How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[manu1959]

No I'm not accusing the CDC of anything. Just stating that starvation is not on the list... nothing else... I have nothing against it. Are you saying there is not more than 3 starvations a year (1 in 100 million)? I would think 1 in 100 million people have accidentally locked themselves in a house or room and starved.

Granted that I'm insane, and since I believe I'm insane that probably makes me less insane, what does that have to do with what's been bolded?
And what does being insane in general have to do with facts and arguments... I am not so insane that I cannot see I am winning here and that I have the upper hand in this discussion. I am not so insane that I can't be very successful in the working or academic world.

A statistic is that most poor Americans, as well as most Americans in general, are fat. What do most poor Americans have to with the bottom 1/70th of the poor? Where do you come off stereotyping the bottom 1/70th as definitely having the same characteristics as the other 69/70th who are richer?

Do you want a lot of examples of this kind of falacy? If we estimate 1/70th of the human population is 1 years old, and we say most people are active in work or school, does that have much to do with 1 year olds? Is a general rule of Senators true for any two of them? Eh... I never get acknowledged on this board, but do every other one I go to. And no I have not presented this board to any other board.

Can you actually find or derive any statistics whatsoever about the bottom 70th of those below the poverty line? I'd like to see it.

See you can say all you want but you have presented no evidence, which is far less than you can say for me.

i agree................... with your self diagnosis

fyi.....people don't die of starvation....they die heart or lung failure..... starvation is not a legal cause of death

 

[MtnBiker]

fyi.....people don't die of starvation....they die heart or lung failure..... starvation is not a legal cause of death

I believe that catatonic wants to convey the notion that 500,000 people's death was the result of starving. The actual cause of death would be some sort of organ shut down, however the lack of nutrition led to the cause of death.

 

[manu1959]

I believe that catatonic wants to convey the notion that 500,000 people's death was the result of starving. The actual cause of death would be some sort of organ shut down, however the lack of nutrition led to the cause of death.

yes....as an insane person catatonic's comand of logic and semantics would be suspect......why don't these people go to a soup kitchen and eat then.....

 

[Annie]

yes....as an insane person catatonic's comand of logic and semantics would be suspect......why don't these people go to a soup kitchen and eat then.....

I've searched and search for morbidity/mortality rates by starvation. Coming up with zip. It must be a conspiracy...

 

[Mr. P]

I've searched and search for morbidity/mortality rates by starvation. Coming up with zip. It must be a conspiracy...

Same here...I know Bush is hiding this somehow.

 

[catatonic]

I've tried twice to respond but it got erased again and now I have to go to sleep.

 

[MtnBiker]

You probably just took to long to respond and timed out.

 

[Annie]

I've tried twice to respond but it got erased again and now I have to go to sleep.

Truly, you are a sorry excuse, even for a troll. We all know that you might miss 'new posts' if you take more than 15 minutes or so to write a post, but 'lose a post'? Nah. Loser, wannabee, troll with

 

[catatonic]

The general argument is the last two paragraphs, excluding the P.S..

See MtnBiker's response 4 minutes before yours. And since you MtnBiker have been so kind, the response to your questions in the Al Gore thread is that people can see and remember accurately the duration of the year snow falls on the ground and the intensity of that weather well enough... a very small change in average temperature can affect a very noticeable change that as people grow older, they will in general agree upon more and more because of observation, there being less reason for old people to support global warming science without observation than young people with less experience and respect... nothing to do with feeling or seeing the temperature directly, just seeing the temperature indirectly. An alert and active old person is best to ask.

Troll is in the eye of the beholder. The guy here who went to DU and said he was Libertarian and got banned actual broke the rule that members are expected to be generally progressive (had he claimed to be Libertarian but generally progressive I think he'd be fine), and I have yet to get a response to my negotiation attempt that if anyone can define troll, I will totally cooperate. As for whether my posts have been to allow thought or stop thought with clever phrasing, since I've defended myself against every other definition of troll I can think of, I've deliberately opened up thought in every post. As for whether I've attacked the board, they've attacked me much more. Nobody has called me out of line. They demand perfection of me regardless of if I do well correcting them, which is of the utmost importance since I am a member of such a divergence from this board (I endorse three posts now I have read, by Hobbit nonp and one of manu1959's recent posts and enjoy MtnBiker)... a small minority is often held to very high standards which is fair, but small minority views are always very important to consider until they are discredited, and I intend to give you all nothing short of perfection... it's what a small minority must do to keep humanity from losing sight of those views that haven't been considered. That is splitting hairs and I see no reason to give up establishing any point I want to any of you so far. As far as the picking threads insult, yeah, I can't post in every thread at once, and am choosing the exact logical order I want because I feel in terms of teaching what I feel I have to teach, this is the best order, and if at any time I leave this board, I have said the most important things to me first.

Next. My semantics. Language is basically spelling, grammar, and semantics in one perspective. An American-raised American can misspell, but never misses grammar. The ultra-technical wording of a Harlem thug to the verbose, in-the-clouds phrases of a Harvard professor are all grammatical. A lot of people confuse "there, their, and they're" and miss question marks due to the common period in school where for a long enough time period to some students they don't use them, which is grammatical and common (grammatical because the student just thinks of and regards the question as a statement, and that becomes grammatical by common use). Semantics? I propose that semantical errors are due to lack of observation and lack of exposure time, regardless of insanity. That is because I think the same situation as grammar applies, that all the exact rules are learned at such a young age as to be unretractable. My logic is measured high but I say is poor as are all of ours, since 10 years from now we will all have improved it, and I occasionally have semantical problems, which are irrelevant due to infrequency. Believe it or not, I was brainwashed by an authoritarian organization since birth, leading to programming of strategic language to make me strong unintentionally on my part that I'm sorry I won't deprogram because I can use this language on those I meet who are the elite. The issue here is that I didn't know the legal phrase for when people lack food and die because of it. Semantically speaking, starve-to-death and on-the-verge-of-death I see no problem with however as they are starving, making them on the verge of death, leading to death from heart or lung failure.

Soup kitchens... if you just joined the debate I have said that food welfare varies by state, with some states having no starvation and some states having an awful lot, and 4 times that many food banks are closed except 1 day a week or worse (once again many =/= most) and I say now that most of these don't keep a consistent schedule for keeping track, and food banks can be far enough away that finding the right food bank is a stretch, and repeat what I've heard and read in an academic journal that they can easily have nothing but expired milk and expired eggs. Yes simply saying something enough makes it true, since true really means that which contains the future although if you repeat the dictionary definition of true long that will be what is true, because in both of the previous clauses in this sentence repeating something causes it to be adjusted to reality by sheer large interface.

Just the same, I have given many arguments that people are having their lungs or hearts fail because of starvation, a.k.a. starvation-to-death which I am totally glad is an illegal phrase of American. If you want to be very technical, I have made 6 independent, noncircular, reasonably-verifiable arguments (anyone on this board i know can completely verify them if they take long enough), apparently requiring no opinion or fact disbelieved by this board to verify, and yet nobody has presented any evidence or formal arguments against anything I've said on this board, including my starvation claims. If that last sentence is what you mean by a troll, say so and I'll stop saying sentences to that effect. Can we start beating this into the ground any less? Yes.

P.S. Accross-50-state American groups exist anyone can join which guarantee welfare of life except by an act of God, but most people don't know of any of them and they are not governmental groups.

 

[T-Bor]

Have you ever looked at the tax tables and noticed where the breaks are ? Under Clinton it was much much easier to lower your taxable income. Now if you are a middle class earner, about 80K and under. Good freaking luck lowering your income to the next tax bracket to get a break. Then look at how much easier it is for the rich to dump into a lower tax bracket. You really should do your research first.

I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say the "rich" need to pay their "fair share"

What do libs consider rich?

At what income level, if you are single, are you "rich" accroding to liberals?

The top producers pay about 34.3% to the Federal gfovernment. What rate would libs like to see the "rich" pay?

Please remember the follwoing BEFORE you answer
The top 50% of income earners pay a whopping 96.5% of federal income taxes, while the lower 50% pay just 3.5%.
The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes
The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher)
The top 5% pay 54.4%
The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher)


These numbers are from the IRS. They should know who pays taxes and who does not

 

[red states rule]

Have you ever looked at the tax tables and noticed where the breaks are ? Under Clinton it was much much easier to lower your taxable income. Now if you are a middle class earner, about 80K and under. Good freaking luck lowering your income to the next tax bracket to get a break. Then look at how much easier it is for the rich to dump into a lower tax bracket. You really should do your research first.

Today the "rich" are apying all the income taxes

What is your beef?

 

[catatonic]

No. No. What is your beef?

I'll just cut to the bottom line... I'm cutting directly to the chase at this stage. you seem to think you suffer more for the amount of effort you make than anyone else, and perhaps what your skills and hidden knowledge and your family birthright you think make you justify earning additionally. Give me one shred of evidence that this is the government's fault and not just your own psychological problems.

The typical American has absolutely nothing left after both taxes and necessary expenses. They have to get two cars for the partner to go to work. They have to pay exhorbitant gas prices, day care, mortgages, and health care. They have absolutely nothing to save... good thing the government held onto social security or these rich folks would keep them from being able to save that amount too.

So in essence, after tax and necessary expenses, the rich have infinity time left over what the average American has.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The typical American has absolutely nothing left after both taxes and necessary expenses. They have to get two cars for the partner to go to work. They have to pay exhorbitant gas prices, day care, mortgages, and health care.

So taxes are high and the costs of goods go up faster than wages. Both of these are the fault of government.

They have absolutely nothing to save... good thing the government held onto social security or these rich folks would keep them from being able to save that amount too.

If it wasn't for the ponzi scheme called social security, lots more people could afford to save. Not to mention that the economy would be stronger with all the additional investment dollars. I don't even make that much money, and I pay around $250 a month into SS. Now consider that my employer matches that, it's more like $500 a month. I don't even want to think how high my 401k would be if I could put in an extra $500 a month, it makes me sick.

 

[catatonic]

Higher taxes make the poor and middle class more prosperous... not through socialism but by increasing opportunity. Just like at how any Democrat president in the last 80 years has had more net job creation than every Republican president... they can balance the budget too.

Goods could be brought down if we just outlawed a few of the most unreasonable corporate treasons against society. Like conspiring against the electric car. Gas would be very cheap if we had outlawed that, making all physical goods a lot cheaper. The electric car gets 100 mpg and runs like a dream. Consumers didn't even want to buy Hummers and SUVs when they came out (er to make people forget the electric car). Everyone thought they were ghey. Funny how the CEOs changed their perception.

Cost of houses... that's a rather large chunk. The government makes a real problem out of passing on your house to your children. If everyone had two children and everyone could let one child inherit one home, nobody would have to pay for their houses anymore. People would rather pay 90% tax then for their house, because it's cheaper. That's a rather large good that this simple procedure takes care of.

Name any good and I bet I can make it cheaper.

Without the Ponzi scheme called Social Security that does exactly what the name implies, let's destroy the myth that people would be fine.
Some claim putting $2000/yr in an account for everyone in the first 18 years, making very conservative investments and using a very bad market we'd all be millionaires at retirement. Not close! And I can debunk all those social security calculators too. In this case, because of diminishing returns, we'd be screwed.

But you say, I'm responsible, are you? Studies prove we all take the stock market irrationally whether we have 3 PH.Ds in psychology business and math or not. We all are very averse to risk and very greedy about gains... a lethal combination..l you practically need to program the computer to not allow you to interfere after you bought in order to win.

We just have to do the political unthinkable... cap benefits. If the public voting block doesn't come around to the realization that America will perish without this, America pretty well deserves to perish. Also, there's no reason we can't do Bush's idea but inside the federal system.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

How do high taxes increase opportunity?

More net job creation under democratic presidents? According to what source?

Also, what would that prove? JFK was a supply-sider, Hoover and Nixon were Keynesians, or at least approved Keynesian policies.

The budget has been perpetually running a deficit regardless of who's in office. Except for a very brief period during the Truman administration, IIRC.

There is no conspiracy against the electric car. They have been around for literally 100+ years. The only thing conspiring against them is shitty batteries (which is thankfully changing). No one wants to sit at a gas station for 6 hours while their car charges up for a whopping 30 mile trip. Also umm...electric cars don't get MPG. They don't use gallons of anything.

The bottom line is, the prices you listed are rising due to inflation. Inflation is rising because the fed has been printing money like it's going out of style.

Socialist security is not going to be capped. Congress can't get the balls to do that now, and the baby boomers haven't even 65 yet. Once the ranks of the elderly swell into the gazillions, SS will not be touched, for fear of losing elections. Government will get to choose either A) crushing taxes on working families to pay the wealthiest portion of the population (the elderly), or B) print money to pay the bills, which is essentially the same thing.

I'm not in favor of Bush's privatization plan. The last thing we need is more entanglement of corporate finance with government. Companies will seek to influence congress even more, once we put government in charge of large sums of capital. Politicians will seek to influence private companies, and punish those who don't follow the government line (for example, not researching hydrogen cars, or hiring enough minorities, etc).

No, I want to see SS completely gone. Auction off the government's massive land holdings to pay existing obligations to those who were cheated for their entire working lives. Let people invest their money as they see fit. Yes, some will squander it. That's no reason to get government involved. Some people don't brush their teeth, should we get government to enforce that? Old people were not dying in the streets in the 30's, and they certainly will not die in the streets now.

And finally, even the safest investments would yield more benefits than SS. A simple savings account would. Hell, I could take my $500+ a month and buy one ounce of gold every month and stick it under my mattress. That would be a better investment than SS, and you can't get any safer than gold bullion.

 

[red states rule]

Higher taxes make the poor and middle class more prosperous... not through socialism but by increasing opportunity. Just like at how any Democrat president in the last 80 years has had more net job creation than every Republican president... they can balance the budget too.

Goods could be brought down if we just outlawed a few of the most unreasonable corporate treasons against society. Like conspiring against the electric car. Gas would be very cheap if we had outlawed that, making all physical goods a lot cheaper. The electric car gets 100 mpg and runs like a dream. Consumers didn't even want to buy Hummers and SUVs when they came out (er to make people forget the electric car). Everyone thought they were ghey. Funny how the CEOs changed their perception.

Cost of houses... that's a rather large chunk. The government makes a real problem out of passing on your house to your children. If everyone had two children and everyone could let one child inherit one home, nobody would have to pay for their houses anymore. People would rather pay 90% tax then for their house, because it's cheaper. That's a rather large good that this simple procedure takes care of.

Name any good and I bet I can make it cheaper.

Without the Ponzi scheme called Social Security that does exactly what the name implies, let's destroy the myth that people would be fine.
Some claim putting $2000/yr in an account for everyone in the first 18 years, making very conservative investments and using a very bad market we'd all be millionaires at retirement. Not close! And I can debunk all those social security calculators too. In this case, because of diminishing returns, we'd be screwed.

But you say, I'm responsible, are you? Studies prove we all take the stock market irrationally whether we have 3 PH.Ds in psychology business and math or not. We all are very averse to risk and very greedy about gains... a lethal combination..l you practically need to program the computer to not allow you to interfere after you bought in order to win.

We just have to do the political unthinkable... cap benefits. If the public voting block doesn't come around to the realization that America will perish without this, America pretty well deserves to perish. Also, there's no reason we can't do Bush's idea but inside the federal system.

If higher taxes make the "poor" prosperous, then we should all be living in Beverly Hills

$9 trillion dollars have been taken from the producers and given to the nonproducers - how much more do you want?

 

[catatonic]

BaronVonBigMeat:How do high taxes increase opportunity?

catatonic:Great? This will be a fun, pleasurable conversation, I hope for us both. To their discredit, the Democrats aren't willing to raise taxes any more.

catatonic:Everyone should be rewarded for the smallest to the largest effort to help society out. It doesn't work that way. There is a lot of unfairness in getting paid what one deserves. This causes a lot of problems, because whenever somebody gets money, it has to come from somebody else.

catatonic:You can have all the untested assertions about what to tax each bracket, and Democrats know best. The stock market does better, the economy does better, there is always more job creation, every tax bracket is more productive, Keynesian economics kicks butt... for 30 years we were very prosperous under it.

BaronVonBigMeat:More net job creation under democratic presidents? According to what source?

catatonic: Look it up yourself. It is a fact, and since I've spent some time looking things up for you, you can do the same for me now. As I spend so much time, I will only cite the source if 4 people call me on it, (or 1 big baby). It's called reciprocation. Try some on me. Not just under democratic presidents in general. Any and Every Democrat president beat any and every Republican president, with no exception, in net jobs created.

BaronVonBigMeat: Also, what would that prove? JFK was a supply-sider, Hoover and Nixon were Keynesians, or at least approved Keynesian policies.

catatonic:That Democrats honor the commerce clause.

BaronVonBigMeat: The budget has been perpetually running a deficit regardless of who's in office. Except for a very brief period during the Truman administration, IIRC.

catatonic: Hmm... I may be wrong about Clinton. Still however, Reagan Bush and Bush are just out of control. Let's cover our eyes and pretend we just owe 1 trillion dollars extra. Do you know how long our children will slave away over 1 trillion dollars? And how much other countries can take advantage?

BaronVonBigMeat:There is no conspiracy against the electric car. They have been around for literally 100+ years. The only thing conspiring against them is shitty batteries (which is thankfully changing). No one wants to sit at a gas station for 6 hours while their car charges up for a whopping 30 mile trip. Also umm...electric cars don't get MPG. They don't use gallons of anything.

catatonic: You mean the the CityCar or the EV1?

Does this look like a car that should be used in the same sentence as dream to you?



Let's go with the EV1. They would today get 100 mpg+ in gasoline equivalent, which is what I said, and that's how they measure (gasoline equivalent). They also get 100 mph, which is what I meant. As I stated, I was so brainwashed my whole life that I can't even often think the wrong thing when I type and not type something correct. Incidentally, the CityCar got 30mph. The very first EV1 one got 55 to 95 miles per charge. You could charge 80% in 2 to 3 hours. 80% gets you 44 to 76 miles. By comparison to what you said, it is 4.8 times better than what you said. And that's the first model, and that's city miles. If you want to talk trash, there was also the EV1 CNG with 72 hp at 5500 rpm, 4 minutes to fill both tanks, 0-60mph in 11 seconds, 350 to 400 miles between fillup, and 60 mpg (in gasoline equivalent). The 1998 Detroit Auto Show had EV1s (nonelectric) that got from 300 to 550 miles per powerup. But sticking to just the electric car, the next model got 75 to 100 miles per charge, or at the 80% charge 60 to 80 miles. Not for vacations, but most people can just take 5 seconds to plug it in at night, 5 seconds to unplug it in the morning, and most people don't need to go 50 miles each way per day. The average American drives just 21 miles per day, probably due to high gas prices, so by being able to drive at least 4 times further on one fill this is actually more convenient. You just have to get in the habit of 5 seconds at night and 5 seconds in the morning. If they cared enough, you could get together with the alarm clock industry and make an easy cheap solution so nobody would ever forget.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1
http://home.earthlink.net/~bdewey/EV_charging.html



BaronVonBigMeat: The bottom line is, the prices you listed are rising due to inflation. Inflation is rising because the fed has been printing money like it's going out of style.

catatonic:Yes. We're all in big trouble, and need to implement lots of bright ideas. I have a lot of wonderful ideas to help the US in its financial woes, would you like to hear them, and we can establish that the status quo won't work.

BaronVonBigMeat: Socialist security is not going to be capped. Congress can't get the balls to do that now, and the baby boomers haven't even 65 yet. Once the ranks of the elderly swell into the gazillions, SS will not be touched, for fear of losing elections. Government will get to choose either A) crushing taxes on working families to pay the wealthiest portion of the population (the elderly), or B) print money to pay the bills, which is essentially the same thing.

In what way is it socialist, using any definition that's noncircular?
Yeah it's a gigantic problem. We can cap SS harming no one, but politically it's like travelling to Pluto. We have profitable machines now to stop global warming, and the same problem. We have free energy, and the same problem. We have fish 40 times as big as normal, to feed the world, and the same problem.

BVM Also:I'm not in favor of Bush's privatization plan. The last thing we need is more entanglement of corporate finance with government. Companies will seek to influence congress even more, once we put government in charge of large sums of capital. Politicians will seek to influence private companies, and punish those who don't follow the government line (for example, not researching hydrogen cars, or hiring enough minorities, etc).

Good. Not researching hydrogen cars goes along with what I said about the EV1.

BVM Plus: No, I want to see SS completely gone. Auction off the government's massive land holdings to pay existing obligations to those who were cheated for their entire working lives. Let people invest their money as they see fit. Yes, some will squander it. That's no reason to get government involved. Some people don't brush their teeth, should we get government to enforce that? Old people were not dying in the streets in the 30's, and they certainly will not die in the streets now.

We can't go back to the 30s without returning the population to the 30s level also. I really must repost this argument as it's extremely strong and went ignored. My next post will be a repost. You can never go back. In 2006, 30s laws would be the equivalent of chaos and anarchy.

BVM Still: And finally, even the safest investments would yield more benefits than SS. A simple savings account would. Hell, I could take my $500+ a month and buy one ounce of gold every month and stick it under my mattress. That would be a better investment than SS, and you can't get any safer than gold bullion.

I bet you could. Will you let everyone else do the same thing? If so, the law of diminishing returns will leave you without much.

Fact or fiction: If every American invested $2000 in the most conservative stocks each year for his/her first 18 years, with the market poor, we'd all retire millionaires?

A: Fiction. While the math is done correctly, the law of diminishing returns means we'd overwhelm the market with money that couldn't be returned as successfully. This is common sense.

Fact or fiction: All those SS calculators?
Fiction, at least the Republican ones. They use this same problem and also assume the market would have to be so bad, that we'd all be starving anyhow.

Fact or fiction: The US Government has $91 trillion in investment revenue?
I don't know. WorldNetDaily claimed such. Al Gore does not seem to care about the deficit, and he's not running, whereas those who are running do seem to pretend to care.

 

[catatonic]

A repost that you really ought to consider. I did not just mean that there was one difference before and after the industrial revolution. The starting argument, that population increased and population got more dense, is something that just keeps going and going. This makes the argument ever more necessary as time goes on.

Alright. Here goes it.

Here's just the bare bones skeleton summary. I actually did pull it right out of my ass after a night of no sleep recently, yet if any step in it can't be overwhelmingly demonstrated on the Internet or by the appropriate source, I highly feel this argument can be adjusted slightly and virtually all conclusions will be the same. I have lots to back up each step, and I have a lot more up my sleeve after this.

industrial revolution occured -> population increased -> population got more dense -> denser population required denser resources there to live -> denser population also has less ability to generate basic resources internally -> intellectual resources are generally-speaking limited the same amount (yes I know they're unlimited but practically speaking they can be made at a finite accelerating rate)-> denser population must therefore live more off of rural areas as business to sustain itself -> people in rural areas can make business off urban areas the same as vice versa -> denser population must be more organized than rural areas to successfully gain their money -> denser populations are more professional and distribute the necessary network over a more determined nature -> people have less control over who they associate with as a matter of life and death and less intimacy to say, "Hey I need $5999 to get through the year." -> everyone is more professional from the street babbler to the corporate ceo (more schizophrenia too, another detriment to finding work and very expensive to treat) -> less resources means less safety nets -> people starve if not for more organization -> they demand liberal government, the more dense the more liberal -> they never get it due to average of voters, which causes massive damage, and conservatives in rural areas complain about too much government which is relatively like an unfair speed limit sign or taking down a crucifix on the highway to them -> dense population is underfunded in organization and government, allowing more crime, also allowed by inherently knowing a smaller percentage of the population -> the government must be more underground -> the government must use more deception in its running candidates to win, and more deception to run government (as everyone must use more deception call it professionalism if you would like. It may not be deception it just has to be the natural force sucking the rural areas dry of money when they are no more or less inherently intelligent) -> denser populations mean more money thrown at paralyzing the intellect of elected officials to overwhelm them on deciding issues -> less intimacy means less voter knowledge to judge -> also its like there is more density in the government itself, allowing more crime thereby -> the people at the bottom thank their lucky stars for the government as it is all that keeps them alive, and can't understand why libertarians and conservatives want them dead -> George Bush has nerves of steel! -> Kofi Annan!!. Government corruption I believe is mathematically balanced with corporate corruption as well as individual corruption, all just a function of what it is. -> the corruption is inherent in the size and agreed to by voters, it's just that they drive the size of their government by population density. -> As population density grows in variance, and it always does, the ever denser populations will be more left in the dark in terms of having enough government -> which, having nothing at all to do with Malthus, is why more and more will starve.

Big cities sell nothing but information. (What else comes out of them and that doesn't come in?) They buy legal goods from small towns, slap on information, and sell it back. They are completely at the mercy of the red areas. They sell information to small towns.

Now you can argue the statistics, but the fact that all the most densely populated areas vote liberal is undeniable. The reason is pretty well established by this argument, if they can't get more organization they can't sustain themselves because they inherently have less resources internally and less intimacy, and more and more will starve. One solution is for a president to run a campaign of big government for big cities and small government for small towns. I feel he'd/she'd get elected in a landslide. But if you can't do that, please realize that the big cities are the ones where the people suffer. Massively insufficient government is a humongous problem. Minorly overgoverning is just a minor inconvenience. So if we can't reach a compromise, I urge you to vote liberal for the sake of the real sufferers. Go to downtown Detroit, LA, NYC, Chicago, or Las Vegas and you'll see.

Oh, and this I believe is the one and only reason I will accept for why any liberal hates Wal-Mart. Nothing else accounts for it. Because they compete against big cities, to help those rural areas who both need and want absolutely no help, to damage those urban areas who both need and want the profits desperately. Liberals don't derive their living from communism. They have to be capitalists too. And Wal-Mart competes against liberals.

 

[Said1]

I agree with some of it, I guess. Mostly because it's common knowledge.

Liberals around here hate walmart becuase it kills the smaller stores and no union. While they are capitalistic themselves - a matter of survival, the deisre protect the smaller guys and force unions is not so 'conservative' minded.

Most people who are in the agri-business sector, operating farms tend NOT to be liberal, although they obviously like getting subsidies and many dislike the wheat board, since it controls prices and markets. They tend to be much more self sufficent, more willing to lend a hand than run to the government (with the exception of subisdies, one NOT being a transportation grant) which isn't so liberal minded either.

 

[catatonic]

Thank you, sticking around here seems to be key to get some agreement.

I said some of the steps might be wrong, but that if all of them were tested scientifically, some could be modified and the results would be the same.