Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#31
02-10-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KNIGHTSPAWN555 View Post
Good observation because the same applies to you. Dumbsh.t.

You told me the same crap you mentioned the first time you quoted me. I could care less if freedom of religion is part of the constitution. I also know we've have Presidents with faith and Presidents with rational minds. The thing is they don't enforce their beliefs on their country. I'd disclaim my citizenship if that ever happened.

If you're going to give valuable information to back up your argument at least be sure about what the other person is talking about.

F*cking retard.
No, the difference between us is that my position is upheld by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I don't really appreciate being called a "f..king Retard" by an anti-religion zealot who doesn't have a clue what the law of the land is. I know what I am talking about from a political and legal basis. Anybody, like yourself can make incoherent rants based in bias and hatred. You are backtracking from the points you made earlier. Nor have you addressed this question regarding your claim of hypocrisy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KNIGHTSPAWN555 View Post
What I said was directed at the hypocrisy involved in politics where they add faith to our government.
What is hypocritical about practicing religion if you are a politician?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KNIGHTSPAWN555 View Post
Are you stupid or something? Religion and politics are supposed to be separate. Very.
What about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KNIGHTSPAWN555 View Post

The whole of idea of keeping religion out of politics is slowly dwindling away. Every now and then they pray and it really bugs me. I'd hate to live in a world controlled by delusional freaks. Even worse if they only use it to control the country.
Or this?
Tsunami
Level 50
Tsunami's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,130
Subtract from Tsunami's ReputationAdd to Tsunami's Reputation Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana
Send a message via AIM to Tsunami
#32
02-10-2009
Default

I usually don't post whole articles, but please read this. I think this is an excellent idea.




http://counterpunch.com/nader02052009.html


How to Lighten the Income Tax Load on the American Worker

Tax the Speculators!

By RALPH NADER
Let's start with a fairness point. Why should you pay a 5 to 6 percent sales tax for buying the necessities of life, when tomorrow, some speculator on Wall Street can buy $100 million worth of Exxon derivatives and not pay one penny in sales tax?


Let's further add a point of common sense. The basic premise of taxation should be to first tax what society likes the least or dislikes the most, before it taxes honest labor or human needs.



In that way, revenues can be raised at the same time as the taxes discourage those activities which are least valued, such as the most speculative stock market trades, pollution (a carbon tax), gambling, and the addictive industries that sicken or destroy health and amass large costs.


So, your member of Congress, who is grappling these days with gigantic deficits on the backs of your children at the same time as that deep recession and tax cuts reduce revenues and increase torrents of red ink, should be championing such transaction taxes.


Yet apart from a small number of legislators, most notably Congressman Peter Welch (Dem. VT) and Peter DeFazio (Dem. OR), the biggest revenue producer of all--a tax on stock derivative transactions--essentially bets on bets--and other mystifying gambles by casino capitalism--is at best corridor talk on Capitol Hill.


There are differing estimates of how much such Wall Street transaction taxes can raise each year. A transaction tax would, however, certainly raise enough to make the Wall Street crooks and gamblers pay for their own Washington bailout. Lets scan some figures economists put forth.
The most discussed and popular one is a simple sales tax on currency trades across borders. Called the Tobin Tax after its originator, the late James Tobin, a Nobel laureate economist at Yale University, 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars of the huge amounts of dollars traded each day across bordered would produce from $100 to $300 billion per year.


There are scores of civic, labor, environmental, development, poverty and law groups all over the world pressing for such laws in their countries. (see tobintaxcall.free.fr).


According the University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, various kinds of securities-trading taxes are on the books in about forty countries, including Japan, the UK and Brazil.


Pollin writes in the current issue of the estimable Boston Review: "A small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax, would raise the costs on short-term speculative trading while having negligible effect on people who trade infrequently. It would thus discourage speculation and channel funds toward productive investment."


He adds that after the 1987 stock market crash, securities-trading taxes "or similar measures" were endorsed by then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and even the first President Bush. Professor Pollin estimates that a one-half of one percent tax would raise about $350 billion a year. That seems conservative. The Wall Street Journal once mentioned about $500 trillion in derivatives trades alone in 2008--the most speculative of transactions. A one tenth of one percent tax would raise $500 billion dollars a year, assuming that level of trading.


Economist Dean Baker says a "modest financial transactions tax would be enough to finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax on labor."


The stock transaction tax goes back a long way. A version helped fund the Civil War and the imperial Spanish-American War. The famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, extolled in 1936 a securities transaction tax as having the effect of "mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise." The U.S. had some kind of transaction tax from 1914 to 1966.


The corporate history scholar (read his excellent book, Unequal Protection) Thom Hartmann, turned three-hour-a-day talk-show-host on Air America (airamerica.com/thomvision), had discussed the long evolution of what he calls a "securities turnover excise tax" to "tamp down toxic speculation, while encouraging healthy investment."


So, why don't we have such a mega-revenue generator and lighten the income tax load on today and tomorrow's American worker? (It was one of the most popular ideas I campaigned on last year. People got it.) Because American workers need to learn about this proposed tax policy and ram it through Congress. Tell your Senators and Representatives--no ifs, ands or buts. Otherwise, Wall Street will keep rampaging over people's pensions and mutual fund savings, destabilize their jobs and hand them the bailout bill, as is occurring now.
I bloodypingu I
Lurker At The Threshold
I bloodypingu I's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ nucca
Posts: 4,276
Subtract from I bloodypingu I's ReputationAdd to I bloodypingu I's Reputation I bloodypingu I is a novice
Send a message via AIM to I bloodypingu I
#33
02-10-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhh Negative View Post
You said that it bothers you that Congress prays every once and a while. Get over it. Face it, this is mainly a Christian nation. They aren't forcing their views on you.

edit: crap, I forgot to edit my other post. Sorry about the double post.
Who gives 2 sh.ts if it's mostly christian. What the f.ck does that have to do with anything besides a lot of people believing in something stupid (I'm going to assume you do to.)
It bothers me that the president can base his decision to go to war based on what an imaginary being told him. Or that someone can think the Iraq war was a plan from God and that simply praying will protect our soldiers.
Politicians are making decisions based upon something that doesn't exist. So don't give me this bullsh.t "OH THEY'RE NOT MAKING YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE" because they might as well be doing that.



"Music to me, might not be music to most"
-Buckethead

muRda
Godzilla vs. MLK
muRda's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,731
Subtract from muRda's ReputationAdd to muRda's Reputation muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000 muRda IS OVER 9000
#34
02-10-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I bloodypingu I View Post
Politicians are making decisions based upon something that doesn't exist.
Weapons of mass destruction?
Charlii
ALL I BLOW IS LOUD
Charlii's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: #20XX
Posts: 7,958
Subtract from Charlii's ReputationAdd to Charlii's Reputation Charlii still downloads from Mythica Charlii still downloads from Mythica Charlii still downloads from Mythica Charlii still downloads from Mythica Charlii still downloads from Mythica Charlii still downloads from Mythica
#35
02-10-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muRda View Post
Weapons of mass destruction?
ERRONEOUS.
Teh Capitan
Level 11
Teh Capitan's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Burke, Va
Posts: 66
Subtract from Teh Capitan's ReputationAdd to Teh Capitan's Reputation Teh Capitan is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Teh Capitan Send a message via Skype™ to Teh Capitan
#36
02-11-2009
Default

Religion in Politics prime example, Prop 8 in Ca, The Ban on gay unions.
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#37
02-11-2009
Default

Ok, I got sidetracked from economic discussion... so let's get back to the topic at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
I think the point is to try to lessen the effects this will be on Americans. If we do nothing, this will keep spiraling downwards more people loosing their jobs, thus spending less money. And with many of those unemployed coming up on running out benefits soon, we could see many more people loose there homes.
Let's discuss this. This part of your post sounds identical to a Barack Obama speech. I tend to agree with the basic premise that we need to provide some sort of relief to the American people. You and Barack Obama want this relief done through government wealth distribution in the form of a stimulus package. I want this relief to be direct, in the form of real tax cuts, reductions in tax rates, and letting people keep more of what they earn. The Obama spending bill has faux-tax cuts that expand on the Bush stimulus strategy that was an absolute failure. Plus the FICA cuts I talked about earlier help employers out tremendously and would free up jobs. A reduction in FICA = reduction in a major expense = more money = able to keep/save and or create more jobs. A reduction in income tax = more money to the American taxpayers working Americans. More capital flowing into the economy. Relief to American taxpayers. The two measures of cutting FICA and income taxes would help the economy more than government spending ever would or could. The private sector creates the majority of jobs, not the government. Sure, the government expands and employs lots of people to work in the government, but the government doesn't create private sector jobs. The current plan that forces job creation offers little return and a high cost of job creation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
They have laid off 10 of 60 people at my work so far, if I loose my job I may as well be homeless. I have nothing to fall back on, and I have a family to worry about. I'm not happy about the debt being added, thats why we should roll back the Reagan tax cuts and get back to sensible economics.
Well first off I want to wish you the best. I hope you and your family are able to pull through the hard times- and I hope you are able to hang on to your job.

I feel kind of uncomfortable using you as a political argument. I don't really want to use your situation to make a point about the Obama stimulus. Let's just leave it at a disagreement on what we think his package will do. And again, I wish you and your family the absolute best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TsUnAmI View Post
I'll ask this again, where were these deficit hawks the last 8 years, or during the Reagan administration. Reagan ran up more debt than every president behind him combined.
I don't think you want to get me started on on my of Reagan/Republican rants...so I will say that you while your point is valid, your point is also irrelevant.
Uhh Negative
Level 36
Uhh Negative's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,560
Subtract from Uhh Negative's ReputationAdd to Uhh Negative's Reputation Uhh Negative is a novice
Send a message via AIM to Uhh Negative
#38
02-11-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I bloodypingu I View Post
Who gives 2 sh.ts if it's mostly christian. What the f.ck does that have to do with anything besides a lot of people believing in something stupid (I'm going to assume you do to.)
It bothers me that the president can base his decision to go to war based on what an imaginary being told him. Or that someone can think the Iraq war was a plan from God and that simply praying will protect our soldiers.
Politicians are making decisions based upon something that doesn't exist. So don't give me this bullsh.t "OH THEY'RE NOT MAKING YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE" because they might as well be doing that.
Thank you for sharing your irrelevant opinion on Christianity.
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me"
Philippians 4:13

I will sacrifice to achieve

No one can limit my success

My training log
Tsunami
Level 50
Tsunami's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,130
Subtract from Tsunami's ReputationAdd to Tsunami's Reputation Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana Tsunami taps Cortana
Send a message via AIM to Tsunami
#39
02-11-2009
Default

Did you read Nader's article. Any thoughts on that?

1st let me say thank you for your concern, I know it's genuine on your part. The only reason I haven't been laid off is because the quality of my work and how hard I work. Unlike common perception (not accusing you of this slick) that liberals are lazy.

How is cutting taxes on people in the unemployment line going to lead to increased American spending.

Every source I've seen on stimulus seem to think that tax cuts are the least stimulative thing the government can do. You give a poor person 100 dollars in food stamp, you are guaranteed that 100 dollars will be spend, you cut the taxes of a rich person you aren't assured of sh.t.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200901300014?f=s_search





Quote:
CBPP has also concluded that increasing unemployment benefits would have a simulative effect on the economy. Sharon Parrott, director of CBPP's Welfare Reform and Income Support Division, wrote on January 27: "Both the House and Senate recovery packages include a $25 per week temporary increase in unemployment insurance benefits. Economists, including Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, routinely rate increased unemployment benefits as among the most simulative provisions under consideration. Zandi estimates that every dollar spent on increased unemployment benefits increases economic activity by $1.63." CBPP also stated in a January 21 analysis of the Senate's economic recovery package that "[f]ood stamps are one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus because low-income individuals generally spend their available resources on meeting their daily needs, such as shelter, food, and transportation."
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#40
02-11-2009
Default

Food stamps/welfare are in the stimulus bill. They should be. I'm not arguing that.

and no, I didn't read the Nader article. I'll get around to it.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off