Welcome to Gaia! ::

What the ******** should we do with all of these ******** baby boomers?

Give them a taste of their own medicine and let the "free market" handle Social Security 0.4 40.0% [ 10 ]
Ruin our country paying their ridiculous retirement pensions 0.04 4.0% [ 1 ]
Give them a pension, but put a hard limit on how much we'll spend on those pensions 0.04 4.0% [ 1 ]
Other, you have your own plan 0.28 28.0% [ 7 ]
Gold 0.24 24.0% [ 6 ]
Total Votes:[ 25 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
Noogie's avatar

Liberal Bloodsucker

7,250 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
XxTheSmittenKittenxX
g00kie_m0nster
XxTheSmittenKittenxX
I love ageism when I see it.

*tt* Ageism is getting old...


Ageism is disgusting.
Have you ever seen old people chew when they're not even eating? talk2hand
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Sen Natsu
Well, we could cut them off from all governmnet aid and tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. User Image


Yes. Cut everyone off of gov't aid.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Seriously. Everyone off of gov't aid.

Do you often complain about gas prices?


Of course. I miss the days where it was only $1.75 instead of $3.75.
Funny thing is that it actually wasn't too long ago.

The industry relies on government aid to keep gas affordable... neutral

Source?
Besides even if that's true, the gov't should never be regulating prices on anything.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Sen Natsu
Well, we could cut them off from all governmnet aid and tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. User Image


Yes. Cut everyone off of gov't aid.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Seriously. Everyone off of gov't aid.

Do you often complain about gas prices?


Of course. I miss the days where it was only $1.75 instead of $3.75.
Funny thing is that it actually wasn't too long ago.

The industry relies on government aid to keep gas affordable... neutral

Source?
Besides even if that's true, the gov't should never be regulating prices on anything.

Energy subsidies are old as dirt.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr

Do you often complain about gas prices?


Of course. I miss the days where it was only $1.75 instead of $3.75.
Funny thing is that it actually wasn't too long ago.

The industry relies on government aid to keep gas affordable... neutral

Source?
Besides even if that's true, the gov't should never be regulating prices on anything.

Energy subsidies are old as dirt.

If you mean receiving taxpayer dollars as subsidies to mine and drill then government only influences prices in that way. The companies still have to factor in labor costs, value, travel expenses, etc.
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.
Noogie's avatar

Liberal Bloodsucker

7,250 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, why is big government a problem, but big corporations are not?

I'm not against business, again, I own shares and s**t, but even I'm not stupid enough to put all my eggs in that ******** up basket.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Noogie
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, why is big government a problem, but big corporations are not?

I'm not against business, again, I own shares and s**t, but even I'm not stupid enough to put all my eggs in that ******** up basket.


Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With corporations, jobs can be created, products made, profits increased. There can be progress.
With government, jobs are lost (except gov't jobs), products become of lesser quality, profits decline. There is regression.
Besides. Both parties have been in support of Big Business no matter what they say recently. When GM was going under, both sides should've let that company fail. If it's making products that people aren't buying, then it shouldn't be in business.
I, for one, am against big government, and I'm against corporate crony capitalism. Which is the negative "big business" term.
I would like competitive capitalism. Where successful companies compete, beat each other out, expand, etcetera.
When white-collar crime happens, there's the court of law to settle that.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?


Since the gov't has no money of it's own, taxes are necessary for the purpose of defense.
Oh and there's a difference between subsidies and tax breaks.

Like This Will Help

This Probably Will Too
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?


Since the gov't has no money of it's own, taxes are necessary for the purpose of defense.
Oh and there's a difference between subsidies and tax breaks.

Like This Will Help

This Probably Will Too

It's quite common terminology. I have no idea why your sources disagree with my equating tax breaks and subsidies.

Oh wait, I do. They're Objectivist circle-jerk blogs. Protip: If the blog starts whining about liberals not two sentences in, it's probably going to be a lot of whining involved.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
I stand by my statement, the government should never regulate anything.

Then there wouldn't be a government.


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?


Since the gov't has no money of it's own, taxes are necessary for the purpose of defense.
Oh and there's a difference between subsidies and tax breaks.

Like This Will Help

This Probably Will Too

It's quite common terminology. I have no idea why your sources disagree with my equating tax breaks and subsidies.

Oh wait, I do. They're Objectivist circle-jerk blogs. Protip: If the blog starts whining about liberals not two sentences in, it's probably going to be a lot of whining involved.


Subsidies - taking from one and redistributing it to another or a group in the name of public interest.
Tax Cut - a tax concession or advantage allowed by a gov't.

Note: Just because it's common doesn't mean it's correct.
Circle Jerks is an American Punk Band. That didn't relate to the post.
Circle Jerks can also be a masturbatory pleasuring circle.
I provided the differences. Yet you don't provide how said subsidies/"benefits" are the same as tax cuts. Why not?
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?


Since the gov't has no money of it's own, taxes are necessary for the purpose of defense.
Oh and there's a difference between subsidies and tax breaks.

Like This Will Help

This Probably Will Too

It's quite common terminology. I have no idea why your sources disagree with my equating tax breaks and subsidies.

Oh wait, I do. They're Objectivist circle-jerk blogs. Protip: If the blog starts whining about liberals not two sentences in, it's probably going to be a lot of whining involved.


Subsidies - taking from one and redistributing it to another or a group in the name of public interest.
Tax Cut - a tax concession or advantage allowed by a gov't.

Note: Just because it's common doesn't mean it's correct.
Circle Jerks is an American Punk Band. That didn't relate to the post.
Circle Jerks can also be a masturbatory pleasuring circle.
I provided the differences. Yet you don't provide how said subsidies/"benefits" are the same as tax cuts. Why not?

Way to start a semantic argument when already having conflated tax breaks with tax cuts.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that by differentiating between tax breaks and subsidies, you're usually arguing the illegitimacy of the state. What good would it do to eliminate the tax breaks and give subsidies in the form of cash? It's just extra work for the IRS and other regulatory entities who have to return this money somehow, instead of leaving it be where it would end up anyway. For all intents and purposes, they are one and the same.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant


The gov't can defend it's citizens rights and provide defense against militants and aggressors.
There needs to be no regulation of business, prices, stock, etcetera.

How about taxes? Subsidies are commonly given in the form of tax breaks. Should we eliminate all tax breaks then?


Since the gov't has no money of it's own, taxes are necessary for the purpose of defense.
Oh and there's a difference between subsidies and tax breaks.

Like This Will Help

This Probably Will Too

It's quite common terminology. I have no idea why your sources disagree with my equating tax breaks and subsidies.

Oh wait, I do. They're Objectivist circle-jerk blogs. Protip: If the blog starts whining about liberals not two sentences in, it's probably going to be a lot of whining involved.


Subsidies - taking from one and redistributing it to another or a group in the name of public interest.
Tax Cut - a tax concession or advantage allowed by a gov't.

Note: Just because it's common doesn't mean it's correct.
Circle Jerks is an American Punk Band. That didn't relate to the post.
Circle Jerks can also be a masturbatory pleasuring circle.
I provided the differences. Yet you don't provide how said subsidies/"benefits" are the same as tax cuts. Why not?

Way to start a semantic argument when already having conflated tax breaks with tax cuts.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that by differentiating between tax breaks and subsidies, you're usually arguing the illegitimacy of the state. What good would it do to eliminate the tax breaks and give subsidies in the form of cash? It's just extra work for the IRS and other regulatory entities who have to return this money somehow, instead of leaving it be where it would end up anyway. For all intents and purposes, they are one and the same.


Tax cuts lower your taxes, tax break is a concession or advantage allowed by government.
In otherwords. A cut is all the way across the board, a break is because you fit a certain criteria. Either way, you keep more of your own money, which isn't really a subsidy if you keep your money.
Subsidies are often given in the form of cash.
Why They're Not Subsidies

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games