free market based economy which means poeple rise and fall on their own merits. Those who are not willing to find jobs or ways to benefit the nation are mostly those who are not willing to work, they want handouts.

Didn't JFK (a Democrat of all people) say "Ask not what your country can for you. Ask what you can do for your country,"?

I hope the Democrats don't take control of Congress for the reasons listed by the starter of the topic and also because of moral issues.
Also, I think Democrats would not be suited for taking up the reins of the War on Terror and the Iraq war.

Empires have fallen and their countries have continued to exist, so I think your prophecy might be a bit off.

Thats the great thing about the U.S, you are not an Empire... You have nothing to fall back on. Eventually if your nation doesnt turn Totalitarian (lucky you can bear arms to stop that) they will eventually be attacked by China, India and possibly a Coalition of Terrorists. Soon you will be whistling Dixie as the saying goes.

Thats the great thing about the U.S, you are not an Empire... You have nothing to fall back on. Eventually if your nation doesnt turn Totalitarian (lucky you can bear arms to stop that) they will eventually be attacked by China, India and possibly a Coalition of Terrorists. Soon you will be whistling Dixie as the saying goes.

Ah. So that's why you said something so utterly inane in your last post--you have no idea what you're talking about. The US is decidedly an empire, and like all empires, it will eventually crumble, and it will go with a whimper instead of a bang, and it may happen relatively soon. And the US as a nation may not survive--but empires that have fallen in the past have often kept their national identity intact, and there's a fairly good chance it will happen here as well.

Ah. So that's why you said something so utterly inane in your last post--you have no idea what you're talking about. The US is decidedly an empire, and like all empires, it will eventually crumble, and it will go with a whimper instead of a bang, and it may happen relatively soon. And the US as a nation may not survive--but empires that have fallen in the past have often kept their national identity intact, and there's a fairly good chance it will happen here as well.

Really? Just like the Zulu's? The Romans? the Mongols? All great civilisations and sadly met with a bang. They no longer exist.

Ok... Say you borrow $100,000 - you have $100,000 in your pocket. Does that make you $100,000 richer?

If the government borrows $5000 and puts it into your pocket through indirect means (tax cuts, increased government spending) but will have to take it back some day to pay for the loan it took out are you $5000 richer? Or do you have $5000 that you will eventually have to pay back through some means (most likely indirectly, like the governemt cutting the services it provides to you)

The real economy in the uS has been expanding for three years the Dow is up and ..we are at war and and have had multiple disasters since 2001.

Thats the reality dude . So like the deficit go's down ...like it did this year a bit..and the war ends( ???? ) and the disasters calmn down and the defficit spending is discontinued...

But you keep MISSING the fact that DESPITE deficits and disasters and wars the US economy has GROWN for the last three years and the DOW aand Unemployment are at all time records ...high for one and low for others..and the econmy is so resilient it can take multiple hits in one year and STILL grow .

And I didnt borrow crap...I worked HARD and got paid and I made a small fortune in the stock market for the last two years..( 401 k baby ) .

And I dont want to pay more taxes than the 34 percent of my income I am already fucking paying . NOT to mention sales tax and gas tax and the rest of the fuckling tax .

See I wont spend or invest if I am too busy getting my money stolen by idiocrats...Show me BOB CASY and others like him who aggree tax cuts work and are working and stimulate economic growth...you know LIKE ITS BEEN PROVEN BECAUSE ITS HAPPENING...and I'll vote for every Democrat you can stick in front of me...But give me an asshole like Pelosi and her gang ???

I will vote for Elmer Fudd first .

Someone had some bad mushooms in their latte...they are saying the US is an empire ....


Yo dude better go wiki or just look in a dictionary and try to make THAT comment fit with reality.

Really? Just like the Zulu's? The Romans? the Mongols? All great civilisations and sadly met with a bang. They no longer exist.
I was thinking more along the lines of the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russians--more modern empires that rose, fell, and still maintained their national identity even as their international influence waned. What's the matter? Is that a little inconvenient for your "theory?"

The real economy in the uS has been expanding for three years the Dow is up and ..we are at war and and have had multiple disasters since 2001.

Thats the reality dude . So like the deficit go's down ...like it did this year a bit..and the war ends( ???? ) and the disasters calmn down and the defficit spending is discontinued...

But you keep MISSING the fact that DESPITE deficits and disasters and wars the US economy has GROWN for the last three years and the DOW aand Unemployment are at all time records ...high for one and low for others..and the econmy is so resilient it can take multiple hits in one year and STILL grow .

And I didnt borrow crap...I worked HARD and got paid and I made a small fortune in the stock market for the last two years..( 401 k baby ) .

And I dont want to pay more taxes than the 34 percent of my income I am already fucking paying . NOT to mention sales tax and gas tax and the rest of the fuckling tax .

See I wont spend or invest if I am too busy getting my money stolen by idiocrats...Show me BOB CASY and others like him who aggree tax cuts work and are working and stimulate economic growth...you know LIKE ITS BEEN PROVEN BECAUSE ITS HAPPENING...and I'll vote for every Democrat you can stick in front of me...But give me an asshole like Pelosi and her gang ???

I will vote for Elmer Fudd first .

Someone had some bad mushooms in their latte...they are saying the US is an empire ....


Yo dude better go wiki or just look in a dictionary and try to make THAT comment fit with reality.

Agreed, more proof this other guy is talking crap, To be an empire you need to have colonies... AMERICA HAS NONE!! This is why your education system needs more money rather than 400billion going into your military. Atleast provide some competition for the Chinese for christs sake!

Really? Just like the Zulu's? The Romans? the Mongols? All great civilisations and sadly met with a bang. They no longer exist.
i'm sure Nazz will render this post invalid, but Italy was still there the last time I checked. And there's Mongolia to consider, too.

I was thinking more along the lines of the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russians--more modern empires that rose, fell, and still maintained their national identity even as their international influence waned. What's the matter? Is that a little inconvenient for your "theory?"
I agree. Our xenophobia will ensure that. Americans are incapable of taking a middle road in world affairs.
For most people, the general attitude is, "if they aren’t going to let us run the world, then we will have nothing to do with them."

I was thinking more along the lines of the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russians--more modern empires that rose, fell, and still maintained their national identity even as their international influence waned. What's the matter? Is that a little inconvenient for your "theory?"

No, that means you are wrong... Clearly I have shown you Empires can and do fall.. U.S is not an Empire as you say, define empire and you will find it needs colonies. America is at best described as a Superpower, And I assure you it will fall within our lifetime.

And I didnt borrow crap...I worked HARD and got paid and I made a small fortune in the stock market for the last two years..( 401 k baby ) .

And I dont want to pay more taxes than the 34 percent of my income I am already fucking paying . NOT to mention sales tax and gas tax and the rest of the fuckling tax .

