The begining of the New World Order or a Police State?(long read)

No problem

Shockwaves, I have come to believe you would rather have a welfare state that gives free handouts than a country where you are rewarded for your achievements.

I am definitely not rich, and every year my I take home more money than the previous year.  I am not getting poorer.  Those who are depend on welfare.  I am sorry, but we do not live in a socialist country.  I am also not surprised one of your main arguments is the environment.  I would rather get any tax break than see it spent on the environment.  Most Americans feel the same way.  So the top 5 percent are wealthier than the bottom 95 percent combined... is this supposed to be some new secret that has been exposed?!?!?  It has been that way since the Industrial Revolution.  

Yes, you have yet to SHOW what I asked you to.  You claimed GWB was using 9/11 to hide his true agenda.  If you claim the tax cut was "hidden" behind 9/11 you really are off track.  

Once again I ask... what has Bush done to make your life worse?  Anxiety about being drafted??? Oh and I doubt you would have enlisted in any war.  You would have been putting up the same argument as you are now, back in 1941.  One last question for you - Why do you oppose going to war with Iraq?  I can\'t wait to hear the answer to this one.

An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the \'wealthy\' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don\'t (i.e. legal plunder.)

Man, the liberals have played this game so well. The data above is several years old so the numbers have changed. But as you can see the wealthy pay a lot in taxes.

Instead of being jealous of the wealthy do what I do, aspire to become wealthy and join them.

Ace

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Shockwaves, I have come to believe you would rather have a welfare state that gives free handouts than a country where you are rewarded for your achievements.

I am definitely not rich, and every year my I take home more money than the previous year.  I am not getting poorer.  Those who are depend on welfare.  I am sorry, but we do not live in a socialist country.  I am also not surprised one of your main arguments is the environment.  I would rather get any tax break than see it spent on the environment.  Most Americans feel the same way.  So the top 5 percent are wealthier than the bottom 95 percent combined... is this supposed to be some new secret that has been exposed?!?!?  It has been that way since the Industrial Revolution.  

Yes, you have yet to SHOW what I asked you to.  You claimed GWB was using 9/11 to hide his true agenda.  If you claim the tax cut was "hidden" behind 9/11 you really are off track.  

Once again I ask... what has Bush done to make your life worse?  Anxiety about being drafted??? Oh and I doubt you would have enlisted in any war.  You would have been putting up the same argument as you are now, back in 1941.  One last question for you - Why do you oppose going to war with Iraq?  I can\'t wait to hear the answer to this one.

I\'ll take this one piece at a time.  I never once said that I want the United States to become a welfare state, or have a socialist government.  However, I do think that the largest part of the tax burder should be paid by those most able to pay.  Sure, the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes, but the top 5% have well more than 50% of the wealth.  Afterall, the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95% (not the top 5% as you said).  I think that when the top tax bracket is getting the biggest tax cut, that\'s wrong.  The people in that tax bracket can afford to pay the taxes perfectly easily.  It\'s the people in the bottom tax brackets who need every penny they can get.

You say the environment was a major part of my arguement?  Were you reading what I posted, or what someone else did?  I mentioned the environment in only 2 sentences of my entire arguement thus far, and one of those was a sentence summarizing what I had just said.  And I would not cut taxes to these programs.  The environment, and energy conservation are definitely not areas that need tax cuts, and they are definitely areas that myself, and a large number of Americans are happy to pay taxes for.  I really don\'t think that you can speak for the majority of Americans when you say what people do and do not want to pay taxes for.  Hell, if you\'re gonna argue that, get a source.  I posted my sources for my last arguement, why don\'t you show that your arguement has something behind it as well?

As for showing that Bush is hiding behind 9/11, I can\'t show that.  They don\'t publish statistics for things like that.  Hell, they refuse to even cover things even remotely like that in the media.  But, of course, this is your point.  I can\'t prove it.  It\'s just something that any informed and intelligent American should be able to see for themselves.  Oh, and on the other side of it, if you think this view is so far off, prove to me that he isn\'t hiding behind 9/11.

And the last paragraph, oh, I just love this one.  Passing judgement on someone you don\'t know, have never met, and are forming opinions on based on a couple posts on a message board.  I would have enlisted in the two wars I named.  Hell, to go further, I would have gone to Spain, and fought in the Spanish Civil War, against the fascists, if I had been alive then.  What good is it to have views like mine if you aren\'t willing to fight for them?  My point is, there is no way in hell I would fight in the United States Army for a cause I do not believe in.  If I was this age during Vietnam, and got drafted, I would be a Canadian Citizen by now.  And don\'t tell me I\'m a coward for saying so.  I just will never kill others, and risk my life for a cause I am against.  By the way, don\'t take me for some hippy, anti-violence extremist.  If you have that impression, you\'re dead wrong.  By the way, the draft example was just that, an example.  It was an extreme case, and I have said so several times already.  You\'re a moron for ignoring that, and continually bringing it up.

Why do I oppose going to war with Iraq?  Well, the main reason being given to us is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.  First of all, I doubt very much that this is the case.  My source?  Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter.  Say what you will about him, but I know the man.  He lives a couple of blocks from me.  He knows what he\'s talking about.  However, even if we put that aside, and assume they do have weapons of mass destruction, I still wouldn\'t support going to war with them.  It\'s progress, and it\'s inevitable.  We can\'t keep our enemies from having such weapons forever.  Besides, even if they did have them, they wouldn\'t use them against the US.  Doing so would be suicide.  If any nation ever nuked us, we\'d destroy it before they even knew what happened.  I seriously doubt they would use such a weapon.  They just need it for security.  If your nation had been bombed as much as Iraq has from various, mainly US aircrafts, you would want to develop something to try to even the field too.  They wouldn\'t use it, they\'d just use the fact that they have such weapons to try to get the UN to back off (which they should).  I don\'t blame them.  It\'s wrong to attack someone because they may or may not have something that could potentially be used sometime in the future to hurt Americans, which is all this boils down to.  When we get rid of our nukes, then maybe we can tell other people that they should too.  Until then, I don\'t agree with it.  You can\'t punish someone for a crime they haven\'t committed yet, without evidence.  But then again, isn\'t that how this arguement started in the first place?

Ace: Well, of course we all aspire to become rich ourselves.  They don\'t call it the American dream for nothing.  Rags to riches...something that is great about this country.  If you are intelligent and hard working enough, you can really make things happen for yourself.  I would never want to deny people this ability.  I just think that the poorest people should have a bit more help.  Not everyone is fortunate enough to succeed like this, and I think it is important to give back as well.  Ideally, the thing I would want to do is raise the minimum wage to a true living wage.  That way, people who do work, and hold down a stead job will have enough money to live on, and their children won\'t be the ones who end up being punished.

Raising minimum wages would be a horrible thing to do, I\'ll find my source here in a few, but as for now it would only harm more, than do good Shock.

Find it soon, I wanna see it

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the President prepares to focus on a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour by 2002, policy which Congress is due to consider this year, Bruce Bartlett, economic expert and senior fellow for the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, warns Congress to reconsider. According to Bartlett, raising the minimum wage has extremely harmful effects on the very people it is designed to aid - the poor, particularly black teenagers. "A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in Washington," Bartlett says. "But whatever the political realities, it\'s still a bad idea."

Based on demographic studies of past minimum wage hikes, according to Bartlett:


A 10% raise in the minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%

For low income workers earning minimum wage or slightly better, a 10% minimum wage raise has an even greater impact - 10% job loss.

For minimum wage workers who do not lose their jobs as a result of a mandated wage hike, 80% of the net benefits will go to employees who live in families who are not poor.

A higher minimum wage encourages teenagers to drop out of school, reducing their overall capacity to rise above low-skill level jobs."

I\'ll find more arguments,  thats the first thing I saw

More Sources on why Minimum Wage raises would be harmful

Here\'s more I\'m just going to post the link, as it is easier, to post links than to copy and paste, and I could just continue to post more links in this very post

Originally posted by shockwaves



As for showing that Bush is hiding behind 9/11, I can\'t show that.  They don\'t publish statistics for things like that.  Hell, they refuse to even cover things even remotely like that in the media.  But, of course, this is your point.  I can\'t prove it.  It\'s just something that any informed and intelligent American should be able to see for themselves.  Oh, and on the other side of it, if you think this view is so far off, prove to me that he isn\'t hiding behind 9/11.


Why do I oppose going to war with Iraq?  Well, the main reason being given to us is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.  First of all, I doubt very much that this is the case.  My source?  Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter.  Say what you will about him, but I know the man.  He lives a couple of blocks from me.  He knows what he\'s talking about.  However, even if we put that aside, and assume they do have weapons of mass destruction, I still wouldn\'t support going to war with them.  It\'s progress, and it\'s inevitable.  We can\'t keep our enemies from having such weapons forever.  Besides, even if they did have them, they wouldn\'t use them against the US.  Doing so would be suicide.  If any nation ever nuked us, we\'d destroy it before they even knew what happened.  I seriously doubt they would use such a weapon.  They just need it for security.  If your nation had been bombed as much as Iraq has from various, mainly US aircrafts, you would want to develop something to try to even the field too.  They wouldn\'t use it, they\'d just use the fact that they have such weapons to try to get the UN to back off (which they should).  I don\'t blame them.  It\'s wrong to attack someone because they may or may not have something that could potentially be used sometime in the future to hurt Americans, which is all this boils down to.  When we get rid of our nukes, then maybe we can tell other people that they should too.  Until then, I don\'t agree with it.  You can\'t punish someone for a crime they haven\'t committed yet, without evidence.  But then again, isn\'t that how this arguement started in the first place?

 

These two paragraphs show what a naive little child you are.  Asking me to prove that Bush didn\'t have any hidden agenda when you can\'t even bring up ONE instance that he has had one since 9/11!  You made the accusation, now prove it.  :rolleyes:

Here is where you are really naive.  Iraq/Hussein would not "nuke" us with an ICBM, but he would give a bomb to some terrorists to do it for him and deny all liability.  "Iraq needs nukes for security"!?!?!?!  I am really trying not to laugh at you...  Iraq lost the Gulf War - remember?  Victors decide the terms of the surrender and the defeated is bound to comply.  Iraq only gets bombed when it fires at our aircraft in the "no fly zone".

I especially love your assumption that no one would ever "nuke" the US.  No one ever thought a bunch of Islamic nuts would fly two passenger planes into the World Trade Center either now did they?  You need to grow up and realize that the world is a very dangerous place and as 9/11 has shown, an enemy doesn\'t always come in the form of a country.

Originally posted by shockwaves




They just need it for security.  

:nut:

i don\'t know what all the fuss is

the police should be able to do what ever they hell they want !

and no the Omen is not making me say this

j/k

OO7??? Last I recall your leader has his nose so far up Bush\'s ass, and if he knows whats good for his country he\'ll keep it that way, Bush might as well be President of U.S and England, it\'s basically been that way for the past 50 years anyways. Last I reacall you\'d be part of Nazi Germany if we hadn\'t stepped in!!! I know you don\'t agree with Blair, but you talked shit about me country I get to talk shit about yours, fair??? ;-)

