Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Freakzilla wrote:I think it's un-American. It's part of the American Dream that everyone has a chance to become disgustingly wealthy.

It's nice to think that way, but what about when people and corporations become unstoppable profits-obsessed entities that chug along with no regard for whether they're hurting the economy or even the planet?

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I think it's un-American. It's part of the American Dream that everyone has a chance to become disgustingly wealthy.

It's nice to think that way, but what about when people and corporations become unstoppable profits-obsessed entities that chug along with no regard for whether they're hurting the economy or even the planet?

Like my wise co-administrator said, you regulate them.

You don't take their money and give it to the poor.

No one should be penalized for saving money.

Freakzilla wrote:So, who gives a crap if they're Socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car. A person should not believe in an "-ism," he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Which is a good point because he was the walrus. I could be the walrus but I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Great film, though most people disagree with me that it's John Hugh's best...

Freakzilla wrote: I don't think it's funny, I think it's inevitable. I don't have the time or energy to worry about black helicopters following me. Besides, I have nothing to hide. I don't even own a gun.

You don't own a gun? I've been picturing you with a holster on each limb!

As far as Socialism being un-american: the US is already part socialist, and both candidates are fine with that, so it doesn't make much sense to call the guy who wants to make a few tweaks to the system a socialist much more than it makes to do the same for the other guy.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote: I don't think it's funny, I think it's inevitable. I don't have the time or energy to worry about black helicopters following me. Besides, I have nothing to hide. I don't even own a gun.

You don't own a gun? I've been picturing you with a holster on each limb!

I have four kids. I can't get my wife to watch them enough to keep them from getting their hands on a lighter and setting their bed on fire. I can't imagine what would happen with a gun in the house. I don't hunt so if I did own a gun it would be for the sole purpose of killing a man in the course of protecting my family and property, so locking it in a safe or a trigger lock would kind of defeat the purpose.

I'd love one of these though: http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/saarmy.44-40.asp

...the US is already part socialist...

How is that?

Freakzilla wrote:

...the US is already part socialist...

How is that?

They give bail-outs to giant freakin' corporations. You should see if you can score a bail-out, Freak.

social security, UI benefits, industrial regulation, environmental regulation, WIC, SSI, interstate commerce regulation, Medicare/Medicaid, the electoral college, intrastate federal grants, income tax (tax on wage labor),they just nationalised half the banks, the strategic oil reserve,the FDA, EPA, NRC, FAA, FCC, NASA, &etc.

edit: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, Pell Grants, farm subsidies ...

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote: I don't think it's funny, I think it's inevitable. I don't have the time or energy to worry about black helicopters following me. Besides, I have nothing to hide. I don't even own a gun.

You don't own a gun? I've been picturing you with a holster on each limb!

I have four kids. I can't get my wife to watch them enough to keep them from getting their hands on a lighter and setting their bed on fire. I can't imagine what would happen with a gun in the house. I don't hunt so if I did own a gun it would be for the sole purpose of killing a man in the course of protecting my family and property, so locking it in a safe or a trigger lock would kind of defeat the purpose.

That makes sense, its the responsible thing to do if you can't keep it in a safe (and you're right that would make self defence a bit... tricky!).

...the US is already part socialist...

How is that?

I'm not 100% up on US policies but:

Do people pay taxes that pay for social assistance programs?
Do people with more money pay more taxes than those with less?
Same question but for businesses?
Can people file for bankruptcy?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions you don't live in a purely capitalist country.

EDIT: I see a couple people beat me to the punch and gave some examples while I was typing!

Why do people (and I'm talking non-specifically here) always assume that those who are for firearm ownership are gun-totting, gun-loving, gun-owning right wingers? I'm against tight gun laws and registration crap and I don't own a gun. People would be surprised where some may sit on that argument. Gun control is just what it sounds like; more control by our government, control they shouldn't have. Because I'm a knee-jerk paranoid that wants my gun to shot the government if they piss me off too much? No, because governments should keep their damn nose out of my bedroom, our of my right to own a gun and out of my right to smoke a cigarette.

I swear, we have all these crazies defending the environment and campaigning against "evil" corporations, but the real epidemic tragedy of our times appears to be public willingness to lay down while the government takes away their rights one by one, all under the scapegoat of "save the children" and "public good".

I have no problem now understanding why the Patriot Act passed in the current socio-political climate of the United States

There's my jugular

Baraka Bryan wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote: I'm not 100% up on US policies but:

Do people pay taxes that pay for social assistance programs?
Do people with more money pay more taxes than those with less?
Same question but for businesses?
Can people file for bankruptcy?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions you don't live in a purely capitalist country.

pure capitalism doesn't actually exist. no system at its extreme can ever work. the fact does remain that the US runs probably the most free market economy in the world and is therefore, the furthest thing from socialism in the world.

Of course. Thats my point!

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

...the US is already part socialist...

How is that?

They give bail-outs to giant freakin' corporations. You should see if you can score a bail-out, Freak.

Of course we have socialist-like programs. Every nation has to for those of us who cannot compete, and to get some people to a place where they can compete, and in some cases for those who refuse to compete. But the bailouts are not about socialism. they are about protectionism and in the long term preserving the capitolist system. Our system is not based on socialist prinicples, it does not seek equality as a consequence (it seeks equal access to opportunity), and it is driven by profit. We are not driven by paternalism, but by individual success.

Bryan wrote:i am curious if you have a progressive taxation system (higher proportional taxation for higher earnings)

We did up until about eight years ago .....

Omphalos wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

...the US is already part socialist...

How is that?

They give bail-outs to giant freakin' corporations. You should see if you can score a bail-out, Freak.

Of course we have socialist-like programs. Every nation has to for those of us who cannot compete, and to get some people to a place where they can compete, and in some cases for those who refuse to compete. But the bailouts are not about socialism. they are about protectionism and in the long term preserving the capitolist system. Our system is not based on socialist prinicples, it does not seek equality as a consequence (it seeks equal access to opportunity), and it is driven by profit. We are not driven by paternalism, but by individual success.

Well, there you go again ....

Seriously, that's about the second or third rational, thoughtful and factually correct statement you've made today.
This is politics, Son ! Get with the program !!

I don't agree with most of those welfare programs, especially Social Security. I'd rather invest that money myself. I don't think rich people should pay more taxes, I support the Fair Tax. The financial bail-out has to be repaid and is backed by equity in the companies. I don't see how the Strategic Petrolium Reserve is socialism, is planning for an emergency socialism? How is the Electoral College socialism?

Regulation is one thing. Producing and distributing government owned goods is another.

the electoral college puts politcal parties in control of elections - long story

but hey, Freak, was this some ACTION today or what ?

I just looked at Byron's board - 0 registered users, 1 guest (musta been me)


yeah, traffic !

SandRider wrote:the electoral college puts politcal parties in control of elections - long story

but hey, Freak, was this some ACTION today or what ?

I just looked at Byron's board - 0 registered users, 1 guest (musta been me)


yeah, traffic !

it's truly pathetic... PoD isn't even worth talking about to those who support the book.

And no one will back my calling-out-KJA thread...

Freakzilla wrote:I don't agree with most of those welfare programs, especially Social Security. I'd rather invest that money myself. I don't think rich people should pay more taxes, I support the Fair Tax. The financial bail-out has to be repaid and is backed by equity in the companies. I don't see how the Strategic Petrolium Reserve is socialism, is planning for an emergency socialism? How is the Electoral College socialism?

Regulation is one thing. Producing and distributing government owned goods is another.

You mean you dont support a progressive tax? I'm not sure that a totally flat tax is the answer. Those in poverty probably cannot afford the hit taht they would have to take to make the system totally fair.

I tell you what though, social programs are not just to help the poor. They are in place so that we dont have abject poverty in this country. That kind of poverty is politically destabilizing, even if the poor dont revolt (which is a risk, especially in a situation where you would have to take away existent social benefits). I think that they are a necessary thing, and that they have been around so long, we are stuck with them now.

A party system isn't socialism. I think it could be improved but I don't think a pure democracy is a good idea either. That's why the founding fathers only gave white, male land-owners the right to vote.

Omphalos wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I don't agree with most of those welfare programs, especially Social Security. I'd rather invest that money myself. I don't think rich people should pay more taxes, I support the Fair Tax. The financial bail-out has to be repaid and is backed by equity in the companies. I don't see how the Strategic Petrolium Reserve is socialism, is planning for an emergency socialism? How is the Electoral College socialism?

Regulation is one thing. Producing and distributing government owned goods is another.

You mean you dont support a progressive tax? I'm not sure that a totally flat tax is the answer. Those in poverty probably cannot afford the hit taht they would have to take to make the system totally fair.

What hit? Before the poor spend any money they have to earn money, right? Therefore they pay income tax, if their income is legitimate. If you eliminate the income tax and create a proportional national sales tax you're just moving the tax from earnings to spendings.

I tell you what though, social programs are not just to help the poor. They are in place so that we dont have abject poverty in this country. That kind of poverty is politically destabilizing, even if the poor dont revolt (which is a risk, especially in a situation where you would have to take away existent social benefits). I think that they are a necessary thing, and that they have been around so long, we are stuck with them now.

Too many people abuse our social systems. If it only went to people who actually made an effort to support themselves I'd be all for it.

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

Omphalos wrote:All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

People who make $21K and have two kids should get all of their income tax back. How do you lower a tax burden of ZERO? Again, this is why Obama's promise of tax cuts for 95% of us is bullshit. It amounts to a handout.

Omphalos wrote:All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

(I just typed up the same point but the words didn't really make sense... so I'll just quote Omph instead)

The idea is to shift the burden, not to penalise higher earners. I'd rather help a lower income guy (read: me) run a car, than some rich bloke buy a new one.

---

On the benefits system - cheating sponging bastards should not be allowed to ruin the system for people who are genuinely unable to work.

Omphalos wrote:All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

y'all have put up more posts in the last few hours
than Bryon's had all month Over There.








I likee !!

SandRider wrote:y'all have put up more posts in the last few hours
than Bryon's had all month Over There.








I likee !!

I hope that butt scratch is shaking his head, remembering that even if we did bitch about those shitty books, he used to have this kind of community over there. How anybody could just throw away something this good is beyond me.