June 3rd Democratic Debate

[HighlyIllogical]

Who has come out the strongest? Who is winning here (for those commenting during the debate)? Who won (after the debate)?

So far, I'm not sure who's the winner, but I'm surprised by this Gravel guy. He's pretty cool.

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/3/07 08:07 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Who has come out the strongest? Who is winning here (for those commenting during the debate)? Who won (after the debate)?

So far, I'm not sure who's the winner, but I'm surprised by this Gravel guy. He's pretty cool.

Gravel's always a laugh-riot. He's been around a while, and he's done good things for the country. But he's got a snowball's chance.

I personally feel that Obama did a great job, but Biden was surprisingly good!

Overall, I enjoyed watching it.

[HighlyIllogical]

Yeah, I liked what Biden had to say, generally speaking, but I thought Osama and Hillary were too weak.

[lapis]

At 6/3/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Osama

Doesn't the fact that he was born in Saudi Arabia make him ineligible to run for the presidency?

lol Freudian slip

[Demosthenez]

There is nothing I would rather not do than watch a bunch of power hungry aristocrats, all with essentially the same exact ideas, debate eachother over pointless shit and other shit they will never do.

"Listen to all my grand proposals that I will implement." Yeah, when Hogzilla and his 11 year old killer fly over the moon.

. . . why couldnt they just have basketball on instead? Fucking Spurs beat the Jazz to fast.

[HighlyIllogical]

John Edwards is a self-made aristocrat. What's wrong with that?

[LordJaric]

At 6/4/07 04:45 AM, lapis wrote:

At 6/3/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Osama

Doesn't the fact that he was born in Saudi Arabia make him ineligible to run for the presidency?

lol Freudian slip

I think i heard he was from hawaii.

[UWDarDar17]

That was sarcasm Jaric. It's widely known (or should be widely known by now), that he was born in the United States. I think he was actually born in Kansas, but then moved to Hawaii eventually.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/4/07 04:59 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 6/4/07 04:45 AM, lapis wrote:

At 6/3/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Osama

Doesn't the fact that he was born in Saudi Arabia make him ineligible to run for the presidency?

lol Freudian slip

I think i heard he was from hawaii.

Same thing... Well, not really. But they both have lots of sand! You're right about Hawaii though, it's on the wikipedia article Apparently he's the only Obama deemed worthy of his own page! XD

[HighlyIllogical]

Obama is quite american, yeah.

I still don't like him. He's annoying, pompous and doesn't speak to people – he speaks AT them.

[UWDarDar17]

Have you ever actually seen the man speak in person?

It's quite different.

[UWDarDar17]

Yeah, well, I'd rather have someone get rid of those tax cuts Bush made than keep spending the way we do and dig deeper in debt.

See, people, like yourself JaK, seem to want government services, like roads, and schools, and all those nice things that we get from them. But you don't want to pay for it.

Well, guess what buddy? The money has to come from somewhere. And if that means you have to chip in your fair share to use those services, how is that any different than paying for dinner at a restaurant?

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/4/07 10:09 PM, jAk88 wrote:

You assume I don't think we should pay taxes. I do. However, I don't think we should pay a lot of taxes.

Okay, jAk. How much should you have to pay in taxes, personally? And how should that be divided up between the government.

Less spending, more saving, less taxing. That is how it should be. We should elect a true fiscal conservative to office.

I say spend as necessary, save as often as possible, and tax the people who can afford to be taxed more than the people who can't. Does that make be a fiscal liberal?

[Memorize]

At 6/4/07 10:44 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

I say spend as necessary, save as often as possible, and tax the people who can afford to be taxed more than the people who can't. Does that make be a fiscal liberal?

Yes, less be extremely towards progressive tax.

Where the upper poor are better than the lower middle and discourage anyone from rising into the next bracket.

Excellent idea.

[UWDarDar17]

Oh please. I'm not saying tax the rich to the point where everyone has almost the same after taxes.

I'm simply asking how many gold-plated yachts does one billionaire need?

Obviously those who have earned more money should keep a good chunk of it. Those who have earned not so much should keep a good chunk of theirs as well.

I'm saying that the chunk from the richer group should be larger than that of the poorer group, because they can afford it.

If someone made 2 billion dollars in a year, why should I not take away 20% in taxes? Oh boo hoo, now he's only got 1.6 billion dollars to spend. I guess he won't be able to get those four mansions in Beverly Hills this year.

1.6 billion dollars is still a lot of money.

[Memorize]

At 6/4/07 11:34 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

I'm simply asking how many gold-plated yachts does one billionaire need?

As many as he damn well wants.

If someone made 2 billion dollars in a year, why should I not take away 20% in taxes? Oh boo hoo, now he's only got 1.6 billion dollars to spend. I guess he won't be able to get those four mansions in Beverly Hills this year.

Because when you do that all across the board to people who have little to no money, they then decide they'll rely on the government for their aid because going up just slightly would be a negative.

[UWDarDar17]

At 6/4/07 11:38 PM, Memorize wrote: Because when you do that all across the board to people who have little to no money, they then decide they'll rely on the government for their aid because going up just slightly would be a negative.

Where did I say that the people with little to no money should be taxed 20%? They should not be. In fact, they should be taxed very little.

Let's look at a billionaire's opinion on this. He's very famous. You may have even heard of him, Mem. He's the third-richest person in the world, Warren Buffett. This is his view on the reallocation of wealth (i.e. taxes):

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil... I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well - disproportionately well. Mike Tyson, too. If you can knock a guy out in 10 seconds and earn $10 million for it, this world will pay a lot for that. If you can bat .360, this world will pay a lot for that. If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow (re)distributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent - maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever -I think society has a big claim on that."

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die."

Obviously, Warren Buffett might have a little trouble with your idea that a billionaire should own as many gold-plated yachts as he wants. I admire Buffett, because not only is he successful, be he remembers the reason why he is successful. Warren Buffett is successful because of society. He owes society for his wealth, and he has no qualms about paying high taxes because he knows that it eventualy becomes re-invested in society.

Millionaires and billionaires are only millionaires and billionaires because of society, and they owe it to themselves and the people who made them rich to give back to that society.

[Memorize]

At 6/5/07 12:06 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

Where did I say that the people with little to no money should be taxed 20%? They should not be. In fact, they should be taxed very little.

I'm not talking about the millionaires and billionaires.

Obviously, Warren Buffett might have a little trouble with your idea that a billionaire should own as many gold-plated yachts as he wants.

I know... probly because it's their money and they can spend it however they like.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/4/07 05:57 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: See, people, like yourself JaK, seem to want government services, like roads, and schools, and all those nice things that we get from them. But you don't want to pay for it.

Well, guess what buddy? The money has to come from somewhere. And if that means you have to chip in your fair share to use those services, how is that any different than paying for dinner at a restaurant?

Look at our federal spending and you tell me why your opinion that people dont want to pay taxes for essential services (education, roads) is totally off base.

Anyways, the majority of education and highways (go to page 16) expenditures are paid for by the states, not the federal government. Again, see my conundrum with your opinions on federal taxes and spending?