|
Keshik - If you want to keep going with that conversation, demand that he explain how he would have built that business without roads, an educated workforce, or the internet. There's all kinds of stuff that he and his business benefit from directly or indirectly; but those three things are what Obama specifically mentioned and said, "you didn't build that" to. As in, "your business didn't build the roads it and its suppliers, and employees use"; "your business didn't educate its employees from birth so that twenty-thirty years later you guys could all work together"; "your business didn't invent the internet". No one is saying that he, and the people he works with, haven't busted their asses. But all of that hard work would have amounted to nothing, without all of the things society provided for them as a starting point. That's why its now time for him to help out by having the business help fund those very things they used to get to where they are now.Leon Einstein posted:While this entire list is terrible, it also starts off with blatant bullshit. You won't get arrested for having expired tags unless you've got a warrant. And people do get arrested and deported for being here illegally. More than 300,000 a year. thingsthatneverhappened.txt posted:I LOVED THIS ONE. I loved this one too, because the Supreme Court doesn't sit in front of a display of the 10 Commandments. But I'm guessing their reason for loving it is different than mine. quote:You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... Children are free, and raise themselves once they're born, right? I mean its not like having kids is a life changing event. Plus, we should punish unborn children by denying their mothers access to proper care for having the audacity to choose to be born to a poor unwed mother. (And also poor married women can qualify for Medicaid, too. But I guess they're ok, cause they have a man). quote:I LOVE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, TOO Name one amendment to the constitution that has been stripped away. Oh wait, I can, prohibition. And since that's the only one that's been removed, I suppose they really DID protect our rights by removing it. quote:AND THIS ONE A quick google search of "muslim women strip searched" pulls up a number of stories of Muslim women being strip searched over many years and in different parts of the country.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
That was written by a person that has never been handcuffed before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Keshik - If you want to keep going with that conversation, demand that he explain how he would have built that business without roads, an educated workforce, or the internet. It went something like "This morning I awoke at I got out of bed and ate cereal inspected by the FDA, drove on DOT maintained roads to my workplace where my safety is ensured by OSHA, [...] and posted on the Internet, created by DARPA, about how the government is nothing but a nuisance and should just get out of the drat way"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
prom candy posted:
I'm sure we all believed we were Randian supermen at one point. God knows I bought into the ideology- it's even more tempting when your own family history plays into the Objectivist narrative. My grandparents generation on either side, with the exception of my maternal grandmother, grew up destitute and within 2 generations the family had worked up to true middle class from a ridiculous amount of hard work and maybe a little luck. It's no surprise I was an Ayn Rand worshipping shithead when I graduated high school and went into university. Mind you, a few political science and psych/philosophy courses later and that world view is shaken. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Spatial posted:Someone wrote a witty paragraph on this subject a while back. Could someone repost it? Not sure who posted it originally. quote:This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Goddamn liberals taking away our constitutional protections... *campaigns for repeal of 14th Amendment*
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Are roads for all Socialist too? He seems to have gone off the deep end a bit, used to be totally apolitical, now its Fox and Rush every day. His latest status is: Friend Posted posted:Can someone tell me why the work requirement is being lifted to get welfare benefits? I mean, as it was, you didn't even have to work - just be "looking for work." Which I'd like to reply to, but I didn't even know that was a thing now. Edit: Spoke to soon. He did just respond a minute ago: quote:*me* - I wasn't going to respond to your points, since I think they're not thought out. I will throw out there a couple things for you to think about : jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
People paying for each other's health care is the central concept of insurance, not socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Have you considered that taxes are just one step away from the Holocaust?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
It's so sad to see so many people vehemently against the concept of everybody having access to health insurance. Do they not realize that a bigger pool of people will drive premiums down rather than up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Keshik - If you want to keep going with that conversation, I can't, he deleted the entire posting and the comments below it. I like to imagine that it's because this person who I've known and liked for many years doesn't know how to give even a little bit of ground by admitting that maybe the ideology he subscribes to and the rhetoric he imbibes might not be completely correct all of the time. It's perhaps condescending of me to believe this, but I think for people like my friend, so much of their own self-worth is wrapped up in the positions they identify with that they are unable to accept even the most measured and reasonable criticism. If I learned anything from studying political science as an undergraduate, it's that if there is a way to potentially control the electorate, people will attempt it. I am convinced but unable to prove that the entirety of the Republican media establishment, and Fox News