Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Mitt Romney's dirty secret: his true beliefs Options · View
Jack_42
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:36:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
The word politician is synonymous with charlatan no exceptions.
myself
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:09:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
The welfare program was put in to place to save our starving country. At the time it was necessary because the way we handled misfortune before the depression was to invite a needy soul in to our home or yard and feed them, offer them work, or go out of the way to see them well one way or the other but we couldn't even feed ourselves at the time. It was a good program and we needed it! The world was falling apart.

We the people since then have latched on to the welfare program and won't let it go. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't want to help strangers in that way in this day even though I'm pretty sure it would be a way to cure this dependency on the government. The corporations and wealthy are the same in this. They don't want to spend a dime that they don't have to to help anyone but their selves and all this at a time when the world is falling a part again.

I for one am sick of the perfect white american family image the republicans shove down our throats as a way to be or a place to be in this day and age. Who the hell do they think they are and who the hell do they think we want to be? Them? NO!!! COULDN"T IF I WANTED TO!!! Do they really think shaming the american people who voted for President Obama out of good conscience and who now should make amends and vote for the right party to save AMERICA is the way to get votes. SICK! A perfect MO for them. To the high and mighty we bow our heads in shame and ask for forgiveness (NOT!!!).

I like a good success story and believe we America stand for that and hope we always do. Don't know what any of the politicians are up to and in fact they make it a job keeping us confused. I will not play the guessing game they have offered. But think, we the people are America and think we the mass who are the world and can make all the changes we want morally, financially and otherwise by simply asserting our right to vote out any and all who make it impossible to understand their plan with bullshit. If there is no one to vote for that's also our fault. With the interest this subject receives there should also be enough good people to get involved and stay focused on the job at hand.

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:19:54 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
myself wrote:

I for one am sick of the perfect white american family image the republicans shove down our throats as a way to be or a place to be in this day and age. Who the hell do they think they are and who the hell do they think we want to be? Them? NO!!! COULDN"T IF I WANTED TO!!!


Bingo. That's the reality that many of us live, that the Romneys and Ryans of the world can't even fathom, much less wrap their heads around and have empathy for.

Conservatives and Liberals increasingly live in different worlds, in many cases with different experiences, different ways of seeing the world, even different sets of facts. A guy like Romney just can't understand why so much of what he and the GOP as a whole say are not only nonsensical but downright offensive to those who don't share that worldview. I'm sure many of them say the same about liberals, but that's my point. It's not necessarily about good and bad (though sometimes it certainly is), it's about a fundamental schism in this country, and perhaps abroad too.

White upper-class Christian nuclear family in the suburbs is their default. That could not be more foreign to me, let alone an embodiment of ideal American life.
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:26:00 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,230
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
LadyX wrote:


Bingo. That's the reality that many of us live, that the Romneys and Ryans of the world can't even fathom, much less wrap their heads around and have empathy for.

Conservatives and Liberals increasingly live in different worlds, in many cases with different experiences, different ways of seeing the world, even different sets of facts. A guy like Romney just can't understand why so much of what he and the GOP as a whole say are not only nonsensical but downright offensive to those who don't share that worldview. I'm sure many of them say the same about liberals, but that's my point. It's not necessarily about good and bad (though sometimes it certainly is), it's about a fundamental schism in this country, and perhaps abroad too.

White upper-class Christian nuclear family in the suburbs is their default. That could not be more foreign to me, let alone an embodiment of ideal American life.


True, in fact it's my major frustration with the Republican party as a whole as well. It's the reason I don't consider myself a Republican. I an not an upper class Christian, nor do I have any desire to ever live in the suburbs. I don't want prayer in school, I think same sex marriage should be allowed, and am grateful for Roe vs Wade.


1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:11:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
myself wrote:
The welfare program was put in to place to save our starving country. At the time it was necessary because the way we handled misfortune before the depression was to invite a needy soul in to our home or yard and feed them, offer them work, or go out of the way to see them well one way or the other but we couldn't even feed ourselves at the time. It was a good program and we needed it! The world was falling apart.


Why is it that none of you are willing to leave welfare in the hands of the state governments rather than pushing it up to the federal government where the poor individual has the weakest voice and the fewest options for dealing with the consequences of using the coercive approach?



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:16:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
naughtynurse wrote:
True, in fact it's my major frustration with the Republican party as a whole as well. It's the reason I don't consider myself a Republican. I an not an upper class Christian, nor do I have any desire to ever live in the suburbs. I don't want prayer in school, I think same sex marriage should be allowed, and am grateful for Roe vs Wade.


We can get everything we want in terms of personal liberties from the Dems if we can convince them to kick the collectivists out. We won't do that by voting for them or voting ineffectively against them. They need to be dragged out of Marxism, and the way to make that clear is to vote effectively against them until they get the message.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:20:35 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Why is it that none of you are willing to leave welfare in the hands of the state governments rather than pushing it up to the federal government where the poor individual has the weakest voice and the fewest options for dealing with the consequences of using the coercive approach?



If every state was federally mandated to offer these benefits in the same manner and scope, I'd have no issue with states doing it rather than the federal government. But everybody within the US ought to have access to these benefits should they need them, and living in one state shouldn't mean lesser funds or availability than living in another state. It could, however, allow for welfare to be adjusted to regional costs of living, though.
sprite
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:22:41 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,662
Location: My Tower, United States
Marxism :

the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Socialism :

Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective. socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce. Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:02:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
If every state was federally mandated to offer these benefits in the same manner and scope,


Where does this hatred for diversity of belief come from? Did the EU get it wrong when they didn't include centralization of benefits in their alliance?




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:10:47 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Where does this hatred for diversity of belief come from? Did the EU get it wrong when they didn't include centralization of benefits in their alliance?




The EU's not a single nation, with apologies to your alternate definition described elsewhere. I don't hate diversity of belief, I believe that living in one state rather than another shouldn't land you with more or less access to needed assistance. Equal opportunity, regardless of what state's emblem is on your driver's license.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:38:30 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:


Where does this hatred for diversity of belief come from? Did the EU get it wrong when they didn't include centralization of benefits in their alliance?




Don't try to comparae the US to the EU. There are NO ways in them being similar. Are they heading in that direction? They have indeed headed towards being one country from the start of the trade union, but most countries want to make sure that it stays a union and not a federation. That's why the EU constitution got voted down. That's why many of the countries don't follow directives that are sent out by Brussels. Add the increasing annoyince amongst the richer countries, like Germany and especially the UK, for being stuck with the bill that the poorer countries give them. The EU is closer to falling apart and disintegrating than going in the direction of one federation atm. Don't forget that in summer there was a serious doubt wether the Euro would remain as a currency. Once you start debating having New Mexican Pesos and Lousiana Francs you can start drawing paralells between the US and the EU.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:58:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.


There is no doubt that socialism can exist in a capitalist society until a more capitalist society outcompetes it. Socialism is anti-thetical to competition. It requires the coercion of, and the cooperation of, those who work harder, smarter, better, etc. and those who invest in the success of the society. Why would anyone stay or overperform or invest where they get a lesser reward for their effort and risk? The amount of socialism in a society is the amount of competitive advantage it leaves on the table for other societies to take advantage of.

By having institutionalized coercion in our federal government, we weaken the entire country, because the federal government eliminates competition between the states, but not the other societies in the global economy. When the federal government increases coercion against investors and workers, it frees more coercive regimes to increase their coercion and remain at parity with the status quo. It makes other societies more attractive to investors and workers. Actions have consequences and stupid actions have bad consequences. The most hurt by collectivism are the poorest and dumbest, because the richest and smartest are the most able to take advantage of it.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:06:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


The EU's not a single nation,


Totally irrelevant to the issue. It is a common labor market, a common investor market and a common consumer market. If centralization is good, why didn't the EU member states insist on it to produce a harmonious non-competitive socialist europe?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:13:20 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I'll leave the collectivist theory to you, my friend. I know you're very convinced of your viewpoints.

The nations of Europe haven't relinquished their identities as nations altogether and just settled for being provinces, which is what would have to happen for them to centralize benefits, because they're different nationalities with different cultures to cater to, and have cultivated those different identities, in various forms, for some time. I realize you're tempted to tell me how different Oregon and Georgia culture are, but I'm not buying that as a comparison. Mostly because, Oregon and Georgia are parts of the United States of America- a single nation.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:15:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


Don't try to comparae the US to the EU. There are NO ways in them being similar.


Bullshit. Common labor market, common investor market, common consumer market.

Why didn't they include common welfare policy? The answer to this is so simple that anyone with at least half a brain should be able to guess correctly. The member states wanted to stop losing capital, investors, workers, talent, skills, jobs, and business in general to the rest of the world. By adding competition for governance to the European mix, they achieved some control over the people who vote for more bread and circuses, and thereby achieved some success at retaining what societies need to remain competitive. Agreed?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:24:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I'll leave the collectivist theory to you, my friend. I know you're very convinced of your viewpoints.


That's the problem with collectivists. They use any excuse to cling to their failed ideology, to ignore logic and reason, to pretend meaningless distinctions are meaningful and vice versa. Despite all the evidence that capital and talent and skill flow toward opportunity and away from coercion, They keep choosing coercion, and centralization offers the most coercive options.

In case it isn't clear, foreign capital is a very desirable thing to attract. Jobs are very desirable things to retain. Economic activity is a a requirement of an economy. Voluntarily clinging to economic naivete is denial and dogmatism.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:51:00 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,302
Location: Cakeland, United States
Aside from his remark about the 47% who are not going to vote for him anyway...and that's not really such a bad thing to say when a candidate is talking to his base at a $50,000.00 a plate bribery/shakedown dinner.

What irked me the most were the comments from his Bain partner when they were touring the Chinese slave labor manufacturing plant. Hell, it could've been the same plant (computer manufacturer where 60% of motherboards & RAM chips and CPUs are made). You might have some in your PC now ( I probably have some of that shit in this PC of mine).



These guys talk about this slave labor shit as if it's a great thing to capitalize upon...never once gasping at the grave reality being thrown in their faces.

"How can we make even more money off investing in Chinese manufacturing? No EPA to worry about, no Labor laws to deal with, no ACLU to piss off, no anything to worry about...It's a golden road to jump on!"

And that is why US manufacturing has shipped offshore more and more, since the mid 1980s. No taxation is just the first thing we think of. Hell, there's no regulation of anything at all. It's wide open.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:24:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
1ball wrote:

Or the other possibility is that it was a strategic leak calculated to help him, because there are many many more people who are now aware of how many people pay no income taxes and who they are likely to vote for in order to get more benefits.


The idea that 47% of the country does not pay tax is a wingnut myth. It is completely untrue. 47% do not pay federal tax. But who are those people?

Well one large chunk is schoolchildren. They don't work see.

Another large chunk is retirees. They don't usually work either (as in 'retired')

Then there are students, Americans who live abroad and deduct their foreign taxes from their US tax and all sorts of other corner cases.

Welfare recipients are actually a very small part of that 47%. But Mr 'I am all right jack' doesn't care about them at all and he does not care very much about the working poor who make less than $20,000 a year. Even though they pay more in payroll taxes and state taxes (15.4% average) than Romney does (13.9% on the only year he released returns for).

In fact the biggest tax cheat here is Mr Romney who uses loophole after loophole to reduce his liability which he can do because he can afford expensive crooks to find them for him.

In Romney's world of $50,000 a plate fundraisers, paying tax is for the little people.

As for this being deliberate, Romney's campaign is now so dead that the Mormon church has baptized it. The Senate candidates can't run away from him fast enough. The superpacs have decided to keep the money for other races.

Last week the GOP was still in with a fighting chance of taking the Senate. If their current slide gets any worse people will be asking if they are going to keep the House.

It is not just the 47% comment that is cretinous. There is a whole series of stupid statements on pretty much every topic. Most damning of all his hope for a repeat of the Iranian hostage crisis - which he lost no time in trying to score points off when the Ambassador was murdered last week.

Romney is an absolutely dreadful person. He is arrogant, callous and ignorant.

ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:32:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
1ball wrote:


Bullshit. Common labor market, common investor market, common consumer market.

Why didn't they include common welfare policy? The answer to this is so simple that anyone with at least half a brain should be able to guess correctly. The member states wanted to stop losing capital, investors, workers, talent, skills, jobs, and business in general to the rest of the world. By adding competition for governance to the European mix, they achieved some control over the people who vote for more bread and circuses, and thereby achieved some success at retaining what societies need to remain competitive. Agreed?


Pretty much all the EU countries have a full welfare state complete with government managed healthcare. The reason that the market does not harmonize everything is mostly due to them not getting round to it before the Euro blew up in their faces.

There are in fact minimum standards for labor laws. They are called the Social Charter. The UK tried to opt out under Major but signed up under Blair.

Given the state of the European economy right now I can't see why you would try to use it to bolster your case. The reason for their current economic fix is the German insistence on an austerity regime (their economy is actually doing rather well) while the rest of Europe needs looser money because they face a slump.

tazznjazz
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:40:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
I'm noticing a theme here. Some talk as if the world were a spread sheet, looked at through an accountants Bob Cratchet cold gaze, while others show real concern with those not as fortunate to be able to ''borrow money from your dad'' to get out of the whirlpool of poverty that is drowning the hopes and spirits of countless people in the U.S. and all over the world.

That we have a safety net for these citizens shows the world the compassionate nation we are and why we are the nation looked towards to right the ills other countrys neglect.

For those that cry me, me mine and dont take from me, just take a walk through a ghetto and imagine a twist of fate that landed you there with no way out in sight.

If the brilliant accountants of the world set their goals on making this a fair and just land for all to work and live with their heads held high instead of padding their own pockets everyone would prosper in the end.

If this sounds socialist, so be it, but in essence it's capitolisim working as it should. Educating our youth, providing jobs for those out of work due to no fault of their own and giving a helping hand to those in need lifts us all up in the final equation.
ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:43:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
sprite wrote:

Socialism :

Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.


You might also add that Socialism was known as Owenism in the early days after Robert Owen.

Robert Owen was one of the first modern capitalists. He is also known as the father of the factory system. He was the first manufacturer to discover that you got better work if you paid decent wages and fair hours.

Owen did not call himself a capitalist however as the term was only invented much later, by Karl Marx.

Much of what passes for right wing economics these days is unreconstructed Marxism. The only difference being that in Marx's day the wealth created by industrialization only flowed to the 1% of the day while 95% of the rest lived in abject poverty which Marx thought was bad while the Gingrich-Paul-Romney take on Marxism see that as either unimportant (Romney) or a goal in itself (Gingrich).

The GOP does not know who they are channeling when they trot out these glib tropes. But given that they are not very clever it is hardly surprising that they would be copying someone else. Even if that is a dead economist who died before the invention of the telephone, internal combustion engine, electric light and flight.

ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:46:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
tazznjazz wrote:
I'm noticing a theme here. Some talk as if the world were a spread sheet, looked at through an accountants Bob Cratchet cold gaze, while others show real concern with those not as fortunate to be able to ''borrow money from your dad'' to get out of the whirlpool of poverty that is drowning the hopes and spirits of countless people in the U.S. and all over the world.

That we have a safety net for these citizens shows the world the compassionate nation we are and why we are the nation looked towards to right the ills other countrys neglect.

For those that cry me, me mine and dont take from me, just take a walk through a ghetto and imagine a twist of fate that landed you there with no way out in sight.

If the brilliant accountants of the world set their goals on making this a fair and just land for all to work and live with their heads held high instead of padding their own pockets everyone would prosper in the end.

If this sounds socialist, so be it, but in essence it's capitolisim working as it should. Educating our youth, providing jobs for those out of work due to no fault of their own and giving a helping hand to those in need lifts us all up in the final equation.


Ann Romney's idea of living on the edge was chipping away at the stock Mitt had been given by his father and not being able to afford to entertain.

My idea of living on the edge would be having MS and having to find the $60,000 a year it now costs for Copaxone without either health insurance or a $30 million a year investment income.

Ann Romney seems to be almost as nasty a piece of work as her husband.

elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:38:31 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:


Bullshit. Common labor market, common investor market, common consumer market.

Why didn't they include common welfare policy? The answer to this is so simple that anyone with at least half a brain should be able to guess correctly. The member states wanted to stop losing capital, investors, workers, talent, skills, jobs, and business in general to the rest of the world. By adding competition for governance to the European mix, they achieved some control over the people who vote for more bread and circuses, and thereby achieved some success at retaining what societies need to remain competitive. Agreed?


No, the member states wanted a bigger market. I can't remember exactly the wording(on my phone so can't Google and shit) but it started out as The Steel and Coal union. It was all about free markets with no tolls to help their own companies grow bigger and get import and export without the toll that nations commonly use. The reason they started the whole "EU citizens can work everywhere in the EU" is because it's faster and easier to bring in workers from abroad. They want it quick.

You make EU sound like some sort of capitalistic utopia when in reality it is a beurocratic utopia. It breaks with many of the ideas of capitalism because of the constant subsidies that the push into their different industries. Many of them are very much dependant on government aid.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 11:03:21 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/

I just had to add this

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:32:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:


Ann Romney seems to be almost as nasty a piece of work as her husband.


Maybe so, but I'd bend her over, tie her to the bed rails, and make her call me daddy...

1ball
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:17:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:


The idea that 47% of the country does not pay tax is a wingnut myth. It is completely untrue. 47% do not pay federal tax.


I believe the statistic refers to 'voters' and doesn't claim they pay no tax, but that they pay no federal income tax. The truth is that we all pay a lot of the cost of the federal government through taxes that become hidden by virtue of being embedded in the cost of goods and services. We also pay through decreased wages, job losses and other forms of reduced opportunity and the subsequent devaluation of living in the society.

And IIRC, considering that there are often two voters in the households that have zero income tax liability after calculating the EIC and standard deductions, 47% of the voters is a generally accepted statistic among honest Dems who can read the data (that's if you can find any of those).


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:28:59 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Question: What's the difference between Income Tax and Payroll Tax?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:34:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:
Pretty much all the EU countries have a full welfare state complete with government managed healthcare.


Totally irrelevant. Those "fulll welfare states" are now in competition with each other for labor, capital, consumers to sell to and solutions to parasitical greed.

Quote:
The reason that the market does not harmonize everything is mostly due to them not getting round to it before the Euro blew up in their faces.


It is no secret that socialists have been working since the beginning to overcome good sense of having competition for governance. Whether they will ever succeed isn't really the issue. The forces of collective greed are not the slippery slope, but the very determined camel that really want to get in and start shitting all over the tent.

Quote:
There are in fact minimum standards for labor laws. They are called the Social Charter.


Evidence that the EU got it wrong in one small respect, but not proof that socialism will succeed in sinking the alliance. Competition will determine how much socialism is safe for the central government.

Quote:
Given the state of the European economy right now I can't see why you would try to use it to bolster your case. The reason for their current economic fix is the German insistence on an austerity regime (their economy is actually doing rather well) while the rest of Europe needs looser money because they face a slump.


Which has nothing to do with whether there should be common social benefits. The fact that the alliance is close to breaking apart because socialists are rioting over a loss of government benefits only indicates that the form of decentralization might not be powerful enough to overcome the collective greed of those countries that are failing to compete. We had a similar crisis in the US. States that believed in a right to steal from individuals became economic backwaters and rebelled. It resulted in war between the states.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:55:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


No, the member states wanted a bigger market. I can't remember exactly the wording(on my phone so can't Google and shit) but it started out as The Steel and Coal union. It was all about free markets with no tolls to help their own companies grow bigger and get import and export without the toll that nations commonly use. The reason they started the whole "EU citizens can work everywhere in the EU" is because it's faster and easier to bring in workers from abroad. They want it quick.

You make EU sound like some sort of capitalistic utopia when in reality it is a beurocratic utopia. It breaks with many of the ideas of capitalism because of the constant subsidies that the push into their different industries. Many of them are very much dependant on government aid.


The EU is far from a capitalistic utopia. It is only an attempt to overcome the effects of socialism, the cycle of demonization, warfare and rebuilding as a way to remain in a state of continuous emergency so that governments that pander to those who believe their want for the wealth of others is a need can remain in power.

Creating the ECM was a way to end some of the institutionalized mercantilism (a form of crony collectivism that govenments can't seem to resist until voters demand lower priced goods from other economies). They saw that a common consumer market wasn't enough, because productive people were leaving to find opportunity throughout the globe, some of them becoming tax exiles. Capital flight and talent and skill flight had to be addressed and national governments weren't going to address them in a way that would prevent warfare in Europe, unless they could make Europe more similar to the US with commonality in all three markets that an economy requires (labor, investor, consumer).

The fact that the EU and the US both turned out to be less than perfect implementations of the weak central government with strong protections for individual sovereignity model is irrelevant. The EU, by fighting off the socialists who wanted commonality of welfare benefits that would alienate capital and productive labor, created meaningful non-violent competition between member countries that allowed capital and labor to have more freedom and more choice within the European sphere of influence.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:04:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
Question: What's the difference between Income Tax and Payroll Tax?


Payroll tax is collected off the top from gross income and is a fixed percentage for all employees and is theoretically dedicated to a specific purpose (Social Security and Medicare are essentially social insurance policies and payroll taxes pay the premiums).

Income tax is then calculated based on such factors as how many dependents (spouse, children, disabled adults, etc.) are in the household of the worker.

Payroll tax also has a matching component from the employer, although this is really a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to fool voters into thinking they aren't paying it through the cost of consumer goods, services, reduced wages, or damage to the competitiveness of the businesses that employ labor.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.