I guess the li'l one made a habit of pickin' on the big one. Probably not any more. 'Specially not with that newly gimped up leg. ;)
Take that toughguy.
He's VERY lucky the big guy didn't throw him down so that his head hit the ledge.
Very nice work on the part of the older girl, telling the other guy to back off. She probably saved a life or two.
"Then he said unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences wil come: but woe unto him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than than he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:1-2 (offences here is commonly translated as stumbling block, something that causes you to fall)
Nicely done!
Shoulda kicked the little bastard while he was down.
Excessive. It would also make the kid a lot less awesome.
It's one thing to fall someone down with a single hit and walk away silently and completely another to go all psycho on him.
Shoulda kicked the little bastard while he was down.
Excessive. It would also make the kid a lot less awesome.
It's one thing to fall someone down with a single hit and walk away silently and completely another to go all psycho on him.
Yeah, but if people think you're crazy, then nobody will pick on you.
And, evidently, awesome is in the eye of the beholder. A swift kick in the groin on the floored little punk would have just been a nice punctuation mark on the encounter.
Shoulda kicked the little bastard while he was down.
Excessive. It would also make the kid a lot less awesome.
It's one thing to fall someone down with a single hit and walk away silently and completely another to go all psycho on him.
Yeah, but if people think you're crazy, then nobody will pick on you.
And, evidently, awesome is in the eye of the beholder. A swift kick in the groin on the floored little punk would have just been a nice punctuation mark on the encounter.
A swift one-liner or simple disinterest stings more. Following up with an attack would just strip the kid of the badass vibe and make the other bullies go defend their comrade rather than stand there with their mouths open.
Too bad all the kid could come up with was "Having trouble getting up?" though.
Yeah, but if people think you're crazy, then nobody will pick on you.
They also won't pick on you if you are known to body slam people onto concrete. I think the kid will be fine ;)
You have to wait till they get up and try to take another swing at you. You just stand there waiting casually, until they get up and swing at you. Then you dump them on their ass again.
If they stay down or get up and walk away, you leave it alone and act like it didn't happen.
If they get up and swing on you, you drop them again, and again, and again until they either stay down or walk away. But you never hit them when they're down.
You only do that when it's a serious fight and you need to take the guy out quick, rather than just some fool giving you static.
As a former "big kid", I learned quickly that just viciously beating the hell out of someone like a psycho doesn't get the point across. You need to casually drop them on their head every single time they come at you, time after time, until it finally sinks in that no matter what they do to you, they can't get you to give a damn about them.
When they realize that they can't get any other reaction out of you except your impression of a horse absentmindedly swatting flies with its tail, they'll eventually get bored and wander off.
I looked around a bit, and it turns out the guy has a website dedicated to him, and several facebook groups supporting him (apparently, he got suspended for the incident).
I'm normally against violence, but I'm even more against bullying, and he did the right thing, as did the girl interfering. And I admire his restraint in walking away afterwards.
I looked around a bit, and it turns out the guy has a website dedicated to him, and several facebook groups supporting him (apparently, he got suspended for the incident).
I'm normally against violence, but I'm even more against bullying, and he did the right thing, as did the girl interfering. And I admire his restraint in walking away afterwards.
Yeah. You can no longer be a kid and just have a fight or confrontation anymore. Schools have gotten so out of whack that they suspend, ticket, expel, send to therapy any kid who might, maybe, possibly have an issue. The result is that kids are forced to repress things in order not to get in serious trouble. Later, when those kids pull out a bunch of guns and blow half a class away, the same teachers and beaurocrats that created the problem in the first place, scratch their heads and make it worse with new, tighter regulations that only exacerbate the problem and cause MORE school shootings to happen down the road.
In the meantime...
Did anyone else hear the crack of the bones when his leg hit the ledge?
I heard something. it wouldn't surprise me if it was a bone breaking though. As we've seen from past news events, young people imitating pro wrestling moves can result in serious injury and death. Especially on concrete (I mean Damn! that had to hurt) as compared to the flex-mat used by the pros.
Hell. Yes. Wish I tried something like that a few years ago, maybe I wouldn't be such a screwup now.
The unfortunate truth is you probably would have ended up in jail. When I was in high school a footbal player tried to push me down the stairs. I pinned him against the wall with my elbow in his throat and my father got called to school. The school councilor told him I was dangerous, and I almost got suspended.
If you don't stand up for yourself you get picked on. If you do stand up for yourself then you must be a dangerous psycho. What happened to the gym teacher taking two fighting boys to the gym, giving them headgear, gloves, and mouthguards, and letting them work it out under adult supervision?
Hell. Yes. Wish I tried something like that a few years ago, maybe I wouldn't be such a screwup now.
The unfortunate truth is you probably would have ended up in jail. When I was in high school a footbal player tried to push me down the stairs. I pinned him against the wall with my elbow in his throat and my father got called to school. The school councilor told him I was dangerous, and I almost got suspended.
If you don't stand up for yourself you get picked on. If you do stand up for yourself then you must be a dangerous psycho. What happened to the gym teacher taking two fighting boys to the gym, giving them headgear, gloves, and mouthguards, and letting them work it out under adult supervision?
Yeah, that was my reasoning at the time. Ended up with me considering myself a bloody coward, but c'est la vie. *sigh* Why did we have to stop being reasonable?
Hell. Yes. Wish I tried something like that a few years ago, maybe I wouldn't be such a screwup now.
The unfortunate truth is you probably would have ended up in jail. When I was in high school a footbal player tried to push me down the stairs. I pinned him against the wall with my elbow in his throat and my father got called to school. The school councilor told him I was dangerous, and I almost got suspended.
If you don't stand up for yourself you get picked on. If you do stand up for yourself then you must be a dangerous psycho. What happened to the gym teacher taking two fighting boys to the gym, giving them headgear, gloves, and mouthguards, and letting them work it out under adult supervision?
Yeah, that was my reasoning at the time. Ended up with me considering myself a bloody coward, but c'est la vie. *sigh* Why did we have to stop being reasonable?
Because bullies cry like the whiny little runts they are when you stomp them, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Not that I think this is particularly educating either, though. But I bet it felt real good for the kid and I think they'll at least leave him alone for a while now. They'll probably just find someone even weaker to pick on.
That just makes it assault, and probably doesn't help much.
Not that I think this is particularly educating either, though. But I bet it felt real good for the kid and I think they'll at least leave him alone for a while now. They'll probably just find someone even weaker to pick on.
It's assault with his word vs someone that probably has a well established track record for violence.
In either case he shouldn't have been suspended. If a man swings at you on the street, and you curbstomp him one, it's called Self Defense. You probably won't even see the inside of a police station beyond, filling out your statement, to press charges On Him.
It's assault with his word vs someone that probably has a well established track record for violence.
Whether or not you are arrested or punished for it is irrelevant to the fact that it's assault.
Teaching people that actions are only as bad as the punishment they recieve for it makes them into worse people then the bullies they take down.
It shouldn't matter whether or not you get caught or punished for assaulting someone; you shouldn't even consider doing it because it's wrong. Turning into a person worse then the one you're punishing is not exactly improving the general situation.
Anyway; turning yourself into a bad person imho is worse then turning yourself into a victim. Regardless; the school's response in this case is minor punishment to the victim for seriously hurting someone and more punishment to the bully, so I'd say that's kinda fair.
You don't want to tell kids "Feel free to break some bones, you're the victim so we won't punish you" but you also don't want to tell them "If you punch some guy who's been tormenting you we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks".
I think they're striking the wrong kind of balance; violence won't be condoned but we'll cut you some slack because the $#@%er deserved it.
The gal's kid got lucky he wasn't suspended for kicking a kid that tried to take him down. Hell, he even insulted the kid before the kid charged. The kid was a problem, though, and that likely had something to do with it. I'm just happy they didn't use that zero tolerance BS in his case. They definitely should not have used it in this kid's case. What the hell was he supposed to do? Just let them video his beating? Morons. These are the people we've put in charge of educating our youth. People too ****ing stupid to see that a suspension wasn't warranted. Too ****ing stupid to understand that zero tolerance is stupid. Too ****ing stupid to see that punshing a kid for defending himself is bass ackwards. Morons.
I read a comment somewhere that said the little one earned a concussion and broken ankle for his troubles. I don't know if that's true or not, though. Don't care if it is. Li'l jerk.
The school basically told this kid that the next time this happens, he better just take it. Otherwise he'll be suspended. And this isn't a case of convoluted 'he said/he said' stories. There's clear video evidence. It was an attack that was defended. Period. You simply cannot punish someone for defending themselves in kind. He didn't stab the kid. He didn't go after him when he was down. He simply neutralized a threat and walked away. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not something the kid should have been punished for.
I'll just leave it here...
The ex-professor was unable to sue for slander (the blogger told the truth), so instead sued him for other minor things which basically amounted to "I'm mad you told people about the bad things I did!". The jury awarded him $60,000.
[link]
Not entirely sure why ZB's comment made me think of that, but there ya have it.
Found in comments of this video reposted on YouTube that the bully's ankle is broken and that Casey Heynes may be seeing legal action against him.
I'll just leave it here...
Soemthing tells me the bully's attourney is gonna fight pretty hard to keep that video out of the courtroom. Meh, hopefully the jury isn't a bunch of idiots and will see this as self-defense. You know, exactly what it was.
I'm reminded of a recent story I read in which an online blogger drew attention to a new professor's connection to a mortgage-fraud scam, which resulted in the professor being fired.
The ex-professor was unable to sue for slander (the blogger told the truth), so instead sued him for other minor things which basically amounted to "I'm mad you told people about the bad things I did!". The jury awarded him $60,000.
[link]
Not entirely sure why ZB's comment made me think of that, but there ya have it.
Blech. That's just awful. Punshing the consequence, sorta. I do not like this.
Found in comments of this video reposted on YouTube that the bully's ankle is broken and that Casey Heynes may be seeing legal action against him.
I'll just leave it here...
Soemthing tells me the bully's attourney is gonna fight pretty hard to keep that video out of the courtroom. Meh, hopefully the jury isn't a bunch of idiots and will see this as self-defense. You know, exactly what it was.
An attorney worth his salt wouldn't even take the case...
At any rate, any jury worth its salt will quickly see it for what it is and almost immediately find the kid not guilty... and hopefully make the plaintiff pay the court costs, fees, and possibly the defendants attorney bill...
I think the poor kid's in for a rough time in the courts. Even though he should win easily because of self-defense.
Just out of curiousity, when's the last time the US legal system has been rational and/or made sense?
Immaterial. This happened in Australia.
Does the Australian legal system work the same as the US one? Otherwise I think his chances might be a lot better.
Reading fail
Does the Australian legal system work the same as the US one? Otherwise I think his chances might be a lot better.
Never pass up a cheap shot at the US, huh plu?
Fortunately many Americans seem to agree that their legal system is a bit wobbly, so at least it's based on something.I don't have enough faith in other people for most legal systems, let alone one that lets untrained random morons decide guilty or innocent.
I don't have enough faith in other people for most legal systems, let alone one that lets untrained random morons decide guilty or innocent.
You mean a jury?
As opposed to having no trial at all, and being judged by some administrator appointed by the government instead of elected by the people?
Really?
Can you make my opinion of you go any lower?
And I am confident that my countrys legal system is leaps and bounds better than most.
*shrug*
Saying the legal system in the US is ****ed up isn't a cheap shot. It's simple truth.
And everywhere else is perfect or close too it, right?
As opposed to having no trial at all, and being judged by some administrator appointed by the government instead of elected by the people?
The only one I've heard on these boards that wants to hang people without a trial has been you, actually.
The basic idea is you have a trial, where guilty or innocent is decided by a trained judge, who knows the laws of the land himself, and who's been specifically trained in passing judgement, and who is closely monitored to make sure he is both fair and just.
It's not ideal, but at least it's better then a bunch of random smucks, half of which probably have never seen the inside of a lawbook. And to add, as Z_B mentioned recently, the fact that the only people that do jury duty are the ones that are too dumb to get out of it.
And everywhere else is perfect or close too it, right?
I'm pretty sure I neither said nor implied that.
The US legal system is the only one I've ever known, and I believe it's the best (yes, I'm biased), but it could use some improvement. Particularly with reguard to all the frivolous lawsuits that run rampant, netting the wrong people millions of dollars.
As opposed to having no trial at all, and being judged by some administrator appointed by the government instead of elected by the people?
The only one I've heard on these boards that wants to hang people without a trial has been you, actually.
No I didn't. I did not communicate my intent as well as I should have. I then clarified what I was meaning to say. And you were in on that thread plu, so you already know this. You're only case by bringing it up again now is simply to bait me. Nice try.
The basic idea is you have a trial, where guilty or innocent is decided by a trained judge, who knows the laws of the land himself, and who's been specifically trained in passing judgement, and who is closely monitored to make sure he is both fair and just.
And judges are elected by the people... at least they are in the US. And the judge instructs the jury on the intent and interpretation of law. A jury decides guilt or innocence, not the judge. A judge imposes sentences.
It's not ideal, but at least it's better then a bunch of random smucks, half of which probably have never seen the inside of a lawbook. And to add, as Z_B mentioned recently, the fact that the only people that do jury duty are the ones that are too dumb to get out of it.
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law. You have simply shown your ignorance of the US legal system.
I would much rather be judged by a jury of my peers than by some administrator appointed by the gov't...
*shrug*
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
Any group of people randomly chosen with more then 5 people in it contains at least one schmuck. That´s just how many there are.
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law. You have simply shown your ignorance of the US legal system.
You have great faith in people, to think that they understand the complexities of the law so easily, provided they even have the strength of character to ask them and show that they don't know something.
I would much rather be judged by a jury of my peers than by some administrator appointed by the gov't...
I can imagine. As long as you think like the masses, look like the masses, and act like the masses, you are more likely to be judged favorably by them. Judges on the other hand are trained to look through that kind of thing, which is why I prefer someone with actual knowledge and experience.
Topical!
Yes, I have faith in my fellow man. Much more than I do in some bureaucrat appointed by gov't. That stinks like communism or socialism.
You put waaayyyyy too much trust and faith in gov't. Much more than is deserved.
It shouldn't be assault. He defended himself from an assault. And assault is something he'd be criminally charged with. It's got little to do with a civil suit.
Right.
In any case, the asshat kid will get nothing.
See, it's his own fault he got broke. If not for his actions, he wouldn't have got broke. he is responsible, not the kid defending himself. The video will leave no doubt about it. Actually, I don't see this going to court.
It also helps that there are no criminal charges against the defender. If there was, the case would have more weight in civil court. As it is, even if criminal charges are sought against the defender, any prosecuter worth his salt would drop the case since it is clearly a case of self-defense.
@ plu...
Yes, I have faith in my fellow man. Much more than I do in some bureaucrat appointed by gov't. That stinks like communism or socialism.
You put waaayyyyy too much trust and faith in gov't. Much more than is deserved.
'sfunny, because those bureaucrats and the government are also your fellow man. That you're putting trust in.
And judges are elected by the people... at least they are in the US.
So is the government.
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law.
Judging from the media, jury duty is something US citizens hate with a passion when it happens to them. So you end up being judged by 12 angry people who would rather be anywhere else and you're the reason they're here...
@ plu...
Yes, I have faith in my fellow man. Much more than I do in some bureaucrat appointed by gov't. That stinks like communism or socialism.
Wait, what? How does it have anything to do with socialism?!
