• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

go after the real systemic problems of the system, instead of trying to punish the success of peoples labor to give to those whom have no drive to attain it for themselves.

"punish success," my ass. success is dependent on societal structure and stability. those who have climbed the farthest up the ladder have the most to lose if we let the bottom of the ladder rot.
 
"punish success," my ass. success is dependent on societal structure and stability. those who have climbed the farthest up the ladder have the most to lose if we let the bottom of the ladder rot.

The freedom to attain success is diminished when the discussion turns to the envy of that success.
 
The freedom to attain success is diminished when the discussion turns to the envy of that success.

i'm not envious of the successful. i am tired of the "makers and takers" oversimplification nonsense that i often see being spouted, though.
 
i'm not envious of the successful. i am tired of the "makers and takers" oversimplification nonsense that i often see being spouted, though.

The tactic of making things overly complex is also a tired, worn out path....I try to live by the KISS standard being the correct analysis...
 
The tactic of making things overly complex is also a tired, worn out path....I try to live by the KISS standard being the correct analysis...
_____


:lol::rock
 
_____


:lol::rock



:lol: Wrong "KISS" but it did make me chuckle....


Wow, that is one bad video....The lip movements, and guitar scenes don't even match the song...It's like they just pieced together parts of a different song in concert visuals to try and match the studio track...
 
Last edited:
Oh, I do agree our government can spend less. They don't and Reagan certainly didn't fix that as he said he would. When government spends less wake me up.:july_4th:

When you're ready to talk about the current administration rather than the past, give me a holla.
 
When you're ready to talk about the current administration rather than the past, give me a holla.

You stated you wanted government to spend less. I also agree. I merely made the point they haven't and neither did Reagan even when he lowered taxes and then had to raise them again.
 
You stated you wanted government to spend less. I also agree. I merely made the point they haven't and neither did Reagan even when he lowered taxes and then had to raise them again.

And? What's that have to do with the present?
 
It has to do with the fact that is never does as in past and present.

But I thought Obama was "the Change we could believe in"????? Instead he's just another charlatan huckster in an expensive suit that dupe the stupid into voting for him.
 
i'm not envious of the successful. i am tired of the "makers and takers" oversimplification nonsense that i often see being spouted, though.
It works just fine as a broad understanding of the issue. At the moment I am a maker of wealth. I generate a great deal. I won't always. There are some who have generated far less if any. But they are right there to take all they can get. And there are plenty who are in between.
 
It works just fine as a broad understanding of the issue.

no it doesn't, because it ignores the fact that wealth cannot be created at all without societal structure, and that societal structure has a cost.
 
no it doesn't, because it ignores the fact that wealth cannot be created at all without societal structure, and that societal structure has a cost.

Do they not already pay taxes? Fees? Regulatory compliance? If "societal structure" is in need, then first account for the money already supposedly earmarked for that and tell us where it went.
 
Do they not already pay taxes? Fees? Regulatory compliance? If "societal structure" is in need, then first account for the money already supposedly earmarked for that and tell us where it went.

yes. however, there are two problems :

1. we're wasting the money on things like global interventionism when we should be spending it to shore up the bottom of the ladder so that more people can climb it.

2. the rates are currently too low. even if we pared the military down to peacetime levels, there still wouldn't be enough money for a first world health care system. the current health care system is ridiculously inefficient, and it relies on the idiotic idea that a business should be the health care provider for its workers. it needs to be replaced. healthcare and energy are both sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.

if i could wave a magic wand, i'd do a couple things :

a. pare down the military to peacetime levels. if the world wants a global army, it needs to fund and form one. otherwise, these matters should be handled by the regional powers. we cover the Americas, China is responsible for NK's nonsense, and Iran becomes SA's problem.

b. return all tax brackets to 1990s levels. they were still historically low, and cutting them didn't work.

c. tax investment income as income above a certain cap.

d. cut the corporate rate to below Europe's, and collect it from every corporation. let them deduct expenses, but this having phantom companies in foreign countries has to stop.

i'm sure that rage will ensue over these suggestions, but these are things that we need to do. we aren't going to eliminate social safety nets, nor should we. we need to get our house in order, and everyone is going to have to give something to get that done.
 
Back
Top Bottom