Imagine you own a part of a compay - but can't sell the shares, you must recoup your investment via dividents, but the company can also demand you cough up capital. The company is not doing well, but come dividend time the company borrows a whole heap of money and gives some to you as a part of the dividend. You own you share of the dividend, but you also own your share of the debt created to pay it. When the company makes a capital demand to repay the debt incurred to give you your dividend you end up exactly where you started or worse.

That is what happens if the US economy is propped up by borrowing. Eventually you'll ahve to repay your share of the loan.

Definitions of empire on the Web:

the domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised
a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"
a monarchy with an emperor as head of state
conglomerate: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
an eating apple that somewhat resembles a McIntosh; used as both an eating and a cooking apple
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

----An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire


Is the US an empire? To answer this question, I am compelled to offer the response that many academics use, which is: it depends on the definition. Empire is a term of abuse to the extent that the real question might be, "Do you like the US or the US administration?"

Is the US an empire? It is a useful question for at least three reasons. First, the question is being asked around the world, even in the US. Second, it may be interesting to examine US power in general. Third, an empire is about more than power. An empire's rise and fall can affect the livelihood of many people, including those in other countries. For these people, the collapse of an empire would be unpleasant. Examining this question can help us to determine which values are dominant.

My presentation will explore four issues: the meaning of empire; the nature of power; the nature of US power; and the strengths and weaknesses of US power.

Let's try to define the concept empire. Empires have been around for thousands of years. Karl Marx looked at modern empires as extensions of modern capitalism. I do not find this approach useful because if you want parallels, the US is more like ancient empires than modern. European empires were exclusionary; there was a distinction between the core and the periphery. Rome and China, by contrast, were more assimilative. At the end of the Roman Empire, for example, many emperors were not even Roman.

The British Empire was about colonization, about making new Britains. British rule in India was more like a traditional land empire. So a broader context is needed. Defining "empire" requires caution: it is not just a curse word. Traditional empires were more often loose alliances: more like the relationship between George Bush and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia than that between Mr. Bush and the governor of Utah.

Nowadays any empire is seen as illegitimate, as it flies in the face of nationalism, the concept made popular with the invention of the modern nation. Empire is the rule of alien people without the consent of those ruled. But this form of policy survived over time because empires provided public goods, such as security, secure trade routes, peace, the movement of ideas, great civilizations, tolerance and coexistence. The modern nation state is deeply intolerant.

My definition of empire is this: a polity ruling over huge territories and many people, in which rule is not based on explicit consent by the governed; it is a very great power that defines the international system and is linked to a great culture.



http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/03040901.html


Full of shit is not strong enough..


The American Empire,,,consist of what ???

Finish the sentance based on excepted definition of empire .

i'm sure Nazz will render this post invalid, but Italy was still there the last time I checked. And there's Mongolia to consider, too.

Wrong again, Mongolians stemed from Mughai, whom were closer to Uzbeckistan than what stands today as Mongolia. Italy is not Roman, it has more links to Latin / French than anything else, look up Garibraldi and the redshirts for more information on that. You will find it came from Genoa.

No, that means you are wrong... Clearly I have shown you Empires can and do fall.. U.S is not an Empire as you say, define empire and you will find it needs colonies. America is at best described as a Superpower, And I assure you it will fall within our lifetime.

By Mohammed's beard.

Hawaii is a colony. That's by the tightest definition you could give. If you wanted to expand it, you could probably include about twenty other countries.

But I'll stick with Hawaii.

I'm no expert on the american economy but wouldn't reducing the 40+% of your taxes that go to the military to about 10% free up a lot of cash for other things like medicare, education and other social programs that would make a better more prosperous country?

Definitions of empire on the Web:

the domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised
a group of countries under a single authority; "the British empire"
a monarchy with an emperor as head of state
conglomerate: a group of diverse companies under common ownership and run as a single organization
an eating apple that somewhat resembles a McIntosh; used as both an eating and a cooking apple
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

----An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire




http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/events/bbl/03040901.html


Full of shit is not strong enough..


The American Empire,,,consist of what ???

Finish the sentance based on excepted definition of empire .

This is the beginning of a great partnership... lol
Clearly some people cannot tell the Difference between an Empire and a Nation.

By Mohammed's beard.

Hawaii is a colony. That's by the tightest definition you could give. If you wanted to expand it, you could probably include about twenty other countries.

But I'll stick with Hawaii.

Hawaii is a state dickhead, im not even American and I know that... CHRIST!

I'm no expert on the american economy but wouldn't reducing the 40+% of your taxes that go to the military to about 10% free up a lot of cash for other things like medicare, education and other social programs that would make a better more prosperous country?

Heh, dont steal the idea i've been posting!

Imagine you own a part of a compay - but can't sell the shares, you must recoup your investment via dividents, but the company can also demand you cough up capital. The company is not doing well, but come dividend time the company borrows a whole heap of money and gives some to you as a part of the dividend. You own you share of the dividend, but you also own your share of the debt created to pay it. When the company makes a capital demand to repay the debt incurred to give you your dividend you end up exactly where you started or worse.

That is what happens if the US economy is propped up by borrowing. Eventually you'll ahve to repay your share of the loan.


As we have done since we came of the gold standard and since the sixtys and througout the 80's and we even paid it off...thanks to REGAN durring the Clinton administration and then we grew it again ....and we will pay it again because as the economy grows because the government is stealing less money from its people they will spend it and create revenue that is taxed and will go to pay off the defocit...just like always ..except when the Dems go nuts with taxes.


Getting part of Ny blown up cost money...along with a few dozen major hurricanes and a war ..not to mention ten years of guard duty before it and the FIRST damm war....that equals deficit..DIDNT dent economic growth though or cause a rescession.

NOPE thanks to tax cuts and government policy the economy is stronger than ever .

Lets try to keep it that way shall we .

Wrong again, Mongolians stemed from Mughai, whom were closer to Uzbeckistan than what stands today as Mongolia. Italy is not Roman, it has more links to Latin / French than anything else, look up Garibraldi and the redshirts for more information on that. You will find it came from Genoa.


No.

Try as I might, I can find no references to the 'mughai' anywhere - which tells me that you just made them up.

You may, of course, be thinking of the Mughals, who were Indian and a part of the Mongol empire very briefly. Is that right?

Also, no mention of 'Garibraldi' exists. You might mean Garabaldi, but since he existed in the nineteenth century he has very little to do with your arguments.

You're a strange one.

Yes it does, but that isnt caused by taxes, nor does it cause taxes. Some countries have taxes and encourage private currencies. So the two are not necessarily linked.

Silly or not it is how things work. The principals are seperate. One is the principal of the sovereign entity to control commerce within its boundaries (the right to restrict other currencies), the other the government's choice to tax the money that it creates, underwrites, and in most if not all cases, legally owns (in my country for instance, legal tender is the property of the Reserve Bank).
What you are looking at is an effect of the intersection of the effects of two entirely seperate principals.
You're right. I am merely arguing against the intersection of two policies that don't neccessarily co-exist in every country.

