When it comes to the Economy this guy is the Promising individual. He saved our economy by reducing taxes on everyone instead of favoring classes like the Leberals want. He also put the Death Tax on the road to extinction.

you cant argue with these odds.

No you shouldn't rephrase, you should actually learn about things before talking about them. Once you've done that we can keep arguing all you want.

quote:

If what you say is true then we in fact live in a "dog-eat-dog" economic situation, survival of the fitest is what applies

Correct, but lacking in perspective. A competitive capitalist economy is all about darwinism, as I made clear in my previous post, enrichment comes through exploitation, thus those who are the most capable of exploiting others are the one's most likely to achieve their goals.
What makes the system completely favoritist is that previous wealth is an almost universal requisite to be in a position to fully exploit the liberal economy and further one's economic growth. What this means is that those who already posses large ammounts of capital are the one's most likely to make more capital. You do get the ocasionall visionary, or a lucky stock investor, but it's not the norm, and most modern fortunes are built on pre-existing capital.
This means that those at the bottom and middle of the spectrum, are most likely stuck where they are, and it goes without saying that it isn't pleasing to know so.

Thats nice, thanks for the lecture speed. should i rephrase to take more of someone elses money? =P In the end, if you want to be right then aquire the money to make yourself rich. If what you say is true then we in fact live in a "dog-eat-dog" economic situation, survival of the fitest is what applies, in the words of Harry S. Truman "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the Kitchen!"

quote:

You want to be rich then quit worrying about what others make and make it yourself.

There is a fundamental problem with economic liberalism how you propose it. That problem is that personal enrichment invariably comes from exploiting the market economy, and this in turn derives from exploiting others that also pertain to that economy. Economic relations on an equal basis do not necessarily involve exploitation, but equality does not produce benefit and enrichment. To achieve major benefits and enrichment economic relations must be unequal in their nature, thus economic liberalism conflicts with our constitution, as all men and women are said to be equal, but factually and due to economic reasons, they aren't.

My freedom ends where yours begins. In a liberal economy this principle, wich is mandatory for a democratic society, doesn't apply, as the enrichment of the individual comes precisely from surpassing other's freedoms on personal motivations.

To go a little more indepth on the nature of exploitation, and why it is a must for enrichment, just look around you. Capital, like energy, or power, isn't created, it is transformed, and moved.
Everything that surrounds you has a fixed current value, and this value is subject to exponential growth or reduction depending on circumstantial occurrences. What this means is that you can't put more capital into an economy, you can make the previously existing capital circulate, and when the value of a certain piece of land grows, it isn't in fact creating more money, as another piece of land will proportionally be devaluated due to a lesser demand.
What this means is that the only way to obtain more is to take from others, thus rendering them with less. The concept of creating fortune was valid a century ago when natural resource exploitation wasn't fixed as it is today, but now the only way to achieve enrichment is through the obtention of previously existing capital.

The major problem with liberals and the economy is they believe in tax increases, which are horrible for the capitalist economy we currently have. Capitalism requires spending (not out of control spending which unfortuenately we have done) in order to keep supply and demand working properly which is the corner stone of capitalism. You give tax cuts and people want to work and make more money thus spend more. You increase taxes and people don't want to work because more of their hard earned money is getting taken by the government and they don't spend their money which freezes te market. Where congress went wrong was the out of control spending done during the bush presidency not tax cuts. It's a simple concept yet people love to hear the popular democratic slant: "We need to tax the rich!" most people love it because most people aren't rich in American terms. Take note that 10 percent of America's richest pay about 60 percent of the taxes, not to mention give the most money to charity and other organizations that help the needy. You want to be rich then quit worrying about what others make and make it yourself.

Have you ever wondered just why neither leader has popular support, or do you just attribute it to freedom-hating liberals?

