Its happening now.....

[Vehicleless]

I will admit he was not actually dumb, but he was not the smartest man in the room. If you look at the speaches he gave from the begining of his presidency to the end of his presidency you can see them clearly getting better. I do not think speeches make a president. I think he would have been an ok peace time president but I do not think he was a good war president, I think he was a horrible war president

[Buffalo Phil]

The presidents don't write their own speeches.

[HeavyMetal]

I will admit he was not actually dumb, but he was not the smartest man in the room. If you look at the speaches he gave from the begining of his presidency to the end of his presidency you can see them clearly getting better. I do not think speeches make a president. I think he would have been an ok peace time president but I do not think he was a good war president, I think he was a horrible war president

Fair.

I just despise the "W is a idiot!1!!111!!" statements that people regurgitate

[Vehicleless]

yeah but speaking is a big part of it i hear

unrelated

[Buffalo Phil]

yeah but speaking is a big part of it i hear

unrelated

LOL @ the .gif.

Problem with Bush was his southern influenced accent. People instantly attribute a southern accent with a lower intelligence level.

The only thing Obama has going for him is his ability to read off a teleprompter to a large group of people and do it quite well. Too bad the shit he says makes you want to kill people.

[iant333]

Now, that really boggles my mind. Do you honestly believe the Rich pay NO taxes???

you serious? whatever happened to tax brackets? isnt that what shows the different classes? and dont the people in the upper class pay more than the middle class? just because they work white collar jobs, doesnt mean they dont pay taxes. im in school now for automotive management which is a 4 year bachelors degree. now, i could have just done the 2 year automotive degree and turned wrenches until i could afford to open up something of my own. however, with a bachelors, i could start out as a service writer, or something along those lines, making double what a mechanic makes. like i said, if you work hard, you can get to where you want to be, have a family,live in a nice house, have your toys, etc etc. isnt that the american dream?

I feel that is going out the window these days....

Well maybe it was a poor quote to use, the top 1% does pay about 40% of the taxes, but they also own about 40% of the wealth in the country as well so I don't think they are having too hard of a time financially.

And that's great, I'm planning on kinda the same thing actually except I'm actually just going for regular automotive, I might go back to school though for engine performance or something more specific. But even owning your own shop isn't going to put you anywhere near the top 1%, maybe the top 5 with a cutoff of around 200K per household income earner per year.

For example my grandfather has owned a furniture store since he was about 25, he worked very hard usually 6-7 days a week for the past 40 years. Due to a combination of long days, hard work and being ridiculously thrifty he is now a millionaire, yes I agree it can happen, but there are many more people out there that have hundreds or thousands of times more than what he has, and I can guarantee they didn't work harder for it.

Thats why they call them the "leisure class".

How can you support socialism and libertarianism at the same time? They are complete opposites if you go by what they actually are, not some fake hybrid.




Now health care, unemployment, and labor laws are minor issues? Before they were the key platforms of your argument.


Those people didn't have to work hard to get to where they are at? If its so easy, why isn't everyone a multi-millionaire? Those guys in finance work incredibly hard to become as successful as they are.

And wealthy people pay, and have paid, plenty in taxes.

They aren't incompatible at all, basically the government should leave you the hell alone except for minor free market controls and a few social programs.

And they are minor in that the government isn't putting food on your table, that's still up to you. It's just "social security" not the government providing your every need.

Like I said I'm not even a socialist, I just think that they have a few good ideas and it isn't this evil monstrosity people make it out to be.

Look at countries with socialist tendencies, basically all Northern Europe, for example Switzerland has one of the top 5 economies in the world and calls themselves a loosely socialist country. And they arent even all controlling, for example they have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world next to us.

[Magilla]

So you want more government so you can have more freedom? hhhmmmm

[bangarang]

So you want more government so you can have more freedom? hhhmmmm

The questin still remains though.....
















Is gaga man, woman, or tranny?!?!

[Nick]

Well maybe it was a poor quote to use, the top 1% does pay about 40% of the taxes, but they also own about 40% of the wealth in the country as well so I don't think they are having too hard of a time financially.

Why do you consider a 40% income tax irrelevant when it comes to wealthy people? If you earned 10m that year, then 4m goes to the gov't, that is a large chunk of change. Just because a person makes a lot of money, doesn't mean they should be punished.

For example my grandfather has owned a furniture store since he was about 25, he worked very hard usually 6-7 days a week for the past 40 years. Due to a combination of long days, hard work and being ridiculously thrifty he is now a millionaire, yes I agree it can happen, but there are many more people out there that have hundreds or thousands of times more than what he has, and I can guarantee they didn't work harder for it.

