Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Rich Germans demand higher taxes

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 4:58:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

I f*cking love this. If only rich people in America would be be less selfish. Hell, I'd be happy if they merely stopped avoiding taxes! :D
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:01:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lol, I saw this a couple days ago, and one part of it caught my eye as the funniest:

"Mr Vollmer said it was "really strange that so few people came"."

Really? Its that strange? I can think of a few reasons why not many showed up!

But it is pretty cool what they're doing. It goes against the usual assumption that "the rich only want to be richer." Clearly, there exists a strain where some don't care.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:14:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The group held a demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake banknotes into the air.

Mr Vollmer said it was "really strange that so few people came".

Fail #2.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:19:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why haven't they handed over their money to the government themselves? No government would turn it away. Because they are lying about not wanting their own money-- they just want it less than they want to get rid of the money of their peers, presumably. They don't make very good liars for that matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:35:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 5:19:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Why haven't they handed over their money to the government themselves? No government would turn it away. Because they are lying about not wanting their own money-- they just want it less than they want to get rid of the money of their peers, presumably. They don't make very good liars for that matter.

Where's the government money drop-boxes?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:42:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In the US, at least,several governors set up explicit "Tax me more funds," and you can also mail money to the US Treasury to be used to service the debt. I highly doubt a government will refuse money mailed to the Treasury.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:44:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 5:42:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In the US, at least,several governors set up explicit "Tax me more funds," and you can also mail money to the US Treasury to be used to service the debt. I highly doubt a government will refuse money mailed to the Treasury.

Right, Germany ragnar.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:47:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not German. This is why I used the US examples.

You're welcome to mail money to the German Treasury and see if they refuse it. In the meantime it is highly implausible that they would.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:12:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
R_R, you're quite missing the point. I'm sure that these people may actually do such a thing if it exists in Germany, but they're activists - they're trying to spread a message not only to the government, but to others as well. You may not agree with their goals, but they're trying to raise awareness, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:20:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Raise awareness of what? Of the fact that what they say they mean and what they do mean are very different things?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:23:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 6:20:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Raise awareness of what? Of the fact that what they say they mean and what they do mean are very different things?

Raise awareness of what they want to happen, or deliver whatever message they think is worth delivering. You also don't know whether or not they're practice what they preach.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:28:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited "a lot of money I do not need".

What they practice bears no relation to this preaching about the state of his life. Asking for higher taxes is not a response to money one does not need, it is a response to money someone else has. The only coherent response to such a reason, given that it is presented as an exclusive reason, is to donate-- not to be an activist for someone else's money.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:45:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 6:28:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What they practice bears no relation to this preaching about the state of his life. Asking for higher taxes is not a response to money one does not need, it is a response to money someone else has. The only coherent response to such a reason, given that it is presented as an exclusive reason, is to donate-- not to be an activist for someone else's money.

This is just from your view, R_R. Note, your view probably has little traction among those that are advocating for this increase in taxes. "Coherent responses" to you may not be the coherent responses to others.

Plus, I don't think they're literally expecting something to occur - they're raising awareness, and hoping that others will also join them. Maybe they'll be content with government drop-off boxes, maybe they won't - the entire point right now though, is to raise awareness about the issues, which is what this event did.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:04:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 6:45:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 6:28:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What they practice bears no relation to this preaching about the state of his life. Asking for higher taxes is not a response to money one does not need, it is a response to money someone else has. The only coherent response to such a reason, given that it is presented as an exclusive reason, is to donate-- not to be an activist for someone else's money.

This is just from your view, R_R. Note, your view probably has little traction among those that are advocating for this increase in taxes. "Coherent responses" to you may not be the coherent responses to others.
Don't give me the subjective universe spiel. Either reason out the step between being dissatisfied with an excess of one's own money and declaring a tax on everyone rather than on oneself. Or don't.


Plus, I don't think they're literally expecting something to occur - they're raising awareness, and hoping that others will also join them.
How is having hopes higher than one's expectations exculpatory here?

Maybe they'll be content with government drop-off boxes, maybe they won't
I'm 99.9% sure that they won't. The .1% is only on the off chance that they are very stupid people who have no idea how to get from point A to point satisfaction, because that sort of thing is fairly easy to get-- no one would resist it.

- the entire point right now though, is to raise awareness about the issues, which is what this event did.
Taxes are things people are very, very aware of. If that is the point it is a silly one, and does not require calling for higher taxes. And good for them on that account at least, the "Raising awareness" stuff when used without further qualification is a line of bull used by two groups of people-- those who wish to disguise what they advocate, and those who don't know what to advocate and want someone to tell them what to do. I approve of neither. One may reasonably wish to raise awareness in a specific demographic that is predisposed to side with them-- on an issue people are genuinely not aware of, among which taxes are not included. -- But raising awareness is not an end in itself.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:29:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:04:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Don't give me the subjective universe spiel. Either reason out the step between being dissatisfied with an excess of one's own money and declaring a tax on everyone rather than on oneself. Or don't.

They were not declaring a tax on everyone other than themselves - they said that they would like to see a tax, once they had enough signers for this petition. Hence why they held the event in the first place - in order to get more support because of raised awareness, not only from elected politicians but possibly from others within their same income bracket.

If anything, the fact that the event has been held will mean that there will be some notice from politicians, and they may set up the 'government drop box' - but the point is to state their goals, and have them known. We're not discussing whether or not that view is correct, we're discussing whether or not the aim of this little stunt was justified.

How is having hopes higher than one's expectations exculpatory here?

Hope is driving factor of aim.

I'm 99.9% sure that they won't. The .1% is only on the off chance that they are very stupid people who have no idea how to get from point A to point satisfaction, because that sort of thing is fairly easy to get-- no one would resist it.

No one resists satisfaction, eh? Tell than to the various men and woman of God that have given up their lives to serve a "higher power," even if it means giving some very satisfying things. There is many reasons someone would resist satisfaction.

But, either way, you cannot say that they will not be satisfied with actions taken for certain.

Taxes are things people are very, very aware of. If that is the point it is a silly one, and does not require calling for higher taxes.

This is quite a swing-and-miss for you, Ragnar. Yes, people are quite aware of taxes - but the existence of taxes is not what these people were advocating. Had you really read the article, which I'm fairly sure you haven't, you would notice that they were advocating how these taxes should be used, alongside with their feelings of responsibility - both things that many are unaware of, and is not simply the pronouncement of "taxes exist."

And good for them on that account at least, the "Raising awareness" stuff when used without further qualification is a line of bull used by two groups of people-- those who wish to disguise what they advocate, and those who don't know what to advocate and want someone to tell them what to do. I approve of neither.

Despite your rather cynical view, this is not the case. By "raising awareness," people are advocating the issues and views they want others to know about; sometimes their is an alternative reason behind it, but other times there is not. Either way, the stated goal of being an activist is fairly clear - I want my views known, I want my issues heard, and through that, I want to influence the opinion of others.

But raising awareness is not an end in itself.

BS. It is a goal by which people need to hit in order for them to proceed further with other goals, or a goal simply to be hit in order to be satisfied with their actions.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:47:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:29:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:04:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Don't give me the subjective universe spiel. Either reason out the step between being dissatisfied with an excess of one's own money and declaring a tax on everyone rather than on oneself. Or don't.

They were not declaring a tax on everyone other than themselves
I said everyone RATHER than oneself. Look at it carefully, there is a meaningful difference.

they said that they would like to see a tax
If you are attempting to distinguish it from the part I said about taxes-- you failed. If you are attempting to distinguish from declaring-- this is irrelevant and you know it. There is no moral difference between advocacy and declaration, the latter is the same action by a person with more power.


If anything, the fact that the event has been held will mean that there will be some notice from politicians, and they may set up the 'government drop box'
I'm fairly certain Germany already has some sort of postal service, and something analogous to the treasury. This, frankly accomplishes the same end.

I can't seem to find proof, because I do not speak German and the address of such a place is not generally considered important for non-German speakers to be able to look up. But Germany has a functioning state, these things tend to go hand in hand with that.

- but the point is to state their goals, and have them known. We're not discussing whether or not that view is correct, we're discussing whether or not the aim of this little stunt was justified.

I'm 99.9% sure that they won't. The .1% is only on the off chance that they are very stupid people who have no idea how to get from point A to point satisfaction, because that sort of thing is fairly easy to get-- no one would resist it.

No one resists satisfaction, eh?
No one resists "tax me more funds." As far as can tell. Sorry for any ambiguity.

Taxes are things people are very, very aware of. If that is the point it is a silly one, and does not require calling for higher taxes.

This is quite a swing-and-miss for you, Ragnar. Yes, people are quite aware of taxes - but the existence of taxes is not what these people were advocating. Had you really read the article, which I'm fairly sure you haven't, you would notice that they were advocating how these taxes should be used , alongside with their feelings of responsibility - both things that many are unaware of
Who in the hell is unaware that people exist who want moar taxes and who consider success, like a crime, to incur obligations? Of those, how many pay attention to events like this anyway?
And yes, I read it, it's a fairly short article.

, and is not simply the pronouncement of "taxes exist."

And good for them on that account at least, the "Raising awareness" stuff when used without further qualification is a line of bull used by two groups of people-- those who wish to disguise what they advocate, and those who don't know what to advocate and want someone to tell them what to do. I approve of neither.

Despite your rather cynical view, this is not the case. By "raising awareness," people are advocating the issues and views they want others to know about;
Meaning the latter is what they after. Awareness is incidental and should not be cited as a goal.


But raising awareness is not an end in itself.

BS. It is a goal by which people need to hit in order for them to proceed further with other goals
Not when people are already aware. Which they are. Especially since, quite frankly, these people aren't exactly some sort of extremists. Groups advocating "Tax the rich more" in Europe is an occurrence people who read about this sort of thing are more aware of than of their own face in the mirror
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:08:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:47:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I said everyone RATHER than oneself. Look at it carefully, there is a meaningful difference.

Where did they state this? They stated that they felt richer people had a responsibility, but not necessarily that they were going to force them - hence they had the petition, and the event.

If you are attempting to distinguish it from the part I said about taxes-- you failed. If you are attempting to distinguish from declaring-- this is irrelevant and you know it. There is no moral difference between advocacy and declaration, the latter is the same action by a person with more power.

I disagree; advocacy implies presentation of an idea, while a declaration implies the idea to be an absolute. For example:

"I advocate universal healthcare being implemented."

"I declare universal healthcare to be implemented."

There is a major moral difference; one is an opinion being expressed, while the other is an opinion being forced.

I'm fairly certain Germany already has some sort of postal service, and something analogous to the treasury. This, frankly accomplishes the same end.

"Accomplishes the same end" is sometimes not good enough, even though it probably wouldn't anyways.

No one resists "tax me more funds." As far as can tell. Sorry for any ambiguity.

Some might.

Who in the hell is unaware that people exist who want moar taxes and who consider success, like a crime, to incur obligations? Of those, how many pay attention to events like this anyway?

Not everyone is as "clued in" as you are. Most of the public in fact views richer people to be money-grubbing, selfish a-holes. This event proves otherwise, one of the reasons I'm sure it made the news as well.

Meaning the latter is what they after. Awareness is incidental and should not be cited as a goal.

I disagree with that view; I believe it should be, because it is the aim of many. Some are satisfied with simply creating awareness; personally, I am myself.

Not when people are already aware. Which they are. Especially since, quite frankly, these people aren't exactly some sort of extremists. Groups advocating "Tax the rich more" in Europe is an occurrence people who read about this sort of thing are more aware of than of their own face in the mirror

Except the difference is that this group is the rich advocating that same thing. There is quite a bit of difference in many minds.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:19:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:08:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:47:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I said everyone RATHER than oneself. Look at it carefully, there is a meaningful difference.

Where did they state this? They stated that they felt richer people had a responsibility, but not necessarily that they were going to force them
They said tax. So yes, they did say force. Force is an element inherent to the definition of tax.


If you are attempting to distinguish it from the part I said about taxes-- you failed. If you are attempting to distinguish from declaring-- this is irrelevant and you know it. There is no moral difference between advocacy and declaration, the latter is the same action by a person with more power.

I disagree; advocacy implies presentation of an idea, while a declaration implies the idea to be an absolute. For example:

"I advocate universal healthcare being implemented."

"I declare universal healthcare to be implemented."

There is a major moral difference; one is an opinion being expressed, while the other is an opinion being forced.
Universal health care, as the phrase is usually meant, IS force (if one has lots of money and wants to donate to a charity that can afford universal health care, that's a different story, but "declaring it to be implemented" in that instance would also not be force-- it would simply be committing vast sums of money. To advocate the use of force is to take on moral responsibility for the act of force. One has responsibility for all one's opinions.


I'm fairly certain Germany already has some sort of postal service, and something analogous to the treasury. This, frankly accomplishes the same end.

"Accomplishes the same end" is sometimes not good enough
What end is it that one wants to achieve when one is not satisfied when the end is accomplished?

No one resists "tax me more funds." As far as can tell. Sorry for any ambiguity.

Some might.
Who?
And are they other than "no one" electorally speaking?


Who in the hell is unaware that people exist who want moar taxes and who consider success, like a crime, to incur obligations? Of those, how many pay attention to events like this anyway?

Not everyone is as "clued in" as you are. Most of the public in fact views richer people to be money-grubbing, selfish a-holes. This event proves otherwise
True, it proves that a small number of rich are more interested in hating other people's fortunes than achieving their own. But I didn't know most of the public viewed that as a universal trait. Do you have a poll that shows a majority responding yes to "100% of rich people are money-grubbing selfish A-holes?"


Meaning the latter is what they after. Awareness is incidental and should not be cited as a goal.

I disagree with that view; I believe it should be, because it is the aim of many. Some are satisfied with simply creating awareness; personally, I am myself
You're satisfied with creating awareness of what you want, without ever trying to achieve it?


Not when people are already aware. Which they are. Especially since, quite frankly, these people aren't exactly some sort of extremists. Groups advocating "Tax the rich more" in Europe is an occurrence people who read about this sort of thing are more aware of than of their own face in the mirror

Except the difference is that this group is the rich advocating that same thing.
That's not really a difference, because as far as I can tell businessmen selling politicians the rope to hang them with is hardly news.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:43:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:19:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They said tax. So yes, they did say force. Force is an element inherent to the definition of tax.

That does not matter in this case; they're advocating the idea of more taxes, but saying that it should come because richer Germans want it upon themselves. It is voluntarily asking for this tax, which negates the idea of force behind taxes.

Universal health care, as the phrase is usually meant, IS force (if one has lots of money and wants to donate to a charity that can afford universal health care, that's a different story, but "declaring it to be implemented" in that instance would also not be force-- it would simply be committing vast sums of money. To advocate the use of force is to take on moral responsibility for the act of force. One has responsibility for all one's opinions.

You almost have a point, except there is still a difference; advocacy of the idea that it should be implemented differs from the action of it being implemented. If you advocate an idea, then you're asking for others to agree or disagree with the idea - if you declare it, you do not give them that option, and is more along the lines of actually implementing UHC, which is through the use of force. By advocating the idea, you advocate that it should come about with agreement. Voluntary agreement is not force.

What end is it that one wants to achieve when one is not satisfied when the end is accomplished?

I said "for some," but if I must answer this: some people do not believe that any means is plausible in order to achieve one end. The situation is similar to the use of torture; some believe that the use of torture is not right, even though the end - the obtaining of relevant information - is universally agreed to be needed.

Who?
And are they other than "no one" electorally speaking?

I don't know "who," but there is evidence that people do resist the idea of being taxed more on their funds.

Its like saying "everyone hates Hitler." No, they don't. Who doesn't? I don't know who, but I know that some exist, otherwise certain things wouldn't exist in society - birthday tributes to Hitler, for existance.

True, it proves that a small number of rich are more interested in hating other people's fortunes than achieving their own.

Funny that somehow they're not "achieving their own," even though they clearly have much money for which they have worked for.

But I didn't know most of the public viewed that as a universal trait. Do you have a poll that shows a majority responding yes to "100% of rich people are money-grubbing selfish A-holes?"

I tried to look for one and I couldn't find anything specific, though to rule it out is quite silly, as their is no evidence either way, unless you can show a poll stating the opposite, more or less.

But, unless you've been missing out on the past century or so, there is quite a lot of discontent with upper classes. That leads me to believe most view the rich in a more negative light than positive.

You're satisfied with creating awareness of what you want, without ever trying to achieve it?

Creating awareness may be what I want, because if I create awareness, then it is possible that it shall come to pass. It is more of a "passive" goal than an "active" one.

That's not really a difference, because as far as I can tell businessmen selling politicians the rope to hang them with is hardly news.

Again with the cynical view. Do you ever stop reading Atlas Shrugged?

If the view is a popular one, and has the support and backing of at least a majority of Germans, then it will hardly kill them off.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:47:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:43:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/24/2009 8:19:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They said tax. So yes, they did say force. Force is an element inherent to the definition of tax.

That does not matter in this case; they're advocating the idea of more taxes, but saying that it should come because richer Germans want it upon themselves.
They are saying it should come to ALL because FOURTY FOUR want it upon themselves. Fourty four consenting does not mean the rest are not forced.


Universal health care, as the phrase is usually meant, IS force (if one has lots of money and wants to donate to a charity that can afford universal health care, that's a different story, but "declaring it to be implemented" in that instance would also not be force-- it would simply be committing vast sums of money. To advocate the use of force is to take on moral responsibility for the act of force. One has responsibility for all one's opinions.

You almost have a point, except there is still a difference; advocacy of the idea that it should be implemented differs from the action of it being implemented.
No, it doesn't.

If you advocate an idea, then you're asking for others to agree or disagree with the idea - if you declare it, you do not give them that option
Many ideas are declared that I disagree with. I continue to disagree with them. This option has not been removed.

and is more along the lines of actually implementing UHC, which is through the use of force. By advocating the idea, you advocate that it should come about with agreement. Voluntary agreement is not force.
If an advocate of an idea specifically states "I do not want this passed unless consent is unanimous," then maybe they'd have such an excuse. But that is not what they are stating, and that is not how democracies work. Taxes are not passed because people agree to them, they are unnecessary if everyone does agree.


What end is it that one wants to achieve when one is not satisfied when the end is accomplished?

I said "for some,"
If some, then one.

but if I must answer this: some people do not believe that any means is plausible in order to achieve one end.
Then they should amend their end accordingly.

The situation is similar to the use of torture; some believe that the use of torture is not right, even though the end - the obtaining of relevant information - is universally agreed to be needed.
Ick.

Who?
And are they other than "no one" electorally speaking?

I don't know "who," but there is evidence that people do resist the idea of being taxed more on their funds.
That's not a "tax me more fund--" i.e.-- is there evidence that people put up a resistance to governments having boxes that say "Put money in here if you feell your taxes are too low.?"

True, it proves that a small number of rich are more interested in hating other people's fortunes than achieving their own.

Funny that somehow they're not "achieving their own," even though they clearly have much money for which they have worked for.
Funny how I never said they aren't achieving it, merely that they are partially sacrificing that goal in exchange for the goal of destroying other's fortunes.


But I didn't know most of the public viewed that as a universal trait. Do you have a poll that shows a majority responding yes to "100% of rich people are money-grubbing selfish A-holes?"

I tried to look for one and I couldn't find anything specific, though to rule it out is quite silly, as their is no evidence either way, unless you can show a poll stating the opposite, more or less.
The burden of proof for the justification of an action lies first on the justifier.


But, unless you've been missing out on the past century or so, there is quite a lot of discontent with upper classes. That leads me to believe most view the rich in a more negative light than positive.
They view the majority that way, perhaps. 44 people are not likely to change this.


You're satisfied with creating awareness of what you want, without ever trying to achieve it?

Creating awareness may be what I want, because if I create awareness, then it is possible that it shall come to pass.
Then it is no longer an end in itself.


That's not really a difference, because as far as I can tell businessmen selling politicians the rope to hang them with is hardly news.

Again with the cynical view. Do you ever stop reading Atlas Shrugged?

If the view is a popular one, and has the support and backing of at least a majority of Germans, then it will hardly kill them off.
Wait wait wait.

I can think of a popular view with the support and backing of at least a majority of Germans once upon a time that QUITE LITERALLY killed people off. So that syllogism is obviously flawed (though in this case "kill" is not an exact term, even if it does harm one's prospects for living, there aren't as many bullets).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 12:28:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree that the petition was not about themselves, but about other rich people who they felt should contribute. Obviously they would be allowed to give more money if they wanted to. Or maybe they wanted their generosity to be more public, hence the petition.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 4:02:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a conservative, lowered the country's unemployment rate under 10% after years of liberal policies.

http://www.indexmundi.com...

And how was she just reelected? How does she plan to sustain this success? What helped those numbers dip?

Tax cuts, not increases.

Europe has undergone somewhat of a conservative change over the past few years, with Merkel, Sarcozy, Berlusconi (again), and even a re-emergence of Torys in Britain. Double-digit unemployment and raised taxes (even "just" on the "rich") didn't seem to solve anything there, just as it hasn't in the states.