|
On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote: He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>
No... the UN sits around, talks, and condemns stuff. There is no point in such an organization. I do not support the War in Iraq, as I have already said, we are doing something good for the people, but it is not worth 3000 American lives.
|
On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote: He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>
the UN is a voracious money sink that fails to do anything that a drunken 21 year old teenage celebrity cannot, i.e. make lots of kids (small organizations), condemn things and dump money but not much else.
|
Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?
I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident.
|
On March 08 2008 10:50 Ancestral wrote: Ok, right to bear arms.
Countries with very strict gun control have fewer gun deaths. What's so great about guns? I know it's the whole "liberty" thing, and people should be trusted, but they can't be always. I am on the fence on the issue, but how do you justify lax gun laws? Here's a justification: the government is kept in check by a population that is armed. Many dictators throughout history have made it their first order of business to scare the population into getting rid of their weapons, and then making it illegal to own weapons, because that way the population is much easier to control. If everyone owned a machine gun, body armor, and a handful of grenades, a government would be much less efficient at being totalitarian, because when push came to shove, the government couldn't simply declare the military to shoot all [insert X group of people here] without suffering extremely heavy military and police losses. However, if the military/police were the only ones with guns, then exterminating the more "problematic" parts of your population becomes as easy as pressing a button.
|
On March 08 2008 11:30 ahrara_ wrote: Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?
I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident.
To tell you the truth, this is one of the economic acts that I am somewhat unsure what the results will be until it actually plays out. It is a good idea, but the US market and the economy is so volatile and unpredictable right now. However, I am sure that any raising of taxes would severely punish a struggling economy. Of course, first I'm going to bombard you with the traditional rhetoric of "When the government cuts individual taxes, that encourages individual spending, which then encourages business spending," but it's obvious you are looking for something more indepth.
While the individual tax rebates are something, I think the business tax incentives might actually get us somewhere. Although right now I have to go soon and I can't go really indepth, the investment incentives are really quite appealing to businesses and will improve investment rates. By raising FHA and GSE limits as well, the housing price decline should be able to be slowed.
I will edit and improve this post later, so check back tomorrow.
|
I believe in freedom.
What does you definition of freedom include allowing?
-Freedom to smoke marijuana? -Freedom to not be surveilled by the government? -Sexual freedom? -Freedom to give up money to the government in return for certain guarantees in life?
6. Neither, just don't defile the sacred entity of marriage.
But why is marriage so sacred? It's not exclusively a Christian custom, although I would assume many homosexuals would opt to perform their marriage ceremonies in Christian churces simply because most of them believe themselves to be Christian. In the society that permits divorce has the traditional concept of marriage not already been undermined? Is forbidding gay marriage not tantamount to forbidding neo-nazis from speaking--something that you do not support? Gay marriage may raise questions about the sanctity of marriage, but neo nazis raise questions about the right of non-aryan citizens and lawful residents to be treated equally.
8. With the oppression and overburdening of taxes that governments lay down on our people nowadays, it is a grand goal to strive for, but an unrealistic goal to acheive. I prefer taking it step by step, slowly lowering tarriffs between nations and such.
But since you seem also support things such as militaries for protection, you must expect some taxes, yes? What do you consider to be a just level of taxation? Additionally, do you advocate for a flat tax, a progressive tax or (gasp) a regressive tax?
Further on the subject of economy. What about 3rd world countries? How should they (or should they not be at all?) helped? Structural adjustment, import substitution, something else? What about outsourcing, do you support it? If you do not, what would you suggest as a solution that would not involve massive governmental intervention?
|
Are you pro-life? do you support the death penalty?
Many "conservatives" are both pro-life and pro-death penalty (Mike Huckabee for instance, in a recent debate he even said something to the effect of "Jesus would have supported the death penalty")
How can so many conservatives be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time? Don't you see the contradiction? And by pro-life, I don't just mean pertaining to abortions... many conservatives are pro-life in the sense that they believe all life is sacred, regardless of what stage life is at (culture of life, terri shiavo case for instance), yet are also pro-death penalty. Is it just me, or is there some MASSIVE contradiction in being pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time?
(Note: not meant to be a discussion on abortion/capital punishment. I happen to be pro-death penalty and pro-choice myself. Just saying that being BOTH pro-life and pro-death penalty, which seems to describe many conservatives, especially those in the GOP, seems to be illogical).
|
Try, you need to be more conservative. Buy and read Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and Freedom'. You won't be sorry
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 08 2008 11:49 Hippopotamus wrote: What does you definition of freedom include allowing? -Freedom to smoke marijuana? -Freedom to not be surveilled by the government? -Sexual freedom? -Freedom to give up money to the government in return for certain guarantees in life? But why is marriage so sacred? It's not exclusively a Christian custom, although I would assume many homosexuals would opt to perform their marriage ceremonies in Christian churces simply because most of them believe themselves to be Christian. In the society that permits divorce has the traditional concept of marriage not already been undermined? Is forbidding gay marriage not tantamount to forbidding neo-nazis from speaking--something that you do not support? Gay marriage may raise questions about the sanctity of marriage, but neo nazis raise questions about the right of non-aryan citizens and lawful residents to be treated equally. Show nested quote +8. With the oppression and overburdening of taxes that governments lay down on our people nowadays, it is a grand goal to strive for, but an unrealistic goal to acheive. I prefer taking it step by step, slowly lowering tarriffs between nations and such. But since you seem also support things such as militaries for protection, you must expect some taxes, yes? What do you consider to be a just level of taxation? Additionally, do you advocate for a flat tax, a progressive tax or (gasp) a regressive tax? Further on the subject of economy. What about 3rd world countries? How should they (or should they not be at all?) helped? Structural adjustment, import substitution, something else? What about outsourcing, do you support it? If you do not, what would you suggest as a solution that would not involve massive governmental intervention? Freedom should not be limited, other than by the boundaries of other citizens rights and properties. This is why our freedom can be limited to not include 'the freedom to murder other citizens'. Your last bullet is sorta weird. If you're saying that we have the 'freedom' to give up money to the government to be guaranteed things like social security, thats not quite freedom. Thats something we are forced into, and is therefore an encroachment on our freedoms. I believe people should be free to do with their money what they wish, but things like retirement funds should be left to the private market (and the freer that market, the better).
Marriage, imo, is not so sacred. I think this whole 'defiling marriage' bullshit was something conservatism picked up when its base became largely supported by the religious right. Full fledged freedom includes the freedom of having relationships how you choose, with whichever sex you choose. Marriage is not a wholly Christian idea or custom, and if it were, it should be limited within Christian churches, not by a state or federal government. By forbidding it, you are taking away freedoms, and using the government to push your beliefs on others, which is *wrong* by the basis of conservatism.
Taxes are a necessary part of having a government, because it has to get its money from somewhere. However, graduated (progressive) taxation goes against the very basis of conservatism as well. Quoting Milton Friedman:
"Another kind of inequality arising through the operation of the market is also required, in a somewhat more subtle sense, to produce equity of treatment, or to put it differently to satisfy men's tastes. It can be illustrated most simply by a lottery. Consider a group of individuals who initially have equal endowments and who all agree voluntairly to enter a lottery with very unequal prizes. The resultant inequality of income is surely required to permit the individuals in question to make the most of their initial equality. Redistribution of the income after the event is equivalent to denying them the opportunity to enter the lottery. This case is far more important in practice than would appear by taking the notion of a "lottery" literally. Individuals choose occupations, investments, and the like partly in accordance with their taste for uncertainty. The girl who tries to become a movie actress rather than a civil servant is deliberately choosing to enter a lottery, so is the individual who invests in penny uranium stocks rather than government bonds. Insurance is a way of expressing a taste for certainty. Even these examples do not indicate fully the extent to which actual inequality may be the result of arrangements designed to satisfy men's tastes. The very arrangments for paying and hiring people are affected by such preferences. If all potential movie actresses had a great dislike of uncertainty, there would tend to develop "cooperatives" of movie actresses, the members of which agreed in advance to share income receipts more or less evenly, thereby in effect providing themselves insurance through the pooling of risks. If such a preference were widespread, large diversified corporations combining risky and non-risky ventures would become the rule. The wild-cat oil prospector, the private proprietorship, the small partnership, would all become rare.
Indeed, this is one way to interpret governmental measures to redistribute income through progressive taxes and the like. It can be argued that for one reason or another, costs of administration perhaps, the market cannot produce the range of lotteries or the kind of lottery desired by the members of the community, and that progressive taxation is, as it were, a government enterprise to do so. I have no doubt that this view contains an element of truth. At the same time, it can hardly justify present taxation, if only because the taxes are imposed after the blanks in the lottery of life, and the taxes are voted mostly by those who think they have drawn the blanks. One might, along these lines, justify one generation's voting the tax schedules to be applied to an as yet unborn generation. Any such procedure would, I conjecture, yield income tax schedules much less highly graduated than present schedules are, at least on paper.
On the subject of the proper level of taxation, I feel we should be taxed just enough to pay for the government's expenses (seems rather obvious). I do, however, believe in a very small level of government, so this taxation would not be high in the least. Markets (and communities, for that matter) function better when people are left to spend (or save) their money how they wish.
I feel 3rd world countries should be left to be aided by the private sector. Our constant governmental interference tends to introduce socialism and fascism, and, worse yet, introduces it in our own nation. Taxpayers can not be expected to pay for subsidies to countries they have no interests in, and I feel it is yet another infraction on their freedom to spend their money how they wish.
Outsourcing is fine, but I suspect that is not exactly what you meant. You most likely meant offshoring. Offshoring is also fine, imo, and disagreeing with that means that you believe that all the 'national wealth' figures the UN puts out actually matter a whole lot. Nations don't have wealth, individuals do. In a capitalist society, corporations should do what is in their best interest, and if it is in their best interest to offshore their company, then so be it. It should be noted, however, that in a proper free market, that would almost never be the case. It only becomes the case when you introduce large governmental control over companies. To prevent offshoring, the government should remove its control on these companies. That includes everything from the needless safety regulations to the minimum wage laws.
There, hope that post wasn't too long, but I have a paper I need to be writing, so I needed something to procrastinate with
|
On March 08 2008 11:47 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 11:30 ahrara_ wrote: Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?
I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident. To tell you the truth, this is one of the economic acts that I am somewhat unsure what the results will be until it actually plays out. It is a good idea, but the US market and the economy is so volatile and unpredictable right now. However, I am sure that any raising of taxes would severely punish a struggling economy. Of course, first I'm going to bombard you with the traditional rhetoric of "When the government cuts individual taxes, that encourages individual spending, which then encourages business spending," but it's obvious you are looking for something more indepth. While the individual tax rebates are something, I think the business tax incentives might actually get us somewhere. Although right now I have to go soon and I can't go really indepth, the investment incentives are really quite appealing to businesses and will improve investment rates. By raising FHA and GSE limits as well, the housing price decline should be able to be slowed. I will edit and improve this post later, so check back tomorrow. As far as I'm concerned, cutting individual taxes is the same thing as give out rebates. What irks me about the stimulus package is the expectation that people will spend the rebates. A lot of it will end up being saved, because there's no expiration date, and people are naturally more likely to save money during a recession. In the short run, I agree with you the stimulus package is effective in increasing demand and investment. In the long run, I don't think you should cut taxes when you're already spending on deficit.
|
On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:
The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.
People are such morons when it comes to economics.
|
On March 09 2008 00:26 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:
The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.
People are such morons when it comes to economics.
QFT
|
On March 08 2008 17:01 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 11:47 Try wrote:On March 08 2008 11:30 ahrara_ wrote: Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?
