ilikeaces86 Endorses McCain!

[ilikeaces86]

http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/WhyMcCain.htm

http://www.johnmccain.com/About/

[vqc]

april fools

[ilikeaces86]

"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said. Playing on the title of an Obama book, McCain added: "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."

[Warpe]

Get out of Iraq = save monies. Problem solved.

[will641]

no universal healthcare = save monies. Problem solved.

fyp

[Warpe]

war vs. healthcare is basically what it all comes down to

[martindcx1e]

Get out of Iraq = save monies. Problem solved.

If only it were that simple.

Also, what will said.

[kingnat]

It's pretty wack that we continue to spend money and what's infinitely worse.. put our troops' lives in danger out of fear of what MIGHT happen if we get out of the retarded mess we put ourselves into...

I'm guesssing bad shit will happen if we cut and run, but what's the EV of staying vs. leaving? You'd think after 5+ years, hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of dead americans we'd have something that would obviously show that there was an end in sight.

/end rant...

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL @ not getting the fuck out of Iraq
LOL @ still not realizing you should not have there in the first place, and that every life wasted there was, is, and will continue to be one too many
LOL @ fearing to pay taxes, whereas if you continue printing money to finance petty wargames, your inflation will rival that of Zimbabwe's, and then you would not have to worry about paying taxes anyway


$ is not backed by gold, its backed by confidence in the currency. Lose that confidence, and your precious $ will not be worth more than the paper its printed on

[Jack Sawyer]

Get out of Iraq = save monies. Problem solved.

If only it were that simple.

Also, what will said.

check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5CF5pfVzLI

[euphoricism]

Jesus christ I hate hippies

[zook]

Jesus christ I hate war

[wufwugy]

if instead of financing war and catering to the fright of the masses, our govt heavily financed the sciences we would probably be about twice as advanced as we are now with shit like clean unlimited nuclear fusion and virtual reality and probably SEX BOTSSSSS

[Jack Sawyer]

Jesus christ I hate hippies

I thought you were playing poker

[Jack Sawyer]

Jesus christ I hate war

high five zook!

[will641]

i actually watched that video and laughed really hard when it said narrated by sean penn.

[wufwugy]

yo jack and sawyer, dude in the middle looks like charlie

god i hate (love) that show

Man. Youvgot to tjink about this. poltic talk on te TR community is obly going ot lead to argument.s Are you trying to syart an argunent? you need to thin about you're motivation in making a pos tlie this!!

And I'm briisu so i;m apate=tic

[will641]

are you just totally hammered out of your mind or forgot how to type. and is the last bit supposed to say, "and im british so im apathetic?

[Schiplt]

this is what i think

[ilikeaces86]

Listening to Hilary and Obama debate I want to pull out my hair. They throw around rhetoric about how they are going to fix everything and start all these great programs and provide healthcare etc.. etc... etc........... going on and on. Where the hell is all this money going to come from? Obviously taxes will be raised. At the minimum they will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and which will in and of itself act as a tax increase of massive proportions. I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

[pankfish]

no universal healthcare = save monies. Problem solved.

fyp

Yay to for profit private insurance companies.

[zook]

Listening to Hilary and Obama debate I want to pull out my hair. They throw around rhetoric about how they are going to fix everything and start all these great programs and provide healthcare etc.. etc... etc........... going on and on. Where the hell is all this money going to come from? Obviously taxes will be raised. At the minimum they will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and which will in and of itself act as a tax increase of massive proportions. I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

#1 - The Iraq war costs the US $341 million per day.

#2 - The US tax code is so screwed up that people making between $100 and $200k actually pay the highest rate, even though on paper it should be people making over $500k. Simplify the tax code, close loopholes, revenues will increase.

#3 - We pay lower taxes than almost any developed nation and I don't mind paying more (especially on capital gains) if it means universal health care. We rank 28th in the world in infant mortality rate. Absurd.

#4 - The Iraq war costs the US $341 million per day.

[Miffed22001]

#4 - The Iraq war costs the US $341 million per day.

how many dead americans per year does that equate to again?

[ilikeaces86]

Lifted from 2+2

Obama Will Cost You

"Of the three candidates, Obama has promised to cost you the most money.

He has promised to raise your taxes back to the 2000 level. This means that if you have a taxable single income of $32,000 you'll pay about $1200 more in income taxes. If you're a comfortable married couple with a double income that comes out to a taxable income of 80k (comfortable, but hardly rich), you'll pay $4k more.

Of course he says he's going to tax the rich but the middle and lower-middle class will get hurt the most in relative terms.

He has also promised to lift the cap on FICA. What a deal! So, for instance, let's say you are that comfortable yet hardly rich married couple with gross earnings of $140k combined.

In 2008, you will pay approximately $12,900 in FICA (half of it paid through your employer, half of it paid through withholding).

Under Obama you'll pay another 6K or so, and that's before you start paying your now-increased income tax on the AGI.

But he won't stop there, he's got bigger plans for you! See, you are one of the "rich" if you're not starving, so obviously when you sit back and earn money with your investments, you should be punished.

What better way to do this than to double the capital gains tax!

Not only will you be paying 30% on your gains instead of 15%, but obviously your holdings will take a huge hit once he gets the bill passed as people unwind their holdings. He's going to chop your actual assets and then tax you more on any of it that is sold at a profit.

Think you're protected in your IRA? Not so fast. Most of you are holding mutual funds in your IRA and those funds must pay capital gains tax on their internal holdings as they change positions. Even though you won't be paying capital gains on the actual increase in the mutual fund shares, your mutual fund shares will grow less because the fund is paying double cap gains on every transaction it makes.

Woohoo! If you are middle class or god forbid you are middle class with a small cushion of disposable income, Obama will cost you only 20 or 30k a year!

Yes we can! Hope and change baby. "

[will641]

that is so gross.

[bode]

that is fucking disgusting.

fyp

[martindcx1e]

good post aces. obama is pretty much the most liberal person in congress.

[zook]

I don't know where the 2+2 poster got their information but...

He has promised to raise your taxes back to the 2000 level.

Obama has only proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Bush cut the top four tax brackets by 3% each, so Obama would KEEP the bottom three cuts. Bush inherited a budget surplus and quickly proposed tax cuts and spending plans that resulted in record budget deficits. Our national debt will be $5 trillion more when Bush leaves office than when he came in. Even John McCain vehemently opposed Bush's tax cuts and voted against them! Now that he's in the pocket of corporate America he's for them of course.

He has also promised to lift the cap on FICA.

He hasn't promised this, but he's said that he won't rule it out. In any case, why should there be a cap on FICA? It's a tax like any other, why should it only apply to the poor and middle class? The argument that they're the only ones who get social security is bullshit because there's no earmarked social security trust fund. Congress has been stealing money from FICA for years, so the money that comes out of your paycheck goes directly to the old people who live down the street. The whole FICA program is a sham, it should just be called what it is: a tax on lower and middle class Americans to pay for welfare for the elderly. It needs to be fixed in a bad way, but in the meantime I say uncap it completely! The rich will cry so much and send so much $ to Washington that maybe the stupid system will get fixed.

Not only will you be paying 30% on your gains instead of 15%

Again, not sure what the source was, but last week Obama said in an interview that he would consider raising the capital gains tax to 20-25%. Again, this is just another partial repealing of a Bush tax cut. And it's another tax that disproportionately affects the wealthy. Do you think multi-billionaires who continue to make millions of dollars a year buying and selling equities should pay taxes at a lower rate than people making $100,000? I don't.

edit: oops, Obama interview was last month not last week

[martindcx1e]

fairtax ftw

[Ash256]

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

I don't like losing money, but whatever, it pays for help for the people who need it and helps heal the class divide bullshit.

Quality healthcare should be a right.


Having said that, I have very little knowledge of the US system (beyond Sicko LOL) so should my views come across as ignorant please show me the light

[zook]

fairtax ftw

I'm actually all for it. Anything that would simplify our ridiculously complicated tax code would be an improvement. I think a national sales tax (i.e. fairtax) combined with a low capital gains tax (~20%) and a low, flat income tax on upper-income wage earners (~20% on incomes over ~$300k) would be simple, fair and provide all the revenues we need.

[ilikeaces86]

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

I don't like losing money, but whatever, it pays for help for the people who need it and helps heal the class divide bullshit.

Quality healthcare should be a right.


Having said that, I have very little knowledge of the US system (beyond Sicko LOL) so should my views come across as ignorant please show me the light

Who determines who is in "need" of help. It is not the role of the government to decide who should pay taxes to subsidize others but rather thier role is to provide a free marke atmosopher in which entrepreneurs can thrive and grow our economy.

[Jack Sawyer]

you have a very selfish train of thought, ilikeaces86

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Taxation is theft. I can't believe so many see it as a good thing.

[martindcx1e]

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

I don't like losing money, but whatever, it pays for help for the people who need it and helps heal the class divide bullshit.

Quality healthcare should be a right.


Having said that, I have very little knowledge of the US system (beyond Sicko LOL) so should my views come across as ignorant please show me the light

Who determines who is in "need" of help. It is not the role of the government to decide who should pay taxes to subsidize others but rather thier role is to provide a free marke atmosopher in which entrepreneurs can thrive and grow our economy.

right. it is not the role of a capitalist government (which America is supposed to be). it is the role of a socialist government, which obama and hillary are apparently in love with.

[Ash256]

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

I don't like losing money, but whatever, it pays for help for the people who need it and helps heal the class divide bullshit.

Quality healthcare should be a right.


Having said that, I have very little knowledge of the US system (beyond Sicko LOL) so should my views come across as ignorant please show me the light

Who determines who is in "need" of help. It is not the role of the government to decide who should pay taxes to subsidize others but rather thier role is to provide a free marke atmosopher in which entrepreneurs can thrive and grow our economy.

right. it is not the role of a capitalist government (which America is supposed to be). it is the role of a socialist government, which obama and hillary are apparently in love with.

I thought the USA were a democracy?

[Jack Sawyer]

Taxation is theft. I can't believe so many see it as a good thing.

Without taxation you cannot have anything public. Without anything public, whatever services you may need (yes, even cops) will fall in private hands.
DUC where I'm going?

Now, that particular country which we are reffering to here has gotten itself so deep down the rabbit hole because of recent, ahem, happenings, that there is no way to crawl out of it other than tax the hell out of the people (they would still not have as high tax levels as you Scandies) and get out of Iraq, a pointless war (depending upon who you ask) which has no end in sight, or clear "victory" terms.

The other solution would be to start printing money like there is no tomorrow to start covering whatever deficits there have to be covered. Now, US money is not backed by gold, it is backed by trust (like the Euro). So, lose trust in the currency and its value plummets, while trust in other world currencies (like the Euro) increases.
Once the value plummets (fully), the last thing you will be thinking about will be about paying your taxes.
What Mccain offers is Solution B; he offers an ineffective amnesty, and lowering taxes for the rich and wealthy (WTF? Caps? If you are rich and can afford, you should help carry the burden. You have what in Dutch they call "draagkracht", or carry power if literally translated. There is a point in which all you need is covered. Stop making money if you do not want to pay up, or make less on purpose).
Plus he states that "we will stay in Iraq for as long as necessary" (AT A COST OF $341M PER FUCKING DAY! WARS DO COST MONEY, YOU KNOW
This ineffective amnesty, and turning away from the problem, will only compound it with others, which in turn, will make Mad Max will be proud of the remains of the country.


Wake up and smell the fucking coffee, damned! There is real shit going on out there!



P.S.
About saying "universal healthcare is teh evil" is purely and simply an ignorant and selfish thing to say. Pray to God you never find yourself in a situation where you'll need it.

[Jack Sawyer]

And yes, Scandinavia does have fucking high levels of taxes. I wonder how the crime, education, financial and health levels are over there?

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Without taxation you cannot have anything public. Without anything public, whatever services you may need (yes, even cops) will fall in private hands.
DUC where I'm going?

I didn't say abolish taxes. I do think they're morally wrong though and they should definitely be kept to a minimum.

Now, that particular country which we are reffering to here has gotten itself so deep down the rabbit hole because of recent, ahem, happenings, that there is no way to crawl out of it other than tax the hell out of the people (they would still not have as high tax levels as you Scandies) and get out of Iraq, a pointless war (depending upon who you ask) which has no end in sight, or clear "victory" terms.

The only long term solution they have is to cut gouverment spendings. Higher taxes is not going to do shit for the economy.

The other solution would be to start printing money like there is no tomorrow to start covering whatever deficits there have to be covered.

Start? It's basically what they're already doing, and they show no sign of stopping.

Now, US money is not backed by gold, it is backed by trust (like the Euro). So, lose trust in the currency and its value plummets, while trust in other world currencies (like the Euro) increases.
Once the value plummets (fully), the last thing you will be thinking about will be about paying your taxes.
What Mccain offers is Solution B; he offers an ineffective amnesty, and lowering taxes for the rich and wealthy (WTF? Caps? If you are rich and can afford, you should help carry the burden. You have what in Dutch they call "draagkracht", or carry power if literally translated. There is a point in which all you need is covered. Stop making money if you do not want to pay up, or make less on purpose).

I agree that the amnesty will be very ineffective unless it's combined with cuts in gouverment spending. I really disagree that richer people should carry more of the burden though. You really should be more grateful towards the rich (some of them at least). Basically everything you own, has been created by other people pursuing their own economic interests. Here's the thing, in capitalism the only way to make money is to provide something that someone else wants. In order to get very rich you need to fill the needs of very many. Let the people have the money and they'll be able to provide so much more wealth than the gouverment ever will. The gouverment is actually totally incapable of creating wealth. It only redistributes it.

Plus he states that "we will stay in Iraq for as long as necessary" (AT A COST OF $341M PER FUCKING DAY! WARS DO COST MONEY, YOU KNOW

I do think McCain sucks though (probably more than the democrats) so no argument here.

This ineffective amnesty, and turning away from the problem, will only compound it with others, which in turn, will make Mad Max will be proud of the remains of the country.


Wake up and smell the fucking coffee, damned! There is real shit going on out there!



P.S.
About saying "universal healthcare is teh evil" is purely and simply an ignorant and selfish thing to say. Pray to God you never find yourself in a situation where you'll need it.

I pray to god I don't ever have to use the socialized swedish healthcare system. It's chaos. People are dying in the line waiting to get help. You'd think the world's highest taxes should be able to provide a better service.

[will641]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

[boost]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

wat?

do you understand the benefits of a balanced distribution of wealth? Do you understand the cataclysmic downfalls of an unbalanced distribution of wealth?

[Jack Sawyer]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

wat?

do you understand the benefits of a balanced distribution of wealth? Do you understand the cataclysmic downfalls of an unbalanced distribution of wealth?

Hint: Think USSR

[boost]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

wat?

do you understand the benefits of a balanced distribution of wealth? Do you understand the cataclysmic downfalls of an unbalanced distribution of wealth?

Hint: Think USSR

Hint: I said balanced

[will641]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

wat?

do you understand the benefits of a balanced distribution of wealth? Do you understand the cataclysmic downfalls of an unbalanced distribution of wealth?

Hint: Think USSR

Hint: I said balanced

Hint: what do you think communists are all about?

[Jack Sawyer]

i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor.

wat?

do you understand the benefits of a balanced distribution of wealth? Do you understand the cataclysmic downfalls of an unbalanced distribution of wealth?

Hint: Think USSR

Hint: I said balanced

Hint: what do you think communists are all about?

Of course. Unbalanced distribution of wealth.

[boost]

jesus.. I dont get how communism has to equal balanced distribution of wealth. if capitalism and communism are polar opposites, why is it that you both are coming to the conclusion that communism is the point of balance? I didnt say evenly distributed wealth, I said balanced distribution of wealth.

[will641]

so like, 33% rich, 34% middle class, 33% poor? if thats not what you mean you are going to have to elaborate.

[Jack Sawyer]

jesus.. I dont get how communism has to equal balanced distribution of wealth. if capitalism and communism are polar opposites, why is it that you both are coming to the conclusion that communism is the point of balance? I didnt say evenly distributed wealth, I said balanced distribution of wealth.

Sorry, my misunderstanding,
balanced does not equal even


carry on

[boost]

I am not a social science major, and I havent done any sort of complex data analysis to reach any sort of numbers. But the point that Im trying to make is that its a fact that a high concentration of a populations wealth is held by a small minority of that population, things are not stable.

Someone mentioned that poor people should be more grateful to rich people since they are providing goods and services for the poor. Well Im not sure if you had your head stuck too far up your ass to notice but its a symbiotic relationship. And when this relationship gets out of whack, we have french revolutions.

[Ash256]

Someone mentioned that poor people should be more grateful to rich people since they are providing goods and services for the poor. Well Im not sure if you had your head stuck too far up your ass to notice but its a symbiotic relationship. And when this relationship gets out of whack, we have french revolutions.

Have gold star sir

[gabe]

balanced wealth sucks, unbalanced wealth sucks, bla bla bla

[will641]

boost you severely twisted what i originally said.

"i am so sick and tired of hearing this crap about how republicans tax cuts only appeal to the rich, when the rich pay most the $ from tax revenue. democrats are the ones that fuck the poor."

how does that equal what you are basically accusing me of saying, that .5% of america should control >95% of the wealth, like they do in a lot of south american countries.

i said exactly what i meant.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Someone mentioned that poor people should be more grateful to rich people since they are providing goods and services for the poor. Well Im not sure if you had your head stuck too far up your ass to notice but its a symbiotic relationship. And when this relationship gets out of whack, we have french revolutions.

I realize the tone of my comment was pretty bad. Looking at it, it did sound up-tight. The point I wanted to make is that most people don't realize that they actually benefit from others being rich.

Economy is NOT a zero-sum game. One's richness is not someone else's poorness. In capitalism, during the process of getting rich you also enrichen others. I hate when people just look at society and say "he's rich he should pay more." The thing is, in most cases he has already given way more to society than most people. That should be rewarded, not punished.

Also, the only way to get such an uneven distrubution of wealth such as in france prior to the revolution, is through taxation.

[will641]

Also, the only way to get such an uneven distrubution of wealth such as in france prior to the revolution, is through taxation.

you are gonna have to provide some more insight into that.

[zook]

I hate when people just look at society and say "he's rich he should pay more." The thing is, in most cases he has already given way more to society than most people.

In many cases the rich have taken more from society than they can ever give back. What's the value of jobs created if they don't pay a living wage? Or if work conditions result in death or disease? Or if the wealth created is at the expense of the environment? Vast fortunes were built in the US in mining, logging and oil industries which paid workers poorly while putting them at great risk and wreaked environmental havoc. All over the world, vast fortunes were built through colonization and exploitation of those region's people and natural resources.

I agree that the economy isn't a zero-sum game, but it's obvious that unrestrained greed does not make winners out of everyone. Which is one of the reasons we need government regulation of markets.

[zook]

But let's get back to the point. McCain's a bitch who's changed his opinion about tons of major issues (abortion, tax cuts, campaign finance, ethanol) just to get himself on the ballot. He used to be a fiscal conservative who cared about balanced budgets, now he's sucking up to assholes like Grover Nordquist and promising to make Bush's tax cuts permanent while spending $350 million per day to make companies like Halliburton rich and get our brave young men and women in uniform blown up by IEDs. I used to have a lot of respect for John McCain, he was a true fiscal conservative and social moderate who wasn't afraid to piss off the Republican establishment. But he sold out and now he's just an older version of Dubya.

[biondino]

Highest taxes: Scandinavia. Highest quality of life: Scandinavia.

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

Why, that sounds entirely right and fair! Surely my fellow Americans (NB I am not American, bear with me) wouldn't have a problem with some of their beer money going to help those in desperate poverty? Go Democrats!

[SaulPaul]

Surely my fellow Americans (NB I am not American, bear with me) wouldn't have a problem with some of their beer money going to help those in desperate poverty?

but theyre lazy! they dont even have jobs!

[Jack Sawyer]

Surely my fellow Americans (NB I am not American, bear with me) wouldn't have a problem with some of their beer money going to help those in desperate poverty?

but theyre lazy! they dont even have jobs!

This made me LOL real hard IRL

[2_Thumbs_Up]

you are gonna have to provide some more insight into that.

Well, france before the revolution wasn't exactly a prime example of free market capitalism. They were a feudal society where the poor had to pay taxes and the king and his buddies had a lot of privileges. I'd like to change my original statement a bit though. The only way to get such a big distortion in the distribution of wealth is through coercion. Obviously, if a country is in total anarchy small groups of people would be able to use force in order to get what they wanted.

Uneven distrubution of wealth exists because one of two reasons:
1. A few people have through coercion or through government control accumulated a large proportion of wealth, and the protection of it. They will find ways to render themselves immune to taxation, whilst blocking new entries into that immunity. This is what might lead to french revolutions, but it sure as hell isn't capitalism.
2. Some people have striven for more wealth and happened to come out on top. They started their business, and they ran it intelligently. They reaped the benefits of their labor, and so did all people they hired. As a secondary result the society as a whole have profited as well. They have new goods to purchase and more options to select from. There is more competition, driving down prices, making more wealth available to the entire population.

In many cases the rich have taken more from society than they can ever give back. What's the value of jobs created if they don't pay a living wage? Or if work conditions result in death or disease?
Or if the wealth created is at the expense of the environment? Vast fortunes were built in the US in mining, logging and oil industries which paid workers poorly while putting them at great risk and wreaked environmental havoc. All over the world, vast fortunes were built through colonization and exploitation of those region's people and natural resources.

On bad working environments: The reason people work in those conditions is because it's the best alternative they have. Take a factory in asia for example. People may work there for 10 hrs/day under bad conditions and for a pay that may look horrible from our perspective. But they are doing this because it's the best alternative they currently have. The other alternative might be to bust their asses off on a farm for 12 hrs/day. So the workers lives at the factories might still be quite an important improvement from how it was before it. And also, any regulation of the labour market will only make companies more cautious before hiring, meaning less people will get this improvement of their life.

On the environmental issues: I do think it's the government's role to make sure no one pollutes the air etc. A lot of the environmental problems during the industrialization was because governemts failed to do this. Many times they cared more about their nation's production than about the environment.

I agree that the economy isn't a zero-sum game, but it's obvious that unrestrained greed does not make winners out of everyone. Which is one of the reasons we need government regulation of markets.

Unrestrained greed is bad. Fraud, theft and any other unvoluntary transaction of wealth should definitely be forbidden. However, I don't believe any transaction that's voluntary from both parts need to be regulated at all. Both parts believe they are better of after the exchange or it would not have taken place at all. So in every voluntary exchange, both parts are winners. Why should a third part have any saying in this at all?

Highest taxes: Scandinavia. Highest quality of life: Scandinavia.

I would like to hear you liberals thoughts on your taxes going way up to pay for all the social programs the democratic canidates propose.

Why, that sounds entirely right and fair! Surely my fellow Americans (NB I am not American, bear with me) wouldn't have a problem with some of their beer money going to help those in desperate poverty? Go Democrats!

100% taxes ftw! Obviously the correlation between standard of living and amount of taxes can't be linear like that.
Here are some other reasons that may have helped maintain the high standard of living we have here (I can only talk on the behalf of sweden):

1. No war for 200 years
2. The high taxes of today are a fairly new concept (taxes were very low until the sixties-seventies when they started to rise)
3. Lots of raw material. We are a relatively small country with an unproportionally high export (especially beneficial when the rest of Europe had to rebuild after WWII)
4. Close connections to economic superpowers and a geographic position that allows for easy trade.

[zook]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

On bad working environments: The reason people work in those conditions is because it's the best alternative they have. Take a factory in asia for example. People may work there for 10 hrs/day under bad conditions and for a pay that may look horrible from our perspective. But they are doing this because it's the best alternative they currently have. The other alternative might be to bust their asses off on a farm for 12 hrs/day. So the workers lives at the factories might still be quite an important improvement from how it was before it. And also, any regulation of the labour market will only make companies more cautious before hiring, meaning less people will get this improvement of their life.

I don't think that you can defend jobs that are dangerous or don't pay a living wage solely because "it's the best alternative they have". If the owners, managers and stockholders of the company are making money (and often a shitload of it), they have an obligation to provide a safe work environment and a living wage. Obviously what constitutes a living wage is up for debate, but one on which two working parents could feed their children, pay rent and afford medical treatment seems like a good place to start. Unfortunately, history has shown that employers, given the opportunity, will exploit their workers and we've needed unions and governments to make things right.

Unrestrained greed is bad. Fraud, theft and any other unvoluntary transaction of wealth should definitely be forbidden. However, I don't believe any transaction that's voluntary from both parts need to be regulated at all. Both parts believe they are better of after the exchange or it would not have taken place at all. So in every voluntary exchange, both parts are winners. Why should a third part have any saying in this at all?

I'm not talking about fraud and theft, I'm talking about business owners taking advantage of a free market system to exploit workers. When you look at what capitalism wrought in the late 1800's and early 1900's in terms of working conditions and economic inequality it's impossible to argue that unchecked capitalism is a good thing.

[boost]

bah, Ive been up since 4am, its 11pm now, Ill try and give a more in depth response later.

2thumbs the french rev happened because the rich were in power and taxed the poor. Now how is this at all different from special interest groups controlling our government and twisting its arm to effectively let them tax the people? Sure its not the king of america imposing an unjust tax, but non the less the rich are in control and using it to their advantage to keep the poor where they are. Its like jim crow laws were just a reinvention of race based slavery. Its the same set of rules, theyve just given the game a new name.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

I don't think that you can defend jobs that are dangerous or don't pay a living wage solely because "it's the best alternative they have". If the owners, managers and stockholders of the company are making money (and often a shitload of it), they have an obligation to provide a safe work environment and a living wage.

A company hires exactly as many as they estimate is profitable. If wages were higher, they'd hire less people. It's unreasonable to expect they'd do anything else. To hire more people than is profitable is charity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with charity, but it's not really the first interest of running a business. Also, if you're going to demand charity from people you could just as well demand it from those who are not hiring these people. At least the companies are doing something about the situation.
The only long-term solution is to provide as many alternative ways to provide for yourself as possible. If that is done, people will be perfectly able to choose the best alternative themself. Also, as the job:labor ratio increase, the market value of labor goes up. The market is self-regulating and the worst jobs will dissappear. The reason the situation is better in US is not because of all the regulations. It's because there are now so many more ways to provide for yourself.

Obviously what constitutes a living wage is up for debate, but one on which two working parents could feed their children, pay rent and afford medical treatment seems like a good place to start.

It's easy to say that everyone should afford these things. The thing is that they have to be produced as well. If there is a scarcity of something, lets say homes, then it is very important that homes are expensive. This provides an incitament to build more homes.

I'm not talking about fraud and theft, I'm talking about business owners taking advantage of a free market system to exploit workers. When you look at what capitalism wrought in the late 1800's and early 1900's in terms of working conditions and economic inequality it's impossible to argue that unchecked capitalism is a good thing.

I knew you weren't talking about fraud and theft. But it's among the few things I believe the governement should actually prohibit.
The 1800's was basically the triumph of the middle class. Sure, working conditions were very poor to begin with, but they did improve. If you look at factors such as life expectancy, working hours and infant mortality they were all improving. Surely, these things have to be a good indication of the wealth of the entire population.

2thumbs the french rev happened because the rich were in power and taxed the poor. Now how is this at all different from special interest groups controlling our government and twisting its arm to effectively let them tax the people?

It's not that different at all. But more importantly, it's definitely not the result of a free market. It's the result of allowing the government to meddle in the economy in the first place. This is the very opposite of a free market.

Sure its not the king of america imposing an unjust tax

All taxes are unjust imo.

but non the less the rich are in control and using it to their advantage to keep the poor where they are. Its like jim crow laws were just a reinvention of race based slavery. Its the same set of rules, theyve just given the game a new name.

The rich are not in control (not directly at least). The government is. If the power had never been granted to the government in the first place, then there'd be no privileges for the rich.

[Jack Sawyer]

http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news...le.php?DID=289

[euphoricism]

2thumbs the french rev happened because the rich were in power and taxed the poor.

That fucking simple, eh boost?

[vaks]

Get out of Iraq = save monies. Problem solved.

I dont know if this has been addressed yet or not...

but you can't honestly believe that either hillary or obama will be able to pull the troops out of iraq...

They say they will, but its just completly impractical and impossible to pull these troops out of iraq at this time, or within the next year...

First off we are making a great success over there, and are trying to build an infrastructure within.

Another point. You remember history class and how Hitler came into power?
it all began with after World War I. Once the war was over we got the fuck out of there...
So Hitler came to power and bam World War II...
after world war II however we learned from our mistakes and built germany back up after the war, and germany seems to be doing great now.

So I don't see how people can honestly think that pulling troops out of iraq is going to be the "best" thing to do...
Also no one knows what President Bush knows (commander in cheif) who happens to be #1 in charge of the whole military (so obviously he might know some information that us that arent in charge of the military do not know... such as a very good reason as to why we cannot pull out of iraq, or anything else.)

Also have any of you heard of the Death Tax?
http://www.deathtax.com/
basically money that has ALREADY been taxed before will get TAXED again once someone dies and tries to give their belongings to their kids and loved ones.

I too am a supporter of John Mcain

[Fnord]

war vs. healthcare is basically what it all comes down to

I disagree. As sick as it can be, there needs to be a market for health care at some level to balance unlimited wants with limited reasources.

[Fnord]

End the war on drugs and pardon/parole non-violent drug offenders= save monies. Problem solved.

FYP!!!!

[Warpe]

heheheheh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402054_pf.html

[Warpe]

war vs. healthcare is basically what it all comes down to

I disagree. As sick as it can be, there needs to be a market for health care at some level to balance unlimited wants with limited reasources.

I actually agree with you here to a point.

For years, the debate in Canada has been over whether we should just maintain our current single payer universal healthcare system or allow a 'two-tier' system, giving people who can afford it the ability to buy private care. As much as many people hate it, it's becoming obvious that the spiralling costs of healthcare ie market forces are slowly making a two-tier system a reality here, which will reduce the burden on the single payer system.

As I see it, you guys are coming from the opposite end of the equation: how to introduce a universal publicly funded system into a private marketplace. I think that's a much tougher nut to crack.

[will641]

Another point. You remember history class and how Hitler came intopower?
it all began with after World War I. Once the war was over we got the fuck out of there...
So Hitler came to power and bam World War II...
after world war II however we learned from our mistakes and built germany back up after the war, and germany seems to be doing great now.

So I don't see how people can honestly think that pulling troops out of iraq is going to be the "best" thing to do...
Also no one knows what President Bush knows (commander in cheif) who happens to be #1 in charge of the whole military (so obviously he might know some information that us that arent in charge of the military do not know... such as a very good reason as to why we cannot pull out of iraq, or anything else.)

this isnt a very good analogy. ww1 was much different.

[Warpe]

I dont know if this has been addressed yet or not...

but you can't honestly believe that either hillary or obama will be able to pull the troops out of iraq...

They say they will, but its just completly impractical and impossible to pull these troops out of iraq at this time, or within the next year...

First off we are making a great success over there, and are trying to build an infrastructure within

Examples?

[boost]

great success

I mean this makes it clear it was a joke right?

[euphoricism]

etc etc. But dont let reason and logic interrupt your spirited and passionate debate.