I'm going to post again to emphasize this point to any socialists reading this page:

 

Rich people save and invest their money. Poor and middle-class people spend their money.

 

Rich people are not like poor people. Even though they spend more on leisure and their own lifestyle, as a percentage of their total net worth they save FAR more than the lower and middle classes. These savings are vital to keeping an economy from becoming burned-out (as our's has been lately).

 

When you don't have a pool of savings, loans can't be made to start new businesses or invest in existing ones. Jobs are lost. True, the government helps poor people by giving them the money, but they spend it rather than using it to create value.

You can't talk common sense into people who want to steal money from the rich to get rich.

You can't talk common sense into people who want to steal money from the rich to get rich.

 

Good point.

 

Once you listen to enough Stefan Molyneaux podcasts you realize every logical argument you make is effectively met with this:

 

Funny how you could when you were defending Obama wish bullshit.:rolleyes:

 

Asked a serious question and you just stall.

 

Then just say he's the lesser of 2 EVILS, not the great hope and a saint. You say he's great but when asked to back that up you just say he's, a lesser evil.

 

If you have no proof of what he says, then why believe it with such ferocity?

 

Pick, he's either a evil but a lesser one, or the great hope and savior of America? You seem to change your stance when it fits your argument....you're like Obama!

I only said it that way so you could understand it Mr. Pessimist. I believe he is a hopeful savior, not evil. I was just trying to relate it to your "all politicians suck" mentality.

 

I'm going to post again to emphasize this point to any socialists reading this page:

 

Rich people save and invest their money. Poor and middle-class people spend their money.

 

Rich people are not like poor people. Even though they spend more on leisure and their own lifestyle, as a percentage of their total net worth they save FAR more than the lower and middle classes. These savings are vital to keeping an economy from becoming burned-out (as our's has been lately).

 

When you don't have a pool of savings, loans can't be made to start new businesses or invest in existing ones. Jobs are lost. True, the government helps poor people by giving them the money, but they spend it rather than using it to create value.

 

Well not every poor and rich person can be so easily categorized. many rich people did not save or invest, they simply inherited wealth. And not all poor people just spend, many of them are just forced to buy food and water and don't have the kind of income that lets them invest.

 

Not all poor people are that way because they are stupid or lazy. I would know, I'm middle class but have hovered around lower-middle class so I know what it's like trying to get by with limited resources. And it's not because my parents are lazy.

You can't talk common sense into people who want to steal money from the rich to get rich.

So Robin Hood was a socialist?:rolleyes:

Funny how I show you evidence of him being the opposite of what he says he is and does yet you still defend him without showing anything good about him. Mr Blind, how can you support someone who only has done bad?

So Robin Hood was a socialist?:rolleyes:

 

If he existed, yes.

 

Lets stick to real people and issues.:dozey:

Funny how I show you evidence of him being the opposite of what he says he is and does yet you still defend him without showing anything good about him. Mr Blind, how can you support someone who only has done bad?

Show me support he has "only done bad". Please, prove he completely corrupt to the core.

 

And furthermore, use all your wisdom to prove how anything you say about him will affect his presidency and ruin our country forever.

If he existed, yes.

 

Lets stick to real people and issues.:dozey:

:D:P

If he existed, yes.

 

Lets stick to real people and issues.:dozey:

 

Robin Hood wasn't a socialist because back then there was a feudal economy, which wasn't capitalist. So his interference in the market didn't really have any net moral effect.

 

2732, I sympathize with you that your family might have been hovering near the lower-class at some point. But MrCool and I aren't being insensitive when we suggest limited (or zero) taxation is the best policy for everyone, especially the poor. In a taxless society, the prices of all essential goods and services falls BIG TIME. Wages (for everyone) go up BIG TIME. Money can't be printed, so there's no inflation. New businesses are formed daily, creating job opportunities for anyone who looks. And most importantly, there aren't huge swings in economic conditions - recessions, after all, are caused by government interference in the economy.

Robin Hood wasn't a socialist because back then there was a feudal economy, which wasn't capitalist. So his interference in the market didn't really have any net moral effect.

 

2732, I sympathize with you that your family might have been hovering near the lower-class at some point. But MrCool and I aren't being insensitive when we suggest limited (or zero) taxation is the best policy for everyone, especially the poor. In a taxless society, the prices of all essential goods and services falls BIG TIME. Wages (for everyone) go up BIG TIME. Money can't be printed, so there's no inflation. New businesses are formed daily, creating job opportunities for anyone who looks. And most importantly, there aren't huge swings in economic conditions - recessions, after all, are caused by government interference in the economy.

And without taxes who would pay to fix roads? Who would pay for me to go to school?

 

I'm willing to pay taxes, but if I made loads of money I'd be more than willing to pay a little more since I could afford it, becuase I can sympathize with people struggling to get by.

And without taxes who would pay to fix roads? Who would pay for me to go to school?

 

I'm willing to pay taxes, but if I made loads of money I'd be more than willing to pay a little more since I could afford it, becuase I can sympathize with people struggling to get by.

 

Okay well let's take a look at this:

 

Roads might be owned by the businesses they lead to. After all, businesses want you to drive the distance so you can spend your money - so they could pay to build a road up-front, and collect toll fees or simply include the charge in the price of their products.

 

Your parents would have extra money in their pocket to send you to a private school. They'd have a choice, as there would likely be several smaller private schools all competing for you to attend. Remember that "private" doesn't necessarily mean "expensive", particularly in a society without public schools.

 

Now, by your own admission you'd be willing to pay extra if you made "loads of money". Don't you think other people who make "loads of money" feel the same way? Or are they all greedy and hold on to every single dime they get? Of course not! Rich people would still donate to charity. They'd build schools (with the stipulation that the school is named after their family, of course) and even build roads.

Okay well let's take a look at this:

 

Roads might be owned by the businesses they lead to. After all, businesses want you to drive the distance so you can spend your money - so they could pay to build a road up-front, and collect toll fees or simply include the charge in the price of their products.

 

Your parents would have extra money in their pocket to send you to a private school. They'd have a choice, as there would likely be several smaller private schools all competing for you to attend. Remember that "private" doesn't necessarily mean "expensive", particularly in a society without public schools.

 

Now, by your own admission you'd be willing to pay extra if you made "loads of money". Don't you think other people who make "loads of money" feel the same way? Or are they all greedy and hold on to every single dime they get? Of course not! Rich people would still donate to charity. They'd build schools (with the stipulation that the school is named after their family, of course) and even build roads.

All of this is based on assumptions that:

 

1. Businesses would be willing to maintain roads

2. All parents would be willing to pay to send their kids to school (if many don't, we have a generation of uneducated people)

3. There would be enough rich people willing to donate enough to make this idea work

 

 

Don't get me wrong, if you could guarantee this to work, I'd be all for it. But you can't even come close to providing all the answers, and until you do(and rally enough people behind you), none of that will happen, so you have to stick to realistic current issues.

It's not punishing success, that idea is just ludicrous. It's merely using your brain to realize richer people can AFFORD to pay a little more than poorer people. And how can you say it will hurt the economy? Continuing to tax the middle class will lead more people into poverty. Less people spending money on products leads to businesses failing. Businesses failing leads to a collapsed economy. It's simple, if you're willing to open your eyes to it.

 

 

 

Look, I'm not going to pretend all rich people are greedy, I know that's not true. But the past 8 years have PROVED to us that putting more money into rich people's hands doesn't translate to more jobs. Most of these people who benefit from Bush/McCain's tax plans will just take that money for themselves, not invest it in more jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I refer to punishing success I refer to our graduated income tax system in which you pay more taxes the more you earn. People in the higher tiers already pay a percentage double that of lower income families. Of course the rich can afford to pay more, but that doesn't necessarily justify making that rate even higher in order to give government handouts to people who don't even pay income tax.