Yes. The state has sovereignty, and traditionally and legally this entails the right to restrict commerce within the state's recognised territories. It is a recognised right vested in sovereignty.
In an international sense, states have the right to pass pretty much any law that isn't considered a complete violation of human rights and dignity. Unless you have something like the genocide in Darfur, the international community takes the attitude that one country has no business interfering in another country's domestic afairs.

On the national level, within the past 250 years, many countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have enshrined within their own legal institutions the concept that the state does not have absolute moral authority to rule its citizens.

To me, arguing against taxes is an extension of that concept. If the state's authority should be limited, the question becomes "How much should it be limited?" My answer generally tends to be that it should be limited as much as possible.

It is entirely possible to argue a run-on effect to the conditions of use. That too works for microsoft.
The government doesnt have to argue this though because they have the right to dictate in anything that can be deemed commercial. Payment for your labour can be construed as a commercial transaction, therefore the government can decree it taxable.
In my previous posts, I wasn't really arguing against taxes in general. I was counter-arguing against the argument that taxes are a payment for the use of the government's money. As you have pointed out in this post, there are also other arguments in favor of taxation.

Land is another thing that private individuals as a rule never own. Ultimate land-rights are vested in sovereignty. In fact so far as I understand the notion that authority over commerce is vested in sovereignty stems from the ultimate land-rights throughout a particular territory. Land tax is more primitive than other forms of tax, in a vague abstract sense, other forms of tax are evolutionarily 'derived' from land tax.
Personally, I don't recognize the existance of rights other than on the individual level. Any group rights that exist, should naturally and mathematically extend from a state of maximum individual rights. Sovereignty is an arbitrary and unfair claim to a kind of property that doesn't naturally exist. I have two major objections to the concept of sovereignty.

The first objection addresses how sovereignty is derived. It was originally, and continues to be derived purely from force. Governments come to power through violence, and continue to maintain that power through the threat of violence.

Secondly, is the fact that the individual has no recourse to escape the government's power. Some have argued that the if you don't like the government's rules, you can leave the country. There are two flaws in that argument.

First, where does the government get the right to force individuals to choose between relocating and accepting its authority. Secondly, in the United States, moving to another country doesn't exclude you from paying taxes. Only by renouncing your US citizenship (a process that is unnessecarily difficult), can you avoid paying federal income tax.

To take issue with land tax is seperate again to the other issues being discussed. It branches off the stem of the branch that 'rights of all commerce' stem from (further down the branch)...;)
My moral argument against taxes stems from the belief that all rights are vested in the individual. I can't really prove this notion, but such is the case with all moral beliefs. One must either accept or reject this belief on the basis of one's own conscience. Therefore, if you don't accept it, I don't have any argument against you.

There are also practical arguments against high taxation. Those are a separate issue, however.

No, that means you are wrong... Clearly I have shown you Empires can and do fall.. U.S is not an Empire as you say, define empire and you will find it needs colonies. America is at best described as a Superpower, And I assure you it will fall within our lifetime.
The definition of empire has morphed to include areas of influence, but even so, the US does have possessions, or did you forget about places like Puerto Rico and Guam and the Marianas Islands? Plus there are places where we have in the past or are currently attempting to install puppet regimes. The US is an empire, child, no matter how much you try to say otherwise.

No.

Try as I might, I can find no references to the 'mughai' anywhere - which tells me that you just made them up.

You may, of course, be thinking of the Mughals, who were Indian and a part of the Mongol empire very briefly. Is that right?

Also, no mention of 'Garibraldi' exists. You might mean Garabaldi, but since he existed in the nineteenth century he has very little to do with your arguments.

You're a strange one.



He's a strange one....and you claim Hawaii is what again ???:D

Heh, dont steal the idea i've been posting!sorry, you can have all the credit...I thought it was kind of obvious, militaries and wars suck the life out of economies.

Wrong again, Mongolians stemed from Mughai, whom were closer to Uzbeckistan than what stands today as Mongolia. Italy is not Roman, it has more links to Latin / French than anything else, look up Garibraldi and the redshirts for more information on that. You will find it came from Genoa.


No.

Try as I might, I can find no references to the 'mughai' anywhere - which tells me that you just made them up.

You may, of course, be thinking of the Mughals, who were Persians and had nothing to do with the Mongols of Mongolia. Is that right?

Also, no mention of 'Garibraldi' exists. You might mean Garabaldi, but since he existed in the nineteenth century he has very little to do with your arguments.

You're a strange one.

No.

Try as I might, I can find no references to the 'mughai' anywhere - which tells me that you just made them up.

You may, of course, be thinking of the Mughals, who were Indian and a part of the Mongol empire very briefly. Is that right?

Also, no mention of 'Garibraldi' exists. You might mean Garabaldi, but since he existed in the nineteenth century he has very little to do with your arguments.

You're a strange one.

Mughai = the correct spelling if you were in India >.<

Here are some sites that may fix that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi
*I apologise on Garibaldi spelling yet again wrong national spelling.

He's a strange one....and you claim Hawaii is what again ???:D

Of course it is a colony, just like Europe is an American colony... LOL
(Sarcasm meter is broken)

The definition of empire has morphed to include areas of influence, but even so, the US does have possessions, or did you forget about places like Puerto Rico and Guam and the Marianas Islands? Plus there are places where we have in the past or are currently attempting to install puppet regimes. The US is an empire, child, no matter how much you try to say otherwise.yup agreed, USA is an empire...it doesn't like leaving once it has control of an area...Hawaii does have an independence movement which isn't widely known...

The definition of empire has morphed to include areas of influence, but even so, the US does have possessions, or did you forget about places like Puerto Rico and Guam and the Marianas Islands? Plus there are places where we have in the past or are currently attempting to install puppet regimes. The US is an empire, child, no matter how much you try to say otherwise.

The U.S IS NOT AN EMPIRE, What other sources do we need to show you?? THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO AN AMERICAN EMPIRE!!

Look up the definition, and yet again Guam is an oversea teritory, same as Panama etc.. They are not colonies of their own ruling idiot.. Look up Terra Nullius it may explain things for you.

Mughai = the correct spelling if you were in India >.<

Here are some sites that may fix that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi
*I apologise on Garibaldi spelling yet again wrong national spelling.

Ok. So still, you're referring to the Mughal empire, which ruled over the Indian subcontinent and not, as you asserted before, Mongolia. Which was, of course, the Mongols. No doubt, some of the Mongols went south, but most didn't.

I still don't see what Garabaldi has to do with the Roman Empire.

col‧o‧ny  /ˈkɒləni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kol-uh-nee]

–noun, plural -nies.
1. a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
2. the country or district settled or colonized: Many Western nations are former European colonies.
3. any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power.

Well slap my hide. Hawaii's a colony.

yup agreed, USA is an empire...it doesn't like leaving once it has control of an area...Hawaii does have an independence movement which isn't widely known...

Might I remind you of Phillippines? You leave land alot, they are not colonies THEY ARE OVERSEAS TERITORIES!!

Basicly by your logic, since you guys own part of Australia (Military camps) Australia becomes your colony, WRONG!

Might I remind you of Phillippines? You leave land alot, they are not colonies THEY ARE OVERSEAS TERITORIES!!

Basicly by your logic, since you guys own part of Australia (Military camps) Australia becomes your colony, WRONG!

In fact, you're a bit of a Mongoloid yourself.

In fact, you're a bit of a Mongoloid yourself.

Are you a vulgarian? or just a moron? :headbang:

Hawaii is a state dickhead, im not even American and I know that... CHRIST!

Lol.

col‧o‧ny  /ˈkɒləni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kol-uh-nee]

–noun, plural -nies.
1. a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
2. the country or district settled or colonized: Many Western nations are former European colonies.
3. any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power.

Well slap my hide. Hawaii's a colony.

state
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
state  /steɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun, adjective, verb, stat‧ed, stat‧ing.

–noun 1. the condition of a person or thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes: a state of health.
2. the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like: water in a gaseous state.
3. status, rank, or position in life; station: He dresses in a manner befitting his state.
4. the style of living befitting a person of wealth and high rank: to travel in state.
5. a particular condition of mind or feeling: to be in an excited state.
6. an abnormally tense, nervous, or perturbed condition: He's been in a state since hearing about his brother's death.
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
8. the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
9. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.
10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church).
11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.
12. (initial capital letter) Also called State Department. Informal. the Department of State.
13. Printing. a set of copies of an edition of a publication which differ from others of the same printing because of additions, corrections, or transpositions made during printing or at any time before publication.
14. the States, Informal. the United States (usually used outside its borders): After a year's study in Spain, he returned to the States.
–adjective 15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.
16. made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union: a state highway; a state bank.
17. characterized by, attended with, or involving ceremony: a state dinner.
18. used on or reserved for occasions of ceremony.
–verb (used with object) 19. to declare definitely or specifically: She stated her position on the case.
20. to set forth formally in speech or writing: to state a hypothesis.
21. to set forth in proper or definite form: to state a problem.
22. to say.
23. to fix or settle, as by authority.
—Idiom24. lie in state, (of a corpse) to be exhibited publicly with honors before burial: The president's body lay in state for two days.

** Hawaii is not ruled by anyone, it has its own representatives at American Congress etc, so infact it is a unified part of USA which infact makes it a state not a colony fool **

sorry, you can have all the credit...I thought it was kind of obvious, militaries and wars suck the life out of economies.


In a perfect world...after the wall got torn down and the Soviets went bye bye..I expected excactly that to happen....

BUT the world just adjusted and got crazier in a different way .

Like who would think ...Communist and dictators all gone...genocide civil war and mass graves in EUROPE ????

Thats a fucking curve ball...I was thinking Vodka and naked orgies,,,not rape and pillage...

and who woulda thunk that planes would become flying bombs and Crazy dudes in the Middle East and Persian gulf would ACTUALLY get CRAZIER ???


Fucked me up...I want my peace divadend I was promised.

In a perfect world...after the wall got torn down and the Soviets went bye bye..I expected excactly that to happen....

BUT the world just adjusted and got crazier in a different way .

Like who would think ...Communist and dictators all gone...genocide civil war and mass graves in EUROPE ????

Thats a fucking curve ball...I was thinking Vodka and naked orgies,,,not rape and pillage...

and who woulda thunk that planes would become flying bombs and Crazy dudes in the Middle East and Persian gulf would ACTUALLY get CRAZIER ???


Fucked me up...I want my peace divadend I was promised.

Lol, Infact it opened a larger problem which is now on American soil.. Allthough I dont agree with 400bil on military, I still recognise America needs a strong military to protect international interests and of course their own internal interests.

The U.S IS NOT AN EMPIRE, What other sources do we need to show you?? THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO AN AMERICAN EMPIRE!!


What? A man behind the curtain? THERE IS NO MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

What? A man behind the curtain? THERE IS NO MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

How long did it take you to come up with that?? .. lol

Might I remind you of Phillippines? You leave land alot, they are not colonies THEY ARE OVERSEAS TERITORIES!!

Basicly by your logic, since you guys own part of Australia (Military camps) Australia becomes your colony, WRONG!Phillpines? occupation, genocide, oppression-forced out by the Japanese reoccupied by USA-eventually left, it did take awhile.

Tibet everyone agrees is a country occupied by the Chinese who are now in the process of overwhelming the locals through immigration of ethnic chinese. same thing happened to Hawaii, locals have no hope of reversing the process.

Empire vs Overseas Territories=PC semantics,

Lol, Infact it opened a larger problem which is now on American soil.. Allthough I dont agree with 400bil on military, I still recognise America needs a strong military to protect international interests and of course their own internal interests.international interests? internal interests? nice euphimism for mucking in other folks affairs because you don't want to pay higher gas prices.

Much like the way the US went downhill in the 90's when it had a Dem pres and a GOP congress, eh?
All the way down to the horror, the horror, of compromise, which led to the twin evils of a balanced budget and a surplus. Not to mention the lowest unemployment rate and highest home ownership rate in decades.
Lord spare us from such evil!



This is the half truths of the left. I hear so many folks say, in the 90's Clinton's policies were great for the economy and we had a hugh surplus. Guess what? The economy was strong in the 90s because of the tech boom, not Clinton's economic plan. If his high taxes did anything, it was that it slowed the economy. Look what happened after the bubble popped, we went into a recession because of Clinton's high taxes. The only reason there was a surplus was the boom the economy. The only there is a deficit now is because we are in war time.

international interests? internal interests? nice euphimism for mucking in other folks affairs because you don't want to pay higher gas prices.

Its called surivial of the fittest, what nation are you from? I bet you dont have a clean past either.

Phillpines? occupation, genocide, oppression-forced out by the Japanese reoccupied by USA-eventually left, it did take awhile.

Tibet everyone agrees is a country occupied by the Chinese who are now in the process of overwhelming the locals through immigration of ethnic chinese. same thing happened to Hawaii, locals have no hope of reversing the process.

Empire vs Overseas Territories=PC semantics,

By Definition Hawaii is a state, It is a unified represented part of the U.S

If it didnt have a representative in the Congress then it would be a colony dickhead.

By Definition Hawaii is a state, It is a unified represented part of the U.S

If it didnt have a representative in the Congress then it would be a colony dickhead.
I think [s]he's referring to the land the Hawaiian's lost, and their not quite succeeding movement to become their own nation (like the Native Americans)

The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto.


Yeah, but that's pretty much the whole point and purpose of the "seperation of powers" thing that those colonials came up with 230 years ago. The branches compete and fight...and don't do anything. This is a feature, not a flaw. :)


Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control.


:eek: :eek: :eek:

Say no more!






**will hold nose and vote Democrat**

You were saying, Clintons spending was done to level inflation,
No, I wasnt.
and my recent updates on this show differently.

When you take a 1st year economic's class, you will learn that government only deals with fiscal...
When you learn basic reading and comprehension skills you might be able to avoid making such a fool out of yourself.

Also when you lose your independance to the British Empire, we will teach you astronomy in Science, where you can learn that the Sun is actually a star. Recent statistics have shown 48% of Americans didnt know that.
:D Is giggling at you...:D

Yeah, but that's pretty much the whole point and purpose of the "seperation of powers" thing that those colonials came up with 230 years ago. The branches compete and fight...and don't do anything. This is a feature, not a flaw. :)



:eek: :eek: :eek:

Say no more!






**will hold nose and vote Democrat**

Enjoy your gas bills with Democrats in power, along with the nice tax increasements. Lucky I dont need to worry....

No, I wasnt.

When you learn basic reading and comprehension skills you might be able to avoid making such a fool out of yourself.


:D Is giggling at you...:D


No not really, you said due to Clintons spending it was genius and fixed inflation (Short translation)

Clearly you dont know what the reserve banks job is, and in future dont make a fool of yourself by not reading my posts correctly...

:) Is giggling at you.... :p

By Definition Hawaii is a state, It is a unified represented part of the U.S

If it didnt have a representative in the Congress then it would be a colony dickhead.Hawaii's locals weren't given a choice just like Tibeteans will not be given a choice on being a province or autonmous region of China,......and don't call me a dichead you fuckwit!

The President would be unable to advance his agenda

that would be a good thing

however, i agree that democrats suck.
see, republicans are full of crap, and they know they are full of crap
democrats are full of crap, and they think they are going to make a difference

You enjoy having a corrupt party in power?

You don't believe in "checks and balances"?

You don't support democracy?

You prefer a dictatorship?

Well, the screen name is Soviestan, which brings up the Soviet Union to mind.

If it didnt have a representative in the Congress then it would be a colony dickhead.

actually, it wouldn't really be a colony.

Washington DC has no congressmen (actually they have one of each, but they are not allowed to vote; just like the representatives from guam, puerto rico, etc...). DC however does get 3 votes in the electoral college, as if they had 2 senators and 1 representative, territories do not get the privilege..
all DC license plates say “taxation without representation” to show the hypocrisy of the American government on this point.

Hawaii did want to be there own country and so did the Florida Keys. Key West actually seceded from the US and formed the Conch Republic, but that lasted about 3 days until the Navy showed up and they surrendered.

Also, please don’t start with this “survival of the fittest” crap.

Of coarse of US is an Empire. It is a nation of conquest: first North America, then the Pacific, and now Asia via economic imperialism.

And let not forget the US's adventures in South America. God blass the CIA.

And let not forget the US's adventures in South America. God blass the CIA.

Obviously, since the Second Messiah Bush is trying to pass laws to make them immune to criminal prosecution by other nations.

Fucked me up...I want my peace divadend I was promised.
George Bush has spent your peace dividend, and by the time he leaves office, he will probably have spent your childrens' or future childrens' peace dividend.

Enjoy your gas bills with Democrats in power, along with the nice tax increasements.

So nothing much will be changing then?

Unless the republicans have discovered a way to make money just fall out of the heavens for free, in order to pay for their wars and military and such.

You're right. I am merely arguing against the intersection of two policies that don't neccessarily co-exist in every country.


In an international sense, states have the right to pass pretty much any law that isn't considered a complete violation of human rights and dignity. Unless you have something like the genocide in Darfur, the international community takes the attitude that one country has no business interfering in another country's domestic afairs.

On the national level, within the past 250 years, many countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have enshrined within their own legal institutions the concept that the state does not have absolute moral authority to rule its citizens.
In democracies it is true that the government's use of authority is theoretically negotiated and contingent on the consent of the ruled. That doesnt alter the fact that such a negotiation takes place in accordance with the conventions that facilitates the authority, however it ends up being exercised.

To me, arguing against taxes is an extension of that concept. If the state's authority should be limited, the question becomes "How much should it be limited?" My answer generally tends to be that it should be limited as much as possible.
'As much as possible' is not a measure-value, it's a meaningless term. As limited as possible is zero authority.

In my previous posts, I wasn't really arguing against taxes in general. I was counter-arguing against the argument that taxes are a payment for the use of the government's money.
Actually I was more arguing the concept in the abstract. Certainly I do not mean to suggest any government considers the right to levy taxes as stemming from the use of money; the foundation on which the right to levy taxes rests is far more fundamental than that. Rather it is a reason why it isnt unjust that people pay taxes.

As you have pointed out in this post, there are also other arguments in favor of taxation.
I do believe there are reasons in favour of taxation, although I dont think a brought up any earlier in my posts other than the usage of money being a privledge that one oughten expect comes without strings attached. The legal/conventional justifications/rational are factual conditions rather than arguments in favour of something.

Personally, I don't recognize the existance of rights other than on the individual level.
Then you live in a fantasy world. In the real world individuals only ever get rights as they are granted by collectives.
Rights stem from the collective not from the individual.
Any group rights that exist, should naturally and mathematically extend from a state of maximum individual rights.
Rights dont extend out mathmatically. Whatever you think should be the case the fact is rights are derived from the collective not from the individual.

Sovereignty is an arbitrary and unfair claim to a kind of property that doesn't naturally exist.
Whether or not it is unfair it exists, further unless some better or equally good alternative is tendered, there is little reason to expect or even to hope for that situation to end. As for property, either all ownership is natural or none is.

I have two major objections to the concept of sovereignty.

The first objection addresses how sovereignty is derived. It was originally, and continues to be derived purely from force. Governments come to power through violence, and continue to maintain that power through the threat of violence.
You imagine there is some better way of doing things? If a citizen insists on murdering others ought nothing be done because the only recourse is force? Of course not. The point about those rights you were so keen on is that like any and every right, without force to back them up, they are not rights at all, merely 'wish lists' about how we'd like the world to be.

Secondly, is the fact that the individual has no recourse to escape the government's power. Some have argued that the if you don't like the government's rules, you can leave the country. There are two flaws in that argument.
The problem is many soveriegn governments are still preferable to the absence of soveriegnty in terms of the rights the individual enjoys.

First, where does the government get the right to force individuals to choose between relocating and accepting its authority. Secondly, in the United States, moving to another country doesn't exclude you from paying taxes. Only by renouncing your US citizenship (a process that is unnessecarily difficult), can you avoid paying federal income tax.
Again you are conflating seperate issues. The use the US put's its sovereign authority isnt proof of inherent faults in sovereignty itself when such a use is not one that is necessitated by soveriegnty itself.

My moral argument against taxes stems from the belief that all rights are vested in the individual.
But ignores how rights come to be vested. If you think you ought to have a right to property, then you need to accept that such a right requires enforcement and that enforcement costs money. Who is to pay for all the rights vested in individuals if not the individuals? Every single right you have has a resource cost, who is to pay that cost if not those the right is vested in?

I can't really prove this notion, but such is the case with all moral beliefs. One must either accept or reject this belief on the basis of one's own conscience. Therefore, if you don't accept it, I don't have any argument against you.
I'm not convinced that you've thought this belief through other than as a matter of general principals. In the real world expecting to have rights as an individual without some greater collective guarding and enforcing those rights, ultimately through an authority that rests on a foundation of force, is fantasising.

