City of Berkeley, Calif., Votes to Boot Marines *updates*

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Thanks, I've been making a dedicated and focused effort to express myself better lately.

I'm not saying we shouldnt pay taxes. Taxes give me my roads, police, and other services. But some of those services are of a questionable or unecessary nature.

As for the fire, goood point. I never thought of the wildfires and they sure do have their share of them.

In regards to the food products however, most of those costs you mentioned would be absorbed by the farmers directly unless the state has quite a bit of programs to offset these costs. I'm skeptical they do (Although they may very well have) as if they did have these programs it would then raise the question to why food prices have gone up as much as they have. Generally its agreed the food prices have gone up to cover the additional costs of producing the food. If California is covering these additional costs then farmers are double dipping. Taking the .gov money to pay the costs and charging more at the consumer level.

I agree on the taxes point you are making. I would love to not pay a penny to the government....ever. However, I do enjoy driving on roads that aren't full of pot holes and do enjoy having the police around to keep some semblance of order.

I do think that there are plenty of things that the governments (state and fed) are involved in that should be extinguished immediately.

I did find this site listing USDA subsidies. Amazingly, Texas leads the country in USDA subsidies. I'm guessing that the vast majority of that is for cattle. Whoa....I need to start a new thread about something I am seeing after a bit of research!

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

What trash. Berkeley is such a trashed city. They pass the most ridiculous laws like medicinal marijuana laws and stuff and I just read in the paper how local authorities won't cooperate with the FBI/ATF or other federal agencies in raids like they conducted in LA. Anyways, it's disgusting to see the protests in front of the recruiting station for the Marines. My friend and I almost wanted to walk in and piss the liberal hippies off.

I agree the feds have every right to withhold the money, and that's the way it should be. Liberal hippies need to stop thinking that they rule the world. Take the money out. I don't care if Cal loses federal funding. I'm graduating anyways. This trashed town needs to be steamrolled and rebuilt.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
What trash. Berkeley is such a trashed city. They pass the most ridiculous laws like medicinal marijuana laws and stuff and I just read in the paper how local authorities won't cooperate with the FBI/ATF or other federal agencies in raids like they conducted in LA. Anyways, it's disgusting to see the protests in front of the recruiting station for the Marines. My friend and I almost wanted to walk in and piss the liberal hippies off.

I agree the feds have every right to withhold the money, and that's the way it should be. Liberal hippies need to stop thinking that they rule the world. Take the money out. I don't care if Cal loses federal funding. I'm graduating anyways. This trashed town needs to be steamrolled and rebuilt.

This is a well thought out, non crazy post made by someone with an extremely mature viewpoint.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
What trash. Berkeley is such a trashed city. They pass the most ridiculous laws like medicinal marijuana laws and stuff and I just read in the paper how local authorities won't cooperate with the FBI/ATF or other federal agencies in raids like they conducted in LA. Anyways, it's disgusting to see the protests in front of the recruiting station for the Marines. My friend and I almost wanted to walk in and piss the liberal hippies off.

I agree the feds have every right to withhold the money, and that's the way it should be. Liberal hippies need to stop thinking that they rule the world. Take the money out. I don't care if Cal loses federal funding. I'm graduating anyways. This trashed town needs to be steamrolled and rebuilt.

Did Berkeley pass medMJ laws or did the state of Cali pass those laws? Just curious if your rabidity allows you to actually see reality or not.

Also, the raids that you speak of have not been the "DEA comes to save the day" scenarios you seem to desire:

Federal drug agents raided 11 medical marijuana clinics, seizing several thousand pounds of processed marijuana, along with weapons and money, authorities said.

Several people were detained, although no arrests were made after five dispensaries in West Hollywood and six others in Venice, Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley were searched Wednesday, said Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Pullen declined to provide details of the investigation, saying the search warrants remained under seal.

"But obviously we are looking for marijuana and other illegal drugs, marijuana edibles and evidence of ongoing criminal activity and anything from paperwork to documents ? you name it," Pullen said.

City officials in West Hollywood said they were surprised by the action, learning of the raid as it was happening.

West Hollywood spokeswoman Helen Goss said the city has a "long-standing commitment" to the use of medical marijuana for people suffering from illnesses like HIV and AIDS.

Agents in bulletproof vests, gloves and face masks left a West Hollywood storefront with boxes and trash bags filled, as about 50 protesters booed and shouted "states' rights."

At one dispensary, The Farmacy on Santa Monica Boulevard, amateur videographers and others mobbed officers filling three cars with evidence.

California voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, in 1996. It made marijuana available by prescription for medicinal uses.

The DEA, which does not recognize California laws legalizing medical marijuana use, has recently increased its enforcement.

"Today's enforcement operations show that these establishments are nothing more than drug-trafficking organizations bringing criminal activities to our neighborhoods and drugs near our children and schools," said Ralph W. Partridge, head of the DEA in Los Angeles.

I'm guessing that you aren't a big fan of state's rights and approve of the Fed stating that no matter what the voters of a particular region want....they make the decisions and it is final.

 

[OutHouse]

that vid of the those losers blocking people from ENTERING the recruiting station is total bullshit. what right do they have to block those young men who WANT to join the marines from going into that recruiting station? This goes way beyond free speech and goes into harassment and a nuisance.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
...
I'm guessing that you aren't a big fan of state's rights and approve of the Fed stating that no matter what the voters of a particular region want....they make the decisions and it is final.

I'm a big fan of states rights. But the rule that a higher law (federal) overules a lower law (state/city) is as old as the constitution.

Cali did the wrong thing in regards to mj, they should have lobbied congress to repeal the federal ban, and insist that each state decide on its own. Some states would ban it, others legalize it. This way more people get what they want. IMO they should do this with TONS of federal laws. There are too many federal laws that cover things each state should cover on its own. Reagan was a huge proponent of strong states, he saw the dangers of pushing to much power to the fed.. too bad more people didnt listen to him.

Dems will try to play the states right card when it suits thier purpose. But know in the long run the left must push as much power as possible to the federal level (and even beyond, to the UN). i.e. They fight pretty hard against states who say that Roe vs Wade should be made irrelevant and each state should decide if they are pro life/choice on its own. They realize thier main platform (socialism) can not survive with capitalist peers. This is why so many social programs have been shifted to the fed that never should have. They know that if half the states decide to have low taxes and are strict on welfare, they will have booming economies, while the other half will crumble. Marx himself admitted that the only way socialism would survive in the long run was to encompass the entire planet, (this doctrine logically leads the anti-socialists to the domino theory)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

Cali did the wrong thing in regards to mj, they should have lobbied congress to repeal the federal ban, and insist that each state decide on its own. Some states would ban it, others legalize it. This way more people get what they want. IMO they should do this with TONS of federal laws. There are too many federal laws that cover things each state should cover on its own. Reagan was a huge proponent of strong states, he saw the dangers of pushing to much power to the fed.. too bad more people didnt listen to him.

Dems will try to play the states right card when it suits thier purpose. But know in the long run the left must push as much power as possible to the federal level (and even beyond, to the UN). i.e. They fight pretty hard against states who say that Roe vs Wade should be made irrelevant and each state should decide if they are pro life/choice on its own. They realize thier main platform (socialism) can not survive with capitalist peers. This is why so many social programs have been shifted to the fed that never should have. They know that if half the states decide to have low taxes and are strict on welfare, they will have booming economies, while the other half will crumble. Marx himself admitted that the only way socialism would survive in the long run was to encompass the entire planet, (this doctrine logically leads the anti-socialists to the domino theory)

You think states and groups haven't been lobbying the federal government to leagalize marijuana for years now?

Your ideas on taxes and their effects are shockingly simplistic and wrong. A quick check on the relative tax burden of states shows that 4 out of the top 5 highest median incomes, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Connetticut, etc. have among the highest tax rates in the country? As you go down the list you will see that the states with booming economies and high standards of living are disproportionately represented in the top half of states in terms of tax burden. Care to explain? In addition, a comparison of GDP growth rates of the US and many European countries (with much higher taxes) shows them to be at similar or higher levels of GDP growth. (Ireland in particular is blowing us away). Care to explain?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...
You think states and groups haven't been lobbying the federal government to leagalize marijuana for years now?

I didnt say they werent, my point being you cant try to overule a federal law, you need to wait until AFTER the fedearl law is repealed.

Your ideas on taxes and their effects are shockingly simplistic and wrong. A quick check on the relative tax burden of states shows that 4 out of the top 5 highest median incomes, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Connetticut, etc. have among the highest tax rates in the country?

Which proves what exactly? That a lot of rich people live in those states? Factor in cost of living as well, 150k income on the coasts is like 75k in the midwest. Dont let the cost of beachfront property artificially boost leftist stats.

As you go down the list you will see that the states with booming economies and high standards of living are disproportionately represented in the top half of states in terms of tax burden.

Wheres your link to this? I'd like to see your definition of "booming economies" Michigan has had the hands down most craptastic economy of the century, and they have one of (if not THE highest since thier last hike in October) taxes in the country. They also shell out the most in social programs, go figure.

Care to explain? In addition, a comparison of GDP growth rates of the US and many European countries (with much higher taxes) shows them to be at similar or higher levels of GDP growth. (Ireland in particular is blowing us away). Care to explain?

Show me the stats?

 

[RedChief]

Change the Marine Recruiting office to a Planned Parenthood clinic and the Code Pink protestors to the a anti-abortion group and you will see just how hypocritical the supposed free-speech loving berkeley really is.

 

[Train]

funny you mentioned Ireland as blowing us away in GDP growth... a quick Google search:

Income Tax levels in Ireland are amongst the lowest in the world - but still people seem to moan about it. A brief summary of taxation in Ireland is given below -

http://www.irishlinks.co.uk/income-tax-ireland.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train
funny you mentioned Ireland as blowing us away in GDP growth... a quick Google search:

Income Tax levels in Ireland are amongst the lowest in the world - but still people seem to moan about it. A brief summary of taxation in Ireland is given below -

http://www.irishlinks.co.uk/income-tax-ireland.htm

Funny thing is that its still higher then ours. So, care to explain?

 

[Train]

Income taxes arent just low, business taxes as well.. its not a coincidence Irelands economy is booming, lower taxes = more growth for everyone. from Wikipedia:

Corporation Tax is a tax in the Republic of Ireland. This tax is charged on the company?s profits which include both income and chargeable gains. The corporation tax in Ireland is quite low, and is often cited as an example of tax competition, as it is used as an incentive for foreign companies to invest in the Irish Republic.

Over the past decade, Ireland?s corporate taxation system has been a source of controversy with some of Ireland?s fellow-member states in the European Union. The French government has over the past decade, most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin, consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting international investment. However, despite the French critique of the Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers, with many ?emerging? and Eastern European economies following the Irish example

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RedChief
Change the Marine Recruiting office to a Planned Parenthood clinic and the Code Pink protestors to the a anti-abortion group and you will see just how hypocritical the supposed free-speech loving berkeley really is.

Bezerkley is the antithesis of the Bible Belt. Both sides are screwy. The thing is Bezerkely is just a small enclave, even Californians think they are nuts where as the Bible Belt is a whole region of the country.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train
Income taxes arent just low, business taxes as well.. its not a coincidence Irelands economy is booming, lower taxes = more growth for everyone. from Wikipedia:

Corporation Tax is a tax in the Republic of Ireland. This tax is charged on the company?s profits which include both income and chargeable gains. The corporation tax in Ireland is quite low, and is often cited as an example of tax competition, as it is used as an incentive for foreign companies to invest in the Irish Republic.

Over the past decade, Ireland?s corporate taxation system has been a source of controversy with some of Ireland?s fellow-member states in the European Union. The French government has over the past decade, most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin, consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting international investment. However, despite the French critique of the Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers, with many ?emerging? and Eastern European economies following the Irish example

Anyways though, this is getting away from my original point which was that the richest states in the tend to be ones with some of the highest taxes.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Anyways though, this is getting away from my original point which was that the richest states in the tend to be ones with some of the highest taxes.

Open mouth, insert foot.

You cant cherry pick a few stats. This argument always ends the same. Even Marx himself agrees! I will just save us all some time and get right to the part where lefties break out the "compassion" card. "Who cares how much it costs or how much the economy will suffer, we have to help unfortunate people!"

sigh, when will the world ever learn.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
What trash. Berkeley is such a trashed city. They pass the most ridiculous laws like medicinal marijuana laws and stuff and I just read in the paper how local authorities won't cooperate with the FBI/ATF or other federal agencies in raids like they conducted in LA. Anyways, it's disgusting to see the protests in front of the recruiting station for the Marines. My friend and I almost wanted to walk in and piss the liberal hippies off.

I agree the feds have every right to withhold the money, and that's the way it should be. Liberal hippies need to stop thinking that they rule the world. Take the money out. I don't care if Cal loses federal funding. I'm graduating anyways. This trashed town needs to be steamrolled and rebuilt.

Chickened out did you?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DLeRium
What trash. Berkeley is such a trashed city. They pass the most ridiculous laws like medicinal marijuana laws and stuff and I just read in the paper how local authorities won't cooperate with the FBI/ATF or other federal agencies in raids like they conducted in LA. Anyways, it's disgusting to see the protests in front of the recruiting station for the Marines. My friend and I almost wanted to walk in and piss the liberal hippies off.

I agree the feds have every right to withhold the money, and that's the way it should be. Liberal hippies need to stop thinking that they rule the world. Take the money out. I don't care if Cal loses federal funding. I'm graduating anyways. This trashed town needs to be steamrolled and rebuilt.

Chickened out did you?

I think they were more afraid of pissing the recruiters off.. walking in but not to talk about joining... lol

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Anyways though, this is getting away from my original point which was that the richest states in the tend to be ones with some of the highest taxes.

Open mouth, insert foot.

You cant cherry pick a few stats. This argument always ends the same. Even Marx himself agrees! I will just save us all some time and get right to the part where lefties break out the "compassion" card. "Who cares how much it costs or how much the economy will suffer, we have to help unfortunate people!"

sigh, when will the world ever learn.

I think that you might be wanting to rinse the taste of leather out a little as well.

First and foremost, this thread isn't about socialism but social responsibility so your insistence on quoting Marx is misplaced. Those on the left that want social programs are also asking for them to be paid for and not from borrowed money either.

There are many places to trim some extra fat to get extra money for these items. How is it that we can find $228-350M for a single F-22 Raptor but yet have children unable to get a quality education? Answer, misplaced priorities.

You are also guilty of cherry-picking stats. You like to flaunt around tax rates yet never mention that those that have higher tax rates are still experiencing stronger growth than we are, have universal healthcare, score higher on standardized tests and live longer.

But the righties like you always have the fear card to play: "Who cares how the economy is tanking and the dollar is crumbling, we have to build more bombs to protect us from the terrorists!"

Edit: Had to increase the cost of the Raptor another $100M for accuracy (according to the USAF)

The air force puts the cost of each aircraft at $160 million, but this doesn't take into account the very considerable research and development costs, which combine to push the cost per aircraft up to somewhere between $228 million and $350 million, depending on who you believe. Certainly the air force itself has said that it wants to trim its budget by $1.1 billion to allow them to buy 4 extra Raptors.

Edit #2: Every time I look...the price goes up:

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22A total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
...
First and foremost, this thread isn't about socialism but social responsibility

Theres a difference?

so your insistence on quoting Marx is misplaced. Those on the left that want social programs are also asking for them to be paid for and not from borrowed money either.

how is that even relevant?

There are many places to trim some extra fat to get extra money for these items. How is it that we can find $148M for a single F-22 Raptor but yet have children unable to get a quality education? Answer, misplaced priorities.

Theres that compassion card again...

You are also guilty of cherry-picking stats. You like to flaunt around tax rates yet never mention that those that have higher tax rates are still experiencing stronger growth than we are, have universal healthcare, score higher on standardized tests and live longer.

Again... stats? eskimo pointed to Ireland to which I easily pointed out has very low income AND corporate tax, yet continues to be very prosperous. I didnt cherry pick stats, I used his own example against him.

But the righties like you always have the fear card to play: "Who cares how the economy is tanking and the dollar is crumbling, we have to build more bombs to protect us from the terrorists!"

nice reach, your grasping at straws here. Give it up already, socialism fails, time and again.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
...
First and foremost, this thread isn't about socialism but social responsibility

Theres a difference?
There mustn't be to you because you sure can't distinguish between differing concepts. You keep spouting nonsense about capitalism and we are anything but a capitalistic society. We have checks and balances and a very heavily regulated economic system that is manipulated and controlled by the Fed.

so your insistence on quoting Marx is misplaced. Those on the left that want social programs are also asking for them to be paid for and not from borrowed money either.

how is that even relevant?
This thread was about Berkeley losing earmark funding b/c some asshat is offended by their views. The fact that they are contributing a hell of a lot more than they are receving makes where the money comes from very relevant.

There are many places to trim some extra fat to get extra money for these items. How is it that we can find $148M for a single F-22 Raptor but yet have children unable to get a quality education? Answer, misplaced priorities.

Theres that compassion card again...
For some reason, you seem to be unable to distinguish between playing the compassion card and stating a fact.

You are also guilty of cherry-picking stats. You like to flaunt around tax rates yet never mention that those that have higher tax rates are still experiencing stronger growth than we are, have universal healthcare, score higher on standardized tests and live longer.

Again... stats? eskimo pointed to Ireland to which I easily pointed out has very low income AND corporate tax, yet continues to be very prosperous. I didnt cherry pick stats, I used his own example against him.
World's health rankings (notice the top ones all have UHC (US comes in at 37)), US slips to 42nd in life expectancy, US tumbles to 39th in Environmental performance,, US education rankings dropping like a rock, , Tax burden rankings (US is 27..many of the countries above us are European), European countries' GDP growth. I hope that you are able to see that their growth is higher while the tax burden is higher just like Eskimo tried to show you.

But the righties like you always have the fear card to play: "Who cares how the economy is tanking and the dollar is crumbling, we have to build more bombs to protect us from the terrorists!"

nice reach, your grasping at straws here. Give it up already, socialism fails, time and again.
Nice response full of hot air and nothing else. I guess you also forgot to realize that imperialism has failed every time it was attempted also.

 

[Train]

typical responses, dodging the subject totally, as usual.

Socialism and Social responsibility different? I'm afraid not, you cant justify socialism in the name of "responsibility". Redistribution of wealth = socialism, period. Ranaming social program "responsibility" is just more PC nonsense.

For some reason, you seem to be unable to distinguish between playing the compassion card and stating a fact.

Which fact? The one where Ireland has a great GDP growth rate attributed to low taxes?

oooh world health rankings.. those are social programs, idiot. Another favorite of the libs, and complete BS.. They rank countries higher for having free access.. no kidding, its socialized!

Eucation rankings... I wont argue with you that US education system is a joke. But harldy a
worthwhile lever for either side of a comparison of economic systems. Both capitalist and socialist countries have both good and bad education systems... so irrelevant.

Environmental performance and life expectancy? Again, how do these relate to economic systems? Japan has one of the most capitalistic coutries in the world, and thier old people live a LONG time... another irrelevance.

I hope that you are able to see that their growth is higher while the tax burden is higher just like Eskimo tried to show you.

are the both of you simply blind? Did you even try to explain the Ireland example? Another good one would be South Korea.. Taiwan.. Japan... all world economic leaders, and all well below average tax rates. NOT a coincidence. Marx agrees! Get over it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Train
typical responses, dodging the subject totally, as usual.

Socialism and Social responsibility different? I'm afraid not, you cant justify socialism in the name of "responsibility". Redistribution of wealth = socialism, period. Ranaming social program "responsibility" is just more PC nonsense.

For some reason, you seem to be unable to distinguish between playing the compassion card and stating a fact.

Which fact? The one where Ireland has a great GDP growth rate attributed to low taxes?

oooh world health rankings.. those are social programs, idiot. Another favorite of the libs, and complete BS.. They rank countries higher for having free access.. no kidding, its socialized!

Eucation rankings... I wont argue with you that US education system is a joke. But harldy a
worthwhile lever for either side of a comparison of economic systems. Both capitalist and socialist countries have both good and bad education systems... so irrelevant.

Environmental performance and life expectancy? Again, how do these relate to economic systems? Japan has one of the most capitalistic coutries in the world, and thier old people live a LONG time... another irrelevance.

I hope that you are able to see that their growth is higher while the tax burden is higher just like Eskimo tried to show you.

are the both of you simply blind? Did you even try to explain the Ireland example? Another good one would be South Korea.. Taiwan.. Japan... all world economic leaders, and all well below average tax rates. NOT a coincidence. Marx agrees! Get over it.

Where did I dodge? I responded to each item that you posted/listed. You on the other hand....

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Social Responsibility is voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law(legal responsibility). It involves an idea that it is better to be proactive toward a problem rather than reactive to a problem. Social responsibility means eliminating corrupt, irresponsible or unethical behavior that might bring harm to the community, its people, or the environment before the behavior happens.

See a difference yet?

Are you denying the FACT that the $350M price tag of a single F-22 could help the US education system which you state is "a joke"?

Next, you asked for stats to my charge that you are cherry picking stats for choosing a single country (Ireland) to use as an example. Silly you (or is it "idiot" as you referred to me) however, do not seem to realize that the tax burden on the Irish is HIGHER THAN THE TAX BURDEN ON AMERICANS!

If I really have to tell you how living longer and having less of an environmental impact effects an economic system, I should just quit while you are way behind now.

If you would like to go back and try your Irish example again, have at it. Korea, Taiwan and Japan's tax burden are all within 0.82% of the US's so you might not want to tout them as "well below" if the US is your benchmark.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Where did I dodge? I responded to each item that you posted/listed. You on the other hand....

When you posted a giant list of irrelevant facts...

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Social Responsibility is voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law(legal responsibility). It involves an idea that it is better to be proactive toward a problem rather than reactive to a problem. Social responsibility means eliminating corrupt, irresponsible or unethical behavior that might bring harm to the community, its people, or the environment before the behavior happens.

See a difference yet?

The problem is they way YOU used it is not the same as the cut and pasted text above. You followed your initial claim with: Those on the left that want social programs are also asking for them to be paid for and not from borrowed money either.. What difference does it make wether the money is borrowed or not? That has NOTHING to do with social responsibility, social spending = socialism, period. I dont care if your fiscally responsible when you do it, its STILL SOCIALISM!

Are you denying the FACT that the $350M price tag of a single F-22 could help the US education system which you state is "a joke"?

Its only a fact if you believe that throwing more money at a problem makes it better... thats not a fact thats just plain stupidity. Why do private schools spend half as much per student as public but get far and away better results? Why do some US cities pay upwards of $15k per student yet some students, after 13 years in the system, with a freshly minted HS diploma in hand.. can barely read at a 3rd grade level ?

Next, you asked for stats to my charge that you are cherry picking stats for choosing a single country (Ireland) to use as an example. Silly you (or is it "idiot" as you referred to me) however, do not seem to realize that the tax burden on the Irish is HIGHER THAN THE TAX BURDEN ON AMERICANS!

umm no its not, I posted links to show they were vastly different. Either put up a link of your own or quite spouting BS. Read up on France's protesting of Irelands taxes to the EU council... you know when France complains about your taxes.. your on the capitalist side alright.

If I really have to tell you how living longer and having less of an environmental impact effects an economic system, I should just quit while you are way behind now.

conjur is that you? Man you really now how to twist things in an argument... You pointed out that the US lags in life expectancy.. ok, implying that socialist countries are better for you... I responded saying that it is irrelevant because both socialist and capitalist countries have both poor and great life expectancy's... hence irrelevant.... you then respond with that??? I think you got lost along the way... pehaps this argument is over your head.. are you less than 5 years out of HS? I sense a youthful stubborness in you..

If you would like to go back and try your Irish example again, have at it. Korea, Taiwan and Japan's tax burden are all within 0.82% of the US's so you might not want to tout them as "well below" if the US is your benchmark.

Got links? Another thing to point out is that booming countries like Taiwan and South Korea have little to no social programs whatsoever. Even if the tax rates are close, a much lower % of thier taxes goes to economically harmful social programs... they go torward infrastructure, research, and investment, things that HELP an economy rather than drag it down.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Anyways though, this is getting away from my original point which was that the richest states in the tend to be ones with some of the highest taxes.

Open mouth, insert foot.

You cant cherry pick a few stats. This argument always ends the same. Even Marx himself agrees! I will just save us all some time and get right to the part where lefties break out the "compassion" card. "Who cares how much it costs or how much the economy will suffer, we have to help unfortunate people!"

sigh, when will the world ever learn.

First of all, who cares what Marx said? He was wrong about tons of things, and anyone attempting to compare a modern socialist state with the state envisioned in the communist manifesto is lying.

It has nothing to do with cherry picking stats. It has to do with the fact that states with the highest tax rates by and large have the highest median incomes, the single most salient indicator of prosperity. These states by and large invest more in infrastructure, they invest more in education, etc... etc. Of course there are a million reasons why various states are more prosperous then others, I was just pointing out to you how stupid your "hurf blurf, lower taxes equals more prosperity" argument. Only an idiot would attempt to make such a blanket assertion.

In addition you seem to be confused on some basic economic definitions. I said median income, not mean income. Mean income is distorted by disproportionately wealthy people, median income by and large is not... this is why median income was used. Having a high median income means that the average person on those states mentioned is more prosperous then those in lower taxed states. Also interesting that you're trying to make the argument that because people on the coasts are living in areas that everyone else wants to live in that somehow their far more valuable property shouldn't count. I'm sure you won't mind moving to rural Cambodia then, land there is super cheap. (watch for mines!)

You were making a purely economic argument previously about the economic impact of high taxes. Now that you've run into trouble you're trying to shift the argument to standard of living. Those are two very different things, which are you trying to argue?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all, who cares what Marx said? He was wrong about tons of things, and anyone attempting to compare a modern socialist state with the state envisioned in the communist manifesto is lying.

Despite being a socialist, Marx was highly intelligent, he knew exactly what would be required to have a socialst state survive. His theories are still used, wether disguised as marxist or not, today, to achieve the same result

It has nothing to do with cherry picking stats. It has to do with the fact that states with the highest tax rates by and large have the highest median incomes, the single most salient indicator of prosperity.

And I already responded to that, which you ignored, the states you mentioned have WAY higher costs of living, and rich people tend to live on the coats as well. Factor in cost of living and your argument flies out the window.

These states by and large invest more in infrastructure, they invest more in education, etc... etc.

you're pulling that out of your ass.

Of course there are a million reasons why various states are more prosperous then others, I was just pointing out to you how stupid your "hurf blurf, lower taxes equals more prosperity" argument. Only an idiot would attempt to make such a blanket assertion.

umm, you were the one making a blanket statement, not me. To be fair, I explained my postition further in my last paragraph about Taiwan and SK, stating that more than just lower tax rates, they spend way less on social programs.

In addition you seem to be confused on some basic economic definitions. I said median income, not mean income. Mean income is distorted by disproportionately wealthy people, median income by and large is not... this is why median income was used. Having a high median income means that the average person on those states mentioned is more prosperous then those in lower taxed states. Also interesting that you're trying to make the argument that because people on the coasts are living in areas that everyone else wants to live in that somehow their far more valuable property shouldn't count. I'm sure you won't mind moving to rural Cambodia then, land there is super cheap. (watch for mines!)

Regadless of mean vs median, you are STILL ignoring cost of living conversion (oh in case you dont know, inflation is another byproduct of social programs) And having a higher proportion of rich people around STILL raises the median.

You were making a purely economic argument previously about the economic impact of high taxes. Now that you've run into trouble you're trying to shift the argument to standard of living.

Have you been reading this thread? I was the one pointing out that living standards are irrelevant to an economic discussion, if you hadnt noticed, Im not the one who introduced them in an effort to shift the argument.

Those are two very different things, which are you trying to argue?

Thats what I'M saying! Reading comprehension FTW!