Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

Latest Topics




Latest News

Top Bettors

Top High Fived


Calling all Progressives!

* - - - - 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
133 replies to this topic

#121
zartan

zartan
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,718
  • Joined:
    Nov 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    8,136

View PostKneesInTheBreeze, on 14 April 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

Zart, don't you agree that socialistic government stifles entrepreneurship?  And can you agree that entrepreneurship is essential to a robust economy?
One of the best single things for our situation, IMO, would be to reform the income tax codes to a straight percentage for everyone, poor and fat-cats alike.

The flat tax would unfairly benefit the rich. They get more from the government, so they should pay more

#122
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,993
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,548
More people receiving food stamps than there are women working full time...

#123
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,993
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,548

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:



The flat tax would unfairly benefit the rich. They get more from the government, so they should pay more
the rich are job creators

#124
zartan

zartan
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,718
  • Joined:
    Nov 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    8,136

View Postrwspear, on 14 April 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:


ACTUALLY history says the opposite. Socialism is 10x more likely to produce monopoly than the free market. Show me a historical monopoly and I will show you where government tinkered with the free market and stifled competition.

When you allow ANYONE the opportunity to start a business, to create a service or to provide a good, and you remove restrictions on the flow of money, and you remove the arbitrary, government-mandated costs that create no value, and when you allow the free market to run at near-perfect efficiency, everyone benefits. The smartest, brightest, luckiest, most-capable entrepreneurs will still get rich creating jobs, and the middle class will thrive by taking those jobs. There will always be the 'poorest' in any population, but a truly free market allows them the opportunity to rise into the middle class and lest we forget the free market has been the greatest catalyst for the improvement of quality of life in the history of the human race

This is unadulterated horsePosted Image. Look at our country before the New Deal, or Russia after Communism. Utopian free market paradises they were not

#125
L.A.Hog

L.A.Hog

    Go Hogs,Pilgrim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,429
  • Joined:
    Feb 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    7,531

View Postpossumslayer, on 14 April 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

The easiest way tooo tell when someone has lost an argument....they resort tooo insulting the opponent..

Jackass

#126
possumslayer

possumslayer

    Orange & White Supremacist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    8,993
  • Joined:
    Oct 2013
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,548

View PostL.A.Hog, on 14 April 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:



Jackass
good evening old douche.

#127
L.A.Hog

L.A.Hog

    Go Hogs,Pilgrim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,429
  • Joined:
    Feb 2009
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    7,531

View Postpossumslayer, on 14 April 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

good evening old douche.

To you as well

#128
rwspear

rwspear

    game recognize game and you lookin kinda unfamiliar right now

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    5,011
  • Joined:
    May 2010
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    2,686

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

This is unadulterated horsePosted Image. Look at our country before the New Deal, or Russia after Communism. Utopian free market paradises they were not

Of course they weren't paradises. Neither were free markets. The early 1900's were heavily tainted with cronyism and the country was reeling from 1913 which saw the creation of the FED and of income tax. They had to pass an AMENDMENT bc income taxes were originally unconstitutional.

and regarding post USSR Russia... the free market has NEVER been seen in Russia, and the free market is not Windex. It will not erase 70 years of communism over night. That's an unreasonable request and expectation.

I still challenge you to find a domestic monopoly not aided by government tampering. Tobacco, oil, steel, were all aided by cronyism and AT&T was a GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.

Lastly, as I am not an anarchist, I understand even the free market needs market controls. I don't understand why support of libertarian capitalism excludes the idea of anti-trust law. Both can exist without exclusion, and I support anti-trust laws.

#129
zartan

zartan
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,718
  • Joined:
    Nov 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    8,136

View Postrwspear, on 14 April 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:


Of course they weren't paradises. Neither were free markets. The early 1900's were heavily tainted with cronyism and the country was reeling from 1913 which saw the creation of the FED and of income tax. They had to pass an AMENDMENT bc income taxes were originally unconstitutional.

and regarding post USSR Russia... the free market has NEVER been seen in Russia, and the free market is not Windex. It will not erase 70 years of communism over night. That's an unreasonable request and expectation.

I still challenge you to find a domestic monopoly not aided by government tampering. Tobacco, oil, steel, were all aided by cronyism and AT&T was a GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.

Lastly, as I am not an anarchist, I understand even the free market needs market controls. I don't understand why support of libertarian capitalism excludes the idea of anti-trust law. Both can exist without exclusion, and I support anti-trust laws.

Welp, we just disagree. I think corporations are not only more likely but certain to exploit you far worse than the government can

You see it another way

#130
rwspear

rwspear

    game recognize game and you lookin kinda unfamiliar right now

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    5,011
  • Joined:
    May 2010
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    2,686

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

Welp, we just disagree. I think corporations are not only more likely but certain to exploit you far worse than the government can

You see it another way

NO I DO NOT! I think they are both are necessary for society, but when their powers go unchecked they become terribly destructive to quality of life.

Capitalism is not CORPORATISM. They are different things.

The ONLY people I support holding power in this republic are the PEOPLE of the United States. IMO, big gubment and big gubment controlled by corporations have no place in a real republic.

Edited by rwspear, 15 April 2014 - 09:07 AM.


#131
zartan

zartan
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    20,718
  • Joined:
    Nov 2007
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    8,136

View Postrwspear, on 14 April 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:



NO I DO NOT! I think they are both are necessary for society, but when their powers go unchecked they become terribly destructive to quality of life.

Capitalism is not CORPORATISM. They are different things.

The ONLY people I support to hold power in this republic are the PEOPLE of the United States. IMO, big gubment and big gubment controlled by corporations have no place in a real republic.

Wait a minute. I thought your position was the government is hamstringing business with needless regulation

Maybe you're saying that LESS regulation is needed, not NO regulation


#132
rwspear

rwspear

    game recognize game and you lookin kinda unfamiliar right now

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • Posts:
    5,011
  • Joined:
    May 2010
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    2,686

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

Wait a minute. I thought your position was the government is hamstringing business with needless regulation

Maybe you're saying that LESS regulation is needed, not NO regulation

nailed it.

im not an anarchist.

#133
smokeyone

smokeyone

    Descendant of a Lord of the Manner in Berkshire.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    10,823
  • Joined:
    Jul 2010
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    4,066

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

The flat tax would unfairly benefit the rich. They get more from the government, so they should pay more

So you are down with a consumption tax to replace the income tax?

Posted Image


#134
TheRealBrave

TheRealBrave

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    26,453
  • Joined:
    Nov 2008
  • Cash:
    0
  • High Fives:
    7,213

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

This is unadulterated horsePosted Image. Look at our country before the New Deal, or Russia after Communism. Utopian free market paradises they were not

Russia was still an economic Posted Image hole during most of the Soviet Union era. I suppose it was nice if you were one of the elites though. Outside of the Great Depression the US was in really good shape before the New Deal - which arguably extended the length of the Great Depression and has still had a lasting negative impact in the US.

http://newsroom.ucla...ssion-5409.aspx (pretty interesting article on this subject by people a lot smarter than myself)

View Postzartan, on 14 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

The flat tax would unfairly benefit the rich. They get more from the government, so they should pay more

Elaborate, if you don't mind. This statement was true up until the 1920's - Republicans were for big government and had corporate/big business support because big government (tariffs, infrastructure etc.) was a major benefit to them at the time. It's pretty interesting really, the Republican party has always been big business but not always small government - their stance on the size of the Federal Government changed with the desires of corporations.

For what it's worth I would like to see a Flat Tax provided there are no workarounds for the affluent and that some welfare programs are cut (includes no more bailing out failure corporations and banks)

Edited by TheRealBrave, 17 April 2014 - 03:36 PM.

Posted Image

Trenton Thompson save us