Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Perados, Oct 5, 2013.
True enough! Somebody needs to put a damned "Like" button here.
What you advocate as far as I can see is what I know as Modern Monetary Theory, and without being too semantic and reliant upon Parmenides, almost all economic models are theoretic because ultimately no one can really predict what outcomes will happen.
Not from I have witnessed. Besides, my point relevant to the discussion was that people with time on their hands tend to use more public services. You are avoiding that issue for some reason.
MMT is the accurate description of the system that we have in the post-Bretton Woods era in the sovereign currency issuing nations.
Not at all. Quite clearly. people who work use more public services. Roads, transport, energy, communications etc etc etc
right, IF many people would quit their jobs, other taxes would decline, cause companies would have to shut down - now is the question, if company owners would accept to have NO income (close their company). Its doubtfull that they would.
Thats why they would offer all those with a low income an higher income - people who had a low income in the current system would have a higher income in the new system.
The total ammount of paid taxes would be higher then before...
Lets say, currently an architect earns 5000 dollar - a toilet cleaner 1500.
Its very likelly that the architect choosed his job cause he likes his creatitve work. The income warnt the mean reason...
On the other hand, its doubtfull that a toilet cleaner LOVES to work with shit. But he is forced to do the job for a low income
In a system with basic income, the toilet cleaner would quit his job - now has the owner of the architecture bureau 3 options...
1. Shut down his company cause no one cleanes the toilet
2. Cleane the toilets by him self
3. Offer the toilet cleaner more money
To finance option 3, the income of the architect could get reduced...
EVERYONE gets a basic income. This means, the architect could get 2800 dollar lower payment and still would be at 5000 dollar (including basic income)
In the same time, the payments of the cleaner could get increased by 2800 dollar. His new payment would go up to 4300 dollar (7100 dollar inclueding basic income)
No one would quit quit his job, the company would still exist
AND NO TAX WOULD GO DOWN
I am civil.
I debate fairly.
But debate is still argument.
And when someone forwards a poor argument... or no argument... or cites lies and disinformation that is readily proven false in argument... i will call it out.
When folks act like their opinions, tho entirely unsupported by fact, deserve respect, then I will point out that, no, they don't. Delusions, mistaken notions, distortions, and corporate propaganda do Not get any respect just because an individual places credence in them.
You're not, but that's not at all a problem, and please don't assume I view it as such.
Be as brash as you choose to be.
That's kind of funny. Do you actually think thru such things before you state them?
Listen... finance is just another resource.
No amount of money spent will allow BP to pump oil that isn't there.
Money is finite. Resources are finite. ergo EVERYTHING is resource constrained.
There is no difference.
Brash is not lacking in civility.
Civility is not synonymous with agreeability.
Yes, I've been paid to think about these things all my adult life.
No. Finance isn't a resource. Nor is it finite.
Civil can be considered courtesy and/or polite. If you believe you embody that in your postings, bully for you.
You're not likely to find Balsary agree with me on anything, yet he agrees with my assessment of it, so that's GOTS TA BEE SAYN SUMTHIN!
However, I would prefer you not change a thing. Lord knows there isn't a Liberal here that will report you, and I most certainly will not even consider such childish behavior.
Edit: my assessment both refers to your treatment of fellow posters AND how you speak (type I suppose) about the various topics.
Many Tea Partiers certainly tread the edge of insanity.
Their notion that defaulting on the Debt would actually be a good thing is proof of their inability to comprehend the world around them nor the consequences of their own actions.
That they consistently vote for policies that demonstrably are NOT in their own interest is evidence that they do not comprehend their own interests.
That is self destructive behavior; A hallmark of madness.
And, sorry... but it is simply NOT uncivil to point out that a group of people is acting delusionally.
Saying Neo-nazis are fascists is Not an insult. Its an observation of reality that is backed by real evidence.
Saying tea party believers act delusionally is, similarly, not an insult. Its may be deemed harsh... but that does not mean it is not valid.
For example, the infamous Tea Party placard seen at numerous rallies paid for by the Koch Bros, "keep your government hands off my medicare" is a perfect example that they mentally traffic in oxymoronic notions, without understanding that they are oxymoronic.
This reveals a fundamental absence of reasoning in their thought process.
It could be argued that characterizing them as insane is an exculpatory kindness in comparison to the alternative explanation for their conduct... that they are weak willed, intellectually lazy, easily manipulated, emotionally timid, and not very bright.... ALL of which have been scientifically found to be generally true of 'conservatives' to some degree.
LOL thank you for solidifying my point. Please feel free to let me know how this response qualifies me as a stupid, brain dead Conservative...in a civil manner of course.
It goes without saying that your brashness (which you seem to accept as a description) is in direct contradiction to your belief that you are civil.
Like it or not, we're all on the same team. The team mentality only serves to further divide the country/world.
So who nominated you as the arbiter of what constitutes civility?
Perhaps you should take a course in debate. You might learn that incivility would be to, say, employ Ad Hominem as part of your argument ( or lack thereof )
Its Not merely name calling in the bad language sense.
An example of Ad Hominem would be to imply that your opponent is, say, being uncivil, brash, or insulting.
These are actually insults that refer not to their arguments, but to the character of the person forwarding them.
In debate, Ad Hominem serves only one purpose... debaters with a position they can not adequately defend employ it as a means of derailing the debate.
Their objective is to cast aspersion on their opponent's argument, by casting aspersion on HIM personally. ( also called 'poisoning the well' )
Their hope is to make the arguments of their opponent suspect by making their opponent suspect.
So, in reality, in calling me uncivil, you are employing Ad Hominem... no matter how nicely you phrase it.
I have never been one to shrink from stiff debate... and I tend to give as good as I get.
But I have a very low tolerance for the posting of outright lies and delusions and the notion that people deserve to have their ideas treated with respect.
I certainly don't expect My ideas to be treated with respect.
I expect them to be attacked and I am willing to defend them.
And, sorry, but when folks actually ASK for folks opinions on something they have done or are thinking of doing, that I find morally questionable, foolish or otherwise ill advised... then I will answer them honestly.
If all they want is "support" and ego stroking , then they should specify they are not really wanting anything but encouragement.
Haven't you heard? Eric is the self appointed arbiter of EVERYTHING.
I don't really care what you call it, attempting to diminish an opponent by calling something they respect or honor "big sky daddy" is unnecessary.
PS. in my world, "critique" is not hanging someone else's stuff on the fridge.
Its cogent analysis that is blunt and honest and, yes, sometimes harsh.
Critique is Not uncivil. Its the most civilized thing human beings are capable of.
Its why Sand can be made into this computer you're using... because ideas are challenged and bad or wrong ideas shot down.
1. In this case, the English language as we have come to know it...or whatever Balsary's misguided snarkiness will tell you.
2. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Though, to be clear, I'm not engaging in debate with you in this situation. when I do, I assure you it will not involve critiquing your brashness. It is a welcome reprieve from the pussified nature of some here.
Ps the rehashing of Logic 101 is much appreciated
Pps one can only hope you'll call out Balsary as the most egregious user of the ad hominem attack.
Did I do this? At this point, I'm pleading complete ignorance, because I cannot recall mentioning anything even close to the above statement.
That has nothing to do with you.
I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers. For example I've never heard that "50% of all employees don't pay income tax". Maybe in your country, but definitely not in America. There have been reports that 50% of households don't pay taxes, a household being significantly different than an employee. Most notable these households do pay federal taxes, most notably the payroll tax so they are still contributing revenue to the govt. This can be helpful in helping you understand some of your claims and how it does negatively impact the amount of taxes the govt collects as it relates to the US - Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities