2008 Political debate thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kenneth R. said:
I don't see McCain or Palin as moderate in any sense at all. I believe in a compromise between socialism and capitalism. That makes ME a moderate. :p
Earn your pay, but don't let people abuse the system to either earn what they're too lazy to work for or earn what they never worked for, but are too damn rich to not accumulate anyway.

Essentially capitalism with greed control. As for the abortion issue, it shouldn't even BE a political issue.
Click to expand...

:kickass:

with a mention that many things that are "political campaign issues" should not be. All smoke and mirrors anyhow... as the ship flounders in the north atlantic... while its passengers dream of a euphoric world with one happy family from every tribe. But alas reality sucks
 
noble savage said:
I read that article a few days ago. Gotta love Hitchens! It must be bad if he sides with the dems because he's usually pro republican.
Click to expand...

YES! I definitely agree with Hitchens' stances on the need for separation of church and state, as well as how ridiculous the glorification of ignorance is. If you haven't done so already, you should check out God is not Great. Amazing read.
 
Beelzebub said:
YES! I definitely agree with Hitchens' stances on the need for separation of church and state, as well as how ridiculous the glorification of ignorance is. If you haven't done so already, you should check out God is not Great. Amazing read.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't come as a surprise that I bought it the first day it came out!:lol:

I was very impressed by that book. Love him or loath him, the man has a way with words! I have read (And own) almost all of the modern 'atheist' literature and I think, perhaps behind Victor Stenger's most recent book, Hitchens' tops the list!
 
Kenneth R. said:
I believe in a compromise between socialism and capitalism. That makes ME a moderate. :p
Earn your pay, but don't let people abuse the system to either earn what they're too lazy to work for or earn what they never worked for, but are too damn rich to not accumulate anyway.
Click to expand...

No, Ken, that makes you confused. :p :lol:

Wealth building is a good thing, and can be done entirely without greed. I believe in earning wealth and giving back to those in need, without the government there to prod me along. I give quite a decent sum of money as it is, and I'm quite far from wealthy. If I was wealthy, more would benefit from my sharing as I see fit.

That does not at all condone socialism. That is the Christian faith I believe in.

And, from my experience, I fully believe the Law of Entropy also applies to work ethics. Give somebody a crutch and they will tend toward energy decay; make people work and reward them justly and they will overcome their selves.
 
Yeah, you have to factor in Mark that not everybody feels the same way as you do and the world isn't an ideal place. Hence ideal socialism is broken, ideal capitalism is borken, any word ending in an 'ism' is broken because people will by default manipulate them for personal gain. Not everybody, but some will, sometimes to the large detriment of the majority: cue 2008 financial crisis. Hence my position that this sort of thing needs to be monitored and the pointlessly wealthy knocked down a notch.

Suppose you contribute epic amounts of work to society. Sure, I'd agree with you that you are entitled to be compensated. Suppose instead you're just simply famous, or some other such social status that has little correlation to actual work done. I believe that in this case, you are not entitled to be just given money for no other reason than to buy a matching pink convertible and puppy. Note carefully that these two examples and states are not mutually exclusive, a rich person can be entitled to their earnings and a famous person can be found a hard worker.

The bottom line is that
1. not everybody is going to be generous if wealthy. this cannot be relied upon as a part of the system.
2. not everyone is going to play by the rules. cheating to wealth is prevalent in american big business.
3. people should get what they're entitled to, no more and no less. this is the sticking point.
3b. because you're super famous or super important (for whatever reason) does not entitle you to wealth. what is our social fixation on this?

You earn more, you get taxed more. You earn more and have no actual work to justify it, and I say that person should be put in their place.
 
For me its how they come by it. Wallstreet leveraging is bullshit, everytime it is done we eventually pay. Notice now that wallstreet crashed, gas/oil is dropping, not that I hold any faith in it lasting, history has shown its just the lube before the next big reaming, so by that I will predict the next rapid rise in oil prices will hit the $5.00 a gallon mark... and our government and the wallstreet jerks will sit and say... "Americans are not spending" as we have been programed to do, gee... go figure??? DUH!

Then housing took a dive, its still no where near the affordable pricing it should be at but its dropping and a few things were done to help people survive their inflated mortages, not what I would have done, I would have forced the mortage companies into a 0% interest and said be glad your getting your money back... someday. Then I would have froze and confiscated the bank accounts and assets of any officers that cashed in on the fiasco of fucking the citizens of this country over. Sending them to be homeless in the streets or a life time jail sentence in the pen with big bubba... their choice. These are the types of wealthy people I despise.

Another example and I cant give the exact facts : Around 2-5 years ago when the trend in health insurance was skyrocketing increases in premiums with reduced coverage, there were people of position, and I forget what/who they were, perhaps presidents of insurance companies or sat on some "board" that raked in millions. One guy was in Vermont so it was on our local news, he became filthy stinking rich off the deal and simply forced to resign... with his millions... oh, what brutal punishment, he must be falling apart and struggleing so hard to get through the rest of his pathetic life. Sorry, "capitalism" or not I feel such people should have their assets frozen and confiscated, then applied directly back into the system they were stolen from, yes STOLEN! I dont care if there are no written laws, or "loopholes" that allow this kind of white collar theivery, its time to plug them and make examples of such people as our other laws so anxiously accumulate records and make examples of "lesser" American citizens. Dont rob the liquor store {of course} but its OK to fuck an entire country in the name of "Capitalism" and "free enterprise"

Bullshit !

Then I do have issue with the seperation of income levels according to the job title, it has spred way to far but I have been over that and its ending effect on our economy enough... though most still dont get it.

Good pay does not mean the work force will become complacient about their performance. Sure some will but fire their asses, it wont take long for people to adjust their attitude. Speaking for myself since I became non self employed, I have gone through jobs like water, not one employer was unsatisfied with my abilities or performance, but I was forced into some type of belief that I needed to prove myself over a long period of time {years}, while starving and depleting my savings account before I could make an honest living, so I simply left those jobs, yet there was no lack of income for the businesses I worked for, in fact most were filthy stinking rich family businesses and I was turning excellent profit for them. I would simply say "your going to miss me when Im gone" and that would be my notice of potentially leaving, then the ball was in their hands, their delemia, not mine. This is why I fully support the positive side of organized labor, while at the same time opposing the negitive side that doesnt allow the fireing and/or making examples {attitude adjustments} of slackers.
 
Beelzebub said:
*cough*
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
*cough*
Click to expand...

A little propaganga but still obvious to the open eye. Of course Al Queda would claim to support McCain... as if they have a vote ??? Then they know the easily steered Americans will vote Obama that will let them have their way, a victory for wack jobs. The middle east will remain unstable either way, wack jobs that they are, so I support pulling for a year or two {to save money} and going back and destroying them quickly and harder again as they continue their bullshit.

Samalia and Ethiopia, well whos to say and it all sounds wrong but everyone as they read it will quickly forget that at the start of the scenerio it clearly states "The crisis has complex roots, and Somali warlords bear primary blame"

So is it saying, "we should not have "endorced" a Ethiopian envasion" or "Ethiopia would have invaded either way" or "Ethiopia only invaded because of us" or that "we should have intervened and not let Ethiopia invade" ? Then where does that stand with all the world peice fighters and quit meddleing people ? So are we suppose to intervene or not ? Apparently it depends ?

These people titled "wack jobs" by myself, just love us. Lets play some violent games and America will come running, spending all kinds of money on us and we TOO can be on the world news, the center of attention, holding our country hostage to their own incapabilities... which brings me back to my story about bulls in the pasture. I support ignoring them until they get out of control, then walking in and giving them a good quick jult with the cattle prod to step in line and then walk away, once again ignoring them, but keeping the doors to our country closed to them, this eliminates terrorist attacks on our soil. Fight your own battles, fix your own country, punish your own violators, or pay the price, dont come here looking for sympathy... wack job
 
Kenneth R. said:
Yeah, you have to factor in Mark that not everybody feels the same way as you do and the world isn't an ideal place.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ken, that is in fact one of my major qualms about the world. If everybody did feel the same way I do, it would in fact be an ideal place, wouldn't it? :D

Kenneth R. said:
Suppose instead you're just simply famous, or some other such social status that has little correlation to actual work done. I believe that in this case, you are not entitled to be just given money for no other reason than to buy a matching pink convertible and puppy.
Click to expand...

Some people just happen to have really good agents. :)

But, one can always feel free to take the tact of not going to movies, and not buying into the propaganda sold by Hollywood. But, then we wouldn't have such colorful election campaigns, would we? We feed the beast, Ken.

[All the same, don't get me wrong - I abhor the "free" money given to actors and actresses, and I despise the media promulgating their issues as if Hollywood made the world go 'round. Yet another reason to not like Liberals. :D]

Kenneth R. said:
You earn more, you get taxed more.
Click to expand...

There I have a very fundamental disagreement with, Ken. You earn more, you pay more simply by the fact that x% of y is greater than x% of a, if y>a. But, simply because you earn more should not mean that you are taxed more.

Obama's tax plan creates a class war in the States, and that won't be a pretty thing.

One idea from the Librarians... er, I mean, Libertarians... I find interesting is the move from a Fed income tax to a Fed sales tax. Then, those who consume more would pay more. But I don't know that we can ever get to something of that nature.
 
But, simply because you earn more should not mean that you are taxed more.
Click to expand...

As Im sure you'd guess I dont agree with that at all. If someone is yankin down even $100,000 a year why would I feel concerned for them if the gov kept as much as $50,000 ? It would still put them at around 250% of the income of the other half of the American population.

Then, those who consume more would pay more. But I don't know that we can ever get to something of that nature.
Click to expand...

No, I doubt it would happen, then if so it would only punish those starting their live needing much to get settled in, this is also a time when incomes are at their lowest for young folks. I thought the gas guzzler tax was great for those that could afford such vehicals, still it was only pocket change to them.

I still dont see the problem with actors or athletes or musicians that make great money, the money is there in the movie/game tickets or later in rentals, DVD/CD purchases, radio/television advertising or pay per view, so where is the money supposed to go? All of it to the studios, team owners or cable networks ? At least in that industry those performing the work actually reap the benefits.
 
razoredge said:
As Im sure you'd guess I dont agree with that at all. If someone is yankin down even $100,000 a year why would I feel concerned for them if the gov kept as much as $50,000 ? It would still put them at around 250% of the income of the other half of the American population.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point. I went to school to study and become an engineer because I knew my brain could make me money. That money helps me live above where I was as a struggling student, and above where many others have chosen to live. I could have pursued many avenues - artist, architect, musician (I was a student of each in college) - but the security afforded by creating a desired-by-companies brain turned out to be the best avenue for me. I put in the hard work to go down this road.

I have a family of four to support. Should I use the money I earn to provide the best lifestyle for my family, or should I give that money to a government to do something with that I have no say in (aside from the votes I will cast each November)? Given that I wholly disagree with the education taught at public schools (this [ame="http://www.amazon.com/ACLU-vs-America-Exposing-Redefine/dp/0805440453/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225469627&sr=1-2"]book[/ame] will shed some light on my stance), I enroll my children in private school. I cannot do this if I'm knocked down to half my income. Shoot, it's hard enough knocked down 30%. So, (turning back to the socialism argument) my children are to suffer so those who choose not to better their own situations can benefit? Hell no! Even without the socialism argument, the myriad pointless give-losers-a-crutch-to-keep-them-from-bettering-themselves programs brought on by Democrats are not at all worth my tax money.

If we go with the other proposal to do away with Fed income tax, a person making whatever income has their full income to use and do with as they please. Having more money to spend (or, if smart enough, invest in companies for their growth) will stimulate economies.

Back to the entertainment part, and the money paid to the entertainers, if that money paid to them was reduced, the cost of said entertainment could also be reduced, making it more affordable for the consumers of that entertainment. But, because starlets and divas want more and more money paid for their "talents and efforts" the makers and producers have no choice but to pass the exorbitant "salaries" on to the consumer. But, in the end, it all comes back to how much a consumer is willing to pay for whatever goods they are buying, putting (and raising) a value on any commodity (whether tangible and usable or contributed in whichever way).
 
Sorry, I pulled the 50%/$100,000 figure out of my head to keep things simple to express my point of that still being +250% of what may be the national average. I was not talking about a sudden smack of 20% less in someones income... unless we are talking about the very high income jobs. Frankly I think they should be capped and the remaining revenue of a company invested back into the company or distributed amounst its worthy work force. I also question if an executive should be allowed company stock anymore, this surely leads to outsourcing over concern for ones own kind and country with cheap exploited labor now at every companies finger tips, one of this former great countries newest concerns and largest detriments. They sit on a board and easily decide with "investors" to pull jobs and head over our borders.

Its hard to believe but I do understand part of ones feelings when they get out of college, what gets me is they think they are the only ones that payed any dues or learned anything, hardly the case. I dont like to use the cliche "school of hard knocks" but it exists yet holds little relevence for many employees. Forgetting the "ed" and how it was obtained... the idea that using only ones brains sets them apart as special is a bogus thought, I'm a bit different than the conventional labor force but many of us exist out here, I can tell you I have no doubt with a years training specifically for your job I could be where you were when you started, however I would gamble my entire small worth to say you would go out of your mind and body if you had to walk a mile in my shoes and perhaps for your taste/style/persona would not find those college years all that hard. Now this is not an insult, no more if not less than saying "choose not to better ones self" but a way in which to express that every man has his value, be it offering his back or his mind and yes... in some cases both. With that 250% is still an impressive number... No ?

I had a family to support and dreams to conclude when Wallstreet called for more profits from the paper industry by heading to south america... but who cares, or who knows they had RECORD profits in their last years here ? So this dude {as well as thousands of others} lost into nothingness his 20 year hard effort, so obviously I have little compassion for anyone in the regard to their incomes or lively hood. I recieved none nor expected any, heading out into the "real world" expecting to find a better way anyhow, but alas the "real world" sucks too.

But I do know you understand this, seriously.

We cant even dream of no income tax. We have an infrastructure, a country to govern, and a military to maintain. I'm not saying there are no squandering asses to kick but again I've been watching for decades and know a bit of mankinds history and feel its fair to predict things will NEVER change.

The entertainment industry can always say no to the salary demands... thats what goes on in the rest of the "real world", funny that. But in the end your final scenerio is that of full blown capitalism, and thats kinda funny too, not haha funny but oddly funny or reality is a bitch funny. Capitalism is a highly flawed system that only a small percentage of a population benefits from in todays world and its typically off the backs of others who struggle.
 
Yeah, razor. I understand this. :D

So, huge star power on movies isn't the best selling point for the movie to the public. A certain movie made by a certain church for $2M total expenses has already brought in over $25M in revenues shown in limited release. Get better stories and the people will pay to watch it, irrespective of the "star power" involved. And on a personal note, I for one do not go to movies with stars who speak out against my own beliefs. Sadly, I missed Iron Man (one of my favorite comics growing up) because of a certain female co-star who said she would not live in a certain country as long as a certain president was in office. Well, apparently, she has no qualms at all making movies in that particular country and getting paid by the residents of that country for her work, though she will speak against that country all she can.
 
no doubt many are ass clowns spoiled beyond belief and a poor influence on our society but here we are... in capitalistic, materialistic aMErica... the great consumer nation supporting other parts of the world... and Im soooo proud
 
Kenneth R. said:
Income tax -> Sales tax is an EXCELLENT idea. I would save so much money, being a frugal citizen, and not a mindless like-like consumer.
Click to expand...

Yayyy, we all agree on something! Group hug!

It's absolutely ridiculous that Paris Hilton gets a tax cut so she can put money into the economy via the purchase of Birkin bags while the rest of us are fucked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
OT: Debate Thread
Replies
127
Views
4K
Symphony X (Unofficial)
ABQShredHead
A
Southy
Political Debate?
Replies
22
Views
444
Maiden Downunder
Goreripper
G
KoichCPA
Hey Dan
Replies
48
Views
1K
Maiden Downunder
Goreripper
G
TrueBeliever
A political question
Replies
18
Views
418
Nevermore
Ecstatic Youth
E
progmetaldan
  • Locked
THE OFFICIAL DREAM THEATER DISCUSSION THREAD
Replies
1K
Views
45K
Symphony X (Unofficial)
Jax
J
Top Bottom
Back