Santorum Drops Out - Page 8 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: where have my pants gone?.....
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-04-16, 03:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #106
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Well it is a good thing Santorum's delegates are joing up with Ron Paul. Id say Ricky Bible Thumper is pushing for a Paul/Santorum ticket.

I could live with that.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-16, 04:18 PM   [Ignore Me] #107
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:26 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-16, 04:26 PM   [Ignore Me] #108
Natir
Sergeant
 
Natir's Avatar
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Cutting waste, overhead, and corruption alone will free up quite a lot of budget. And the things causing us the most financial burden need reform to fit within a balanced budget. Simple as that.
Now if that is what was done, we would doing a lot better. Sadly, that has not always been the case. I mean, the GAO just had its budget cut. When had they increased or kept it the same, they basically pay for itself. But now that their budget has been cut, they cannot do their job as they should. There was also a similar aspect to congress. I believe that was completely phased out. Someone correct me if I am wrong on that one. And correct me if I am wrong by saying it was Newt who got rid of it when he was speaker.

It is also a lot harder for shit to get done when you have appointments waiting to be filled. Just last week I believe Obama finally got 70 more members appointed to his staff/judicial appointments. Now, these are not new, they have just been sitting doing nothing because our lovely republicans in office decide to block his appointments. Now, these are not blocks based on merit, they are fully qualified for the jobs, they just don't want to appoint them because of politics. He still has many more administrative and judicial appointments that need to be approved. That is the kind of shit we really don't need in our political system.
__________________
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4793/natir.jpg
Natir is offline  
Old 2012-04-16, 07:12 PM   [Ignore Me] #109
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


No Malorn, socialism is NOT communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.
Figment is offline  
Old 2012-04-16, 07:19 PM   [Ignore Me] #110
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


No Malorn, socialism is NOT communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.

But hey, then the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea has the same state system as a democracy, because it's in the name? And what about the Democratic Republic of Kongo? Malorn, really now.
Figment is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-17, 09:37 AM   [Ignore Me] #111
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:26 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 10:47 AM   [Ignore Me] #112
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Insulting? How is this insulting?

No Malorn, socialism is NOT communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.

But hey, then the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea has the same state system as a democracy, because it's in the name? And what about the Democratic Republic of Kongo? Malorn, really now.
Still, you do not know much of anything about labour parties, do you? "Controlling everything" is absolute and utter bullshit. Labour parties are socialist parties based on unions who are predominantly interested in protecting and advancing the position of the workforce, without moving to a communist state. Labour parties are in favour of free market, but simply see a bigger role for the government in caring for their populace and see a bigger role for the wealthy to take care of the less wealthy, without actually controlling the populace.

They consider the government responsible for providing basic needs such as security (police, national defense), accessible public health, encouraging employment and protecting the rights of the employee, providing for those who can't help themselves (including the elderly and pension plans), accessible education for all (so they can work themselves up). The only things they prefered no free market on were services like energy (nuclear facilities, making sure power supply is in domestic hands and does not become too expensive), transportation (national railways, airports and harbours) and hospitals (public interest). All the latter three groups have already been privatized by the liberals, btw. The idea was that service and quality would go up if there was competition.

That was not exactly true, problem with for instance privatizing railways, meant that immediately the less profitable tracks were up for dismantling. Which meant a lot worse service for the people depending on them. Everything got more expensive as well, since government funding was pretty much stopped and now just the clients had to pay the price for exploiting all these less profitable routes, rather than the national community as a whole. Since not everybody uses railroads, that's a lot more expensive for a relative few and it meant more people would take the car (opposite of the intention), which lead to more traffic jams and traffic jams lead to economic damage.

The same is true for bus routes. There used to be 5 different busroutes in my own city, but since the privatization, there's only 2 left and they are less efficient as they take longer and less interesting routes (nearest busroute used to go to nearest railway station, now it goes to another one, which takes 10 minutes longer to get there and it's an extra train stop, so I don't use it anymore at all). The stops are frequently also a longer walk or a single stop for entire residential areas. So service has effectively gone down quite a bit. And they're considering on scrapping another line.

International shipping and transportation routes too are IMO too important for national security to be completely ran privately, since then economic interest may take precedence over national interest.

So despite being a liberal, I kinda agree that in some special cases, some nationalised institutions or subsidies to provide service to citizens isn't always a bad thing, or that companies have to provide services that are less profitable along with a more profitable line. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, otherwise only the profitable lines would still exist. And just look at the state of the British Railways (privatized for decades and decades). What an utter mess.


Providing some government services for a more care free life within a free trade and free market system is called a "wellfare states" and that can not at all be compared to communism. Companies are after all in private hands, not public hands. Competition is fierce and the government does not tell the companies what and how many things to produce.

So a modern, socialist, political party (typically named labour) is a farcry from the type of socialism you refer to. What you are refering to is a different type of regime that people like Chavez prefer. Modern socialists in Europe don't want anything to do with communism because they value their freedom as well. In fact, next to liberals they are the main proponents of gaining more freedoms to live your life the way you want to, where you want to and with as little concern for your health etc as possible. I know, you have trouble considering that other people than you like freedoms (as you continuously proclaim nobody can understand freedoms like you do), but it's true.

Now, I'm not particularly fond of labour for often being a bunch of hypocrits who don't look after the national treasury too well, but they too have a point now and then. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with taking care of one's fellow citizens if you can. It would be ideal if people would do so on their own, but they won't. Hence taxes.
Figment is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-17, 12:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #113
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:26 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 01:18 PM   [Ignore Me] #114
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/01/news...ns-tax-reform/
Figment is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-17, 02:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #115
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:26 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 02:59 PM   [Ignore Me] #116
Vash02
Major
 
Vash02's Avatar
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


4 billion is nothing to laugh at. If you really dont want it paying towards the debt, Nasa will have it. We could go to the moon with that kind of money.
Vash02 is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 03:37 PM   [Ignore Me] #117
HalfManHalfGod
Private
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Here's a brilliant idea, why not let the people who EARNED that money keep it!?


Federal Government is spending 2.5 billion hourly!

Last edited by HalfManHalfGod; 2012-04-17 at 03:43 PM.
HalfManHalfGod is offline  
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-17, 03:55 PM   [Ignore Me] #118
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Meh.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-09-11 at 04:26 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 03:56 PM   [Ignore Me] #119
ItsTheSheppy
Second Lieutenant
 
ItsTheSheppy's Avatar
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Originally Posted by HalfManHalfGod View Post
Here's a brilliant idea, why not let the people who EARNED that money keep it!?


Federal Government is spending 2.5 billion hourly!
What if you're born into money? Can you keep that? Are you just not allowed to say you earned it? Does, like, the government slap you with a gag order?

I've always really liked the idea of the supremely rich paying supreme amounts of tax. If it bothers them, they can come split a 2-bedroom apartment with me and make $45k a year and enjoy nice low tax bracket.
__________________
Guru
ItsTheSheppy is offline  
Old 2012-04-17, 04:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #120
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Santorum Drops Out


Here's a silly thought Halfman, let's all not pay taxes, let's not pay people to built or maintain infrastructure like bridges (you were not doing that before) and let's not pay police and justice departments with tax payer's money.
Figment is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.