And that kind of law system is way older than communism.
here the law is pretty twisted. If someone attacks me and I defend myself, I can sue the guy who attacked me, but he can also sue me if I defended myself violently. No kidding.
That's what I like to call '****ing stupid'.
It used to be like that here and, in some states, I'm pretty sure it still is. Where I live, though, we have Castle Doctrine which protects homeowners from litigation as a result of them defending themselves. If you are attacked in your home and kill your attacker, there's nothing anyone can do about it. That's something I'm all sorts of for as it's damned ****ed up to get sued cuz you hurt someone you'd never have hurt had they not been trying to hurt you.He said that if either one of those kids were ours, he'd show that video to him every day to analyze what he did right/wrong.
And judges are elected by the people... at least they are in the US.
So is the government.
Some governments are, some are not. And judge elections are a local affair, which also make a big difference.
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law.
Judging from the media, jury duty is something US citizens hate with a passion when it happens to them. So you end up being judged by 12 angry people who would rather be anywhere else and you're the reason they're here...
I would say the majority of people who actually end up on a jury take the duty and situation seriously and with thought. So, because you saw it on the "media", you believe that the majority of people on jury duty hate it with a passion, and take out their discontent on the defendant?
Really?
@ plu...
Yes, I have faith in my fellow man. Much more than I do in some bureaucrat appointed by gov't. That stinks like communism or socialism.
Wait, what? How does it have anything to do with socialism?!
And that kind of law system is way older than communism.
*shrug*
Communist govt officials are usually appointed, not elected. I believe the same is true of socialist govt's as well, I believe. In any case, neither have elections that can remotely be called fair and the only choices are comrade A or comrade B.
And judges are elected by the people... at least they are in the US.
So is the government.
Some governments are, some are not.
But governments are elected in the US. Except of W. Bush who was appointed by the Supreme Court.
Yes, I mean to say, judges were likely appointed rather than elected under communist and dictatorial govt's. In the US, they are elected by the people of their jurisdiction and are rather more well known.
I would say the majority of people who actually end up on a jury take the duty and situation seriously and with thought. So, because you saw it on the "media", you believe that the majority of people on jury duty hate it with a passion, and take out their discontent on the defendant?
Really?
If they'd shown it on Fox, you'd believe the same thing
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law.
Judging from the media, jury duty is something US citizens hate with a passion when it happens to them. So you end up being judged by 12 angry people who would rather be anywhere else and you're the reason they're here...
I would say the majority of people who actually end up on a jury take the duty and situation seriously and with thought. So, because you saw it on the "media", you believe that the majority of people on jury duty hate it with a passion, and take out their discontent on the defendant?
Really?
Actually... yes. I have no first-hand experience with Americans appointed jury duty. All I know about it is from TV and the internet. And it's usually presented as an unpleasant experience everyone tries to get out of. So yeah
I would say the majority of people who actually end up on a jury take the duty and situation seriously and with thought. So, because you saw it on the "media", you believe that the majority of people on jury duty hate it with a passion, and take out their discontent on the defendant?
Really?
If they'd shown it on Fox, you'd believe the same thing
Bait someone else plu.
So, citizens of the US are random schmucks? Or do you mean just the people who are selected to jury duty?
The jury is instructed by the judge in interperting the law, and the jury is free to ask the judge questions about the law.
Judging from the media, jury duty is something US citizens hate with a passion when it happens to them. So you end up being judged by 12 angry people who would rather be anywhere else and you're the reason they're here...
I would say the majority of people who actually end up on a jury take the duty and situation seriously and with thought. So, because you saw it on the "media", you believe that the majority of people on jury duty hate it with a passion, and take out their discontent on the defendant?
Really?
Actually... yes. I have no first-hand experience with Americans appointed jury duty. All I know about it is from TV and the internet. And it's usually presented as an unpleasant experience everyone tries to get out of. So yeah
Well, that's half the problem right there.
As opposed to having no trial at all, and being judged by some administrator appointed by the government instead of elected by the people?
The only one I've heard on these boards that wants to hang people without a trial has been you, actually.
The basic idea is you have a trial, where guilty or innocent is decided by a trained judge, who knows the laws of the land himself, and who's been specifically trained in passing judgement, and who is closely monitored to make sure he is both fair and just.
It's not ideal, but at least it's better then a bunch of random smucks, half of which probably have never seen the inside of a lawbook. And to add, as Z_B mentioned recently, the fact that the only people that do jury duty are the ones that are too dumb to get out of it.
The laws of the land need to be as simple as possible, so that there is little to no confusion on the part of the jurors. Sadly, the legislators of the world don't seem to like simple laws; they seem to prefer complex and multilayered laws that allow them to entrap people in one crime or another.
Ayn Rand said, in Atlas Shrugged, that governments know that they cannot control law-abiding people, they can only control criminals. Therefor, they make so many laws, and make them so complex and convoluted, that no one can go through their day without violating one or more of these laws. As a Mafiosa once said to G. Gordon Liddy, "If they want ya, they gotcha."
Getting back to the kid who was bullied, if some unscrupulous lawyer takes the case, a judge with an ax to grind against the concept of self-defense just might go ahead and disallow the video.
Getting back to the kid who was bullied, if some unscrupulous lawyer takes the case, a judge with an ax to grind against the concept of self-defense just might go ahead and disallow the video.
Sadly, this is true.
I could delve further into this, but I won't...
But then there is the appeal process, which would eventually dismiss the case, but the damage caused in the interim would be... impressive?
Because people are scared and/or want vengence (not justice mind you). This is why so many carry guns.
Wow...
What can you say to ignorance of that scale?
Just... wow...
Ayn Rand
Because people are scared and/or want vengence (not justice mind you). This is why so many carry guns.
Wow...
What can you say to ignorance of that scale?
Just... wow...
You mean stuff like 3 strikes wasn't demanded by hysterical people who felt threaten by other living beings?
The same people who need guns to step out of their house?
I don't argue with children.
So I will simply say there are many, many, many more reasons that people own guns.
If it can be exploited, there will be some **** out there, exploiting the hell out of it.
Personal attacks? Really? It doesn't sound like you.
Oh! No, nothing personal, and not an attack. Perhaps just some mis-communication somewhere along the line.
And my point was that you and Iqwinn blame governments for making criminal out of ordinary people, but politicians often respond to what the public demands.
Yes, they often do, and often in ways that the public won't like... and sometimes they do "whats best", damn the public.
Sorta how, when you get a ring of 3 wishes, the GM distorts/exaggerates the wishes so that while sounding good, they screw you somehow in the end (literally and figuratively).
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws
Ayn Rand
Anarchism?
*pulls out a duffle bag* Anarchism? Cool, I've got the pipe bombs. Anyone have some molotovs?
Only a gov't woshipper like goldy believes that if the gov't needs money to balance its budget, it should tax the people more, rather than cut back on expenses (which is what ordinary folk have to do).
The Anglerfish uses bait.
@ plu...
Yes, I have faith in my fellow man. Much more than I do in some bureaucrat appointed by gov't.
I used to be like you, then 12 years of beatings and persecution for just being fat and shy beat it out of me. Sure, I eventually had enough of being peaceful (even Gandhi would have said "I can't believe a child took it for so long") and stood up for myself. What did it get me? I got labeled a dangerous psycho by my school councilor, who should have been looking out for me, and I nearly got suspended.
Now let me tell you about "my faith" in my fellow man. I have faith that every human being will either try try to hurt you for their own selfish ends, or will pursue those ends without any regard for how destructive it will be to anyone else's life. I have faith that humanity can, and probably will, live up to its worst possible potential. I have faith in the ultimate malevolence of man, and it frustrates me so much that 99 days out of 100 I HATE all people on principle.
And then there's that 1 last day out of 100. Days like these where I know that 50 men are foresaking their own lives to save their country, their families, their communities, and their honor by doing their duty to their last breath. On those days I think "maybe we're not the biggest mistake on this god-forsaken rock", and that maybe we can eventually become something better and nobler than what we are. And for all the hope that it inspires in me, I know another 99 days of soul-crushing BS is just another sunrise away.
That, is my faith in people. Courtesy of the Michigan public school system.
Really? Such as?
Undermining the 10th amendment's limitation on Federal powers by insisting that section 3 of DOMA should be defended.
(my wife, her mother, and her sisters all have Irish/Celtic genes, plus Cherokee and Chocktaw blood in their veins..you do NOT want them angry with you!)
And nowhere in the Bible does Jesus give us authority to initiate violence (or scream and shout obscenities) against you.
So you agree with what Isaid about Tea Party politicians then. They, among others, support marriages laws becasue people want it. No?
I'm not trying to get political, but the tea party itself is neurotic and doesn't understand how our government actually works. On several occasions the tea party has stated their belief that the government is (not that it should be, but that it is) confined only to those powers that are explicitly detailed in the Constitution.
And yet, Article I, section 8 of the U.S. constitution (commonly refered to as the "implied powers" clause) clearly states: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
As I've said before, I have no faith in any political party or political system. I had hopes for Ron Paul and the Tea Party, but they were quickly dashed. sigh.
Re: Marriage laws, those are the province of the states, not the Federal gov't. Always has been. The gov't needs to go back to the restrictions of the Constitution, but I fear that won't happen unless a shooting war happens. I'd much rather that such a thing didn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Tea Party started out with good intentions, but then got infiltrated by people working for the current two-headed party system.
As I've said before, I have no faith in any political party or political system. I had hopes for Ron Paul and the Tea Party, but they were quickly dashed. sigh.
Re: Marriage laws, those are the province of the states, not the Federal gov't. Always has been. The gov't needs to go back to the restrictions of the Constitution, but I fear that won't happen unless a shooting war happens. I'd much rather that such a thing didn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
The federal government's strictures superceed those of the states in areas where both have been given power. That too is in the Constitution (a full transcript of which can be found here).
that kid is stupid. Why attack a guy twce your size?
But we shuouldn't praize the fatty. He will think it is ok to be unhealthy.
So wait a minute, you are saying that we shouldn't praise the kid not because what he did was wrong but because he is over weight?
that kid is stupid. Why attack a guy twce your size?
But we shuouldn't praize the fatty. He will think it is ok to be unhealthy.
So wait a minute, you are saying that we shouldn't praise the kid not because what he did was wrong but because he is over weight?
Do you want that kid dying of a heart attack?
No, I don't but I don't intend to treat him like less than an equal just because he is overweight. It seems a bit miss guided to make him think that it is okay for others to bully him because of this issue. I think that it is more likely to cause lower selfesteme and possibly end up depressed and with more of a weight issue or god forbid suicide.
lolz...if I treated my wife like that, not only would I be divorced so fast that my head would be spinning, but her mother and her sisters would have me staked to the ground next to a hill of fire ants with honey spread all over my body...and I'd be scalped!
(my wife, her mother, and her sisters all have Irish/Celtic genes, plus Cherokee and Chocktaw blood in their veins..you do NOT want them angry with you!)
Except that wasn't the point. You compared the government to a family. While I agree that reducing spending is part of the solution to balance a budget, you do not reduce your income, you try to increase it. Which family would reduce it's income to balance their budget?
So you don't think that if taxes were lower that it would increase the amount of money that people could spend? Thus creating more sales tax and more revenue for companies that could be taxed. Also creating more demand for products that are being purchased; creating more jobs that would then create more income tax and hopefully lower the amount of money that is being paid out as welfare and/or unemployment.
So you don't think that if taxes were lower that it would increase the amount of money that people could spend?
Unless the taxes gained from the amount of money spent equal the amount of money that would be taxed in the first place, your income is still going down.
until the people get tired of that noise and decide to go to ground. Or commit suicide. Or decide to not have any children that will become cash cows for the State. Or do something else that will eventually lead to the very violent disintegration of that state of affairs, and perhaps everything else.
Also there's no such thing as "enough money", there's always more things to do. Especially for a government or research company. There's just "limited resources" to do things with. Money as such doesn't exist, it's just a combination of workforce, knowledge and available materials. Pooling those kinds of things is usually more effective then giving small lumps of them to each person.
For the same reason a big company is more effective then all its workers trying to make a living on their own, a government can be more effective then all its people hoarding their own little income. Gross incompetence of course destroys that ideal, but then gross incompetence is also seem in big companies, it's just that nobody cares what happens to the employees as long as they don't work there and they can still buy their 55" flatscreen tv when they need.
So you don't think that if taxes were lower that it would increase the amount of money that people could spend?
Unless the taxes gained from the amount of money spent equal the amount of money that would be taxed in the first place, your income is still going down.
It seems that you have pick only one of the points of extra tax money coming in, but the sales tax alone would not have to supply the entire amount.
So lets look at it from the other angle then. So increase taxes, lower the amount of money people can afford to spend. Thus less merchandise is purchased which lowers sales tax and cuts profits for the effected businesses. The businesses in turn are forced to reduce their budget so they cut jobs, resulting in less income tax. Now the predicated amount of money that would be coming in due to the increase has been lowered so another increase is required. Thus the we start again but with a smaller group of people because we now have less workers which also resulted in more welfare and unemployment benefits being paid out creating a larger strain of the budget. Kind of a vicious cycle if you ask me.
I'd have no qualms about a 80-90% income tax, under the assumption that the government provides the basic requirements for many people, food, water, gas, electricity, water, sewer connections, a place to live, internet connection, furniture, etc. With the remaining 10-20% of your income going towards what you consider most important, luxury upgrades.
Also there's no such thing as "enough money", there's always more things to do. Especially for a government or research company. There's just "limited resources" to do things with. Money as such doesn't exist, it's just a combination of workforce, knowledge and available materials. Pooling those kinds of things is usually more effective then giving small lumps of them to each person.
For the same reason a big company is more effective then all its workers trying to make a living on their own, a government can be more effective then all its people hoarding their own little income. Gross incompetence of course destroys that ideal, but then gross incompetence is also seem in big companies, it's just that nobody cares what happens to the employees as long as they don't work there and they can still buy their 55" flatscreen tv when they need.
Wow. So you are willing to abandon the capitalistic society that the country was founded on and go to the version of Communist/Socialist society that man kind can manage?
Wow. So you are willing to abandon the capitalistic society that the country was founded on and go to the version of Communist/Socialist society that man kind can manage?
I don't live in that country. So that doesn't factor into my decisions
And yeah; if it were up to me, that would be it. A cross-breed between capitalism and communism, but heavily on the communism side, with just enough capitalism so that effort and inventiveness are rewarded, but not so much that effort and inventiveness can be used to screw over other people and/or cause others to have too little to have a decent life.
I wasn't expecting to be able to penetrate the thick layers of brainwashing and indoctrination you've received, R_H. I'm afraid you're just a lost cause.
Not nearly as lost as you are plu... not nearly as lost as you...
- threat of legal action against kid
- mention that the US legal system might mean the kid loses
- counter-mention that the US legal system is awesome
- pros/cons between jury of random people vs government appointed official
- various government bashing
- taxation bashing
I think that's where we ended with the economics. The hate I think has always been there since some people take this place too seriously
Hopefully the new guys are a bit more fun. That captain_estaban sounds like a pretty good troll to me.So you don't think that if taxes were lower that it would increase the amount of money that people could spend?
Unless the taxes gained from the amount of money spent equal the amount of money that would be taxed in the first place, your income is still going down.
Taxes go down, a whole lot of people who aren't spending much start spending more and getting sales taxed. More spending equals more business for retailers. More business for retailers equal a need for more employees and more employees equals more people contributing to sales tax (retail worked usually don't make enough for income tax). More business for retailers ALSO means more income tax paid by corporations and small business owners. More business for retailers ALSO means more good purchased from wholesalers, which in turn increases their revenue that will be taxed and more employees for them. More business for wholesalers leads to more need to purchase from manufacturers and it goes on. Lower taxes means a lot of increased tax collected.
Does it equal out? Hell if I know. I doubt anyone can compute it effectively.
I'd have no qualms about a 80-90% income tax, under the assumption that the government provides the basic requirements for many people, food, water, gas, electricity, water, sewer connections, a place to live, internet connection, furniture, etc. With the remaining 10-20% of your income going towards what you consider most important, luxury upgrades.
You're either braver or a hell of a lot more foolish than I am. Given the incompetence in spending in governments around the world (including Europe), I have no faith in their ability to spend the money in a manner that would be acceptable for an 80-90% income tax. I'm simply unwilling to make that assumption in the face of decades, or in some cases, centuries of incompetent spending.
Does it equal out? Hell if I know. I doubt anyone can compute it effectively.
Yeah that's the issue probably. It's all guess-work. I can see where both sides are coming from, and I think that either way there's going to be a gap.
It feels like we're not so much running into a money problem as we are running into a resources-problem: there's just not enough stuff to do everything we need to do.
Or there's just such a complicated economics system and so many people are indepted to so many other people that there exists not enough money to pay everything off.
What was it with the story about the people stranded on the island starting a new economy? About how if you make X money, and then loan that X money to people with the requirement of them having to repay you X+1 money, you'll run into the problem that X+1 money does not exist, because you only made X.
You're either braver or a hell of a lot more foolish than I am. Given the incompetence in spending in governments around the world (including Europe), I have no faith in their ability to spend the money in a manner that would be acceptable for an 80-90% income tax. I'm simply unwilling to make that assumption in the face of decades, or in some cases, centuries of incompetent spending.
I've seen so much incompetence I'm starting to get immune to it. It exists in governments and companies alike, and they're both fouling up. But I think it's possible to do it properly, although it's going to take a lot of work.
And a rewrite of a lot of ways of thinking about issues, as well. About how to solve problems and how to make decisions and things.
I just find from looking around that I don't agree with the current way things are done, and I think that we could use a push in the more social direction. But I'm not a economist nor a politicologist (or whatever the term is) so I'm convinced enough to make serious work of it. I might be wrong, so I'll need to think and learn about it first
I've seen so much incompetence I'm starting to get immune to it. It exists in governments and companies alike, and they're both fouling up. But I think it's possible to do it properly, although it's going to take a lot of work.
Heh. I hope I never become immune to it. That way lies acceptance
I suppose it might be possible, but I simply won't vote to allow more taxes until they have proven their ability for no less than 10 consecutive years. They need to prove their ability and commitment.
I just find from looking around that I don't agree with the current way things are done, and I think that we could use a push in the more social direction. But I'm not a economist nor a politicologist (or whatever the term is) so I'm convinced enough to make serious work of it. I might be wrong, so I'll need to think and learn about it first
Fair enough.
And for those who do make money, to think they will just spend more is a bit naive. That money won't automatically find itself in the economy. Not right away. And what are we talking about 2$ a week for the average family? The ones with money who will get the thousand and million dollars taxes breaks might just funnel it outside the country. You do not get rich by spending.
You're a funny guy. Do arbitrary numbers much?
You don't believe me? Well prior to the economic crisis W. Bush lowered the taxes by one trillion dollars a year, 8 years before the crisis. Those taxes cuts are still in effect. It didn't prevent the crisis and it didn't help the economy get back on track. The problem with Obama's economic backage was that it wasn't enough money for the size of the American economy. But that you have to blame the GoP.
You are aware that the crisis was not caused by tax cuts and would not have been prevented by tax increases, right?
Heh. I hope I never become immune to it. That way lies acceptance
I don´t want to accept it, but I have started assuming I´m going to meet it. Things get less frustrating that way. Doesn't mean I won't grill people for incompetence, just that's I've already planned for it beforehand
The best thing you can do about incompetence is not hiring the incompetent. Unfortunately the incompetents seem to find a way to float to the top and run the companies
The worst thing is, we're a very right-wing country; so right-wing that in fact the biggest rivals right now are two parties, the roght, and the other right. The left takes the scraps.
People are very unhappy with politics nowadays.
Funny thing is about taxes is that you need a revenue or your compagny has to make money to pay them. Lowering taxes won't have any impact on them.
And for those who do make money, to think they will just spend more is a bit naive. That money won't automatically find itself in the economy. Not right away. And what are we talking about 2$ a week for the average family? The ones with money who will get the thousand and million dollars taxes breaks might just funnel it outside the country. You do not get rich by spending.
If you trully want to impact your economy, the government is the best money injector. It can get the cash fast and target specific sectors of the economy.
You don't believe me? Well prior to the economic crisis W. Bush lowered the taxes by one trillion dollars a year, 8 years before the crisis. Those taxes cuts are still in effect. It didn't prevent the crisis and it didn't help the economy get back on track. The problem with Obama's economic backage was that it wasn't enough money for the size of the American economy. But that you have to blame the GoP.
You seem to be looking for a quick fix to a problem that took decades to create. It is not going to happen that way. The problem is that the tax break come after the economy was already hurting and the people as a mass were in a sort of panic mode. Thus they tucked away a lot of the money for the rainy day that they thought was inevadable.
Funny thing is about taxes is that you need a revenue or your compagny has to make money to pay them. Lowering taxes won't have any impact on them.
And for those who do make money, to think they will just spend more is a bit naive. That money won't automatically find itself in the economy. Not right away. And what are we talking about 2$ a week for the average family? The ones with money who will get the thousand and million dollars taxes breaks might just funnel it outside the country. You do not get rich by spending.
If you trully want to impact your economy, the government is the best money injector. It can get the cash fast and target specific sectors of the economy.
You don't believe me? Well prior to the economic crisis W. Bush lowered the taxes by one trillion dollars a year, 8 years before the crisis. Those taxes cuts are still in effect. It didn't prevent the crisis and it didn't help the economy get back on track. The problem with Obama's economic backage was that it wasn't enough money for the size of the American economy. But that you have to blame the GoP.
I am unsure of what you are saying in the first paragraph. Are you saying lowering taxes wouldn't help out companies?
Also if injecting money into the budget is the answer, then explain this to me:
1. How do you ensure this money is spent to increase commerce and how is this different then just cutting taxes?
2. Now you have a larger debt and borrowed money from another country that you will not only have to pay back but you also owe a staggering amount of interest on. How is that a step in the right direction?
No I say a cost cut is definately the way to go. You say the problem with Obama's plan was that it wasn't big enough but the problem was that it was misdirect and probably just shouldn't have taken place in the first place. He bailed out banks to save the economy directly giving that money to the banks because they were going to go under due to ill-advised loans.
First off why not give that money to the people on criteria bases of whether not the inability to pay their mortgage was completely their fault? They pay the bank and the banks still recieve the money but now it served the citizen rather than the banks who continued to give out large bonuses to their board member even despite their terrible performance.
Next don't create more government jobs. Look for yourself and see how many government jobs were created. How much money does the government make, none right? In fact they use tax money to pay their salaries, yet another drain on the economy.
Finally place tarriffs on other countries good to match what they put on our exports. This will close the gap on the cost of merchandise and maybe America can complete again.
Okay it was all Bush's fault. That is all irrelevant. I am not trying to blame anyone. I am trying to come up with a solution. The administration right now has to come up with a way of fixing the problems. If people could look past their affiliations and just try to work together it would truly make fixing the problem easier.
Just for the record, I don't hate Obama. Hate is a waste of time and energy and I won't waste my life with it.
Okay it was all Bush's fault. That is all irrelevant. I am not trying to blame anyone. I am trying to come up with a solution. The administration right now has to come up with a way of fixing the problems. If people could look past their affiliations and just try to work together it would truly make fixing the problem easier.
Just for the record, I don't hate Obama. Hate is a waste of time and energy and I won't waste my life with it.
If you care about working past affiliations, get away from the party of "Hell no, I only care about my political and monetary gains, and only try to hide it by going on Beck and pals on Fox Noise."
Yanno, Mitch McConnel even said "Our number one objective is to make sure Barrack Obama is a one-term president." Emphasis mine. So, they're putting their political goals, and monetary goals of their billionaire buddies in front of, I dunno, jobs for unemployed WORKERS. Actually getting the corporations to hire. I can go on, but the point stand, regardless. So, if you don't hate, you are not only a better person than I am, I hate quite a fer people, including Jan Brewer, who has thrown about 100 people's lives away. For NOTHING. But, I digress, if you don't hate, then listen to logic, reason, and fact.
You assume much. I never watch Fox News and only listen to Beck when my boss is in the office and in control of the radio.
Anyways so if you can get past your anger for a moment, perhaps you can show me some logic. Go ahead I will listen and discuss it with you in an open minded manner.
You assume much. I never watch Fox News and only listen to Beck when my boss is in the office and in control of the radio.
Anyways so if you can get past your anger for a moment, perhaps you can show me some logic. Go ahead I will listen and discuss it with you in an open minded manner.
Well, my first point is Mitch McConnel, the senate majority leader right now, you saw his "number one priority?" Yeah, also, the GOP is trying to, let's see, remove health reform, even though it'd add aton to the debt, they've forced crap down the military's throat they didn't want, they only care about the billionaires, the union thing? Yeah, that's 'cause the only big donations dems get is from unions. Seriously, in 06-10 at the very least, out of the top ten donators to politics, three were democratic. They were unions. So, bone working people and be better of in the elections by a ton? Yep. They're "investigating" American Muslims for "radicalization," they're against same-sex marrige AND for DADT. I can go on, but I think the point is made. Also, yeah. Jan Brewer, republican.
I didn't mean to try to sway me on where my political affilation should lie but more of the logical solution to the problems plaguing the the USA. Any thoughts on that?
I didn't mean to try to sway me on where my political affilation should lie but more of the logical solution to the problems plaguing the the USA. Any thoughts on that?
Any discussion that seriously spoke about those things at length would likely get shut down by the mods here. And probably at the worst possible time in the discussion's progress, knowing the way life works.
I didn't mean to try to sway me on where my political affilation should lie but more of the logical solution to the problems plaguing the the USA. Any thoughts on that?
Okay, raise taxes, tax the
Can't agree with your first sentiment. I do not think that it is any persons responsibility to carry the weight of others even if they have the ability to do so. Just to clarify I am from humble beings and have done well for myself comparitively but I am not quite middle class, so I am not just trying to protect myself. On the other hand, I don't think that there should be any tax loop holes. Everyone should be treated equally.
As for investing more in the IRS and cutting the military budget, I will need more details to speak intelligently about this. Though just to point out a fact, the navy has a vastly great number of air craft and arguably better pilots.
I am all for creating jobs. I don't think it should be jobs that are only viable to produce effects in the USA though. We need to manufacture more good that we can export and balance out our import vs. export quota.
Public transit is an excellent thing but I know here in Pittsburgh it has seen hard times due to multiples things. The ones that were argued the most were lack of utilization and high unions wages. We can invest in public transit but if people won't use it because they would rather enjoy the freedom of personal vehicles offer then it is just wasted money.
Anyways feel free to get some sleep, I can wait for answers. When you are feeling more up to we can discuss some more issues and perhaps you can elaborate about some of your ideas.
I didn't mean to try to sway me on where my political affilation should lie but more of the logical solution to the problems plaguing the the USA. Any thoughts on that?
Any discussion that seriously spoke about those things at length would likely get shut down by the mods here. And probably at the worst possible time in the discussion's progress, knowing the way life works.
I would hope that if we kept the conversation civil and didn't allow it to degrade into childish name calling that the mods would not be overly concerned with the thread. I am new here so perhaps I am wrong but it seems silly to do otherwise.
I didn't mean to try to sway me on where my political affilation should lie but more of the logical solution to the problems plaguing the the USA. Any thoughts on that?
Any discussion that seriously spoke about those things at length would likely get shut down by the mods here. And probably at the worst possible time in the discussion's progress, knowing the way life works.
I would hope that if we kept the conversation civil and didn't allow it to degrade into childish name calling that the mods would not be overly concerned with the thread. I am new here so perhaps I am wrong but it seems silly to do otherwise.
Politics is actually verboten according to the code of conduct. Extended discussions in that vein tend to get shut down.
My view on it is that politicians are in it for themselves. I've seen one exception and that is (I)Sanders from Vermont. He talks about equal taxing for the rich, putting more money into medicare to plug gaps, fixing social security, getting rid of tax cuts and loopholes for corporations, I think he even talked about banning subsidies to foreign companies, but I'm not sure on that one...
So the entire political process is a balance between pleasing voters in election years and getting paid off by corporations and other lobbyists. Guess which one happens more often? your right they get paid more often by lobbyists than they get voted on. Right there is the root of our problems. The first thing a politician does when they get an issue in front of them is look at how close it is to an election and then look at who's throwing more money at them. You could almost say that the corporations are running the U.S., almost they finally passed some credit card stuff that was lobbyed against by the credit card companies. Mainly because the credit card companies were pretty much saying we'll just throw money at them and they'll do whatever we tell them. So the politicians had a pride moment and decided to do the right thing to 'prove' they aren't run by companies...Its getting pretty close though. I'm waiting for the day that the president gets put into a small office somewhere and the corporations have a 'board' that basically runs the govt...
Meh. People present taxes cut as some sort of magical formula able to solve everything. Alot of peopel talked of lowering taxes to solve the economic crisis. But they were low. And they didn't solve anything. No?
They were never low, so trying to use them as an example of how they fail is itself.......fail.
I don´t want to accept it, but I have started assuming I´m going to meet it. Things get less frustrating that way. Doesn't mean I won't grill people for incompetence, just that's I've already planned for it beforehand
Oh, well that makes a lot of sense. Given that the incompetence has been there 100% for my entire lifetime, I also assume it's going to be there and that I am going to meet it ;)
The best thing you can do about incompetence is not hiring the incompetent. Unfortunately the incompetents seem to find a way to float to the top and run the companies
And governments. I just have no idea what to do about it.
Why do people keep crediting/faulting Obama with the bank bailouts? The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (that is, the bank bailouts) were passed and signed into law October of 2008. By George W. Bush. What Obama signed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was not bailouts for the banks.
Because inconvenient facts are ignored when they do not fit the predetermined narrative.
Why do people keep crediting/faulting Obama with the bank bailouts? The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (that is, the bank bailouts) were passed and signed into law October of 2008. By George W. Bush. What Obama signed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was not bailouts for the banks.
The first half was. Obama continued on with the second half which was optional, making both responsible.
You honestly don't believe that, when someone has billions upon billions of dollars they will NEVER, EVER use, you think a good portion of that should be allowed to be sat on and ever hit the economy again?
They earned it through hard work and dedication and they have earned the right to dictate where it is spent. Not you. Not anyone else.
They're never going to burn through billions, so why not use it to help those in need,
Many of them are, through their own choice. No one else has the right to make that decision for them. If you want billions donated to those in need, go out and earn it like they did and give it away.
get the economy out of the hole, and expand public benefits like healthcare, roads, regulation for massive corporations, environmental impact regulations, or do you think that the "regulation" would "stifle job growth" or whatever?"
Um, if you take large amounts of wealth from every billionaire in the U.S., you will get less than a years worth of roads and other public benifits and then you will have no one making any effort to make billions by employing tens of thousands and the country will be far worse off than before. The depression that will hit us will make the great depression look like a mild hiccup. At least during the great depression you still had companies actively trying to make vast amounts of wealth through the employment of others. Only an idiot would work that hard to make that much money when they know it will be taken from them by fools.
They earned it through hard work and dedication and they have earned the right to dictate where it is spent. Not you. Not anyone else.
This would be a much stronger argument if there weren't so many people who "earned" the money by coming out of the right vagina.
But other then that, I kinda agree with the basic idea that taking everything away isn't going to help anyone
This would be a much stronger argument if there weren't so many people who "earned" the money by coming out of the right vagina.
But other then that, I kinda agree with the basic idea that taking everything away isn't going to help anyone
I think I covered that with saying that they have the right to decide how their money is spent.
If they decide it all goes to heirs, then so be it. If they decide as so many billionaires seem to have, that the bulk will go to charity, then so be it. A bunch of them have signed the pact to donate and I think that's great, but I don't fault any of them who did not decide to do so.
They earned it through hard work and dedication and they have earned the right to dictate where it is spent. Not you. Not anyone else.
Are you sure about that?
Ah that's pretty cool, I didn't know about billionaires donating all/most of their personal funds to charity. That's pretty noble
The Giving Pledge
They earned it through hard work and dedication and they have earned the right to dictate where it is spent. Not you. Not anyone else.
Are you sure about that?
Absolutely. Criminals don't count ;)
Ah that's pretty cool, I didn't know about billionaires donating all/most of their personal funds to charity. That's pretty noble
The Giving Pledge
Interesting, and a heartwarming read, in a way
Yeah, we can. The more you have, the more you should be taxed, and the more you'll have after taxes.
Do some research. This way lies what happened to communist Russia. Everyone becomes poor and miserable. I guess you want unemployment to skyrocket and to be hit with an enormous neer ending depression. Bully for you. I don't want that and thankfull, more people seem to be on my side than yours.
And the government has the right to tax which is, as you put it "making that decision for them," well, before conservitards lowered taxes so they are taxed about as much as a a starting teacher. Not proportionately, but in actual amounts.
Heh. You're a funny guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Trying it would be political suicide and success would be the end of America. Very amusing to read.
The billionaires are still going to be billionaires.
Then you were lying before when you said that you would pay for projects with their money. If you don't take most of it, you can't pay for jack. If you even take a lot more than is taken now, you will find fewer of them trying to make the money and unemployment skyrocketing.
I don't even know how to respond to this massive level of idiocy.
How about with maturity and decency? That would be a good start on how to respond. Acting like a child of 10 with your responses doesn't get you very far, but does explain your lack of understanding.
Also, I think the only current billionaire who actually made his own vast hoarde honestly is Gates, and he just got massively lucky.
Quote all of the facts behind your baseless claim please.
and a lot of that should go to repairing the economy a lot of them broke.
It can't. Even if you took 100% of it, it wouldn't be enough.
He was a criminal and that made him a billionaire. He counts.
Only to you. For the purposes of my statement which you quoted, it does not and you have absolutely zero ability to make it count.
Nope, they do. Especially since most billionaires are pro'lly criminals for something. Tax evasion, scams, jaywalking. If you discount criminals, you discount all of 'em.
As soon as you can prove they made their money illegally, let me know. Until then, your ability to libel people is amazing. And jaywalking? Really? My opinion of you is dropping by the post.
And that donation thing. Y'know, less that 10% of them in the US are in it. No foreign ones are, as far as I know.
So what. It's their decision, not yours.
They should be stripped of all possessions, and that money should be put to good use somewhere. Preferably by starting with restoring the people affected by the crimes.As long as criminals don't count because they don't get to dictate what happens to their money, I'm with you They should be stripped of all possessions, and that money should be put to good use somewhere. Preferably by starting with restoring the people affected by the crimes.
Agreed.
Interesting, and a heartwarming read, in a way
When I first heard about it I have to admit at being quite surprised. I guess it's perspective, though. Giving up half of my wealth would utterly destroy me. For these guys it's not such a huge deal. Still, it's quite a big thing to do.
Nope, they do. Especially since most billionaires are pro'lly criminals for something. Tax evasion, scams, jaywalking. If you discount criminals, you discount all of 'em.
And that donation thing. Y'know, less that 10% of them in the US are in it. No foreign ones are, as far as I know.
What I wanna know is how I can jaywalk my way to a billion dollars.
And who cares how many are in on the pledge? The fact that they are is the point. And there's many, many philanthropists that haven't signed up for the pledge. I guess they don't count cuz they weren't mentioned in the article. Don't get me wrong, I don't look up to these guys as some sort of for the people, world saving heroes. But they do deserve notice for the good they do.
When I first heard about it I have to admit at being quite surprised. I guess it's perspective, though. Giving up half of my wealth would utterly destroy me. For these guys it's not such a huge deal. Still, it's quite a big thing to do.
It means being stronger then greed, that's quite an accomplishment
And that donation thing. Y'know, less that 10% of them in the US are in it. No foreign ones are, as far as I know.
It's not about how many don't, it's how many do. Positive news is also news.
It means being stronger then greed, that's quite an accomplishment
True dat. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been totally surpised. One of the guys on the list (I think Gates but I'm not sure) built this gigantic mansion a few years ago. When interviewed about it after it was built, he said he regretted it. To him, it was a stupid, inexcusable extravagance to make it as opulent as he did - whether he earned it or not. So, it seems, some of these soulless bastards may have a soul after all.
It's not about how many don't, it's how many do. Positive news is also news.
Fool! Never give credit to the enemy even when he earns it! As soon as you see him as a person, it becomes difficult to wish him bankrupted!
Maddof.
Maddof has already been brought up and dismissed as a criminal. Take all his money and give to whoever is deserving of it. I don't care.
Also, having your dad kick the bucket is hardly "deserving and working hard" for your money.
Once again. Those who earned it had the right to dictate that their heirs get the money, so it doesn't matter of those people never had to work for it.
You've never heard of the "Noblesse Oblige," or however you spell it, have you? It's a shame that, thanks to conservitards, we're less socially advanced in certain ways than mideval Europe.
Oh, yes, because the old nobility were all fine and upstanding and..... No, wait, they were not. God supposedly gave them the right to rule and they abused their commoners with it.
A quick question: Were you dropped on your head several times as a child?
Do you make efforts to be banned? When you get out of highschool and pick up some maturity, make another alt account and let me know and I'll consider talking to you. Until then, you've pretty much proven that you have nothing useful to contribute to a conversation and I will no longer waste my time with you. Don't both replying (although I know you will), I won't be seeing your posts any longer.
If less than 10% are in it, cannot be used to make an argument.
What kind of sillyness is this? If less then 10% but more then 0% are in it, it's a perfectly acceptable arugment that "Some billionaires do give back what they've earned, because they feel it is the right thing to do".
He was a criminal and that made him a billionaire. He counts.
Only to you. For the purposes of my statement which you quoted, it does not and you have absolutely zero ability to make it count.
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
ing liar.Not the point, you can't, however, th point was, if you discount all criminals, you discount all billionaires.
Actually, the point there was that people that used criminal means to gain their billions were discounted. As you can't jaywalk your way to a billion, jaywalking is a silly example. But it doesn't really matter.
If less than 10% are in it, cannot be used to make an argument. They have the money that they could afford to get the ever-living
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
OK, I'm not getting into this discussion at all, but this comment made me laugh.
He was a criminal and that made him a billionaire. He counts.
Only to you. For the purposes of my statement which you quoted, it does not and you have absolutely zero ability to make it count.
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to understand. MY statement, which was not YOURS, demonstrated my opinion on the subject. Therefore, YOUR opinions and statements cannot ever override what I stated. I stated that criminals do not count for the purposes of what I said. You tried to put words in my mouth and then I told you no. You can't do that. Guess what. I'm right. You can't do that. You aren't me. Therefore, your statement only applies to you.
He was a criminal and that made him a billionaire. He counts.
Only to you. For the purposes of my statement which you quoted, it does not and you have absolutely zero ability to make it count.
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to understand. MY statement, which was not YOURS, demonstrated my opinion on the subject. Therefore, YOUR opinions and statements cannot ever override what I stated. I stated that criminals do not count for the purposes of what I said. You tried to put words in my mouth and then I told you no. You can't do that. Guess what. I'm right. You can't do that. You aren't me. Therefore, your statement only applies to you.
I got something to put in your mouth... and it isn't some words...
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
OK, I'm not getting into this discussion at all, but this comment made me laugh.
I'm glad you liked it. Happy b-day by the way.
You have not been on TVTropes enough.
Not at all, actually. I prefer to waste my time here for whatever reason.
In any event, 'Appeal to TVTropes' is some form of logical fallacy, isn't it?Okay, there are some philanthropic billionaires and millionaires. That's not the point. The point is that a vast majority of them are still hoarding wealth, and that they should be taxed like crazy. Your point is irrelevant to my point, and does nothing to refute it.
We can't know a vast majority hoard wealth without looking at their personal numbers. What you're presenting is a guess. What I'm presenting is a fact. While both may be true, one has a little bit more behind it than 'I don't like the uber rich so I think they're boning us all'.
Some wealthy folk are likely really bad people. Others likely aren't. The thing is, we need the wealthy to be wealthy so they can do silly things like afford to own and insure businesses for those of us that aren't wealthy to work for. When you start taking shots at their wallet, they don't pull the money out of it. They, instead, pass that bill right on down the line. So, while I can certainly understand what it is you're advocating and why, I have to say 'it's more complex than that' and hope you understand. Cuz it is. This isn't a black and white sort of thing no matter how nice that would make it for those of us seeking a solution.
That is to say, tax-cuts for the excessively wealthy did nothing to promote a healthy economy or fiscal well-being for the states. It just didn't work out that way.
On another note, if taxing the rich is so bad, how come we were better off economically in the 90's? And how come Bush's tax-cuts have completetly failed to stimulate the economy?
Meh. People present taxes cut as some sort of magical formula able to solve everything. Alot of peopel talked of lowering taxes to solve the economic crisis. But they were low. And they didn't solve anything. No?
They were never low, so trying to use them as an example of how they fail is itself.......fail.
Are we still talking about the US? Because it has the second lowest tax rate in the world.
Oh, and CJ, could you please refrain from referring to, hmm, self-enjoyment in your posts? One Goldo is enough.
Look up "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking on TVTropes.
Sorry, no can do. The constant clicking makes me wander so far away from whatever it was I wanted to look at I can't remember what the hell I'm doing there. Normally I don't mind but for whatever reason doing it there gives me a headache. Honest!
Yes we can. Logic. Look at the **** brothers, Rove, and their buddies.
That's assigning the deeds of a few to the many without evidence. In other words, it's a guess.
First of all, wealth=power, and power corrupts a majority of people, so the majority of million and billionaires are corrupt.
Again, a guess. It's not that I'm saying you have to be wrong, it's that operating based upon guesswork can cause catastrophic failure. You need premise based in the real before you can address anything.
And we do need to tax them more. You are not denying this, correct?
I'm actually for a flat tax myself, but in absence of that I have no problem with the rich paying more beyond the knowledge that they will, possibly, pass the hit down the line through their employees all the way to the consumer. Now if it's the rich that don't own businesses and create jobs - like Hollywood tools or whatever - tax 'em all ya want. Like I said, though, it's complicated. It's something that has to be approached carefully and a simple 'tax the wealthy more' solution could cause more problems than it fixes.
We also need a huge estate tax, one that closes the loophole of "I'm about to kick the bucket, so I'm gonna give it to them so it's not taxed, and one that would avoid taxing family farms, and the like. You agree with this?
I have a problem with death taxes altogether. It's already been taxed a billion times, the people involved have just suffered a loss, etc. I mean, just let it be.
We should also have a better public health care system. Agreed?
Another tricky sorta thing. I'd like to see everyone covered but it's not something you can just throw a bill together to implement - as we're seeing.
You also agree that we should invest in infrastructure, and build up a public transit system, at least partially out of the pockets of the billionaires. Agreed? That would create jobs, and stimulate the economy.
Out of the pockets of everyone, really. And public transit is yet another sticky issue. Where I live, it'd be nigh useless to have a developed system. People live too far from their jobs. In the cities? Sure, hook it up. Until the suburbs die off (hopefully never - I like my yard
), though, it's really not going to be all that beneficial here in the States.You also agree that the deficit is a problem, right? We need to raise taxes, as well as cut spending, to close it, agreed? Especially the military, where there's a lot of waste, and it's colossal.
The deficit is a problem but so is the rest of the economy. Raising taxes would help the deficit but hurt the economy. People need to be confident to spend and, right now, they're not. Asking them to give more would only hurt that. I actually agree with the Underwear Ninja about this - keep taxes where they're at until we're recovered and the recovery can be sustained and gains made. After that, raise taxes as prosperity goes. It may be too late, though.
The military does have waste but it's also necessary. Er, the armed forces, not the waste. Better budget policing is needed, though.
Sorry if this sounds preachy or disconnected and weird, I'm pretty sick and not thinking, and I can't figure out where you stand on this.
It's cool and I feel ya on postin' intense stuff when you're not all here. That's why I took the time to break things up and respond to ya. Hopefully it doesn't disconnect the flow too much.
On another note, if taxing the rich is so bad, how come we were better off economically in the 90's? And how come Bush's tax-cuts have completetly failed to stimulate the economy?
Again, it's something you have to be careful with. If you think the execs of these big corporations will just decide to lower their bonuses or not take such large 'merit' increases rather than increasing the cost of their product, lowering merit increases for the hourly employees and laying people off, you're off your rocker. Look no further than Ford. A few years ago they lost over a billion. Their execs still made bonus. So taxing the rich is something that has to be done, but it isn't as simple as just doing it. People that make lotsa money tend to know how to keep it. And if that means those that don't make that crazy money have to suffer, too bad.
However, that's no explanation of why, if taxing the rich is so bad, we were better off economically in the 90's when we were taxing them more.
It's also no explanation for why, if cutting taxes on the rich is supposed to stimulate the economy, we never saw the economy get stimulated after the rich got their tax-cuts.
So you can argue about people's expected behaviors until you're blue in the face, but the supposed benefits/downsides of taxing the rich have, quite simply, not been what we actually see.
Yes, people are people.
However, that's no explanation of why, if taxing the rich is so bad, we were better off economically in the 90's when we were taxing them more.
It's also no explanation for why, if cutting taxes on the rich is supposed to stimulate the economy, we never saw the economy get stimulated after the rich got their tax-cuts.
So you can argue about people's expected behaviors until you're blue in the face, but the supposed benefits/downsides of taxing the rich have, quite simply, not been what we actually see.
That's because presenting evidence and facts are no longer valid debate techniques in modern American political debates. These days, you win by being louder than your opponent. That, and fearmongering.
He was a criminal and that made him a billionaire. He counts.
Only to you. For the purposes of my statement which you quoted, it does not and you have absolutely zero ability to make it count.
My ability to make it count is equal to you ability to not make it count. Unless you are somehow so special that you can arbitrarily discount anything. In which case, you mom is a
Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to understand. MY statement, which was not YOURS, demonstrated my opinion on the subject. Therefore, YOUR opinions and statements cannot ever override what I stated. I stated that criminals do not count for the purposes of what I said. You tried to put words in my mouth and then I told you no. You can't do that. Guess what. I'm right. You can't do that. You aren't me. Therefore, your statement only applies to you.