particularly, has set itself to the task of building high self-brand connections between their constituents and their Randite ideology, to insure against reason threatening their agenda. I've been accused by close friends of being condescending in denying them agency over their own decision making by warning them that they are being manipulated. Most recently it was by a female friend, who I tried desperately to warn that her new boyfriend is a manipulative, narcissistic sociopath whose charm and affection is a front intended to establish control over her. I still believe I was right, but as has been pointed out to me by uninvolved people since then, the reason she's no longer speaking to me has as much to do with his successfully convincing her to perceive faults in a good friend she didn't see before as it does with the fact that my warnings that she was being manipulated were received by her, emotionally, as outrages to her self-esteem. I think that a lot of the people we discuss in this thread have been so manipulated into tying their self-image into the ideology sold to them by the ruling class that they are truly incapable of reacting reasonably to reasonable objections to the rhetoric they are fed and which they repeat. Criticism of the ideology is criticism of the ego, and I do not know the solution to that dilemma. I hope someone more intelligent than me is able to find one. Keshik fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Emron posted:People paying for each other's health care is the central concept of insurance, not socialism. Gourd of Taste posted:Have you considered that taxes are just one step away from the Holocaust? Leon Einstein posted:It's so sad to see so many people vehemently against the concept of everybody having access to health insurance. Do they not realize that a bigger pool of people will drive premiums down rather than up? I can respond to 2 and 3 easily. Whats the best way to attack 1? I know that you have to spend to get out of a recession and I remember someone posted an article analyzing what would happen if the debt was completely paid off, but I don't have enough information to write something bulletproof.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Spatial posted:Someone wrote a witty paragraph on this subject a while back. Could someone repost it? That particular form of parody has existed for at least one hundred and ten years. Possibly earlier. The following is usually attributed to Sidney Webb: quote:The practical man, oblivious or contemptuous of any theory of the social organism or general principles of social organization, has been forced, by the necessities of the time, into an ever-deepening collectivist channel. Socialism, of course, he still rejects and despises. The individualist town councillor will walk along the municipal pavement, lit by municipal gas, and cleansed by municipal brooms with municipal water, and seeing, by the municipal clock in the municipal market, that he is too early to meet his children coming from the municipal school, hard by the county lunatic asylum and municipal hospital, will use the national telegraph system to tell them not to walk through the municipal park, but to come by the municipal tramway, to meet him in the municipal reading-room, by the municipal art gallery, museum, and library, where he intends to consult some of the national publications in order to prepare his next speech in the municipal town hall, in favour of the nationalisation of canals and the increase of Government control over the railway system. `Socialism,' Sir, he will say, `don't waste the time of a practical man by our fantastic absurdities. Self-help, Sir, individual self-help, that's what made our city what it is. If anyone knows of an earlier version, I'm happy to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I can respond to 2 and 3 easily. Whats the best way to attack 1? I know that you have to spend to get out of a recession and I remember someone posted an article analyzing what would happen if the debt was completely paid off, but I don't have enough information to write something bulletproof. http://archive.org/details/LifeAfterDebt is probably what you're looking for. Officials in the Clinton administration were pretty scared of the idea, the short of it is that our debt offers a safe place for investors to store loads of money and without that, things get hairy pretty quickly. Also there is the fact that the United States is borrowing at a negative real interest rate, which would be a neat opportunity to teach him how inflation works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I know that you have to spend to get out of a recession I'd warn you against language like this. It's believed that stimulus spending is the best way to bring an economy out of recession, but there is disagreement on that point. While experience has shown over and over again that austerity measures are basically the worst possible response to a recession, economics is more pseudo-science than science, and I'd encourage everyone talking about economic policy against stating anything like this as fact or as something that you 'know' to be true. You believe - and evidence supports the idea - that stimulus spending is the fastest way for an economy to recover from recession. You don't know that. Knowing something implies that it's fact, believing is an admission that it is an opinion. Informed opinion, to be sure, but opinion, and therefore open to new ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Keshik posted:That particular form of parody has existed for at least one hundred and ten years. Possibly earlier. The following is usually attributed to Sidney Webb: That's awesome, Sidney Webb is awesome. Thanks for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Thanks, I rewrote it after some further research. "My household is spending more than it needs because of my gun hobby, I could ask for a raise to cover the difference...nah, I'll just not buy food for my kids." quote:Which I'd like to reply to, but I didn't even know that was a thing now. You could also tell your friend about marginal utility of money. If he's receptive, you might actually get him to accept that progressive taxation is fair (just don't open with that line).
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Someone on my Facebook feed posted the GOP picture "you didn't build that" with a picture of Obama "smiling" at Jobs. I'm sure you've all seen it. Someone replies by pointing out that, in fact, Jobs don't build the iPod; it is put together in china. original poster responds: "The government financed road construction in California, including the interstate system, so they are responsible for every development since then." I feel like I'm in the political cartoon thread, because the temptation is respond with "A Good Post." EDIT: ThePeteEffect, I would strongly recommend against using an analogy that compares federal budgeting to household spending. It opens a nasty can of worms. Boxman fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Boxman posted:EDIT: ThePeteEffect, I would strongly recommend against using an analogy that compares federal budgeting to household spending. It opens a nasty can of worms. This, a million times this. I might make an effortpost at some point about the Physiocrats and Adam Smith and the Oeconomicus and the fact that a number of very intelligent people worked very hard in the 18th century to completely dismantle the mercantilist system, which modeled the economic system of nations on Xenophon's work about the management of a household. Actually, gently caress effort. Someone get McCaine to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I can respond to 2 and 3 easily. Whats the best way to attack 1? I know that you have to spend to get out of a recession and I remember someone posted an article analyzing what would happen if the debt was completely paid off, but I don't have enough information to write something bulletproof. The most efficient and profitable way for an insurance company to operate is to cover everyone until they have a need for that insurance, then drop them. These companies take a "Deny first" approach to many things and, just like so many other groups that prey upon the lower classes, rely upon the lack of knowledge of the applicable rights. See also: Collectors calling parents or relatives, threatening to send them to jail if they don't pay up for someone else's debt. Edit: Ah, wrong #1. A significant portion of the spending right now (Which IIRC is not really that large of a portion of the total country's GDP) is to account for legacy programs put into place by previous institutions. Or account for the large military budget as most of the 'ZOMG OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING' is non-discretionary, not discretionary. The high deficit is because of a drop in tax revenues, not excessive expenditures. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Keshik posted:I'd warn you against language like this. It's believed that stimulus spending is the best way to bring an economy out of recession, but there is disagreement on that point. While experience has shown over and over again that austerity measures are basically the worst possible response to a recession, economics is more pseudo-science than science, and I'd encourage everyone talking about economic policy against stating anything like this as fact or as something that you 'know' to be true. Simple, low-content response for this: "You have to spend money to make money. Right now companies aren't spending money and the majority of the population doesn't have money to spend. Who's left?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
My favorites are the people who believe that the government should be run like a business. Businesses grow and reinvest in the business whenever demand for their product is high. Therefore the government should grow and reinvest when demand for its product is highest (recession). No, I don't advocate treating government like a business, it just shows that people who believe in these meaningless sound bites have not thought their positions through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
I started working on this earlier today, but now there's like 15 new posts. But since I've already written it, I'm just going to post it and hope its not too much of a repeat of what's already been said...jojoinnit posted:Which I'd like to reply to, but I didn't even know that was a thing now. First, demand a source on the welfare thing. I have heard of absolutely no one pushing to reforms to welfare. Welfare (TANF) has work requirements, not "looking for work requirements". You have to work or be involved in training for a job, 30 hours a week. And there's a 4-5 year lifetime maximum of benefits. For example, here's the requirements in Georgia: http://dfcs.dhs.georgia.gov/tanf-eligibility-requirements The "looking for work" thing is him confusing "Welfare" and "Unemployment Insurance". Unemployment Insurance is completely separate from Welfare. For one thing, you and your employer pay into the insurance every paycheck so that its there to help you when you lose your job. And if you get a job, you immediately lose the benefits. quote:1. Taxation - while some of the declining taxes are due to decreased household income due to the recession, tax rates are at a 30 year low, according to factcheck.org. The problem with that number is that Federal spending is at an all time high, raised by TRILLIONS, and now at a percentage of GDP not seen since WWII! And only projected to climb, with the health care law. The burden is there, and at some time, we'll have to pay for it. Yes, we do have to pay for it, that's what taxes do. Glad we agree that taxes need to increase. Yes spending is at an all time high. Though most of the increase under Obama that occurred in 2009-2011 was recession spending that was temporary and has already ceased. Much of the permanent increases came from Bush, especially in military spending. I have absolutely no problem with dropping a couple hundred billion a year in military spending! Meanwhile, the healthcare law may have added a bit over $1T in spending, but that's spread across 10 years, not $1T per year. And it included revenue increases and spending decreases so that it's effectively budget neutral. Also, spending has been raised by TRILLIONS? Our spending is only roughly $3.5T a year. To have been raised by TRILLIONS we would have to have been spending nothing previously. In 2000, US spending hit $1.79T, so at most it has increased just under $2T in 12 years. quote:2. "Taxing the rich" is a frightening term. Who decides who's rich? Is $250k in NYC the same as $250k in Mobile AL? What other people can we tax? How about "Jews, since they control all the money"? Sounds preposterous, but it's happened throughout history, countless times, by "enlightened" nations. We need a fair system. I don't know why you think only rich people would be taxed. Everyone pays according to their means. As for who decides? Congress. When the tax code needs updated to reflect the times, that's who always does it. We aren't trying to create a system that will be perfect forever, that's impossible. And its why we have a government that's able to change things to fit the times. As things stand now though, most of the tax cuts over the past decade have predominantly benefitted the rich. Putting things back to where they were when we had a budget surplus will require raising taxes in a way that predominantly targets the rich because that’s where the cuts were made. That being said, I’m also in favor of letting the payroll tax cuts expire this year, which will mostly impact lower and middle class families with little to no impact on the rich. And, taxing the Jews because they have all the money, really? The best argument you can muster is some racist hypothetical that doesn’t even make sense? Taxing people based on how much they have is fair. Taxing people based on racial and ethnic stereotypes is stupid, and as soon as someone starts to seriously propose such a thing I’ll be fighting it right next to you. In the meantime, please name one *enlightened* nation that has a Jew Tax. quote:3. Your analogy to roads is ridiculous. Everybody uses roads. However, the health care law demands that one group of people pay for another group's health care. The current state of health care that already allows that (no hospital can turn away a patient) is already abused, and drives up my premiums. That's socialism. Everybody needs healthcare. How are roads different exactly? And what group is being forced to pay for another group’s health care? You mean healthy people paying for sick people’s healthcare. I guess that’s true, because that’s how insurance works. Or do you mean people’s taxes are being used to help pay for other people’s insurance? You derive a benefit from that, even if you don’t think you do. You’re paying into a system that ensures that no matter what happens to you, you and your family will have health insurance. Just because you have insurance through your employer now doesn’t mean you always will or your kids always will. No matter how safe you think you are, or how prepared you think you are, it could all be gone next year. You help pay for it now, because you can. Later, if you can’t and need the help, the rest of us will be there to help you when you stumble. There are also other, indirect benefits, like helping keep your countrymen well so that they can continue to be productive. This isn’t only good for the economy, but it also keeps them paying taxes (so you don’t have to pick up their share) and it keeps them adding additional burdens through disability assistance. And you can go ahead and drop the “no hospital can turn away a patient” nonsense. It’s not true, so stop using it as an argument. You go into the ER, tell them you have lung cancer and will be dead in less than a year if the hospital doesn’t give you chemo, but that you can’t pay for it. Then, insist that they HAVE to give it to you anyways, because it’s the law, and see what happens. (I’ll give you a hint, you won’t be getting any chemo). The ER only has to treat people who are in emergency situations, like bleeding to death from a gunshot or in the middle of a heart attack. Got a rotting tooth? Sorry, call us when you’re dying from sepsis. You are right though, that people who get in those emergency situations and can’t pay drive up your premiums. So doesn’t it make more sense to use that money to help get them insurance in the first place, so that they can get medicine that would have stopped them from having a stroke, rather than waiting till they have a stroke, paying for their stroke out of your premiums, and then spending your tax money on disability payments now that they can’t work? Sarion fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I already responded but you've put some of it in better terms. Here's what I responded with: 1. There's a bunch of different things going on here. A significant portion of the spending right now (Which IIRC is not really that large of a portion of the total country's GDP) is to account for legacy programs put into place by previous institutions, which is somewhat besides the point as further government investment is a positive thing during a recession. Remember that the government can borrow money at a miniscule rate of interest. There was a study commissioned by the Clinton administration in 2000 estimating the economic ramifications of what would happen if the government actually completely paid off the debt, and it wasn't good. (http://archive.org/details/LifeAfterDebt) Officials in the Clinton administration were pretty scared of the idea, the short of it is that our debt offers a safe place for investors to store loads of money and without that, things get hairy pretty quickly. 2. Don't make taxes the boogyman. The reason "taxing the rich" has become A Thing is simply because previous administrations slashed taxes on the wealthy to a massive extent. Its almost dishonest to call it raising taxes when its more like trying to get a bit closer to previous tax rates. The tax system has many problems but I consider it to be fairer than most offered alternatives. 3. Everybody needs health care. What you're calling socialism is just how insurance works. A large number of people pay money to a company, pooling the money, and it works as long as the majority of people don't need expensive constant care, but for those who do they get it because the cost is offset by all those other people paying premiums who use the service less. You're already paying for someone elses care if you have health insurance. And are you really suggesting that an ideal system is one where people ignore their healthcare because of their financial situation until they're ill enough to go to an emergency room? Or that a system where poor people clog up emergency rooms because its the only way they can see a doctor is somehow okay? Its awful and its what the healthcare act was made to address firstly and mostly. Premiums will go down when hospitals arent eating the cost of treating indigents who show up for lack of alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
This is moving fast now. His response: * wrote: "1. I never said there was a problem having debt. There's a problem with the ratio of spending to GDP. 2. Again, I still don't like separating certain groups of people out. 3. I actually do want our health care system overhauled. I would rather make it attainable for all, rather than have a government plan. They can't run the post office, the DMV, or design an efficient ballot sheet - I sure as heck don't want them deciding who gets what care and how long they have to wait." jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Keshik posted:That particular form of parody has existed for at least one hundred and ten years. Possibly earlier. The following is usually attributed to Sidney Webb: This is great, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:2. Again, I still don't like separating certain groups of people out. Is this like some bizarre "I don't see color, you're the real racist" poo poo, but with economic classes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
So that dude just has a problem with progressive taxation? Get ready for a FLAT TAX post. Has he mentioned gold before 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
It sounds like he doesn't understand how marginal taxation works. You may have to explain it to him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Boxman posted:EDIT: ThePeteEffect, I would strongly recommend against using an analogy that compares federal budgeting to household spending. It opens a nasty can of worms. I know that the federal budget is nothing like a household budget and that analogy is a can of worms. I was just frustrated reading that. I should have been clearer that it was facetious. I wouldn't recommend or use that argument in earnest unless someone was really pushing the household budget metaphor themselves and I was feeling like being a glib rear end in a top hat. Sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:They can't run the post office
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
I missed the post office thing. The USPS isn't even run by the government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Sarion posted:First, demand a source on the welfare thing. I have heard of absolutely no one pushing to reforms to welfare. Welfare (TANF) has work requirements, not "looking for work requirements". You have to work or be involved in training for a job, 30 hours a week. And there's a 4-5 year lifetime maximum of benefits. For example, here's the requirements in Georgia: He gave me his source as this: http://technorati.com/politics/article/waiving-work-requirements-for-welfare-recipients/
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
ETA:jojoinnit posted:He gave me his source as this: http://technorati.com/politics/article/waiving-work-requirements-for-welfare-recipients/ Hahahahaha gently caress. This is something Republicans should be supporting. The original release is here; HHS is offering to grant waivers to States to allow them more flexibility in how they handle TANF assistance. This change is literally seeking to give more power to the States by saying "hey, if you have good ideas you want to try let us know and we'll see about exempting you from federal rules that could keep you from doing things better". It's a change that could lead to people finding work sooner and thus not having to stay on TANF, saving taxpayer money and improving state choices, and Republicans are against it.  Black is white, up is down.jojoinnit posted:This is moving fast now. His response: The post office is pretty efficient though? They've been hampered by declining mail volume due to the Internet and the current recession and were hamstrung by PAEA which requires them to prefund retirement benefits 75 years into the future, something no other agency has to do. If we're concerned about government running things, what about our armed forces? They have nukes and tanks and you trust the government to decide how to use those but you don't trust them to handle setting effective cost controls for procedures and sending payments for health services? Because Medicare runs with a pretty drat low overhead cost compared to private insurers. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Got one of those one thats posted the "you didn't do it" pictures on my facebook feed. He captioned the picture with: "Sorry Mr. President the Government was NOT helping me in 1999 when I was making cold calls or seeing appointments on Sunday evenings when I built my business and the Government only hinders my business today with ridiculous regulation, outrageous fees, and excessive taxation!!!" My reply: "You built the phone system yourself?" Him: "The phone bill and the taxes I pay go towards that!!!" Me: "So you needed help in building your business is what you're saying." Him: "NO I built it!!! I just don't want the President telling me that the Government helped me!!!" Me: "Wait so you're saying you built the phone system to build your current business? Well done. Did you also build the roads to get to those sunday meetings?" Him "The 40% I pay in taxes built the roads......Toshiba built my phone system and I paid for it.......... The money I pay to AT & T and the tax on my phone bill go towards the phone lines and infrastructure. Nobody gave me those things for Free!!!!" Me: "Exactly. You relied on someone else to help you build your business. Without their innovation and technology you couldn't contact those people or travel to their house. No one is an island. We all rely on each other in our society." Him "Yes it is called Commerce and Capitalism......... I need something and I pay for it...... Nothing is for Free......... The Government did not DIRECTLY and for FREE help me start, or build, or run my business! Currently, it hinders my Business with regulation, fees, and taxes.... I did not get a bail out, interest free loans, relaxed regulation, or Government contracts! I take extreme Umbrage with Mr. Obama implying that the Government DIRECTLY helped me, Leon Vaccarelli start, build, and run my business!!!" His wife: "Whats the name of your business, Seth?" Me: "They did directly help you by providing all those things you use every day. No one said it was free, what he said was we all rely on each other in society." Him: "Seth, please stop sipping the Kool Aid! Obama did not say that, try quoting him and stop believing the Spin........ The Govt did not directly help me, the Govt did not directly build the roads, small businesses like O & G Industries, Mohawk Construction, and CT Concrete build roads..... The Govt did not directly build my phone system Toshiba Electronics did......... The Govt did not sell me the phone system directly a small business in Prospect CT by the name of Mid-State Tele Data did, The Govt does not directly provide me phone lines it is a Corporation by the name of AT & T............. All the Government does is regulate and tax these businesses and companies of which some is needed but this Country is not meant to be a Government Center Society as Mr. Obama would like and that is what he meant by his comments. I believe our Country was founded so it was a Citizen centered Society with Freedom and Liberty and less Government!!!!!" Me: "I think you're confused dude. I'm not sure you read what he said at all. Whether it was government, a teacher, a private investor, a company, anyone, as a society we all work together, and no one can stand alone. No one can survive without the help of one another. That was the message and the gist. If you'd like, I can copy the two paragraphs from the speech that explain that. Nothing about free, nothing about an all encompassing government. Everyone needs help along the way. Whether its making a phone call, driving a car (on a road!), getting taught to read and write and do math, or having a building to conduct business in, we all relied on someone else to help put us in that position."
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is moving fast now. His response: The USPS has already been addressed so I'll handle the DMV. A DMV can be an incredibly efficient operation if it's not hamstrung by budget cuts. It's a popular victim of the whole "We're cutting their budget because they provide poor quality services because we cut their budget" vicious cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
The only problem I've really had with the DMV was when I forgot to pay my property tax on my car and sent in the check a week late. It accrued some $4 penalty charge so they shipped it off to a private collections agency. The agency figured it wasn't worth their time to collect such a tiny amount of money so I never heard about it until I had to renew my license a year later and was told I had an outstanding balance and to contact that company. So I had to call the agency to figure out what the problem was, pay them, then wait for them to contact the DMV and then go BACK to the DMV a day later to get my license updated. Maybe giving it to a private company is just how that sort of thing is always done and it's cheaper or whatever but it didn't really make it better for me as a tax payer than if I was able to just pay the fine to the DMV in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
myron cope posted:So that dude just has a problem with progressive taxation? Get ready for a FLAT TAX post. Has he mentioned gold before No but he did say in the same discussion (to someone else) that its a shame Ron Paul is on the wrong side of crazy on some issues because he'd like to vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
The problem about debating the USPS is that people compare the speed and cost of mailing something to that of sending an email or making a phone call. You have to make sure that you frame it as USPS vs. UPS or FedEx.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:The USPS has already been addressed so I'll handle the DMV. Heck last time I went to the DMV to get a new ID, I was in and out within 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:27
|
|
