24 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1It sounds like you're a Libertarian. I'm a Democrat, myself.
exactly, I would say Republicans have emasculated themselves, capitulating to the liberals and their foolish welfare and tax systems. In reality, they were more concerned with getting re-elected than they were with doing what is right
24 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of circumstances.
[b]I agree. However, thats what you have to do in the current economic crisis, plus he'll have to do that to finance the big government Obama wants.
The way I see it: right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of circumstances. Furthermore, you say Obama will need to tax the rich to support the big government he wants...well the whole point of having ...[text shortened]... a big government)" is a slap in the face of everything that America was founded on.[/b]
are you against the new deal as well?
I'll just say this: luck has had nothing to do with it.
Sometimes it does, if you had been born in a depraved area, with high crime rates, for example, it would be harder to be as successful as the other guy who was born in a rich area.
My parents raised my to give my absolute best and I have persevered to get where I am today.
good for you.
Basically, they need help because they chose to be lazy, and I have a serious problem with helping those who will not help themselves, and chose mediocrity.
Agreed.
The problem with wanting to help fellow americans is that our nation isn't built on generosity, it's built upon [b]MY (for whomever the "me" is) "Life, love, and the pursuit of happiness." Capitalism is built upon the pursuit of profit and personal gain. [/b]
yeah, thats true in some ways.
To say "you should do your best so that you can be forced to help others (and by extension, to create a big government)" is a slap in the face of everything that America was founded on.
Thats true, but the only people responsible for that are americans themselves, who voted Obama into power.
24 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow does increased unemployment and other government benefits increase work production?
Well, the point of even trying is that you will make more if you make more, even if you pay more. In addition, redistributive policies also benefit the rich since they benefit from the higher labour productivity and lower crime rates, amongst other things. Furthermore, higher income tax rates increase incentives to start your own businesses, thus "evading" the income tax rates.
That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Furthermore, your "start your own business" sounds nice, until you compare that to Obama's new credit plan that he recently signed off on...in which it decreases the ability of credit companies to punish and charge those who fail to hold to contract. Furthermore, it increases the rates of those who have been responsible all along!!! This increases the cost of (ie limiting the available) for these said small business owners.
To put it in simple terms, if Obama wanted to create an incentive for people to start their own businesses, why did he take away the only means in which a business can start? It, like so many other well conceived but fundamentally wrong ideas, is like breaking the knee-caps of a growing child: you cripple it and destroy it's potential.
24 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1How does increased unemployment and other government benefits increase work production?
How does increased unemployment and other government benefits increase work production?
Furthermore, your "start your own business" sounds nice, until you compare that to Obama's new credit plan that he recently signed off on...in which it decreases the ability of credit companies to punish and charge those who fail to hold to contract. Furthermore, it inc ...[text shortened]... s like breaking the knee-caps of a growing child: you cripple it and destroy it's potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
This is becoming my favourite link on these forums! Those Nordic countries are amongst the highest taxing countries in the world, yet they employ a relatively large proportion of the population. If you want to burst more of your libertarian fairytale bubbles, visit the "Thriving Norway..." thread on the second page.
As for Obama's plan: that has nothing to do with redistribution or taxation.
24 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoare you against the new deal as well
[b]right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of circumstances.
are you against the new deal as well?
I'll just say this: luck has had nothing to do with it.
Sometimes it does, if you had been born in a depraved area, with high crime rates, for example, it would be harder to be as successful as the other guy who was born in a ric ...[text shortened]... only people responsible for that are americans themselves, who voted Obama into power.[/b]
I am for parts of it, and against other parts. For example, banking reform was good, it needed to be done. As well, minimum wages and maximum hours were a necessity. On the other hand, a lot of it is reminiscent of what Obama is now trying to do and, as I have made clear, is fundamentally and economically wrong. People often accredit the New Deal to fixing the economy back then, I would argue that the economy was fixed in spite of it: that capitalism managed to out do any harm the New Deal would have otherwise caused. Similarly, the current (however slight) turn around we are starting to see is a result not of Obama, but of the basic principles of capitalism turning the economy around.
Sometimes it does, if you had been born in a depraved area, with high crime rates, for example, it would be harder to be as successful as the other guy who was born in a rich area.
I see your point, however that does not explain those who grew up in the same situation as I did and have failed. The point is that, if all things are equal, and one person fails and person succeeds, then it is an issue of character.
Thats true, but the only people responsible for that are americans themselves, who voted Obama into power
Exactly, the minority voted in a man who would steal from the rich and give to them. Who wouldn't vote for money? Just because the majority says something doesn't make it right. I don't have to go very far back, but all I have to do is say "slavery" and "Jim Crow Laws" and my point should be made
24 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1I'm curious, what do you think "the basic principles" of capitalism are?
[b] are you against the new deal as well
I am for parts of it, and against other parts. For example, banking reform was good, it needed to be done. As well, minimum wages and maximum hours were a necessity. On the other hand, a lot of it is reminiscent of what Obama is now trying to do and, as I have made clear, is fundamentally and economically wron ...[text shortened]... ck, but all I have to do is say "slavery" and "Jim Crow Laws" and my point should be made[/b]
24 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1The economic system and its rules are made by society. Absent that structure (which includes legal enforcement of contracts, a currency, patents and copyrights, etc. etc.) accumulation of wealth would be impossible. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for society to determine what share of necessary societal costs are born by those who most benefit from the system. The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility also provides an economic rationale for progressive taxation. Thus, the rich have no valid complaint about levels of taxation.
It just confuses me why anyone thinks they have a right to take from the rich and give to the poor. In reality you should get what you earn: no more, no less. Honestly, just because somebody can actually run their life doesn't mean that they should be required to pay more. In the end, if you have to pay more because you are a success, then what is the point of even trying?
24 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI know there are many, but I see three basic principles (two of which I feel are violated)
I'm curious, what do you think "the basic principles" of capitalism are?
1. Supply is determine by Supply and Demand
2. laissez faire economy
3. Unrestricted pursuit of profit
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
24 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI said "charisma and opportunity" not just/only charisma.
charisma?
do you only have to be charismatic to be consired "the greatest"?
Don't underestimate charismatic presence when it comes to leadership. Opportunity is about what the person does with it.
24 May 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperA little premature dont you think? What makes you think he could be even more than mediocre at best? What has he done in your opinion thus far that would get him even in the running? And when you say one of the greatest whose company would he be in?
the greatest President of all time or just one of the greatest?
Let's debate this!
25 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1Principles that are good and work well in the hands of responsible people, but as we see today, "laissez faire" in the hands of the greedy and inresponsible equates to economic crisis.
I know there are many, but I see three basic principles (two of which I feel are violated)
1. Supply is determine by Supply and Demand
2. laissez faire economy
3. Unrestricted pursuit of profit
25 May 09
Originally posted by c guy1No, you don't quite understand. Laissez faire capitalism is one particular brand of capitalism, which has never been put to practise - and hopefully never will. The main principles of capitalism are the private ownership of property and the protection thereof by the state.
I know there are many, but I see three basic principles (two of which I feel are violated)
1. Supply is determine by Supply and Demand
2. laissez faire economy
3. Unrestricted pursuit of profit
25 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoDo you propose "non-laissez faire" regulation of who "laissez faire" is in the hands of?
Principles that are good and work well in the hands of responsible people, but as we see today, "laissez faire" in the hands of the greedy and inresponsible equates to economic crisis.