Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

The Invisible Hand should stop jackin' it

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-24 23:13

There's ZERO reason to think that one man should earn the sum of what 20,000 people earn.  Government, which represents its citizens, can help with rational safety nets and income redistribution.  It's too bad the Republicunts love to exploit people's morals.  It was alcohol in the early 1900s.  Race in the 1950s and not its gays.

ALSO Ron Paul is retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-24 23:16

>>1

fuck you. i can be as fat as i want to and earn as much money as i want because i hate government and i'm a libertarian.

i piss on the poor. i should be allowed to do what i want in the free market

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 0:03

America is at it's most prosperous when people like you cease to exist.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 1:23

"America is at it's most prosperous when people cease to exist."

Fixed

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 1:29

so it SHOULD fix its gays?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 1:35

>>1
A new technology can potentially improve the lives of trillions of people in the future, is it wrong to reward someone in proportion to this?

Anyway most elites only earn 10-50 times as much as an ordinary.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 1:46

>>6

the maximum federal tax on the rich right now is only 35%

suck a cock

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 2:18

>>7
That's because we have income tax instead of fairtax.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 9:42

>>8

No, that's because the rich will always order society in their favor regardless of what the tax codes are. If it's the fairtax, it will be even worse because the poor will be paying a larger and more inordinate amount of their net worth in taxes when purchasing commodities and the rich will only be slightly incensed at the higher prices of goods while being dumb to the fact they don't have to go out and purchase that lawyer who would snake out the loopholes in the income tax code.

It doesn't matter how you go about implimenting tax plans, they will always work it to their own benefit. It's getting to the point in which people are fed up with CEOs that do nothing besides being a figurehead and playing golf while making 50% more than their workers.

It's coming to a second guilded age.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 9:57

>>1
Go to hell, faggot.  Why should other people be rewarded for another man's hard work?  Are still in fucking grade school?  Does everyone deserve the same number of cookies?  NO.  Some assholes deserve none. 

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 13:00

>>9

50%!? more like 5000%

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 16:24

>>9
Granted that people will always try to work the system to their advantage (duh), but fairtax will eliminate most loopholes. Fairtax will probably result in a black market in which transactions take place that are not taxed, but fairtax is much more fluid and if this becomes a problem in a certain sector of the economy then they can simply tax the production centers instead and the tax will already be in the cost of obtaining the product. Short of smuggling or outright bribery (which will be about as difficult as it has always been) there is no way else this system can be corrupted and it is much easier chasing after tangible goods than liquid assets divided between 15 swiss bank accounts and 660 unusual business dealings.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 16:43

>>1
You're a cunt and people like you are the reason corporations fuck us.
It's too bad the Republicunts love to exploit people's morals.  > It was alcohol in the early 1900s.
Democunts as well, and in bigger numbers. Prohibition was labelled as 'progressive' by them. But go ahead and white-wash your party's history.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 20:47

My god, redistribution is akin to slavery, taking one man's hard work and giving to another? I'm all for voluntarily helping people, but forced redistribution is Communism, and as we all know, it doesn't work. If you really think that it does, go read a book or GTFO. Honestly, what I earn, what I produce is solely MINE unless I choose voluntarily to give it up and bestow onto someone else. The "fair tax" thing is an oxymoron: there's no such thing as a tax that is fair as it takes from one by force, coercion. If someone makes what twenty thousand people make, it's their own fault. It's not like it's terribly hard to get a good job in America as long as one isn't retarded...oh wait that's at least one fourth of the population, nevermind then.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 21:21

>>14 |forced redistribution is Communism, and as we all know, it doesn't work

it worked for 30 years after WWII

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 21:46

>>14

Yeah, I mean when I was born into wealth I absolutely deserve it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 23:26

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-25 23:28

Poor people = niggers/whitetrash/spics/retards etc.. It's a good thing their power, wealth and influence is minimized.

As long as good intelligent people can make a nice living there's no problem.

Free market = freedom.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 3:19

>>18 has the right idea.
Most poor people aren't poor because they got dicked over by money hording evil yuppies.  For the most part they're lazy, irresponsible, illegal aliens, or just plain stupid and incapable of making good decisions.

Seriously, why do you give a fuck if the worst (any)society has to offer isn't well taken care of?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 3:46

>>18
>>19

These two think that bad decisions make poverty. They're right, but they're right for the wrong reason.

Poverty breeds poverty. Do you think an uncultured nigger without work ethic who has kids will teach the kids to make themselves better than their father? Hell no.

The poor create a system that experiences feedback.

The problem however is when The Middle Class is bifurcated into either the Have or Have Not class, because it starts dividing people who legitimately work and have class. It's here where 19 and 18 go wrong in their assumptions and that's when the Middle Class disappears, it's not always their fault, more often than not it will be the owners of capital.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 10:57

>>18
>>19

As long as people remain poor and believe they have no future they will commit crimes to get money. It's no coincidence that the greater the difference in wealth the higher the crime levels are.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 13:55

>>21
poor != criminal

moreover, rich niggers are just as criminal as poor niggers

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 17:07

the problem is that the federal bureaucracy under the president is far too big, and tbh in (kinda) federal system is is worrying... especially the size of the personal bureaucracy... 50,000... fuck me silly.

none for president because they're all cunts and nobody wants to give power to congress!

or. tear up the constitution and make it a solid piece of work like the German constitution. (Y)

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 17:19

>>22
but are rich niggers as criminal as rich honkies?
the answer is: 9/11 never forget. Saddam has WMDs.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 22:23

>>20
>>21
>>24
Oh I forgot. None of us have souls. Every decision we make is the result of determinism so we are in fact not responsible for any of our decisions, I guess that means people who made bad decisions are absolved of sin and people who made good decisions are guilty. You're right, I should hand my cash over the career criminals who didn't have a father. How evil and wrong of me to be brought up to value the protestant work ethic and liberty, what a horrendous crime, never mind the fact that I also did not have a father and my mother could only get work as an assistant school teacher, assistant mind you because there were not enough black teachers and they didn't want to upset the quota.

Be sure to punish me for being subconsciously racist and stupid enough to believe in god aswell, I guess that's my fault for deciding to be part of the white ethnicity and not choosing a politically correct religion. Maybe I should stop being subconsciously racist and start being racist for real, I mean if I am already "subconsciously" racist just for being white I guess there is no choice. Right?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-26 23:11

>>25

Why have a justice system if that's the case?
Grasp your hands out into the empty air and find more pitiful justifications.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-27 1:33

>>26
I was being sarcastic about the whole determinism thing.

Name: Ron Paul 2007-10-27 12:38

Privatise the state.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-29 15:49

>>28
That might actually work.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-29 16:29

>>29

Yeah, so instead of taking the lousy service at the DMV we can take the lousy service at McDonalds.

Privatization eliminates all problems! Blackwater USA has shown us that.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-30 22:49

Privatization would work if the fuckers weren't too busy scraping billions off the top for themselves.

You want to know why healthcare is so damn expensive?  Because the CEOs of insurance companies are too busy being paid millions of dollars to sit around and golf all day while deciding which people should be allowed to just die and crying to newspaper editorialists about how expensive it all is but how government insurance will divide the universe by zero instead of doing fucking obvious things like investing in cheap medicine to cut costs.  You'd think that if United healthcare could give its CEO two BILLION dollars worth of stock, they could have fucking bought Pfizer in a stock swap and given the drugs away like candy.

Of course, it also helps that expensive healthcare makes people think they need insurance to survive.

tl;dr: government sucks, corporations granted special powers by the government inherit that exact same suck.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 7:05

>>31
Maybe if income tax wasn't so high they wouldn't need to have such high salaries.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 8:35

>>32

lol

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 12:10

>>32

It's really tough living without 2 million when you make an upwards of 20 million.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 13:17

>>33
>>34
If income tax was replaced by fair tax they wouldn't be able to have such high salaries. In the current system they can have enormous salaries because a large part of the government services they use are paid for by the middle classes and they don't need to extra money to compete.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 16:28

>>35

Your argument is empty; it doesn't account for why they wouldn't be held to a standard and reasonable pay. Sure, the government picks up the tab for a lot of things the middle class requires, but that doesn't mean that upon elimination of government interventionism in the financial needs of the middle class will suddenly make the problems of laissez faire disappear; no, it will do the opposite, make the problem much worse.

In before Marxist.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 20:50

>>36
Grammar pls. A common argument against fairtax is that it affects the poor more as they spend a higher proportion of their income but it does not take into account rebates and untaxed mortgages which can save lower and middle classes $10000s over a decade or so.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 21:00

>>37

yeah but someone earning $20,000 a year is literally spending all their money on food, rent, etc.. so they're being taxed on 100% of their income where as someone earning $150,000 might only spend half of that so they're only being taxed on 50% of their income.

As for untaxed mortgages, it's pretty funny you'd mention that as someone earning $20,000 is never going to buy a house.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 21:32

>>37

Point out my grammar mistakes if I have any, that way I can learn what I did wrong (I hold I didn't do anything wrong).

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:48

Virtually all voting systems in use today (punch-cards, lever machines, hand counted paper ballots, etc.) are subject to fraud and error,

Can be fixed…look at what we do with tech industry advances everybody’s fucking with. It’s like in Russell Simmons fan fic. Listen to me, now. You have to really think in the shoes of the tech industry. See, what’s wrong with it is, that there are Russian and Eastern European hackers set out on dismantling our domestic terror network which supplies the fuckin’ shit, meaning technology. Y’know what I’m sayin’?? It has to do with the H trade. H for heroin. In reality, dealers of Heroin and lesser effective drugs are the proverbial dark crystal which sucks the lives out of our people. And if we further this metaphor, they will drop proverbial bombs on our voting machines once in a while, domestic or otherwise.

And that’s what the Bushian legacy will bring to our people. Our tech in dustry is the ultimate protection, like a condom fucking terrorist ass. , now, folkz. Bushian political adgenda got our boy into office, and now his father will press his prostate into ejaculating the final smack down on the terrorist adgenda. Our tech industry is just like that. Even if we buy it from the Chinxxxx. Y’kna’mean?? Ha ha ha ha ha.

aNYWAYS, it’s probably Bushians who could hack the machines. And that’s a problem, in terms of terror from the inside. But we have to have faith in our government, that’s why liberatorz have to win. They will redesign the system in a way that’s not insane

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 11:17

The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 15:46

>>38
"Your argument is empty; it doesn't account for why they wouldn't be held to a standard and reasonable pay."
I'm not sure what you mean by "held".

Since the total payments made to purchase a house will be lower it means more people can afford it. Also fair tax allows the highest reasonable capital fluidity possible meaning that the poor will find it easier to take out loans or save, like most things in life you have to take advantage of the benefits to receive them. I guess some people still think that's too much.

>>39
In the context of the conversation..
"the government picks up the tab for a lot of things the middle class requires"
isn't specific.

"but that doesn't mean that upon elimination of government interventionism in the financial needs of the middle class will suddenly make the problems of laissez faire disappear"
Past/present tense error.

I'm trying not to nitpick. I would assume that you disagree with a system which allows businessmen to earn enormous salaries and believe they should be "held" back to reasonable amounts. Perhaps my last post was unclear. I was putting forward that they would naturally not have such large salaries under a fairtax system as tax levied from middle class salaries in our current system would be lumped on their businesses meaning they would have to lower their dividend payouts and executive salaries in order to compete.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 15:48

oops..

>>39
"Your argument is empty; it doesn't account for why they wouldn't be held to a standard and reasonable pay."
I'm not sure what you mean by "held".

In the context of the conversation..
"the government picks up the tab for a lot of things the middle class requires"
isn't specific.

"but that doesn't mean that upon elimination of government interventionism in the financial needs of the middle class will suddenly make the problems of laissez faire disappear"
Past/present tense error.

I'm trying not to nitpick. I would assume that you disagree with a system which allows businessmen to earn enormous salaries and believe they should be "held" back to reasonable amounts. Perhaps my last post was unclear. I was putting forward that they would naturally not have such large salaries under a fairtax system as tax levied from middle class salaries in our current system would be lumped on their businesses meaning they would have to lower their dividend payouts and executive salaries in order to compete.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:05

Actually, the difference in pay is pretty important.
Expensive goods are expensive because of the materials and work required to produce them. They're not meant to be bought by John Doe until the costs of producing them sinks due to investments.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:10

Generalizations are suck. Not all rich people got there the easy way, not all poor people choose to be poor.

Any system will arbitrarily fuck over someone else, its just the less weathly get fucked over that much harder.

So the more fucked over try to devise a system that transfers the fucked over across income gap.

Its a bad cycle.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:34

In addition to >>44

I believe they the way you're thinking is "Certain goods should be available to all and the government should make it cheaper"
Well, the problem is you can't print money to invest in everything that's important for you. Some tried but failed hard.
If you spend money on a cure for cancer you'll lack money to spend it on a cure for fail and AIDS.
How do you decide which one is more important? Well, supply and demand beat everything else so far.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:47

Communism doesn't work?  Communism HASN'T worked.  Thus far it's only been tried combined with unbelievable corruption, dictatorship, and with the notable problem of the crushing, irreparable financial embargoes placed on it by capitalist nations fearing the unacceptable presence of a thriving communist state.  The idea of communism, far from only being a recent development on the world stage, has been championed by some of the most admired and brilliant thinkers in human history.  Let's not, like our predecessors in previous generations, irrationally condemn something which is rooted in the idea of humanism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:54

Nazism doesn't work?  Nazism HASN'T worked.  Thus far it's only been tried combined with unbelievable corruption, dictatorship, and with the notable problem of the crushing, irreparable financial embargoes placed on it by capitalist nations fearing the unacceptable presence of a thriving nazi state.  The idea of nazism , far from only being a recent development on the world stage, has been championed by some of the most admired and brilliant thinkers in human history.  Let's not, like our predecessors in previous generations, irrationally condemn something which is rooted in the idea of humanism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 21:57

Despotism doesn't work?  Despotism HASN'T worked.  Thus far it's only been tried combined with unbelievable corruption, dictatorship, and with the notable problem of the crushing, irreparable financial embargoes placed on it by capitalist nations fearing the unacceptable presence of a thriving despotic state.  The idea of despotism, far from only being a recent development on the world stage, has been championed by some of the most admired and brilliant thinkers in human history.  Let's not, like our predecessors in previous generations, irrationally condemn something which is rooted in the idea of humanism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:00

Feudalism doesn't work?  Feudalism HASN'T worked.  Thus far it's only been tried combined with unbelievable corruption, dictatorship, and with the notable problem of the crushing, irreparable financial embargoes placed on it by capitalist nations fearing the unacceptable presence of a thriving feudal state.  The idea of feudalism, far from only being a recent development on the world stage, has been championed by some of the most admired and brilliant thinkers in human history.  Let's not, like our predecessors in previous generations, irrationally condemn something which is rooted in the idea of humanism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:02

Racism doesn't work?  Racism HASN'T worked.  Thus far it's only been tried combined with unbelievable corruption, dictatorship, and with the notable problem of the crushing, irreparable financial embargoes placed on it by capitalist nations fearing the unacceptable presence of a thriving racist state.  The idea of racism, far from only being a recent development on the world stage, has been championed by some of the most admired and brilliant thinkers in human history.  Let's not, like our predecessors in previous generations, irrationally condemn something which is rooted in the idea of humanism.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:06

Okay, let's explore that.  First off, despotism is more or less the same thing as dictatorship, which does not by any means HAVE to be combined with a communist state, so let's put that right out.  As for Naziism, I apologize for not specifying that the American ideals of freedom and equality of birth of all men and women, and success based on merit are noble and required goals of any civilized society, and not incompatible with an ideal communist state.  A naziism with respect for these basic rights is nothing more than socialism, which works quite well throughout the world stage in varying degrees.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:10

Okay, feudalism is completely incompatible with any logic of any group anywhere, and arose out of necessity for SOMETHING in a world lacking any other form of "economy".  And racism isn't even a socio-economic principle; it's a nasty ideal.  I get the point; my original post was vague and not tightly structured.  Shall we blow holes in it all night, or converge into a meaningful discussion about it?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:12

just GTFO nigger

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:13

...And actually, Nazi economic principle more closely aligns with pure capitalism than socialism anyway...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:14

Nigger?  I'm an eskimo.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:16

Look, I'm not stating let's turn everything into a communist state; I'm just saying some of the ideals of an ideal communist state should be goals of any civilized state, and to throw the baby out with the bathwater in a kneejerk reaction to the complete opposite extreme is no more of a solution than to the other.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:18

GTFO nigger

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:19

Excellent riposte, worthy adversary.  Truly, I am no match for your razor sharp wit and argumentative genius.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:21

GTFO nigger

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:24

Excellent riposte, worthy adversary.  Truly, I am no match for your razor sharp wit and argumentative genius.  And I'm actually going to leave on that note; as much as I'd like to join in your masturbatory ritual here.  Adios!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:25

GTFO nigger

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:28

FREE MARKET SOLVES ALL PROBLEMS.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:37

Yeah?  How about price fixing?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:41

>>63

how did it solve The Great Depression?  oh wait, the free market CAUSED the great depression and FDR's government intervention with the New Deal SOLVED it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:41

AMEN!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:42

Although, to be completely fair, the great depression was in many ways the result of a poor understanding of the way the free market worked.  Granted, we know a lot more today, but it's far from a self-correcting system.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:45

Looks you got lost on your way to Mexico.
You still need to GTFO, nigger.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:47

Sorry, got distracted by a chat window.  GTFOing now.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 23:09

>>67

keep sucking the imaginary cock faggot

Name: Boomer 2007-11-02 16:04

Maybe i am losing my sight, but i think i just saw someone Actauly say GOV. PICKS UP A TAB? ROTFL! American citizens pick up that tab, and the tab for everything else we are not represented for... illegal immagrents (not paying approprite taxes) using public services, men a women who refuse to work(and get a check and a fatty tax cut to boot).

i agree that we are all getting fucked, the only market that is fair for all partys is one free of government, i dont need some asshole taking my hard earned scratch, just to give it to someone else. what makes you think that someone else will do a better job of taking care of you and your family that you? if you honestly think that the government is in the buseness to hold your hand while you pretend to protect yourself, and protent to provide for your family, i hate to tell you you are dead wrong.

we need to step up and take care of our own, not rely on someone whos coke habit rivals the the one held by the guy who posted before me...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 19:11

On the other hand, we pay out the ass for lazy niggers to buy crack and cell phones and mexicans build us cheap driveways and porches. Which race needs expulsion again?

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List