REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tax reform.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 02:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3934
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I really should post this around April 1. But this is one of those nagging tooth aches of modern civilization. I not only do our income taxes (w/o TurboTax) I also do employer (State and Federal) taxes, and to tell you the truth those stupid rules just get longer and stoopider every year!

So, if you could sweep away the welter of Federal taxes... income, corporate, and "speciality" taxes... and replace them with something else, what would you choose? And why?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:30 AM

CANTTAKESKY


I think excise taxes and tariffs should provide what we need for a limited government if we don't get into a war every 15 years. If we have to have more, I'd vote for sales tax on non-food/non-medicinal items. Definitely abolish income tax and social security tax and all that junk. If they had to tighten their belt, they'd HAVE to spend more wisely.

I would make taxation as voluntary as possible, which is why I favor sales taxes over all the other stuff. We seem to have so little say in where our tax dollars go (I said I didn't want to pay for no war, but did they listen?). I think we should make it easier for people to withhold their tax dollars to voice their dissent with govt spending.

There's been a lot of talk about a national flat sales tax of 23% to replace the income tax. If that came to a vote today, I'd say yes. It's not the greatest, but it beats the IRS.
http://www.fairtax.org/

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:35 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, if you could sweep away the welter of Federal taxes... corporate, sales, and "speciality" taxes... and replace them with something else, what would you choose? And why?

I'd replace them with doughnuts. I mean every year the government sends out the tax forms and we send them back.

Now suppose sometime around the end of January you instead received a box of Krispy Kremes...wouldn't that make you feel better?

But then some Democrat out there would argue that there isn't enough diversity. Soon our box of doughnuts would be supplemented by danishes, bear claws, croissants, fruit, etc.

Edited to add: AND then doughnuts are bad for us, then anything that tastes good and soon the liberal elites, who never lack doughnuts for themselves, have replaced all of our doughnuts with bran muffins and prunes and 'I can't believe its not butter'. Well I want butter, damn it, real butter and I want a glazed doughnut covered with real butter...and its hole stuffed with...bacon and the whole damn thing deep fried and dipped in chocolate...damn liberals anyway. And some idiot will be asking 'why bran muffins that nobody wants, how bout we all just pay a little money instead?'

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:36 AM

MISBEHAVEN


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think excise taxes and tariffs should provide what we need for a limited government if we don't get into a war every 15 years. If we have to have more, I'd vote for sales tax on non-food/non-medicinal items. Definitely abolish income tax and social security tax and all that junk. If they had to tighten their belt, they'd HAVE to spend more wisely.


That's right in line with my thoughts on this issue. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see it, but we'll here about it every four years around election time.



"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:13 AM

DREAMTROVE


I'm against the nature of tax, it's a vampire on the economy, and it gives money to big govt. which they wil spend it in an incredibly inefficient way, and 99% of it will go for stuff no one wants. (Most of our welfare goes to the rich, even in social security, two thirds of the money goes to the independently wealth. I'm related to three recipients, two are millionaires, and one is poor. the poor one get's 10% and the two millionaires get 90%)

But if there have to be taxes, yes it should be simple. I would first off say income tax must be abolished. It is the main cause of outsourcing. We ask our employers to pay X amount more so that the workers can pay 1/3 to 1/2 in tax, thus making american labor too expensive. (productivity per dollar of american labor is fine without govt. regulation)

I favor a 'fat tax' as I call it. Money which isn't doing anything, it just sits there. Large amounts of cash are sitting in someone's bank account somewhere, earning interest, but not creating any business. If money isn't active in the economy, it's not doing anyone any good. We don't want a lot of sleeping money in this country, it's a waste. So, to discourage what we don't want (miserly hoarding) and get those folks to invest that money in new business opportunities, we could tax it. Maybe 1% would do it. If you're money didn't get actively used, you pay 1% at the end of the year. If you bought stocks, you probably made a lot more, because you're very rich, and hired the best money managers. If you bought bonds, you already made more than that. There's some 20 trillion or so just sitting there doing nothing, so my tax generates $200B which is more than enough to run the limited govt. I want. If the govt. needs more than that, it can provide goods and services to the people.

Oh, and it should tax anyone who is devaluing america by taking something out, like oil companies, mines, foresters, etc.

I used to think sales tax was good, but it interferes in commerce, discourages trade. We want to discourage laziness, so let's tax that lazy money. If you want, we can tax lazy people too. TV tax, they have it in britain. food tax, you have to pay if you weight too much. get people to lose weight. I can probably come up with a hundred things that would push people in a more productive direction.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:15 AM

DREAMTROVE


Signym,

I see you got all the conservatives on this one. And I'm not rich enough to pay tax, but I see how it's destroying the economy and feeding the war machine.

Misbehaven,

I think we will see it, but it will take a trick or two.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:44 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Signym,

I see you got all the conservatives on this one. And I'm not rich enough to pay tax, but I see how it's destroying the economy and feeding the war machine.

Not to mention paving the roads, supporting the elderly, and keeping me (a lowly govt lawyer) employed by forcing me to prosecute al you criminal types.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:54 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

We want to discourage laziness, so let's tax that lazy money. If you want, we can tax lazy people too. TV tax, they have it in britain. food tax, you have to pay if you weight too much. get people to lose weight. I can probably come up with a hundred things that would push people in a more productive direction.



Damn Brother, that's a whole lotta' social engineering for a conservative.

