U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2008, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,935 posts, read 6,774,257 times
Reputation: 5489

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by TexianPatriot LoL, you quote a Nazi to expose the so called 'danger' of socialism/communism?

Whaddaya think of the Italian fascist's view of Fascism and Corporatism:
It seems to me that Corporatism fits America like a glove.
Yeah man. The corporations are the real threat to liberty... not. Corporations are subject to share holders and has no coercive power to restrict freedoms unlike socialist regimes. With one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, America certainly isn't a business friendly country by any stretch of the imagination. You lose socialist. Go back home to your 40+% tax rate and submit to your tyrannical government that restricts your own freedoms. Europeans have always been weak anyway. How centuries did yall remain under the monarch rule anyway? LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2008, 07:51 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 28,320,304 times
Reputation: 4002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Would you / Do you support putting a cap on income? On how much one can make?
Would you / Do you support burning little children with cigarettes? Daily?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 07:56 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,777,528 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by TexianPatriot
Quote:
Corporations are subject to share holders and has no coercive power to restrict freedoms unlike socialist regimes.
Are you really claiming that a homeless bum can become president in the US without the backing of the rich elite?
I guess you really are buying into the American Dream.
And people accuse me of smoking weed.

I guess you also missed the fact that the Nazis were all rich corporatists backed by the rich and powerful German elite.
This actually is a moot point because the poor Germans (besides the German Jews, gypsies, communists and the handicapped) backed their Nazi government because Hitler actually succeeded in dragging Germany out of the economical crash they were in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Foothills of Colorado
290 posts, read 485,567 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Would you / Do you support burning little children with cigarettes? Daily?
This is exactly what I am talking about. When a liberal finally admits that he is for redistributing wealth, when a natural follow on question (essentially asking how) is asked, that question is not answered, but followed by an outrageous question on child abuse. It is difficult to get liberals to get to the heart of the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by TexianPatriotAre you really claiming that a homeless bum can become president in the US without the backing of the rich elite?
A bum could not, because the people would not elect him no matter who backed him, but a poor fatherless kid from Arkansas can do well in school and propel himself to the White House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregw
I am a LIBERAL in that I believe government should redistribute wealth from the few to the many, protect the weak and helpless and work to create a sustainable economy and environment. I also support individual firearms ownership, progressive taxation and public ownership of natural monopolies.
Thank you Greg. Now let's get to the heart of it. Would you still be in favor of wealth distribution if the effects were the opposite of all of the other things you are for? I am not saying they are at this point, I am saying IF they are. For example if wealth distribution is detrimental to the weak and helpless, detrimental to a sustainable economy, detrimental to the environment, detrimental to the poor and personal rights such as gun ownership. If wealth distribution was actually detrimental to these other things you believe in as a liberal, would you still be for it?

I am not trying to ask a loaded question here. It is OK to answer either way. You could believe in wealth distribution out of a sense of fairness, or you could believe that wealth distribution is the best way to achieve the other goals you listed. or there could be an option I haven't listed. I am just curious as to which is the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 09:15 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,777,528 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Bagz
Quote:
A bum could not, because the people would not elect him no matter who backed him, but a poor fatherless kid from Arkansas can do well in school and propel himself to the White House.
Ah my bad, I should have said homeless man instead of bum.
Do you truly believe that people will vote for a homeless man?
I mean he obviously couldn't hold on to his own house, let alone the White House.

So do you think that there is a difference between a homeless person and a fatherless kid from Arkansas who did well in school but couldn't pay his mortgage so lost his house?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,935 posts, read 6,774,257 times
Reputation: 5489
the poor that stay poor their whole lives are poor for a reason. no amount of government entitlements is going to change that fact. propping up people who don't contribute to our society reduces incentive to be self reliant and robs individuals of the God given liberty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Foothills of Colorado
290 posts, read 485,567 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Bagz Ah my bad, I should have said homeless man instead of bum.
Do you truly believe that people will vote for a homeless man?
I mean he obviously couldn't hold on to his own house, let alone the White House.

So do you think that there is a difference between a homeless person and a fatherless kid from Arkansas who did well in school but couldn't pay his mortgage so lost his house?
Clearly YES. We are talking about the job of one of the world's most powerful people. In order to fill that job, one must be smart and ambitious. This is the land of opportunity and there are infinite ways to succeed. There are millions of people who have succeeded and people will choose a president with a history of success over one with a history of failure. Not that losing your house is a disqualifier. If he works his way back up the ladder, a currently homeless man could become president in the future.

This is a separate issue than what you are trying to bring up. Equal opportunity. We all have the opportunity to become president, and after the debacle of the bush-clinton-bush-clinton? debacle, I assert that people are more open to new blood in the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,230,061 times
Reputation: 24606
Our current wealth distribution is damaging to all the things I mentioned. I think we have done better as a nation, a society and as individuals under the income tax system in effect under President Eisenhower. A highly progressive system lets the less affluent keep, and spend, their wages and the wealthy investor still retain additional income regardless of where they are on the tax tables. Both benefit.

Bagz - Technically I am suggesting wealth redistribution from the investors to the workers in order to have more money in actual circulation at any given time. This results in a more robust economy. This also provides more money for the government to spend on environmental protection, road repairs, public parks and all the other things that make a civilized society civilized. Fortunately redistribution tends to reduce the amount of money the investor class has to spend on luxury and corupting government.

Last edited by GregW; 05-06-2008 at 10:59 AM.. Reason: added line of text
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Foothills of Colorado
290 posts, read 485,567 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Our current wealth distribution is damaging to all the things I mentioned. I think we have done better as a nation, a society and as individuals under the income tax system in effect under President Eisenhower. A highly progressive system lets the less affluent keep, and spend, their wages and the wealthy investor still retain additional income regardless of where they are on the tax tables. Both benefit.

Bagz - Technically I am suggesting wealth redistribution from the investors to the workers in order to have more money in actual circulation at any given time. This results in a more robust economy. This also provides more money for the government to spend on environmental protection, road repairs, public parks and all the other things that make a civilized society civilized. Fortunately redistribution tends to reduce the amount of money the investor class has to spend on luxury and corupting government.
You are jumping ahead of me. Before we get into this debate - which looks like will be very interesting fro your preview, please answer the question. I suspected that you might jump ahead, so I made it clear by asking the question again with the word "IF" capitalized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,230,061 times
Reputation: 24606
What, exactly, does your IF refer to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top