Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/10/06 05:16 PM, -poxpower- wrote: We can't all live in the south and sleep on benches during most of the year.
Hell, you're right anyways. I know some poeple who did not make a lot of money but who stil gambled and got drunk every week at the bar.
So... yeah sometimes, people don't help themselves.

The beautiful thing about wages is that they increase in places where it costs more to live. In Maryland, the standard wages are around 6 to 6.50.

At 4/10/06 01:13 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: You both bring all of your wit, at least half of it, and you still can't find any rebute to any point made by ML.

Ann Coulter is right once again... Whenever Somone makes a conservative or republican or libertarian argument which CANT be debated by the person listening, they either:

1) Call the person stupid
2) Call facts opinions
3) Yell "HALIBURTEN" and skip away, giggling.

even if Moral libertarian's truths, were opinions, that doesn't mean you cant debate them. For example...

My opinion is, i THINK that it will be a sunny day tommorow

This is indeed an opinion, however, it can still be debated

Smith, it probably wont be sunny because a cold front is comming in from canada, and a warm front from the south, it will probably rain, meaning, no sun.

Now, i dont know much about weather, but that was a simple example. You should get the point.

I WANT somone to argue with moral libertarian, because i want to know if he is right because I AGREE WITH HIM. Beleive it or not, most republicans want to be prooven wrong because they're so used to weak liberal arguments, they're just begging for a good fight.

At 4/10/06 02:05 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:
The murder rate in the U.S. is over 3 times that of England, and most of Europe for that matter. I don't care about petty crime statistics.

And how much larger is the U.S. population than Englands?
U.S.: 295,734,134
Eng.: 60,441,457

((source: http://www.cia.gov/c..korder/2119rank.html

) found thru google)

Let's divide those: (go Calculator program!) aprox. 4.89

I'm guessing that's where most of the difference is. If you have 23 and a half MILLION more possible criminals, shit happens...but still, England would be considered "safer" overall, just not by any mathematical figure.

At 4/10/06 05:22 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/10/06 05:16 PM, -poxpower- wrote: We can't all live in the south and sleep on benches during most of the year.
Hell, you're right anyways. I know some poeple who did not make a lot of money but who stil gambled and got drunk every week at the bar.
So... yeah sometimes, people don't help themselves.

The beautiful thing about wages is that they increase in places where it costs more to live. In Maryland, the standard wages are around 6 to 6.50.

That so? Normal wages in Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Michigan are about the same... 6.00-6.50/hr for your general non-trade job. It's the same in Northern Michigan. Take a gander at the cost of living in each place...

Yeah, they're not equal. Same wages... different costs of living. Basically: if you dont have a proffessional or trade job, it is nearly impossible to afford Ann Arbor living. With rent at the lowest being $750/mo for a single bedroom apt. nevermind the sprawl almost necessitating a car, and the lack of parking city-wide, the standards are VERY different... for the same wages.

Imagine that.

At 4/10/06 05:34 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Imagine that.

Yus.
If you work at 6.50 per hour, only 40 hours a week, you make 260$ per week, which is 1040$ per month.
So, technicaly, if you have no kids and live alone, or if you are two people working at this wage, you can like... almost live anywhere on basic needs.

Forget having a car though. You're gonna be doing lots of walking. Even a bus pass is starting to look mighty expensive at like 40-50 bucks per month. And I hope you like rags, because you'll be wearing them AND cleaning the floors with them.

But yes, you can definately LIVE.
It also helps if you like cat food :o

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Your topics are intriguing, but some of the logic you use is O'Reilly-esque, i.e. oversimplifying and assuming that these situations take place within an ideal world. Rarely will there be a specific answer for any given problem, and some of the points you make seem to express absolutes when I know very well you are aware that pursuing absolutism in a social science backing (like these liberal myths are) is foolishness. Let me take on two of the ones I found the most intriguing.

9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.

Truth: While not easy, living with a minimum wage job is possible. Living with two or three minimum wage jobs is easier.

This is a simple question of whether the government should settle for a bunch of workers "just getting by," with enough to afford some food at the end of the week. However, the fallacy fo this is that it is often not possible to live on a minimum wage job. Yes, it is true that some low-income families got that way because of a lack of education that might have been corrected through their own methods.

However, this oversimplifies the problem. Many poor families inherit debts from their parents or other relatives, creating a cycle of debt that requires them to emphasize work over education. Surely, some low-income workers have taken steps to get night-education and otherwise increase their chances at a better life, but this is hardly a universal choice for everyone. Poverty breeds poverty, and it is statistically impossible that all instances of poverty are caused simply by laziness and apathy for education.

We can go more into this if you'd like.

10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.

Truth: this is only true if you have no desire to work. Then, Europe is probably a better place to live.

That's not necessarily true, Sweden's standard of living is markedly higher than the United States, as well as its health care system and job market. However, this is tempered by the fact that Sweden is much smaller than the United States, and so does not have the economic constraints in providing these universal programs that the United States would. Besides, trying to quantify an abstract term such as "better" can be done any number of ways: average age at death, literacy, overall health, cultural and religious tolerance, etc. etc. The question depends on what standard of living one is looking for to consider one nation or another "better" or "worse" than the United States.

1) You can increase the prosperity of a nation through taxation.

Truth: Taxation decreases the consumption of a nation, and thereby decreases output. Taxation by itself will never, ever lead to increased prosperity.

You seem to think that the only measure of prosperity of a nation is the amount of money it has. I wouldn't gauge it in that manner, rather the way in which the money is distributed and the welfare of its citizens. I prefer to increase consumption of goods by taxing the rich and giving that money to the poor in various forms, like better education, social security, etc. This is beneficial in two ways. First, it will create a more highly skilled workforce which can compete against that of other nations, which will in turn produce more money. Second, the overall quality of living will be increased in the nation, which is an marker of its social "prosperity."

2) Tax cuts take away money from the poor to subsidize the rich.

Truth: I have a hard time with this one, because it makes no sense. What money do the poor have to take away to give to the rich? A rich person makes more in an hour than a poor person does in a year.

George Bush's tax cut has effectively widened the gap between both ends of the financial spectrum. The average annual income for the lower 25% has decreased by 10 percentage points, while the average income for the upper 5% has increased by 15 percentage points. The poor have been getting poorer and the rich richer as a result of the tax cut.

Robin Hood and Jesus

What do they have to do with liberal ideas? I've never heard of a liberal bringing Jesus into an argument, have you?

6) Without the government, there is no social safety net.

Truth: Most liberals aren't this stupid, but their rhetoric ignores the vast safety net this country already has. In the 17th Century Dutch Republic, the welfare state was completely private, church based, and much more effective. In this country, there are private soup kitchens, places for free meals, homeless shelters, etc. SOME, my favorite charity, provides job training and free basic healthcare to the homeless if they should choose to take advantage of it, but if they don't want it, they are free to take a free meal. This charity is a great example of a more personal, problem solving charity that is more effective than the government.

The 17th century Dutch Republic was vastly different from the US today. Many more people were devoulty religious and felt that donating was a way to go to heaven or something like that. Today, most people with the exception of the Pat Robertsons of the world are not so fanatically religious. Many people still do donate, but there are a lot of poor people and few donators. There is no guarantee that everybody will get what they need if you let the task of helping the needy fall into private control. Obviously, donating is not something that is profitable, so there is little impetus to donate. There is no reason to take down a system that is effectively aiding the impoverished and hope that donations will be sufficient. If people want to donate, they still can -- nobody's stopping them. However, there is an additional and necessary safety net.

8) Wal-mart is evil.

Truth: Wal-mart has done more for the poor (and rich) in this country than the federal government has. Wal-mart has played a central role in shifting the supply curve down/to the right, resulting in a more competitive market in the US, which lowers the natural unemployment rate and increases productivity. And for every "mom and pop" business it puts out of business, it creates another business by putting their product on the store's shelves.

Wal-Mart is evil. For one, its predatory pricing techniques (which it has been found guilty of numerous times but were overturned on appeal -- however, it has been found guilty of this in Germany) drive small businesses out of business and help create a monopoly which is the antithesis of competition. For every two jobs created by Wal-Mart, three are lost by small businesses, which does not decrease unemployment. Wages at Wal-Mart are 20% lower than at similar stores and they average a 50% employee turnover per year. Part of the reason for the low prices is that Wal-Mart factories are in poor condition and its employees are subjected to inhuman conditions and treatment.

9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.

Truth: While not easy, living with a minimum wage job is possible. Living with two or three minimum wage jobs is easier.

And living with nine or ten minimum wage jobs is also easier. How do you think somebody can work three minimum wage jobs and find the time to eat or sleep? It is very difficult to live on minimum wage as it is currently.

10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.

Obviously subjective.

At 4/10/06 01:16 PM, chocolate_penguin wrote: Another myth is that "Jesus would have given welfare."

Lets say Jesus was alive today and with his all seeing power sees all the lazy fucks, illegal immigrants, healthcare frauds, insurance frauds...etc.

Let's say we stop using religion and bullshit ancient mythological figures as an argument and consider reality and human interests.

Firstly, about gays; If I won't change my sexuality to homosexual, I doubt that you could ever fix a man or woman's attraction to the other sex. Furthermore, one's private life is their own business - as a conservative you should also believe that private interests should be regulated privately - yet you feel the need to regulate Family and Marriages, both private interests.

Now, this does make all conservatives hypocrits? For wanting self-regulated private industry, yet no self-regulated private relationships?!

Please, get off my internet and society will not fall apart if Gays marry - Marriage is not a Christian institution, it is a government document declaring your life partner. So yeah, once more an idea of common sense (Seperation of Church and State) defeats your whole "Gay is abomination, Christianity!!, blah - blah - blah." Next, somebody else's marriage is not your business, nor any politician's business. It is wholly theirs and wholly theirs to decide the fate of their relationships - not governments.

Government's duty is to protect the interests of the public. If the public is being screwed over for a neccesity by a monopoly - government takes a step in and adds competition to ensure that people can have money so that the economy can prosper and money can change hands quicker and in larger amounts instead of being funnelled into one bloated corporation that has large profits, little cost, and little spending. This is what I believe to be every conservative's wet dream, right?

Private deals between small parties are one thing, but once you make commercial deals with the general public and the deals are available to the public (i.e.: Railroads, Air travel, Telecommunications, Energy: All of these things need to be regulated).

As for welfare, I sorta agree. Welfare should be sent to the people who are physically or mentally incapable of working, and to the sick. The people who are capable of working, yet choose not to, should rely on nobody but themselves. And due court process should be assigned to all you are capable of working, yet choose to rely on the system - and if this is already in place, it needs to be enforced more strictly.

The problem with conservatives and liberals is that both are at extreme polar opposites - creating a vast empty space where common sense and the ability to make independent decisions irrelevant of social and party politics used to occupy.

So yeah, there's my entire political theory, try and tear to shreds - but I assure you, it is as tough as leather.

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: 4) Jesus was a teacher of tolerance.

Truth: Jesus never turned any person away because of their sinfulness, but that is not the definition of tolerance. When Jesus saw sin, he did not accept it, nor did he tolerate it, he only fixed it.

Jesus was a teacher of tolerance, by his standards, having an adulterer forgiven instead of stoned was a very radical idea back then. Of course, Jesus wouldn't be considered tolerant in the sense of gay marriage and abortion, so yeah, you're probably right on that, but who am I to say what Jesus' political philosophy would be?

Truth: this is only true if you have no desire to work. Then, Europe is probably a better place to live.

France is definitly the best if you dun wanna work. That probably has nothign to do with the topic at hand, but w/e.

At 4/10/06 05:50 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Your topics are intriguing, but some of the logic you use is O'Reilly-esque, i.e. oversimplifying and assuming that these situations take place within an ideal world.

Get over it? Look, I know I tend to be a tad bit inflammatory, but if that bothers you, you probably should get a life. And no, I do not assume that situtations take place in an ideal world. A perfect world would mean no scarcity in my opinion. I imagine Heaven is like that.

9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.

Truth: While not easy, living with a minimum wage job is possible. Living with two or three minimum wage jobs is easier.

This is a simple question of whether the government should settle for a bunch of workers "just getting by," with enough to afford some food at the end of the week.

Why should the government care? And what is being on welfare? If that's not, "just getting by," I don't know what is. Yet the government continues to subsidize non-work for millions.

However, the fallacy fo this is that it is often not possible to live on a minimum wage job. Yes, it is true that some low-income families got that way because of a lack of education that might have been corrected through their own methods.

It is possible for one individual to live working one minimum wage job full time, provided they are responsible and spendthrift. Millions of Americans have done it. If you'd like, I could give you a list of strategies on how this is possible if you'd like.

We can go more into this if you'd like.

10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.

Truth: this is only true if you have no desire to work. Then, Europe is probably a better place to live.

That's not necessarily true...

It's much easier to become filthy stinking rich in this country than it is in Sweden.

At 4/10/06 06:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/10/06 05:50 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Why should the government care? And what is being on welfare? If that's not, "just getting by," I don't know what is. Yet the government continues to subsidize non-work for millions.

Welfare is in need of reform, of that I see no possible argument given some of the blatant misuse within the system. However, to assume that the government is subsidizing non-work for all of the millions of people on welfare is another generalization that does not hold true. The majority of welfare recipients are earnestly engaged in or seeking work or other job training programs, programs that are ultimately being limited and cut by state and federal government hacking of the budget.

Your question, though, why should the government care, goes much deeper. That comes to the fundamental question of what role government plays in the daily lives of people. My personal opinion is that if there is going to be some kind of coherent civil society that prolongs and contributes to government, it is simple reciprocity that to some extent government assist those who have either contributed in the past and are now beyond the age where that is possible, or have otherwise ended up unable to contribute. This by no means necessitates lifetime welfare benefits, but a much stricter form of the current welfare system in which job training and seeking is monitored on a better level than is currently done by the bloated and inefficient bureaucracy the system has become.

However, the fallacy fo this is that it is often not possible to live on a minimum wage job. Yes, it is true that some low-income families got that way because of a lack of education that might have been corrected through their own methods.

It is possible for one individual to live working one minimum wage job full time, provided they are responsible and spendthrift. Millions of Americans have done it. If you'd like, I could give you a list of strategies on how this is possible if you'd like.

Yes, while it might be possible for an individual alone, living on nothing but necessities, to survive on a minimum wage job, is that the going rate of a human life in this supposedly compassionate democracy? Is survival all we're going for, a permutation of social Darwinism from the turn of the Century? That's the kind of legacy the United States aims for? Similarly, most low-income recipients are not individuals but families, either disabled and receiving (or not) disability and unemployment, or some other form of compensation. While it is possible for an individual to survive on a minimum wage job, we must take into account that the vast majority are not individuals but families living in the bottom third.

It's much easier to become filthy stinking rich in this country than it is in Sweden.

Well, if your standard of a "greater" or "worse" country is the ease with which wealth is gained, then I suppose you have a point. However, it is prudent to note that the system does not work just one way. If it is easier to gain money in one country, it is also easier to lose money in that country than it is in the opposing country. One can make the case either way: Sweden is worse because money is not gained and kept as quickly as in America, while Sweden is better because money is not lost as quickly, bringing about fewer of the poorest and more in the middle of the curve.

At 4/10/06 06:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

1) You can increase the prosperity of a nation through taxation.

Truth: Taxation decreases the consumption of a nation, and thereby decreases output. Taxation by itself will never, ever lead to increased prosperity.

I prefer to increase consumption of goods by taxing the rich and giving that money to the poor in various forms, like better education, social security, etc. This is beneficial in two ways. First, it will create a more highly skilled workforce which can compete against that of other nations, which will in turn produce more money. Second, the overall quality of living will be increased in the nation, which is an marker of its social "prosperity."

Sounds like the Great Society, which was a huge failure. Great that you base your theories on a great historical failure, but there is no evidence that the quality of living in increased by high taxation of the rich.

2) Tax cuts take away money from the poor to subsidize the rich.

George Bush's tax cut has effectively widened the gap between both ends of the financial spectrum. The average annual income for the lower 25% has decreased by 10 percentage points, while the average income for the upper 5% has increased by 15 percentage points. The poor have been getting poorer and the rich richer as a result of the tax cut.

That's been happening since the Great Society and it hasn't been slowing down either. It was happening just as quickly during the Clinton years and taxes were high then.

Robin Hood and Jesus

What do they have to do with liberal ideas? I've never heard of a liberal bringing Jesus into an argument, have you?

They are just storybook myths that liberals like to brainwash children with.

6) Without the government, there is no social safety net.

The 17th century Dutch Republic was vastly different from the US today.

Yeah, less taxes. Private donations would explode in this country if we didn't have an income tax.

8) Wal-mart is evil.

Wal-Mart is evil. For one, its predatory pricing techniques (which it has been found guilty of numerous times but were overturned on appeal -- however, it has been found guilty of this in Germany) drive small businesses out of business and help create a monopoly which is the antithesis of competition.

Nevermind the fact that I just said that Wal-Mart has made our country and the market in general more competitive by driving down prices.

For every two jobs created by Wal-Mart, three are lost by small businesses, which does not decrease unemployment.

You're not taking into account all of the small businesses that provide Wal-Mart with their retail.

Wages at Wal-Mart are 20% lower than at similar stores and they average a 50% employee turnover per year.

Because a lot of their employees are younger and only working part time. As for wages, yeah, they have to pay smaller wages if they want to keep their prices low and competitive.

Part of the reason for the low prices is that Wal-Mart factories are in poor condition and its employees are subjected to inhuman conditions and treatment.

What is "inhuman?" Obviously the factories are better than no job at all.

9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.

And living with nine or ten minimum wage jobs is also easier. How do you think somebody can work three minimum wage jobs and find the time to eat or sleep? It is very difficult to live on minimum wage as it is currently.

I've done it.

10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.

Obviously subjective.

I suppose.

minimum wage jobs are NOT for people 21-50!!!!!!!

Those kind of jobs weren't designed for people to be sucsessful and have a family with.

Those kind of jobs, such as a job in a movie rental store for mimimum wage, are for teenagers 16-18 who need to save up money for something like a car, or college.
They are also for immigrants who come here and donty have any trade skills, well you may be thinking, that's unfair, they get less money then an evil rich white mother fucking bastard of the majority, but it's better then earning nothing.

I cant really say that the immigrants who come here have a good change of being sucessfull, the sucess isn't as much for them as it is for their childeren, since they will be the ones who are born in america, pick up on english, learn in school, and eventually get a trade.

why the hell to teachers say to study, do well in school, dont turn to drugs, and follow the rules in school. because they dont want you to end up being the juvinile bastard who dropped out of highschool and ended up either making a living off crime, or ending up working in a mimimum wage job. Kids arn't able to comprehend why school is umportant until they reach the age where it is too late for them, so this is why the tigfhter your grip is on a student, the better change they have to susceed, this is why you dont give a child their savings at the age of 17, when they cant handle large amounts of money.

A person who ends up failing in school will fail in life, and then they end up doing even more damage to the economy by sucking on welfare, draining money from the people who were sucessfull.

I'm getting off topic, the point of the matter is, there's no exuse why a native born american, or a pre-trade-educated immigrant who is over 21 should be working minimum wage. Unless they are slow, or disabled.

If anyone can think of a reason why the person i described should be working mimimum wage, then please do tell.

I'm sorry to contradict myself, but i need to add something.

A person getting a masters of a bachelors who is spending alot of their time in college might have a mimimum wage job, even if they are over 21 because they havn't received the degree they want to get the job they desire, and that is perfectly acceptable, infact there is no reason why a person shouldn't be working while in college, even if it's mimimum wage. I guess i'm wrong, but now try and debate.

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: In no particular order:

1) You can increase the prosperity of a nation through taxation.

Truth: Taxation decreases the consumption of a nation, and thereby decreases output. Taxation by itself will never, ever lead to increased prosperity.

2) Tax cuts take away money from the poor to subsidize the rich.

Truth: I have a hard time with this one, because it makes no sense. What money do the poor have to take away to give to the rich? A rich person makes more in an hour than a poor person does in a year.

3) Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Truth: Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor. In the feudal system, the only people who are rich are the ones that are appointed to be, and its a closed system. Therefore Robin Hood's heroism is outdated: he would not be a hero if he stole from the rich OR the government today.

4) Jesus was a teacher of tolerance.

Truth: Jesus never turned any person away because of their sinfulness, but that is not the definition of tolerance. When Jesus saw sin, he did not accept it, nor did he tolerate it, he only fixed it.

5) FDR's New Deal fixed the Great Depression.

Truth: FDR could well have done two things that would have got us out of the Great Depression faster and he did neither. He could have done nothing and let the market self-correct by letting the supply curve move to the right. Or he could have provided all the government services he did without raising taxes, which was probably the most harmful part of his policy. The dramatic output during the second World War was what solved the Great Depression.

6) Without the government, there is no social safety net.

Truth: Most liberals aren't this stupid, but their rhetoric ignores the vast safety net this country already has. In the 17th Century Dutch Republic, the welfare state was completely private, church based, and much more effective. In this country, there are private soup kitchens, places for free meals, homeless shelters, etc. SOME, my favorite charity, provides job training and free basic healthcare to the homeless if they should choose to take advantage of it, but if they don't want it, they are free to take a free meal. This charity is a great example of a more personal, problem solving charity that is more effective than the government.

7) There is a conservative bias in the news-media.

Truth: While outlets like Fox are decidedly conservative, most news-media outlets attempt to be balanced but can't hide their liberalism. Eric Alterman, writer from the Nation, admits that reporters are likely to be socially liberal, but argues that the media is in favor of corporate interests. To an extent this is true: network news shows often cover TV shows, movies, and products as though they were actual news, and often they'll go after stories for the sole purpose of increasing their ratings. Regarding a "hidden agenda" however, the point is moot. Media commentators rarely advocate a platform that corporations would enjoy: lower taxes, less government, less regulation, and stories are biased against them in that favor usually. While the media may no longer be completely liberal, it certainly does not have a widespread conservative bias.

8) Wal-mart is evil.

Truth: Wal-mart has done more for the poor (and rich) in this country than the federal government has. Wal-mart has played a central role in shifting the supply curve down/to the right, resulting in a more competitive market in the US, which lowers the natural unemployment rate and increases productivity. And for every "mom and pop" business it puts out of business, it creates another business by putting their product on the store's shelves.

9) Living on a minimum wage job is impossible.

Truth: While not easy, living with a minimum wage job is possible. Living with two or three minimum wage jobs is easier.

10) There is a better place to live in the world than the United States.

Truth: this is only true if you have no desire to work. Then, Europe is probably a better place to live

1) argument: through taxation of certain people which are being told they have to pay less taxes the poor can benefit because more money is availible to government programs which can increase employable citizens and get people out of the gutter and spending.

2) argument: noone said taxation reform (like bush does) takes from the poor it just gives to the rich so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.

3)argument: i don't even have to argue with this... who said anything about robin hood to begin with?!?

4) Argument: so your calling jesus intolerant of others? or what? If you actually read the bible he is tolerant and forgiving. but again.. who cares and what's your point.

5)Argument: ronald reagan also didn't end the cold war it just so happens that regans term fell upon the same year russia went bankrupt.

6)... where the f are you getting these steriotypes?!?

7) I personally agree that they are more liberally biased for the most part but otherwise they have little backbone for actually persuing the big stories through true investigative journalism. (Their better at quotes)

8)I don't care what anyone says.... i've been in walmart and it is evil... just like malls and all other consumer advertising havens

At 4/10/06 07:40 PM, The_shnazzyone wrote:

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: In no particular order:

1) argument: through taxation of certain people which are being told they have to pay less taxes the poor can benefit because more money is availible to government programs which can increase employable citizens and get people out of the gutter and spending.

Bush Cut taxes and the government has STILL been able to make 2 million jobs in the past year(s). Taxes have nothing to do with creating jobs, when you cut taxes for the rich, they have less money to invest in buisnesses, without that money the buisnesses have to FIRE people, causing unemployment. The higher the taxes, the less money buisnesses have to pay workers, the more people are unemployed, and the more people will need social programs. Consider this, if an imigrant who comes here illegally can find a job without any education in a matter of days, hours even, then why are there people who live in poor houses who cant find a job. There is one obvious answer, there ARE jobs, people just dont want them. If you want a good paying job then you need to get an education, the government shouldn't burden itself by taking money from regular americans and squandering it to people who either came here without a visa, or, people who are native born, but dropped out of school. Liberals try to trick americans into thinking that there are no jobs avaiable for the homeless, such a funny, yet hurtfull lie.

2) argument: noone said taxation reform (like bush does) takes from the poor it just gives to the rich so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.

Fair share? the rich can sometimes pay 30 times more in taxes then middle and lower class. And that money either get's sent to the government to be used for pork spending, welfare, to aid the people who lost their jobs because of the high taxes in the first place, weapons developement, and i know how much liberals hate the army, or federal intelligence investigation, and i know how much you liberals also hate the intelligence agencies, you hate them so much that you even made it so that they couldn't contact eachother, making it harder to track attacks on the unites states, this way, when the intelligence agencies fail to do their job, you can blame it on them, instead of your restrictions, it's a brilliant twist.

3)argument: i don't even have to argue with this... who said anything about robin hood to begin with?!?

Robin hood was considered a hero because he took from the wealthy and gave to the poor, liberals use this as an argument to sugjest that they are as noble as robin hood was. ML brought this up because back in the days of robin hood, you were either born poor or rich, there were no change to get an education, there were no trades, there was no minimum wage, there was no welfare. It's a completely different story.

4) Argument: so your calling jesus intolerant of others? or what? If you actually read the bible he is tolerant and forgiving. but again.. who cares and what's your point.

I dont actually agree with ML on this one, jesus did beleive in tolerance, he was one of the few spiritual masters who did teach tolerance, jesus wasn't specific in his tolerance beleifs, but he said to love your neighbor as yourself, meaning not just who you live with, but everyone around you, so for example, france and germany are national neighbors, sort of, and they hate eachother. Dispite that they have good reason to dislike eachother, jesus would try to ease the anger between these 2 groups if he was alive to do it, he wanted all people to ignore their characteristics, and base people only on whether or not they followed gods rules, like do not kill, do not steal, etc. Jesus however, would not favor the minority just because the minorty always considers the majority to be intolerant of their culture, jesus wouldn't autmatically call it an act of racism if he heard on the news that a white police officer killed a black man, without first knowing more details. But this is only what I THINK jesus would do.

5)Argument: ronald reagan also didn't end the cold war it just so happens that regans term fell upon the same year russia went bankrupt.

True, but regan, much like an enzyme, sped up the process by helping to break the berlin wall. True as you said, the main reason for the fall of the soviets was becausee communism only lives for so long, then the money dries up, and communism turns to dicatorship.

Now, what you said prooves that you liberals have a double standard, compair what you said to regan, to what i am about to say. It wasn't bushes fauilt that hurricane katrina occured, it just so happenes that bushes term fell upon the same year that the perfect storm, known to come eventually, did so.

6)... where the f are you getting these steriotypes?!?

I deleted ML's arguments because i only have 1000 leters left... i dont know what this is about, i would argue with you if i could.

7) I personally agree that they are more liberally biased for the most part but otherwise they have little backbone for actually persuing the big stories through true investigative journalism. (Their better at quotes)

Your first sentence is right, but your second is wrong, the media only takes a phrase of a sentence that, for example the president might say, then have a headliner that completely distorts what bush meant. They do this all the time, and americans beleive them. Fox news, the evil conservative channel will generally gives no headliner, and uses the entire sentence, and WILL ALWAYS USE SOUND CLIPS, rather then reading it, which ensures that it sounds the way the poltition meant it to sound. right or wrong.

8)I don't care what anyone says.... i've been in walmart and it is evil... just like malls and all other consumer advertising havens

You liberals are against a monopoly, but because of increase competition workers are forced to work harder for less wages just so that the buisness will stand up to it's competitors. You liberals hate most buisnesses because you fail to understand that buisnesses are forced to play dirty, if one of them plays fair and the rest are "wrong", and entire buisness is gone, if everyone is "fair" then you have communism, and that never ever ever ever works. Hey! i'm at 0

At 4/10/06 07:40 PM, The_shnazzyone wrote: 8)I don't care what anyone says.... i've been in walmart and it is evil... just like malls and all other consumer advertising havens

YA!! Walmart is the product of SATAN!! With all of their... giving jobs to those who need it, and... healthcare... DARN THEM !!

At 4/10/06 01:17 PM, AnkhX100 wrote: No Liberals want taxation to the rich, not the middle and lower classes, who happen to spent a much greater percentage of their income in buying the stuff.

Liberals tend to raise taxes on everyone.

The issue isn't that tax cuts are bad, they're only bad if the rich get over half of the tax cuts, even though they account for 1% of the popultation. Also, no President has ever given a tax cut during wartime, so that's another point. Had the tax cut been given to the middle and lower classes, who were worst affected by the recession, then not many Liberals would be complaining.

The rich may be in the minority, but they pay the lionshare of the taxes. Try again.

Yes, but this private charity is not as widespread as you may think. If it is common place where you live, then lucky you, and I bet it's beneficial for your community. but there's not much in help here ( a little more in Austin than in Grand Prairie), and a lot of these places are also motivated by religious prolethysing, which is not always the most appealing option. It seems to me that the system works best with both Public and Private efforts to help the poor. since both sides do help.

There is plenty of private charity all over the US. There is no shortage. And given the general nature of people to not like seeing others suffer, if the gov't backed out of the charity business, others would come in and be much more productive.

Yes, again I agree with you, but if you're raising a family with a minimum wage income, it's hard, and it's really hard with another job and considering that the parent won't have anytime to spent with the child.

Most minimum wage jobs are entry level. There are very few people out there even TRYING to support their families on minimum wage.

You missed a few ML.

Myth: Republican tax cuts only benefit the rich and the poor pay more, making life harder to live.

Truth: While tax cuts always favor the rich, due to the very nature of both tax cuts and a progressive system, to say that the poor don't benefit is ludicrous. The latest set of tax cuts benefits every step of the tax ladder. People paying less money on taxes means they have more to spend on personal needs, and therefore makes their quality of life easier.

Myth: Abortion equalizes men and women.

Fact: Most women are pressured into abortions by husbands or boyfriends or family members. Abortion helps keep women subserviant and provides one more way for men to control their women.

I just don't think that we should generalize on liberals. I'm guessing that for the most part not all liberals agree.(Ignore my own generalization)

Taxes have nothing to do with creating jobs, when you cut taxes for the rich, they have less money to invest in buisnesses, without that money the buisnesses have to FIRE people, causing unemployment

This is rubbish and an overly simplistic view since more socialist-leaning countries don't really have any more unemployment than the U.S. does, or less in some cases. In theory, it sounds fine, but the problem is that businesses don't have to get taxed the same as individuals. If you raise the taxes for all wealthy individuals, but keep business taxes the same. There will still be the same amount of money for businesses to work with; and since businesses start out with the working class rather than the middle class very often, there won't be a problem with initial funding any more than there already is, possibly even less of a one.

Something like this must be happening, as what you say will happen is not happening in other contries where the rich are taxed more heavily. Americans have a habit of not looking for real world examples outside of their own country.

At 4/10/06 08:21 PM, Grammer wrote:

YA!! Walmart is the product of SATAN!! With all of their... giving jobs to those who need it, and... healthcare... DARN THEM !!

You want a job?
Why don't you go work in a coal mine with a pick?

ITS A JOB! I mean, a job is a job, right?
And if someone is doing it, obviously they want it and cherish it and are overjoyed with the opportunity to make minimal wage with no benefits!
weeeeeeeeee!

They can just get "education" to somehow create another job for themselves. They can be president of the united states too, its not like the job market is supply and demand!

Hey Imma gonna be an astronaut! Then, a high-paid songwriter!

At 4/10/06 08:11 PM, smith916 wrote:
Bush Cut taxes and the government has STILL been able to make 2 million jobs in the past year(s).

Yeah, while creating trillions of dollars of debt.

Tax cuts + Increased spending = RETARDED

At 4/10/06 08:57 PM, Manikan wrote: I just don't think that we should generalize on liberals. I'm guessing that for the most part not all liberals agree.(Ignore my own generalization)

Yeah, I don't know if I agree with abortion very much at all, and some liberals can be a bit too against religion.

At 4/10/06 09:00 PM, Hermannator wrote: Tax cuts + Increased spending = RETARDED

I'll give you that one. I only defend libertarianism/conservatism in theory. I don't defend the idiots in Washington.

Bravo, Morallibertarian.

At 4/10/06 09:00 PM, -poxpower- wrote: And if someone is doing it, obviously they want it and cherish it and are overjoyed with the opportunity to make minimal wage with no benefits!
weeeeeeeeee!

I hope you're not refering to Wal-mart, since I know there's benefits there.

But seriously people, you can't blame Wal-Mart because they employ people for minimum-wage. The jobs alot of workers at Wal-mart do deserve minimum-wage. Perhaps if you're the assistant manager or something nice like that, then you'd be paid more, but no employer, not simply those from Wal-mart, want to pay you alot of money. You are paid wages corresponding to your job skills and experience, not whether Wal-mart is a big business that could shell out some extra bucks if they wanted to.

I think we can all agree america is awesome.... however the government suck ass.

At 4/10/06 12:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: In no particular order:

1) You can increase the prosperity of a nation through taxation.

Truth: Taxation decreases the consumption of a nation, and thereby decreases output. Taxation by itself will never, ever lead to increased prosperity.

Real Truth: Unless the taxation makes the middle class bigger, increasing the work force. Also, taxation provides the government money, enabling the government to provide jobs to that large workforce.

Conservatives like to say what you did so that they can keep their money. Under the proper conditions, my "real truth" would be better for the economy.

2) Tax cuts take away money from the poor to subsidize the rich.

Truth: I have a hard time with this one, because it makes no sense. What money do the poor have to take away to give to the rich? A rich person makes more in an hour than a poor person does in a year.

Real Truth: The poor are paying for Republican tax cuts. Bush's tax cut policy is raising taxes for the poor, and decreasing them for the rich. This makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Bush is exploiting the poor to give the rich more.

3) Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Truth: Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor. In the feudal system, the only people who are rich are the ones that are appointed to be, and its a closed system. Therefore Robin Hood's heroism is outdated: he would not be a hero if he stole from the rich OR the government today.

Real Truth: Feudal government is different than modern government. In the Feudal system, a noble or a lord owned land, and the poor landless peasants, serfs, worked on that land for almost nothing. Regardless of your last sentence, what Robin Hood did WAS heroic at the time. What was heroic at the time is all that is relevant.

4) Jesus was a teacher of tolerance.

Truth: Jesus never turned any person away because of their sinfulness, but that is not the definition of tolerance. When Jesus saw sin, he did not accept it, nor did he tolerate it, he only fixed it.

Real Truth: Tolerance means treating people equally for differences. According to your blurb, you think that people who are different are sinners. A fine person indeed.

5) FDR's New Deal fixed the Great Depression.

Truth: FDR could well have done two things that would have got us out of the Great Depression faster and he did neither. He could have done nothing and let the market self-correct by letting the supply curve move to the right. Or he could have provided all the government services he did without raising taxes, which was probably the most harmful part of his policy. The dramatic output during the second World War was what solved the Great Depression.

Real Truth: FDR's programs saved 100s of 1000s of families. He provided jobs, and raised taxes for the rich to open those jobs. Many of the very wealthy families were not uncomfortable financially, so his taxes didn't hurt.

6) Without the government, there is no social safety net.

Truth: Most liberals aren't this stupid, but their rhetoric ignores the vast safety net this country already has. In the 17th Century Dutch Republic, the welfare state was completely private, church based, and much more effective. In this country, there are private soup kitchens, places for free meals, homeless shelters, etc. SOME, my favorite charity, provides job training and free basic healthcare to the homeless if they should choose to take advantage of it, but if they don't want it, they are free to take a free meal. This charity is a great example of a more personal, problem solving charity that is more effective than the government.

Real Truth: The government is not a social safety net because it is not ideal. Americans are homeless, starving, and without medical care. In a better society, the government would solve these issues.

7) There is a conservative bias in the news-media.

Truth: While outlets like Fox are decidedly conservative, most news-media outlets attempt to be balanced but can't hide their liberalism. Eric Alterman, writer from the Nation, admits that reporters are likely to be socially liberal, but argues that the media is in favor of corporate interests. To an extent this is true: network news shows often cover TV shows, movies, and products as though they were actual news, and often they'll go after stories for the sole purpose of increasing their ratings. Regarding a "hidden agenda" however, the point is moot. Media commentators rarely advocate a platform that corporations would enjoy: lower taxes, less government, less regulation, and stories are biased against them in that favor usually. While the media ma