Rebdragon

Those are all really creepy. Like stalker creepy.

It's not a matter of "should taxation exist?", but one of "how much more should the rich pay than the poor?". There are essentially an infinite number of positions on this matter, basically inbetween everyone paying the same amount and everyone handing over everything. That's the problem with arguing this matter- a supporter of pure socialism and one of pure capitalism are on different ends of the spectrum, so they can have a decent debate. But when one person supports the current system, where, again, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% in income taxes, and another person says "it'd be nice if, you know, we payed a bit more to help people a little more than we already do"... it gets ambiguous. I have no idea how far any of you would go towards pure socialism. I don't know your opinion. That makes it hard to debate. Is that even physically possible...?

Fair enough, and I do see your point that poorer people having more money would result in more spending and thus a higher GDP. I really just have two main problems with socialism I suppose: one) the more left the government gets, the higher the spending, and generally the more it suffers. Obama is trying to expand medicare and preserve social security, but can our government handle that with the money it gets? No. two) I'm not for making the rich pay more than they already do. Call it heartless if you want, but considering the statistics I posted earlier, I feel it is unfair for the gov. to be even more unfair than it's already being. It is their money, they earned it. And honestly, as the probably over-posted ]story of the waiter tells us about redistribution of wealth, it seems better in theory than in reality.

What I'm confused about is, according to that study (source?), communist states should have optimal GDP, as the rich and poor are given more equality, as in your example. But somewhere that trend must break down, because the former statement is not true. I've noted before that standard of living is amazing in those countries, but economically they are generally weak because of socialism. I get that heightening the standard of living is nice, I'd be a psycho if I didn't, but the trade-off with the national economy is too much in my opinion.

But socialism works; it doesn't go that far.

Honest answer, apart from the already stated fact that the rich pay a crapload of the taxes as it is?: Tough cookies, it's their money, they earned it. If you seriously think that the fact that the rich "save" their money means they hurt the economy, I really don't know what to tell you other than you need to take an econ class. Or google the word "stock" at the very least. Brief lesson: The rich understand that keeping their money in saving's accounts hurts them in the long run because of inflation. That's where things like bonds and stocks come in. These investments support the economy in both the private and public sector.

Otaku thread attack -_o.

I feel like I read this at least three times a page in political threads. If some right wing punk came in here and said something as offensive as that (without any prior justification to boot), what would happen? Gang rape I'd assume, at the very least. And no, socialism and libertarianism don't exactly flow well together (if I'm reading what you're saying right), regardless of the existence of utopian idea of libertarian socialism. Socialism is on the topside of that graph, but not as high as communism.

Never been a fan, never going to be a fan. It's a nice idea and it really does improve general standard of living, but beyond that it essentially serves no other purpose but to hurt the economy, both federally and in the private sector. Oh ya, and this "taxes favor the rich" bull [cabbage] needs to stop. The top 1% of taxpayers pay [bleep]ing 40% of the income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The bottom half pay 3%. Ya, right, let's get all Robin Hood on their [wagon]. The US government's totally robbing the poor.

Please don't go down that road.

He's saying that religion shouldn't interfere with the realm of science (and people's rights). I.e., ID/Creationism should not be taught in schools as a science. Most people here don't care if people believe something; as long as it stays in their head it's not like it's hurting anybody. The problem arises when said beliefs infringe on other's lives in a negative manner, whether it be by blowing up a building for the sake of radical belief or by making people dumber for the sake of teaching in science something that is not a science. And by the way, thanks for the God of the Gaps post. Not a fan of atheist logical argumentation (mostly because some people who use them are annoying) but your post is a nice paragon of that. (and who's to say the meaning of life can't be found via science? do you really think you know the answer?)

Test one: PASS :thumbup:

You, mister roll eyes, just needed a CONFIDENCE reminder. Unless you meant it otherwise, are you saying I am socially awkward? :| If you are, how can you justify that, you don't even know me... Ouchy has a point, eh? You shouldn't judge people if you dont know them, Rebdragon I was making a joke. Oi. Unfunny people.

You, mister roll eyes, just needed a CONFIDENCE reminder.

Minimum wage should increase with inflation. By the time you're an adult if you aren't making past minimum wage in a developed country like the US, it's kind of your fault, not the governments. I mean, I was making five+ dollars over minimum wage when I was sixteen working part time as a busser; just get through your edumacation and get a at least semi-real job, and you should be making a decent amount more than minimum wage at the very least.

Re-read your own post for Christ's sake.

All right, I'm just saying that in life you're invariably going to need proper male bonds, more than female ones in a lot of cases. It's just that they're in the same shoes as you so their empathy factor is a little higher. Girls have a higher sympathy factor, but guys can relate. So basically you're saying I'm gay...? I didn't even read your post (or I don't remember it anyways), but no, I'm not saying your gay. I'm saying that if I ever met you I'd just think you were gay. Proper response: Really? THREESOME!

Err... it's advertisement for school fun. I've had a cappella groups interrupt classes to advertise plays, it's more fun than anything else. Bad. Get rid of said opinion. Nao. I thought dipping sauce was free everywhere :| . I mean, it's a tiny packet of sauce for Christ's sake.

What the [bleep]. I think you're joking but actually being pathetically sincere at the same time.

That's a problem socially awkard people tend to have. Because they don't talk to people all the time, when they do talk to someone there appears to be an agenda behind the move. Really, the only way to solve this is to just talk to people more. The more you do the less any conversation stands out, and, as a result, the more relaxed a girl will be if and when you approach her. This applies more for high school, where everyone kind of knows each other. Going to uni it doesn't help quite as much, but at parties it is a noticeable fact of life; if you don't talk to anyone at all and then see a hot chick and make a move and your first conversation of the night, it may not end well if your social awkwardness is at least partially noticeable. Just learn to chill and have fun with people. The girlfriends stuff comes naturally from that.

Be weird all you want, it's the odd balls that make life fun. Just don't be like dizzle with the silly anti-establishment geek attitude. That's just asking to be a social outcast with absolutely no justification for doing so (contrary to said loser mindset that being "in" means being a jerk, which is more based on a circular attempt of justifying being an outcast). Sounds like your a poser. :lol: You could say that, but you could also say I'm a person who could fit in with 2 completely different social groups and I choose to hang out with the group who has much more fun and act accordingly to save myself some hardship / slagging. In Ireland the definition of a poser would more be of a person who trys to fit into a group he doesn't belong to and doesn't succeed, I do fit in so I'm not a poser, I'm just part of the group. I'm sorry dude, I know you're trying to be honest and sincere, but anytime I see someone talking about themselves as a cool jock+great person+WoW/RS player on an online forum to people they do not know and will never know in their lives, I get skeptical. Not in the sense that what you're saying isn't believable, but in the sense that the very fact that you even feel a need to say it makes it less believable. Even if you're properly responding to a thread (sort of), my first inclination is not one of trust. Chin up ol' fellow :D . The more likeable you think you are the more likeable you'll be :D . Sort of.

Yes but it's hard to be straight if you don't have a fair amount of good/close same-sex friends. Not to say that having girl friends is a bad thing; I'd personally say it's almost a necessity, but if most of your friends/your closest friends are of the opposite gender, honestly, I'd say something's wrong if you're calling yourself straight. It's not universally taboo per se, but in most cases (especially in developmental years), it doesn't sit right with me.

I'll be honest, I wouldn't go even if it was five minutes from where I live (and, you know, plausible). This is an online board; I really have no idea who any of you are, and personally have no strong desire to find out.

Disregarding the fact that an idea like that is politically insane, the main problem with canceling debt in the third world is that it would motivate countries to default on their debt and/or borrow even more since they know that they're would be no consequences for them for doing so. Knowing how the governments of underdeveloped countries are, the odds of such a problem occuring are gigantic. As has been said in many a thread on the third world, you can't solve the problems there by just throwing money at them and expecting everything to be fine. Infrastructure needs to be built in order for the country to stand up on it's own. Poor countries that are extremely agricultural (in a non-industrial way) have no infrastucture, and if they were to go with your idea -simply using all the crops they have to feed themselves-, they never will. Tack on rapid population growth occuring in developing countries thanks to the instillment of basic ideas of sanitation as well as the offering of antibiotics and basic medicine, and all you're left with is a group of people stuck in the stone age and getting more and more crowded as the decades go by. Making agriculture purely domestic and non-industrial may sound like a great idea in the short term, but in the end all it really does is make the situation worse.

Just checking. So I didn't read you as bad as you thought :P . Okay, back to the question, for anyone, so as to stay on topic. How does socialism produce as much as capitalism, and from that help people in developing countries who are dying of starvation and disease?