I thought (and could very well be wrong) that there is no way to switch to a Flat Tax or Sales Tax (total) and have it be revenue neutral. There would have to be significant cuts in Government spending to do this.

So, I would think the question we would have to ask ourselves is what programs we would cut. Or what programs could we build a consensus on cutting. Probably very few.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Just wipe the slate.

A state wants a road, let the state pay for it.

Federal Taxes are a moronic idea, always were and technically illegal besides.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:19 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Not to mention paving the roads, supporting the elderly, and keeping me (a lowly govt lawyer) employed by forcing me to prosecute al you criminal types.


No, it doesn't. Municipalities pave the roads, and probably hire you, which is probably a waste of cash, no offense, since we don't need to prosecute traffic violators, we just need a better license screening so drunks don't get licenses.

That's what I'd do, If I ran the zoo.


Fellow Traveler,

Not really, I don't think. Social engineering of the socialist kind is, THIS IS THE WAY WE DO IT NOW, JIMMY, GET IN LINE. Sorry about the CAPS.

But this is a guiding hand thing, just like TR and Taft and Coolige. I'm not a Hoover, I'm an anti-Hoover. Which doesn't mean I blow. Maybe I'll just have to let that one lie.

Anyway, small nudge tactics are the way the capitalist system was built. Now there's a toxic tax, and it's killing everything. Small fat tax of 1%, not a problem. It says get off your lazy ass and use that money, or at least hire someone to do it, it's not doing society any good in a cookie jar. And if you like your cookie jar, and it's paying off, then great, you won't mind the 1%. Lots and lots of people pay 1% or ,5% to manage their investments in a mutual fund, sometimes more if they pay commissions. It's simple, it's lucrative.

If you call anything that pushes society in a direction "social engineering" then there's a ton of it everywhere, all of conservative america becomes social engineering.

This proposal is not full of "you can't do that" or "everyone will now do it my way" in fact, it opens up new freedoms.

Take this: What caused the '29 Market crash?

Taxes. Hoover hiked taxes to pay for social programs. Payroll tax comes from payroll which comes from the company budget, ie,. profits. If you didn't have a a pre-tax profit margin of >20%, you folded. And never came back. Industries don't exist in America now because they are not economically feasible, ie, they cannot generate >20% of pre-tax profit, and payroll tax is a tax on the number of workers, whether there's a profit or not. 100s of businesses would open up if we killed the stupid income tax.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:31 AM

DREAMTROVE


Here's what I'd do, I'd make a few changes to federal government spending.

First, I'd get rid of virtually everything.

We don't need to maintain a standing army of anyone. We have no enemies. Next, we don't need weapons, we have no enemies. Third, we don't need anyone to assess the enemies we don't have. Fourth, we don't need to give welfare to the rich. Fifth, we don't need to give welfare to corporations that are rich, ie., no corporation operating at a profit should get a govt. loan. Next, we don't need to have a dept. of homeland security to protect us from the enemies we don't have. After that, we don't need to subsidize the wealth drug companies with medicare, etc. Next, we don't need to spend billions defending Israel, I'm sorry, not our problem guys. I suppose next I could say we don't need to give out pensions to the rich, I think we could settle upfront with everyone.

When I'm done, there would still be a govt. spending money, but not very much. America would still have the national guard to defend it, which is more than adequate to stop our complete absense of enemies. After we sign the treaty with Osama Bin Laden, the total non-threat to America, the illusion of an enemy will be gone.

Would there be defense spending. Sure, about 10% of what there is now. More than enough. Would there be medicare? Sure, we'd pay cost+ for it, like we do with everything else. This would save us a few trillion $. Would there be social security? sure, the fund wouldn't be about to run out, all the rich folk would get cut from the program, saving us close to a trillion a year. They'd go "boo hoo, I want my gambling fund" - who in heck cares?

Poor old ladies would not be left out in the cold, with no medicine. That's big govt spin.

Small govt, small tax, and no one would bail instead of pay the 1% fat tax, because it's less than they pay now, and they're not leaving now, and they would pay it out of their interest earnings. One thing I've noticed is that everyone gets annoyed at paying more (sales tax, etc,) but not so much at getting less (which is why we have an income tax.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:56 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Anyway, small nudge tactics are the way the capitalist system was built...

If you call anything that pushes society in a direction "social engineering" then there's a ton of it everywhere, all of conservative america becomes social engineering.


But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.



Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


BDN, umm.. what are you smoking ?

Did you, like, even read the concept he was expressing, or just stare at it with dull, glazed eyes because it wasn't a nice Fox News "for idiots" media presentation more suited for six year olds than adults ?

I swear I dunno what part of that asinine statement to savage first, but let's put it in dick and jane terms, ok.

A pokey-pokey tax to annoy people who hoard money would make them want to do something with it.

A tax BREAK for hoarding money would make them want to leave it sit right where it is.

Jumpin jesus on sportbike with budda in the sidecar... *growlmutter*...

Look, if I can program a Furby to do everything you do, you don't live up to my expectations of a person or sentience, which kind of renders discussion pointless.


Just.. just... I dunno.. THINK, or try to... PLEASE... unnngh.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:30 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.


