|
|
On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner.
the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money.
as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding?
|
On November 11 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:44 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:22 acker wrote:
[quote]
You're conflating multiple variables (the effect of being white, and the effect of being female). Bad statistics. Might as well point out that the majority of evangelical Bible Belt Christian women making over 200k a year voted for Romney.
When it comes to women it's pretty clear that Democrats hold a large advantage. When it comes to minorities, it's also clear that Democrats holds an advantage. I don't see what's so disputable about this. when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics. on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly? When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does. you are a heretic... edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you? I'm a defender of the meek. I have no denomination. But you can't defend yourself.......
Oh yes I can, Military member with survival training and more guns and ammo than I'll need in a lifetime.
God
Gold
Guns
|
On November 11 2012 08:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:On November 10 2012 05:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
when it comes to women, Obama held an advantage (presidential is not only electoral race), but I don't know if I would call it large. further, it is offensive and dishonest to lump all women into one homogenous group and assume that their opinions are uniform. it is actually bad statistics to simply say: "women supported Democrats by huge margins!" and not present the full picture of exactly which women and exactly why. when it comes to minorities, Democrats do, in general, have an advantage. not arguing that. I'm arguing: 1) that this proves the existence of a platform of hate, and, 2) that presidential exit polls represent the full picture of actual, by party, demographics.
on a side note, has anyone said that Obama (and Democrats) have a "demographic" problem for losing males and whites and the elderly?
When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does. you are a heretic... edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you? I'm a defender of the meek. I have no denomination. But you can't defend yourself....... Oh yes I can, Military member with survival training and more guns and ammo than I'll need in a lifetime. God Gold Guns
Triple G fo lyfe.
|
On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money.
I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money.
|
On November 11 2012 08:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:46 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 08:40 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 08:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:On November 11 2012 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 10 2012 05:56 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
When you have a decent constituency of women voting Democrat because they feel a Republican candidate would infringe upon basic reproductive rights, yeah it comes off as a platform of hate. do you have proof that this is their reasoning? Do you really need proof for this reasoning? Have you not been paying attention to the women that come out in droves every time a politician claims they want to overturn Roe v. Wade or curtail abortion rights? It turns out women don't really like it when white old men in Washington put restrictions on their bodies. It's been said many times before in this thread, but when a lay person doesn't know which economic policy is better, they're going to fall back on social issues. And it's been proven time and time again that the most important social issue to women, as a demographic, is reproductive rights. instead of providing assertions, just provide hard statistics. A child had no sin, everyone else does. you are a heretic... edit: seriously. That is a highly heterodox idea. What denomination are you? I'm a defender of the meek. I have no denomination. But you can't defend yourself....... Oh yes I can, Military member with survival training and more guns and ammo than I'll need in a lifetime. God Gold Guns Triple G fo lyfe.
sometimes the best solutions are the simple ones. 
|
On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding?
This is such a stupid distinction. Cut taxes and at the end of the year you end up with more money. How about the GOP bribes its constituents into voting for them through the promise of cutting their taxes?
|
On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding?
Increased funding means more profit for suppliers meaning more money for shareholders means he tried to buy votes (again, your logic not mine)
|
On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
...
yes...
why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money.
your misrepresenting the situation:
If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars?
On November 11 2012 08:49 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
...
yes...
why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding? Increased funding means more profit for suppliers meaning more money for shareholders means he tried to buy votes (again, your logic not mine)
not my logic at all actually. your now taking multiple steps as to where the money is going, rather than the one step of taxpayer to benefit receiver.
|
On November 11 2012 08:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money. your misrepresenting the situation: If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars?
No you didn't. You are still buying me with the opportunity to get 5 more dollars (your logic). Why are you arguing over the definition of the word give.
If increasing the wealth of the poor through welfare is buying their votes.
Increasing the wealth of the rich by decreasing taxes is buying their votes.
Anyone that disagrees with this comment is someone who has no basis in reality.
|
William Gibson wrote:
"They’re wildly overconfident. Omnipotence, omniscience - that’s part of the mythology that surrounds the Special Forces. I had those guys hitting on me every last day in Baghdad.” She held up her fist, showing Milgrim her plain gold wedding band. “Your guy can walk in the door and promise training in something he personally doesn’t know how to do, and not even realize he’s bullshitting about his own capabilities. It’s a special kind of gullibility, a kind of psychic tactical equipment, that he had installed during training. The Army put him through schools that promised to teach him how to do everything, everything that matters. And he believed them.”