I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident. To tell you the truth, this is one of the economic acts that I am somewhat unsure what the results will be until it actually plays out. It is a good idea, but the US market and the economy is so volatile and unpredictable right now. However, I am sure that any raising of taxes would severely punish a struggling economy. Of course, first I'm going to bombard you with the traditional rhetoric of "When the government cuts individual taxes, that encourages individual spending, which then encourages business spending," but it's obvious you are looking for something more indepth. While the individual tax rebates are something, I think the business tax incentives might actually get us somewhere. Although right now I have to go soon and I can't go really indepth, the investment incentives are really quite appealing to businesses and will improve investment rates. By raising FHA and GSE limits as well, the housing price decline should be able to be slowed. I will edit and improve this post later, so check back tomorrow. As far as I'm concerned, cutting individual taxes is the same thing as give out rebates. What irks me about the stimulus package is the expectation that people will spend the rebates. A lot of it will end up being saved, because there's no expiration date, and people are naturally more likely to save money during a recession. In the short run, I agree with you the stimulus package is effective in increasing demand and investment. In the long run, I don't think you should cut taxes when you're already spending on deficit.
With the US dollar falling hard on its face currently, there is no reason that people wouldn't want to spend the money from the rebates.
|
I don't think its a tax rebate because people who don't pay taxes are getting money, whereas other people that are getting money are putting it to pay off...credit card loans, which does jack to spur the economy lol. It's just a welfare check, and this just proves to me that the "neoconservatives" are becoming more and more socialist everyday. The economy will collapse at this rate me thinks.
|
[QUOTE]On March 08 2008 10:25 Hippopotamus wrote: 4. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion? If yes, explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. If you think their suffering outweighs the baby's life, tell explain why can you so arbitrarily draw a line as to when a life is sacred and when it is not. If your answer is no, explain how you can be such a callous person? /QUOTE]
do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an anbortion? yes.
explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. their babies' lives aren't worth any more or less. what their lives are worth is out of the question. If the mother doesn't want to have the baby, why would you force her?
now a question to you:
why should abortion be banned, but having sex with a condom not? when using a condom, you kill potential life too.
|
[QUOTE]On March 09 2008 08:25 .MistiK wrote: [QUOTE]On March 08 2008 10:25 Hippopotamus wrote: 4. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion? If yes, explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. If you think their suffering outweighs the baby's life, tell explain why can you so arbitrarily draw a line as to when a life is sacred and when it is not. If your answer is no, explain how you can be such a callous person? /QUOTE]
do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an anbortion? yes.
explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. their babies' lives aren't worth any more or less. what their lives are worth is out of the question. If the mother doesn't want to have the baby, why would you force her?
now a question to you:
why should abortion be banned, but having sex with a condom not? when using a condom, you kill potential life too.[/QUOTE]
Don't be ridiculous, its not the same thing. You can't kill what's not living. A embryo is alive, sperm and egg cells are not. Unless you can tell me exactly when a fertilized embryo becomes life (by the second), abortion is the wrong thing to do.
|
[QUOTE]On March 09 2008 09:03 Try wrote: [QUOTE]On March 09 2008 08:25 .MistiK wrote: [QUOTE]On March 08 2008 10:25 Hippopotamus wrote: 4. Do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion? If yes, explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. If you think their suffering outweighs the baby's life, tell explain why can you so arbitrarily draw a line as to when a life is sacred and when it is not. If your answer is no, explain how you can be such a callous person? /QUOTE]
do you think rape victims should be allowed to have an anbortion? yes.
explain how their babies' lives are worth any less than the lives of regularly conceived babies. their babies' lives aren't worth any more or less. what their lives are worth is out of the question. If the mother doesn't want to have the baby, why would you force her?
now a question to you:
why should abortion be banned, but having sex with a condom not? when using a condom, you kill potential life too.[/QUOTE]
Don't be ridiculous, its not the same thing. You can't kill what's not living. A embryo is alive, sperm and egg cells are not. Unless you can tell me exactly when a fertilized embryo becomes life (by the second), abortion is the wrong thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Did you just say that a cell is not living?
|
On March 09 2008 00:26 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:
The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.
People are such morons when it comes to economics. That quote was a few lines above such gems as 'Chocolate is better than Vanilla' and 'Give me $10'...you don't think that maybe I was just trying to get a rise out of him? No, no, I'm sorry, you are the only one that understands anything, oh great one.
|
|
|
|