(October 12, 2011 at 12:46 am)Shell B Wrote: *sigh* I'm clearly not a guy. At any rate, I never called it an excuse. I am merely pointing out the fact that your generalizing keeps you from seeing the bigger picture. However, I would say that the citizens of a country whose former government was responsible for one of the first genocides in history would be a little slower to pull the "you're so violent" card. I don't really feel like I am being defensive, though that might be the case. I am genuinely taken aback by your position.

FYI, if the U.S. is meant to be a "harbinger of peace," who gave it that label? Last I checked, freedom was our "thingy in quotations."

Like it really matters to me if you're guy or not. This is a general statement, to all here.
Besides, the only bigger picture here is that we have a series of invasions with no real basis at all.
Also, I said that whatever my "government" might be possibly responsible of, which is another issue that we can discuss somewhere else, does not change the fact that America indeed carries it's word around not by means of simply cultural domination, advertising and sales, but also by the power of roaring gun muzzles, which have proved themselves to be effective until so far.

Quote:Read them all and then get back to us.

No need. I already read about police violence(althought not the exact numerical values). I just wondered if you knew it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxOKPgrxLI

(October 11, 2011 at 5:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: We definitely need the government to stop corporate welfare, but I think what also needs to be done is to reduce the level of regulation, at least on small business owners. There isn't enough incentive for people to start their own businesses anymore, because there is so much red tape you have to step through, not to mention all the costs in order to set up the documents in the first place. If the government really wants to encourage more jobs, it needs to let small business (i.e. the middle class) expand.

Besides corporate welfare -- they capitilize their profit but socialize their losses -- it's also their big battle against science we must be wary of. When science tells you that your products or by-products are harming many people, but you are making money beyond the dreams of avarice, what do you do? You attack the science. Big Tobacco established the paradigm. When accumulating evidence linked cigarettes to cancer, Big Tobacco found that it was easy to hire your own "experts" and do your own "research" to undermine the findings of legitimate science. Big Tobacco's anti-science strategy worked amazingly well. Meaningful regulation of tobacco was delayed by years. Of course, millions died, but profits of billions upon billions were reaped. Lately, the tactics that worked so well for Big Tobacco have been adopted by many companies, from Big Oil to Big Food. Mere reason does not stand a chance against truckloads of money and great PR. Popes and Inquisitions could not stop science, but big money might just succeed.

(October 11, 2011 at 5:02 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: Okay my conserative friends say though and I qoute "these are people whining for the rich to take care of them etc etc." Where are they coming from?

To fully understand this mentality, as with dealing with anyone else of a strong religious mindset, you have to understand the underlying assumptions (or delusional architecture) of Randianism.

Randians, or followers of St. Ayn Rand, believe that all the prosperity of society is generated by the top 1%. These are the innovators and hard working business tycoons who, by the sweat of their own brows and brilliance of their ideas create all the wealth. The rest of the 99% are useless, lazy leeches who only want to steal from the rich. For them, it's easier to whine for handouts than it is to roll up your sleeves and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

The invisible hand of the free market is their idea of God. It is perfect and always just. It rewards the achiever and crushes the incompetent. It logically follows then that if you're poor, it must be because you deserve to be poor. After all, the Free Market, blessed be its name, is perfect. If someone was poor and worked hard and played by the rules, that would mean the Free Market isn't perfect and we can't admit that now can we?

The government is the Randian idea of the Devil. It's always trying to poke its nose where it doesn't belong, trying to "regulate" which only ties up the hand of The Free Market and, worst of all, looks after the poor by robbing from those hard working and unappreciated rich.

One day we're going to push the rich too far, taxing them 38% instead of 36%, then they're going to "go Galt" on us. They're just going to turn off the flow of wealth and stop working their magic. Then we'll be sorry.

I'm an ex-Randian (or Reaganian) and I look back and can't believe all the crap I used to swallow. Living a sheltered life growing up, it was easier. Once I went to college, I made friends with all walks of life. You know what happened? I came to find that not all poor people are lazy. What a concept! Sometimes people really do play by all the rules, work hard all their lives and still wind up with nothing to show for it. Sometimes the system isn't perfect. Hence I lost that religion.

Those caught up in the religion are going to see the protest, no matter how big it gets, as just an unwashed mob of lazy good-for-nothings asking for more handouts. Hope that helps you understand.

Hmm...That actually is very well explained and really helps me follow where they are coming from. (nowhere) so may I ask what type of system you prefer deist?

Quote:believe that all the prosperity of society is generated by the top 1%.

The reality of course is that these Wall St. scumbags are not creating anything. They are fucking speculators who are stealing everything that isn't nailed down and transferring it to their own pockets.

(October 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: Hmm...That actually is very well explained and really helps me follow where they are coming from. (nowhere) so may I ask what type of system you prefer deist?

I now believe that life's a balance and the economy is no exception.

I don't believe that either the government or the corporations are the root of all problems. I think that both have their roles to play. Businesses generate the wealth and government regulation keeps them honest. Because business is motivated by profit maximization, there are some areas they can't effectively manage (such as health care) that should be run by the government. The wealthy deserve to be rewarded for their efforts but they should also pay their fair share of taxes to maintain the society that helped enable them to prosper. A strong middle class is also essential to a prosperous society, indeed what distinguishes a modern economy from a third world economy.

In sum, I believe in regulated capitalism.

(October 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: Hmm...That actually is very well explained and really helps me follow where they are coming from. (nowhere) so may I ask what type of system you prefer deist?

I now believe that life's a balance and the economy is no exception.

I don't believe that either the government or the corporations are the root of all problems. I think that both have their roles to play. Businesses generate the wealth and government regulation keeps them honest. Because business is motivated by profit maximization, there are some areas they can't effectively manage (such as health care) that should be run by the government. The wealthy deserve to be rewarded for their efforts but they should also pay their fair share of taxes to maintain the society that helped enable them to prosper. A strong middle class is also essential to a prosperous society, indeed what distinguishes a modern economy from a third world economy.

In sum, I believe in regulated capitalism.

So a flat tax for all?

(October 12, 2011 at 7:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Like it really matters to me if you're guy or not. This is a general statement, to all here.

That is the second time you have made a direct reply to me and then backtracked and said it was a general statement to all.

(October 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm)searchingforanswers Wrote: So a flat tax for all?

No.

I believe taxes should be adjusted not according to income but ownership. Those that own pay to maintain. That's a principle that governs every other area of our society.

Let's say you and I own our own respective condo in the same association. The way condo associations work is each month every owner pays into a community fund that pays for maintaining common space, including lawn care, community facilities, cleaning the halls, etc.

Typically, the maintenance fees that each owner pay is assessed according to the size of their units. The more square footage you own, the more you pay. You own a greater percentage of the community and so you pay more to maintain that community.

So if you had a condo twice the size of mine but paid just as much each month, I'd feel like I was subsidizing your unit.

I'm not sure what % of the total wealth the top 1% own but I seem to remember it's around 1/3. This is counting stocks, real estate, bonds and other investments. Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. This says to me that 1/3 of our total tax revenue should come from the top 1%.