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
|
On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:04 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:58 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 07:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 07:52 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
You're not bad at communicating, you're just closing your ears to anything you don't wanna hear. It's completely laughable for you to accuse the Democrats of "buying" this election. I mean, this elections, of all elections, the one where conservative billionaires tried their best to buy it so they can pay lower taxes? You think his top donor gave him 80 million cause he liked Romney's smile? I didn't say that Democrats bought this election. I said they have been buying votes with welfare. that's why I said you are all selling me short, because you shut your ears and only hear what you want me to have said. Well apparently I sold you "far" thinking that couldn't have been your point cause I didn't think your logic could fail you so badly. How is having a certain policy buying votes? Every policy tries to convince the people they benefit them to vote for the party introducing the policy. I thought... that's kind of a no brainer. By your logic Romney tried to buy everyone's vote by offering an across the board tax cut? except Romney wasn't suggesting that we take other people's money and give it to those voters. it's buying votes because they don't have to directly pay for the money they will be getting from welfare, and therefore are less likely to hesitate before voting to extend them. a tax cut isn't costing other people money for your benefit, welfare is. Same thing.. R: I will cut taxes. More money in your pocket !! People: yeee i like money D: We need government services. Live a better life! People: yee I like food and healthcare it's not the same thing at all. in one case we are telling people to keep their own money. in another case, you are telling people that you will take more of someone else money and give it to them. letting someone keep their money isn't buying anything.... So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money.
It is quite funy how republicans have the moral compass appropriate for a simple hunter gatherer society. World has gotten a little more complex by now.
One example among hundreds:
Romney's Bain bought GST Steel and put $8 millions of its own pockets. Then Bain puts $125 millions of debt on GST Steel's book, some of which to invest in the company, but still $36 millions to pay themselves bonuses. Meanwhile, Bain asks for tax breaks while underfunding GST Steel workers pensions.
Forward a few months, GST Steel goes bankrupt, and the government has to bailout $44 millions to save the workers pensions and life savings.
In that case I don't consider the $36 millions Bain paid itself to be "their" money. More taxes on the wealthy to cover this kind of stuff is not taking someone's else money; more like taking it back.
Many graphs have been posted in this thread showing that for the middle class, income did not grow like productivity. Who does that lost income money belong too?
|
On November 11 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent.
of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money. your misrepresenting the situation: If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars? No you didn't. You are still buying me with the opportunity to get 5 more dollars (your logic). Why are you arguing over the definition of the word give.
you aren't getting 5 more dollars. you are simply keeping 5 more dollars. I wouldn't have tried to "buy" anything.
also, if you aren't going to get my logic right then don't keep saying "your logic"
|
On November 11 2012 08:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:
[quote]
With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money. your misrepresenting the situation: If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars? No you didn't. You are still buying me with the opportunity to get 5 more dollars (your logic). Why are you arguing over the definition of the word give. you aren't getting 5 more dollars. you are simply keeping 5 more dollars. I wouldn't have tried to "buy" anything. also, if you aren't going to get my logic right then don't keep saying "your logic"
Fine replace the wording getting with having.
Democrats: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars --> buying their vote
Republican: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars --> not buying their vote
Fine, from now on I will refer to it as your lack of logic.
|
On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:10 ZeaL. wrote:
[quote]
So if people are getting taxed every year for 15% of their income and then some politician says "Hey if you elect me I'll lower it to 5%!" he's not buying votes, he's just letting them keep their own money? ... yes... why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding?
Since you are not responding to sam!zdat's one liner let me reiterate his point (well probably he won't agree with my expansion but anyway):
No it really is not your money. The money exists only because it is issued by the state (no I don't care about a discussion that the FED is not a state organization), or rather it exists because the state forces you to pay taxes in it's currency and has the power to punish you if you don't. You may use the states money but it's not yours.
If this sounds crazy and strange consider this. You can also see this historically, since currencies vanished with the states that issued them. The state must find a way to distribute money throughout society to make everything work (and first and foremost keep itself in existence) and this is in a big part done through taxation.
Keeping this in mind I don't think it's useful to think taxes as being taken from you, they actually never have been yours and the state decides what you can keep. Note that this understanding does nothing to explain what fair or unfair taxation would look like.
|
On November 11 2012 08:58 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract".
taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation.
however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be.
Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money. your misrepresenting the situation: If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars? No you didn't. You are still buying me with the opportunity to get 5 more dollars (your logic). Why are you arguing over the definition of the word give. you aren't getting 5 more dollars. you are simply keeping 5 more dollars. I wouldn't have tried to "buy" anything. also, if you aren't going to get my logic right then don't keep saying "your logic" Fine replace the wording getting with having. Democrats: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars --> buying their vote Republican: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars --> not buying their vote Fine, from now on I will refer to it as your lack of logic.
your completely neglecting where the money comes from, lol. this isn't that hard:
Democrats: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars (of other people's money) --> buying their vote
Republican: If you vote for me, you can HAVE 5 more dollars (of your own money) --> not buying their vote
more accurate now.
|
On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote:
saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense.
Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem.
The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable.
There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them.
|
On November 11 2012 08:59 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:On November 11 2012 08:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:20 ZeaL. wrote:On November 11 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
...
yes...
why? do you not agree with that? how is he "buying" votes if he's not spending any money? You take the word "buying" so literally lol. How about this, both parties appeal to their respective demographics through promises of policies which their demographics think will directly benefit them. and in one instance the policy in question is taking someone's money and giving it to another person. in the other scenario, it's just letting people keep more of their money. one can accurately describe the first policy as buying something, but the second policy cannot be described as buying something because nothing is being spent. of course people will vote for what they believe benefits them. but what benefits them, in the case of the Democrat voter, is largely going to be other people's money, whereas in the Republican voter, it will largely be his/her own money. With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. as to the military: do you know if Romney wanted to increase pay or just increase funding? Since you are not responding to sam!zdat's one liner let me reiterate his point (well probably he won't agree with my expansion but anyway): No it really is not your money. The money exists only because it is issued by the state (no I don't care about a discussion that the FED is not a state organization), or rather it exists because the state forces you to pay taxes in it's currency and has the power to punish you if you don't. You may use the states money but it's not yours. If this sounds crazy and strange consider this. You can also see this historically, since currencies vanished with the states that issued them. The state must find a way to distribute money throughout society to make everything work (and first and foremost keep itself in existence) and this is in a big part done through taxation. Keeping this in mind I don't think it's useful to think taxes as being taken from you, they actually never have been yours and the state decides what you can keep. Note that this understanding does nothing to explain what fair or unfair taxation would look like.
... wealth then... jesus christ...
|
On November 11 2012 08:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:47 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:44 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:38 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:32 radiatoren wrote:
[quote]
With that mindset, taxation=stealing comes to mind. Is that your argument? of course not, taxation could be justified by the idea of an unwritten "social contract". taxation without representation would be theft, but that is irrelevant because in the US we have representation. however, this does not mean that the people's money is actually the governments. allowing people to keep more of their own money is not synonymous with giving them money, no matter how much you want it to be. Taxed money is more evenly distributed, therefore by lowing taxes, more money is kept by the rich, therefore Romney tried to buy the rich people's vote. since when is letting people keep their own money buying something? Before: Rich 100 -30(tax) +22.5(services) = 92.5 Poor 50 - 15(tax) + 22.5(services) = 57.5 Now Rich 100 - 20(tax) + 15 (services) = 95.0 Poor 50 - 10(tax) + 12.5(services) = 52.5 Rich get more money than before, he's buying the rich vote (your logic not mine). Thought this was implied, sorry I didn't make it clear sooner. the rich don't get more money, they keep more of their own money. I'm sorry but where I come from, if I had 92 dollars before and I have 95 dollars now, I have more money. your misrepresenting the situation: If you start off with 100, and I usually take 10 (leaving you 90), but this time I take 5 (leaving you with 95), have I given you 5 extra dollars? No you didn't. You are still buying me with the opportunity to get 5 more dollars (your logic). Why are you arguing over the definition of the word give. you aren't getting 5 more dollars. you are simply keeping 5 more dollars. I wouldn't have tried to "buy" anything. also, if you aren't going to get my logic right then don't keep saying "your logic"
He is arguing that the 5 dollars are not truely in your pocket at any time before the tax is lowered. As soon as the tax is lowered you get the 5 dollars and therefore what you are arguing is "your own" all along. However, before the tax is lowered it is still only a promise and you are not in any way shape or form the owner of those money when you accept that taxes from government is not theft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