There are also practical arguments against high taxation. Those are a separate issue, however.
There are good practical arguments against overly high and overly low taxation, in fact against being any amount of taxation other than the perfect amount. ;)
I therefore advocate that all taxes be levied at the perfect amount!:D

No not really, you said due to Clintons spending it was genius and fixed inflation (Short translation)
Erroneous translation, although quite why you felt the need to translate English into English, I dont know....

Clearly you dont know what the reserve banks job is, and in future dont make a fool of yourself by not reading my posts correctly...

:) Is giggling at you.... :p
I dont see why you believe your failure to read and comprehend makes some alledged lack of knowledge on my part clear, and in fact I assert the contrary.

Instead of throwing your toys out of the cot because you are wrong, why dont you just learn the obvious lesson on offer? Specifically slow down and comprehend posts before you go shooting off at the keyboard.

Democrats in power would create a government that would do nothing for America. The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto. Not to mention all the work the Republicans have worked on for America would go away in a week of democrats taking control. So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

What is the point of this? "If you are not Democrat, don't vote Democrat. Thank-you."

I hate to break it to you, but it is alot worse in other nations. In most nations Housing accounts for most of Disposable Income
Your proof of this statement is where?

... And you are complaining? Jeez you bring ignorance to the saying "American Pig"
Ya lost me here.

Unless the rich are not on the board yes cutting taxes across the board = tax cuts for the rich . . .

How so? Yes, they'd get a tax cut, too, but so would everyone. So equating a tax cut for everyone to a tax cut for just one group makes no sense.

I keep forgetting that this is the message board from the game specifically designed for people who think they understand politics, but don't.

Do you remember the last time the President and Congress were controlled by different parties? The Clinton Era! The most economically succesful period in American history! We had a booming tech sector, welfare reform, crime rate decline, national debt decline in both actual amount and as a percent of GDP, the furthering of rights for both employed women and for homosexuals, and a foreign policy that actually worked!

If you believe that a mixed-party government is going to be some sort of Apolcalyptic stagnation, then you really need to get your facts straight. Keep in mind that the Democrats controlled Congress for FORTY YEARS STRAIGHT, through several Republican presidents.

Have you noticed when this nation has done its absolute WORST? It's when the same party controls the Executive and the Legislative branch! The Republicans, who still firmly believe that "Reaganomics" still works despite all empiricaly evidence to the contrary, have ruined the Pax Americana started in the Clinton era. The end of this era, of Libertarian-style Christian conservatism, is nothing but good for the United States.

If we're lucky, the new Democratic party will have the rocks to step up to an impeachment process. Violating the FISA Act, endangering democracy with overabundant signing statements, organizing illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay, lying under oath to the jury of Congress, dereliction of duty, and so on, those things do not bode well for the President. The GOA- Government Accountability Office, a genuine legislative entity -has actually declared openly, on the record, that the President has committed impeachable offenses, most notably the use of "subsersive propaganda," such as through the use of taxpayer money to bribe Armstrong Williams to promote No Child Left Behind, the bribing of seven Miami reporters to make up stories defaming Fidel Castro, again using taxpayer money, and the creation of TV commercials designed to look like authentic news stories promoting a privatized medical system.

The GAO does not have the power to impeach, or to otherwise check the executive branch. Fortunately, the Democratic Congress will, and it will save this country.
Your posts always seem to make so much sense. Too bad you don't post very often.

How so? Yes, they'd get a tax cut, too, but so would everyone. So equating a tax cut for everyone to a tax cut for just one group makes no sense.

See, you didn't say a tax cut JUST for the rich, you said that it wouldn't equal a tax cut for the rich. I guess I'm being a little pedantic here . . .

See, you didn't say a tax cut JUST for the rich, you said that it wouldn't equal a tax cut for the rich. I guess I'm being a little pedantic here . . .

Perhaps. Perhaps I didn't think of the implications of leaving out the word 'just.' Actually, it didn't occur to me at all. :)

because its my money. Its not the governments job to tell me how to spend it. And if they desparately need money, get a job! That is generally how people get money in this country. What if they do have a job, but it doesn't pay squat?

See, you didn't say a tax cut JUST for the rich, you said that it wouldn't equal a tax cut for the rich. I guess I'm being a little pedantic here . . .
Tax cut Tax cut. A useless thing these days, we'll have to pay them back eventually anyway but I guess as long as you're not alive then you wouldn't care.

What if they do have a job, but it doesn't pay squat?
Then before long, you wind up with a bloody revolution on your hands, with rich folks hanging by their entrails along the walls of their gated communities. In some ways, the welfare state is more to protect the rich than to watch out for the poor.

Then before long, you wind up with a bloody revolution on your hands, with rich folks hanging by their entrails along the walls of their gated communities.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surpised if it happens.

At this rate, I wouldn't be surpised if it happens.

I would, actually, at least any time soon. Things will have to get a lot worse before you're going to get major revolutionary action in the US. I'm thinking Great Depression bad, or worse.

the welfare state is more to protect the rich than to watch out for the poor.

I thought that that was what reality TV was for ;)

Both parties are out of touch with the general public because they go so far out of their way to please everyone. I expect that a third party will rise to power in the coming years.

I feel ya Soviestan, I've been saving up my money for guns in the event they get outlawed.



Again.

What if they do have a job, but it doesn't pay squat?



work two jobs, or get a better one. Its not the governments job to pay you.

This is an interesting line of thinking but the problem here is that you assume that with say a democratic majority in at least the House or the Senate let alone both the president won't get anything done. While it is certainly harder to get legislation done in a divided congress let alone one with the majority of a different party in control its not impossible. And a divided Congress isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything it causes more discussion of issues instead of passing legislation in a quick and hapazard manner. Now while we are here lets look at getting legislation passed period. It is VERY VERY hard to get legislation to pass quickly unless there is a complete majority for a bill and its like that so no one can railroad a bill through the house and senate which would be bad for the country. So in closing Congress will be slow to pass legislation with or without a divided Congress.

work two jobs, or get a better one.

What are you smoking? And can I have some?

Steenhuffel;11776709']What are you smoking? And can I have some?

believe me if I had anything worth smoking Id share, but I dont.

work two jobs, or get a better one. Its not the governments job to pay you.
It isnt necessarily not the government's job.

believe me if I had anything worth smoking Id share, but I dont.

I find it hard to believe that you can be sober and really think that someone who has a crappy job can simply go and get a better one. Surely if there were better jobs available, they wouldn't be doing the crappy ones...

It isnt necessarily not the government's job.

how do you figure?

Steenhuffel;11776781']I find it hard to believe that you can be sober and really think that someone who has a crappy job can simply go and get a better one. Surely if there were better jobs available, they wouldn't be doing the crappy ones...

then get two jobs, or an education. This isnt a communist society people can move up if they put a little effort into and not rely on the government.

then get two jobs, or an education.

