Drug arrest for Palin's...

[sealybobo]

No, Bush gave huge tax breaks to single parent families, and poor families. Obama can't really give them much more of a break...yet that is what he claims he's going to do. It's just a ruse to get people to support increasing taxes on anyone who makes a living wage.

And I wasn't unemployed, idiot, when I got my tax break. I was working my ass off...and got much, much more back than I put in.

Bush is also responsible for bringing medical care to rural areas of the united states where we haven't had anything, ever. Bush obtained funding to put clinics in tiny areas (filled with the much-hated "rednecks" that you all are always making fun of) and at long last, people who live below the poverty level in areas far, far from the inner cities actually have access to dental and medical care that they have never had.

Give me an example of when uber-taxing has ever lead to a strengthening of the economy. Just one.

Fuck that! Here in the city, it's already expensive to give people medical attention. And we are all concentrated in one area.

Can you imagine the Federal tax dollars Bush spent to get your freakin tooth cleaned! I bet per capita he spent a ton on each of you!!! That was our money!

I say you take care of your own tooth. And if you can't affort it out there, then move. Not my problem you gots no unemployment or edumacation.

And I also know Bush took money away from big cities that were fighting terrorism and he gave a lot of that money to red neck states like where you come from.

I am very aware of how Bush kept your state Red.

 

[AllieBaba]

MOre bigotry from the left. THe people in the country don't matter because they aren't like you, and therefore should be left to wallow in illness and miserty...while Obama's wife absconds with hundreds of thousands of dollars meant to "help the poor" in your cities. But that's a-ok.

Essentially what you're saying is that you think free clinics should only exist in your town. THe rest of the poor people can fuck themselves.

Nice.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't. But I like you.

Yes, make her understand that what she rails against is the way it is. The way it has to be. The way it should be.

The formal definition doesn't usually help shed light on it, so to put it in layman's terms, the principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility states that if one man has $1,000 dollars and another man has $100 dollars, twenty dollars will mean more to the latter than to the former.

This also applies to flat taxes and equivalent percentages of consumption.

For an example, consider the prospect of one man having 100 apples and another man having 10. The necessary amount of apples that must be consumed to ensure good health is 15, while any beyond that are merely consumed for their taste, essentially making them commodities. If the flat rate of taxation was 10%, the man with 10 apples would be forced to sacrifice 1 apple, while the man with 100 apples would be forced to sacrifice 10. Suppose that the man with 10 apples receives 10% of the revenue taxed from the man with 100 apples. Though the man with more apples has accordingly been forced to sacrifice more, he still has 90 apples, an excess of 75 beyond the necessary amount to be consumed, which means that he has numerous apples that function as commodities for him that could function as necessities for others, whereas the man with 10 apples still has 10, since he only received 1 additional apple after having been taxed one, 5 below the necessary number, thus placing him in dramatically lower health.

If taxation were abolished for the man with fewer apples, and progressively increased for the man with many more apples, so that his rate of taxation was, say, 30%, and the rate granted to the man with fewer apples was 20%, 30 apples would be taken from the man with 100 apples, while 0 were taken from the man with 10 apples, while he would receive 6 apples, (20% of 30 apples), granting him 16 and the other man 70. While the man with 70 apples would not have suffered any utility reducing loss of apples, since he would still have 55 above the necessary amount of consumable apples, the other man would have benefited from a drastic utility maximization, in that he would now have more than the necessary amount of consumable apples, and would have a healthier and more pleasant life.

This is why I used the example of a person walking by a small child drowning in a pond. Though rescuing this small child may require the person to muddy their clothes, that is a minor inconvenience that is not comparable to the moral significance of a young child drowning. Hence, progressive taxation provides the poor with essential utilities through social programs without forcing the wealthy to sacrifice anything of comparable moral significance, thus resulting in a maximization of utility.

 

[AllieBaba]

So this has worked out where?

 

[Agnapostate]

So this has worked out where?

In essentially every developed first-world nation in the world. Whereas the neoliberal regimes of Reagan and Thatcher promoted disastrous socioeconomic consequences for the lower classes of their respective countries.

What is your objection to the principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility?

 

[AllieBaba]

I object to the PRINCIPLE because 1. It doesn't work, and 2. I believe in freedom and liberty for all. That means we are our own masters, we own what we earn, and we are able to advance by our own efforts, and enjoy the fruits of our own labor.

 

[Agnapostate]

I object to the PRINCIPLE because 1. It doesn't work, and 2. I believe in freedom and liberty for all. That means we are our own masters, we own what we earn, and we are able to advance by our own efforts, and enjoy the fruits of our own labor.

Objection 1 is not legitimately related to the ideological principle. Objection 2 is an untenable doctrine for you to hold unless you are an "anarcho"-capitalist because all forms of taxation are redistribution.

 

[AllieBaba]

All forms of taxation are not "redistribution". They are what we pay to maintain a working government.

Redistribution is when you deliberately take from those who have to give it to those who have not, and for that purpose only.

And 1. does work because of 2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the recent concentration of wealth, some major redistribution is needed. And soon.

 

[Chris]

90% of Americans control 4% of our wealth.

That's wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

90% of Americans control 4% of our wealth.

That's wrong.

why is that wrong?

 

[Chris]

why is that wrong?

Societies with an extreme unequal distribution of wealth tend to collapse.

In the 60's the average CEO made 25 times more than the average worker, now they make 250 times more.

 

[DiveCon]

Societies with an extreme unequal distribution of wealth tend to collapse.

In the 60's the average CEO made 25 times more than the average worker, now they make 250 times more.

so?
thats up to the board of directors for each company
not you or anyone in the government

face it, you want redistribution because you are jealous

 

[Modbert]

why is that wrong?

Because that's how we lasted up in our last great depression.

We are currently in a depression right now, but you just think economic facts are "partisan bullshit" along with my education in Finance and Economics.

 

[garyd]

The charge is six counts of misconduct with a controlled substance. As i stated previously that is not a charge one would expect for a big time meth dealer.

 

[Shadow]

so?
thats up to the board of directors for each company
not you or anyone in the government

face it, you want redistribution because you are jealous

No,they just want to reap the benefits (they actually think they are going to get some of that cash). However,they wont.. Obama has lots of 'friends' to take care of with all that money he is going to confiscate and it aint going to a bunch of people he can't benefit from who are rewarded...

 

[DiveCon]

Because that's how we lasted up in our last great depression.

We are currently in a depression right now, but you just think economic facts are "partisan bullshit" along with my education in Finance and Economics.

where are those "facts" that you claim we are in a depression?
all you ever post is partisan bullshit, how about some actual FACTS this time

 

[Chris]

so?
thats up to the board of directors for each company
not you or anyone in the government

face it, you want redistribution because you are jealous

Jealous of what? I make a pretty good living.

No, we just gave $700 billion dollars to Wall Street because our government belongs to the moneyed interests.

Too much money in too few hands is bad for society.

 

[DiveCon]

Jealous of what? I make a pretty good living.

No, we just gave $700 billion dollars to Wall Street because our government belongs to the moneyed interests.

Too much money in too few hands is bad for society.

and i opposed that, as did most conservatives(note i DIDNT say republicans)


btw, you just made the case for letting a failing business die

 

[ABikerSailor]

where are those "facts" that you claim we are in a depression?
all you ever post is partisan bullshit, how about some actual FACTS this time

Listen, all the major economists have said depression for the past year, and even the current idiot man-boy called Bush Jr. has said so.

It's really amazing to watch some of you say that this economy is good.