While the rates could be arbitrary, they aren't. The law isn't arbitrary, because there is thought put into how the law works, and how it affects the economy.
I suppose arbitrary wasn't the best word to use, but rates are determined by law, and luckily can be restructured and changed per presidential term based on the conditions and trends of our economy.
Though I would presume it has to meet approval by congress to pass, so there's bound to be great challenges ahead.
You're more than welcome to quote me where I indicated or said he was one or more of the following: "Insensitive", "Bigoted", or "Homophobe."
But you'll find it quite difficult because I didn't imply or say any of those things. Rather the picture was stating the nature or trend of his posts throughout this thread.
But if you want to believe I posted that simply because he's Republican then by all means. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Another ignorant statement by artemcion, I am not a republican nor have I said anything about homosexuals. You must be a tender individual who's feeling easily become hurt when your mind draw flawed conclusions of peoples words
we are just increasing their legal obligation, that does sound better than stealing...
If you want to view all tax as theft from private citizens, be my guest. I'm not going to change your opinion, if you want to ignore all the services and protections that government provides.
You're more than welcome to quote me where I indicated or said he was one or more of the following: "Insensitive", "Bigoted", or "Homophobe."
But you'll find it quite difficult because I didn't imply or say any of those things. Rather the picture was stating the nature or trend of his posts throughout this thread.
But if you want to believe I posted that simply because he's Republican then by all means. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Another ignorant statement by artemcion, I am not a republican nor have I said anything about homosexuals. You must be a tender individual who's feeling easily become hurt when your mind draw flawed conclusions of peoples words
Did you not read whom I quoted? Or rather which post I was making reference to?
we are just increasing their legal obligation, that does sound better than stealing...
If you want to view all tax as theft from private citizens, be my guest. I'm not going to change your opinion on, if you want to ignore all the services and protections that government provides.
We're discussing the redistribution of wealth. My point is if you take it to it's logical and fairest conclusion everyone ends up with nothing.
Pleebo is arguing that redistribution through taxation stimulates the economy but I suggest it's only momentarily at best as that wealth re-pools back at the top. I don't see any long term advantage.
And you are saying you don't have enough services and protections already? How much is enough and who decides the limits?
As for the healthcare issue under the constitution, is it not one of the greatest points that all American Citizens have the right to Life and Liberty?
If that's true, wouldn't privatizing healthcare negate both aspects by limiting one's right to essential life-saving healthcare?
Having Universal Access to healthcare should be everyone's liberty, not just to those that can afford it.
Yea, you're not misinterpreting that at all. They certainly meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that the government should take care of all health issues its citizens may encounter. That makes sense, being it was written during a time where a common cold could kill your *** and the life expectancy was about 35.
I bet by pursuit of happiness they meant we should all get $1,000,000 when we're born. Yea, having $1,000,000 should be everyone's liberty, not just to those that earn it.
Since when do liberals quote the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution anyways, thought you guys didn't believe in those?
You don't know what your talking about, it was "life, liberty, and property" or at least it was until the libetards changed it. personally Id rather pursue happiness on my property, but seeing as libtards don't believe in property rights and favor destructive taxation of such achievements...
The Conservitrons made the second amendment into free gun rights for everyone when it clearly states only the militiamen may own firearms. And how do you have militiamen...you form a militia. So what is the second amendment? The Right To Form A Militia. I believe in the constitution....i just find it funny when people say Obama is "destroying" the constitution yet they are committing constitutional treason.
edit: i'm late and wont be staying long...stoopid college Q_Q
So is obstructing government processes because you and your friends have a majority within a government branch. That is actually called a coup and is treasonous in itself.
we are just increasing their legal obligation, that does sound better than stealing...
If you want to view all tax as theft from private citizens, be my guest. I'm not going to change your opinion on, if you want to ignore all the services and protections that government provides.
We're discussing the redistribution of wealth. My point is if you take it to it's logical and fairest conclusion everyone ends up with nothing.
Pleebo is arguing that redistribution through taxation stimulates the economy but I suggest it's only momentarily at best as that wealth re-pools back at the top. I don't see any long term advantage.
And you are saying you don't have enough services and protections already? How much is enough and who decides the limits?
No it isn't. egalitarianism is boring. but i believe that we can provide a safety net for everyone who wants to work, while keeping a balanced economy.
Providing safety nets can stimulate the economy. The economy is a cycle, it moves in both directions. Bottom up and top down. If the top won't invest money to grow the economy, money doesn't go down. If the bottom doesn't have money to pay for basic services money stagnates at the top.
Romney's argument is that if we cut taxes, the top will start investing. And the only reason they're not investing now is they're afraid of a 2% tax increase. If you think that's a good argument then vote Romney.
I agree that getting investment moving is part of the solution.
It's almost as if people watched the debate looking for snippets to strengthen the position they already held rather than watching in order to try and glean information that would help them make an informed decision even if that meant, gasp, changing their mind.
Let's face it. 95% of voters (and by observation people on this messageboard) have their minds made up and wouldn't change which party they championed if a copy of The Communist Manifesto was found under Obama's pillow or if Romney was video taped having a discussion with Karl Rove about how to kill off 90% of the population so the elite could finally be free of their 'burden'.
People don't care about facts. They care about their side winning. As someone who is undecided and has voted for 2 democrat and 2 republican presidents in my lifetime I can say it has never been this bad. Nearly everyone has their heels dug in and they are just trying to win. It's as if people are so invested personally in their side winning that it will be an actual personal trauma to lose (or even to concede a point here or there that is glaringly obvious).
Debt equal to GDP and people want to rally around a "zinger" their guy made. Ridiculous.
Pleebo is arguing that redistribution through taxation stimulates the economy but I suggest it's only momentarily at best as that wealth re-pools back at the top. I don't see any long term advantage.
wow if only we had some sort of institution we could grant the authority and resources necessary to act as a check on this process
It's almost as if people watched the debate looking for snippets to strengthen the position they already held rather than watching in order to try and glean information that would help them make an informed decision even if that meant, gasp, changing their mind.
Let's face it. 95% of voters (and by observation people on this messageboard) have their minds made up and wouldn't change which party they championed if a copy of The Communist Manifesto was found under Obama's pillow or if Romney was video taped having a discussion with Karl Rove about how to kill off 90% of the population so the elite could finally be free of their 'burden'.
People don't care about facts. They care about their side winning. As someone who is undecided and has voted for 2 democrat and 2 republican presidents in my lifetime I can say it has never been this bad. Nearly everyone has their heels dug in and they are just trying to win. It's as if people are so invested personally in their side winning that it will be an actual personal trauma to lose (or even to concede a point here or there that is glaringly obvious).
Debt equal to GDP and people want to rally around a "zinger" their guy made. Ridiculous.
most business men already subscribe to communism in either a loose sense or entirely. It isn't the big bad evil red sickle that is going to cut off the head of democracy via Obama like everyone thinks.
I also care about facts, not just some made up "my state is awesome" or "DETH PANALS! WOMG TEH DETH PANALS!" *** only because their financial income is in danger of dropping significantly because now they HAVE to follow the law and they HAVE to be a part of society.
So is obstructing government processes because you and your friends have a majority within a government branch. That is actually called a coup and is treasonous in itself.
He had 60 votes in the senate the first two years in office. During which he passed everything he wanted to with the exception of the dream act.
His presidency didn't work. His policies didn't work. We are in the worst "recovery" since the great depression. Average household incomes are down $4300 under his policies. Health care costs continue to soar. Energy prices are higher. Why would anyone think that re-electing him wouldn't result in more of the same?
Maybe he gave such a shitty performance because he was too busy thinking about the "anniversary sex" (shudder).
So Romney wants to cut federal funding for PBS. After such comments are made, there is a lot of talk about the possibility for losing some popular programs on PBS like Sesame Street, and to say the least it makes people angry.
I watched the video posted earlier with Mr. Rogers asking for federal funding. First thing I thought was I doubt the govt interviews entities like that anymore when they want funding. It's more like your local congressman selling his vote on a particular bill for funds in his district. Which seems corrupt to me at least. I'm glad Mr. Rogers got the funding, and without it, we may not have PBS now.
Having said that, I don't think PBS needs funding now. It's small part of their revenue and I don't think they will have to resort to corporate advertising. Sesame Street will be fine. I've already bought Tickle me Elmos and bunch of other stuff. I'm thankful they got the kick start they needed. Oil subsidies will likely need to be cut to, are they needed now? Probably not, but in the past it might of helped kick start r&d and energy exploration.
PBS is such a small part of the budget that it probably isn't worth talking about or touching. Which in many cases is usually the counter argument to not cutting it. I think it's more about the role of government and what it should be funding. I think PBS revenue from federal tax dollars is in the hundred of thousands(?). That can be alot of money to some people that want to do great things which involves educating our children. http://www.indiegogo.com/http://www.kickstarter.com/ Usually individuals do a better job at deciding where their tax funds go. It seems unfair that some people are begging for 10-20k for funding to make an education game/program (for example) while PBS gets handed money when they are already getting plenty.
we are just increasing their legal obligation, that does sound better than stealing...
If you want to view all tax as theft from private citizens, be my guest. I'm not going to change your opinion on, if you want to ignore all the services and protections that government provides.
We're discussing the redistribution of wealth. My point is if you take it to it's logical and fairest conclusion everyone ends up with nothing.
Pleebo is arguing that redistribution through taxation stimulates the economy but I suggest it's only momentarily at best as that wealth re-pools back at the top. I don't see any long term advantage.
And you are saying you don't have enough services and protections already? How much is enough and who decides the limits?
No it isn't. egalitarianism is boring. but i believe that we can provide a safety net for everyone who wants to work, while keeping a balanced economy.
Providing safety nets can stimulate the economy. The economy is a cycle, it moves in both directions. Bottom up and top down. If the top won't invest money to grow the economy, money doesn't go down. If the bottom doesn't have money to pay for basic services money stagnates at the top.
Romney's argument is that if we cut taxes, the top will start investing. And the only reason they're not investing now is they're afraid of a 2% tax increase. If you think that's a good argument then vote Romney.
I agree that getting investment moving is part of the solution.
It's almost as if people watched the debate looking for snippets to strengthen the position they already held rather than watching in order to try and glean information that would help them make an informed decision even if that meant, gasp, changing their mind.
Let's face it. 95% of voters (and by observation people on this messageboard) have their minds made up and wouldn't change which party they championed if a copy of The Communist Manifesto was found under Obama's pillow or if Romney was video taped having a discussion with Karl Rove about how to kill off 90% of the population so the elite could finally be free of their 'burden'.
People don't care about facts. They care about their side winning. As someone who is undecided and has voted for 2 democrat and 2 republican presidents in my lifetime I can say it has never been this bad. Nearly everyone has their heels dug in and they are just trying to win. It's as if people are so invested personally in their side winning that it will be an actual personal trauma to lose (or even to concede a point here or there that is glaringly obvious).
Debt equal to GDP and people want to rally around a "zinger" their guy made. Ridiculous.
Luckily it's people like you who are going to determine this election, and not the mentally bankrupt you speak of. There have always been people dead set in their choice, and people who treat a presidential election as if it were a high school student council popularity contest. You just have to shrug it off, and if you want my advice, stay off of any video game forum if you want to read/talk about politics.
Maybe he gave such a shitty performance because he was too busy thinking about the "anniversary sex" (shudder).
You say reasonable stuff, then you blow it in the end man. Why? This is typical for a sitting president, and it happened last election with Bush losing the first debate.
we are just increasing their legal obligation, that does sound better than stealing...
If you want to view all tax as theft from private citizens, be my guest. I'm not going to change your opinion on, if you want to ignore all the services and protections that government provides.
We're discussing the redistribution of wealth. My point is if you take it to it's logical and fairest conclusion everyone ends up with nothing.
Pleebo is arguing that redistribution through taxation stimulates the economy but I suggest it's only momentarily at best as that wealth re-pools back at the top. I don't see any long term advantage.
And you are saying you don't have enough services and protections already? How much is enough and who decides the limits?
No it isn't. egalitarianism is boring. but i believe that we can provide a safety net for everyone who wants to work, while keeping a balanced economy.
Providing safety nets can stimulate the economy. The economy is a cycle, it moves in both directions. Bottom up and top down. If the top won't invest money to grow the economy, money doesn't go down. If the bottom doesn't have money to pay for basic services money stagnates at the top.
Romney's argument is that if we cut taxes, the top will start investing. And the only reason they're not investing now is they're afraid of a 2% tax increase. If you think that's a good argument then vote Romney.
I agree that getting investment moving is part of the solution.
c'mon guise, poor people are entitled to our tax dollars.
Obama and Romney have had their entire careers to make their views and character known. I, for my part, have had my whole adult life to draw rational conclusions from observed data. Why on Earth would I allow myself to be swayed by an hour and a half of kabuki in the eleventh hour of a political election?
I wish I could credit the person that I stole these from, but yeah. Page 5 still has the post with the most likes on this thread so I feel I can get away with it. What now?
Protip: Page 15 has the only thing I've been able to 'like' or +1 or whatever when someone posted a pic of Big Bird holding a 'Will work for food' sign.
Maybe he gave such a shitty performance because he was too busy thinking about the "anniversary sex" (shudder).
You say reasonable stuff, then you blow it in the end man. Why? This is typical for a sitting president, and it happened last election with Bush losing the first debate.
It happened because 4 years of an adoring media have left Obama unprepared for reality.
So is obstructing government processes because you and your friends have a majority within a government branch. That is actually called a coup and is treasonous in itself.
He had 60 votes in the senate the first two years in office. During which he passed everything he wanted to with the exception of the dream act.
His presidency didn't work. His policies didn't work. We are in the worst "recovery" since the great depression. Average household incomes are down $4300 under his policies. Health care costs continue to soar. Energy prices are higher. Why would anyone think that re-electing him wouldn't result in more of the same?
Maybe he gave such a shitty performance because he was too busy thinking about the "anniversary sex" (shudder).
The "Free Market" sets those prices and wages. the only thing government mandates in the bolded is how much at base/hour an employee can be paid which is 7.25/hour which has also raised a substantial amount with Obama in office. The Great Depression ended in a spike of economic improvement because of a world war and that war created jobs. That will not happen again because we dont make tanks here anymore,we dont make bullets here anymore, and we dont make anything of high value here anymore. at least there is recovery instead of a constant downward spiral of which there was no pulling out of.
TL;DR: The President DOES NOT controll the Free Market and DOES NOT set,mandate,or any meaning of those words ANY price. Government does provide minimum wage standards of which employers commonly place people in minimum wage instead of paying them actual wages to where people have to work hundreds of hours in a pay check to actually profit. that IS NOT Obamas fault that IS the employers fault.
So is obstructing government processes because you and your friends have a majority within a government branch. That is actually called a coup and is treasonous in itself.
He had 60 votes in the senate the first two years in office. During which he passed everything he wanted to with the exception of the dream act.
His presidency didn't work. His policies didn't work. We are in the worst "recovery" since the great depression. Average household incomes are down $4300 under his policies. Health care costs continue to soar. Energy prices are higher. Why would anyone think that re-electing him wouldn't result in more of the same?
Maybe he gave such a shitty performance because he was too busy thinking about the "anniversary sex" (shudder).
The "Free Market" sets those prices and wages. the only thing government mandates in the bolded is how much at base/hour an employee can be paid which is 7.25/hour which has also raised a substantial amount with Obama in office. The Great Depression ended in a spike of economic improvement because of a world war and that war created jobs. That will not happen again because we dont make tanks here anymore,we dont make bullets here anymore, and we dont make anything of high value here anymore. at least there is recovery instead of a constant downward spiral of which there was no pulling out of.
TL;DR: The President DOES NOT controll the Free Market and DOES NOT set,mandate,or any meaning of those words ANY price. Government does provide minimum wage standards of which employers commonly place people in minimum wage instead of paying them actual wages to where people have to work hundreds of hours in a pay check to actually profit. that IS NOT Obamas fault that IS the employers fault.
Maybe uhhbama should start a world war, to fix our economy, right?
