You gotta love Ron Paul, sure his economic policies are a bit to radical, if it was up to him he'd probably privatize the side walks, but he's passionate about what he believes in and rarely results to personal attacks on other politicians. One of the few.
Here's a great Ron Paul sound bite. Sticking it to Fox news! lol
@Brazilpride, excellent thanks for posting mate I hadn't seen those before, I think Ron Paul is a perfect example for those who think capitalism is an evil force and most of the problems today in America/world is a result of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and not be a warmonger not want to restrict peoples freedom and so on. Say what you will about Ron Paul but he truly have his countries best interests at heart, its sad that they try to spin his message and silence the guy by using 9/11 or making the guy look unpatriotic. Truly sad that they cant just debate him without playing the emotional spin game.
"Brazilpride, excellent thanks for posting mate I hadn't seen those before, I think Ron Paul is a perfect example for those who think capitalism is an evil force and most of the problems today in America/world is a result of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and not be a warmonger not want to restrict peoples freedom and so on. Say what you will about Ron Paul but he truly have his countries best interests at heart, its sad that they try to spin his message and silence the guy by using 9/11 or making the guy look unpatriotic. Truly sad that they cant just debate him without playing the emotional spin game. "
The issue people have with Ron Paul is that he does have some rather wacky ideas. For one, he believes that their is a government conspiracy between the U.S, Mexico and Canada to build a "super highway" and this would be the basis for a "North American Union". He also wants to eliminate the federal reserve, which is quite a radical change. He also has very very passionate supporters who can come off as being a bit loony, in Nevada for example their building segregated communities for fellow libertarians. Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to these wacky ideas, and while his economic policies are far to right wing, he's a full fledge pure capitalist. Which is fine, he's entitled to his opinion and he strongly believes in it, while not slandering or insulting anyone who defers and I respect him for that. Talks of patriotism is plain retarded, those questioning his patriotism need to realize that sending kids to fight in an unjust war is unpatriotic. I think that first video was great, exposing the hypocrisy in U.S foreign policy, spreading democracy while funding a dictator in Pakistan and using that money by borrowing it from China. lol Brilliant.
"P.S damn Guliani pisses me off"
Here's typical Giuliani fighting with Mitt Romney a mormon conservative regarding immigration. He sounds like a complete idiot.
"The issue people have with Ron Paul is that he does have some rather wacky ideas. For one, he believes that their is a government conspiracy between the U.S, Mexico and Canada to build a "super highway" and this would be the basis for a "North American Union". He also wants to eliminate the federal reserve, which is quite a radical change. He also has very very passionate supporters who can come off as being a bit loony, in Nevada for example their building segregated communities for fellow libertarians. Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to these wacky ideas, and while his economic policies are far to right wing, he's a full fledge pure capitalist. Which is fine, he's entitled to his opinion and he strongly believes in it, while not slandering or insulting anyone who defers and I respect him for that. Talks of patriotism is plain retarded, those questioning his patriotism need to realize that sending kids to fight in an unjust war is unpatriotic. I think that first video was great, exposing the hypocrisy in U.S foreign policy, spreading democracy while funding a dictator in Pakistan and using that money by borrowing it from China. lol Brilliant."
well Ron Paul works in a different circle than you and I (being a congressman) imo he is not an unstable person or wacky himself, so it is likely that he is basing the north american union on real intelligence. I am not saying there ever will be one or that all the government is involved in a conspiracy to bring about one but there is evidence that many of the elites do support this Idea ( including the president of mexico btw see the article i posted here ) As for the federal reserve yes it might be a radical idea but i believe he is right the FED is not good for america the sooner (if ever) people will realize that the better for the US currency.
yes he is truly a capitalist and believes in Free markets the problem is he does not believe in government spending tax money to protect special interests and that is most likely the reason why so many politicians are trying to discredit him, he is simply messing with their income
"well Ron Paul works in a different circle than you and I (being a congressman) imo he is not an unstable person or wacky himself, so it is likely that he is basing the north american union on real intelligence. I am not saying there ever will be one or that all the government is involved in a conspiracy to bring about one but there is evidence that many of the elites do support this Idea ( including the president of mexico btw see the article i posted here ) As for the federal reserve yes it might be a radical idea but i believe he is right the FED is not good for america the sooner (if ever) people will realize that the better for the US currency."
But he's a tiny minority of politicians in congress that believe in this North American union idea. The "super highway" that is currently planned from Southern Texas all the way up to North Dakota is the main "evidence" for such a union. The argument really lacks substance. Regarding the former President of Mexico, that is his opinion that we SHOULD have a union, thats different than saying theirs a secret conspiracy between three national governments. Mate, I lived in Mexico, thats the last government that can keep a secret. lol Regarding the fed, I think we need some regulation here, it ain't perfect. If the economy heats up we need to raise interest rates to lower inflation and if the economy is stagnate we do the opposite. Ron Paul's libretarian ideology is to messy, with little checks and balances.
"yes he is truly a capitalist and believes in Free markets the problem is he does not believe in government spending tax money to protect special interests and that is most likely the reason why so many politicians are trying to discredit him, he is simply messing with their income"
Thats true and it's a positive aspect of his policies, special interests are a b1tch. But it works both ways, you live in Sweden, with lavish welfare programs and extremely high taxes. Ron Paul would be appalled with such an economic system. He wants to cut federal bureaucracy, which is a good thing but at the same time under Ron Paul's America, if your poor you'll get a lot less help than you already do now from the government. Yeah you'll have real low taxes, government won't have his hands in your pocket, but what if you don't have health care? He'll make McCain's plan look socialistic! Ron Paul to me represents a time in early American history when the anti federalists were against a central federal government under the basis it would deprive them of their civil liberties and it would be similar to previous British colonial rule.
"But he's a tiny minority of politicians in congress that believe in this North American union idea. The "super highway" that is currently planned from Southern Texas all the way up to North Dakota is the main "evidence" for such a union. The argument really lacks substance. Regarding the former President of Mexico, that is his opinion that we SHOULD have a union, thats different than saying theirs a secret conspiracy between three national governments. Mate, I lived in Mexico, thats the last government that can keep a secret. lol Regarding the fed, I think we need some regulation here, it ain't perfect. If the economy heats up we need to raise interest rates to lower inflation and if the economy is stagnate we do the opposite. Ron Paul's libretarian ideology is to messy, with little checks and balances.
"yes he is truly a capitalist and believes in Free markets the problem is he does not believe in government spending tax money to protect special interests and that is most likely the reason why so many politicians are trying to discredit him, he is simply messing with their income"
Thats true and it's a positive aspect of his policies, special interests are a b1tch. But it works both ways, you live in Sweden, with lavish welfare programs and extremely high taxes. Ron Paul would be appalled with such an economic system. He wants to cut federal bureaucracy, which is a good thing but at the same time under Ron Paul's America, if your poor you'll get a lot less help than you already do now from the government. Yeah you'll have real low taxes, government won't have his hands in your pocket, but what if you don't have health care? He'll make McCain's plan look socialistic! Ron Paul to me represents a time in early American history when the anti federalists were against a central federal government under the basis it would deprive them of their civil liberties and it would be similar to previous British colonial rule.
"p.s
lol guliani just got owned"
Guliani is such a tool. lol"
About the north American union like I said shrug not enough proof out there to say anything either way but keep in mind EU started very innocently too ( btw I am for EU for Sweden ). Look about taxes and socialism true I live in Sweden with a very lavish well fare system, but I dont support income redistribution taxes one bit. Think about this in a true free market there would be more competition and prices would naturally go down in most areas including health care and everyone would have more money left over from their income and the currency would be stronger so there would be less people who need to be taken care off. Having said that yes there will be those who cant help themselves but I dont think its right to make laws forcing people to share their income in an unequal way just because they are more successful (this wont be hurting the truly reach anyway), you where talking before about how in America it is much easier to become successful and build a fortune remember? well that was a long time ago US is resembling Europe more and more when it comes to taxes and government involvement in health care, education etc but the problem is that in Sweden unlike in US there are not trillions of tax payer money disappearing from the budget, we dont have this aggressive foreign policy we are not trying to police the world. The tax money go where they are supposed to back into the pockets of the Swedish people ( its all very transparent). Your income tax is mostly paying the interest of your national debt.
And the federal reserve Idea isnt as wacky as it seems if you think about it, the problem lies mostly in the weak dollar and the FED is to blame for that.
"About the north American union like I said shrug not enough proof out there to say anything either way but keep in mind EU started very innocently too ( btw I am for EU for Sweden )."
Fair enough, just saying that to most people who come out with this North American conspiracy, come off as being rather looney.
"Look about taxes and socialism true I live in Sweden with a very lavish well fare system, but I dont support income redistribution taxes one bit. Think about this in a true free market there would be more competition and prices would naturally go down in most areas including health care and everyone would have more money left over from their income and the currency would be stronger so there would be less people who need to be taken care off. Having said that yes there will be those who cant help themselves but I dont think its right to make laws forcing people to share their income in an unequal way just because they are more successful (this wont be hurting the truly reach anyway), you where talking before about how in America it is much easier to become successful and build a fortune remember? well that was a long time ago US is resembling Europe more and more when it comes to taxes and government involvement in health care, education etc but the problem is that in Sweden unlike in US there are not trillions of tax payer money disappearing from the budget, we dont have this aggressive foreign policy we are not trying to police the world. The tax money go where they are supposed to back into the pockets of the Swedish people ( its all very transparent). Your income tax is mostly paying the interest of your national debt."
I think it's perfectly normal for people of higher income to pay higher taxes. Especially in a rather stagnate economic period. Of course it should all be in reason mind you, making the top 5 or 1% pay 60-70% income tax is unfair imho. But an increase to say 35-40% seems reasonable to me, they make enough money and will still live rather comfortably. Those ones who struggle to get are the ones who should get the tax breaks, thats where I differ from the European model. 95% of households should get tax breaks and some of the revenue you get from the top 5% should go to the poorest segment of our society. The single mothers who bust their ass to provide for their kids, or the parents who each have multiple jobs and who can't even pay for a babysitter. Or the parents of kids for special needs who don't have the money nor the insurance for the treatment needed. This is where the government needs to come in and lets be honest, If I was making say $700,000 a year I'd rather my tax money go to these needy people than bureaucratic programs (which the democrats specialize in). It's a two sided sword, their probably would be more social mobility under Ron Paul's America (both good and bad) but you don't think income inequality wouldn't shoot up. Part of the reason why America's income inequality is so much greater than Europe's is because of lack of government intervention. Now you've seen me criticize Europe's economic system, it's a bit to leftist for my liking and wouldn't work in such a large country like the U.S, it works in Scandinavia but those are tiny resource rich countries. However America's current system is to far to the right, it does need to incorporate certain European traits like universal healthcare. Those who can afford private health care are more than welcome to keep with their current plan. I still want the U.S to keep it's business friendly environment, whose foundations are based on everyday small business. I think thats a great trait of this country, where one can set up a business without the government interfering, that can and should continue. But you can improve health care, education and reducing income inequality at the same time. Let's also keep in mind that even under Obama's plan which has a considerable tax increase, the top 1% in America are probably still paying less taxes than the middle class in most European countries. Their are two things that I don't think will change in the next 50 years in America, one is good the other isn't so good. For one taxes will remain lower in the States than in most of the West. Second people will continue to own a firearm under the basis of "protecting their own personal freedom from a tyrannical federal government.
Regarding where the actual tax money goes, I totally agree with you, which is why McCain really bothers me. He talks about curbing "pork barrel" spending yet he's the one who with tax payer dollars will spend 11 bn dollars a month on Iraq. All the while Iraq has a 100 bn dollar surplus from the high oil prices. When will they start putting in some of that money?
Anyone visit the neocon blog sites? They're all blaming Clinton for this one LOL
Basically they are saying that with Republican control of the White House, Senate, and House they were too incompetent to stop this from happening. So much for letting the free markets dictate. The Republican party now embraces socialism. We must all suffer for the motherland. We should nationalize the oil companies while we're at it. At least the record profits they are seeing will help offset these debts we are taking on so greedy bastards can stay rich.
How many of these corrupt fools would be in jail or dead if this was China? Come on republicans, let's embrace it fully!
"I think it's perfectly normal for people of higher income to pay higher taxes. Especially in a rather stagnate economic period. Of course it should all be in reason mind you, making the top 5 or 1% pay 60-70% income tax is unfair imho. But an increase to say 35-40% seems reasonable to me, they make enough money and will still live rather comfortably. Those ones who struggle to get are the ones who should get the tax breaks, thats where I differ from the European model. 95% of households should get tax breaks and some of the revenue you get from the top 5% should go to the poorest segment of our society. The single mothers who bust their ass to provide for their kids, or the parents who each have multiple jobs and who can't even pay for a babysitter. Or the parents of kids for special needs who don't have the money nor the insurance for the treatment needed. This is where the government needs to come in and lets be honest, If I was making say $700,000 a year I'd rather my tax money go to these needy people than bureaucratic programs (which the democrats specialize in). "
well you know it is a matter of personal opinion as to how a country you are living in should be run, but keep in mind this is a socialist idea. and in my opinion that is not right, it is not freedom for me forcing people to contribute more to the economy just because they earn 10 times more than me it is selfish and unfair it doesn't matter if those people can afford it or not to me it is a matter ideology and equality. Also this kind of economy will restrict the really high upper class from going even further thus keeping the elite society untouched as they wont be hurting from these kind of taxes. I would much rather government used other methods to cut spending and increase production in order to care for the lower class. Also in a true free market society there would probably be less people who needed to have multiple jobs in order to make ends meat.
"It's a two sided sword, their probably would be more social mobility under Ron Paul's America (both good and bad) but you don't think income inequality wouldn't shoot up. Part of the reason why America's income inequality is so much greater than Europe's is because of lack of government intervention. Now you've seen me criticize Europe's economic system, it's a bit to leftist for my liking and wouldn't work in such a large country like the U.S, it works in Scandinavia but those are tiny resource rich countries. However America's current system is to far to the right, it does need to incorporate certain European traits like universal healthcare. Those who can afford private health care are more than welcome to keep with their current plan. I still want the U.S to keep it's business friendly environment, whose foundations are based on everyday small business. I think thats a great trait of this country, where one can set up a business without the government interfering, that can and should continue. But you can improve health care, education and reducing income inequality at the same time. Let's also keep in mind that even under Obama's plan which has a considerable tax increase, the top 1% in America are probably still paying less taxes than the middle class in most European countries. Their are two things that I don't think will change in the next 50 years in America, one is good the other isn't so good. For one taxes will remain lower in the States than in most of the West. Second people will continue to own a firearm under the basis of "protecting their own personal freedom from a tyrannical federal government."
well you know socialism can work but only in a true transparent system with minimum corruption anything less and it will be much worse for the people because they are paying taxes that doesn't do them much good so they end up with less money in their pockets for no reason. well when it comes to resources I doubt many countries could compete with US one of the most resource rich countries in the world so it is not about resources but rather how you run the economy. You know the problem with a public health care is if it happens to be inefficient then those who can afford too will go for the private options but still have to pay taxes to support a bad public health care system that they are not using. About the right to arms, well If i where to pick something to praise about US it would truly be that. the crime problem in USA is not caused by people being able to own licensed firearms but it is rather a socio economic problem. The right to arms is a privilege and a true freedom for the people I agree with it 110%.
"
Regarding where the actual tax money goes, I totally agree with you, which is why McCain really bothers me. He talks about curbing "pork barrel" spending yet he's the one who with tax payer dollars will spend 11 bn dollars a month on Iraq. All the while Iraq has a 100 bn dollar surplus from the high oil prices. When will they start putting in some of that money?"
like I said socialistic taxes can only work in a true transparent system with minimal corruption a system that follows the will of the people as much as possible. that's why I think US is much better of sticking to its constitution and trashing all of these socialist ideas, they simply will not work in US. The economic problems and the class differences mostly come from the failure of the government to manage the economy, protecting special interests with tax payer money (something that no doubt will continue even if obama gets elected) constantly being engaged in military conflict something that neocons would be happy to continue for the next 100 years. and then you have a national debt of roughly 970000000000 and increasing on an average of 1.84 billion dollars a day, yet both sides offer no realistic plan of dealing with this situation. If i lived in USA I would say no thank you to taxation, I wouldn't trust the government with my hard earned tax dollars. Keep in mind this is the first time in history that US has gone too war purely on credit! frankly I don't know why more people are not bothered by this.
P.S the road to taxation is hard to control, today you are okay with 30% taxes tomorrow you might be convinced 35 is fine too and in the end you are paying half your income to taxation and it is too late to wake up because the economy and people are totally dependant on it.
@psingh01, I am not much of a believer in conspiracy theories but one has to wonder what really lead to this mess? it is becoming harder and harder to swallow the accidental view of history on this topic specially since more and more decisions by the US government is moving in the same direction, away from the Constitution and into socialism and government involvement and ownership.
"well you know it is a matter of personal opinion as to how a country you are living in should be run, but keep in mind this is a socialist idea. and in my opinion that is not right, it is not freedom for me forcing people to contribute more to the economy just because they earn 10 times more than me it is selfish and unfair it doesn't matter if those people can afford it or not to me it is a matter ideology and equality. Also this kind of economy will restrict the really high upper class from going even further thus keeping the elite society untouched as they wont be hurting from these kind of taxes. I would much rather government used other methods to cut spending and increase production in order to care for the lower class. Also in a true free market society there would probably be less people who needed to have multiple jobs in order to make ends meat."
So your saying that people in the top 5% of the economic scale should pay the same rate as everybody else? Of course their is an element of socialism, but it isn't totally socialistic. Were not taking all of rich's money were not punishing rich people. Were not stealing their assets. They just have to pay a slightly higher rate, because they can still live very well and the government can provide basic services to the less well off. I don't see how this inhibits people from reacher the upper classes. Also it is exactly in a purely free market economy that you have more people following through the cracks. It's all cyclical with good and bad cycles, it's the bad cycles that really screws a lot of people up. The U.S had less regulation in 20's and 30's and see how much people suffered when the market crashed. Just ask my grandfather who was a simple postman for the U.S postal services. America's greatest period of income inequality came in the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, when the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie were a lot more powerful than the president. Now I want to make this clear, I am not against rich people and I don't believe in imposing class warfare. I also don't hate corporations, these folks contribute a ton to the local and national economy through their research, innovation and employment. But many (primarily the oil companies) have gotten far too greedy and I cringe when these companies go bust and the CEO's walk out with a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars. The government needs to do something in this regard.
"well you know socialism can work but only in a true transparent system with minimum corruption anything less and it will be much worse for the people because they are paying taxes that doesn't do them much good so they end up with less money in their pockets for no reason. well when it comes to resources I doubt many countries could compete with US one of the most resource rich countries in the world so it is not about resources but rather how you run the economy. You know the problem with a public health care is if it happens to be inefficient then those who can afford too will go for the private options but still have to pay taxes to support a bad public health care system that they are not using. About the right to arms, well If i where to pick something to praise about US it would truly be that. the crime problem in USA is not caused by people being able to own licensed firearms but it is rather a socio economic problem. The right to arms is a privilege and a true freedom for the people I agree with it 110%."
I don't see socialism working in such large countries that are a lot more difficult to administer. It's inevitable that bureaucracy will become a problem and bureaucracy breeds corruption. Regarding health care, I think the most important first step is to make everyone covered. Yes, inefficiency is a big problem but it can be administered well like in Japan and France. Did you know the U.S is the only industrialized country not to have universal health care? Regarding guns, well it's not a coincidence that the U.S has a higher murder rate than Europe because of the availability of guns. More guns, usually equals more crime. Of course theirs a socio economic component, but you don't think their aren't economic problems in European cities? The unemployment rate is double than the U.S, but people instead of guns usually only have knives, a lot less lethal. The fact that I can legally buy a gun in this country but not a drink is ridiculous. Also the argument written in the Bill of Rights can't be applied today. Assembling a militia in case theirs a tyrannical U.S government that takes away our personal freedoms??? That will never happen, their are far to many checks and balances that the founders of the U.S imposed that to take away certain basic freedoms would be impossible. Again, their will never be (at least in my life time) a gun ban in the U.S. However, I do believe that we should have different gun laws for different areas. Some say this is discriminatory but hey, cities and high crime areas should have more restrictions than rural areas, where folks generally hunt and crime is lower.
"like I said socialistic taxes can only work in a true transparent system with minimal corruption a system that follows the will of the people as much as possible. that's why I think US is much better of sticking to its constitution and trashing all of these socialist ideas, they simply will not work in US. The economic problems and the class differences mostly come from the failure of the government to manage the economy, protecting special interests with tax payer money (something that no doubt will continue even if obama gets elected) constantly being engaged in military conflict something that neocons would be happy to continue for the next 100 years. and then you have a national debt of roughly 970000000000 and increasing on an average of 1.84 billion dollars a day, yet both sides offer no realistic plan of dealing with this situation. If i lived in USA I would say no thank you to taxation, I wouldn't trust the government with my hard earned tax dollars. Keep in mind this is the first time in history that US has gone too war purely on credit! frankly I don't know why more people are not bothered by this."
But you need government for certain things that will undoubtedly benefit us. How is that the U.S has the most extensive and wide spread interstate highway system? Did the private sector do that? No, it was the government that embarked in this endeavor that has no doubly been a huge plus. Theirs only so much the private sector can do for us and certain services can't be solely driven for profit because that would endanger the livelihood of any nation.
"P.S the road to taxation is hard to control, today you are okay with 30% taxes tomorrow you might be convinced 35 is fine too and in the end you are paying half your income to taxation and it is too late to wake up because the economy and people are totally dependant on it."
The U.S will never have a tax rate of 50%, it goes back to the gun debate, certain things just don't change. The constituency that favors low taxes is just to far to ignore, it's all political.
"So your saying that people in the top 5% of the economic scale should pay the same rate as everybody else? Of course their is an element of socialism, but it isn't totally socialistic. Were not taking all of rich's money were not punishing rich people. Were not stealing their assets. They just have to pay a slightly higher rate, because they can still live very well and the government can provide basic services to the less well off. I don't see how this inhibits people from reacher the upper classes. Also it is exactly in a purely free market economy that you have more people following through the cracks. It's all cyclical with good and bad cycles, it's the bad cycles that really screws a lot of people up. The U.S had less regulation in 20's and 30's and see how much people suffered when the market crashed. Just ask my grandfather who was a simple postman for the U.S postal services. America's greatest period of income inequality came in the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, when the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie were a lot more powerful than the president. Now I want to make this clear, I am not against rich people and I don't believe in imposing class warfare. I also don't hate corporations, these folks contribute a ton to the local and national economy through their research, innovation and employment. But many (primarily the oil companies) have gotten far too greedy and I cringe when these companies go bust and the CEO's walk out with a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars. The government needs to do something in this regard. "
look my friend I am not going to tell you that your view point is wrong, but we are going in circles now. like I said I don't believe in income redistribution taxes one bit. I believe once you open up the road to socialism it will be very hard to predict how far it will go, and in a society that imo is far from transparent and corrupt I would say no to socialism every time. also the causes of the great depression are still ingrained in US society, national debt (worse than ever) people relying too much on credits having a savings rate that is on an average of -1%! and once again reliance on fiat currency. none of these issues will be addressed by socialism and neither do i attribute the great depression to free markets. Corporations are part of the building blocks of a society they are not wrong they are necessary but it is wrong to protect their special interests with tax payer money.
"
I don't see socialism working in such large countries that are a lot more difficult to administer. It's inevitable that bureaucracy will become a problem and bureaucracy breeds corruption. Regarding health care, I think the most important first step is to make everyone covered. Yes, inefficiency is a big problem but it can be administered well like in Japan and France. Did you know the U.S is the only industrialized country not to have universal health care? Regarding guns, well it's not a coincidence that the U.S has a higher murder rate than Europe because of the availability of guns. More guns, usually equals more crime. Of course theirs a socio economic component, but you don't think their aren't economic problems in European cities? The unemployment rate is double than the U.S, but people instead of guns usually only have knives, a lot less lethal. The fact that I can legally buy a gun in this country but not a drink is ridiculous. Also the argument written in the Bill of Rights can't be applied today. Assembling a militia in case theirs a tyrannical U.S government that takes away our personal freedoms??? That will never happen, their are far to many checks and balances that the founders of the U.S imposed that to take away certain basic freedoms would be impossible. Again, their will never be (at least in my life time) a gun ban in the U.S. However, I do believe that we should have different gun laws for different areas. Some say this is discriminatory but hey, cities and high crime areas should have more restrictions than rural areas, where folks generally hunt and crime is lower."
yes i know that, and I don't believe its the governments duty to provide health care, the governments duty is to protect free markets follow the constitution but like I said earlier it is an ideological difference of opinion no point in arguing here. yes it is ridiculous that you can buy a gun and not be able to buy alcohol you should of course be able to purchase both at your age and once again i disagree there is plenty of statistics supporting the fact that majority of crimes are not committed with licensed fire arms that is they are committed with illegal firearms that have nothing to do with the first amendment. Criminals in any country can always get their hands on firearms I don't agree that law abiding citizens should be restricted from owning firearms. Look at Canada so many people there own firearms but you cant compare the crime rate in Canada with US. because like I said the main cause is due to socio/economic problems and education. I also do believe in power not being centralized and different regions in any country should be able to have slightly different laws according to the will of the residents so we can agree on that.
"
But you need government for certain things that will undoubtedly benefit us. How is that the U.S has the most extensive and wide spread interstate highway system? Did the private sector do that? No, it was the government that embarked in this endeavor that has no doubly been a huge plus. Theirs only so much the private sector can do for us and certain services can't be solely driven for profit because that would endanger the livelihood of any nation. "
I have no problem with government building the infrastructure funded through taxes in fact i think that is how it should be, but that is no proof of private sector being unable to do the job or a better job. if you open up the bidding you could end up with the best man for the job for a cheaper price and higher quality.
"
The U.S will never have a tax rate of 50%, it goes back to the gun debate, certain things just don't change. The constituency that favors low taxes is just to far to ignore, it's all political."
I'm with Choss on the tax system. It is a punishment for rich people to have to be taxed more for simply being more successful. Yes indeed, the money can be used to redistribute to the poor or for better facilities. But is it philosophically fair to charge the rich with this responsibility? No, maybe on a moral basis, but equality means everyone is treated equally. Its the same reason I'm against any racial discrimination under the banner of equality like affirmative action or other forms of distinction.
I have a firm belief that it is the Governments responsibility (depending on the tax situation) to care for its people rather then being just a bureaucratic system.
If taxes are minimal then the government has minimal role to play simple as that. If the government takes high amounts of tax its responsibility increases. It is a simple formula.
I'd rather have everyone pay 30%-35% tax and have a responsibility (complete) in education, health and public services. This is for the health of the nation and the future of the nation. If the nation wishes to survive it has a responsibility to take care of itself in the pure fundamental needs.
I however believe that the government has no place in the economy beyond strategic resources and at most the a Central Bank.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
@Rzecz, I have an offtopic question regarding aus and NZ. how are the living costs compared to europe? just compare it with european countries you have lived in and I will work it out from there. I am thinking of spending one summer in aus and NZ working in a hospital, I have no plans of permanently settling there but i have always wanted to visit those countries and I Dont want to stay just for a week or two rather 2-3 months.
also could you perhaps tell me what the average cost of renting a 1 room flat is in cities and rural areas, In decent neighbourhoods of course.
I know its hard to answer but I just want to gather as much information as possible.
P.S is it necessary to have a car to get around or can you manage with public transportation?
So just to clarify things, both of y'all believe that someone making $40,000 a year should pay the same exact tax rate as someone who earns $750,000? I hope you guys realize that if you take say 35% of the first person's salary is quality of living will significantly be affected, while for the wealthier guy that is not the case. It's a rather regressive tax policy.
On the Big Mac index? It's $3.95 AUS which is converted to 2.25 Euro.
A meal (by meal I mean restaurant quality) in Australia varies. In Sydney everything is about 20% more (average) expensive then in Melbourne (the second biggest city) as well as having less cosmopolitanism (we have every single type of restaurant food you can imagine).
I'll tell you how much a steak meal is here, which usually indicates the difference. A good steak here at a restaurant is about $25 AUS which is 14.20 Euros.
If it comes to supermarkets of course it is much cheaper. You would be looking at around (depending how much you like in quality, so forth) $40-60 a week shopping costs buying food for the week (so 22.80 - 34.22 Euros). You could howveer spend more, dunno how much you eat or if you like going out and such.
My parents own a one bedroom studio (kitchen, bedroom, lounge room/study, bathroom) in St.Kilda (a South Eastern suburb of Melbourne, one of the more expensive inner suburbs, city is much more, you'd need room mates) and they charge from memory $950 a month (542 Euro). My suburb, St.Kilda is 10 minutes train ride from the city and a 30 minute tram ride. St.Kilda and most South Eastern Suburbs are good (most inner suburbs are good to live in), the suburbs who have stigma are the outer suburbs.
In Melbourne the places you'd work in would be Monash Medical Centre (which is Monash Universities hospital), St. Vincent's Hospital located near the city or Alfred Hospital about 20 minutes away from St.Kilda. That's my knowledge of the places you'd most likely work in if looking at Melbourne.
Also, Public transport is very strong in Melbourne. We have connecting trams, buses and trains... you'll just need to get accustomed to the routes and such. Trains are straight forward. Trams and buses get a little more confusing since not all end up in the city.
If you need anymore info just ask.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
So just to clarify things, both of y'all believe that someone making $40,000 a year should pay the same exact tax rate as someone who earns $750,000? I hope you guys realize that if you take say 35% of the first person's salary is quality of living will significantly be affected, while for the wealthier guy that is not the case. It's a rather regressive tax policy.
I believe in absolute equality as much as I believe in capitalism and a responsible government. It's also up there with my belief in Conscious Liberty and Realpolitik foreign policy.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
@Rzecz, ah excellent thank you fot such a detailed answer I just couldnt get much information out of google, for now this is perfect I need to look into variouse hospitals and see where I would end up. Then i can ask for more information
Okay so you for equality, regardless of the fact that someone making $40,000 a year standards of living will be greatly affected by a 35% tax rate compared to a rich guy.
Current Topic - Ron Paul *THE MOTHER OF ALL BAILOUTS!