Does it ever occur to you that we might be, I don't know, wrong? You act as if that's not even a possibility.

quote:

britain has a huge force in iraq

well, just likke America poor blair has no public support.

oh yes speed you must be right, afterall it wasn't Europe that invented the very concept of liberty....oh wait, yes it was! and Europeans know better than anybody else the cost of freedom.

riskbreaker he probably doesn't know Britain is part of Europe, Europe is just that bunch of country's that are cowards and don't give a f*** about Iraqi freedom

quote:

defnding their streets because europeans arent man enough to?

britain has a huge force in iraq and we do as good a job than anybody else, if not better. We are also engaged in southern afghanistan, an area america seems scared of. Do NOT call cowards. Our soldiers die too (although comparatively in much smaller numbers.

quote:

at least if your parents died 40% of their welth would go to their pocket so Kerry can say things about our troops that he calls a "joke"
"educate yourslef or get stuck in Iraq" terms like this just show that he is no better than bush at when it comes to how a world leader should speak. Thank god he wasnt elected.
he just wants political power, attacking soldiers shows he dosnt give a crap about the war on terror or the Heroes fighting it. He is just saying what the people want to hear, but that backfired on him didnt it?

If you're referring to the estate tax with that first bit, that only applies to families worth more than $4 million.

And cut it out with the Kerry references, all right? The only people who care are your fellow Republicans, and they don't need any more convincing.

They're not supposed to, we're supposed to be there to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, albeit a freedom they didn't ask for, and make them pay for it.

Please tell me you're a joke, and just impersonating an extravagantly foolish character. This goes beyond surrealistic.

quote:

You forgot to mention that we pay under half of it's real market value, thus we are practically stealing from them

all does not go uncompensated, how do you think theyre supposed to pay us for the us forces defnding their streets because europeans arent man enough to?

quote:

do not burn the oil it is your future

quote:

we buy that oil from them to help build their economy

You forgot to mention that we pay under half of it's real market value, thus we are practically stealing from them.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
I liked the economy under Clinton better. At least we didn't have a deficit then.

at least if your parents died 40% of their welth would go to their pocket so Kerry can say things about our troops that he calls a "joke"
"educate yourslef or get stuck in Iraq" terms like this just show that he is no better than bush at when it comes to how a world leader should speak. Thank god he wasnt elected.
he just wants political power, attacking soldiers shows he dosnt give a crap about the war on terror or the Heroes fighting it. He is just saying what the people want to hear, but that backfired on him didnt it?

I liked the economy under Clinton better. At least we didn't have a deficit then.

quote:

what is wrong with that

well theres nothing wrong with the idea itself, but the speed some want it done is outragous. Our economy is built upon Oil, changing it too rapidly will decay the car market, crash its stocks and halt businesses because of lack of fuel to drive people to work. hydrogen fuel cell cars cant store hydrogen in a gas tank. they must store it as methanol or ethanol the must convert it to hydrogen using technology similar to a catlayic converter then break it donw again into electric energy where it finially powers a motor. Good Idea but only has about 10-15% fuel efficincy compared to a cars 50-60% we need way more time to be able to do research and test somthing like that. currently GM has experements and so does toyota (just electric, but pretty cool).

new tech: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-processor.htm

toyotas cool car: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/toyota-pm.htm

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
will get us out of the middle east because we won't need their oil any more

you really belieev this is a war on oil?

did you know that that is waht is rebuilding the Iraqi economy? during the first days of the war we droped leaflets onto the cities with the message : "do not burn the oil it is your future" we buy that oil from them to help build their economy. with oul companies comes employment, with employment comes money with money comes small businesses and better housing. And so on and so on la la la

http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/Businessweek/BW/2003/03_17_2003.pdf

oh wait, he's the guy who cut taxes for the rich, so they could re-invest their extra money saying it would trickle down through the economy to the lower classes.


someone please hit me before i have a heart attack from so much laughter

yeah there's only so much petroleum in the earth the sooner we switch to ethanol the sooner we don't have to worry and it will get us out of the middle east because we won't need their oil any more