So, we should keep all these programs at the federal level where they don't have any money either? And so complex? Individual states would be able to tailor their programs to the needs of their state. Not a one size fits all policy enacted by the federal government.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mitt Romney to Announce Vice Presidential Pick via iPhone App; Obama Campaign Releases New App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, we should keep all these programs at the federal level where they don't have any money either? And so complex? Individual states would be able to tailor their programs to the needs of their state. Not a one size fits all policy enacted by the federal government.
I like programs that allow for local decision making within certain perameters set by the federal government. Someone has to be be in charge to deal with interstate issues.
There are very few major programs today that don't have language that allows for exactly this however.
What happened to chile?
I like programs that allow for local decision making within certain perameters set by the federal government. Someone has to be be in charge to deal with interstate issues.
There are very few major programs today that don't have language that allows for exactly this however.
What happened to chile?
Yeah, someone is in charge. its called the federal court system. It was designed to handle problems between the states.
Nothing happened to it. You said "give me an example of a country using a free market" and I did.
You are arguing how they got there, which is not the issue. Hence, like others, you would be arguing straw man.
Wow, so the free market system is fine even if it takes brutal conditions to enforce the shift to it?
How is that a straw man in a conversation involving the future leadership of the USA, and therefore a large portions of where the world is headed? Is this a case of "well the numbers look ok right now, so screw the context"?
Actually, yes. 10 seconds on google and 5 minutes of watching two (unedited) videos and you might actually inform yourself, but we wouldn't want informed voters... so keep watching whatever agenda-motivated news programs you watch.
A mentality I've always found to be self centered and coldly uncaring towards anything out of a direct line of sight.
When did I say that? I simply answered your question of "Name one country that has a free market?" If you wanted other criteria in my answer you should have been more specific.
How is it straw man? Because you keep arguing things I did not even say,that is a straw man argument, such as "the free market is fine through brutal conditions" I never said that, but you're arguing it. Hence, straw man.
I thought we were aiming towards a broader discussion on free markets, but apparently not. So I'm left to wonder what the point is of such a narrowly defined discussion?
We were actually talking about the income tax, not economic theories. It was your arguing of straw man that got us into a narrowly defined discussion.
Really? Is that why a bunch of countries don't have income taxes?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48054006/Countries_With_Zero_Income_Taxes?
Yes, tax structures (whether they have income tax or not) are vital in an economic model.
Why are you referring to taxes with just income tax?
Umm...most of those places are Arab countries. You want to be like them, be my guest. No thanks. The rest are tiny little places- hardly comparable to a country the size of the US.
Last edited:
Not only that, but the very discussion regarding what kind of tax structure exist is a crucial part of understanding the overall makeup of a country. Thats even if they don't have income taxes, which is a piece of their tax structure.
What happened in our development that made us view things like economics, culture, education, healthcare, and as Lee said GEOGRAPHY (including geopolitics) as if they are all their own topics with no interactions between them? Have we as a whole lost our ability to look at the bigger picture?
Once again, you are arguing straw man. I never said that we should be like them, at all.
And you wouldn't want the U.S. to be like Qatar (GDP wise), who is the richest per capita? I guess you like being 6th behind great countries like Brunei and Norway, right?
You may continue trolling now.
Mitt Romneys tax plan raises taxes on most Americans in order to cut them for the very rich.
"Raises taxes on the average American family making under $200,000 a year by $2,000 while cutting taxes for the average American household making $3 million or more by close to $250,000."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
"Raises taxes on the average American family making under $200,000 a year by $2,000 while cutting taxes for the average American household making $3 million or more by close to $250,000."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
Yes, tax structures (whether they have income tax or not) are vital in an economic model.
Why are you referring to taxes with just income tax?
Because it is the scope that YOU have narrowly defined. The topic we started on was income tax, then you expanded it to economic theories, and now that has turned from income taxes to "taxes structures" in general.
What you're doing is anything possible to justify your point, which is weird, considering half the points you are arguing you have came up with yourself. What I should do is leave you to debate yourself, because thats pretty much what you're doing by continuously putting words into my mouth and/or constantly changing the parameters of the discussion in order to fit your argument.
Hardly trolling. Qatar is not a place I wish to emulate. However, Norway is much better. Are you now arguing that emulating Norway is a better way to go? Because I can agree with that.
No surprise there.
At this point, no one even knows what you're arguing anyway. I thought it was income taxes and economics, now it's...what exactly?
Last edited:
Huh? I thought you were a right-wing conservative?
Now you're saying Norway is a great country?
So technically you must want Obama to win since he wants the USA to be like Norway and you must be hating Romney because he wants the contrary?
And of course any sane non-Muslim don't want their nation to be like Qatar, they still follow Islamic laws and advocate stoning...
Last edited:
Methinks you have one more shot at providing sound reasoning instead of hiding behind this facile defense.
The blame game is merely politics. But when you start getting into policies and which ones work and which ones don't, you have to consider where they come from. Our economy is like an engine. You have to have taxation in order to keep the engine lubricated, otherwise all the money flows into the coffers of those who own the businesses. You end up with massive income inequality, and the economy stalls. It happened leading up to the great depression. It happened leading up to the great recession. It happened leading up to the recession of the 80s. In the 30s, we taxed, borrowed and spent until the economy took off on its own. The money circulated for decades. WWII injected massive amounts of money from taxation and borrowing into the economy. We had a boom that lasted decades. In the 80s, Reagan promised lower taxes and lower spending would spur growth. He lowered taxes, then borrowed massive amounts of money to increase spending. He created what has been a massive bubble of economic growth fueled almost entirely by borrowing. There is a reason the GDP and Debt have been so closely related since Reagan.
Democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call us, don't hate business, nor do we think government is perfect and should do everything for everyone. That's just silly.
We have historically low taxes, we have had far too much spending, and our infrastructure is falling apart. In the past, when in economic decline, increased revenue, higher governmental spending and even additional borrowing were necessary to reverse the decline. All Democrats have tried to do in the last 4 years is implement reasonable, middle of the road policies that independent analysis confirms would assist in job creation, raising revenue, reducnig costs, etc...
I really don't know how Republicans argue with ideas that they came up with.
Ok Mr. Grown Up, when you have a giant puddle on the floor, what do you do? If you spend four hours mopping, and the puddle is still there, do you now think you must be responsible for the mess? Or, when you first see the puddle, do you try to find out what caused the puddle so that if there is a leak, you can fix it.So the implication is Obama will never be responsible for anything because he inherited all our woes?
President Obama deserves criticism for whether he mopped well, but he can't be blamed for the leak, nor can he be blamed for the leak if republicans refuse to allow him to do anything to plug the hole.
If you want to blame President Obama, that's fine. Just do me a favor, and tell me which policy he passed that has failed. I can point you to dozens upon dozens of policies he has proposed, but the Republicans have blocked.
You don't understand why, do you? Before the canals were built, commerce traveled by boat to ports or into rivers as far as they could, then all the goods had to be transported by carriage. The canals allowed for large amounts of goods to travel inland and allowed areas near the canals to grow. Unfortunately, actually, fortunately technology improved and railroads were invented and rapidly grew. Suddenly, goods could be shipped long distances inland without the need of navigible waterways.
I'm surprised you don't know all that considering your states entire layout was dictated by waterways. Chicago is what it is because of waterways, and then railroads. All of that is just my way of pointing out that you apparently don't know as much as you think.
I have heard many claim this, but it's just not true. In fact, I believe that if you raised taxes dramatically for 20-30 years you would have more growth by far. But hey, what do I know.
EPA regulations actually result in more jobs, not fewer. (When you make a claim, it's good form to provide a link. So, here.
Oh, you don't come here often, but we care. When Obama tried to close Gitmo, most of the liberals around here were pissed at the democrats in congress who joined the republicans that blocked it. We also generally didn't support the wars in the middle east, but recognize that Afghanistan was the only war we should have been in, it was ignored by Bush, and Obama finally did what we were there to do. Libya, Syria... debatable.
Seriously, have you ever been suckered. Tell you what, go do some reading about the fast and furious operation, and then look at what documents the Republicans were trying to get. Come back, we'll talk. It should be fun.
When Bush took office, Gas was $1.479 (using the midwest all grades conventional retail gasoline prices - I don't have a link, the data is on my wall next to me. You can find it at the US Energy Information Administration). Gas peaked under GWB at $4.005.
History class? Remember those railroads?
Keep in mind that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress actually compromised in the 80s. Reagan didn't face obstructionist Democrats, nor was he facing a recession created by fraud, abuse and massive Wall St. malfeasance.
Jobs is spinning in his grave over
There...fixed that for you. Because it is nonsense from Romney. Everyone knows the words were taken out of context and that Romney has said similar things himself.
You DO realize that oil prices are set on the world market and being that Obama is just President of the United States (and not President of the whole freeking world) that he has no power or jurisdiction over gas prices which are influenced by wars, oil traders, refinery downtimes, etc., RIGHT??? Even drilling in sensitive areas (that would take far longer then his Presidential term to even come online) would not change the gas prices. So not sure what you think he could do.
