suv_guy_19 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Are you sure we live in the same country? I'm starting to doubt it. Starting...LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Starting...LOL. When the government starts up a new program, very quickly, its main objective becomes self-preservation rather than delivering the service for which it was created. The more successful it is, the less it will be needed. It has to plan for failure in order to survive. Police know who the big drug dealers are. If they wanted to, they could shut them all down. Then they would be out of a job. Better still, legalize drugs and that would eliminate the drug trade. Welfare has created a whole class of people who have been able to live comfortably on government assistance for generations. Give these people work and the left loses an important voter block. E.I. is another example of government meddling. It is a useless program. You have to work to qualify and for seasonal workers, it simply subsidizes their employers. They can pay less because their employees do not have to put as much money away to carry them through the off season. It is meant for short-term unemployment. If you have savings, you don't need it. Why have the government hold your money and force you to jump through hoops to get it, while keeping the lion's share for themselves? If you are living from paycheck to paycheck, you will not get the money in time for it to do you any good. You will have to find another job right away. Much of the money from EI premiums goes into the government's coiffers. Why did the government start the RRSP program? You put money away tax free and then pay the taxes when you take it out. They are looking to the future. They are trying to figure out a way to do people out of their pensions. If you have several hundred thousand dollars put away, you will forfeit your pension. Also, this way, the government knows how much money you have. You will not be able to pass it on to your children when you die without them taking their cut. You like this system because it is all that you know. I can remember when it was better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 They are playing the rich against the poor. It is the rich who create jobs so that there is less poverty. The government taxes the hell out of the rich You believe that to be true, but, if you bothered to do some research, then you would know that isn't true. However, learning new ideas isn't something you do very well. The government taxes the hell out of you, but not the rich. The rich have tax lawyers, accountants and merchant banks to structure their money in such ways as to keep it out of the taxman's grasp. You have H&R Block, or Schmucksie's Insta-Tax. The lion's share of the tax money goes to administrators of useless programs. Please give examples of these programs that take more than 50% (the lion's share) of the budget. Otherwise, this is just a temper-tantrum. Here's a link to help you http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxdollar07/text/html...dollar07_e.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 The only thing that I want from the government is for them to stay away from me and leave me alone. Between myself and my wife, we paid around $100,000 in total taxes last year. I don't think that I am getting a free ride. I think that I am carrying a lot of useless sobs on my back. That is what I think. $100,000 in taxes? haven't you heard of a deduction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 You like this system because it is all that you know. I can remember when it was better. Same here in the USA. It kills me when some of these younger people think we would not survive without all these alphabet agencies. Most are less than 50 years old and have been problems since they started. How do they think people survived before them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Same here in the USA. It kills me when some of these younger people think we would not survive without all these alphabet agencies. Most are less than 50 years old and have been problems since they started. How do they think people survived before them? Because the world today is so much like the world of 50 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 (edited) You believe that to be true, but, if you bothered to do some research, then you would know that isn't true. However, learning new ideas isn't something you do very well. The government taxes the hell out of you, but not the rich. The rich have tax lawyers, accountants and merchant banks to structure their money in such ways as to keep it out of the taxman's grasp. You have H&R Block, or Schmucksie's Insta-Tax. Please give examples of these programs that take more than 50% (the lion's share) of the budget. Otherwise, this is just a temper-tantrum. Here's a link to help you http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxdollar07/text/html...dollar07_e.html A man who makes 10 million dollars a year is just one person. Even if he pays one million dollars in tax, that is a hell of a lot of money for one man to have to give the government in a year. I am not talking about percentages. If a man makes 100 million dollars a year, that should not entitle the government to take millions from him. The amount of tax that one person pays should not vary much from what another person pays. The top few percent of high income earners pay over 50% of the tax. Even if they only paid 1%, that is way more than you or I pay. There are millions of people who pay no tax. They have the same voting priveleges as the rich, who are relatively fewer in number. This will push the government to soak the rich until they just barely have enough incentive to continue creating wealth. The government really owns all businesses. They just allow the slaves to continue running them because they are good at it. They are still under the illusion that they are the proprietors, but the government is in reality. Edited July 13, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Because the world today is so much like the world of 50 years ago. You got that right. Today we have a government bigger than ever, more people dependand on the government and our biggest employment sector is the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Each and everyone of you that have a point about the government and taxes are as right as the Supreme Court Ruling is on the Gun Ban. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Each and everyone of you that have a point about the government and taxes are as right as the Supreme Court Ruling is on the Gun Ban. :shades: You would like the government to ban everything and make you buy a license for any possession. Communist philosophy states that property is theft. The government should get your paycheck and just give you an allowance. That is what it is coming to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Communist philosophy states that property is theft. Neither Marx nor Engels ever said that, or Lenin, either. Where you heard it, I have no idea, but the phrase was coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft One thing about these forums, we all get to learn a lot. Wiki is your friend, if you have the chops to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Neither Marx nor Engels ever said that, or Lenin, either. Where you heard it, I have no idea, but the phrase was coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft One thing about these forums, we all get to learn a lot. Wiki is your friend, if you have the chops to use it. Communism is government ownership of everything. There is no incentive for you to work hard because you cannot get ahead. Since 1840 was before Communism, they probably stole this phrase. If it is not Communism, what is it? It certainly is not anarchy. Under total anarchy, property would be owned as long as you were able to prevent someone else from taking it from you. There would be no law to protect you. Under total Communism, the state owns everything. You own nothing. Therefore, if you possessed something, then you must have stolen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 By the way Suv-Guy, in America somebody on that Greyhound bus would've shot that crazy guy and maybe the kid would have had a chance to live. But in Canada, where your government says you aren't allowed to have guns for self protection . . . . They said the attacker then severed his seat mate's head, displayed it and then began cutting up the body as passengers fled in horror. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395781,00.html A prime example of why average citizens should be carrying. Check mate. Case closed. Oh, and one other thing. God rest that boys soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) By the way Suv-Guy, in America somebody on that Greyhound bus would've shot that crazy guy and maybe the kid would have had a chance to live. But in Canada, where your government says you aren't allowed to have guns for self protection . . . . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395781,00.html A prime example of why average citizens should be carrying. Check mate. Case closed. Oh, and one other thing. God rest that boys soul. Where are those gun toting civilians for the 17000 murders per year that take place in the US? Edited August 2, 2008 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 BTW, I don't see a point to starting an argument that won't convince either one of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 Where are those gun toting civilians for the 17000 murders per year that take place in the US? Some data suggest that far more lives are saved in this country every year by the fact that citizens and or bystanders are armed and able to defend themselves or others than are lost due to gun violence. The problem is it is nearly impossible to find out how many times that happens and doesn't get reported or that we can conclude the action actually saved a life or only maybe saved a life. If the person is still alive we don't know if would be assailant would have killed them right? So it's easy to keep body counts and that's always the agenda of the anti-gun crowd, but they never factor in how many lives have been saved due to guns. I gurantee you the number is higher than 17 thousand a year, but who knows how high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 But in Canada, where your government says you aren't allowed to have guns for self protection . . . . Yes, you are. Canada has had stiff handgun requirements for around 80 years, or so. In recent years, security requirements have tightened, and a general firearms registry was started, but has not been a success, except for new acquisitions. Carrying permits for handguns are quite rare in Canada. People with short tempers or a predeliction for alcohol and pharma should not carry. Our laws prevent this, which saves innocent lives, but therefore we don't have citizen-defenders on the street, which costs innocent lives. On the whole, we're probably ahead. But if somebody breaks into your house, Canadians own lots of rifles and shotguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Yes, you are. Canada has had stiff handgun requirements for around 80 years, or so. In recent years, security requirements have tightened, and a general firearms registry was started, but has not been a success, except for new acquisitions. Carrying permits for handguns are quite rare in Canada. People with short tempers or a predeliction for alcohol and pharma should not carry. Our laws prevent this, which saves innocent lives, but therefore we don't have citizen-defenders on the street, which costs innocent lives. On the whole, we're probably ahead. But if somebody breaks into your house, Canadians own lots of rifles and shotguns. And if you live outside the city, you are allowed to keep a shotgun out for the unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 And if you live outside the city, you are allowed to keep a shotgun out for the unexpected. In Canada, rifles and shotguns must be locked up with trigger locks installed, and the ammo locked up separately. If you need to use the gun in a hurry, you are out of luck. Strict gun laws are invariably advocated by socialists. The reason is that as they remove peoples' freedoms bit by bit, there will come a time when the people will revolt. Removing their guns makes it easier to put down any revolt. Hitler was a socialist and he enacted strict gun laws. Criminals don't care whether guns are illegal or not. They carry them. That gives them the edge in Canada, and it gives the government the excuse to impose more "security" measures. Now, they are even talking about having people searched before they get on a bus. Next, we will have chips implanted which will be tracked by GPS. Satellite imaging could give them live video of you taking a piss behind a tree. You would be busted on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 In Canada, rifles and shotguns must be locked up with trigger locks installed, and the ammo locked up separately. If you need to use the gun in a hurry, you are out of luck. Strict gun laws are invariably advocated by socialists. The reason is that as they remove peoples' freedoms bit by bit, there will come a time when the people will revolt. Removing their guns makes it easier to put down any revolt. Hitler was a socialist and he enacted strict gun laws. Criminals don't care whether guns are illegal or not. They carry them. That gives them the edge in Canada, and it gives the government the excuse to impose more "security" measures. Now, they are even talking about having people searched before they get on a bus. Next, we will have chips implanted which will be tracked by GPS. Satellite imaging could give them live video of you taking a piss behind a tree. You would be busted on the spot. That is true, guns must be locked up. Why? So kids don't shoot themselves, something that happens far to often otherwise. Outside of the city, you are allowed to have one shotgun, unloaded , out of the case. It can't be loaded, but the ammo can be available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 FACT: The more lax the gun laws the lower the crime rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 (edited) FACT: The more lax the gun laws the lower the crime rate. FACT: Not true. Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001[108] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths. Edited August 2, 2008 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 FACT: Not true. You have nothing to back that up. Why don't you look at the states with the lowest crime rates and you will see they have the least gun laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 There are cases that show in favour of both sides. What I do know is that the Western Democracies with higher gun ownership numbers have higher murder rates, with the US being at or near the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.