Kasz216 said:
Well, that was a completely pointless off topic rant. So... good show on that. I mean, for one, the majority of the Bush era tax cuts went to the "not rich". The difference between you and I is... I really don't have a political side I play for. I totally want to pay for shcools, roads, water ways, police, firefighters and defense. Though however not massive defense as that seems excessive... we could really afford to close down a lot of our military bases and military aid. While roads I think should be almost completely state funded. More and more of our roadway burden is shifting on the federal budget and that leads to congressmen making every road deal they can think of just to get money to their state, even if it's completely worthess infrastructure like the many "roads to nowhere." Schools. Should be federally funded... but by done by private groups who have laws supporting full transperancy and who do student entrance by lottery if choice exceeds capacity. Therefore better schools will keep going on and gain in prominence with their better teaching measures proving successful, and poor ones will be replaced. Public schools should only be used as a "baseline" for areas where private schools can't really succeed, like rural montana and such.
As for the graphs i use... the difference is... i look into their methods. As for why it might sway right wing... it's because well... economics are a rightwing dominated profession. Right wing people just tend to be methodologically better at statistics. It's like complaining that I cited a liberal for Sociology. Sociology is predominantly liberal. I mean heck, your graph is supporting the bailout of wallstreet. Which, usually people try and stick on to the right. (Despite the voting record being the opposite) when in reality, the banks should of been allowed to fail, and the Tarp funds used to either strengthen banks who did the right thing, or directly help the people most effected by the problem.
Oh, and as to what i would pay my employees. I think i'd pay them pretty well. I mean i have the job I have now mostly because I don't care about money. Give me a couple million dollars and i'd stretch that out for life more or less. To me, after setting up an ensured retirement, 50,000 a year would probably end up excessive based on my tastes. I generally expect i'd set up some sort of profit sharing program after that... or just give the rest to charity. Of course, that's what I would do. I don't believe in forcing everybody to think and act in the same way as myself. |
well in many debates we have had you don't support these idea's. So there is a lot more common ground between you and I, than I originally thought. Yes I did go off on a rant, just as you did. Also I think you are not being realistic. Conservatives are not good with numbers. I'm sorry but that is just a joke. There are good and bad on both sides but to say there better with number is just not true. Conservatives Usaully lack education and back mythology. You got your wall st banker group on the republican side and the bat sh-t crazy I want to control womans productive organs, Yet I call myself a conservative. I'm guessing you fall in with the wall st types. So why do you agree with so much of the Tea Party?
