nmoore63 wrote: The MASSIVE improvement in the material lives of the worlds poor is nothing to laugh at.
It is when you’re drinking that low-info Democrat kool-aid.
/shrug
nmoore63 wrote: The MASSIVE improvement in the material lives of the worlds poor is nothing to laugh at.
Or is it?nmoore63 wrote:The MASSIVE improvement in the material lives of the worlds poor is nothing to laugh at.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Oh, good.
As long as World Bank says their poverty isn't extreme, I guess everything is aces.
Sartre wrote:A spoiled child isn't sad; he's bored, like a king. Like a dog.
interesting. I think taxing savings is bonkers and so is an inheritance tax.Martin Hash wrote:Progressive tax rates apply to individuals wanting to buy a bigger yacht. I propose zero business taxes, and zero taxes on money that is invested into business that employees people. So a billionaire can become an even bigger billionaire faster than ever before... On paper. OF COURSE, there would need to be an Inheritance Tax, otherwise aristrocracy.clubgop wrote:We talking about people or we talking about you? Cause people sure as will stop or be curtailed by 250,000 over a million. How the fuck are you supposed to take a risk and bet big when all you can guarantee is some stunted return? How are going to get a loan with a business plan that is 1/4 of what it was?Martin Hash wrote: People don’t stop giving it their all because they only get $250K instead of a $million, and they certainly won’t slow down because they’re only getting $10 million instead of $100.
I mean, I guess, if you want to laugh at the fact that billions of people's standard of living has massively increased over the last 50 years...Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Or is it?nmoore63 wrote:The MASSIVE improvement in the material lives of the worlds poor is nothing to laugh at.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Oh, good.
As long as World Bank says their poverty isn't extreme, I guess everything is aces.
Sartre wrote:A spoiled child isn't sad; he's bored, like a king. Like a dog.
You mean the US? Which is a Republic?Martin Hash wrote:It's like no one understands how democracy works. Or maybe I don't understand?
Indeed, it's theoretically possible for a republic to use direct democracy instead of representative democracy, especially now with the state of communications networks and transportation networks. One could argue the entire reason for a representative democracy has been made moot by technology, and it now only serves as a tool for corruption and oligarchies.A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through elections expressing the consent of the governed. Such leadership positions are therefore expected to fairly represent the citizen body. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.
A Democratic Republic was ancient Athens, white ball-black ball, a Representative Constitutional Republic, it wasn't.Speaker to Animals wrote:Democratic republic.
Did you just assume that democracy works?Martin Hash wrote:It's like no one understands how democracy works. Or maybe I don't understand?