Jump to content

LagerHead

non-Liberal
  • Content Count

    734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Libertarian

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nashville, TN
  1. Who cares if the earth is warming? It has been much warmer than it is now. There have been periods with much less sea ice. And people thrived during those times. Who gives a flying fuck? It's not nearly the catastrophe the alarmists want you to think it is.
  2. Congrats, brain donor. You have joined the elite ignore club. You can't make an argument without being insulting, so let me respond in kind. You're too fucking retarded to engage in debate, so I'm through trying. Enjoy the last word, which will also be ignored. I'm sure you'll be so very proud of your response that I won't see and everyone else will pass right over since, like everything you post, it will be completely void of content. Enjoy the rest of your life in your mother's basement you worthless pile of shit.
  3. You're incorrect. The rate they pay is a capital gains tax, not an income tax. It's the same rate that you and I pay on capital gains. And there is a reason that is set up that way. Yes, it probably does benefit the rich to a greater degree, but we also benefit from that as well. The reason is to ENCOURAGE investment in companies, an action that both has risk and encourages growth in the economy. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that most companies finance their growth through the money supplied by their investors through the sale of stocks. Investors take a risk by investing in a company who obviously can't guarantee a return on that investment, whether it is through increased stock prices or dividends. The government therefore - correctly for once - has decided that it would be a bad thing to punish investors even more by taxing that risk at the same rate as regular income. And this is a benefit to you and me as well. While I am not rich but I do fall in an income bracket that has more than a 15% income tax rate. If they taxed my investments at the same rate, would I invest in stocks. HELL NO. And neither would anyone that can perform simple math. The effect of what you are proposing would be catastrophic to the economy. This is so obvious that even the federal government - who can't perform the simple task of figuring out that when we spend more than we take in over an extended period of time, we will eventually reach unsustainable levels of debt - can understand it. I'm sure you could too if you would take the time to look at the matter objectively, rather than through the lens of "hate the rich" and "damn everything that isn't worshiped by progressives."
  4. If unions don't raise everyone's wages, then illegals can't depress everyone's either. In truth I believe neither of those statements. In truth, illegals take a lot of jobs that a lot of Americans would rather not do. They put roofs on our houses, mow our lawns, pick our crops, etc. The workers "displaced" by these workers have a tendency to move into better paying, less labor intensive jobs, at least according to Milton Friedman, a man for whom I have immense respect. If he is correct, illegals are doing us all a favor, not a disservice. That of course isn't accounting for any potential impact they might have on our taxes, which is open to debate.
  5. The rich Do pay higher rates on income taxes, so you should be happy. You might want to Google "progressive income tax" and see how it works.
  6. Oh, so without unions people in the U.S. would live in third world conditions? Spoken like someone who has never visited, or for that matter even seen the third world on TV. Talk to someone who has. Conditions in this country 100 years ago were better than the third world today. Even then we didn't have the starvation, drought, disease, lawlessness, etc. that the third world does today. With or without unions, there is not a single person that would live in the conditions that the third world sees. Your hyperbole, whether intentional or not, is about as off base as it can possibly be. And the fact that people enjoy income mobility as much today as they did in the height of the union days just shows how far off your entire premise is, even minus the hyperbole. There is nothing preventing anyone from moving up in income, or "class" regardless of the presence or absence of unions, least of all the "evil" rich folks.
  7. Really? Now I have to explain your own statement to you? Ok. If I must. You are implying that the only path to higher wages and fewer works hours is through unions. Either that, or if unions didn't exist, nobody would get paid anything but crumbs. I am saying that is patently false. I am also telling you that working conditions in this country were improving before unions became strong in this country. I am telling you that about 8% of workers are in unions now and we aren't seeing a return to these kind of conditions. What you said is simply not true.
  8. I think that is a stretch, especially the working man. You can't blame a guy who's trying to put food on his table for his family for all the nation's ills. But you can certainly blame a government who is bought and paid for by lobbyists, doesn't really understand how the economy works, and then passes do-nothing/feel-good laws in order to buy votes for his next election. Listen here dick smoker. You're too retarded to engage in debate. Show me where I even came close to implying that or go blow your dad some more. Jesus, you are probably the dumbest person on this forum. And that is saying a whole hell of a lot. At least some of the other brain donors will at least post some lies from the Daily Kos and other tripe. You don't even bother to research your own party's positions and just fly off the handle with weak ass insults and nothing that even resembles facts. To paraphrase one of my favorite movie lines: "Mr. erectiledysfunction, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Oh, and you get the last word. You have never added any value to this forum. Not even once. You are going on permanent ignore so I don't have waste brain cells trying to understand how someone as infuriatingly stupid as you even manages to eat their cereal without drowning in the milk, let alone get online and display your ignorance.
  9. No, it was not. It was meant to provide a system of laws, work with foreign governments, provide for national defense, and ensure an economic system that allowed individuals to prosper. You really should not donate your brain to science before you are finished using it.
  10. So the government is the only way to help the poor? $17 trillion have been spent on the so-called "war on poverty." How has that worked out so far? Agreed. The government's handling of these programs has been such a huge success, how could anyone ever dream there might be a different approach that might be better? This is unsubstantiated paranoia. The entire world doesn't need to be protected from themselves. It isn't Uncle Sam's responsibility to make your life better. It's his responsibility to ensure there is an environment where you can get off your ass and do it yourself. If you choose not to do so, that's not his fault, nor his problem. And remember, when you say "Uncle Sam," what you actually mean is the taxpayers.
  11. BULL SHIT. Show me some evidence that there was only one flat pay scale for every profession before unions became strong in this country. Show me where a doctor, say in 1810, made the same as a factory worker, or blacksmith, or a store owner, or a bartender. If they didn't all make EXACTLY the same salaries, all work 29 hours day down at the mill, pay the owner for the privilege of working there, then you are wrong. THAT is something that only idiots don't understand. Queue the ad hominem non response in 3...2...1.
  12. Oh please. The big shareholders get more because they invest (read, risk) more. You shouldn't get to profit off of more than you risk. It's that simple. No, really. It is. And if the board doesn't run the company well, i.e. profitably, they get fired. The shareholders will see to that. I understand how a market works. Thanks though. It is far from an arbitrary philosophical position. Short of a charity, nobody starts a business, especially in the hostile climate we have created in this country, to "support everyone." They start a business because they have a product they believe someone else wants. If they are successful, then sure, most people are generous by nature and will use some of the money the make to give to charities, many of which ARE started to "support everyone," or at least a subset thereof. What society thinks a business should be there for is really irrelevant. When society as a whole wants to put their financial future at risk and provide the funds to run a business, then they can have a say in what its function is. Hey, whaddya know? I just described how publicly traded corporations work.
  13. So you're for doing things that make you feel good if they have no effect? This is actually not true. While the UK does have a rising overall violent crime rate, their firearm crime rate is still pretty low. But it always has been, so gun control is not a viable explanation of why that is.
  14. So what you're saying is that because of the economies of scale, it doesn't matter what it costs to make a product, they can pay workers anything they want and the price of a product will never increase? Then I ask again, why not make the minimum wage $100/hour? And your explanation ignores a simple fact: responsibilities to shareholders. Yes, modest wage increases can be accommodated, but there is still a responsibility to turn a profit. So when wages are increased artificially across the board, that has an impact for which the business must account. And they account for them through increases in price. They are not going to give up considerable profit just to pay their employees more. That's not how business works. And business isn't there to create or maintain jobs either. Business is there to provide the consumer with a product. Jobs are a byproduct of business, not the other way around. And since this is true, when wages go beyond the point where a company is losing money by employing someone, what do you think is going to give? The job or the business? Go on, you know this.
×
×
  • Create New...