• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

haymarket said:
Because this is about much much much more than simply location. But then, that has been repeatedly explained to you so instead of attempting to refute it you adopt the ostrich position and pretend.
Click to expand...


Wait....Weren't you the one arguing that he should accept the taxation, or move? Now you say it is about more than location? What the hell man....
 
j-mac said:
Wait....Weren't you the one arguing that he should accept the taxation, or move? Now you say it is about more than location? What the hell man....
Click to expand...

Haymarket's argument is very convoluted and flawed. He does not explain how entering or leaving a voluntary relationship has anything to do with where one is physically located.
 
Green Man said:
Haymarket's argument is very convoluted and flawed. He does not explain how entering or leaving a voluntary relationship has anything to do with where one is physically located.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that...He is just all over the place.
 
Green Man said:
What does "this is about much much much more than simply location" actually mean?
Click to expand...

It means its about much more than simply location. As I have said repeatedly its about you picking a nation to be a citizen of and enjoying all that comes with it both benefits and obligations and doing so of your own free will.
 
j-mac said:
Wait....Weren't you the one arguing that he should accept the taxation, or move? Now you say it is about more than location? What the hell man....
Click to expand...

It always was. Its about being an adult and exercising your ability to make choices and standing by the consequences of your choices.
 
Green Man said:
Haymarket's argument is very convoluted and flawed. He does not explain how entering or leaving a voluntary relationship has anything to do with where one is physically located.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom are seldom heard by the willfully deaf.
 
haymarket said:
It means its about much more than simply location. As I have said repeatedly its about you picking a nation to be a citizen of and enjoying all that comes with it both benefits and obligations and doing so of your own free will.
Click to expand...

I get the part about how individuals enter into relationships with other individuals. I get the part how a continued relationship could be contingent upon all the members adhering to some rules.

The jump you then make is a non-sequitur. Why would an individual who chooses to leave that relationship have any necessity to move from his current location?
 
haymarket said:
Why would they not be able to do that?
Click to expand...

Because the US government is the brokest nation in the history of the world and will owe $20 trillion by the end of BHO's term. Thats what it will cost the US to just cover Alzheimer patients over the next 40 years.

What do you suppose will happen to the infrastructure, those who are being encouraged to rely on food stamps, the OWS types, Veterans, the infirm, and so on. Does anyone seriously believe that, given all of this, that the government can give retired Americans a cushy pension as well?

Commitments have already been broken and those with intelligence should recognize that sooner rather than later.
 
haymarket said:
Of course you do. It was your own line.
Click to expand...

Okay, but you failed to tie in your non-sequitur. Why would an individual who chooses to leave a voluntary relationship have any necessity to move from his current location?
 
haymarket said:
The money comes from taxation - as does all government revenues.
Click to expand...

Yes, there a variety of taxes but, as we know, 'government revenues' have included $17 trillion in borrowed money. As of now interest rates are historically low but if they increase then the problems begin. What happens to fixed income groups if inflation climbs to 20%, as in the days of Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps you are right and the government can honor their commitments and we can hope that's the case but, as a prudent person, I would not bet my future on it.
 
Grant said:
No money. The cupboard is bare.
Click to expand...

Liberals don't get it and never will, they just go back to the money tree and get whatever they need. All those IOU's for SS have to be funded and to fund them there aren't enough workers paying into SS so the govt. will have to print or borrow the money, both of which have severe consequences to the American consumer and our national debt. The ignorance of the left is staggering.
 
haymarket said:
Progressives did leave it. I was born in 49 and lots of people in my age group did leave because they objected to participation in certain practices mandated by the US government. Leaving for something better is the reason this land was founded in the first place by people from Europe.
Click to expand...

Now there appears to be a US makeover into something resembling what the original settlers fled. Like it or leave it.
 
haymarket said:
It means its about much more than simply location. As I have said repeatedly its about you picking a nation to be a citizen of and enjoying all that comes with it both benefits and obligations and doing so of your own free will.
Click to expand...

That idea might work better with greater State rights. Moving to another state, as many are discovering, is far better than having to leave the country of their birth. With a powerful national government there are far fewer opportunities to exercise individual freedoms.
 
haymarket said:
It always was. Its about being an adult and exercising your ability to make choices and standing by the consequences of your choices.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is saying that, nor is any person on this site arguing that they should pay no taxes....Why is it that you have to convolute the thread? Can't make a cogent argument otherwise maybe?
 
Conservative said:
Liberals don't get it and never will, they just go back to the money tree and get whatever they need. All those IOU's for SS have to be funded and to fund them there aren't enough workers paying into SS so the govt. will have to print or borrow the money, both of which have severe consequences to the American consumer and our national debt. The ignorance of the left is staggering.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But at least Haymarket gives it his best shot without the severe wackiness and abuse of most leftists. He is just wrong.
 
Green Man said:
Okay, but you failed to tie in your non-sequitur. Why would an individual who chooses to leave a voluntary relationship have any necessity to move from his current location?
Click to expand...

See every post I made to you on the previous four pages.

Many years ago ss a young father of two different four years olds I remember how they argued with me and questioned things. They kept asking WHY as the ever present question despite a perfectly wonderful explanation being given to them.

You are doing the same thing.
 
Grant said:
That idea might work better with greater State rights. Moving to another state, as many are discovering, is far better than having to leave the country of their birth. With a powerful national government there are far fewer opportunities to exercise individual freedoms.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you that moving from state to state is a choice that gives a person a certain degree of control over certain things like state taxes or local property taxes. I do think it does little regarding such objections as Social Security which are national programs.
 
haymarket said:
Really!?!?!?!? :doh:shock: I never heard that. Please present the evidence for me to examine.
Click to expand...

The national debt, demographics and longevity. They cannot pay for it.

Here is an overview of the history of SS and it seems no politician wants to touch it at the moment. The political catch phrase these days is 'kicking it down the road'.
Social Security - Archive Collection - TIME
 
haymarket said:
I would agree with you that moving from state to state is a choice that gives a person a certain degree of control over certain things like state taxes or local property taxes. I do think it does little regarding such objections as Social Security which are national programs.
Click to expand...

States, like countries, would compete for the best people, people would choose their own life styles more easily.

National programs are destroying Americas solvency, its freedoms and its character.
 
Conservative said:
Liberals don't get it and never will, they just go back to the money tree and get whatever they need. All those IOU's for SS have to be funded and to fund them there aren't enough workers paying into SS so the govt. will have to print or borrow the money, both of which have severe consequences to the American consumer and our national debt. The ignorance of the left is staggering.
Click to expand...

Why was going to the "money tree" good under Reagan and Bush but bad under Obama? Partisan hack much?
 
Grant said:
The national debt, demographics and longevity. They cannot pay for it.

Here is an overview of the history of SS and it seems no politician wants to touch it at the moment. The political catch phrase these days is 'kicking it down the road'.
Social Security - Archive Collection - TIME
Click to expand...

Really!?!?!? I never heard that. Won't the federal government be taking in money year after year after year after year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom