Down To The Wire 2012 >>POLITICS<<

I think its for the medium to smaller companies that don't, or cannot, take advantage of the loopholes. High taxes does stifle newer business development and if you can promote that kind of growth then you can get more jobs n'stuff.

Quote me saying that. That doesn't mean the taxes caused the growth. And what kinds of businesses were growing? The larger the business the less the tax is going to impact their growth. And those are the ones that more take advantage of the loopholes too.Smaller businesses have it harder and relieving some of the taxes would help them. Yeah, I'm not talking about those kinds of companies.

I'm not saying that businesses cannot succeed with high taxes. I'm saying that a reduction in these taxes could help small to medium sized business grow by reducing their cost to operate.

Do you see why someone might think that the bugetly neutral lowering of taxes and closing of loopholes could be worthwhile?

Well I didn't, and don't, intend to defend that the policy would actually work. You asked why it was proposed and I offered what I think is the reasoning behind it.

Has there ever even been a pure democracy?You say the US isn't a democracy, but it is classified as one.I don't think "democracy" means "pure democracy".

The Economist Intelligence Unit uses the Democracy Index to classify the United States, and 24 other countries, as a Full Democracy. They include the qualities of federalism, constitutional republic, presidential system, and bicameralism within their classification as a democracy.

I wouldn't call a big company like that using an index like that to classify countries like that as being "colloquial".How much more formal could it get?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Actaully it is a formal broad classification. That's how the word Democracy is being used. Its not being used to mean pure democracy, as I said.

Yeah:

quote:

---

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture.

​

...
The countries are categorized into full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

---

Laughing isn't an argument. It seems you're the one avoiding learning. Yes, that is how the word "democracy" is used, as I've been saying.

As I replied: Please note your avoidance behavior.

My point is that when people say that the US is a democracy, they are not saying that it is pure democracy where everyone votes on everything.

I wanted to ask the question, and I'm still wondering, has there even been an actual pure democracy? Is technically precise better than actual usage?(didn't you argue that a bison is a buffalo because that's how people say it?) That's fine, this semantic argument only came up because someone else said that only uneducated people would call the US a democracy in a formal sense and I found that hard to believe (and it turned out to be wrong).But you also said that the US isn't a democracy. I think that's a little misinformation if you're gonna go by the technical precise definition when its in conflict with the acutal usage. Has there ever been a pure democracy? I honestly don't know.

I disagree. Saying the sun moves about the Earth is factually wrong but saying the US is a democracy is not.I don't think that's using the term incorrectly either. "Democracy" doesn't mean "pure (or direct) democracy".