50 replies to this topic

[Athena]

Except for the ones that took a whole building with them

[Allied General]

like i said the world is f*cked up, everyone is screwed and no-one is "right"

[Silent_Killa]

No because hes lowering taxes to the rich, all social benefits and security/status is disappearing and having cuts appearing. Education, transport, you name it theres cuts, except the military (of course - the US war economy). People are saying social security is dying, its not yet, but it is bushes fault that there are problems. Explaination here: http://www.ecolanguage.net/

Dude, read up on some of this stuff. Tax cuts are not just for the rich, they're for everyone, particularly small bussinesses. Bush did not kill social security, that was actually primarily the result of Democrats spending the money with no real ways to pay it back.

My solution is to tax the rich and restore the economys full strength, give people the healthcare and stuff they need and then with extra money fund money into developing new energy sources. Build a few nuclear power plants to cut down the requirements of fossil fuels. At least that will buy us time. I'm sure we could launch the waste into space.

The rich and capitalists are the biggest polluters, so make them pay for it, as well as anyone else who pollutes.

Polution has nothing to do with capitalism, shit needs to get done, when you get shit done, there's polution to deal with. Oh, and that guy that you hate so much, he's the one pushing more nuclear power, it's your left wing chums that are pushing it back.

Flat tax is best IMO... think about it, the rich are still taxed more...
Poor man makes 20,000 a year. He is taxed 10%. He is taxed 2,000 a year.
Rich man makes 600,000 a year. He is taxed 10%. He is taxed 60,000 a year.
Fair, is it not?

Now, the pollution deal. Why not have a tax on that, the more tons of waste you produce, the more you are taxed, that would also be fair.

I believe thats fine. People owning their own business and running it and making money is fine. But a small amount of that money should go back into the economy for people who can't do that. Not everyone can be rich hostile you seem to forget that. You need workers to be rich and those workers need looking after, so stop this bollacks that they should all understand money, because that logic is flawed and DOES NOT WORK for the majority. Its a minority thing. Only a small amount can actually be successful enough to get to the top.

Agreed really, except that they should have to put money back into the economy to help the people. Not everyone can own their own bussiness, but a lot of people can. Then, you have a smaller amount of people employed under a single company, resulting in greater competition for workers, and higher pay.

The poor need looking after, i'm sorry you don't understand that but your logic doesn't work, so again i'm going to disagree. Theres many type of left wingers, your just limiting yourself to think authoritarian left wing rather than libertarian, which is liberalised and freedom. I'd call myself a libertarian socialist because i want people to be free and do whatever they wish, but not at the expense of others and other people suffering. Capitalism does not allow this, it only results in greed and ignorance of the upper classes who are the ruling class. The people should run the government and make their own minds (democracy), not a bunch of elite arseholes who care for nothing except short term profit. This recent development with bush (as shown above) proves this.

The people do rule the government, they vote for a representative, unless you'd like us all to vote on every decision.

Taxing the rich and agreeing to kyoto would not ruining the economy, it would just limit short time profit. Why should the world be damaged and ruin everyone elses lives at the rule of these ignorant selfish bastards.

Agreeing to Kyoto at this point and time could damage the economy. So could increasing tax on the rich. We can't do this when the economy needs to be brought back up. You need to get short term profit in order to have something to build the long term on Hybrid.

My firm belief is then everyone should be tax, the rich more as they have more money and won't cause much of a dent, and that money goes back to society to move forward and make EVERYONES lives worth living. Decent housing, decent food, decent water, transport, education, environment and health. The rich who earn billions a year, they will never spend it Hostile, it will just sit in their banks and never go back into the economy, so tax them slightly higher to extract it, they won't miss it because they will never spend it. Thats the GREED i'm on about. That money could be used to make a better world and life rather than just sitting there for no reason.

They'll spend, but that's not the point, because they'll never spend enough... but the company will eventually go out of bussiness, all do. Really, that's what charity is for, the rich give more to charity than anyone else, whether it's for publicity or not, they do.

The US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. Money is funded into the pentagon, the pentagon works with corporations to develop technology, the technology is either used in war or sold to the public. War is a way to protect americas interests. Everyone single way the rich WIN. Its just wrong.

Of course WE go to war to protect OUR interests. Nobody else is going to protect them are they? The US is the only country that has gone to war for someone elses interests really, but what would you have us do? Let our interests be destroyed while we spend all of our money protecting everyone elses?

[Hostile]

Flat tax is best IMO... think about it, the rich are still taxed more...
Poor man makes 20,000 a year. He is taxed 10%. He is taxed 2,000 a year.
Rich man makes 600,000 a year. He is taxed 10%. He is taxed 60,000 a year.
Fair, is it not?

I used to believe that also till I learned that rich people don't own anything. You'd have to change the whole corporate structure for that. And well we know that will cost jobs. And not the ones at the top either.

[Comrade Kal]

So what do you believe Hostile?

[Hostile]

The rich who earn billions a year, they will never spend it Hostile, it will just sit in their banks and never go back into the economy, so tax them slightly higher to extract it, they won't miss it because they will never spend it. Thats the GREED i'm on about. That money could be used to make a better world and life rather than just sitting there for no reason.

Hybrid, that's where you're wrong. The rich don't get rich by sitting on money. For them money is always moving. That's how they make money.

The masses save thier money in banks who "move" the money to make more money and then return a little profit back to the consumer.