As the conservative who suggested the idea, I think a liberal would try to create a public social program, and a conservative would try to fund private business. I suspect that debate would continue. But this big govt. has to go, it benefits no one but itself and a few guys on the take.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:06 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.
Pretty much. But on the practical side, there is a bill in Congress that would eradicate income tax and instead levy a national consumption tax at the point of purchase. This may not really diminish tax burden, but does simplify the code drastically, and ties taxation to consumption instead of income, which means that now the rich will pay more because they buy more, not because they’re being exploited for their money. Also criminals, who would never pay income tax, must pay a consumption tax. All US citizens will receive the equivalent of a refund designed to supplement income for essential goods, meaning that the basic necessities (such as food) would not be taxed.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM,

I read the title and I figured - oh , it's going to be another moronic Bush-parroting tax reform wheeze.
Well, your post was fine, but you did bring out the crowd that would be drawn to the title.

Here's my take:
Income tax - the same on people and business, progressive, simple calculation, no dodges, breaks, sub-categories etc.
You also get a form to check off how much of your income tax do you want going to where. If you wanted 100% on the environment, that's where it would go.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:59 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
they’re being exploited for their money.


Ah, the exploited rich.

No, they won't, they'll spend overseas and avoid the tax.

But seriously, the national sales tax is a bad idea, it discourages commerce. It's a better idea than a national income tax, but the bill actually doesn't abolish the income tax. In order to do that, it would have to be a constitutional amendment, which would repeal the 16th amendment. Instead, it created a new tax, and promises the old tax will be phased out, but with no guarantees.

No guarantees means it is entirely possible that the new tax of 23% national sales tax on top of 8% state sales tax, which goes to a company which is earning retail profit, of which 25% goes to corporate income tax. In addition, all spent money goes to the hidden tax of benefits, which cost 33% of labor, the 27% federal income tax, the 10.6% soc. sec. and the 5.6% medicare plus the 3% or so for school and local tax and the 10% for state income tax. That earned money can then be spent again and go through the rinse cycle.
If you were counting you realize that every year, active commerce dollars go through the cycle, and each time, the lions share goes to tax. This national sales tax would be the crushing blow which would destroy the american economy and turn us into the Soviet Union.

Worse yet, there is no poverty level for the national sales tax. The poor, such as myself, who currently buy no bombers, would now be forced to buy bombers, and make ourselves poorer. It's a completely regressive system, because the poor will never be conducting transactions overseas.

At the moment, the only reason that business happens at all in america is that the tax system is full of loopholes which can be used to advantage. Those who choose not to do so go bankrupt. This closes those loopholes in a nice simple economic collapse for everyone.

Even without the federal income tax, assuming that Bush/Clinton and co. keep their word (this would be an absolute first, and about as likely as the second coming of jesus) it still wouldn't work. The fact that it works in Europe is not an argument because in Europe, the VAT tax money is used to support the uninflated healthcare costs. In our NaSTy system, the employer/employee exchange would pay for inflated healthcare, and then for medicare, paying again for the inflated healthcare, and then again for the national sales tax.

This is fiscal responsibility come from the bankrupt and the corrupt. My somewhat radical plan is very conservative, and would actually work.

I don't know why the national sales tax which is an emulation of euro-socialism, is considered acceptable by american conservatives, except that the rich see a way to not pay tax.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:18 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You also get a form to check off how much of your income tax do you want going to where. If you wanted 100% on the environment, that's where it would go.

Ooh. I like this idea, Rue.

I don't have any new system in mind that I would replace the current system with. Just some random musings.

I think our first priority, as a nation, should be to pay off our national debt. We're too vulnerable as a country because of it. And how much in interest payments do we make each year? We get rid of taxes and we still have to pay that interest every year.

I would also split out Social Security. No raiding of the trust fund. Double the cap until the trust fund is back to the level it would've been if we hadn't been siphoning the money elsewhere. Then bring the cap down and adjust as needed to keep Social Security solvent in perpetuity.

No money from taxes towards offensive military action. If we need to attack someone then we should levy a special war tax to pay for that.

The only way I would go for a flat tax is if it was on assets, not income.

Scale the maximum percentage of deductions based on the ratio of assets to income. Cap deductions at a quarter of tax burden and then only for those who have a very low ratio of assets to income.

If you have an offshore bank account, or are incorporated offshore, your tax burden is automatically raised by 5%. This raise is permanent. For every year afterwards that you maintain that offshore status your tax burden increases by 5%. There is no upper limit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


At the Federal level, there are four main taxes: Income, Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment. All of these, except income tax, are pretty much contracts between government and individuals, stating that the government will provide certain services (a retirement support pension, basic medical care, unemployment compensation). Any change in the tax system has to at least make a good faith effort to honor these contracts.

Also, many individual and corporate decisions (buying a house, contributing to a charity, investing in capital assets, developing new technologies, etc.) are based on current incentives within income tax law. The implications of removing these incentives has to be considered.

Tax law does not exist in a vacuum. For example, want to see the real estate market tank big time? Do away with the mortgage interest deduction.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rue

Your system is very democratic. I've heard the idea, and it's a sound one (yeah, don't worry army guys, there will be plenty of people who check defense, particularly those with family in the military.)


Geezer

This doesn't actually follow, it's a little panicky. It's not really that bad. The economy would rejoice tomorrow if you eliminated all the taxes you listed.

I'm going to cross the line to say, you should honor the need-based portion, but most of this agreement can be dispensed with to no greater a consequense then a lost election. Democrats could do it without losing if they were actually who their constituents thought they were. The dems like the GOP actually represent the interests of two groups of the rich, millionaires and billionaires. Republicans represnt the multi-millionaires in between. The billionairs have their money overseas and don't have to worry, the millionaires are still more concerned about getting their social security checks. This is why the democratic party really defends social security. If it weren't so, they'd gladly agree to cut the independently wealthy out of the program and save 2/3 of the trillion a year we spend.

I hope you see, even if you are one of those wealthy recipients, that it's a needless drain on the system, and from an ideological standpoint, it's better for the system to no throw welfare at the rich.

I think that everyone should honor the commitment they make, but the instutional commitments made by corrupt American leaders in the past are killing our economy, and I'm perfectly okay with negotiating them away. I never said chuck them out the window.

If you think, geneva convention, etc., were commitments, we decided not to honor, veterans benefits are another one. We have become a complete reneg society.

But if you want a policy gone, you *should* negotiate it away. I tihnk that the millionaires would settle for a fraction of the commitment in a lump some, and you could pay them, the US had a lot of stockpiled cash. But we should end this endless responsibility to the rich. Of the three trillion a year this govt. spends, I would say, figuring in all the contract bilking, etc., probably two trillion just goes straight into the hands of the rich in exchange for absolutely nothing in return. Less than a trillion pays govt. employees, welfare and the actual cost of medications, weapons etc, but that too, could be trimmed considerably. We don't need to pay an enormous staff of watchdogs.

I guess these contracts are what we call entitlement spending.

Remember, a lot of these contracts are not for cash. We contracted to provide medical care. 90% of that cost is jacking up the price by the suppliers of the care.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:10 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
BDN, umm.. what are you smoking ?

Did you, like, even read the concept he was expressing, or just stare at it with dull, glazed eyes because it wasn't a nice Fox News "for idiots" media presentation more suited for six year olds than adults ?

I swear I dunno what part of that asinine statement to savage first, but let's put it in dick and jane terms, ok.

A pokey-pokey tax to annoy people who hoard money would make them want to do something with it.

A tax BREAK for hoarding money would make them want to leave it sit right where it is.

Jumpin jesus on sportbike with budda in the sidecar... *growlmutter*...

Look, if I can program a Furby to do everything you do, you don't live up to my expectations of a person or sentience, which kind of renders discussion pointless.


Just.. just... I dunno.. THINK, or try to... PLEASE... unnngh.


I actually had to take my shoes and socks off to count up the number of personal insults in this post.

People are sitting on their money, let's tax it.
People are too fat, let's tax pop and junk food.
This sounds pretty liberal to me.

People are sitting on their money, let's cut small business taxes or offer incentives to get that money circulating.
People are too fat, let's offer tax breaks to people with gym memberships or other incentives to join sports programs.

IMHO, a liberal thinks people should be 'punished' for not doing the 'right thing'.
A conservative thinks people will do the 'right thing' if there is a little incentive. This was the thrust behind my post to DT as he is a self proclaimed conservative and I was looking for clarification. How I got the resident anarchist all fired up is beyond me.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
I actually had to take my shoes and socks off to count up the number of personal insults in this post.


Good, but you missed one, I was hoping for the pants too.

I'll just sum this up easily.

10 REM PROGRAM START
20 /SAY "Damn Liberals"
30 /WAIT 5
40 /SAY "Liberals are bad"
50 /WAIT 5
60 /SAY "Clinton was a nightmare"
70 /WAIT 5
80 /WATCH Prog:Fox News(2)
90 /EAT Breakfast:Microwave(1)
100 FOR WORK=1 to (8*1000)
110 NEXT WORK
120 /WATCH Prog:Fox News(4)
130 /DISCARD Item:Newspaper(unread)
140 /IGNORE Item:Reality
150 /SAY "Tax Break"
160 /WAIT 5
170 /SAY "Incentive" /SPECIFICATION:OFF
180 /WAIT 5
190 /ASSIGN LIBERAL=TERRORIST
200 /DENY Item:Truth
210 /WAIT 5
220 /SAY "It's all the liberals fault."
230 /FOR SLEEP=1 to (8*1000)
240 NEXT SLEEP
250 GOTO 10

If I could replace you with a program, what makes you different from one ?
A machine can clobber together so called "conservative" talking points and parrot them, which is all that you are doing - and really, why should I treat someone as a person if they do not reason in a sentient fashion ?

Sorry folks, but it's just come to a point with me, of folks making passionate, reasoned arguments from one side of an issue or another, and actually putting thought and time and effort into it.. only to come up against a wall of dogmatic, prepared responses I could program a machine to do a better job of, and that's just lit my tempers fuse, you see.

If you wanna be treated like a sentient, act like one.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:07 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

If I could replace you with a program, what makes you different from one ?
A machine can clobber together so called "conservative" talking points and parrot them, which is all that you are doing - and really, why should I treat someone as a person if they do not reason in a sentient fashion ?

Sorry folks, but it's just come to a point with me, of folks making passionate, reasoned arguments from one side of an issue or another, and actually putting thought and time and effort into it.. only to come up against a wall of dogmatic, prepared responses I could program a machine to do a better job of, and that's just lit my tempers fuse, you see.

If you wanna be treated like a sentient, act like one.



So for clarification purposes only.
Agree with Frem and you are a sentient being. Disagree with Frem and you are a computer program.
If I'm missing something about the thrust of your argument please enlighten me.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:18 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
10 REM PROGRAM START
20 /SAY "Damn Liberals"
ROFLMAO. Oh my God, Frem. You're my substitute for the Comedy Channel (since I'm in Peru and don't get it). Thank you.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here's my take:
Income tax - the same on people and business, progressive, simple calculation, no dodges, breaks, sub-categories etc.
You also get a form to check off how much of your income tax do you want going to where. If you wanted 100% on the environment, that's where it would go.
This wouldn't be my ideal, but it is drastically better than what we've got. Love the check off idea.

