Burgold Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I have to disagree, at least in part. I think that you can still follow laws that you disagree with. It often takes decades to change laws, and most folks will go along in order to remain a part of society while actively trying to enact change in a legal manner. Folks who do that are not giving it tacit agreement.:2cents: I'll disagree with your disagreement with this caveat. If you are obeying the laws, but actively protesting them or working to change them, then you are not. However, if you are meekly submitting to the law and following it then you are an accomplice to it and through your actions condoning and embracing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Define willingly;) With every post you become more and more Clintonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I'll disagree with your disagreement with this caveat. If you are obeying the laws, but actively protesting them or working to change them, then you are not. However, if you are meekly submitting to the law and following it then you are an accomplice to it and through your actions condoning and embracing it. I think we can find common ground on that definition. Could we add a caveat to the caveat in that voting for politicians who act to change on our behalf is "actively working for change" too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I can buy that. Voting is action... sometimes a weak action, but an important action nonthelesss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I can buy that. Voting is action... sometimes a weak action, but an important action nonthelesss. I agree, it's definitely the weakest form of action. Action grows when one adds volunteerism to their "cause', even better, runni ng for local office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortisFan123 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 This is a great subject. Point one is that small companies employ 68% of our work force and already pay very high capital gains tax, and provide insurance benefits, paid vacations etc for employees. They are already paying taxes in the bracket of 25% to 30%. You simply have to cut taxes for those who create jobs so it is more rational, and advances our economy. The unscripted moment in this campaign for me was when Obama had his little conversation with Joe the plummer. The wizard behind the curtain was revealed. Redistribution in any manner within a democracy is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which our constitution was formed. Now a Libertarian like myself would say, any "charitable urges" should come from individuals, not dictated nor controlled by our government. Less government is better so the individual can make their own decisions. Obama has been amazingly inconsistent in terms of what income bracket will pay these taxes. First it was folks earning $250,000. Then it went to $150,000. Now it is those earning $125,000. I am sorry but if you kids in school and live in certain parts of this country where the COL is high, $125,000 is not a lot of money, nor is $150,000, especially taxed. The whole concept of redistribution to those who do not earn much, and pay little to no taxes already is a semi-disguised form of welfare distribution. Now if this were a socialist country and not founded on the principles of capitalism I would not see an issue with it because if you are in a self-defined socialist structure you could expect this to occur. But we are not. The structure of our constitution is based upon less government and people being left alone to make their own decisions. Unfortunately the housing crisis led to more government interference then I have ever seen in my life time. Further government should not dictate how health care is run. Again that is a socialist structure, not a democratic one. There is absolutely NO state in this country that turns away a child from receiving health care. There is simply no argument there. My solution would be to have anyone who can afford health care to pay an additional $10 to $20 a month into a pool, establish an independent agency, not funded by the government to provide reduced health care premiums based upon income, NOT create a health care system where the govenment chooses who you go to, how long you wait for crucial testing and how your treatment will proceed. Again "charitable urges" by wealthy citizens or a group could change health care within 48 months by following the system I have described. I think Americans are reasonable and many of my friends, democrats, republicans, and Independent want everyone to have health care and love the idea of paying a small amount more in their premiums so that health care is available for all. But it has to be the individuals decision NOT the governments. Another point. In Ireland, where many, many companies are relocating to, they pay only 5% tax. The European Trade Commission is pissed at Ireland which now has a stout economy, wanting them to adjust that tax to their specifications of around 20%. Of course Ireland is saying heck no to that. Could you even imagine if we gave a break of that magnitude to our businesses for even 3 years the change in economics that would cause? There would be more hiring, more jobs here and not contracted out to foreign countries and many of these corporations could indeed do more for their workers in terms of health care, incentives for higher education etc. Just my thoughts on this. Obama's answer is to take your power away from you and then place it into the hands of a few government workers who will decide you and your families futures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 that is a terrible argument. One is not a socialist because of what they are required to do by law. One is a socialist when they MAKE the law that way. You're the one with a terrible argument. Just because I don't want to be a socialist I'm not? Haha, nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 If you look at his tax policies you'll realize small business are exempt. Of course no one is going to do that, they're just going to blather. Which is why the news sucks these days and I'd rather get my information from redskin fans. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf Zero capital gains tax (for starting out). I don't like this getting more capital to minorities trash though. Why not everybody? We all have trouble getting the cash to start our small business, that's the biggest problem!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 You're the one with a terrible argument. Just because I don't want to be a socialist I'm not? Haha, nonsense. Thats not nonsense. I think many of us in this thread have agreed (folks from both the left and right, btw) that those following the law while actively trying to change it (via votes, campaigning, volunteerism, etc) would not be considered "socialists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 You're the one with a terrible argument. You need to listen to Vicious on this one, PokerPacker. He's an expert on terrible arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Action grows when one adds volunteerism to their "cause', even better, runni ng for local office. I really applaud this outlook, SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I have a degree in economics and I'm voting for Obama. Does that mean I learned nothing? I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I really applaud this outlook, SS. Thanks Jumbo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 You're correct but I don't have time to spell check or correct my errors. It's not that important in here. It was important when I was in medical school but not here. Thanks for your concern. If you are a Dr who doesn't pay attention to details I would never want you treating me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 The funny thing about all of this bickering is the scope of the tax changes under Obama. The tax rates were exponentially higher before Reagan. In fact, Barack Obama's tax policies are more Reagonian than any president before Reagan. I guess all of those fine presidents before Reagan were HUGE socialists and this country emerged from a socialist state through Reagan to become a true democracy. Imagine anyone making over $200 million paying 90% taxes. Now THAT my friends, is income redistribution. So, to all of you by-the-book republicans out there... if you think Obama is a socialist because of his tax policies, then you think EVERY president before Reagan is a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 if you think Obama is a socialist because of his tax policies, then you think EVERY president before Reagan is a socialist. How dare you point that out. You have quashed this Republican talking point like a kitten under the mobile shuttle pad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 How dare you point that out. You have quashed this Republican talking point like a kitten under the mobile shuttle pad! I aim to please sir. I aim to please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.