Are republicans without conscience or empathy?

page: 24
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by travisirius
 


First off, Ayn Rand was a philosopher who wrote two major novels that emphasized objectivism and six non-fiction books on philosophy. Also there are three major universities that are partially funded by the Atlas Institute for objectivist studies. Ayn Rand and Michael Crichton are no more related in literature than Aristotle and Dan Brown.

Secondly, most people can op-out of paying unemployment taxes, but you cannot receive it unless you pay in. Also, if you are worried about where your social security is going, be advised that you can put up to 8% of your annual income into a Roth IRA instead of social security.

My thoughts on welfare is why not set it up like unemployment and social security, you can collect only if you contribute to the program?




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Here we go, round and round.

If a person makes more, then they are FORCED to pay more. How is that not punishment??


Because of what the word punishment means.

It isn't just something forced on you; it is something done to you because of a decision or action that you made.

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.

It doesn't matter how you got the money it is simply a logistical part of capitalism.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by macman
Here we go, round and round.

If a person makes more, then they are FORCED to pay more. How is that not punishment??


Because of what the word punishment means.

It isn't just something forced on you; it is something done to you because of a decision or action that you made.

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.

It doesn't matter how you got the money it is simply a logistical part of capitalism.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

Look Sol Alensky, I do not need you to try to control the terms and definitions.
It is forced, as the tax payer has no choice.

"Something done to you". really. So by that rational, torture is "something done to you", or fines are "something done to you".
I am happy to see that you throw the terms and meaning around like nothing, only to use when it benefits your naive argument.
Taxes are not the end result, nor any part of the equation in regards to Capitalism.
Taxes are the result of a Govt stepping in and taking what the individual has.

Capitalism does not equal Govt. Nor does Govt equal Capitalism.

So long as it does not matter, then anyone can get it, so everyone should pay an equal share. The same equal share.
Not less for some and more for others. As, this is a simple form of punishment. He who makes more, pays more. By force, no choice.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
You're still confused about what punishment means...

Let me fix the sentence so you can focus on the meaningful part.

Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.


Originally posted by macman
Taxes are not the end result, nor any part of the equation in regards to Capitalism.
Taxes are the result of a Govt stepping in and taking what the individual has.

Capitalism does not equal Govt. Nor does Govt equal Capitalism.


Taxing "the rich" more is a fundamental logistical part of Capitalism in the same way competition is a fundamental aspect of the concept.

Capitalism can not exist without the structure that the organization of people (government) creates.

Property rights, currency, etc.


Originally posted by macman
So long as it does not matter, then anyone can get it, so everyone should pay an equal share. The same equal share.
Not less for some and more for others.


Just to be clear. Taxing "the rich" more is a logistical part of operating society under a capitalist system.

However, now that you brought up "fairness"

"The Rich" benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
You're still confused about what punishment means...

Let me fix the sentence so you can focus on the meaningful part.

Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.


Originally posted by macman
Taxes are not the end result, nor any part of the equation in regards to Capitalism.
Taxes are the result of a Govt stepping in and taking what the individual has.

Capitalism does not equal Govt. Nor does Govt equal Capitalism.


Taxing "the rich" more is a fundamental logistical part of Capitalism in the same way competition is a fundamental aspect of the concept.

Capitalism can not exist without the structure that the organization of people (government) creates.

Property rights, currency, etc.


Originally posted by macman
So long as it does not matter, then anyone can get it, so everyone should pay an equal share. The same equal share.
Not less for some and more for others.


Just to be clear. Taxing "the rich" more is a logistical part of operating society under a capitalist system.

However, now that you brought up "fairness"

"The Rich" benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

As per your definition. Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"
You decide to work harder and earn more money. You are forced to pay higher taxes.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I think the punishment that he was reffering to was the HIGHER tax RATE for the 240k+ per year earners. That actually is punishment because they made more money. I don't think that a flat citizenship tax would work at all because it would have to be so high and most people would default, but I do think that a flat income tax rate is only fair.

Using sales tax as an analogy, its like one person standing in line behind another in the market and both are buying the exact same item. The cashier asks the first guy a for a total of $1, he pays and leaves (he repressents the people who recieve all or more than what he paid in), the cashier rings up the second guy whose total should be the same because he is buying the same item, instead the cashier ask the man for $1.25. So having seen the previous customer pay less he is then prompted to ask why he was given a higher total. The cashier tells him that because he makes more than $240k per year, he is required to pay a 25% tax whereas the other customer only makes 10k per year and is not required to pay any and is also given coupons for his next visit. So before the second customer walks away he ask why he was not given coupons as well. The cashier tells him that they are not allowed to give him any coupons because he makes enough to pay full price.


Because the second customer knows that he got no more than the first, he feels as if he is being punished for making more money. Does this seem fair to you? It is the same concept. We all recieve the same basic services from the government and some low income household recieve more services yet pay little or nothing. Typically, the upper middle class and the wealthy recieve only the basics from uncle sam and pay a substantially higher amount at a much higher tax rate in addition to paying luxury taxes on big ticket items.
edit on 5-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: sp



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

"The Rich" benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)


Did you catch Bill Maher the other day ranting about americas love affair with socialism? He talked about some capitalist types getting farm subsidies. A bunch of hypocrites.

But you know really nothing shows up the functional and practical side of socialism like the government helping producers of things. But for some reason guys like Bill think the only noble application of socialism in as far as a use of supporting funds is is to toss it down a rat hole. If the farm subsidies make rice more affordable to the consumer and protect american rice growers then maybe folks should just eat and shut up. If someone is paying for rice with food stamps they are getting it for free anyway, but it doesnt work that way on the production end. On the production end someone has to pay for it.

That is of course unless you want to go Pol Pot on the rice industry.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Logarock because: sp



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
You're still confused about what punishment means...

Let me fix the sentence so you can focus on the meaningful part.

Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.


Originally posted by macman
Taxes are not the end result, nor any part of the equation in regards to Capitalism.
Taxes are the result of a Govt stepping in and taking what the individual has.

Capitalism does not equal Govt. Nor does Govt equal Capitalism.


Taxing "the rich" more is a fundamental logistical part of Capitalism in the same way competition is a fundamental aspect of the concept.

Capitalism can not exist without the structure that the organization of people (government) creates.

Property rights, currency, etc.


Originally posted by macman
So long as it does not matter, then anyone can get it, so everyone should pay an equal share. The same equal share.
Not less for some and more for others.


Just to be clear. Taxing "the rich" more is a logistical part of operating society under a capitalist system.

However, now that you brought up "fairness"

"The Rich" benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)


Thinking on this, researching who you are on this board, looking at the different topics you respond to, you are by all means the typical Liberal Socialist.

You constantly promote the idea to tax the wealthy, as it is just fair that way.
You use about 3 different one liners constantly, and almost without fail.
You rally behind the one world idea and march to the beat that industry pollutes, thus tax'em more!
Seems that you are a recreational drug user, and back the end to making drugs illegal (Which I agree, that drugs should be legal).

Yet, in one thread you talk about what a crazy world this is that people feel the need to carry a gun, as citizens should not fear the Govt. Yet, turn around and rah-rah-rah the growth of Govt.

So with that said, you will never see the error in your ways, as you have been indoctrinated quite well. Your talking points all sound the same, spread out across ATS and no matter how often you are shown to be wrong, whether it be in theory, application or life, you do not learn. I say good bye, because your retorts will never change and you are not growing.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
As per your definition. Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"
You decide to work harder and earn more money. You are forced to pay higher taxes.


That isn't how taxes work. They are not relative to how hard you worked for your money...

"Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency."


Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
We all recieve the same basic services from the government and in some low income household recieve more services yet pay little or nothing. Typically, the upper middle class and the wealthy recieve only the basics from uncle sam and pay a substantially higher amount at a much higher tax rate in addition to paying luxury taxes on big ticket items.


This is a common misconception.

"The Rich" actually benefit from and depend on "the Government" most for their life style.

The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than everyone else.

"The Government" is what allows "The Rich" to play with abstract concepts but still control real physical variables.

Capitalism can not exist without competition.

Competition can not exist with a plutocracy.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by tangonine
and, OP, I don't think you'll find that republicans want "immigrants killed."

Hyperbole, in any discussion, is the tool of the defeated or the ignorant, or both.



Originally posted by Sianara

Mine the border? Candidate says it's an option


hosted.ap.org

The Republican nominee for a New Mexico congressional seat suggested during a radio interview that the United States could place land mines along the Mexican border to secure the international boundary.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

[edit on 6/15/2010 by semperfortis]





Originally posted by proteus33
YOU WANT TO SECURE ARE BORDER EASY. put up a mine field post it as a mine field in spanish english arabic and chinese. spread out around field
dead animal bones that are broken up. they will get the idea.



Originally posted by babybunnies
If I wanted to secure the border, I wouldn't bother with a fence.

Just deploy landmines, and turn on different sections on different days, completely randomized, out of the hands of border security. USA seems to think it's okay to use landmines to secure borders with North/South Korea, why not for their own borders?

Heavily sign post the mined areas and heavily advertise in Mexican media that the border is now mined, and that they proceed at their own risk.

Would stop all illegal immigration in a real hurry, for relatively few $$$. Much cheaper than a fence, much cheaper than deploying the National Guard.


edit on 4-8-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)


The examples above are exactly what I'm talking about. Hateful, violent rhetoric devoid of empathy or conscience.

Republicans need to let go of their hate. I know there is still good in them. Look at Ron Paul... The Republican Party hasn't driven the good from him... He rebels against their hateful rhetoric. Republicans need to let go of the anger and aggression... A path to the dark side that is.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
"The Rich" actually benefit from and depend on "the Government" most for their life style.


Could you please elaborate on how ANYONE who doesn't need any financial support depends on the government, other than for protection of their human rights?



The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than everyone else.


I could be wrong here, but isn't the right to own property a very basic human right? Isn't the purpose of any government to protect it's citizens' human rights from being violated? I thought this was the primary reason we paid taxes, to keep a system in place that will protect our rights.



"The Government" is what allows "The Rich" to play with abstract concepts but still control real physical variables.


Could you please give an example?



Capitalism can not exist without competition...Competition can not exist with a plutocracy.


This is why we have laws to protect citizens from being extorted by monopolies... To extort someone through a monopoly is to forcibly take from them... protection from theft= basic human right
edit on 5-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: I'm sorry, I misread your comment about plutocracy, response now corrected



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam


The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than everyone else.


I could be wrong here, but isn't the right to own property a very basic human right? Isn't the purpose of any government to protect it's citizens' human rights from being violated? I thought this was the primary reason we paid taxes, to keep a system in place that will protect our rights.


Your on the right path here but connect the concepts...

"The Rich" benefit the most from natural resources and the pollution of the environment. However, the rest of us both have to deal with the consequences of that pollution AND do the manual labor to turn natural resources into the structure of society.

Mean while "The Rich" only need to come in contact with the abstract concepts (economics, financial markets, laws etc) that sit on top of this concrete structure (food, buildings, roads, etc) in order to gain wealth.

What ties it all together? The government enforcing property rights (both physical and intellectual property) and everything else.

This is a good thing, but obviously "The Rich" benefit most from it.

"The Rich" need the government and the masses to live in their elevated fantasy world.

The masses don't need "the rich" to have the Earth.

--

Also, this might make it clearer.

Capitalism can not exist without (economic) competition...(economic) Competition can not exist with a plutocracy.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
If I wanted to secure the border, I wouldn't bother with a fence.

Just deploy landmines, and turn on different sections on different days, completely randomized, out of the hands of border security. USA seems to think it's okay to use landmines to secure borders with North/South Korea, why not for their own borders?

Heavily sign post the mined areas and heavily advertise in Mexican media that the border is now mined, and that they proceed at their own risk.

Would stop all illegal immigration in a real hurry, for relatively few $$$. Much cheaper than a fence, much cheaper than deploying the National Guard.


As moronic as this idea may be, this doesn't mean that they want imagrints killed... People aren't being killed in korea, they just know that they cannnot cross the border, if they are killed its suicide...

But yes it is a stupid idea, but so is partial birth abortion... there a idiots on both sides, let not generalize please. Its beneath you
edit on 5-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The political far right in general (the Ayn Randies I call em) are realllllllly majorly heartless, O My God. A few minutes ago I tuned in to see what a certain 'conservative' (tho he rejects the republican label) radio show host was having to say this particular evening, and right out of the starting gate, he is tearing into people who find themselves in need of assistance, and railing that their right to vote should be revoked because they are down on their luck. Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi, you abhorrent BEAST. You will answer to God one day for this vile evil, then he will say to you, "Depart from me (into that everlasting place of darkness reserved for the Devil and his angels and the False Prophet) for I never knew ye.

(And this is the broadcaster Ron Paul is cozying up to? He should burn in Hades with him. And lets not forget, Ron Paul defended animal crush videos as free speech........Lest We Forget...) (Anyone tries to crush one of my 'babies', Ill rip his (or her) head off, and string it through their diseased urethra..)
edit on 5-8-2011 by simone50m because: edit



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   


The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than everyone else.


Do we all not benefit from the products that cause pollution from during production? Do we all not enjoy "things" that are extracted from natural resorces? Natural resources make up everything that we use. How should one procure materials for any product if not by using purchased natural resources?



"The Rich" benefit the most from natural resources and the pollution of the environment. However, the rest of us both have to deal with the consequences of that pollution AND do the manual labor to turn natural resources into the structure of society.


So the poor do not benefit from transportation, gas and electric appliances, or the jobs that they have? What do you propose, should we outlaw motorized transportation, electricity, and food? I don't think so. If there was no societal demand for such products I might have to agree with you, but since all of society wants them here, your point is invalid. Everytime society demands something, someone will step forward to provide it, and society will give them power and/or wealth...



Mean while "The Rich" only need to come in contact with the abstract concepts (economics, financial markets, laws etc) that sit on top of this concrete structure (food, buildings, roads, etc) in order to gain wealth.


Should the government nationalize all industries that pollute or use natural resources? Or are you saying the CEOs don't work for their money? Maybe that they are less deserving because they don't do manuel labor? Are there greedy crooks at the top? Yes, but are you in a position to pick up where they leave off in providing for society's wants and needs when they leave because they no longer have any incentive to run their company?



What ties it all together? The government enforcing property rights (both physical and intellectual property) and everything else.

This is a good thing, but obviously "The Rich" benefit most from it.

"The Rich" need the government and the masses to live in their elevated fantasy world.

The masses don't need "the rich" to have the Earth.


Yes the rich do financialy benefit the most because society values their services. It's called commerce and has been around since day one.

Because society wants/needs what the rich are selling, The masses need the government to protect the rich so that society can continue to give incentive (riches) to keep said products availible.

The masses don't need "the rich" to have the Earth. They need them to produce the things that they enjoy

Also you never said whether or not you agree that a flat rate tax would be fair?
edit on 5-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The questions seems reasonable to you because your leaders have told you it is reasonable, convinced you it is reasonable so that you will vote for them-- and you believed them. Yep, only THEIR ideology is humane, and reasonable and cares. Yeah, uh-huh. And you believed them.

Time to take the blindfold off your leaders have wrapped around your head, step out of political rhetoric and look into the abyss.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


could you specify whose question you reffering to?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Both parties have sociopathic tendancies and most polititions have conscience and empathy for themselves.

one of the good republicans that has conscience and empathy


or




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Deja`Vu
 


Hasn't he ran in the primary several times before? I really like his ideas (not sure how far he would get with them once elected) and would vote for him over obama, but I really don't think he will ever win because of the celebrity status that you seem to have to already have to get elected (and because the media will never back him).

I don't really trust any canidates not to screw us over though, it takes a billion plus to be a serious contender and when people give you that much money, chances are that they will call in some pretty big favors sooner or later.Most big corps give huge amounts to both sides so no matter who wins they will have already lobbied the prez... Republican or Democrat, doesn't really matter when they both are in the same people's pocket.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam


What ties it all together? The government enforcing property rights (both physical and intellectual property) and everything else.

This is a good thing, but obviously "The Rich" benefit most from it.

"The Rich" need the government and the masses to live in their elevated fantasy world.

The masses don't need "the rich" to have the Earth.


Yes the rich do financialy benefit the most because society values their services. It's called commerce and has been around since day one.

Because society wants/needs what the rich are selling, The masses need the government to protect the rich so that society can continue to give incentive (riches) to keep said products availible.


So if the government did not protect these products they would not be available?

Get real..

"society wants/needs what the rich are selling"

The government we participate in is what enforces control; not the existence...





top topics
 
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join