|
|
On October 23 2012 09:49 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 09:30 BluePanther wrote: Had a discussion with someone today.
Flat Tax + Negative Income Tax.
Thoughts? I still want an answer to this btw. The result is vaguely the same as a regular progressive tax, but you get extra administrative fees from it being a 2-step system. There might be savings to offset those fees if the actual tax calculations can be simplified by moving to a flat rate.
|
I didn't think Bob was ever going to shut up.
|
On October 23 2012 10:04 xDaunt wrote: I didn't think Bob was ever going to shut up.
it really was a long question
|
I tuned in a bit late, first question was?
|
On October 23 2012 10:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:54 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote: Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote: guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. Also, cigars do not cause cancer. It is theoretically possible to get mouth cancer from a cigar, but it is extremely unlikely. Cigarettes would have been a much better example. "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html2 seconds on google. On October 23 2012 09:53 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:46 Doraemon wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Well since you are picking a fight...
Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote: guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. please show me any study that indicates guns lead to less violence? Pretty much every study ever conducted. All of the evidence shows that gun control INCREASES violent crime rates and gun rights lower it, both in America and in other countries. Here's a good collection of various studies conducted and compiled into a single list: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp 2 minutes on that site shows you that they have no idea what they are talking about. A very small case study of a couple hundred people is the best you have? The article also makes the mistake of assuming that every situation is the same and that if you own a gun you are automatically required to use it in every situation. 95% of the time if you brandish your concealed gun, the rapist/mugger will run away and you don't even have to use it.
so your anecdotal evidence is superior to a proper study?
maybe there would be more studies if shit like this didnt happen
"In 1996, lobbyists for the National Rifle Association began pressuring Congress to eliminate the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) which had funded much of Kellermann’s research. Although the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the House voted to cut the NCIPC’s funding by $2.6 million, precisely the amount it had spent on the firearms research the previous year. [4]. The money was ultimately restored by the Senate, but earmarked for traumatic brain injury prevention. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day."
|
On October 23 2012 10:04 xDaunt wrote: I didn't think Bob was ever going to shut up.
I know right.
The President going out of his way to make sure to look at Romney.
|
|
On October 23 2012 10:05 Lmui wrote: I tuned in a bit late, first question was?
Libya
|
Wow Romney is starting off really lame
|
Let's hear your comprehensive robust strategy that doesn't include apology tours, Romney.
|
Barack looks a lot more alert tonight.
|
I like this answer from Romney. It really lays out what the bigger issues with radical Islam.
|
Romney: we cant kill our way out of this mess, i have never heard a republican say this.
|
On October 23 2012 10:06 Deathmanbob wrote: Romney: we cant kill our way out of this mess, i have never heard a republican say this.
I thought it was a funny quote as well lol
|
romney pretty flat on this response. undecided florida voters pretty unimpressed.
comprehensive strategy? no details.
obama talking about other things, finally libya.
|
On October 23 2012 10:06 xDaunt wrote: I like this answer from Romney. It really lays out what the bigger issues with radical Islam.
Unfortunately, he didn't have the time to do more than lay them out or explain what exactly Obama has done wrong.
I mean, you can't plausibly blame Obama for the Arab Spring.
|
Well, no. I just want the raw debate, not speaking time monitoring or CNN open questions. I'll stick to C-span for now.
|
By the way, I'm not expecting to grant a lot of points. I see a lot of philosophical draws coming.
|
On October 23 2012 09:58 Souma wrote: Gun laws are not a one-size fits all kinda thing, which is why I'm a strong supporter of states' rights in regards to gun laws. I do, however, also support a federal ban on all assault weapons. There's really no reason not to. You do realize that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired and absolutely nothing bad happened, right? The FAWB never really did anything anyway, it just banned special modifications to guns. By definition there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon, and full-auto guns were banned under the Hughes Amendment in the 1980s, not by the FAWB. In fact, the only crime ever committed with a fully-automatic weapon was done AFTER the Hughes Amendment passed.
Also, in the only instance in which full-auto guns were used in the commission of a crime, not a single person died (except the two bank robbers). Hollywood has given impressionable liberals who haven't looked at the facts or thought about it rationally a false view of guns.
|
The format of these debates is so weird. No notes allowed? No wonder so many of the answers are so rambling.
|
|
|
|