Yeah, there's gotta be a problem when the federal government is the largest employer in the country.

Trust me, I agree, but the statements he made were completely un-backed up and silly to even make.

Don't worry 'bout it JG. Anything by me gets immediately quoted by him and I get flamed for it for one reason or another... I've gotten used to it, but it's still annoying. He's always the one who attacks me first.

You *******

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Wow, I don't think I've ever read a more BS post with no backup whatsoever.
[/QUOTE]

It's not really that far fetched.

Pre-emptive strike. We know you have WMD's in your closet.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Anarcho-socialistic...that has to be, by far, the most idiotic oxymoron I've ever seen. Anarchy is the lack of government right? And socialism is an economic type that's controlled by the government right?

WTF?

(your views may be valid, just find a better word to explain it)[/QUOTE]
It really is a system of government. According to what I've been taught, socialism is where everyone is treated equally and is paid as such and cummunism is based on the same ideas but the government owns everything and thus has supreme authority.

It's anarchy because there is no real governing power, and socialistic because everyone gets equal share in everything. In a nutshell, an anarcho-socialist (or -communist if you must) society, people would recieve equal wages and wealth would be distributed equally, and a common-folk PTA type organization would make sure that it runs smoothly.

Because of the fact that a lot of people are dishonest and don't like the ideas of "property is robbery" and "those who have help those who have not", living in ANY sort of anarchist society should be a choice. For instance, a bunch of like-minded people group together and form one on a big island.

I oppose the feminist demand for equal pay. Damn communists.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Wow, I don't think I've ever read a more BS post with no backup whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Yoshi, I think that is the most intelligent thing I've ever seen Freelancer post. What do you think is really debateable in his post other than his arbitrart figures.



Here, here. I think Roberts said it best when he quiped, “From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.”

Thomas Moore's description of a perfect christian society in Utopia was anarcho-socialistic. One of the main reasons the Church opposed Communism was that it was basically an attempt to create "Utopia" without God.

i'm pedetstrian.

That's actually exactly what I'm saying is BS. The idea I fundamentally agree with, but I'm not about to say "You could cut * amount in * department." Why? Because I have no ****ing idea whether that's true or not.

stop getting your knickers in a twist, its only the internet.

I'd like to separate from Canada. And by me, I mean my house and those living in it. To be sure, though, I'd like to buy land that's situated directly over a well. Once that's done, I'd wear a crown to show my stature in what will come to be known as high society. Then I'll make some laws:


1. By entering King Matterialize's political boundaries, you automatically gain citizenship.

2. No citizen may leave the kingdom without approval from the King.

3. The King may choose to hide any and all documents concerning laws from the eyes of the public.

4. All citizens must obey the will of the King, whatever it may be, however whimsical. Disobedience will be met with whatever punishment the King decrees. The King owns a very big sword, by the way.

Once all these laws are instated, I'll coax some vacationers into the Kingdom and PRESTO! I'll have them working within minutes.

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]Thomas Moore's description of a perfect christian society in Utopia was anarcho-socialistic. One of the main reasons the Church opposed Communism was that it was basically an attempt to create "Utopia" without God.[/QUOTE]

The early Communist literature is extremely messianic. Throughout its run, the Soviet Union was always hailing the time when true communism comes around, where all the petty problems will be gone.

This pisses me off, too.

The rich often own corporations or other businesses and therefore have the power to create jobs and therefore stimulate the economy. The problem is, our current system is set up to punish the successful and give the poor people a lot of money that they did nothing to deserve. Rather than by punishing the rich, we should be rewarding them with tax breaks.

Every time the government tries to punish the rich, it hurts everyone. For example, in 1986, congress passed a law that eviscerated the tax shelters used in real estate, and even did so retroactively. The politicians were too stupid and greedy to realize that real estate is the backbone of the economy, and by punishing real estate investors, it would have devastatingly adverse effects on the ecomomy. In fact, I'm convinced that the events of 1986 caused the economic recession of the early 1990s.

The problem is that the people in charge of taxation have little understanding of money. They raise taxes and they pass tax reform without any real idea what they are doing. This was apparent in 1986. Given how financially stupid and greedy the politicians are, I favour putting the rich in charge of the financial aspects of the government. At least then we wouldn't have any economic f***-ups like 1986's tax reform law.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]That's actually exactly what I'm saying is BS. The idea I fundamentally agree with, but I'm not about to say "You could cut * amount in * department." Why? Because I have no ****ing idea whether that's true or not.[/QUOTE]

Let's face it: we could lower taxes, eliminate some of the government, and it could be more efficient than it is now. There is a lot of room for streamlining it due to current corruption, bloat, waste, inefficient use of time and resources, and what have you. That's why I'm very wary of raising taxes. There comes a point where it's a better solution to improve the government rather than throwing more money at it.

I think I'm with JG on this one.

*Waiting for the all-knowing Yoshi to rip my post apart..

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHahahah.

that was good :p

legalizing labor unions and illegalizing child labor hurt the rich, but it sure as hell didn't hurt everyone.

Bill Gates pays (arbitrary number) in taxes. He now pays 15% less due to the tax breaks. Who's going to come up with that 15%? The poor? The middle class? The government needs money to operate, and cutting out on of its biggest sources of financial backing is, quite frankly, idiotic.

I'm not saying that our government could use some definite effeciency overhauls. But saying "tax the poor, not the rich" isn't going to solve anything.



The most recent mistake you can cite is almost 20 years old? In addition, putting rich people who wouldn't tax rich people is a bad idea.

Heh.. I do believe that is the first usage of 'illegalizing' I've ever seen... neat.

I have a better idea: streamline government and get rid of the bureaucracy and wasteful social programs. Eventually i'm hoping that they will get rid of social security too. Alot of the rich worked hard to get where they are, why should they be punished for their success? As it is now, the poor don't pay tax, they just leech. The burden of tax is mostly on the middle class. Plus, some (but not all) of the poor just refuse to get off their lazy a**es and work for a living. I see this every day. some poor peole work hard, but a lot of them don't. Why should the rich and middle class support deadbeats?




I used the 1986 example b/c it is a glaring example of how stupid the politicians can be. I could probably find more recent examples, but I can't be bothered to research that right now. Plus, I would rather have financially literate rich people in charge of the economy instead of the financially ignorant politicians that are in charge now.

They don't pay tax because they may be unable to. If I have just enough money to cover my expenses, and then I owe the government more money, you're driving me further into poverty. Then you have rich people who already have money who can afford to take the hit and not suffer a downward spiral of poverty after they pay their taxes. Which is the more logical choice to tax?



Because there are still people who genuinely need socialized support? The answer to the problem of people abusing the system is to make the system more efficient, not cut off the government's source of funding. In time, if the programs are efficient enough, taxes can be lowered for everyone.

The thing about a government is that it's supposed to serve the people. But, in order to serve the people, it needs the support of the people. If it doesn't have enough money, it will go bankrupt. Read: the Articles of Confederation.



I'd love having financially-literate people, rich or not, in charge of the economy. But you seem to be advocating that, because someone is rich, they are inherently somehow better. At the same time, you're advocating that rich people be given all these tax breaks. Combine the two, and it sounds like you're advocating that we should get rich people who would give other rich people tax breaks into the government, and that this would be a good thing.

Our economic system requires a pyramidal structure; only a relatively small percentage of people get to be rich at any one time.

When viewing the whole, the individual's actions are trival and meaningless; ancedotes mean jack****. The aforementioned pyramid will maintain its basic shape regardless.

It takes money to make money; left unchecked, the gluttonous rich will grow richer without bound.

It takes money to buy food; left unchecked, the starving poor will revolt and eat the rich.

Given all this and striving for national longitivity, the only reasonable and rational solution is carefully calculated wealth redistribution that keeps the rich sleeping soundly on comfortably plump cushions of money, and poor well saturated with fat and cable tv.

Those politicians you keep maligning understand this. Why don't you?

What evidence do you have to support this?

From my observations, the reason why there are so few rich is because our educational system does not teach financial literacy--- the system sets you up to be a lifelong employee working for someone else, so that's where most people end up. It is obvious that the truly rich do not work for money-- their money works for them and their businesses work for them instead. The rich use their heads to make money, not their hands like the workers do.

Long story short-- a lot of people are not rich because they never learned how to be independently rich. They think that wealth comes with winning the lottery or inheriting money, so they end up chasing a dream that does not really exist.

Pagewizard, the rich create jobs. If everyone was rich, who would work those jobs?

If everyone had lots of money, the value of money drop really, really fast.

Yeah your opinion is pretty much idealistic...the ultimate american dream...right

economy permits for only a certain amount of wealthy people. If everyone was wealthy who would do the lower level jobs?? The world only works because some people are stupid imbeciles and some people are smart mother****ers. Its true.

As for politics...I will not be labled. I prefer to stick with opinions rather then generalize myself with catchall trend names.

Wolfy, you're sort of assuming that PW gives a rat's *** about the poor.

Wait a minute...did I just see Krokodile post something besides an asinine attempt to insult America??? No way...get that kid off drugs.

Seriously though, I hate you Krok.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Wait a minute...did I just see Krokodile post something besides an asinine attempt to insult America??? No way...get that kid off drugs.

Seriously though, I hate you Krok.[/QUOTE]



Who are you kidding - you vote conservative.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Wait a minute...did I just see Krokodile post something besides an asinine attempt to insult America??? No way...get that kid off drugs.

Seriously though, I hate you Krok.[/QUOTE]

Nah, have a burger instead.

I have one question. Are you retarded?

Or better, do you know ANYTHING about economics?

The rich got lucky because their parents were rich. Their parents are rich because, somewhere in the long line of their history, either someone got lucky, or someone worked their way up the corporate ladder to the top of the game. The world wasn't created with the rich and the poor. The rich got rich because they either worked to get there or circumstances gave them land and power.

The poor can get rich by borrowing money and investing, and the rich get richer the same way. Many of the old-money rich families made their fortunes through business and investments. What is to stop me (or anyone else here) from doing the same thing and also becoming rich?

I consider it a disadvantage to be born into the "lucky sperm club" and have inherited wealth, b/c often people who get their wealth this way are miserable. They live like misers and are paranoid about losing everything b/c they know that they can't get it back.

And that is called inflation. Which is a bad thing.

Which brings me to ask this:

People work at mints, and stuff, to print money / press coins, etc.
They couldn't be doing that year-round, because of inflation, right?
So... would they have a second job, or something?

**** you. My Uncle built himself up from a family of 5, making less than 10k a year with his wife COMBINED at Little Caesars when he was 20, never graduating high school, and being a construction worker, to owning his own goddamn business and making upwards of 200 thousand, maybe even MORE a year now, that's not even including his wife who is a real estate agent. Learn what the **** you're talking about. People that say this stupid **** make me sick.



I thought you were a diehard liberal.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]**** you. My Uncle built himself up from a family of 5, making less than 10k a year with his wife COMBINED at Little Caesars when he was 20, never graduating high school, and being a construction worker, to owning his own goddamn business and making upwards of 200 thousand, maybe even MORE a year now, that's not even including his wife who is a real estate agent. Learn what the **** you're talking about. People that say this stupid **** make me sick.

[/QUOTE]

The point is, it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to be rich. Guess what would happen if EVERYONE made 200k+ a year? 200K would suddenly become worth what 15k is now. In a capitalist society, there will ALWAYS be poor.