Does Stalin really belong in the game?

Welcome to the communism, tax the rich until they don't earn anymore then the poor :lol: Besides there aren't that many rich people around, even if you think that the guy who earns million a year is rich, taxing him more, will not make a dent in the income of the huuuuuuge middle class.

I never said that. Not tax the rich so much they're not rich anymore. Just take the rich more than the middle class. The upper class should not be taxed equal or less than the middle class. Thats all I'm saying.
 
I agree with what Napalm 102 and ThemeinTeam said, plus, why should rich people, 70% of whom worked hard for their money, be forced to give their money to poor people who did not work hard through taxes? YOU NEED TO EARN YOUR OWN MONEY THROUGH HARD WORK!

Wow, do you know anything? I have a friend of mine, who has a mother with THREE JOBS. Thats right. THREE JOBS. She is ALWAYS working. And since she dosen't have a car (too poor to afford it) she walks to every one of them. Meanwhile, there are some other people I know that are housewifes and don't do anything. We don't want them being taxed do we?
 
Someone should just start a new thread. I don't think anyone is discussing Stalin anymore!

Actually this is very indirectly involved with Stalin.

Someone said we might as well have him in the game because George Washington is also evil.

I defended George washington, by quoting him. People then attacked the quote. I defended it, thus resulting in a political debate. The politcal debate was about his quote. Wheater or not America should have isolationist foreign policies. The foreign policies went to economics. The economics came to health care.

I have just explained how everything is connected to each other.

Therefore, if I win the healthcare debate, Stalin does not belong in the game.:lol:
 
Wow, do you know anything? I have a friend of mine, who has a mother with THREE JOBS. Thats right. THREE JOBS. She is ALWAYS working. And since she dosen't have a car (too poor to afford it) she walks to every one of them. Meanwhile, there are some other people I know that are housewifes and don't do anything. We don't want them being taxed do we?

Poor her, but why should a wealthy person who works hard for their money have to support her? Also, many people who this money would go to do not work hard like your friend's mom, and if they are supported by someone else's tax money they would not feel motivated to support themself. People need to be self sufficient. The only way to rise out of poverty is through education and hard work, not government handouts.
 
Poor her, but why should a wealthy person who works hard for their money have to support her? Also, many people who this money would go to do not work hard like your friend's mom, and if they are supported by someone else's tax money they would not feel motivated to support themself. People need to be self sufficient. The only way to rise out of poverty is through education and hard work, not government handouts.

Well the government needs to spend more money in education, thats without doubt. Why should a rich person have to support her? Think about it. If she had the money, she'd go to college. Then she can make more money herself.
 
70% of millionaires are self made and started out poor or middle class. They made it out of what they started from without any help. They should not have to help other people do what thay did. I believe that this is what has made America great. If the governmet starts helping people, they will not work as hard for themselves. they begin to think that a college degree and a good job is a god given right. The constitution says PURSUIT of happiness not happiness. Which means that people can pursue their dreams, but it does not mean that the government will give them everything they want or even help them at all.

There is obviously a problem with the education system. Something needs to be done, but I don't think that we need to spend more money.
 
70% of millionaires are self made and started out poor or middle class. They made it out of what they started from without any help. They should not have to help other people do what thay did. I believe that this is what has made America great. If the governmet starts helping people, they will not work as hard for themselves. they begin to think that a college degree and a good job is a god given right. The constitution says PURSUIT of happiness not happiness. Which means that people can pursue their dreams, but it does not mean that the government will give them everything they want or even help them at all.

There is obviously a problem with the education system. Something needs to be done, but I don't think that we need to spend more money.

The schools in richer neighboorhoods have WAY better education than the schools in the poorer ones. Therefore, children that the only mistake they made in there lives is being born poor- already have less opportunitys right off the bat.

I can also almost promise you that the large majority of the people that are self-made to become rich, were from the middle class, NOT the lower class.
 
I think the richer schools doing better can be explained with the students upbringing at home. Many poor children come from broken families and are not given the care and learning experiences at home that wealthier children have. Also, no matter how much money you spend, you can't force a kid to learn.
 
I think that main reason for Stalin in CIV is that Firaxis is an american company, and with all due respect to the US, You people have no idea what Stalin was and what he has done.
On top of that, ever since from WWII when sick and slowly dying Roosevelt got impression that he can befriend Stalin and manipulate him somehow, false images of Stalin were shown in States.
You know how they called Stalin in US? Uncle Joe. There were romantic movies done in Hollywood portraying russian nation, and movies showing how similar USA and Russia are :crazyeye:
And that sterotype have stayed in american memory, fueled by goverment influence. No wonder he's a smiling chap in CIV now.

Honestly, Hitler was small and insignificant comparing to Stalin. Besides, it was Stalin who has won against Hitler's surprise attack, not the other way around. Stalingrad... Kursk...
 
Wow, do you know anything? I have a friend of mine, who has a mother with THREE JOBS. Thats right. THREE JOBS. She is ALWAYS working. And since she dosen't have a car (too poor to afford it) she walks to every one of them. Meanwhile, there are some other people I know that are housewifes and don't do anything. We don't want them being taxed do we?

This is a valid point, but you also have to consider the other side. There are people who abuse social system, and effectivelly become parasites in the society. The problem here is not that rich should pay more, but that the money that gets payed is inefficiently distributed. And as someone who pays taxes I would really hate to see my hard earned money being misspent on some dolt who doesn't work and more importantly doesn't want to work.
 
I say cut middle class taxes, and tax the rich. Republicans have the "trickle down theory" I have the "trickle up" theory. The theory is, you tax the rich, and give that money to the middle class with health care benefits and such. Then, the middle class has more money. Then they can spend that money on products owned by the rich upper class. So in the end, everybody makes money.

That is Socialism my friend. You don't tax a person to give the money to another, That is what charity is for. Redistributing money through Gov/t Agencies has only hurt the middle class as they become more and more reliant on handouts. You don't raise taxes on the rich they are the ones who create jobs for the middle class. Besides higher taxes on businesses are typically passed on to the consumer (middle class) so a tax increase on the rich is in itself a tax on the middle class when it is all said and done. My suggestion is get Gov't out of the way and truly let the marketplace work. So neither the Repubs or the Demos get it and we will need a true conservative movement like we are seeing in UK to get back on the right track. We must cut spending on social programs not spend ourselves into more and more debt. In the end it is oil that greases the gears of our economy and as long as we continue to import it at $127.00 a barrel (and growing) not much can be done.

As for Bush he is no Conservative as he outspends any Administration before him. His pro-Environmentalism stance such as the corn-based Ethynol innitiative have done far more harm than good. Just another example of what happens when Gov't tries to solve a problem it creates more problems. Illegal Immigration is also helping to cripple our economy as each one costs taxpayers roughly $20,000 a year in social progrmas like healthcare, education and welfare. He's got it right about staying on the offensive against radical Islam but not even he can see through the veil of Political Correctness. So while I support my President I do not follow him blindly.
 
I never said that. Not tax the rich so much they're not rich anymore. Just take the rich more than the middle class. The upper class should not be taxed equal or less than the middle class. Thats all I'm saying.

The rich under any administration pays a higher tax rate than the middle or lower class.

This is a valid point, but you also have to consider the other side. There are people who abuse social system, and effectivelly become parasites in the society. The problem here is not that rich should pay more, but that the money that gets payed is inefficiently distributed. And as someone who pays taxes I would really hate to see my hard earned money being misspent on some dolt who doesn't work and more importantly doesn't want to work.

Again I don't think redistributing the money in any way is morally right. Every one is taxed too high, including the rich. I for one am sick of the nanny state. The more power you give the state over your daily life the more it will dictate how you live your life.

70% of millionaires are self made and started out poor or middle class. They made it out of what they started from without any help. They should not have to help other people do what thay did. I believe that this is what has made America great. If the governmet starts helping people, they will not work as hard for themselves. they begin to think that a college degree and a good job is a god given right. The constitution says PURSUIT of happiness not happiness. Which means that people can pursue their dreams, but it does not mean that the government will give them everything they want or even help them at all.

There is obviously a problem with the education system. Something needs to be done, but I don't think that we need to spend more money.

Public education is a joke. If we gave each parent a check each year to cover the costs of public education and let them shop around you would see education get alot better real fast. There is no competition so all of the oversight and spending in the world will do little to improve it.
As far as rights people in this country think they have a right to alot of things. Then when it comes to our actual rights like the 2nd ammendment and freedom of speech they are trampled on daily.

The schools in richer neighboorhoods have WAY better education than the schools in the poorer ones. Therefore, children that the only mistake they made in there lives is being born poor- already have less opportunitys right off the bat.

I can also almost promise you that the large majority of the people that are self-made to become rich, were from the middle class, NOT the lower class.
And who runs the education system? The Government. The same government some wish to run our healthcare system. Don't you see the Irony here?
 
Again I don't think redistributing the money in any way is morally right. Every one is taxed too high, including the rich. I for one am sick of the nanny state. The more power you give the state over your daily life the more it will dictate how you live your life.

Thats is one point of view though. What you are basically showing here is the difference between US and West Europe. Question is should the government abandon those that cannot support themselves, or is it obliged as a government to take care of the lower layers of society. US system is, how shall I say this, more "brutal" then what you can generally see in Europe, it's more "Darvinian".

I frankly think that healthy dose of socialism is good. Some basic things like Healthcare and Education (at least basic education) should be available to all, although admitedly those sytems are often not very efficient, but at least they are distributed and are available to all. Being competitive is nice, but how do you stay competitive if you have to serve people who cannot pay for your services. So I beleive that some life critical things should be under the control of the governemnt.
 
Hmm, since we're getting vastly off-topic anyway...

According to respectable economists, it would be sustainable in developed countries to just give every citizen an amount of money sufficient to live on modestly. That would seem to combine the best aspects of both: Social security without distorting the economy (e.g. being paid specifically to do nothing, as in unemployment benefits). This would also get rid of 'spiteful politics' ('The rich shouldn't be rich anyway, tax them to hell!' or 'Those who can't keep a regular job ought to starve, good riddance') and leave people free to work hard and get rich or laze about and enjoy themselves as they see fit.

I personally have an issue with social security systems as they are not because they cost a lot of money, but because irresponsible behaviour is rewarded. 'Don't take care of your health; if youget sick we'll cover it. Don't bother to be appreciated by your employers, if you lose your job we'll give you money. Don't bother amassing a personal fortune... if you have one and fall upon hard times, we'll seize it before you get anything from the government'.
Some security, however, is beneficial. People can't pursue the education that would suit them or realise their abilities if they have to worry about their basic needs on a day-by-day basis.
 
This isn't fair. just be agaisnt pretty much everybody else on this board in a heated debate. I wave the white flag. Be merceiful. :(

huh, what did I tell u that made me unmerciful?
and WHAT isn't fair about what I said there? please explain cuz I don't understand what you are trying to say.
 
Thats is one point of view though. What you are basically showing here is the difference between US and West Europe. Question is should the government abandon those that cannot support themselves, or is it obliged as a government to take care of the lower layers of society. US system is, how shall I say this, more "brutal" then what you can generally see in Europe, it's more "Darvinian".

I frankly think that healthy dose of socialism is good. Some basic things like Healthcare and Education (at least basic education) should be available to all, although admitedly those sytems are often not very efficient, but at least they are distributed and are available to all. Being competitive is nice, but how do you stay competitive if you have to serve people who cannot pay for your services. So I beleive that some life critical things should be under the control of the governemnt.

It is a mans responsibility to provide for himself and his family if he has one. It is not the responsibility of the state. I would dare call the western europe health systems darvinian, have you ever heard of ambulance stacking? If not that is where ambulances keep patients in the parking lot as to not break the wait time rules set by the gov't. This has caused many deaths in the UK and elsewhere and show that the ineffeciancy of a system can be brutal also. No system is perfect and not everyone can afford health insurance. I for one do not have it but I make dang sure my kids do. I live in the poverty level and do not ask that those above me carry me. Did you know that most families without healthcare could easily afford it if they gave up cable TV and there new car payment? It just shows where people put their priorities.

Now to people that cannot support themselves. We are the most charitable nation the world has ever seen and without the gov't in everyones pocket I'm sure charity would grow even further. When you are not taking peoples money with fear of prison. Government should also play a small role in overseeing such charities and apply care to those in desperate need of it. The notion that government should take care of you from cradle to grave is scary to me.
 
I live in the poverty level and do not ask that those above me carry me. Did you know that most families without healthcare could easily afford it if they gave up cable TV and there new car payment? It just shows where people put their priorities.

So what will you do, if for some reason you will require serious medical attention? Sell the house? Take out a loan (if anyone gives it to you)? Ultimatelly it will be your family who will pay the price anyway.

I have to say that I cannot agree with you on some issues, so lets just agree to disagree.
 
Everywhere were any kind of socialism has been tried, socialism failed. History has shown that having the government control healthcare, welfare etc. does not work. What makes people think that it will work the next time around?
 
Seems to me a lot of people here are equating "taxing the rich" with "giving welfare to the poor".

Obviously those are two very different things.

Forcing the rich to pay a higher tax rate seems to me to be a good idea. The government giving welfare to the poor seems to me to be a bad idea. Those two ideas are quite compatible. I have no problem with taxing the rich to pay for the military budget or whatever.

Wodan
 
Back
Top Bottom