As I lose respect for you, I also begin to truly question your intelligence.  Yes, I made an accusation, in saying that Bush is hiding behind 9/11.  But how, exactly, do you think one would prove something like that.  This isn\'t a concrete, black and white issue.  It\'s not something that has direct evidence.  Rather, it is something that I have observed, and many others have as well.  And by the way, hiding behind the event and its aftermath is different from having a hidden agenda.  He isn\'t entirely masking his tactics from the public, he is simply diverting attention to other areas by capitalizing on a situation created by 9/11.  Besides, why should I provide proof?  You haven\'t had proof with a single thing you\'ve said yet.  Until you provide some proof yourself, you can\'t tell me that I need to.  Take a lesson from Mike.  I posted sources for him, he posted them for me.  It has to go both ways.  My point in telling you to prove that he isn\'t hiding behind the 9/11 events is that you can\'t prove it.  It isn\'t something you can prove either way.  Some things can\'t be proved like that.

And are you telling me it matters if you were nuked by an ICBM, or by a terrorist detonating a weapon in a city?  What 9/11 showed us wasn\'t just that things can happen, but that when they happen, we will find out why they happened, and who made them happen.  Four planes were hijacked, they caused serious damage, and there were no survivors.  If we were so rapidly able to trace such a thing back to Osama Bin Laden, and then to Afghanistan, do you not think we could trace something even harder to conceal...a nuke...back to a nation like Iraq?  I never thought they would attack us with an ICBM.  They aren\'t close to that type of technology, that much I can guarantee.  However, sending someone to America to detonate the bomb in a city, as if it were a terrorist attack, is just as risky in many ways.

As for the Gulf War, I believe that the treaty was unfair, and if I were Iraq, I wouldn\'t respect it either.  So what if they lost the war, if an unfair treaty is imposed on a nation, they still probably aren\'t going to accept it.  You think if America lost a war, we\'d accept something like a no fly zone in our nation?  Not a chance, we\'d do the same thing.  Why people always treat other nations differently from America is amazing.

I also never said no one would ever nuke the US.  I said no nation would.  That would be suicide, and foolish for them.  Terrorists are a different thing entirely.  9/11 wasn\'t the action of a government, it was the action of terrorists.  A nation would never do what those terrorists did on 9/11 either.  If a terrorist group is developing nukes, then of course you stop them.  But Iraq isn\'t a terrorist group, they are a nation.  If you can\'t see that there is a difference between the two, then that is pretty bad.

I\'m the naive little child?  It seems to me that you are easily the one who is missing more here.

Oh, and you\'re damned right they need if for their security.  I would do the same if I ran the nation.  How about, instead of laughing at it, you actually address it, and tell me why it\'s so invalid?

Mike: There\'s no way Britain is conquered by Germany if we don\'t join that war.  Even if they don\'t attack Russia, I doubt it happens, but the second the Germans attacked Russia, it was over for them.  They never had a chance.

Mike...I looked at the artical you posted.  Isn\'t the minimum wage already $5.15?  I believe it is.  If so, do you have any statistics to show that the number of jobs actually were affected as these people projected following this increase?

Originally posted by mjps21983
OO7??? Last I recall your leader has his nose so far up Bush\'s ass, and if he knows whats good for his country he\'ll keep it that way, Bush might as well be President of U.S and England, it\'s basically been that way for the past 50 years anyways

your an Idiot if you think the UK would follow Bush blindly.......if there is a reason for us to attack IRAQ along with you then we will do it...unlike the *coff**coff French*coff**cofff*

please note that it is the United kingdom or UK & not England which is one part of the Union (that would be like me calling the US ......Alaska)

Also we havn\'t always seen eye to eye

Remember Veitnam ?

oh yes we followed you blindly then didn\'t we :rolleyes:........

. Last I reacall you\'d be part of Nazi Germany if we hadn\'t stepped in!!! I know you don\'t agree with Blair, but you talked shit about me country I get to talk shit about yours, fair??? ;-) [/B]

:rolleyes:

IF it wasn\'t for OUR efforts during the Cold war..... you would be speaking Russian. Go and get a map read up on HISTORY and not US propaganda and then figure.