I got something to put in your mouth... and it isn't some words...
Ahh, so YOU'RE the main account for Cyclone Joker. You can now join him.
Meh. People present taxes cut as some sort of magical formula able to solve everything. Alot of peopel talked of lowering taxes to solve the economic crisis. But they were low. And they didn't solve anything. No?
They were never low, so trying to use them as an example of how they fail is itself.......fail.
The taxes were lowered by W. Bush in 2001 til this day (1 trillion dollars a year). If you exclude fiscal paradise like the Caimen Islands, the US has one of the lowest income taxes in the world!
So yes, they were low and it didn't prevent the crisis or help resolve it.
You miss the point. The wealthy got most of those cuts, not the ones who needed it and would spend it to stimulate the economy.
Yes, people are people.
However, that's no explanation of why, if taxing the rich is so bad, we were better off economically in the 90's when we were taxing them more.
It's also no explanation for why, if cutting taxes on the rich is supposed to stimulate the economy, we never saw the economy get stimulated after the rich got their tax-cuts.
So you can argue about people's expected behaviors until you're blue in the face, but the supposed benefits/downsides of taxing the rich have, quite simply, not been what we actually see.
First off, there was more/different things going on in the 1990's than just taxing the rich. Second, it's not the rich you need to cut taxes on. It's the middle and lower classes. You just can't INCREASE taxes on the rich without causing issues. As was said, they will just pass on the cost to the middle and lower classes and things will become worse.
So you can argue about people's expected behaviors until you're blue in the face, but the supposed benefits/downsides of taxing the rich have, quite simply, not been what we actually see.
Actually, it's not been what we saw in the '90s. It's what? 2011? To think that what we saw in the past would hold true today is ... dubious. My evidence (Ford) was a heck of a lot more recent than the '90s. By the way - and for the record - I have not once suggested that we should lower the taxes on the rich or anything like that. My point here is that it's not nearly as simple as 'tax the richest the most' because of the fact that the rich tend to hold onto money and know how to do it.
Yeah, I guess TVTropes destroys lives.
That site honest to god drives me nuts. Heh.
But we have definite information on more of them doing the bad things, see the wall street brokers and such, than we do of the forty philanthropists, and, with people I don't know, I go with a scumbag until proven not. Hell, I even do that with people I know.
Fair 'nuff.
Eh, maybe. Fine, I present Wall Street and the massive banks as exibits A and B, and Koch, or ****, or whatever, and Rove, and pals as C, D, and E.
Exibits noted. ;)
Really? I find the idea of a flat tax to be absolutely unfair. I think it should be segmented proportions, as in in group A, the poorest group, they pay the lowest proportion of their income, as they're near broke, and the proportion goes up as you get more money. That makes sense, right? It sort of looks disconnected, but I'm not thinking straight.
How is a flat tax unfair? Everybody pays the same rate. To me, that's the definition of fair. Everyone is expected to foot the same bill. To me, that's more fair than what you propose - though I'd also call what you propose fair. Just a different kind of fair. Or something.
Really? I can understand the sentiment, but they're already gonna be going through the will, pro'lly with a lawyer, and I'm not seeing it be any more stressful. You'd only be taxing the ones who are inhereting so much even fifty percent pro'lly wouldn't be noticed if they didn't know it was being taxed. Not that I'm suggesting a full fifty percent, but the point is.
It really boils down to my problems with repeated taxation of the same stuff. A car, for example, has taxes paid on it every time it's sold. That doesn't sit well with me for some reason. When it comes to estate taxes, it's like a big **** you from the gov't when that's the last thing you wanna hear. Giving people something else to worry over at that time is just messed up, IMO.
Meh, I guess, but it's important, and it should have more in it, and have more resources.
It needs a lot more to work, yes. But it's gonna need careful planning and a layered implementation to work, I think. That means those working on it need to worry about getting votes less and doing it the right way more. As it stands, what we have now was thrown together haphazardly in the hopes of saving jobs. Jobs on the Hill, mind, not regular peoples' jobs. That's not the way to work on a program of this magnitude.
I don't fault the Right or the Left for that, I fault us. The people that put up with and, in some cases, want a system like this.
Really? I live in the suburbs in washington, and I, thankfully, have a train station and bus system in my town, and so I can get to anywhere in a city, and can get around a lot, but there are still places I want to go, that I can't get to by bus or train, and since I'm legally blind I can't get a licence, so I have to hitch a ride with friends. And, yes, it would be "out of the pockets of everybody" but the middle-class would benefit more from not only the benefit of the infrastructure, but more jobs and a better economy overall, 'cause infrastructure makes jobs.
They'd need to build a train for me to benefit like that.
A lot of the 'burbs aren't connected by anything. We've got some buses that come by and the like, but as far as convenience goes, it's still sorta 'meh'. Which is why I'm saying tax the people who aren't hurting. Also, we need to extend unemployment benefit support thing. Yes, taxing people who are hurting is a bad idea, but taxing people who don't have to work for a living? People who could support three families, easy, on just the interest of their investments, and still have huge amounts to spare? Tax them. Y'follow?"
I follow, but it's something, as I've said, that you have to be careful with. It's funny how little people trust big business and the wealthy to do the right thing but then totally believe they'll just take increased taxes like good men and women and not try to **** the common man in an uncomfortable place (like the back of a Volkswagen). Are they evil or aren't they? If they are, why aren't you (general) afraid they'll take it out on the little guy?
I'm down with extending unemployment so long as the rate remains high and the outlook remains grim. If there aren't any jobs to be had, it's hard to fault someone for not having one.
Yeah, I'm not saying neuter the military, though I can see where you might have seen it that way. What I was refering to is something like the amphibious tank that the republican congress forced through more funding and a mandate for continuation, despite the millions upon millions already wasted, and the extra engine with every F-18, and so on, y'follow?
Yep, better budget monitoring is needed for sure.
Thanks. It's good.
One more thing about this stuff: I'm all over the place (as I'm sure you can see now) politically. I'm positive my positions don't help anything.
Yeah, that's an issue, but I think we can solve it, by, if nothing else, limiting bonuses and making golden parachutes illegal.
One that I'm torn on. Don't like the gov't butting in but how else can you accomplish something like this? Ugh. In other words I agree, I just can't see a way to do it that I'd personally be comfortable with.
Why do people keep crediting/faulting Obama with the bank bailouts? The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (that is, the bank bailouts) were passed and signed into law October of 2008. By George W. Bush. What Obama signed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was not bailouts for the banks.
The first half was. Obama continued on with the second half which was optional, making both responsible.
Face...Through...Desk.
Hawk:Also, you "don't think people should have to cover others," basically, but you're fine that they got MASSIVE tax cuts? Do you also think that all unemployed are lazy and that wellfare and crap shouldn't exist? You honestly don't believe that, when someone has billions upon billions of dollars they will NEVER, EVER use, you think a good portion of that should be allowed to be sat on and ever hit the economy again? They're never going to burn through billions, so why not use it to help those in need, get the economy out of the hole, and expand public benefits like healthcare, roads, regulation for massive corporations, environmental impact regulations, or do you think that the "regulation" would "stifle job growth" or whatever?"
Hell, does ANYBODY actually believe that?
While I agree with Maxperson, if you have wealth you or your ancestors have earned it and I have no claim to that. Nor does anyone else. However as I said, I do not support loopholes or unfair treatment. I am just saying that the wealth should not be forced to carry the burden just because they are wealthy.
Oh and no I don't think that everyone that is unemployed is lazy but I think that there are a fair amount of individuals that are taking advantage of the system. Being on unemployment and welfare are two very different things though.
It really rubs me the wrong way, 'cause I don't think a single mother trying to flip burgers to support the kid should pay the same amount as Bill Gates. I dunno, they're sort of apples and bacon slices.
Ah, I think I may not be saying it right. When I'm referring to a flat tax, I mean a flat percentage. As in everyone across the board pays 12% (or whatever would work) of their income - that sort of thing. That means Sally Singlemother will pay less than Bill Gates but they'll both be contributing the same amount. The tricky part, of course, would be finding a percentage that worked for everyone. While Bill could afford 45% there's no way Sally could, for example. So, maybe it's a pipe dream, I dunno.
Huh. I guess I just like it 'cause it's one of the best ways to prevent money pooling in one or three families in the same way that it's happened with the tax neutered and basically dead. If another equally effective or better method of preventing that should appear, I'd support that as well. I guess it boils down to the fact that I cannot stand the idea of unemployed workers struggling to feed themselves after the banks ****ed everthing up big, while this other guy, for the mere act of being the fastest sperm can just sit on billions that could help thousands or millions of people, yanno.
Yeah, I can see that. I also don't think it's fair to have to lose a bunch of your family's holdings or whatever simply because someone died, though. They didn't do anything wrong so why punish the family? Meh, it just bothers me on multiple levels.
Not trying to look like a dick right now, but, for the record, the democrats tried to work with the republicans to get some of their votes, and it got watered down. But I see your point.
One way they tried to 'work' with the Right was by threatening to force the bill down their throats. Not constructive. ;) And the Right, of course, acted like a bunch of asshats, too. Obama really flunked this one. He should have done what he said he'd do and strive to be a bipartisan voice leading the charge on this. Instead, he saw the heat he'd take if he opened his mouth and decided to bail before it could hurt him too badly. All of 'em are at fault cuz all of 'em suck. Not a clean hand in the lot. Meh, it's what we deserve. We elected 'em, after all.
As I said, expand puplic transit.
But I don't want a train ruining my neighborhood!
Because we are already talking about ideals, so there'd be some sort of regulatory law in said tax hike to prevent them from screwing us.
I didn't realize it was ideals we were talking about (honestly). People talk about raising the taxes on the rich or hitting big business as a solution all the time so I thought that's where we were at. If it's ideals your'e talking about, I can see how this law would help. Then again, it goes right along with my distaste for gov't meddling in this vein. So, a solution I'd understand but one I'd not be comfortable with.
Basically, and that would save billions, at least.
Yar.
That is an issue, but in the past, and one of the factors that led up to this was that some jerk could take over, run the business into the ground for his profit alone, and then jump off with millions, but it would be hard to implement.
Oh hell yes. There were (and are) plenty of scumbags using the labor of the masses to fund their retirements. Like I said, I'm torn. I'd love to see it prevented but I'd hate to see it be a gov't deal preventing it but I don't see any other way to do it. So, yuck. Meh, it's why I don't think about this stuff too much and have adopted a 'we're ****ed so **** it' attitude toward the whole mess.
I mean... when someone just doesn't want pizza, you can't blame the rest of the room for eventually not asking them waht they want on the pizza you're ordering, ya know?
I really don't think you can blame Obama for a lack of bipartisanship. We're going into his third year now and he's made numerous attempts to extend the olive branch and each and every time the Republicans have set it on fire and shoved it in his ear. They've publicly stated that they want to make his presidency fail at all costs. They encourage and promote unreasonable levels of vitriol against the man. Hell, there have been bills that are just about 100% Republican bills that they've voted against just to make him suffer.
I mean... when someone just doesn't want pizza, you can't blame the rest of the room for eventually not asking them waht they want on the pizza you're ordering, ya know?
I don't blame him for the lack of bipartisanship, I blame him for his lack of participation at all - something that may (slim hope, to be sure) have helped with bipartisanship. And I'd not blame him for even that had he not said that that was what he was going to do. Obviously a large, large portion of this rests on the head of those on the Right that chose political gamesmanship over working for the people. If I gave the impression I felt otherwise, I apologize. But I still hold that both sides are staffed by morons only looking out for themselves and that it's a shared fault with most of it lying at the voters' feet.
So a guy who makes a million dollars a year will pass any taxe increase to the middle class? How the hell will he do that?
By making you pay more for products you buy.
So this goes back to my arbitrary point of 2$ more a week.
Not sure. Your arbitrary number was so silly I just ignored it.
Why is creating jobs not a better solution to stimulate the economy?
Lowering taxes on the middle and lower class DOES create jobs. That's the point. Raising taxes does the opposite. When businesses start to have to pay more, they pass on the costs or if they can't pass it on without losing business, they axe employees and make do with fewer.
I really don't think you can blame Obama for a lack of bipartisanship. We're going into his third year now and he's made numerous attempts to extend the olive branch and each and every time the Republicans have set it on fire and shoved it in his ear. They've publicly stated that they want to make his presidency fail at all costs. They encourage and promote unreasonable levels of vitriol against the man. Hell, there have been bills that are just about 100% Republican bills that they've voted against just to make him suffer.
I mean... when someone just doesn't want pizza, you can't blame the rest of the room for eventually not asking them waht they want on the pizza you're ordering, ya know?
This is true, but the Democrats behave just as badly when a Republican is in office. I'm dead tired of both parties pulling this kind of BS.
I really don't think you can blame Obama for a lack of bipartisanship. We're going into his third year now and he's made numerous attempts to extend the olive branch and each and every time the Republicans have set it on fire and shoved it in his ear. They've publicly stated that they want to make his presidency fail at all costs. They encourage and promote unreasonable levels of vitriol against the man. Hell, there have been bills that are just about 100% Republican bills that they've voted against just to make him suffer.
I mean... when someone just doesn't want pizza, you can't blame the rest of the room for eventually not asking them waht they want on the pizza you're ordering, ya know?
This is true, but the Democrats behave just as badly when a Republican is in office. I'm dead tired of both parties pulling this kind of BS.
Well, unless we want to get involved in politics personally (which is something most people don't have time for), it's not like we have much choice.
I really don't think you can blame Obama for a lack of bipartisanship. We're going into his third year now and he's made numerous attempts to extend the olive branch and each and every time the Republicans have set it on fire and shoved it in his ear. They've publicly stated that they want to make his presidency fail at all costs. They encourage and promote unreasonable levels of vitriol against the man. Hell, there have been bills that are just about 100% Republican bills that they've voted against just to make him suffer.
I mean... when someone just doesn't want pizza, you can't blame the rest of the room for eventually not asking them waht they want on the pizza you're ordering, ya know?
This is true, but the Democrats behave just as badly when a Republican is in office. I'm dead tired of both parties pulling this kind of BS.
Well, unless we want to get involved in politics personally (which is something most people don't have time for), it's not like we have much choice.
If enough people got sick of it and started booting incumbents out of office for it, it would change. I doubt that will ever happen, though.
Ahh, so YOU'RE the main account for Cyclone Joker. You can now join him.
No. Not even close. By the way, are you still selling Thin-Mints?
While I agree with Maxperson, if you have wealth you or your ancestors have earned it and I have no claim to that. Nor does anyone else. However as I said, I do not support loopholes or unfair treatment. I am just saying that the wealth should not be forced to carry the burden just because they are wealthy.
Oh and no I don't think that everyone that is unemployed is lazy but I think that there are a fair amount of individuals that are taking advantage of the system. Being on unemployment and welfare are two very different things though.
Of course, it'd be so dificult having enough money to build a mansion out of nothing but hundred-dollar bills, and still having money to spare. Such an unfair burden, amirite? They have more money, and will continue to have more money 'cause money makes money.
And, of course, people are "abusing the system," cause it's not like there are not jobs out there, right?
Not trying to be rude, just wanting to show you what it looks like to me, y'know? Y'follow my point?
No as far as I am concerned you are not right. My opinion, because that is what it is, is that everyone has to take a fair accountability for themselves. Thus everyone should be treated equally. If I work overtime trying to get ahead should I be pushed back down a little because some other guys decide that it is beneath them to work menial labor jobs for minimuim wage? I have friends that watch thier overtime like crazy to make sure they don't jump up a tax bracket and lose money for working. Does that sound fair to you?
I know plenty of people who are working two jobs trying to makes ends meet and as for my self I work as much overtime as I can manage. Why can't other do this? I am not saying that all unemployed are lazy but I have seen plenty of help wanted signs out there. They may only be minimium wage jobs but they are jobs that could possibly lead to something better.
My thoughts are that welfare should completely be revamped to a supplement system rather than a handout. You work your minimuim wage job and then an official reviews your imcome vs. the cost of living in your area and supplements your income with welfare.
I am not a socialist and I am not a communist and this idea of taxing the rich more are lines of thought in that direction. I am a capitalist if I work hard and/or longer I deserve more and where I choose for the fruits of my labor to end up should be up to me as well. It is that simple to me.
I do pose a question though, whatever happened to no double taxation?
No as far as I am concerned you are not right. My opinion, because that is what it is, is that everyone has to take a fair accountability for themselves. Thus everyone should be treated equally. If I work overtime trying to get ahead should I be pushed back down a little because some other guys decide that it is beneath them to work menial labor jobs for minimuim wage?
There is a limited amount of jobs. The types of jobs available to you depend on where you live and what you are qualified for. Even "menial labor" jobs for "minimum wage" have certain requirements that not everyone can fill, and some people are more qualified for those jobs than other people.
I have friends that watch thier overtime like crazy to make sure they don't jump up a tax bracket and lose money for working. Does that sound fair to you?
Sounds like they are trying avoid paying taxes.
I know plenty of people who are working two jobs trying to makes ends meet and as for my self I work as much overtime as I can manage. Why can't other do this?
Overtime is not available to everyone. Also, different states have different laws concerning overtime. Some states consider any time worked over 8 or 9 hours to be considered overtime. Other states require that you work over 40 hours in a week before any extra time worked is considered overtime.
I am not saying that all unemployed are lazy but I have seen plenty of help wanted signs out there. They may only be minimium wage jobs but they are jobs that could possibly lead to something better.
My thoughts are that welfare should completely be revamped to a supplement system rather than a handout. You work your minimuim wage job and then an official reviews your imcome vs. the cost of living in your area and supplements your income with welfare.
So what would you have them do with those people that are unable to work? How about the severely handicapped?
I am not a socialist and I am not a communist and this idea of taxing the rich more are lines of thought in that direction. I am a capitalist if I work hard and/or longer I deserve more and where I choose for the fruits of my labor to end up should be up to me as well. It is that simple to me.
Yet that is not what actually happens. People seem to think that they are able to move from one social class to another because that is how capitalist systems work. The truth is that there is very little upward mobility, yet downward mobility is very easy. The amount of work you put in, and how hard you work, will not automatically make you wealthy. There are plenty of hard working people that are unable to save enough money to even retire.
I do pose a question though, whatever happened to no double taxation?
Iam not a socialist and I am not a communist and this idea of taxing the rich more are lines of thought in that direction. I am a capitalist if I work hard and/or longer I deserve more and where I choose for the fruits of my labor to end up should be up to me as well. It is that simple to me.
Squirrel beat me to most of it, but I gotta ask: If I may ask, why do you hold such high opinions of capitalism? If we followed the wonder of capitalism, we would have ended up with a Depression 5.0. You'd be a wage slave or a millionaire. Hell, you'd have been a wage slave for your entire life, 'cause with capitalism, the golden rule aplies 100% of the time, the golden rule being "he who has the gold makes the rules." Yeah, capitalism is a terrible idea. I'd rather go with socialism. The "free market" is nonexistant, it doesn't work. Fact has proven this.
Okay so socialism where is this working? I will admitt that I am not as well informed as some of the people here either are or think they are. So help me out, where should I look to find this idea utopia? Oh and if capitalism is so very bad, then why does America have comparatively high standard of living when we were formed on this?
Secondly, you say it sounds like my friends are trying to get out of paying taxes, well isn't that what you are saying we should do? Us little guys shouldn't have to pay, let the ones with the money pay our share because it won't hurt them, right?
If overtime isn't available then how about a second job? If you want to get ahead you should have to work harder than those that are comfortable with just maintaining. Am I wrong about this?
As for the hard working people that can't save, I realize this. My own mother would fit into this category, but are systems are so convulted that when she went to get help to pay a single has bill they told her that she made too much money. They also told her that she would be better off not working at all. Then she could get some help. So my dad is on disability and my mother was working for minimum wage but they made too much money? So only the unemployed get any help? Not the ones who are actually trying to survive but could use a hand once in a while from a system that they have paid into for years. So this sounds right to you?
Iam not a socialist and I am not a communist and this idea of taxing the rich more are lines of thought in that direction. I am a capitalist if I work hard and/or longer I deserve more and where I choose for the fruits of my labor to end up should be up to me as well. It is that simple to me.
Squirrel beat me to most of it, but I gotta ask: If I may ask, why do you hold such high opinions of capitalism? If we followed the wonder of capitalism, we would have ended up with a Depression 5.0. You'd be a wage slave or a millionaire. Hell, you'd have been a wage slave for your entire life, 'cause with capitalism, the golden rule aplies 100% of the time, the golden rule being "he who has the gold makes the rules." Yeah, capitalism is a terrible idea. I'd rather go with socialism. The "free market" is nonexistant, it doesn't work. Fact has proven this.
Okay so socialism where is this working? I will admitt that I am not as well informed as some of the people here either are or think they are. So help me out, where should I look to find this idea utopia? Oh and if capitalism is so very bad, then why does America have comparatively high standard of living when we were formed on this?
America doesn't have capitalism. NO ONE DOES. Virtually every economic model today is on the sliding scale between communist and capitalist. Socialist is what we call stuff that is more communist than the center of that scale, and (so far as I know) we don't have a word for the stuff that is more capitalist than the center of the scale.
Pure capitalism doesn't work (it leads to monopolies that pervert the invisible hand), and neither does communism (it stifles the growth of economy).
Okay so socialism where is this working?
It worked in Communist Russia when they couldn't even get toilet paper. It was working in China where conditions were just as miserable until such time as it started to fail and they began allowing capitalist ideas into the country, and now the people are far better off. It's working in Cuba and Vietnam, paragons of places to live......not. Oh, there's also North Korea and everyone knows just how jolly a place to live THAT place is. Libya and Syria have their version of it going. Socialism is basically a failure, but you still have fools out there who ascribe to it.
Oh and if capitalism is so very bad, then why does America have comparatively high standard of living when we were formed on this?
We have a high standard of living because we are doing it wrong. If we were doing it right, we'd be a miserable socialist state ;)
Would it be at all possible for you to at least try to be a little less insulting? I mean, even when you're making good points you make me think:
America doesn't have capitalism. NO ONE DOES. Virtually every economic model today is on the sliding scale between communist and capitalist. Socialist is what we call stuff that is more communist than the center of that scale, and (so far as I know) we don't have a word for the stuff that is more capitalist than the center of the scale.
Pure capitalism doesn't work (it leads to monopolies that pervert the invisible hand), and neither does communism (it stifles the growth of economy).
You're forgetting facism, which is, for the record, what "communist Russia" fell under.
Actually I'm not forgetting fascism. Fascism is a governance philosophy (like representative government) while Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism are economic philosophies. The U.S.S.R. was both a Fascist and Communist nation, not a Communistic Fascism.
@jetshield: I've wanted that power ever since I read the first forum post I ever saw in the internet.
Actually I'm not forgetting fascism. Fascism is a governance philosophy (like representative government) while Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism are economic philosophies. The U.S.S.R. was both a Fascist and Communist nation, not a Communistic Fascism.
@jetshield: I've wanted that power ever since I read the first forum post I ever saw in the internet.
If we're starting to get over there, than it was still not a communistic nation. Facism can apply to economics, as in:
Government: *SLAP* "Get back to work sciency pig or I KEEL your family!"
and "You have resources Fearless Leader/any member of the oligarcy/etc. wants? Give, pig, or I KEEW you!"
See? That, my friend, is a facist government, not communistic.
It's fascism as a government model applied to the communist economic model. The proof of this lies in the individual behavior of the economy and the individual behaviour of the government. There was a universal wage, government ownership of all major institutions (power plants, banks, hospitals, etc), etc. That is communism. Then Fascism was applied: stifling dissent, concentrating power among 1 group (the communist party), limiting information through state-run news, etc. Each of these are different things (a govt philosophy and an economic philosophy), but together they created what was the U.S.S.R.
Okay, RH, Goldo? See this? This is what you guys look like from the outside.
I hope you weren't including me in there. I think I've been rather calm and rational. Not at all like the typical RH-Goldo smackdown.
-rifles through computer- Where's my
steel chair smiley?
Apologies, I was not intending to be insulting to anyone except Max. May I inquire what was insulting, so I can attempt to prevent it in the future?
I was several pages back when I decided to post that. That's the danger with falling a day behind on a post like this and not getting to the end before commenting. My mistake. Now that you've pointed it out I can see that you're at your most insulting when exchanging posts with one person. I don't think it's necessary, but it should irritate me less now.
Forget I mentioned it. Carry on.
PS: I wonder if I just had a subconscious need to drop a kitty pic in somewhere...
First of all Squirrel, I was not speaking about the small amount of people who are unable to work. The handicapped would have to be taken care of in different way. I am speaking of people who stay on welfare as a way of life.
Taking care of those who can't take care of themselves would require some kind of socialist program wouldn't you say? As for people who stay on welfare as a way of life... that is a problem with the way the system is set up.
Secondly, you say it sounds like my friends are trying to get out of paying taxes, well isn't that what you are saying we should do? Us little guys shouldn't have to pay, let the ones with the money pay our share because it won't hurt them, right?
You may want to read what I have written again. I have never said that the poor or the less fortunate should not pay taxes and allow the wealthy to pay all the taxes. In fact, I don't think anyone here has ever said that the wealthy should pay all the taxes. That sounds like something you would hear on Fox news used as a scare tactic.
I think everyone should pay taxes. The problem is that the rich tend to avoid paying taxes. They find loop holes that are available to them because of how much money they have and how they acquire that money. The money you make working 40+ hours per week than the money made through stocks. Not only that, but this belief that by reducing taxes on the rich, it will somehow motivate them to reinvest in our economy is just BS. Trickledown economics doesn't work. Reagan was an idiot.
If overtime isn't available then how about a second job? If you want to get ahead you should have to work harder than those that are comfortable with just maintaining. Am I wrong about this?
What makes you think that if overtime is not available that there are other jobs available. Usually people are able to work overtime because there are not enough people available to fill the jobs that need to be done. But lets assume that there are other jobs available. There is also the problem that some jobs take place at the same time. You can't be at 2 places at the same time. There is also the problem with qualifications. You may or may not be qualified to perform that second job. Besides, wouldn't you admit that there is a problem when it takes two jobs just to make a living? Isn't there a problem when working 40 hours a week is not enough to support yourself?
As for the hard working people that can't save, I realize this. My own mother would fit into this category, but are systems are so convulted that when she went to get help to pay a single has bill they told her that she made too much money. They also told her that she would be better off not working at all. Then she could get some help. So my dad is on disability and my mother was working for minimum wage but they made too much money? So only the unemployed get any help? Not the ones who are actually trying to survive but could use a hand once in a while from a system that they have paid into for years. So this sounds right to you?
People who are on unemployment are people who are trying to survive. You distinguish between the two as if there was actually a difference. There isn't. Unemployment pays very little. I've met people on unemployment, and they would rather be working than getting unemployment. The reason your mom "makes too much" is because some politician(s) decided that there would be some arbitrary cut off point for people to get help. They basically decided that you needed to hit rock bottom before they were willing to give you a helping hand. What happens is that people who could use a helping hand to avoid hitting bottom, and with a little help could get back into a financially secure situation, are allowed to fail. Then it costs much more money to help that person get back on their feet.
Let’s look at your mom as an example. Let’s say that she makes $300 a week, but her living expenses are $450 per week. It would only take $150 to help her out as opposed to letting her get behind on her bills and have to choose whether to pay those bills or buy food, gas or what have you. It isn't cost effective to allow people to fail. But unfortunately because a few politicians decide that they want to help out their rich friends and contributors, all the while making it seem as if they care about the poor, they allow your mom to suffer.
Okay, RH, Goldo? See this? This is what you guys look like from the outside.
I think RH either got another vacation or he decided he had enough of this place. His profile isn't available anymore. I was wondering why he had not posted in a while.
First of all Squirrel, I was not speaking about the small amount of people who are unable to work. The handicapped would have to be taken care of in different way. I am speaking of people who stay on welfare as a way of life.
Taking care of those who can't take care of themselves would require some kind of socialist program wouldn't you say? As for people who stay on welfare as a way of life... that is a problem with the way the system is set up.Secondly, you say it sounds like my friends are trying to get out of paying taxes, well isn't that what you are saying we should do? Us little guys shouldn't have to pay, let the ones with the money pay our share because it won't hurt them, right?
You may want to read what I have written again. I have never said that the poor or the less fortunate should not pay taxes and allow the wealthy to pay all the taxes. In fact, I don't think anyone here has ever said that the wealthy should pay all the taxes. That sounds like something you would hear on Fox news used as a scare tactic.
I think everyone should pay taxes. The problem is that the rich tend to avoid paying taxes. They find loop holes that are available to them because of how much money they have and how they acquire that money. The money you make working 40+ hours per week than the money made through stocks. Not only that, but this belief that by reducing taxes on the rich, it will somehow motivate them to reinvest in our economy is just BS. Trickledown economics doesn't work. Reagan was an idiot.If overtime isn't available then how about a second job? If you want to get ahead you should have to work harder than those that are comfortable with just maintaining. Am I wrong about this?
What makes you think that if overtime is not available that there are other jobs available. Usually people are able to work overtime because there are not enough people available to fill the jobs that need to be done. But lets assume that there are other jobs available. There is also the problem that some jobs take place at the same time. You can't be at 2 places at the same time. There is also the problem with qualifications. You may or may not be qualified to perform that second job. Besides, wouldn't you admit that there is a problem when it takes two jobs just to make a living? Isn't there a problem when working 40 hours a week is not enough to support yourself?As for the hard working people that can't save, I realize this. My own mother would fit into this category, but are systems are so convulted that when she went to get help to pay a single has bill they told her that she made too much money. They also told her that she would be better off not working at all. Then she could get some help. So my dad is on disability and my mother was working for minimum wage but they made too much money? So only the unemployed get any help? Not the ones who are actually trying to survive but could use a hand once in a while from a system that they have paid into for years. So this sounds right to you?
People who are on unemployment are people who are trying to survive. You distinguish between the two as if there was actually a difference. There isn't. Unemployment pays very little. I've met people on unemployment, and they would rather be working than getting unemployment. The reason your mom "makes too much" is because some politician(s) decided that there would be some arbitrary cut off point for people to get help. They basically decided that you needed to hit rock bottom before they were willing to give you a helping hand. What happens is that people who could use a helping hand to avoid hitting bottom, and with a little help could get back into a financially secure situation, are allowed to fail. Then it costs much more money to help that person get back on their feet.
Let’s look at your mom as an example. Let’s say that she makes $300 a week, but her living expenses are $450 per week. It would only take $150 to help her out as opposed to letting her get behind on her bills and have to choose whether to pay those bills or buy food, gas or what have you. It isn't cost effective to allow people to fail. But unfortunately because a few politicians decide that they want to help out their rich friends and contributors, all the while making it seem as if they care about the poor, they allow your mom to suffer.
I can agree on the first sentimentiment. Yes helping the extremely handicap would need some sort of socialism.
I exaggerated on the second to illustrate a point but it seems that a large amount of people on here that would like to pass the buck to the wealthy. Sorry if I offended.
As for second jobs and overtime, I do not know what the conditions all over the country are, but here in the pittsburgh area there are help wanted signs all over the place. It may not be for the best jobs but they need minimal qualification. Also I never said that you should have to work two jobs or more than 40 hours to survive but if you want to get ahead that would be one way.
Lastly, I am not saying that people on unemployment are not trying to survive. However, my mother is working and trying to make it off her own steam rather than just looking for a hand out and being penalized for it. That is the point I am trying to make. I have absolutely no problem with people on unemployment and looking for a job. That is a system that the workers pay into so utulizing it is just fine. However, the people who leave off government aid systems that don't have to is where my problem lies.
Okay so socialism where is this working? I will admitt that I am not as well informed as some of the people here either are or think they are. So help me out, where should I look to find this idea utopia? Oh and if capitalism is so very bad, then why does America have comparatively high standard of living when we were formed on this?
'Cause somebody doesn't realize that we aren't completely capitalistic. While a dab of capitalism keeps us advancing, too much, leads to what we had, giant banks ****ing around, insurance companies that dropped you as soon as you got sick, and the like. So, you're miss-using the words, and I exagerated to try to show you how stupid it was. REALLY, Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a pogo stick with a ninja robot alien maid and a zombie pirate robot butler! LEARN THE DEFINITIONS!
And, while I'm on the topic, EVERYONE is miss-using the word "socialism" and I'm having to play along with it to communicate with people like you. PEOPLE: Socialism is a large-scale, but not complete, nationalization of production and the like! Complete is political communis, or "communist Russia," which, for the record, is not correctly communism.
Good lord, I feel like Marvin when talking to Dent or Zaphod.
I am in favor of more progressivism, which, to put it simply, is by the people FOR THE PEOPLE. And you can see that inFirst of all Squirrel, I was not speaking about the small amount of people who are unable to work. The handicapped would have to be taken care of in different way. I am speaking of people who stay on welfare as a way of life.
Pro tip: That doesn't work. People can live off of disablility, which is a different thing, but no. That actually doesn't work, have you been pickling your brain with Beck and pals?Secondly, you say it sounds like my friends are trying to get out of paying taxes, well isn't that what you are saying we should do? Us little guys shouldn't have to pay, let the ones with the money pay our share because it won't hurt them, right?
Nope, we're saying you should pay your share, they should apay there share, just their share is larger.If overtime isn't available then how about a second job? If you want to get ahead you should have to work harder than those that are comfortable with just maintaining. Am I wrong about this?
Not how life works, buddy. Y'see, for example, person A can buy a lotto ticket. It's an idiotic thing to do, he's **** away his money. But person XYZ is ALSO doing that, **** away his money, but this guy wins 100,000,000, k? And he hires a dude to help invest. Do you know how much work he put into that? None, he was in the right place at the right time. Harrison Ford was a carpenter, and once worked for George Lucas. George Lucas liked him, and got him jobs, which turned into Han Solo and Indiana Jones. Y'see, both of these people were in the right place at the right time. Harrison Ford, if he was a little bit of a jerk, probably would have been a carpenter for the rest of his life. Yeah. The worlds greatest genius could have been born in, third-world country and been illiterate. He'd have been the world's greatest genius, but wrong place, wrong time, illiterate menial worker until death at age thirty.As for the hard working people that can't save, I realize this. My own mother would fit into this category, but are systems are so convulted that when she went to get help to pay a single has bill they told her that she made too much money. They also told her that she would be better off not working at all. Then she could get some help. So my dad is on disability and my mother was working for minimum wage but they made too much money? So only the unemployed get any help? Not the ones who are actually trying to survive but could use a hand once in a while from a system that they have paid into for years. So this sounds right to you?
No, 'cause you are clearly stating that that the unemployed "aren't trying to survive." I could easily make the same statement about your mother, that she didn't go to enough school to get a better job. She's not trying to surive, obviously." See, that kind of statement is born out of ignorance and people being douches, and you are completely guitly of that right there. And I'm sure you guys are in a rough spot, but get in line behind the 100 people republican governer Jan Brewer signed off to death by cutting coverage for transplants.
I do know the definitions. I have admitted that I may not be as informed as the rest here. I am fairly well educated, however. I know how to read and can look up definitions. I don't find an absolute type to call the government of the USA. If you find the exact model you tell me and I will start using that word.
Here is a tip for you people have been living on welfare for a long time. I am not sure you think that they haven't but I can guarantee that it happens.
Okay people get lucky, I get it. That means they should owe you a portion of it because you never got lucky? Also I am not talking about getting rich. I am just saying that rolling up your sleeves and working hard to get ahead works. I have done it myself. I am not ahead as in living in a mansion and never have to worry about working again but I managed to create a better life for myself and my family than my parents were able to do. I will be able to give my son better oppurtunities than I had. That is my goal in life and I making it happen.
As for the third world country geniuses, what would you have USA do about it or are you proposing ideas for a world government?
I was not trying to state that unemployed people are not trying to survive but that the system was completely flawed. I am merely stating that she is trying to do the best that she can and that she can not get any help unless she is unemployed. I agree that not all have the same opportunities in life but you have to deal with what you are given. She didn't have the opportunity to further her education but she still tries to do the best she can with what she has. You can see my prior statements to try to understand how I feel about unemployment if you care.
Okay, RH, Goldo? See this? This is what you guys look like from the outside.
QFT.
If those post ratings things survived, I'd give it 5 stars and a facebook like (despite despising facebook).
I think RH either got another vacation or he decided he had enough of this place. His profile isn't available anymore. I was wondering why he had not posted in a while.
I think RH gets the hint and nowadays if he's temporarily banned, he respects the ban.
Oh, and something back to the original topic:
I'm not sure if all that attention Casey is getting might not backfire badly. From what I know Australia is one of the "crab buckets", to use Pratchett's term. According to him, you don't need to put a lid on a crab bucket, because if one tries to get higher, the others will pull it down.
Not really. The guy is making 1 millions dollars has his salary. He isn't producing anything. He isn't a compagny.
:ROFL: There are almost no people making 1 million+ a year that aren't in a business that makes stuff for you to buy. A few attorneys and the like, but that's it. The rest are CEOs (and other high ranking corporate positions) and business owners.
Except it doesn't. Right you have the Bush taxe cuts who are effective (yes/no?) and it didn't have an impact on unemployement after/before the crisis (yes/no?).
Are you deliberately acting stupid or is it not an act? You areadly know that the Bush tax cuts were a joke, except for the wealthy and the wealthy don't spend it. I've said this to you before in this thread and would really like to know if you are acting or not. If you are not, I might put forth some more effort to teach you.
Not really. They can only raise the prices of good so far. They still need to sell their goods.
Since you're acting stupid again, I'll re-teach you what I taught you earlier in the thread. Raising the price of goods is only one way to pass the cost on to you. The other way is to fire workers and make do with fewer. This is why unemployment is so high right now. People stopped buying and they wanted to make the same amount of money, so *poof* people got fired. You raise taxes on businesses and you will see unemployment go up as they do what they need to to cut their losses.
The US and the Western world had it's biggest growth rate after WWII, when the taxes were at their highest.
Can you say WAR SPENDING. Try it. We had to produce so much for WWII that everyone and their mother had a job doing something and was spending money.
Well my dear friend, the Republicans you to vote for, the same who promise you taxe cuts, are the same who will cut taxes for you and the rich.
What are you smoking? First off, I don't vote Republican. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. Second, Republicans aren't interested in giving me tax cuts. They only give them to the rich and then offer up nearly worthless tokens to middle and lower class people.
As for the the 1 million dollars a year, I was aiming for a number that strikes the imagination of those who have very little, so that we could agree these are rich people. Maybe 100,000$ and more then should satisfy you
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
And reread what I wrote. I said after the war. Like in after war spending. Read up. It is the biggest growth period in the history of the western world. Taxes were also at their highest. It lasted until the end of the 60s.
The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
What are you smoking? It seems like some REALLY sweet ****, can I have some?
100,000 is LOADED. That's more than most families in the US make.The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
Face...through...desk.
And you are a conservitard, you believe in the free market and ****. Learn what you're talking about or GTFO.
I'm a super lefty liberal commie pinko. I'm just gonna go out and say that 100k for a household is decidedly "middle-class". Not upper middle. Just plain middle class.
Where, Cyclone Joker, do you live? Perhaps your location, and the relative costs, are skewing your perceptions of wealth. I live in the Bay Area in California. Rent for single bedroom apartments tend to be in the $1200 per month area. A 3 bedroom home with a backyard is around $450k, even after the housing bubble burst (due to criminal activity on the part of Wall St. banks). Here in California, $100k would be lower middle class. Across the nation, $100k is very middle of the road.
When you add mortage payments, property taxes, health care costs, car payments, maintenance, insurance for home, car, and life, food, clothing, education costs, savings for retirement, and utilities like power, and water, $100k goes away *really fast*.
The only people making $100,000 or more in this town are the top-tier staff and faculty of the university.
"Wealthy" is comparative. $100,000 a year is downright opulent around here. Me and my SO at a combined < $30,000 is on the high end of low-class, mostly because we don't have any kids.
That said, if I recall correctly, it's around $70,000 where making more money doesn't (on average) have an appreciable correlation with an increase in happiness/contentment/so-on.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
That's what just about everyone believes, yes, but it's not how it typically works out in practice.
Here's a short article about one study on the subject: [link]
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts, but it doesn't matter to me in the slightest one way or the other. No party will ever be good 100% of the time, so I'm left looking at all candidates on a case by case basis no matter what may or may not be the case with the GoP.
It is alot of cash... if you do not buy stupid stuff. People just over consumme.
First, it's still middle class. Second, you are arogant as hell to even begin to think that you are somehow entitled to tell them how they can spend their money or how much of it they can keep. That statement of yours just labeled you an extremist, every bit as extreme as a religious fundamentalist.
Nah, that is just the right wing trying to scare you so you do not get quality services like healthcare. I want increase taxes and increase government spending. At least for the short term.
LOL You ARE crazy. You want a government that hasn't spent competently in decades to raise taxes and then waste all the money? Bizarre. You are aware that govenment spending doesn't actually help the economy much, right? Especially when it's just tossed into the trash by handing it out to State governments the way they did.
And I'll humor you and say that war spending is another word for... Government spendind. It sounds like you agree that government spending creates jobs even when taxes are high.
Really? So all the workers who got PAID in WWII in the factories and thent spent the money were the government? I suppose you could make a round about case for that. The problem is, we don't have that infrastructure anymore. The unskilled labor jobs are going overseas, so that sort of spending would be next to worthless these days.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
Median salary in a stretch of land as big as the US is quite pointless. As has been made very clear by the last few posts, really. It's way too big for that information to hold any value.
Especially when the cost of living varies so dramatically. Where I live (Michigan) you can have a decent life on 38k. If you were to try living on that amount in NY or CA, it would likely get you shelter for a year and little else.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy. In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP. It fails as an argument. That would be like saying that since Muslim terrorists are Muslim, that all Muslims are terrorists. Certainly a small portion of Muslims are terrorists, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not and never will be.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
Being middle class doesn't you od not have lots of money.
At 100,000, you have enough to contribute more then enough to contribute more to society. No?
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
So who did you vote for last election?
Whoever the Green Party candidate was. I refused to vote for McCain due to advanced age, constant flip-flopping on issues and Sarah Palin. I refused to vote for Obama because I'm not stupid enough to put the House, Senate and Presidency in the same hands. That way lies disaster and I was right. That left the Peace and Freedom person and the Green Party person, and I wasn't about to vote for a Hippy.
I am arrogant. If someone makes 100,000 is in debt or bought a house he couldn't afford, he is stupid. No?
That has nothing to do with this. We're discussing taxation, not whether someone may or may not have spent wisely. Further, it wasn't the upper middle class that caused the melt down. It was the banks giving loans to the lower middle and upper lower classes who could not afford it.
Buying stuff made in China doesn't help your economy either.
We don't have much choice these days. Virtually nothing gets made in America.
Devaluating the government is just part of the right wing/the rich's strategy to keep the status quo.
Funny. It wasn't the right wing that did this. It was both the right AND left wings. The only difference between the right and left wings is WHAT they incompetently spend our money on and why.
We need to have more respect for the government and it's officials or else we open the door to extremists and people who do not value democraty.
Respect is earned and the government has not earned it in decades.
And government spending always helps the economy. It actually creates jobs you know. The same jobs you say are needed to stimulate spending. Stop watching Fox.
It creates jobs?!?!? Sure, if you count temporary jobs to build something. The only permanent jobs it creates are overpaid government jobs with over paid pensions and health packages that are too expensive and good. The country loses out when the government creates permanent jobs. The best job creation comes from American business, especially small business owners and the only way for them to grow is for the middle and lower classes to have MORE money to spend, not less.
Like I said earlier, infrastructures, building things, is a good way to inject government money.
60 years ago it was. Now the what we need for that kind of success is in India, China and Taiwan growing THEIR economies.
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
Competent spending won't cut it. The bulk of our discretionary spending goes to the military. We'll need to seriously cut back on that. In order to that though, we need to stop being the World's police. We have to learn to tell other countries "go talk to Europe, we're tapped out"; and we need to learn to deal in a non-military manner with threats like terrorism (which can be better handled by infrastructure and police than military action).
Reagan was genious in dealing with the U.S.S.R., but peace by strength of arms is a policy that will be ineffective in this century. With disproportionate warfare (nations V terror groups) making up the bulk of the 21st century's conflicts to date, we need a different kind of strength to mantain peace. A kind of peace built upon the kind of international cooperation and dependence that makes a lot of the old guard uncomfortable.
And even if we can do this, we'll likely need to both cut spending and raise taxes (and likely issue debt bonds to private citizens) to fully pay off the debt.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy.
You can, but I prefer to blame those at fault, if fault is what you consider it. That is to say, those who organized, sponsored, and got elected by the Tea Party are responsible/at fault/whatever, not those who did their best (however much that may not have been) in opposition.
In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to intent, but Underwear_ninja has made so many outrageous claims that I'm going to take what he actually says as his intent, so as far as I'm concerned, he stated that the Tea Party was the GOP in its entirety.
Not really. The guy is making 1 millions dollars has his salary. He isn't producing anything. He isn't a compagny.
:ROFL: There are almost no people making 1 million+ a year that aren't in a business that makes stuff for you to buy. A few attorneys and the like, but that's it. The rest are CEOs (and other high ranking corporate positions) and business owners.
Except it doesn't. Right you have the Bush taxe cuts who are effective (yes/no?) and it didn't have an impact on unemployement after/before the crisis (yes/no?).
Are you deliberately acting stupid or is it not an act? You areadly know that the Bush tax cuts were a joke, except for the wealthy and the wealthy don't spend it. I've said this to you before in this thread and would really like to know if you are acting or not. If you are not, I might put forth some more effort to teach you.