What do you have in mind for the percentage? (You're talking about a flat income tax right?)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:45 AM

DREAMTROVE


BDN

And by your definition, this is a conservative idea, a little nudge, as it was intended to do. I actually don't need to defend my position as a conservative, I suspect the people who defend Bush have to explain how that is conservative.

But fat tax isn't tax-the-rich, it's tax-lazy-money. Whether it's a billion dollars or 600 bucks, it didn't do anything this year, it gets taxed. Encourages economic activity. No loopholes.

Liberal tax ideas all have one thing in common, and it's not "tax the rich." It's "raise a ton of cash" because liberals are not motivated by fiscal conservatism, they're motivated by all of these ideas they have for programs to "help people." A lot of those I might call programs to "interfere with people" - like a friend of my mom's whose job it is to take children from poor parents (and a whole list of rules are in place defining being poor as child abuse) yeah, that's really 'helping' but that aside, it's the desire to spend that motivates liberal tax programs.

Even progressive tax reductions, such as 'no one under the poverty level pays tax' (the reagan plan) are initiated by republicans. This is how the democrats got their reputation of tax-and-spend, it's not just a talking point. Sadly, the new republicans are borrow-and-spend, and borrow is a tax, because it weakens the dollar, thus decreasing the value of all of the dollars that americans hold or earn.

I think my fat tax is in the guiding hand corner of conservative economics, nudging people towards more economic activity. If the rich don't want ot be taxed, they can use those millions to employ people to provide goods and services for which they will get money back. In fact, not only will business exist which are less than 20% profit margin, businesses would exist with 0% profit just to avoid the tax.

Hmmm.

Hey!

You just talked me into something.

Okay, screw it. I'm making the fat tax 2.5% now. That way, thing which aren't done now because they're not profitable can be done, because they're less of a loss then the fat tax.

Americans are lazy. I think I just came up with half a trillion dollars.

Nifty

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer

This doesn't actually follow, it's a little panicky. It's not really that bad. The economy would rejoice tomorrow if you eliminated all the taxes you listed.


Not really panicky, just aware that the government has made committments to a lot of lower and middle-income people to provide pension support, medical support, and unemployment benefits. Folks have been paying into these systems all their working life, and any type of tax reform has to be able to provide funding for the services promised through some means.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
10 REM PROGRAM START
20 /SAY "Damn Liberals"
30 /WAIT 5
40 /SAY "Liberals are bad"
50 /WAIT 5
60 /SAY "Clinton was a nightmare"
70 /WAIT 5
80 /WATCH Prog:Fox News(2)
90 /EAT Breakfast:Microwave(1)
100 FOR WORK=1 to (8*1000)
110 NEXT WORK
120 /WATCH Prog:Fox News(4)
130 /DISCARD Item:Newspaper(unread)
140 /IGNORE Item:Reality
150 /SAY "Tax Break"
160 /WAIT 5
170 /SAY "Incentive" /SPECIFICATION:OFF
180 /WAIT 5
190 /ASSIGN LIBERAL=TERRORIST
200 /DENY Item:Truth
210 /WAIT 5
220 /SAY "It's all the liberals fault."
230 /FOR SLEEP=1 to (8*1000)
240 NEXT SLEEP
250 GOTO 10
Conservatives are progammed in Basic? That explains a lot.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:48 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer

and I said I wouldn't reneg on that.
The point i made was that, for example, my uncle, a millionaire, gets a check from the govt. for $1750 every month in social security. comes in with the dividends and his work pension.

The point is, that Soc. Sec. is not an investment system, as it claims to be.

Think about it, if you live to be 65, then the govt. will give you bakc 33% of the money it took from you with no interest. Who would invest in such a plan? No one. It's a tax and spend program invented by a democrat who wanted to get republicans to support it so he dressed it up as an investment program which it never was.

The reality is that my uncle's money that he put in was spent a long time ago. The money which now goes to pay his dispersement comes from payroll taxes which america can no longer afford.

Some working schmoe works for $9/hr and pays 6%, so if he works 800 hrs in a month, of $7200, $432 goes to my uncle. So it takes 4 shmoes to pay my uncle's golf fees. This is not the mark of a functional society.

Obviously, some people have, not through good management, come to depend on soc. sec. so we can't leave them out in the cold, but we can phase this bad idea out, and reduce the payroll burden, and then maybe people would hire americans.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


DT
Quote:
it's the desire to spend that motivates liberal tax programs
I don't think of myself as a liberal, but some liberal ideas make a lot of sense, like government-provided health care.

34% of private health care premiums are for administration and paperwork, Medicare historically has a 4% overhead. In 1999 paperwork cost each USer $1059, while Canadians spent only $307.
The US pays more for health care per capita and gets less in results than any other industrialized nation and many so-called 'third-world' nations.
US producer corporations are hampered by health-care costs (and bad capital investments and products, but that's another topic) compared to foreign competition.

IF THIS WAS A BUSINESS DECISION, or even a matter of simple pragmatics, you'd award the entire health-care business to the government.

But you've taken an ideological position instead.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:17 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The point is, that Soc. Sec. is not an investment system, as it claims to be.

Since when did Social Security claim to be an investment system? That's very misleading framing.

Social Security is a safety net. Or, think of it as insurance. It was designed to ensure that, no matter what happened to you or your assets, you could always depend on a little something every month.

In the ideal situation you would never need your Social Security check. You would be able to comfortably live off your own investments.

In the real world far too many people rely on their Social Security checks to live from month to month.

What people who erroneously think of Social Security as an investment plan want to do is get rid of it by replacing it with a real investment plan. So instead of insurance and your investments it would be investments and your investments.

To go broad for a second, Social Security has been under attack from conservatives since the day it was implemented. What is it about a functioning, well-run safety net that they hate?

* edited to modify the intro paragraph.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi Soup,

I'm glad you posted that. Social Security is an insurance program ! It's not a retirement investment system.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Agree with Frem and you are a sentient being. Disagree with Frem and you are a computer program.
If I'm missing something about the thrust of your argument please enlighten me.


Dude, disagreement's fine, hell, if everyone agreed we'd be an ant colony.

Differing opinions and philosophies are the hammer and anvil on which progress is forged, by all means disagree, debate, what have you... but please do so, of yourself, instead of just parrotting talking points, explain things from your viewpoint, and leave some room for common ground or compromise.

Otherwise it's like arguing with the Flat-Earth society while they're stoned on quaaludes.

Not askin folk to agree with me, just askin them to actually disagree instead of vapidly parrotting the same stock phrases which are uttered over and over to the point of meaninglessness, and often in situations where they don't apply or apply badly - it makes one look like a dogma spouting robot.

"Danger, Danger, Will Robinson, The Liberals are to blame

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:20 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

If you want, we can tax lazy people too. TV tax, they have it in britain. food tax, you have to pay if you weight too much. get people to lose weight.



Oh, meant this part seemed like social engineering. Got no problem with taxing lazy money. That seems like a reasonably good idea.

But your more likely to be fat (also smoke) if you are poor than if you are wealthy. It goes hand and hand with educational level. That's not to say some wealthy aren't fat and smoke, but they have more to live for and tend to take better care of themselves. So, taxing fat people (again like smokers) would essentially be a tax on the poor. Maybe? You think?

Don't we take enough from these people with state lotteries (the stupid tax)? Can't we cut them a break?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:54 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

I agree with your reality, but not your conclusions.

Govt. provided healthcare is usually a disaster. Just look at any socialist country. What do you think the US govt. would do with it? This govt. f^&ks up everything it touches.

What we need IMHO is healthcare deregulation. The AMA, FDA, Medicare, and the insurance industry help keep the cost of healthcare at something no one can afford. Our healthcare right now costs about 10 times as much as private healthcare in other countries, and it's all artificially created by regulation. If the US govt. would do it's real job, and help maintain the free market and the rights of the people, competition would bring the cost back down.

I'm supportive of the idea for picking up the health care costs of thiose who cannot pay by having the govt. pick up the tab when the cost exceed a threshold level which people should not be expected to pay, but if the costs were real market costs, that would be maybe 3 to 6 billion a year.

Govt. is amazingly inefficient and incompetent because it has no competition, and hence no evolution, it's the intelligent design of society.

If you think the US govt would save money by handling its own finances, just look at how the military spends money. Or how it executes things, or any branch of the govt. Look at Homeland security, or FEMA. And these are the guys you want to hire to look after your health?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:00 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

another thing.

The problem with big govt within a capitalist system is that it becomes a product that the people are forced to buy. No matter how the govt. pays for it, corporate taxes, individual taxes, deficit spending, etc., the people will end up paying for it. You can't tax the rich, England tried that, and all the rich left. So we the people are going to fit the bill. When you look at the efficiency of govt, and the quality of product it provides, who would buy the product if no one was forced to?

Nuclear bombs. A nice little product that destroys the world. You want to buy one for you govt? How about a nice set of bombers. Billion dollars each. Do you want to buy a DMV? or maybe a Homeland Security? Or Social Security (1/3 of your money back to you without interest in 40 years.)?

Nothing the govt. is selling would anyone buy except possible the post office and Amtrak. Maybe the people would pay to support the coast guard, national guard and national parks, but the rest people would just skip.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:15 AM

DREAMTROVE


Soup,

Not framing. It's technically what the govt. uses as a defense, it's how it defines it. If it called it welfare, the value of the system would go up right away, but they'd have to explain why they're doling out near 70% of the social security disbersements to the wealthiest 5% of people.

Quote:
To go broad for a second, Social Security has been under attack from conservatives since the day it was implemented. What is it about a functioning, well-run safety net that they hate?


Sorry, but, what planet are you on? Well running? Okay, of the money that goes in, only one third ever comes out, the rest is stolen by crooked politicians. It is the only fund in the world which does not appreciate at all. Even the gold in fort knox appreciates just sitting there. Then when it comes out, two thirds goes where it is absolutely not needed. This means the fund is operating at ten percent efficiency, interest aside.

Now, let's take the interest. Suppose you could buy stock with the money instead, and that could be limited to index funds, over 40 years, (or even 20) crash or no crash, the yield is going to come out to around 9% a year. The average dollar spends twenty years in the fund, so it's a simple 1.09^20=5.6
So a regular dollar invested in the market becomes $5.60, any point in US history, through the fund.

So Joe Shmoe who bought the market, as a whole, through an index fund, got $5.60. Sammy Security got $0.33. 5.6/.33=17. The efficiency of the investment of Joe Schmoe was seventeen (17) times that of Sammy Security, and Joe didn't even do anything clever. He didn't invest in stem cells or hybrid cars, he invested in coca cola and universal pictures and scotch tape, or something equally boring. If the stocks performed poorly, the indexes pulled them and replaced them with others, and in a very boring way which hasn't failed in 300 years, it rolls on.

Social Security, on the other hand, is doomed to fail. It dies by the time anyone putting in now tries to take out. Worse yet, it's not in your hands at all, Uncle Sam keeps it safe from you. SO if some corrupt politician (there's no such thing, right?) comes along, and takes all the money out, boom, sorry people, the moneys gone. *Poof!*




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:15 AM

DREAMTROVE


Oh, that part about fat people was intended to be over the top. I meant the part about the lazy money.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:38 AM

FREDGIBLET


Originally I was going to respond to the original post and think some stuff up, but after reading all the nutty stuff people are posting I think I'll stay out of this for the most part.

However I can't let this go:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I favor a 'fat tax' as I call it. Money which isn't doing anything, it just sits there. Large amounts of cash are sitting in someone's bank account somewhere, earning interest, but not creating any business. If money isn't active in the economy, it's not doing anyone any good....etc...etc.


My question is this, what about retirement? I'm 20 and I'm planning on starting to save for retirement soon, I should have thousands of dollars "just sitting around" in not too long. With your idea I will be taxed on the money I'm trying to save for retirement, we already are facing a crisis of people who haven't saved enough for retirement, what do you think people are going to do when their savings are taxed?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:50 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

My question is this, what about retirement? I'm 20 and I'm planning on starting to save for retirement soon, I should have thousands of dollars "just sitting around" in not too long. With your idea I will be taxed on the money I'm trying to save for retirement, we already are facing a crisis of people who haven't saved enough for retirement, what do you think people are going to do when their savings are taxed?

Don't save! Live in the now man. Rather then save I'm sinking my money into my property. That way regardless of social security, I'll have a place to live, assuming the property taxes don't kill me.

Without my house payment I could live on retirement now and I'm about 18 years away.

I'm also paying on a nice lot of about two acres partially wooded and fronting the river (downhill so flooding wont reach the part I'll build the house on). I can either sell it later to a developer or build ma own little piece of Serenity a few years from now (built upon the backs of those I have sent to jail...).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:58 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Dude, disagreement's fine, hell, if everyone agreed we'd be an ant colony.


I cannot disagree that we are in total agreement here.

Quote:

Differing opinions and philosophies are the hammer and anvil on which progress is forged, by all means disagree, debate, what have you... but please do so, of yourself, instead of just parrotting talking points, explain things from your viewpoint, and leave some room for common ground or compromise.


My viewpoint is that traditionally liberals are more tax and conservatives are less tax. I wanted to get DT's take on this when you stepped in with your post.

Quote:

Otherwise it's like arguing with the Flat-Earth society while they're stoned on quaaludes.


Still tryin' to visualize this. Frickin 'ludes man.

Quote:

Not askin folk to agree with me, just askin them to actually disagree instead of vapidly parrotting the same stock phrases which are uttered over and over to the point of meaninglessness, and often in situations where they don't apply or apply badly - it makes one look like a dogma spouting robot.

"Danger, Danger, Will Robinson, The Liberals are to blame


Is there such a thing as a 'liberal anarchist'?

I never said one way was better or worse than the other. It's two different ways to reach the same end from two differing political ideologies.
And these are my very own views arrived at through life-long study.




Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:16 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sorry, but, what planet are you on? Well running? Okay, of the money that goes in, only one third ever comes out, the rest is stolen by crooked politicians. It is the only fund in the world which does not appreciate at all. Even the gold in fort knox appreciates just sitting there. Then when it comes out, two thirds goes where it is absolutely not needed. This means the fund is operating at ten percent efficiency, interest aside.

You're conflating two things: How well the social security administration manages money and what the government does with the excess money that Social Security currently brings in. If you look at the amount of money that Social Security brings in and the number of checks and amount of money that Social Security pays out and the number of people employed by the Social Security Administration and the overhead costs I think you would come to the same conclusion that I have: namely that Social Security is a pretty efficient system. It's too bad more government agencies weren't run as well as the Social Security Administration.

What you're talking about with regards to the government using the excess money needs to be fixed. The idea behind the trust fund is sound, although it did shift a big burden onto the middle class, as long as the money that was borrowed from the trust fund is paid back. And that's a big if. The change we need to make is to put a lock on the trust fund.

So your problem is not with how well-run the SSA is, it is with what Congress is doing with the trust fund. Two separate things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:32 AM

DREAMTROVE


Retirement is a good point. Maybe there's a deduction for that. So that retirement savings aren't taxed, sure. Up to a reasonable amount. No one has a retirement account of 80 billion. But the funds would have to be in some sort of retirement account.

Quote:
My viewpoint is that traditionally liberals are more tax and conservatives are less tax. I wanted to get DT's take on this when you stepped in with your post.


traditionally, sure, and those would be my dividing lines. Left wingers want to provide services, which require tax, conservatives want business to thrive which requires no tax.

But we've entered into a new era with these new democrats and republicans. Now the game is different. Sure, the leadership includes a bipartisan team I call team evil, but each side also contains a lot of partisans. Those partisans want to make sure that the supporters on their side get more money than the other side so that they can get more campaign contributions so that they can win the next election, and so each side outspends the other.

The difference is, democrats sell tax hikes as "taxing the rich" so the middle class and poor who are 90% of both parties, feel they're getting a happy little revenge, and maybe the rich will pay back now. But the packages are seldom like this in reality.

Republicans can't get away with that tax and spend, so they have invented borrow and spend, which is a tax, because it simply creates more money, and devalues the dollar, and not only do you have to pay it back later, plus interest, but the dollar is devalued in the meantime.

So it's not that one is better than the other, they are both equally untennably bad. Each has about the same effect on the economy, which is to dig a ditch and bury the bitch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:35 AM

DREAMTROVE


On soc. sec.

Your own money in our safe keeping is a terrible idea.
Money that generates no interest is disintegrating because of the fact of inflation.

It's govt. control, keep your govt. paws off my hard earned money, end of story. I have huge problems with it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


dbl ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


DT,

I don't have time to get into a big debate, but this whole "govt health care = BAD" has been debated at length elsewhere, and AFAI'm concerned, it's bogus. If it's so damn bad, and government is so damn inefficient, why do first world people with socialized medicine live longer and pay vastly less for their care? This is invariably true. I'm sorry if it contradicts your cherished ideas, but to deny it is delusional.

Not trying to flame you or anything, but I'm tired of debating this ficticious 'issue'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:49 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
On soc. sec.

Your own money in our safe keeping is a terrible idea.
Money that generates no interest is disintegrating because of the fact of inflation.

It's govt. control, keep your govt. paws off my hard earned money, end of story. I have huge problems with it.

Well then it looks like we disagree on a fundamental level.

The promise of Social Security is that, no matter how bad things get in this country, you will always have some money to fall back on.

Social Security is not the government investing for you. You take care of that yourself.

Think back to the situation in this country when Social Security was created. We had many Americans who had worked hard all their life and all of a sudden they had no money coming in. Many of them lost their savings through no action of their own. And they died. That's what trusting business to take care of everything gets you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I get ya, BDN, apologies for blowing a fuse on you specifically, but it sounded like a pair of badly quoted talking points at the time - and after hearing such things, over, and over, and over again, for HOUUUURRSS!! - from too many people who should know better, you got the brunt of a lashing aimed at so-called-conservatives (as opposed to the real thing) who're just... ugh!

I mistook your intent, my bad.. and I think we both just kinda dated ourselves here by even knowing WTF 'ludes ARE.... woulda believe I had to explain that to the wife ?
"What's a Lood?"
"Umm.. errr..."
Quote:
Is there such a thing as a 'liberal anarchist'?

Truthfully.. I dunno.
That's the thing about Anarchic types, they're about as individual as it gets, and often very different from each other.

I also don't even use the terms "Liberal" or "Conservative" anymore because they have become really loaded terms so distorted they lack any real meaning.

I favor "Progressive" and "Traditional" - neither term is loaded or malicious, and they seem to be far more apt a description than anything else that comes to mind, and accurate for the arguments that not all progress is good progress, and not all traditions are good traditions...

Personally my attitude towards even the concept of political (and religious) pigeonholes is one of extreme apathy, in order to have a stance, I guess I'd have to care.

Another thing we agree on is wanting to hear all sides of an issue, even the wacky fringe folk..
(I kinda miss a certain unnamed one of them, while odd, his perspectives did add a unique but disturbing flavor to debate...)

Anyhow, it's all good, didn't mean to rip your head off like that, I just took what you were saying wrong.. text only carries so much meaning in and of itself.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:31 PM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

A) I don't think it's true.
B) people in different countries have a different socioeconomic and ethnic make up than the US.
C) The US govt. would f^&k it up.

See, here's what I see. I think it's the other direction. We have essentially a bad socialized medicine, and the new programs suggested would make it worse. We need to turn and drive in the other direction. Open competition. Or at the very least, set my system and your system side by side and see who wins, because that's real competition.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Soup,

We don't need nanny state to force us to give them our money to keep it safe. In fact, it's safer with us.


Soup, Rue,

This is the part where I'm a right-winger. These are all the debates we should have, and ideally, we should try both people's way, state by state. None of this national system, then we just do it one way and don't get to find out whose right. Some states go your way, some go mine, some go some other way, and time proves one of us is right.

But in order to get to that point, we need to, sad to say it, agree to disagree on these points, rather than fight the left right battle, and focus on a common enemy, that big mucking war machine and the massive corruption which is sucking us dry so that none of this gets done at all. I call it Team Evil and say it's led by Bush/Clinton, but we all know that it exists. And we all know that as long as it *does* exist, and *is* in charge, the only kind of healthcare system private or public which will arise is one where we the people are bilked, whether through gouging prices, or heavy taxes that go for corporate welfare to drug companies who get paid whatever they ask for a drug. Do you seriously think in *either* a free market *or* a socialist system, that a psychiatric pills would cost $600 a month? (This is what the veteran's are paying now to combat the destablizing effects of goes and nogoes.)

I think we have to realize there are going to be points we disagree on, like these two system choices, and either one of us might be right, and there is no way to think it out ahead of time and be sure. All of the bush and clinton policies were thought out in think tanks, and then put into action untested, and assumed to work, all of them, down to the no child left behind, etc. do you like the results? Didn't think so. The only way we're going to find out whose right is to try them, which we can't do from here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL