Is it possible to do good with another person's money?
Quote: from GeneCosta at 11:10 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from Elm at 10:02 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:27 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from Elm at 1:14 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half? What other half? I find minarchists like Friedman more despicable than honest welfare policies. The half where theft for any reason is wrong and counter productive. What do you have against Friedman? As I said elsewhere, theft is entirely subjective. We can take the long, historical debate over ownership versus use and occupancy, for example. One's claim to property diminishes the less they come into contact with that property. Friedman, like Hayek, has a love affair with authoritarianism if it promotes capitalism. Both men defended the Pinochet regime. I also wish Friedman would have repudiated himself more publicly after admitting that his original theories about monetary policy weren't that accurate. He moved more towards becoming a Keynesian. -Snip- Are you trying hard to become a one-dimensional villain in Atlas Shrugged who denies reality so that one doesn't ever have to see the means of their professed convictions?
Quote: from Elm at 10:02 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:27 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from Elm at 1:14 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half? What other half? I find minarchists like Friedman more despicable than honest welfare policies. The half where theft for any reason is wrong and counter productive. What do you have against Friedman? As I said elsewhere, theft is entirely subjective. We can take the long, historical debate over ownership versus use and occupancy, for example. One's claim to property diminishes the less they come into contact with that property. Friedman, like Hayek, has a love affair with authoritarianism if it promotes capitalism. Both men defended the Pinochet regime. I also wish Friedman would have repudiated himself more publicly after admitting that his original theories about monetary policy weren't that accurate. He moved more towards becoming a Keynesian.
Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:27 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from Elm at 1:14 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half? What other half? I find minarchists like Friedman more despicable than honest welfare policies. The half where theft for any reason is wrong and counter productive. What do you have against Friedman?
Quote: from Elm at 1:14 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half? What other half? I find minarchists like Friedman more despicable than honest welfare policies.
Quote: from GeneCosta at 1:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half?
The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise.
See you get half the picture and you get the underlying problems - why do you keep blinding yourself to the other half?
What other half? I find minarchists like Friedman more despicable than honest welfare policies.
The half where theft for any reason is wrong and counter productive. What do you have against Friedman?
As I said elsewhere, theft is entirely subjective. We can take the long, historical debate over ownership versus use and occupancy, for example. One's claim to property diminishes the less they come into contact with that property.
Friedman, like Hayek, has a love affair with authoritarianism if it promotes capitalism. Both men defended the Pinochet regime. I also wish Friedman would have repudiated himself more publicly after admitting that his original theories about monetary policy weren't that accurate. He moved more towards becoming a Keynesian.
-Snip- Are you trying hard to become a one-dimensional villain in Atlas Shrugged who denies reality so that one doesn't ever have to see the means of their professed convictions?
Gods. Referencing Ayn Rand now? One of the most irrelevant whiners in history.
No theft isn't subjective.
Yes it is. Stop being obtuse.
No theft isn't subjective. Are you trying hard to become a one-dimensional villain in Atlas Shrugged who denies reality so that one doesn't ever have to see the means of their professed convictions?
Quote: from PrideAndJoy at 5:46 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 I want a serious answer, for those of you making that much money. No. An extra 3% in taxes would not effect my family adversely.
I want a serious answer, for those of you making that much money.
No. An extra 3% in taxes would not effect my family adversely.
Thank you. It's hard for me to say if I would still support Obama's tax plan if I were making $300,000 a year; I would like to think that I still would.
Here's a better analogy for you Elm; let's take the classic GPA example Conservatives always love to use, though they never correctly use it.
The classic is "give me .5 of your GPA so I can have a 4.0"
This is how the real analogy would present itself; I have a 4.5 GPA (assuming the max is a 4), while you have a .5 GPA. Would I mind giving you .3 of my GPA so you don't fail out of college and spend the rest of your life suffering? No I would not. I don't know your extenuating life circumstances which would account for your poor GPA; you could be lazy, or you could've suffered tremendous losses, say your parents dying, which could have attributed to you doing poorly on a final exam, drastically hurting your grades.
In reality, it's taking a small percentage of money from those at the tip top, and giving it to people at the bottom.
Elm, you and Ron Paul can continue to assert that charity will solve all of our problems, but the rest of us will realize that charity just doesn't cut it (it never has), and that sometimes, people need to be regulated. If you were a teacher, and you had two children fighting over toys, one of the children with seven toys and the other with none, what would you do? Would you just say, oh, that's the market, he got the toys first, he worked hard to find them, he deserves them, even though he can't even make use of all of his toys?
Taxes are a necessity. There is no getting around it. Those who have seen more success from the American system should pay more money back into it. I don't know if you'd rather have a flat tax or what, but America's poor are screwed enough by a flat sales tax, among other things.
Quote: from PrideAndJoy at 7:46 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 I still fail to see why people making half a million dollars can complain about that. It's mind boggling. Will your life REALLY be that much harder by being taxed 3 more percent on the amount of money you are making over $250,000? Will it really effect you that much? I want a serious answer, for those of you making that much money.It won't affect me at all. I have no "income", all I have is "capital gains".
I still fail to see why people making half a million dollars can complain about that. It's mind boggling. Will your life REALLY be that much harder by being taxed 3 more percent on the amount of money you are making over $250,000? Will it really effect you that much? I want a serious answer, for those of you making that much money.
Ask your daddy, honey.
I saw one of a similar vein on someone's facebook... went something like this:
"some guy was walking to dinner and say a homeless Obama supporter outside. Then went to dinner and saw a waiter with an Obama tie. He didn't give the waiter any tip, instead saying he was giving it to the Obama supporter outside. He went outside gave it to the bum and told him to thank the waiter."
Something along those lines (apparently it actually happened). However, if the story were to actually be analogous to Obama's plan, he would be tipping the waiter 25%, and then taking the 5% of that tip and giving it to the bum. It is not robbing someone of their entire paycheck... it is taking extra money that they should not need and investing it into government programs that help the rest of us that need a helping hand.
I still fail to see why people making half a million dollars can complain about that. It's mind boggling. Will your life REALLY be that much harder by being taxed 3 more percent on the amount of money you are making over $250,000? Will it really effect you that much?
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:11 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:09 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 No better or worse than when you steal the fruits of my labor through employer extortion. How does that work? http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm Read up. I didn't think we really had to spell it out for you, but I guess you haven't ever read about the subject thoroughly enough to understand the Marxist perspective.
Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:09 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 No better or worse than when you steal the fruits of my labor through employer extortion. How does that work?
No better or worse than when you steal the fruits of my labor through employer extortion.
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
Read up.
I didn't think we really had to spell it out for you, but I guess you haven't ever read about the subject thoroughly enough to understand the Marxist perspective.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:15 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. That explains nothing. If you want bulletins: - Subsidies - Patents - Copyrights - Corporate charters (corporations) - Large auctions - Absentee landlords - Monopoly of capitalism via rigid property system - General business intrusion in personal affairs - Business intrusion in government
Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:13 pm on Nov. 3, 2008 The state and its entire relationship with commercial enterprise. That explains nothing.
If you want bulletins:
- Subsidies - Patents - Copyrights - Corporate charters (corporations) - Large auctions - Absentee landlords - Monopoly of capitalism via rigid property system - General business intrusion in personal affairs - Business intrusion in government
Quote: from GeneCosta at 3:09 pm on Nov. 3, 2008
825 users online 
222937 members 1215 active today Advertise Here
825 users online 222937 members 1215 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