Can you really guarantee that? Maybe they didn't work in the same terms as your grandfather, but clearly they had to do something to get where they are today. Just because someone doesn't get their hands dirty, doesn't mean their job isn't difficult. It also has something to do with supply and demand. Not everyone is capable of being a hot-shot investor, if they were, then they wouldn't make as much because they wouldn't be a valuable commodity. Also, some sound financial policy and investing can really make anyone a millionaire if they start around the age of 20 and retire between 65-70. Saving 3 dollars a day and investing it based on the average stock market returns of 10% a year from the age of 20 to 70 will give you $1274479.84.

They aren't incompatible at all, basically the government should leave you the hell alone except for minor free market controls and a few social programs.

Wrong. Libertarianism advocates a society run by free market capitalism. They desire a state that really only provides a military and basic emergency services. Libertarianism focuses on the individual. Socialism on the other hand advocates a society with public and common ownership of the economy. Socialists prefer state planned agencies.

And they are minor in that the government isn't putting food on your table, that's still up to you. It's just "social security" not the government providing your every need.

The government is essentially paying for your health care and with social security, just giving you free money to actually put food on your table. These are incredibly large social programs that cost an inane amount of money. Few people consider them minor issues.

Like I said I'm not even a socialist, I just think that they have a few good ideas and it isn't this evil monstrosity people make it out to be.

Almost every political philosophy has some good ideas in theory, it doesn't mean that they can effectively be applied to the real world. Socialism as a whole would essentially make the United States an irrelevant nation, just like it has done to Europe, if you are fine with that, then I guess you are justified in supporting socialism.

Look at countries with socialist tendencies, basically all Northern Europe, for example Switzerland has one of the top 5 economies in the world and calls themselves a loosely socialist country. And they arent even all controlling, for example they have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world next to us.

First off, Switzerland is NOT one of the top 5 economies in the world, not even close, AND it's economy is one of the best demonstrations of capitalism. Check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.

[iant333]

Why do you consider a 40% income tax irrelevant when it comes to wealthy people? If you earned 10m that year, then 4m goes to the gov't, that is a large chunk of change. Just because a person makes a lot of money, doesn't mean they should be punished.



Can you really guarantee that? Maybe they didn't work in the same terms as your grandfather, but clearly they had to do something to get where they are today. Just because someone doesn't get their hands dirty, doesn't mean their job isn't difficult. It also has something to do with supply and demand. Not everyone is capable of being a hot-shot investor, if they were, then they wouldn't make as much because they wouldn't be a valuable commodity. Also, some sound financial policy and investing can really make anyone a millionaire if they start around the age of 20 and retire between 65-70. Saving 3 dollars a day and investing it based on the average stock market returns of 10% a year from the age of 20 to 70 will give you $1274479.84.






Wrong. Libertarianism advocates a society run by free market capitalism. They desire a state that really only provides a military and basic emergency services. Libertarianism focuses on the individual. Socialism on the other hand advocates a society with public and common ownership of the economy. Socialists prefer state planned agencies.




The government is essentially paying for your health care and with social security, just giving you free money to actually put food on your table. These are incredibly large social programs that cost an inane amount of money. Few people consider them minor issues.



Almost every political philosophy has some good ideas in theory, it doesn't mean that they can effectively be applied to the real world. Socialism as a whole would essentially make the United States an irrelevant nation, just like it has done to Europe, if you are fine with that, then I guess you are justified in supporting socialism.



First off, Switzerland is NOT one of the top 5 economies in the world, not even close, AND it's economy is one of the best demonstrations of capitalism. Check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.

Are you saying we should tax the middle class higher so the rich can keep more of their money? I mean they worked hard only to be left with 6 million dollars at the end of the year.

And if you are so anti socialist and for unrestrained capitalism lets look a place/time where we had this in an industrial society.

The early 1900's is one such time, the time period even as a whole is not famous for its prosperity for the average person. Little financial controls and the beginning of enormous businesses which did nothing more than provide alot of money for a very few people. Did the robber barons that created these businesses work hard? Perhaps, maybe they did, but it was at the expense of the other 99.5% of the nation who just got totally screwed, if people think distribution of wealth is bad today it was many times worse then.

This is what happens when businesses are completely unrestrained and let to do whatever they want with little to no taxes/regulation. Does this sort of a system encourage economic growth? Sure, but only in the uppermost levels of the economy, the average person doesn't reap many of the rewards.

What ended this? A series of financial reforms and social programs introduced as the "New Deal" (Considered Socialist even today) in the 30's. Even many so called rich people at the time were for them due to their fears of a revolt of the middle and lower classes.

All these restrictions on the free market are "Socialist", and without them we would still be working 60 hour work weeks for menial pay. They were designed to protect the American dream from the wealthy who would if left completely unrestrained would own the entire country 100%.

This ties in very much with what I am talking about, economic regulation (socialism) is not evil. It simply levels the playing field a bit to make it so the so called American Dream is actually attainable, though people decry these sorts of regulations to this day and say they are the downfall of America.

Well if that is the case lets go back to "the good old days". And for example lets look at a "relevant" capitalist nation, China. I dont consider them a model of a country I would like to live in in any way.



And Switzerland DOES have one of the strongest economies, per capita that is. And have similar economic policy with the rest of the EU.

And I also don't see the logical inconsistency. It is possible to believe that the government should respect the privacy and rights of the individual while at the same time protect them from businesses ability to take advantage of them.

For example, I beleive in economic regulation and SOME social programs but I am also staunchly for Freedon of Speech/Expression, Gun Rights, Privacy, Rights of the Accused etc... I dont find that to be any major issue. Capitalism for the most part would still exist, it would just be regulated to make it more approachable to someone who doesn't already have copious wealth.

[Nick]

All you do is critique the capitalist system, yet provide NO solutions to the problem. You simply repeat the same nonsensical bleeding-heart drivel that I have heard too many times. I'm sure you're a big fan of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, considering your main points are incredibly similar to theirs.

Are you saying we should tax the middle class higher so the rich can keep more of their money? I mean they worked hard only to be left with 6 million dollars at the end of the year.

First off, wealthy people are taxed proportionately higher than everyone else. Why do that? Please justify why successful people should have their earned money taken away from them just because they earned more than everyone else. Why strive to earn as much money as you can when it ends up being taken away from you?

And if you are so anti socialist and for unrestrained capitalism lets look a place/time where we had this in an industrial society.

I'm not interested in delving into the progressive area of the American economy. BUT, it was during this time when mass production was introduced and adopted which made products affordable for middle class Americans. The Model T Ford for example. That era laid the foundation for the United States to grow into a superpower. It was the golden age of industry and manufacturing. Not everyone was as miserable as you make them out to be.

What ended this? A series of financial reforms and social programs introduced as the "New Deal" (Considered Socialist even today) in the 30's. Even many so called rich people at the time were for them due to their fears of a revolt of the middle and lower classes.

The New Deal and Keynesian economics are responsible for the sad state of the federal budget today. It prompted INCREDIBLE gov't spending, which does not work in reality. Unemployment was up to almost 20% during the 30s after the New Deal was implemented, that really worked out well for the lower class. You can't tax businesses into the ground, because then they can't pay to hire people, and you have rampant unemployment, which, because of the policies modeled after the New Deal, everyone who manages to keep their job, now has to support all these newly unemployed people.

All these restrictions on the free market are "Socialist", and without them we would still be working 60 hour work weeks for menial pay. They were designed to protect the American dream from the wealthy who would if left completely unrestrained would own the entire country 100%.

These same restrictions led to the creation of strong labor unions which have essentially singlehandedly ruined the American economy. Unions have drove all the great manufacturing companies into bankruptcy or to leave their main locations to go elsewhere for cheaper labor. This is because people who work on assembly lines think they are entitled to make 100k a year, which is wrong.

Well if that is the case lets go back to "the good old days". And for example lets look at a "relevant" capitalist nation, China. I dont consider them a model of a country I would like to live in in any way.

If you told me today that the United States would return to a manufacturing based economy, I would be ecstatic. Manufacturing means jobs, increase in GDP, and a strong trade surplus. And China isn't a capitalist state. Its a communist state with some capitalism beginning to mix in. The Chinese gov't plans the nations economy and allocates all essential resources. Its still the main player in large Chinese industry. Hardly a capitalist state.

And Switzerland DOES have one of the strongest economies, per capita that is. And have similar economic policy with the rest of the EU.

First off, no one measures the strength of a nations economy by per capita income. GDP is the standard measure of economic strength and Switzerland is 19th in the world with a GDP of about 500,000m. Whereas the US is 2nd to the EU with a GDP of 14,250,000m. Also, Switzerland isn't in the EU.

This is the real world, where people win and people lose, and its up to you to look out for yourself.

[kracker]

Regardless of why you keep comparing socialism to totalitarianism and communism is beyond me, I still think that in a socialist government, the government takes it upon itself to make decisions for the people, which is not what a government should do. A government should protect the people and be an spine to upholding whichever constitution it is governed by. The people are the heart, mind and soul of a country.

I believe right now that America has become a socialist country because we are no longer citizens, we are subjects to an overly powerful, federal government that prides itself in making decisions for us.

this couldnt have been put any better .......

[bangarang]

I mean come on, haven't you guys seen V for Vendetta? Gonna need to stand up and fight back soon enough

[Buffalo Phil]

I can't believe you just called China a Capitalist Nation. Your Credibility is now at an all time Low.

I have nothing else to add as Nick has steered this ship to win.

[BOX]

Not everyone is capable of being a hot-shot investor, if they were, then they wouldn't make as much because they wouldn't be a valuable commodity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places