Alright this is it! I am going to make this thread to discuss the Obama Presidency, this thread will be here to discuss anything revolving around Obama, his presidency and anything else Obama related.
You might ask: “Meier, why are you doing this?”
The response is simple. There have been over 7 threads made in the last 5 months (averaging 1.4 threads a month) concerning something to do with Obama.
All other threads concerning Obama will be closed. Anyone that opens another one will be issued a warning.
Any trolls will be shot on site, or at least issued a trolling warning or possibly an official warning if the case is deemed fit.
You can on the other hand carry over a conversation that has started in one of the other threads with out the fear of a warning. There is a disclaimer to this though and that is if your carry over post violates TFF rules, you will get the appropriate warning.
Also try to stick to facts in here, I know there are a lot of political issues and people are pretty biased. Opinions, while appreciated, will more then likely be frowned upon by other members of TFF.
With that said: keep it clean. I don’t want to see political fights break out in this thread. Friendly debates and conversations are still (as always) permissible.
If you have any questions for as to why I did this, VM /PM me and we can discuss.
Happy posting.
( note: I will not sticky this thread, so don’t ask. )
( note II: yes the thread title is a MC Hammer pun. )
:: edit ::
Ok, I figure I should come back in here and touch on this point. I am not limiting all politics to this thread. I am fine with people opening threads for specific agendas, bills, and anything else concerning the American Economy / Government as long as they stay strictly on topic. What this thread is for is the overflow of Obama talk.
For instance (note this is an example) if someone wants to open a thread about the Health Care bill and discuss the facts of it, fine go for it. Now if that topic turns into another "Obama is screwing America" thread it will get shut down, warnings will be issued and all parties will be redirected to carry on the conversation in this thread.
Last edited by Meier Link; 01-20-2010 at 11:53 AM.
Soldier: "We suck but we're better then you"
We will fight, we will be strong
Together we're marching on
United, we move as one
Our finest hour has just begun
Philmore - Our Finest Hour
Crao Porr Cock8! Need I say more!?My awards:
Has Obamas popularity dropped so low that a republican candidate who at one point in time posed in soft porn magazines wins a seat in a traditionally democratic area? Hell Gonorrhea is more popular in america at the moment. As im not an american i probably dont have a right to rip on him but as the self proclaimed " leader of the free world" he's doing a sucky job.
Last edited by smurphy; 01-20-2010 at 08:45 AM. Reason: punctuation
This post is in regards to the closed thread entitled "Obama has lost" (or whatever it was), made by (wait for it) Locke4God.
First of all, I don't think that thread should have been closed, as it was about the senate seat in the state of Massachusetts. Not Obama in general.
Secondly, Obama didn't lose. Scott Brown won. And he campaigned as a moderate. You can tell this because he made a good effort to campaign using his name, not the Republican party name. There is no way a die-hard conservative (campaign or candidate) could have won that seat. It was effective, as Republican party strategists are now studying it as a model. But more than that, the voters of Massachusetts believe that the Democrats have stopped representing their interests. I believe the Democrats need to touch base with their support groups -- the workers, mainly. I wonder if America is just too inherently conservative that the current state of the Democrats is just too much too soon. I know I certainly couldn't stand living in America. I'd go crazy. Obama would've been bearable, but to me he comes across as ever so slightly centre-right.
Thirdly, and Locke, please check your facts, it wasn't the first time in 50 years that Massachusetts has elected a Republican, as the last time a Republican won that seat was in the 1972. That's 38 years.
Fourthly, this does not mean left-wing policies have 'failed', and that it is 'crazy' to believe that they could work. It means that Massachusetts voters, for any number of reasons, have voted for a surprising candidate, given the state's reputation. And that's democracy, and I'd defend it with my life (non-violently, of course).
I think Obama deserves respect, from both sides, for declaring that there should be no official vote on healthcare reform before Brown takes his seat, and that lawmakers should focus on areas of common ground between the parties, as now the debate is about to get icky.
QFTOriginally Posted by Alpha
They mentioned this on the news yesterday morning. They said he had no mention of the Republican party on his signs, or on his bus. On his bus was his name in gigantic letters. You know kinda rock star style.
I think Obama catches a lot of flak. Some of which may be deserved, but most is not deserved. I hear people criticizing him about how he has ran the country so far. Come on people it will take longer than a year or two to get us out of debt.
Granted Obama does get a lot of flak for things he cannot influence like the recession but his foreign policy is atrocious. Americas relations with britain are more strained now than at any time post WW11 which would have been unforeseen less than 18 months ago. Obama backs down at the slightest intimidation like dismantling missile defences in Poland and the czech republic when Putin threw a tantrum. He couldve supported the opposition in Iran which wouldve gave the movement some real impetus. The worst thing you can do is nothing at all and hes doing exactly that, which is giving americas enemies hope. Look at the timing of the plot to blow up a plane over Detroit. Dubya wasnt the greatest president but at least he acted when he needed to.
How long have I been sleeping?
Regarding your earlier claim as to Mr. Obama's popularity, he currently has a 50 percent approval rating versus 43 percent disapproval. While dramatically lower than that which he began with, a majority one would enjoy having in many respects.
Hey! Read my movie blog! http://centralfloridafilmcritic.blogspot.com
The Democrats lost. Obama is the leader and most prominent member of the Democratic Party. Therefore, Obama lost. Or you could take it as a sign that he is losing.
Just like most other political candidates, you mean?And he campaigned as a moderate. You can tell this because he made a good effort to campaign using his name, not the Republican party name.
First -- not "the workers", you might mean "union workers". Second ... Massachusetts, a state that's sent two Democrats to the Senate for the last thirty years, the state that's been the most Democratic-supporting in the last ten Presidential elections, just elected a Republican Senator. They went away from their liberal political history and towards the more conservative candidate. Though more than 60% of Massachusetts voters selected a Democrat for President barely a year ago, it's obvious that Obama has been quick to change minds about his party.But more than that, the voters of Massachusetts believe that the Democrats have stopped representing their interests. I believe the Democrats need to touch base with their support groups -- the workers, mainly.
Yes, all too many of us Americans love our capitalism.I wonder if America is just too inherently conservative that the current state of the Democrats is just too much too soon.
Actually, y'all are both wrong -- but you're more wrong than he is. The last time a Republican occupied that seat was 1953, which would be 57 years ago now. Thus, a Republican win there ended a 57-year Democratic hold on that seat. You might be thinking of the other seat, which was last held by a Republican in '79.Thirdly, and Locke, please check your facts, it wasn't the first time in 50 years that Massachusetts has elected a Republican, as the last time a Republican won that seat was in the 1972. That's 38 years.
That's not what this means, no, of course not. A lot of other things add up to mean that, but still.Fourthly, this does not mean left-wing policies have 'failed', and that it is 'crazy' to believe that they could work.
What this means is that Obama's policies are reflecting upon the Democratic Party and making voters -- even voters that usually go strictly Democratic -- shy away from it.
So you'll defend it with your life, as long as you don't have to defend it with your life?And that's democracy, and I'd defend it with my life (non-violently, of course).
Yes, he's very bipartisan when it comes to the Democratic agenda.I think Obama deserves respect, from both sides, for declaring that there should be no official vote on healthcare reform before Brown takes his seat, and that lawmakers should focus on areas of common ground between the parties, as now the debate is about to get icky.
You mean like Obama's, McCain's, and Bush's -- no party, just the candidate and/or slogan?
Especially when he uses his first year in office to quadruple the national deficit, and his first term will see a near-double of our national debt.I hear people criticizing him about how he has ran the country so far. Come on people it will take longer than a year or two to get us out of debt.
It takes a lot longer to get out of debt when you just spend more money.
He did have a 74% approval rating. hell, even Bush took longer than a year to lose 24%.
Last edited by Sasquatch; 01-20-2010 at 06:30 PM.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Just a few things, nothing old. We sound like broken records.
Firstly, it's 38 years.
Also, because my evidence that Brown is a moderate wasn't enough, how's this (from the same blog):
But, you know, the majority of political analysts clearly don't know what they're on about.Additionally, state Senator Brown is considered by most analysts to be a good Republican fit "for the state." That is to say, Brown is viewed as being much more liberal than most high profile Republican candidates and officeholders nationwide.
To clarify, I wouldn't go to war over it. It would take a lot to make me go to war. But I would defend it non-violently. You know, non-violent protest. Because that's effective. Naturally, this is all hypothetical. I don't know how I'm somehow discussing what I would do if someone tried to strip away democracy. Simply, I wouldn't kill anyone, but I'd be willing to die.
Also, I read today that before Obama's inauguration, only 19% of Americans believed their country was 'on the right track'. That rose to +60% mid-way through the year, and is now at 34% (I'm going on memory, but I'm sure I'm reasonably accurate). Yes, his approval is in decline. I'm not going to refute that, and without making judgment on his policies, statistically more Americans are happy now than before Obama. That's important.
all i got to say on this is. if you guys in the United States don't want him we could take him off your hands up here in Canada. and if you wanted too, take Alaska and Sarah palin too. were not too picky.
At least you americans can vote for your party candidate to run for presidency. in canada the party candidates all vote within the party to select a new party leader. but we don't vote for the prime minister. we vote for the party representative and who ever has the most seats in the house of commons becomes the new prime minister. its lame and there are so many flaws to the voting process but i do enjoy my free health care. mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....
You likely don't mind it because you're probably not a tax-paying citizen, you're probably not sick often, and you probably don't feel the strain on your wallet. It's just a guess.
Australia also has free healthcare. I'm a tax paying citizen who hasn't taken a sick day since I started my current job (around a year) and I don't feel the strain on my wallet. I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling. And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.
victoria aut mors
Very interesting. My only real argument against that is that it's a much easier burden for Canada/Australia because their populations are only 34 million/22 million respectively compared to USA's 300+ million.
I have heard that argument made countless times and I have yet to understand what it means. A bigger population theoretically means more facilities and health care workers available. I am thrown for a loop on that one.
Hey! Read my movie blog! http://centralfloridafilmcritic.blogspot.com
The problem is also that when there is more of something it also tends to have more parts to make the system work. Which means that if one of those many parts breaks the system is collapse a lot easier than if it would to have fewer working parts.
A system only need to support 30 million will have less required of it than one with 300 million to support. If both were equal and proportional with staffing and budget they should in theory get the same results. However, apply statistics to it and the human factor, when you have 10 people working on something it is more like to be finishing orderly and with less waste than 1000 people working on the same thing. Throwing in more people tends to increase the chance of corruption and failure.
It is like with machines. The ideal machine has least number of moving parts because it greatly lowers the chance of something breaking. You start adding in more parts to support a larger scale it is going to have an increased number of chances to break.
Curious? There's no limits but your own imagination.
Don't know how to roleplay, but want to learn? Visit Here!
2007 and 2009 Best Writer of TFF and 2009 Most Creative Co-Winner
There is the issue andromeda brought up, plus the issue that it generally costs more money. The upper tax bracket just ends up getting absolutely bombarded with higher taxes. It may seem proportional, but it isn't. While the population itself may be ten fold, that does not necessarily mean that there ten times as many upper tax bracket citizens willing to pay all of it
actually i am a tax payer and have been since i was 18. and i like my health care and if the americans spent as much on the people as they do in the military they would have a better health care. like out of the hundreds of millions of people in the US. take $5 out of every paycheck from half the amount of people in the country who work, every second week that would be $19,500,000 in a year to use for health care, OR you could cut back on military weapons and missiles and stealth bombers. the BILLIONS of dollars a day could be used to take care of the vets. due to canada's and a few other countries lack of military techs, training wise are better then US Troops.
My twin brother is in the canadian military helping out in afghanistan. before this war on terror how many people could say they knew where afghanistan was.
and you know nothing of our taxes. everything in this country is taxed. we have GST,HST,PST,BST,TST, AST, and im sure they could come up with something to add on to us. what do you guys got. a sales tax at the most.
Actually we're taxed on quite a bit. Our houses, our land, our inheritances, our lottery winnings to name a few. I agree, we should cut back on the military spending. But five dollars from every pay check every second week won't come close to cutting it. It would be even worse than the system currently in place. Which shows that you don't really know anything about our system, either.
Last edited by M16; 02-02-2010 at 10:41 PM.
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In Canada total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%
so you can complain about taxes all you want. frankly a system where mostly the rich come into power seems un fair for a house of representative.
I cut back on this cause it was getting into almost a page an a half long. so to save you the speech either learn to work together and come up with a way to make a better health care or ill call china and tell them to collect on the money US owes them.
Yeah, the rich pay a whopping 1% more of their stupidly high income. I fit that bracket myself and still live very, VERY comfortably.
As it stands, this system has been tried in several countries and has worked. It hasn't been tried in the US so the best anyone can have against it is a guess, perhaps an 'educated guess', but a guess nontheless.
victoria aut mors
It's not a matter of still being able to live comfortably or not. Of course someone paying 34% of $250k+ a year can still live comfortably. Unless you factor in two or more children, the cost of owning a house, and the cost of utilities, food, etc.
Yes, even then, there are still plenty of people who feel no pressure at all to make ends meet. But there is still the ethical problem of telling a person in that upper tax bracket that he has to live at least a third of his life for strangers he probably has no interest in helping. I personally find it immoral to force someone to pay any percent of their life for someone else. Asking is one thing, but coercing is another story entirely.
Not that this is the primary topic in this thread, but once Bush's tax cuts expire, the upper Federal Income Tax bracket will be taxed 36-38% of their income. Add on ~9% state tax. That's 45-47%. Now add on the extra 1% Obama proposes (I actually think it was higher, but I haven't done extensive research. That makes it 46-48% of the upper tax bracket's paycheck. You are now telling anyone making that much money that they don't deserve to keep about half of what they work for. How long would you expect them to keep working under those conditions?
It's not that they don't deserve it, it's just that there exists the ethical problem that so many in society have so little, while so few have so much. It's one thing to claim equality of opportunity and say that they simply need to work hard. I consider that thoroughly idealistic. It's never going to work like that. Poor people have always existed, and always will. But there's more to it than that: capitalism requires it. As capitalism is clearly the most efficient system, we cannot/should not replace it. But we must balance efficiency with moral concerns. If a family is struggling to pay for food, it would take a right bastard to tell them to shut up and work harder, especially when there are families who are absolutely secure in their expenditures, and could absorb an increase in taxes with no issue.
Then there's other concerns, such as stability of economy and society. Poor people - if they've been poor for quite some time - would probably be pretty pissed off. If for no other reason, income redistribution is important.
So you're basically saying that income redistribution is completely acceptable when defended using the context of keeping the poor content? I disagree with this statement for starters. But besides that, it's not entirely relevant to what I was saying before, unless you want to try to link it to that.
By your argument, taxing the upper tax bracket upwards of 40% is OK and completely acceptable in order to appease the poorer people?
I can't speak for Alpha, but I'd rather have overearners keeping less and poorer people having a higher quality of life than overearners controlling more and more and poorer people being left to rot.
Considering I've heard the current rates are around 33%-35% anyway and Clinton had created a 39.6% bracket during his term, I don't think such a system will kill the high earners. If any of my statistics are wrong, let me know, I found them in a few minutes via google and just checked to see if the info was the same on a few other sites.
victoria aut mors
Nah, we wouldn't do that to you. For the last nearly quarter of a millennium, America has been sending the worst of its people to Canada. Loyalists to England, draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, and now it's losers that think that the rest of humanity owes them something.
We'll keep the oilfields and the Arctic Fox, thanks.and if you wanted too, take Alaska and Sarah palin too. were not too picky.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this before socialists understand it. "Paid for by somebody else" does NOT mean "free".... but i do enjoy my free health care. mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....
Translation: In Australia, the healthcare for the entire country is paid for by the people who make the most money.
Just like in America, where nobody can be turned down for emergency medical treatment on any basis, and where there are literally thousands of programs (local, state, and federal) and charities designed specifically for healthcare costs? The difference is that if I don't want to pay somebody else's bills, I don't have to.I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling.
First -- that's human development index, not quality of living. Second -- helthcare is only a small part of that. Third -- the healthcare that does affect the HDI is also affected by availability, ease of use, and ease of payment -- something that most people think is terrible in the United States because we don't have socialised medicine.And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.
I've worked with Canadian troops before. That's complete bullshit.
And who knows nothing about another country's taxes? Yes, y'all have more taxes than the United States -- because your government dictates more than the United States government does, and because all too many people would rather live in dependency on their federal government than actually have the rsponsibility of making decisions for themselves. If I had to babysit somebody, I'd rather it was an 18-year-old who cooks and cleans for themself than a baby who has to rely on mommy and daddy to clean its diaper.and you know nothing of our taxes. everything in this country is taxed. we have GST,HST,PST,BST,TST, AST, and im sure they could come up with something to add on to us. what do you guys got. a sales tax at the most.
In what country? In the United States, there's a much larger difference between tax rates placed on the higher earners and tax rates for the lower earners. It sure as hell isn't one percent.
First, you don't live in America, do you? Second, it doesn't matter if you're "comfortable" -- what matters is that you have the right to keep the money you make. If I choose to go to school and succeed, I should be able to keep the extra money that I earn. If I choose to drop out of school and flip burgers for the rest of my life, nobody else should have their money stolen (that's taken by force or threat of force) from them to support my lazy ass.I fit that bracket myself and still live very, VERY comfortably.
And you must be forgetting that it has also been tried in several countries and has failed miserably.As it stands, this system has been tried in several countries and has worked.
That ethical problem does not exist in a Capitalist society. There are reasons that some people "have so much" and some "have so little" -- and it's not "circumstance" or "chance" or "fortune", it all depends on the person.
Umm ... It DOES work like that. And it works well.It's one thing to claim equality of opportunity and say that they simply need to work hard. I consider that thoroughly idealistic. It's never going to work like that.
So wait -- we shouldn't replace Capitalism, but we should have Capitalism with income redistribution ... which isn't Capitalism at all.Poor people have always existed, and always will. But there's more to it than that: capitalism requires it. As capitalism is clearly the most efficient system, we cannot/should not replace it. But we must balance efficiency with moral concerns.
Sometimes it takes a "right bastard" to tell people the truth. I have no problem letting people know that the problems they're facing are their own fault.If a family is struggling to pay for food, it would take a right bastard to tell them to shut up and work harder, especially when there are families who are absolutely secure in their expenditures, and could absorb an increase in taxes with no issue.
And even if I didn't have the courage to let people know that they are responsible for their own lives, I sure as hell wouldn't tell other people -- people that are responsible for their own lives and have made themselves successful -- that it's their responsibility to care for those who won't care for themselves.
... So the people who have succeeded in life and earn more money should have it stolen from them and handed out to those who haven't succeeded, simply because poor people might get pissed? So angry people would demand something they don't deserve, and you would support giving it to them?Then there's other concerns, such as stability of economy and society. Poor people - if they've been poor for quite some time - would probably be pretty pissed off. If for no other reason, income redistribution is important.
We've seen it before. The "poor" rise up against the "rich", and soon enough, there's nobody earning money for the group anymore. Ever heard of a "brain drain"?
I'd rather have everybody keep the money they earn, instead of it being forcibly taken and redistributed to others who haven't achieved as much financially.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Everyone who isn't deemed so poor as to be struggling actually. Just higher income earners such as myself pay a staggering 1% more than average income earners. We get taxed on pretty much everything too and on top of that. We also pay more than countries such as the US for several things and can still live quite comfortably. Higher quality of life, bro.
Yeah, see I don't recall the last time I paid for anything more than an ambulance fee. And that includes non emergency medical stuff. Don't need to pray I'm covered by some sort of charity/program neither.Just like in America, where nobody can be turned down for emergency medical treatment on any basis, and where there are literally thousands of programs (local, state, and federal) and charities designed specifically for healthcare costs? The difference is that if I don't want to pay somebody else's bills, I don't have to.
The HDI is all about quality of life. Other sources have indicated similar results but I figured the HDI was one of the more reputable and least biased of sources. Considering how absolutely SHIT Australia is in terms of other things like telecommumications I'd imagine our healthcare would be a big part of why our quality of life is so great.First -- that's human development index, not quality of living. Second -- helthcare is only a small part of that. Third -- the healthcare that does affect the HDI is also affected by availability, ease of use, and ease of payment -- something that most people think is terrible in the United States because we don't have socialised medicine.
Australia. And you're totally right. Over there it's like a terribly high 3% more between brackets, right? LolIn what country? In the United States, there's a much larger difference between tax rates placed on the higher earners and tax rates for the lower earners. It sure as hell isn't one percent.
Australia. And I don't have the right to keep all of my stupidly high income nor should I be allowed to. No-one needs that kind of money and even if taxes were optional i'd still pay them after seeing the positive consequences of doing so. Anything else is greedy and dare I say, completely wasteful.First, you don't live in America, do you? Second, it doesn't matter if you're "comfortable" -- what matters is that you have the right to keep the money you make. If I choose to go to school and succeed, I should be able to keep the extra money that I earn. If I choose to drop out of school and flip burgers for the rest of my life, nobody else should have their money stolen (that's taken by force or threat of force) from them to support my lazy ass.
And those would be?And you must be forgetting that it has also been tried in several countries and has failed miserably.
I apologise for any errors, I typed this on my stupidly expensive iPhone which is one of many things I can afford even after taxes, especially as I never need to worry about medical bills or anything.
victoria aut mors
Folks what Silver is saying that he believes that people should be slaves to others, that he thinks that slavery is morally right, and he willingly is a slave.
Humans do not have an automatic code for survival, an automatic course of action, nor a automatic set of values. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything a person needs has to be discovered by their mind and produced by their effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. Knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual and the choice to exercise their rational faculty or not depends on the individual, a person's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't.
A person's life required by their nature is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being - not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement - not survival at any price.
As I said earlier: a person has no automatic code for survival, people do not have an instinct of self-preservation. An instinct is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give somebody the knowledge required for living.
A person must work for their survival; that with their effort, time, and mind they are able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. To take away the product of their effort is to enslave their mind - to enslave their very being. Even if a person makes more than what the "basics" require it was their effort that created their wealth, their mind; to take away any part of it through forceful means is to enslave them wholly. To say that their life is not for them to decide what to do, that their mind is not theirs but something else's. That people are robots to whoever clamors for it the most.
People are not slaves to anybody or anything. Each has the right to pursue whatever they desire so long as it does not violate the rights others (i.e., be at the expense of others). Those who say that the violation of a person's right to the product of their work is morally right, advocates slavery of the mind and of the person.
Main series FFs Beaten - FF: 4x, FFII: 3x, FFIII: 3x, FFIV: 3x, FFV: 3x, FFVI: 4x, FFVII: 5x, FFVIII: 5x, FFIX: 3x, FFX: 4x, FFXII: 3x, FFXIII: 2x, FFXV: 2x
That's because it was deducted from your taxes.
China and Russia, for example. Both economies collapsed when the governments tried to expand control. Prime examples of why pure socialism coupled with communism doesn't work.And those would be?
Yeah, I pay a regular sliver so I'm not hit by something that'd make the average person very happy if they won it as a prize.
And Australia, Canada and every other country it's worked for are communists?China and Russia, for example. Both economies collapsed when the governments tried to expand control. Prime examples of why pure socialism coupled with communism doesn't work.
@ Zargs: No-one's forcing me to become a slave. There's a system in place here and I strongly agree with it after seeing the positive outcomes it produces. If I didn't agree with it, I could quite easily not pay tax and when the government's hounds came I could take a stand to the death if need be. There's ALWAYS a choice even if some people are too weak to realise it. And if we're getting onto slavery, whose country was it with the big history of slavery? Oh wait...
It comes down to this: Those on that higher tax bracket have a good deal more than they need even after being heavily taxed. Those in the lowest bracket mightn't have enough to get by depending on their circumstances without aid. If I can pay the highest bracket of tax in a country which is already using a system and still very easily afford to grab a 32" LCD TV, the odd game console and whatever else I want every other week I definetely have a deal more money than I need. (And yes, Australia pay more for their entertainment electronic goods then elsewhere, so my point is VERY valid).
As I stated before, very little research on my part uncovered the proposed tax brackets are just like those when Clinton was in power. Was it really so bad back then?
victoria aut mors
Exactly what I said. Thanks.
You asked for examples of countries where it didn't work, and I supplied them. Socialist programs are much easier to execute in countries of smaller populations because the upper class does not have to pay for as many people. No, it isn't proportionate, and every other country that gets taxed by their government pays loads of taxes other than federal income tax, too. You said it yourself; you don't know enough taxation in other countries. Then look it up and stop talking like the Canadians and the Australians get hit hardest by taxes.And Australia, Canada and every other country it's worked for are communists?
First off, any situation where you have to choose between freedom or imprisonment isn't exactly a choice. Second, are you serious with that slavery comment? The US had an extremely short bout of slavery if you compare it with other countries. There are countries that still utilize slavery and yet you feel that the US's ~150 years of slavery is the worst the world's ever seen? You need to look up more than other nations' taxes.@ Zargs: No-one's forcing me to become a slave. There's a system in place here and I strongly agree with it after seeing the positive outcomes it produces. If I didn't agree with it, I could quite easily not pay tax and when the government's hounds came I could take a stand to the death if need be. There's ALWAYS a choice even if some people are too weak to realise it. And if we're getting onto slavery, whose country was it with the big history of slavery? Oh wait...
No, it doesn't come down to that, and you're missing the point entirely. Obviously even if a guy is making 100 million dollars a year, and only gets to keep ~60, he's still going to live comfortably. No one is arguing that. The argument is that no one has the right to tell this man that he does not have the right to his own life. He should never have to live his life for the sake of someone else. Not even 40% of it.It comes down to this: Those on that higher tax bracket have a good deal more than they need even after being heavily taxed. Those in the lowest bracket mightn't have enough to get by depending on their circumstances without aid. If I can pay the highest bracket of tax in a country which is already using a system and still very easily afford to grab a 32" LCD TV, the odd game console and whatever else I want every other week I definetely have a deal more money than I need. (And yes, Australia pay more for their entertainment electronic goods then elsewhere, so my point is VERY valid).
So, let me get this straight. Your rich man is STILL paying taxes either way yet paying a slight bit more is baaaad?
Kind of defeats any paying a few bucks tax is slavery thing considering you're forced to pay tax regardless.
victoria aut mors
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks