Shinrei no Shintai;362971 said:
First of all, you're failing by the supposition that by throwing more money at our problems we're going to fix them.
No, We are talking about using taxation to get the government the money it thinks it needs to do what they want while screwing the rest of us over. I am not talking about changing how our government spends money, although I do have a _few_ ideas about that.
Quote
I do not argue from the standpoint that there should be no taxes, NOR do I support a flat tax.
So what DO you support in relation to taxation? You claim you do not support flat taxation, nor do you support an increasing percentage tax as you go up the wealth scale, do you support some kind of decreasing percentage as you go up the wealth scale? (That last one was a jab, apologies.)
Quote
The point where I essentially draw my arguements from is that the federal government is a bungling, inefficient, short-sighted behemoth that is more beholden to its own interests of electability than the interests of the people.
And I agree. But you weren't talking about changing government spending, you were talking about disagreeing with the current taxation system in the US.
Quote
The senate couldn't even run its own FOOD SERVICE properly.
And Congress voted themselves a raise while refusing to raise the minimum wage.
Quote
Therefore, NOBODY should be getting squeezed for more money by these clowns. Not the rich, or the poor.
Instead, you cut out the things which are useless, mismanaged, obsolete and misguided and introduce some actual accountability (and accounting practices for that matter).
That sounds nice and all. But you still haven't said anything about how you want to tax people, except that there should be less tax, apparently. You also haven't said how you are going to guarantee this accountability without adding another layer of pencil pushers to the government, all who need salaries and workspaces.
Quote
So when you say "here in reality, when the government refuses to follow any kind of budget, and always needs more money,"
I ask two things:
1) It wasn't always like this and unfortunately we've slid further and further into this mire, but why can't we work to turn it around? America was founded on not wanting to pay taxes. Surely we can engineer a proper budgeting way out of this mess IF THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT.
I agree, but now days the common theme in the us is 'let me work, go home, veg out in front of the TV, and go to church on sundays, I'm a good american.'
Quote
And 2) I don't know where you're coming from Obdi, but I know others like Optimus Prime are arguing from the standpoint of giving the "spend without consequences" federal government even more programs to bungle around with like universal health care. Why is it ok to tax more for this sort of thing?
I don't trust the government at all, especially with something like a federal health care. I am coming, and was having this discussion with you, from the point of how to get the government the money it needs. You still have not said HOW YOU want to tax people, instead you just keep saying what you don't like.
Quote
"So when the upper classes who run this country push it into a war"
Talk about introducing strawmen. Like all the upper classes were sitting around thinking we needed a war...
No, just the ones in charge of the huge corporations that own our current government. You know, the same people making millions a year, while having no accountability because they claim they did not know what was happening in their company? (This should change with Sarbanes-Oxley, if it actually gets enforced)
Quote
And I still say a "strawman" is creating an argument for the otherside and then knocking it down because there is nothing to it. That's not really what you and I did. I said what I did about taxing wealth because you made it sound like you wanted to do so, which would most certainly hit peoples retirement funds considering you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain a middle class existence in retirement.
No, a strawman is setting up a weark throw-away argument for your opponent to attack so that you can attack them for attacking such a weak argument and leaving your other, stronger arguments alone, because they do not have an answer. At least that is how I understand it.
PS - I don't mind arguing with you at all Shin. Its fun, you don't get personal, you only attack ideas and ask for clarification. Weee!
Edit - looked it up on Wiki. A strawman is overstating the other side's position and attributing it to them, so that it is easy to refute. Oh well, I like mine better.
Help
