EPTWhat we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does.
Obama 08! - Page 6
| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today. And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. | ||
|
ahole-surprise
United States813 Posts
On July 31 2008 13:57 Caller wrote: Paragraphs on why healthcare costs a lot Do you see why this really is not relevant because neither candidate is going to fix the issue you addressed, but at least Obama is trying to make healthcare affordable to those who can't afford it. There is high income disparity, due to a clever little thing called government kickbacks and big government. Are you seriously advocating the stance that small government is less likely to induce high income disparity than big government? So naturally, we should take all their money and give it to other more deserving people. Oppress one to save ten. Please tell me you don't know what happens when someone wins the lottery: they don't know what to do with all the money, and end up poorer than before. The point I'm making is that it's pointless to argue about who deserves the money and the better criterion to decide who gets taxed more is relative need. And I'm pretty sure that the situation is not as horrific 1920's sweatshops as you make it seem it is. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair portrays people in a completely unregulated corrupt time, and they lived better than your "exemplified plurality," even without subsidized cable. It's not as horrific as that, but we've come a long way as a society and the fact that 47 million (according to the Obama website, check other figures if you want) can't afford health insurance is an important issue that needs to be dealt with. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 31 2008 13:56 ahole-surprise wrote: Yeah, that's why I want Obama over Mccain Obama? The same obama that wants to fund the shitload of social programs the 90% of americans wont even benefit from? im not saying im supporting mccain but obama is no prize pig himself. where is the money going to come from to fund these programs? we cut military spending and all of a sudden we arent trillions of dollars in debt again? oh yeah thats right just tax the rich people. what the kids cant eat themselves? the mother cant find a relative? a friend? a neighbor? the kid of a neighbor? people need to accept that some people are stuck where they are because they are stupid and suck at life. are there exceptions? sure there are always exceptions, but most people are just stupid. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote: oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today. And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote: supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
now you know im right | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:08 ahole-surprise wrote: Are you seriously advocating the stance that small government is less likely to induce high income disparity than big government? The point I'm making is that it's pointless to argue about who deserves the money and the better criterion to decide who gets taxed more is relative need. It's not as horrific as that, but we've come a long way as a society and the fact that 47 million (according to the Obama website, check other figures if you want) can't afford health insurance is an important issue that needs to be dealt with. Alright then, here's a tl:dr version: MAKING GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF HEALTHCARE 30 YEARS AGO SCREWED THE SYSTEM UP. MAKING GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF HEALTHCARE NOW IS GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE. Instead of making everybody buy "healthcare" which people equate with health, why not just have people go to the f****** doctor and pay, say, $35 or whatever the market decides is a fair price? There's actually some doctors that don't take insurance and charge reasonable prices. Props to them for not sucking the government infused HMO's dick. The problem with Obama is that he's distracting everybody from the real problem (stealing politicians and old-school powermongers like himself) and focusing it on the greedy "rich" who aren't even that rich but are in the upper middle class. It's as bad as Bush blaming 9-11 on Iraq and using it as a cassus belli. And yes, I actually do think smaller government results in less income disparity. In big government, you have the powerholders, who are well-to-do, fat, and rich, and everybody else, who is poor. In small government, nobody can use force to obligate people to do things (legally) so there's a fairer place for people to start business and the like without being crushed by regulation that is sponsored by a paid off senator. In other words, the difference between small and big government is the middle class, which I am a part of and would not like to be poor in order to maintain the wealth of some old inbred coots. Ok, we tax people more. Now who gets to spend it. Ted Stevens, or his cronies (i.e. the entire Congress and Executive and Judicial Branch)? Yeah. I trust my money, they won't spend it on bridges to nowhere. And sure, the situation may have gotten worse. But telling people that the solution is the middle class is almost as bad as Hitler telling everybody that the Jews were responsible for WWI's defeat (yay godwin's law) or Stalin purging the kulaks for ruining the quality of life when it was the fault of the government (oh wait). | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote: On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote: George W. Bush disagreed. now you know im right fixed | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
The problem with Obama is that he's distracting everybody from the real problem (stealing politicians and old-school powermongers like himself) and focusing it on the greedy "rich" who aren't even that rich but are in the upper middle class. It's as bad as Bush blaming 9-11 on Iraq and using it as a cassus belli. Also note that Obama your middle class hero is the same person that wants to spend BILLIONS bailing out the Big 3 so he can fellate the UAW and get more votes. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
wat | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:22 Mindcrime wrote: Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points. i dont really know much about bush's supply side policies, links would be appreciated. also what debt went up? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
George W. Bush is also a corporate fascist who thinks supply side economics is giving all your buddies money. As was his father, George H.W. Bush and his maybe-successor, George John McCain Bush III | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:28 mahnini wrote: i dont really know much about bush's supply side policies, links would be appreciated. also what debt went up? In 1980 (or was it '79?) he referred to Reagan's proposed tax plans as "voodoo economics," but he is frequently referred to as being Reagan's third term, and even though he reneged on the whole "no new taxes" pledge, he pretty much stayed on Reagan's Course. The debt I was referring to was the national debt, but as a % of the GDP. I'm sure someone has the exact numbers somewhere, but this is the best I can do right now: http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/n/G/095.png And if that's correct, then it appears that I was underestimating when I said 20 points. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:30 Caller wrote: George W. Bush is also a corporate fascist who thinks supply side economics is giving all your buddies money. As was his father, George H.W. Bush and his maybe-successor, George John McCain Bush III My point was that, at one time, George H.W. Bush wasn't. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:47 Mindcrime wrote: My point was that, at one time, George H.W. Bush wasn't. O.O | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 31 2008 14:46 Mindcrime wrote: In 1980 (or was it '79?) he referred to Reagan's proposed tax plans as "voodoo economics," but he is frequently referred to as being Reagan's third term, and even though he reneged on the whole "no new taxes" pledge, he pretty much stayed on Reagan's Course. The debt I was referring to was the national debt, but as a % of the GDP. I'm sure someone has the exact numbers somewhere, but this is the best I can do right now: http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/n/G/095.png And if that's correct, then it appears that I was underestimating when I said 20 points. Hmm, national debt is expected to go up if you cut taxes without covering it with the budget totally. But during that time GDP was also rising and inflation plummeted. federalreserve.gov+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2007/200726/img55.gif) forgot where this came from but i think it was a textbook+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7751/usgdpwp3.png) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On July 31 2008 15:02 oneofthem wrote: this is cute Stay out of this thread, I'm warning you. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
death to the irs! | ||
| ||