Again, understand money and how it works

MSpenser. My $5 bargain bin thoughts were free. See I just turned a $5 profit per unit. Have to love capitalism.

[Comrade Kal]

Well, in the days of old labour, when we were true socialists, I think some people were being taxed 95% of their wage.

I don't see anything wrong with that, judging by how much they were earning.

[Hostile]

Maybe you don't

I doubt many others would agree.

[Comrade Kal]

For 'others' i'll read 'greedy bastards', shall I?

[Hostile]

Well, in the days of old labour, when we were true socialists, I think some people were being taxed 95% of their wage.

I don't see anything wrong with that, judging by how much they were earning.

Shall we run a poll on this one or would you like to "rephrase" it abit.

[Comrade Kal]

Lets run a poll then. Do you find a problem with the highest earners in the country (at the time, The Beatles, who were selling millions of records across the world and couldn't possibly spend 1% of the money they were making) being taxed 95% of their wage?

[MSpencer]

In the days of the LibDems, we had to walk thirty five miles to get to the general store, all while being bombarded by the communist red bastards!

[Comrade Kal]

Relevance is your middle name, isn't it, MSpencer?

[Hostile]

I would be open for a poll. But either we both get to state the reasons why or we have someone "not so in the heat" write it for us.

I feel that I would lose 3 to 2 easily. Because young people think the left will help the masses more than the right.

So I'm willing to accept a poll and a loss. But I bet there will be a number of people who are more excited to know they can rise above thier current situation and be "capitalists", lead thier community, provide them with things they would not have had then...

Or expect that the govenrment will give them a fun retirement from some little state pension.

[MSpencer]

Relevence is my middle name. It was going back to when you said "back in the old labor days", it just kind of caught my eye.

[chemical ali]

I cant belive that kal went to private school now

[Ash]

Relevance isn't Ali's middle name either.

Or ANY of your middle names, it seems, as we've gone from the issue of climate change onto economics and who's got the shittiest President/Prime Minister/Premier.


1) When we say plant new trees, we mean 'give them time to grow before you obliterate more of the rainforest'. Seriously. We have enough paper. Shame we don't recycle more. It might be a good idea. Or is that too radical for you so-called Capitalists?

2) How the FUCK will cutting CO2 emissions hurt your economy? o_0 Honestly...so what if it costs a bit of money to fit everyone with catalytic converters or produce more fuel-efficient cars, and put the squeeze on your companies' factories to be cleaner? Whoopee. The US is already the biggest economy in the world, and I doubt spending a little money to save it in the long-term is going to hurt. As I said, think of what happens when the world's economic capital, and the worlds tallest city with block upon block of skyscrapers suddenly becomes a few floors shorter because it's flooded. What are you gonna do, make it into New Venice? Spare me the lunacy

3) That Sequestration idea still seems to me like sweeping the problem under the carpet. Same as landfills, but not. Still, think what it'll do to the ecosystem in the soil and ocean. We already do enough to corrupt the ocean. Best we don't put CO2 in there, too. It's called 'ALGAE, and it's fucked up most of Britain's rivers already, let's not do it to the ocean. Besides, won't this also cost money? Oh no! Sorry, I seem to have burst your bubble there...better we don't do this Carbon Sequestration either as that might wreck the precious US economy too!

4) The point is, time is fast running out. Even with the Kyoto agreement I don't see any changes where I live. It's still a rotting cesspool (so is most of England, I might add). However, just once in a while people should stop thinking about how many 0's are on the end of their bank balance and think about the world as a whole for once. Unless they'd rather think of it as a hole.

5) Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't give a stuff how much it costs for the human race to go green (or at least somewhat green...we're never gonna be perfect), how many businesses go under. The economy will survive, as businesses have men at the top with brains too, yknow. They'll figure out how to profit from it, the same way they figured out how to profit from every war that's been and gone. Maybe some Western countries should have Civil Wars. Maybe a bit of money might go to the Health Service then

[Godwin]

And why is everyone whining about the US? While saying all that, have you realised anything else about "the rest of the world"?

What do you have to say about the world's insistance on US ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? Why do they need it?

What do you have to say about developing nations, as well as China, which will become the world's largest economy, they're going to pollute a hell more than USA.

Kyoto isn't going to solve anything, you're just doing the same damn thing, only less of it, not cleaner.

[Ash]

It'd still be nice to see the USA make an effort to tidy itself up.

Although yes I agree, even though the USA didn't sign, the countries that did still ought to work on cleaning up. And China...jesus, I saw this thing on the news yesterday, suddenly they've all gone into buying cars and also electrification has meant they're blowing up mountains to supply the coal...if ever there was a need for renewable/nonpolluting energy, this is it.

[MSpencer]

So, the homemade bills made to fit our own economy aren't good enough for you? The Kyoto Protocol was designed by people who are dealing with other types of economies in such a lower scale. The US has as much industry as most of Europe, excluding Russia, and signing a bill that is not tailored to our own situation will not help our economy or standard of living. Maybe you don't understand it, but when you burn things, you produce carbon dioxide. If we were to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55%, as said in the actual treaty if you've even read it, our economy would tank. Manufacturing, power production, everything requires carbon dioxide and by reducing the carbon dioxide emissions by 55% would be absolute murder.
What about Australia? They're opposed too, and you're not bitching about them.

Let me just quote President Bush here.
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

Also, a couple numbers to crunch.
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita).