11/8/2012 11:34 AM
Posted by bistiza on 11/8/2012 11:06:00 AM (view original):
As I said, if you make the taxes fair and even everywhere, this moving between states wouldn't happen.
That would be a complete injustice to the states, which have every right to set the environment they choose.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
11/8/2012 12:25 PM
Should we just do away with the states?
11/8/2012 12:33 PM
ADD PUERTO RICO. GIVE BACK TEXAS+ ARIZONA
11/8/2012 12:41 PM
Bis, you and I are obviously on opposite ends, but kudos for at least acknowledging the opposing view.  We'd go in circles regarding Keynesian v. Supply Side, so I have nothing really to add on that front.  That argument has been going on for a long time (even before JMK came up with the theory bearing his namesake) and will continue probably long after I'm gone.  (I'm right BTW )

Regarding the states issue, I echo tec.  The United States are a union of states.  They have rights.  Why not do away with counties?  How about cities?  Leave everything up to the federal government.  If you nullified all that, you'd be forced to either mandate unions or mandate "right to work" and host of other things.  You would also further concentrate power in the cities at the expense of rural areas (which is already a problem).  We certainly weren't founded that way.  The more power is ceded to the feds, the more we would resemble a tyranny.  Probably a socialist tyranny, but a tyranny nonetheless.
11/8/2012 12:49 PM
BTW bis, what problem do you have with wealth?  Your contempt for "the wealthy" drips from your posts.  I'm not weatlhy, but I certainly would want freedom to pursue it if that was the purpose I chose. 

You use "wealthy employers" in your narrative.  I hope you realize that there are thousands and thousands of small business owners who are not wealthy, but who are employers.  You'll also find thousands of millionaires and billionaires who became that way because they took the risk with what little capital they did have and many others who started with virtually nothing.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
11/8/2012 1:09 PM
He said earlier (in this thread or another, I'm not sure) that he was a socialist.  So his problems with "the wealthy" is because of the particular flavor of Kool-Aid that he's been drinking.
11/8/2012 1:16 PM
booger, do have a mutual fund?  Chances are you're a GM owner - well actually you kind of have a stake anyway since you paid for their union to stay intact........
11/8/2012 3:25 PM
It's funny, virtually all of the political and economic beliefs Bistiza embraces are the ones proven least effective and correct by practical application...

Do you understand empiricism at all?

11/9/2012 12:55 AM
i blame henry harrison. and that guy who eats homeless people's faces. but mostly that harrison *****.
11/9/2012 7:40 AM
Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country.


Democrap party.  100% turnaround from 1960.
11/9/2012 7:44 AM
Well put.
11/9/2012 8:57 AM
Bis, you and I are obviously on opposite ends, but kudos for at least acknowledging the opposing view.

I'm willing to admit I was harsh there, but I still disagree with most supply side philosophies to the extent I believe arguing from the supply side is akin to arguing that gravity isn't what makes things fall to earth.

Still, I understand there are those (including you) who buy into it, so I shouldn't disrespect you for that as I don't want others to disrespect me for my views (as they tend to do sometimes, including on these boards).
The United States are a union of states.  They have rights.  Why not do away with counties?  How about cities?  Leave everything up to the federal government. 

There are certain functions which work better in the hands of various levels of government. However, the federal government should assume control when differences at the state level which create situations where it is necessary, such as differing tax codes causing businesses to move, a problem federal regulation of those taxes could easily prevent.
The more power is ceded to the feds, the more we would resemble a tyranny.  Probably a socialist tyranny, but a tyranny nonetheless.

The question of states rights versus federal government has been going on since before the U.S. was formed. However, I believe to say more federal power would result in "tyranny" is a gross exaggeration of the situation.

As I said, I think there are functions best set for state and local governments, but when there is a problem, the federal government should be able to step in and at least attempt to solve it.
BTW bis, what problem do you have with wealth?  Your contempt for "the wealthy" drips from your posts.  I'm not weatlhy, but I certainly would want freedom to pursue it if that was the purpose I chose. 

I have a problem with the way many wealthy people make decisions and have agendas that harm the rest of society, but they get away with it because they have the money to avoid negative consequences or influence government policy makers. I believe no one should  make any attempts to use wealth to get out of things or buy policy, and I certainly don't do it myself.

My main belief on the matter is this: We are ALL EQUAL, no matter our background, race, beliefs, or income and wealth. Anything that violates that is wrong as far as I'm concerned. Having wealth isn't the problem - it's decision making, and most wealthy people in my observation make decisions that help them and at the same time harm a great deal of society, which doesn't set well with me.
It confuses me when I hear people, both liberals and conservatives suggest that the economy benefits when people on the bottom spend what little wealth they have, giving it right back to rich folks.
It's not "people on the bottom" who generate most consumer spending, as they don't have much to spend. It's the middle class, who are great in numbers and have enough total aggregate disposable income to shift the economy when they do spend it.

Also, not all of it goes back to "rich folks". A lot of consumer spending does occur at both smaller businesses which aren't owned by the incredibly wealthy and at local establishments which provide jobs to other middle class consumers, which boosts the economy overall.

That's a very simple assessment, but I don't have the time or the desire to give a full economic lesson on Keyensian economics (and I won't bother with supply side because I think most of it is wrong). The bottom line is that consumer spending causes money to flow and makes the economy function.
It's funny, virtually all of the political and economic beliefs Bistiza embraces are the ones proven least effective and correct by practical application...
Any economic system can fail when implemented and operated in an incorrect manner. Giving examples of how that has happened in the past with some of the ideas I suggest does not mean it would always end up that way. That's a logical fallacy.

Also, keep in mind the current system does not function anywhere near optimum (and if it was anywhere close, no one would be worried about the state of the economy). Those of you who love your capitalism so much probably didn't lose a great job because of it or lose a home because of it. I know people who have done both.


11/10/2012 1:52 AM (edited)
bro, save it for some seattle coffeehouse where everybody wears berets. you should have realized 2 things already. they are as follows:

1: you've been defeated in the debate. when you feel it's necessary to write a novel with each post, you're probably saying so little of substance that you have to drag it out for 8 years as a ploy.

2: even if you had held your own in this debate, nobody would give a damn. you're never going to convince rich people that they owe more than the 50% they're already wasting in taxes every year, just as i'm never going to convince you to get a vassectomy so that the world need not have any little bistizas guzzling anymore milk from the proverbial communal teet. 
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.