In reference to the economy, Obama defends his plan by saying that only a small percentage of small businesses fit in a higher tax bracket. Well that still leaves the rest of the business world to be affected, particularly those with the most employees and consumers. When businesses have to pay higher taxes, they has to compensate...this is most often done by raising prices and laying off employees. The larger the business, the larger the impact, so tax hikes on these businesses are indirectly payed for at the expense of consumers and workers, not to mention this country's 100 million stockholders...

 

Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax in these tough economic times when history makes it quite clear that, in fact, lowering capital gains taxes stimulates the economy and actually creates more revenue for the government. Such tax raises don't really benefit anyone, not even the government.

 

You agree that less people spending money slows down the economy, well the tax raises on the rich that will boost the lower classes up may just push them back down through less employment (Obama wants the minimum wage raised to nearly 10 dollars and is going to force businesses to help pay for their employees medical coverage), and by impacting the stockholders through capital gains raises.

 

 

 

Look, I'm not going to pretend all rich people are greedy, I know that's not true. But the past 8 years have PROVED to us that putting more money into rich people's hands doesn't translate to more jobs. Most of these people who benefit from Bush/McCain's tax plans will just take that money for themselves, not invest it in more jobs.

 

 

 

Well believe it or not the Bush tax cuts did have a positive affect on the economy, and McCain's plan isn't raising anybody's taxes. (Not to mention these two people I just mentioned were of the first to warn congress of the housing crisis that instigated this mess...)

When I refer to punishing success I refer to our graduated income tax system in which you pay more taxes the more you earn. People in the higher tiers already pay a percentage double that of lower income families. Of course the rich can afford to pay more, but that doesn't necessarily justify making that rate even higher in order to give government handouts to people who don't even pay income tax.

In reference to the economy, Obama defends his plan by saying that only a small percentage of small businesses fit in a higher tax bracket. Well that still leaves the rest of the business world to be affected, particularly those with the most employees and consumers. When businesses have to pay higher taxes, they has to compensate...this is most often done by raising prices and laying off employees. The larger the business, the larger the impact, so tax hikes on these businesses are indirectly payed for at the expense of consumers and workers, not to mention this country's 100 million stockholders...

 

Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax in these tough economic times when history makes it quite clear that, in fact, lowering capital gains taxes stimulates the economy and actually creates more revenue for the government. Such tax raises don't really benefit anyone, not even the government.

 

You agree that less people spending money slows down the economy, well the tax raises on the rich that will boost the lower classes up may just push them back down through less employment (Obama wants the minimum wage raised to nearly 10 dollars and is going to force businesses to help pay for their employees medical coverage), and by impacting the stockholders through capital gains raises.

 

 

 

 

Well believe it or not the Bush tax cuts did have a positive affect on the economy, and McCain's plan isn't raising anybody's taxes. (Not to mention these two people I just mentioned were of the first to warn congress of the housing crisis that instigated this mess...)

The government won't be giving handouts to the poor. Obama merely wants them to pay a little less. It's not like he's going to literally "spread the wealth" by just sprinkling money to a bunch of homeless people. It doesn't work that way which is why I hate the term "spreading the wealth", it's misleading

So Robin Hood was a socialist?:rolleyes:

 

Lol robin hood analogies are annoyingly prominent this election, (I've been guilty myself) my dad gets annoyed because Robin Hood didn't so much take from the rich and give to the poor, as he stole from the tax collector.

Well 2732, what we're debating is striking some balance between anarchy (which I support) and totalitarianism (which I'm aware you don't support, although I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't).

 

Why wouldn't businesses be willing to maintain the roads leading to them? It makes little sense to me they'd let them rot.

 

Second, how many parents do you know who don't care to send their kids to school? Just because a school is public doesn't make it "easy" to send your kid to. Parents want the best for their kids, and if they had a choice they would choose private schools.

 

Third, when's the last time you've been to a hospital, or a library, or a university? Odds are you'd see a building named for a rich person.

 

Finally, why should I (or anyone) have to guarantee that a system should work? I'm not proposing a centrally-planned society like Obama is. The burden of proof lies on you guys, not me.

All right. I want to make something very clear to everyone. I'm extremely tired, I've been alone debating you all for an hour now. I am going to log off and go to bed. I just want to understand I am not backing down, I am not quitting, I am not admitting defeat. I merely cannot keep my eyes open any longer.

 

 

So, if you will....to be continued...yes?

The government won't be giving handouts to the poor. Obama merely wants them to pay a little less. It's not like he's going to literally "spread the wealth" by just sprinkling money to a bunch of homeless people. It doesn't work that way which is why I hate the term "spreading the wealth", it's misleading

 

No, Obama wants to reduce payroll taxes on the lower class. That's effectively "spreading the wealth" because now the lower class enjoys all the benefits of paying FULL payroll taxes (social security, medicare, medicaid) without paying their fair share.

 

They will be taking more from the system than they get out of it.

The government won't be giving handouts to the poor. Obama merely wants them to pay a little less. It's not like he's going to literally "spread the wealth" by just sprinkling money to a bunch of homeless people. It doesn't work that way which is why I hate the term "spreading the wealth", it's misleading

 

well, 40% of the people receiving checks don't pay income tax, so it sounds like a handout...

 

and Obama himself said it he thinks it would be beneficiary to spread the wealth around (he used those same three words). and while I'm not really knocking his tax cuts, sprinkling money over homeless people is a bit misleading.

But while we're on the subject of poverty, while Obama emphasizes less spending and fixing America first...he is a lead sponsor of the U.N.'s global poverty act which is essentially a world tax that will cost america 845 billion dollars. None of which will be sprinkled on Americans and our decreasing supply of homeless people. This along with those annual 165 billion dollar tax credits handouts adds up to more than a trillion right off the back.

To be perfect fair, I'm not particularly impressed by John Mccain, I didn't really want him to be nominated, I'm just more concerned by many aspects of Obama's ambitious plan and feel that Mccain can do potentially less damage if not make some minor improvements.

I wish both candidates could be shuffled back into the deck and have a couple new ones pop-out as I find it hard picturing either of them as president, even now that Obama's election seems like more and more of a certainty. I take that most of us have voted by now, and with the presidency less than a week away we can only speculate about what we believe will happen. Luckily the frustrating business of comparing and predicting will soon be over! for better or for worse....

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e62444aa8c/brave-new-obamaian-world-from-ucbcomedy

 

This is awesome and hilarious.

I was amazed they nominated McCain. What the hell were they thinking?

 

I do look forward to Barack in office, it'll be fun. With that being said, get ready for some more bad times. But I just think it'll be fun to see this man who so many actually worship, screw us over and then they'll look even more like fools for liking him. Or I'll look like a complete fool if he somehow does well. I would laugh if he gets into office and transforms into a good president.

I was amazed they nominated McCain. What the hell were they thinking?

 

I do look forward to Barack in office, it'll be fun. With that being said, get ready for some more bad times. But I just think it'll be fun to see this man who so many actually worship, screw us over and then they'll look even more like fools for liking him. Or I'll look like a complete fool if he somehow does well. I would laugh if he gets into office and transforms into a good president.

 

What'll most likely happen is Obama will end up screwing up the economy even worse, and his supporters will just blame it on externalities he can't control. A few possible excuses include:

 

1. Bush made the economy so bad, not even Obama can fix it in just four years!

 

2. Those greedy people in the healthcare industry are keeping prices high, forcing Obama to raise your payroll taxes!

 

3. We can't pull out of Iraq just yet because someone might die! Or sprain their ankle!

 

4. Food costs are going up because of a cold spring and a drought in the summer!

 

et cetera.

Once Obama's in office, I'm quiting my job and going on welfare. It's time the government pays for my designer clothes instead of my parents.