Hmm, I'm pretty sure you're going to dismiss most of my counter-arguements as liberal bias, but whatever.
frankcritic wrote:
Okay, on the Gitmo thing what I said that you didn't really address is that terrorists would get to see classified documents. That's really not any kind of okay and is a serious threat to national security. National security is more important than...oh...anything. Stop violating the Geneva convention if you want. Hell, put cameras in there and let Amnesty International monitor the terrorists 24/7 if they want. I don't care. They don't get to come into this country and suddenly have all sorts of rights that endanger our national security. Nothing doing.
I'm afraid that I simply do not believe that every person being held in Guantanamo is truly guilty of anything, nor that every single one of them has revealed vital information to protecting national security. The current American government has simply proven to either be too dishonest or too incompetant for me to trust them at their word.
I find this fairly painful. America is a great country, and it is very sad to see it stoop to the level it has with Guantanamo. It must restore its honor in the eyes of the world, and of its own people. Too see it act so scared, and abandon the values it not too long ago held so dearly, breaks my heart. I simply cannot believe that every prisoner there has information so valuable that it is worth such a price.
Quote:
As to the global warming thing, the free market has to solve it. I don't really care if you don't like that. There's a hybrid car out there now made by Chevy, I forget the name, but it's a big good looking SUV. NOW my mom is willing to buy a hybrid car. Imagine if the government made a hybrid car and made you buy it. Think that would be a car anyone would actually buy of their own free will? No. Capitalism is always the best way out. If you want people and businesses to conserve energy, make it so they want to do that. Chevy's already showing the country how that's done by making a hybrid SUV that's as big and cool as a non-hybrid SUV. You have to convince people to conserve, because if you force them you're just grinding them underneath your heal in the name of being green because you think those ends justify those means.
I'm confused. The strategy I presented would cost nothing, and could actually make money for the financers if a small amount of interest was added. It doesn't force anyone to do anything, and would actually save money for whoever agreed to it. It the long run it would cost the taxpayer nothing - it might actually save them money, since less oil would be used for powerplants, lowering the price of gas.
Are you saying that this should be rejected out of hand, simply because it involves a small amount of government intervention? Please explain why this should be rejected, beyond blatent free market ideology.
Quote:
Tax cuts only benefit the super-rich eh? Care to give a net worth or even a salary range that you think constitutes rich? Also, would someone please explain to me how tax cuts for the poor are supposed to create new jobs. Jobs are CREATED by the rich, which often includes small business owners who employ people in small towns. The money they make at their business? Capital gains tax. That business when it's passed onto their children? Death tax usually is so severe it will force their children to sell the business just to pay the taxes. The real question anyone opposed to tax cuts for the rich should ask themselves is if they're willing to prevent more jobs from being created just so people with more money don't get any more. Seems awfully petty and short-sighted to me.
-Frank
No, of course tax cuts in general do not just benefit the super-rich, please don't put words in my mouth. The way Bush Jr. has cut taxes, however, does. I'm sure you've heard plenty of reports of this from others, so I won't go into it, beyond providing a
link to a story that supports this assertion.
The rich are valuable, and should be rewarded for their hard work. But frankly the current way they are taxed is ridiculous. The poor are paying proportionally
more of their income the rich in some states!
This does kill jobs in my opinion, because it rigs the game. By forcing the poor to pay for the lion's share of the costs of infrastructure, you make it impossible for them to better themselves, whether by paying for education or being an entrepreneur. The rich frankly will not be very motivated to innovate by recieving more money - they already have enough. It's the ambitious poor, hungry for success, that truly create wealth by
becoming rich.
23 May 2008, 11:47 pm
