Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by dadudemon

If you can provide statistics for your information, then I am the exception because I have two children.

this is the Canadian example again, but afaik it is very similar.

For 99.9% of the population, that is how it works.

What the government does, however, is offer tax breaks for people who are able to do "X". X is normally supposed to be something good for society, like charitable donations, but has been abused to be, well, anything, including well worded contracts or signing deals.

The theory is that these big business owners will further invest those savings into their business and it will improve the market (and things like wage etc). This is called "trickle down" economics, and normally and rightfully criticized as ineffective today, however, it proved to be very effective in the early years of American capitalism.

Unless you have enough capital to use the loopholes that government has set up, you aren't part of the rich paying less than the poor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you earn between 30 and 80 thousand?

Of course. Middle class is middle class.

Originally posted by Bardock42
People can't always run to the government for it to set their lives straight. It's not the duty of the successful to pay for the poor.

Originally posted by lord xyz
This is what makes my views different to yours Marius. I think there should be something people can run too for help, but only if everyone else in the community agrees. Yes, people should look after themselves, but it's not always that easy.

Where did I ever say that even if everyone agrees they can't create such a thing. All I am saying is that not even the largest majority should force that on anyone. Especially since the intention is always to make someone else pay...never to pay it yourself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that make yours different from mine then?

Where did I ever say that even if everyone agrees they can't create such a thing. All I am saying is that not even the largest majority should force that on anyone. Especially since the intention is always to make someone else pay...never to pay it yourself.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, everytime I read your posts I always think of you as arrogant and selfish and greedy and against such a proposal.

Just odd cause we had an extended discussion about just this topic yesterday and now it is like that never happened. Did you forget overnight?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, everytime I read your posts I always think of you as arrogant and selfish and greedy and against such a proposal.

I like that personal accountability is interpreted by people as arrogance.

Next thing you will say is confident and assertive people are aggressive.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, everytime I read your posts I always think of you as arrogant and selfish and greedy .

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's alright.

Just odd cause we had an extended discussion about just this topic yesterday and now it is like that never happened. Did you forget overnight?

Originally posted by inimalist
I like that personal accountability is interpreted by people as arrogance.

Next thing you will say is confident and assertive people are aggressive.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I forgot the bit where your up for socialist ideas, just as long as we have the choice and stuff.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You also forgot the bit where I thoroughly schooled you on what are and what aren't socialist ideas. You are on a roll, mister.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, because that's just stupid.

indeed

Originally posted by lord xyz
socialist ideas

ummm, almost by definition, socialist ideas require a state to impose the will. Without control over certain mechanisms of power, it isn't Socialism.

Socialism requires a government to intervene for social good. Without the government it no longer is an 'ism', but just pro-social behaviour.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Results of the Nevada Democratic Caucus (98% precincts reporting)

Hillary Clinton: 51% (5,355 votes)
Barack Obama: 45% (4,773)
John Edwards: 4% (396)
Uncommitted: 0% (31)
Dennis Kucinich: 0% (5)

Does anyone else think that's an awfully low turnout?

EDIT: Those numbers are in county delegates to the state convention, not actual vote numbers.

Edit: Hillary got more votes, Obama got more delagates.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

ummm, almost by definition, socialist ideas require a state to impose the will. Without control over certain mechanisms of power, it isn't Social[b]ism.

Socialism requires a government to intervene for social good. Without the government it no longer is an 'ism', but just pro-social behaviour. [/B]

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

ummm, almost by definition, socialist ideas require a state to impose the will. Without control over certain mechanisms of power, it isn't Social[b]ism.

Socialism requires a government to intervene for social good. Without the government it no longer is an 'ism', but just pro-social behaviour. [/B]

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if he is going to agree with you today, you will have to explain it again tomorrow. Not sure if I'd bother.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay. Isms suck.

Ya, I'd agree with that to some degree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if he is going to agree with you today, you will have to explain it again tomorrow. Not sure if I'd bother.

lol

I'd probably only try once. I guess there is no real science to socialism, so people can have whichever opinion they want....

Originally posted by inimalist
Ya, I'd agree with that to some degree.

lol

I'd probably only try once. I guess there is no real science to socialism, so people can have whichever opinion they want....

Any of the forum democrats actually voting Hillary or Obama?