|
|
This has turned into one of the most hilariously frustrating important conversations in this thread lol.
|
On November 11 2012 08:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:58 Feartheguru wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Well if this is your logic all I can do is laugh.
|
On November 11 2012 09:01 radiatoren 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" 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.
not really, because it is your money (wealth) until the government takes it. (even then it's still yours, it's just being spent for you).
|
On November 11 2012 09:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:59 silynxer 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. 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...
but the government doesn't tax wealth
(except, very very arguably, in the form of landed property)
|
On November 11 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:59 silynxer 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. 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... but the government doesn't tax wealth
......
I'm not even going to argue this. Money is a representation of wealth.
|
On November 11 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:01 radiatoren wrote: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:
[quote]
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. not really, because it is your money (wealth) until the government takes it. (even then it's still yours, it's just being spent for you).
wait so welfare is just money being spent for you then, it's not money that's being "given" to you>?
your argument is awful sc2fan, I know many of yours are, but come on.. Cutting taxes is not giving anything but making a social safety net is.
Also, can you point me to the part where Obama gave tons and tons of new people welfare? He passed the ACA and he made it so states can change their welfare requirements if it means that people will go back to work, I don't see any other entitlement reforms he has done.
|
On November 11 2012 09:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 09:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 08:59 silynxer 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. 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... but the government doesn't tax wealth ...... I'm not even going to argue this. Money is a representation of wealth.
haha, well, if you're "not going to argue" then I guess you're just right 
|
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such.
|
On November 11 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:01 radiatoren wrote: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:
[quote]
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. not really, because it is your money (wealth) until the government takes it. (even then it's still yours, it's just being spent for you). wait so welfare is just money being spent for you then, it's not money that's being "given" to you>? your argument is awful sc2fan, I know many of yours are, but come on.. Cutting taxes is not giving anything but making a social safety net is. Also, can you point me to the part where Obama gave tons and tons of new people welfare? He passed the ACA and he made it so states can change their welfare requirements if it means that people will go back to work, I don't see any other entitlement reforms he has done.
didn't say that Obama gave anyone welfare, in fact, I didn't say anything about Obama at all.
welfare money is given to those who receive it...
|
On November 11 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:01 radiatoren wrote: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:
[quote]
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. not really, because it is your money (wealth) until the government takes it. (even then it's still yours, it's just being spent for you).
It is not your money. Period. You do not share account with the government and government can use the tax-money however they please without asking you. Wealth is not what is being taxed here. Income is... Wealth is even more dubious to argue from since your wealth is getting taxed through other means.
|
On November 11 2012 09:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 08:59 silynxer 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. 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...
I'm afraid it's not that simple. What is this wealth you are talking about? I would be interested in your definition (one that is not connected to money in a substantial way). It's really important that the state does not tax you in "wealth", you can't pay your taxes by giving the state your TV (though it might get taken away in the end if you don't pay your taxes).
|
Canada11369 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.)
And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have.
|
On November 11 2012 09:09 Feartheguru wrote:
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such.
don't be insulting.
the increase in profit is coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak.
|
for my next act, I will deny the existence of the military-industrial complex...
|
On November 11 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:09 Feartheguru wrote:
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such. don't be insulting. the increase in profit is coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak.
You can't even deny that the people I stated would get more money and by your logic is being bought.
By making a statement not mutually exclusive with my argument, I assume you agree that you were wrong?
|
On November 11 2012 09:09 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:01 radiatoren wrote: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:
[quote]
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. not really, because it is your money (wealth) until the government takes it. (even then it's still yours, it's just being spent for you). It is not your money. Period. You do not share account with the government and government can use the tax-money however they please without asking you. Wealth is not what is being taxed here. Income is... Wealth is even more dubious to argue from since your wealth is getting taxed through other means.
government for the people, by the people, of the people.
the wealth comment was in response to the guy claiming that money doesn't represent wealth.
|
On November 11 2012 09:13 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:09 Feartheguru wrote:
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such. don't be insulting. the increase in profit is coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak. You can't even deny that the people I stated would get more money and by your logic is being bought. By making a statement not mutually exclusive with my argument, I assume you agree that you were wrong?
I believe it is mutually exclusive.
|
zis "reprezentation" uff vich you speek, vat ees eet?
|
On November 11 2012 09:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:13 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:09 Feartheguru wrote:
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such. don't be insulting. the increase in profit is coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak. You can't even deny that the people I stated would get more money and by your logic is being bought. By making a statement not mutually exclusive with my argument, I assume you agree that you were wrong? I believe it is mutually exclusive.
The increase in money for poor people through welfare is also coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak. So no one is being bought after all.
|
On November 11 2012 09:17 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 09:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:13 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 09:09 Feartheguru wrote:
Again, increasing military funding = giving the people who own the companies who make military supplies more money = buying their votes (your lack of logic not mine(as per your request))
Please respond to this or acknowledge you are wrong, a lack of response will be acknowledged as such. don't be insulting. the increase in profit is coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak. You can't even deny that the people I stated would get more money and by your logic is being bought. By making a statement not mutually exclusive with my argument, I assume you agree that you were wrong? I believe it is mutually exclusive. The increase in money for poor people through welfare is also coincidental, not directly "causal", so to speak. So no one is being bought after all.
of course it's not coincidental. it is the direct stated purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