And who is going to support them while they're getting an education?

Here's an idea... why don't we fund education from tax so that people can improve their prospects and put more back into the economy.

A little investment never hurt anyone

then get two jobs, or an education. This isnt a communist society people can move up if they put a little effort into and not rely on the government.

I vaguely remember hearing of a study a while ago that said very few people actually move above the economic standing they are born into. It would be something to look into in said situation.

Back on topic Soviet you say Democrats comming to power would hinder the Presidents agenda. Problem is the Democrats already are doing so even when not in the majority of the House or Senate. So if thats the case then your arguement really holds no water since they can do that in the minority or in the majority. I mean just look at some of the stuff that goes on in the House where a bill dealing with the Estate Tax failed to reach cloture and thats with Democrats not holding the majority and still needing to win seats to get that.

Back on topic Soviet you say Democrats comming to power would hinder the Presidents agenda. Problem is the Democrats already are doing so even when not in the majority of the House or Senate.

No, the problem is that this assumes that this is not exactly what the democrats WANT to do, and is a primary reason to vote for them.

No, the problem is that this assumes that this is not exactly what the democrats WANT to do, and is a primary reason to vote for them.

I'm sorry I just don't follow you here. Are you saying that people don't think the Democrats want to screw with what the Republican law makers want to do and its a reason to vote for them?

I'm sorry I just don't follow you here. Are you saying that people don't think the Democrats want to screw with what the Republican law makers want to do and its a reason to vote for them?

no, I am saying that any statement claiming that it is a bad thing to vote democrats into power because they will disrupt bush's plans ignores the very fundamental idea that democrats in power disrupting bush's plans is a very big reason why many of us are voting for them in the first place.

In other words, it's damned stupid to tell me not to vote for dems because if they get the majority they will disrupt the president's agenda. I know. That's exactly what I want them to do.

no, I am saying that any statement claiming that it is a bad thing to vote democrats into power because they will disrupt bush's plans ignores the very fundamental idea that democrats in power disrupting bush's plans is a very big reason why many of us are voting for them in the first place.

In other words, it's damned stupid to tell me not to vote for dems because if they get the majority they will disrupt the president's agenda. I know. That's exactly what I want them to do.

Oh okay I see where your going and I agree that's a flaw in Soviets arguement when dealing with arguing this to a Democrat. But I think the other part Soviets arguement is that voting the Dems in will be bad because they will muck with the Republican's agenda and make it so that bills don't get passed which of course happens regardless of wheter or not the Dems have a majority in either the House or the Senate let alone the whole congress.

Steenhuffel;11776814']And who is going to support them while they're getting an education?

Here's an idea... why don't we fund education from tax so that people can improve their prospects and put more back into the economy.

A little investment never hurt anyone

The person getting the education?

Or, if they can, their parents?

RepubliCANT!

The person getting the education?

Or, if they can, their parents?
psstt, heres a secret. The left doesnt understand the idea of personal responsibility. Its as if they truly cant comprehend it.

how do you figure?
How do you not figure?

psstt, heres a secret. The left doesnt understand the idea of personal responsibility. Its as if they truly cant comprehend it.

psst, here's a secret. We're actually capable of recognizing that sometimes people are born into situations that no matter how much responsibility and effort they put in, they do not have the opportunity to get out of it.

That's something the right truly cant comprehend. After all, they never had to be truly, crushingly poor.

psstt, heres a secret. The left doesnt understand the idea of personal responsibility. Its as if they truly cant comprehend it.

Pssst, here's another secret. The right doesn't understand that not everyone has a rich mommy.

psst, here's a secret. We're actually capable of recognizing that sometimes people are born into situations that no matter how much responsibility and effort they put in, they do not have the opportunity to get out of it.

That's something the right truly cant comprehend. After all, they never had to be truly, crushingly poor.
I'll let you in on another secret. I was raised by a single mom working two jobs just to get by while living in some rough neighborhoods. I understand perfectly well what it is to be poor. I also understand the way to not be poor is not through the government, its through stepping up and doing what you have to.

How do you not figure?

Because why try or work or do anything if the government will just pick up the tab for what you need?

In democracies it is true that the government's use of authority is theoretically negotiated and contingent on the consent of the ruled. That doesnt alter the fact that such a negotiation takes place in accordance with the conventions that facilitates the authority, however it ends up being exercised.
It's not simply a matter of requiring consent of the governed in a democratic system. Many democracies constitutionally limit the power of the government on certain issues regardless of majority consent. In practice, noone could force a country to adopt these limits. Nevertheless, the reasoning behind these limits still stems from the moralistic problems that I expressed concerning absolute government authority. In effect, the founders of modern states put these limits into effect because they agreed with me on the moral pitfalls of authoritarianism.

'As much as possible' is not a measure-value, it's a meaningless term. As limited as possible is zero authority.
By 'as limited as possible' I imply that beyond a certain point it becomes impractical to limit government authority. Noone has yet come up with a system that would function stably without the presence of at least some form of government. Until someone does, it is impossible to practically limit government authority beyond a certain point. It is possible, however, to have a very small government, and it is always a good idea to look for ways to make the government smaller, so long as you can avoid the practical shortcomings of a stateless society.

Actually I was more arguing the concept in the abstract. Certainly I do not mean to suggest any government considers the right to levy taxes as stemming from the use of money; the foundation on which the right to levy taxes rests is far more fundamental than that. Rather it is a reason why it isnt unjust that people pay taxes.
One of the problems is that most people in government don't even try to provide moral justification for levying taxes. Without understanding where their taxing authority comes from in the moral sense, they cannot understand any moral limits that might exist to that authority.

For example, if the moral authority to tax really does come from the fact that we use the government's money, then it would be illegitimate to levy property taxes. But the people who create and enforce the tax system don't give a crap either way. They just do it because they can, regardless of morality.

I do believe there are reasons in favour of taxation, although I dont think a brought up any earlier in my posts other than the usage of money being a privledge that one oughten expect comes without strings attached. The legal/conventional justifications/rational are factual conditions rather than arguments in favour of something.
That's the exact problem I was expressing. There is no consideration of ethics here. The legal authority to tax is based on nothing more than might makes right. As such, I don't think it is logical to expect that a large tax system will ever efficiently bring any sort of happiness to those who are forced to support it. Because of this, I would like to see taxes limited to what is necessary to make society function without chaos.

Then you live in a fantasy world. In the real world individuals only ever get rights as they are granted by collectives.
Rights stem from the collective not from the individual.
Rights dont extend out mathmatically. Whatever you think should be the case the fact is rights are derived from the collective not from the individual.
I think that it is important to differentiate between rights as a practical concept and rights as a moral concept.

In practice, whether one admitts it or not, might does make might. The only reason we get to experience most of the rights we have today is because a few powerful people 250 years ago thought that this is how the world should function.

The moralistic sense of rights has nothing to do with the real world. I fully recognize that fact. When I say that "All rights are invested in individuals," it is a purely normative statement.

Rights dont extend out mathmatically. Whatever you think should be the case the fact is rights are derived from the collective not from the individual.
I used the term mathematically to mean that any rights invested in groups should merely be a reflection of the rights of individuals. For example, if individuals have the right to make agreements, then groups have the right to make agreements in the name of the individuals represented in those groups. I'm not entirely sure why I chose to use the word 'mathematically' describe this.

Whether or not it is unfair it exists, further unless some better or equally good alternative is tendered, there is little reason to expect or even to hope for that situation to end. As for property, either all ownership is natural or none is.
Like I said earlier in this post, I know that noone has come up with a system that would create a functional society without some form of government. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to ask how much government is really necessary.

As for property, there are some claims to property that would be completely unnatural and nonsensical. If an ante-bellum Southerner claimed to own slaves, he may be correct in the practical assertion of that statement, but morally he has no authority to claim such ownership. Or if I were to claim ownership over a section of Outter-Space. Considering that it is impossible to keep track of separate sections of outter-space, it is nonsensical to claim ownership of any of them.

You imagine there is some better way of doing things? If a citizen insists on murdering others ought nothing be done because the only recourse is force? Of course not. The point about those rights you were so keen on is that like any and every right, without force to back them up, they are not rights at all, merely 'wish lists' about how we'd like the world to be.
Don't imagine that my concept of rights is that simple. Force isn't exclusively wrong. The initiation of force is wrong. In fact, in the ethics system that I am advocating, the definition of 'force initiation' necessarily depends on the definition of rights. It is an initiation of force to use another person's property without permission. It is not an initiation of force to defend your own property. In general, any invasion of another person's rights is an initiation of force.

The problem is many soveriegn governments are still preferable to the absence of soveriegnty in terms of the rights the individual enjoys.
This is the primary reason for keeping the government system. Even under fairly authoritative governments, there can be more individual rights than under chaos.

Again you are conflating seperate issues. The use the US put's its sovereign authority isnt proof of inherent faults in sovereignty itself when such a use is not one that is necessitated by soveriegnty itself.
What the US does with regards to its domestic policy is clearly within the authority granted by sovereignty. What I am arguing is that the system of national sovereignty currently grants more power to governments than it should. The US shouldn't have the option of forcing its citizens to retain citizenship. So the problem isn't that sovereignty will necessarily lead to unethical results, but rather that within the system of national sovereignty it is entirely permissible for a nation to hold unethical domestic policies.

But ignores how rights come to be vested. If you think you ought to have a right to property, then you need to accept that such a right requires enforcement and that enforcement costs money. Who is to pay for all the rights vested in individuals if not the individuals? Every single right you have has a resource cost, who is to pay that cost if not those the right is vested in?


I'm not convinced that you've thought this belief through other than as a matter of general principals. In the real world expecting to have rights as an individual without some greater collective guarding and enforcing those rights, ultimately through an authority that rests on a foundation of force, is fantasising.
So far, no system of protecting rights has worked as well as government. But it's not simply enough to ask "Do we have more rights under this government than we would under no government at all?" We should ask "Do we have as many rights as possible under this government; is there a way to change the government that would yield more personal freedom?"


There are good practical arguments against overly high and overly low taxation, in fact against being any amount of taxation other than the perfect amount. ;)
I therefore advocate that all taxes be levied at the perfect amount!:D
Again, I wasn't exactly specific in my previous statement. What I mean is that a country clearly doesn't need very much taxation at all in order to provide enough protection for individual rights. Ten percent, or perhaps even lower, would probably suffice. The benefit to the economy with taxation lowered to that extent would be tremendous.

psstt, heres a secret. The left doesnt understand the idea of personal responsibility. Its as if they truly cant comprehend it.
Ahh the irony. Plays partisan puppy to the party dismantling habeous corpus rights while harping that it is 'the other' who lacks a sense of personal responsibility.

People fought and died for the rights you disdain to stand up for. To even contemplate not kicking out of governance the party that has overseen such widespread destruction of the democracy and individual liberty integral to the very identity of the US, just because kicking them out doesnt fit with your chosen 'team', is worse than irresponsible.

If you care more about cheer-leading than the well being of the USA, then you ought to stick to following the Superbowl and worry about politics when you grow up enough to understand the responsibilities that come along with the privledge of living in a democracy.

So ummmm how about that point I brought up about how a party can hinder another parties agenda while being in the minority and the fact that the legislative process is already a very slow one? I mean really your making an arguement against what is basically the status quo legislative procedure wise. Your arguement here really holds no water.

psst, here's a secret. We're actually capable of recognizing that sometimes people are born into situations that no matter how much responsibility and effort they put in, they do not have the opportunity to get out of it.

That's something the right truly cant comprehend. After all, they never had to be truly, crushingly poor.

Pure unadultered BS.

Hard work, unadultered capitalism, and a good work ethic will take you far.

Ahh the irony. Plays partisan puppy to the party dismantling habeous corpus rights while harping that it is 'the other' who lacks a sense of personal responsibility.

People fought and died for the rights you disdain to stand up for. To even contemplate not kicking out of governance the party that has overseen such widespread destruction of the democracy and individual liberty just because doing so doesnt fit with your favourite team, is worse than irresponsible. If you care more about cheer-leading than the well being of the USA, then you ought to stick to following the Superbowl and worry about politics when you grow up enough to understand the responsibilities that come along with the privledge of living in a democracy.

terrorist's don't have rights.


People do, animals don't.


I'm pretty sure I misread your statement somehow, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, then I guess I must have imagined the surplus that the US had before Bush came into office. My mistake.

Yeah I guess me and you should go to some kind of short term momeroy clinic.

terrorist's don't have rights.


People do, animals don't.


I'm pretty sure I misread your statement somehow, but correct me if I'm wrong.
The entire reason for having Habeas Corpus is help differentiate between offenders and innocents. So without it, it is entirely likely that honest Americans will be treated like terrorists. I think it makes sense to object to such a state of affairs.

The entire reason for having Habeas Corpus is help differentiate between offenders and innocents. So without it, it is entirely likely that honest Americans will be treated like terrorists. I think it makes sense to object to such a state of affairs.


Ahh I see. American Citizens should have a habeus corpus.

Because why try or work or do anything if the government will just pick up the tab for what you need?
Strawman. The issue is whether or not it is necessarily the job of government to not pay people. You prove nothing about that by picking out a possible negative example of a possible effect of a possible way of the government going about paying people.

If for instance it is cheaper to reduce crime by X amount by providing social services in the forms of 'top-ups' for low wage earners, than it is to provide the same reduction in the crime rate through other means, then it is the government's job to go about its task of reducing crime by the more efficient means.

Since it is impossible to conclude that there will never, ever, be any instance in which some kind of payment to low income earners is the most efficient solution to a problem a government has been tasked to solve, it is impossible to conclude that it is necessarily the government's job to not pay money to alleviate the effects of poverty on low-wage earners.