Not really. They can only raise the prices of good so far. They still need to sell their goods.
Since you're acting stupid again, I'll re-teach you what I taught you earlier in the thread. Raising the price of goods is only one way to pass the cost on to you. The other way is to fire workers and make do with fewer. This is why unemployment is so high right now. People stopped buying and they wanted to make the same amount of money, so *poof* people got fired. You raise taxes on businesses and you will see unemployment go up as they do what they need to to cut their losses.
The US and the Western world had it's biggest growth rate after WWII, when the taxes were at their highest.
Can you say WAR SPENDING. Try it. We had to produce so much for WWII that everyone and their mother had a job doing something and was spending money.
Well my dear friend, the Republicans you to vote for, the same who promise you taxe cuts, are the same who will cut taxes for you and the rich.
What are you smoking? First off, I don't vote Republican. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. Second, Republicans aren't interested in giving me tax cuts. They only give them to the rich and then offer up nearly worthless tokens to middle and lower class people.
As for the the 1 million dollars a year, I was aiming for a number that strikes the imagination of those who have very little, so that we could agree these are rich people. Maybe 100,000$ and more then should satisfy you
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
And reread what I wrote. I said after the war. Like in after war spending. Read up. It is the biggest growth period in the history of the western world. Taxes were also at their highest. It lasted until the end of the 60s.
The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
What are you smoking? It seems like some REALLY sweet ****, can I have some?
100,000 is LOADED. That's more than most families in the US make.The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
Face...through...desk.
And you are a conservitard, you believe in the free market and ****. Learn what you're talking about or GTFO.
I'm a super lefty liberal commie pinko. I'm just gonna go out and say that 100k for a household is decidedly "middle-class". Not upper middle. Just plain middle class.
Where, Cyclone Joker, do you live? Perhaps your location, and the relative costs, are skewing your perceptions of wealth. I live in the Bay Area in California. Rent for single bedroom apartments tend to be in the $1200 per month area. A 3 bedroom home with a backyard is around $450k, even after the housing bubble burst (due to criminal activity on the part of Wall St. banks). Here in California, $100k would be lower middle class. Across the nation, $100k is very middle of the road.
When you add mortage payments, property taxes, health care costs, car payments, maintenance, insurance for home, car, and life, food, clothing, education costs, savings for retirement, and utilities like power, and water, $100k goes away *really fast*.
The only people making $100,000 or more in this town are the top-tier staff and faculty of the university.
"Wealthy" is comparative. $100,000 a year is downright opulent around here. Me and my SO at a combined < $30,000 is on the high end of low-class, mostly because we don't have any kids.
That said, if I recall correctly, it's around $70,000 where making more money doesn't (on average) have an appreciable correlation with an increase in happiness/contentment/so-on.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
That's what just about everyone believes, yes, but it's not how it typically works out in practice.
Here's a short article about one study on the subject: [link]
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts, but it doesn't matter to me in the slightest one way or the other. No party will ever be good 100% of the time, so I'm left looking at all candidates on a case by case basis no matter what may or may not be the case with the GoP.
It is alot of cash... if you do not buy stupid stuff. People just over consumme.
First, it's still middle class. Second, you are arogant as hell to even begin to think that you are somehow entitled to tell them how they can spend their money or how much of it they can keep. That statement of yours just labeled you an extremist, every bit as extreme as a religious fundamentalist.
Nah, that is just the right wing trying to scare you so you do not get quality services like healthcare. I want increase taxes and increase government spending. At least for the short term.
LOL You ARE crazy. You want a government that hasn't spent competently in decades to raise taxes and then waste all the money? Bizarre. You are aware that govenment spending doesn't actually help the economy much, right? Especially when it's just tossed into the trash by handing it out to State governments the way they did.
And I'll humor you and say that war spending is another word for... Government spendind. It sounds like you agree that government spending creates jobs even when taxes are high.
Really? So all the workers who got PAID in WWII in the factories and thent spent the money were the government? I suppose you could make a round about case for that. The problem is, we don't have that infrastructure anymore. The unskilled labor jobs are going overseas, so that sort of spending would be next to worthless these days.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
Median salary in a stretch of land as big as the US is quite pointless. As has been made very clear by the last few posts, really. It's way too big for that information to hold any value.
Especially when the cost of living varies so dramatically. Where I live (Michigan) you can have a decent life on 38k. If you were to try living on that amount in NY or CA, it would likely get you shelter for a year and little else.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy. In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP. It fails as an argument. That would be like saying that since Muslim terrorists are Muslim, that all Muslims are terrorists. Certainly a small portion of Muslims are terrorists, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not and never will be.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
Being middle class doesn't you od not have lots of money.
At 100,000, you have enough to contribute more then enough to contribute more to society. No?
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
So who did you vote for last election?
Whoever the Green Party candidate was. I refused to vote for McCain due to advanced age, constant flip-flopping on issues and Sarah Palin. I refused to vote for Obama because I'm not stupid enough to put the House, Senate and Presidency in the same hands. That way lies disaster and I was right. That left the Peace and Freedom person and the Green Party person, and I wasn't about to vote for a Hippy.
I am arrogant. If someone makes 100,000 is in debt or bought a house he couldn't afford, he is stupid. No?
That has nothing to do with this. We're discussing taxation, not whether someone may or may not have spent wisely. Further, it wasn't the upper middle class that caused the melt down. It was the banks giving loans to the lower middle and upper lower classes who could not afford it.
Buying stuff made in China doesn't help your economy either.
We don't have much choice these days. Virtually nothing gets made in America.
Devaluating the government is just part of the right wing/the rich's strategy to keep the status quo.
Funny. It wasn't the right wing that did this. It was both the right AND left wings. The only difference between the right and left wings is WHAT they incompetently spend our money on and why.
We need to have more respect for the government and it's officials or else we open the door to extremists and people who do not value democraty.
Respect is earned and the government has not earned it in decades.
And government spending always helps the economy. It actually creates jobs you know. The same jobs you say are needed to stimulate spending. Stop watching Fox.
It creates jobs?!?!? Sure, if you count temporary jobs to build something. The only permanent jobs it creates are overpaid government jobs with over paid pensions and health packages that are too expensive and good. The country loses out when the government creates permanent jobs. The best job creation comes from American business, especially small business owners and the only way for them to grow is for the middle and lower classes to have MORE money to spend, not less.
Like I said earlier, infrastructures, building things, is a good way to inject government money.
60 years ago it was. Now the what we need for that kind of success is in India, China and Taiwan growing THEIR economies.
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
Competent spending won't cut it. The bulk of our discretionary spending goes to the military. We'll need to seriously cut back on that. In order to that though, we need to stop being the World's police. We have to learn to tell other countries "go talk to Europe, we're tapped out"; and we need to learn to deal in a non-military manner with threats like terrorism (which can be better handled by infrastructure and police than military action).
Reagan was genious in dealing with the U.S.S.R., but peace by strength of arms is a policy that will be ineffective in this century. With disproportionate warfare (nations V terror groups) making up the bulk of the 21st century's conflicts to date, we need a different kind of strength to mantain peace. A kind of peace built upon the kind of international cooperation and dependence that makes a lot of the old guard uncomfortable.
And even if we can do this, we'll likely need to both cut spending and raise taxes (and likely issue debt bonds to private citizens) to fully pay off the debt.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy.
You can, but I prefer to blame those at fault, if fault is what you consider it. That is to say, those who organized, sponsored, and got elected by the Tea Party are responsible/at fault/whatever, not those who did their best (however much that may not have been) in opposition.
In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to intent, but Underwear_ninja has made so many outrageous claims that I'm going to take what he actually says as his intent, so as far as I'm concerned, he stated that the Tea Party was the GOP in its entirety.
Not really. The guy is making 1 millions dollars has his salary. He isn't producing anything. He isn't a compagny.
:ROFL: There are almost no people making 1 million+ a year that aren't in a business that makes stuff for you to buy. A few attorneys and the like, but that's it. The rest are CEOs (and other high ranking corporate positions) and business owners.
Except it doesn't. Right you have the Bush taxe cuts who are effective (yes/no?) and it didn't have an impact on unemployement after/before the crisis (yes/no?).
Are you deliberately acting stupid or is it not an act? You areadly know that the Bush tax cuts were a joke, except for the wealthy and the wealthy don't spend it. I've said this to you before in this thread and would really like to know if you are acting or not. If you are not, I might put forth some more effort to teach you.
Not really. They can only raise the prices of good so far. They still need to sell their goods.
Since you're acting stupid again, I'll re-teach you what I taught you earlier in the thread. Raising the price of goods is only one way to pass the cost on to you. The other way is to fire workers and make do with fewer. This is why unemployment is so high right now. People stopped buying and they wanted to make the same amount of money, so *poof* people got fired. You raise taxes on businesses and you will see unemployment go up as they do what they need to to cut their losses.
The US and the Western world had it's biggest growth rate after WWII, when the taxes were at their highest.
Can you say WAR SPENDING. Try it. We had to produce so much for WWII that everyone and their mother had a job doing something and was spending money.
Well my dear friend, the Republicans you to vote for, the same who promise you taxe cuts, are the same who will cut taxes for you and the rich.
What are you smoking? First off, I don't vote Republican. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. Second, Republicans aren't interested in giving me tax cuts. They only give them to the rich and then offer up nearly worthless tokens to middle and lower class people.
As for the the 1 million dollars a year, I was aiming for a number that strikes the imagination of those who have very little, so that we could agree these are rich people. Maybe 100,000$ and more then should satisfy you
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
And reread what I wrote. I said after the war. Like in after war spending. Read up. It is the biggest growth period in the history of the western world. Taxes were also at their highest. It lasted until the end of the 60s.
The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
100,000+ is not wealthy. Now you want to over tax the middle class and shut down spending. Brilliant.
What are you smoking? It seems like some REALLY sweet ****, can I have some?
100,000 is LOADED. That's more than most families in the US make.The war was responsible for that. Production was high. There wasn't the outsourcing going on that we have these days. And a lot of money was floating around from war spending. It was a perfect mix for that growth. Now, you only want to raise taxes without mixing in the rest of the formula, and that's only a recipe for disaster.
Face...through...desk.
And you are a conservitard, you believe in the free market and ****. Learn what you're talking about or GTFO.
I'm a super lefty liberal commie pinko. I'm just gonna go out and say that 100k for a household is decidedly "middle-class". Not upper middle. Just plain middle class.
Where, Cyclone Joker, do you live? Perhaps your location, and the relative costs, are skewing your perceptions of wealth. I live in the Bay Area in California. Rent for single bedroom apartments tend to be in the $1200 per month area. A 3 bedroom home with a backyard is around $450k, even after the housing bubble burst (due to criminal activity on the part of Wall St. banks). Here in California, $100k would be lower middle class. Across the nation, $100k is very middle of the road.
When you add mortage payments, property taxes, health care costs, car payments, maintenance, insurance for home, car, and life, food, clothing, education costs, savings for retirement, and utilities like power, and water, $100k goes away *really fast*.
The only people making $100,000 or more in this town are the top-tier staff and faculty of the university.
"Wealthy" is comparative. $100,000 a year is downright opulent around here. Me and my SO at a combined < $30,000 is on the high end of low-class, mostly because we don't have any kids.
That said, if I recall correctly, it's around $70,000 where making more money doesn't (on average) have an appreciable correlation with an increase in happiness/contentment/so-on.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
That's what just about everyone believes, yes, but it's not how it typically works out in practice.
Here's a short article about one study on the subject: [link]
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts, but it doesn't matter to me in the slightest one way or the other. No party will ever be good 100% of the time, so I'm left looking at all candidates on a case by case basis no matter what may or may not be the case with the GoP.
It is alot of cash... if you do not buy stupid stuff. People just over consumme.
First, it's still middle class. Second, you are arogant as hell to even begin to think that you are somehow entitled to tell them how they can spend their money or how much of it they can keep. That statement of yours just labeled you an extremist, every bit as extreme as a religious fundamentalist.
Nah, that is just the right wing trying to scare you so you do not get quality services like healthcare. I want increase taxes and increase government spending. At least for the short term.
LOL You ARE crazy. You want a government that hasn't spent competently in decades to raise taxes and then waste all the money? Bizarre. You are aware that govenment spending doesn't actually help the economy much, right? Especially when it's just tossed into the trash by handing it out to State governments the way they did.
And I'll humor you and say that war spending is another word for... Government spendind. It sounds like you agree that government spending creates jobs even when taxes are high.
Really? So all the workers who got PAID in WWII in the factories and thent spent the money were the government? I suppose you could make a round about case for that. The problem is, we don't have that infrastructure anymore. The unskilled labor jobs are going overseas, so that sort of spending would be next to worthless these days.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
Median salary in a stretch of land as big as the US is quite pointless. As has been made very clear by the last few posts, really. It's way too big for that information to hold any value.
Especially when the cost of living varies so dramatically. Where I live (Michigan) you can have a decent life on 38k. If you were to try living on that amount in NY or CA, it would likely get you shelter for a year and little else.
You do know the Tea Party is the GoP.
What does that claim have to do with anything? Not only is it unsupported by any facts [...]
... so what do you call the fact that every Tea Party-endorsed candidate was a Republican candidate? Not all Republicans in office are Tea Partiers, but every Tea Partier in office is a Republican.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy. In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP. It fails as an argument. That would be like saying that since Muslim terrorists are Muslim, that all Muslims are terrorists. Certainly a small portion of Muslims are terrorists, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not and never will be.
Nah, I am making 75k a year and I would be happier with more money. More trips, more restaurants, more wine, more girls, bigger place!
And the median salary in the US is 50k. So 100k is well above what the majority of the people are earning.
Which changes absolutely nothing. Middle class income still stretches well past 100k a year.
Being middle class doesn't you od not have lots of money.
At 100,000, you have enough to contribute more then enough to contribute more to society. No?
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
So who did you vote for last election?
Whoever the Green Party candidate was. I refused to vote for McCain due to advanced age, constant flip-flopping on issues and Sarah Palin. I refused to vote for Obama because I'm not stupid enough to put the House, Senate and Presidency in the same hands. That way lies disaster and I was right. That left the Peace and Freedom person and the Green Party person, and I wasn't about to vote for a Hippy.
I am arrogant. If someone makes 100,000 is in debt or bought a house he couldn't afford, he is stupid. No?
That has nothing to do with this. We're discussing taxation, not whether someone may or may not have spent wisely. Further, it wasn't the upper middle class that caused the melt down. It was the banks giving loans to the lower middle and upper lower classes who could not afford it.
Buying stuff made in China doesn't help your economy either.
We don't have much choice these days. Virtually nothing gets made in America.
Devaluating the government is just part of the right wing/the rich's strategy to keep the status quo.
Funny. It wasn't the right wing that did this. It was both the right AND left wings. The only difference between the right and left wings is WHAT they incompetently spend our money on and why.
We need to have more respect for the government and it's officials or else we open the door to extremists and people who do not value democraty.
Respect is earned and the government has not earned it in decades.
And government spending always helps the economy. It actually creates jobs you know. The same jobs you say are needed to stimulate spending. Stop watching Fox.
It creates jobs?!?!? Sure, if you count temporary jobs to build something. The only permanent jobs it creates are overpaid government jobs with over paid pensions and health packages that are too expensive and good. The country loses out when the government creates permanent jobs. The best job creation comes from American business, especially small business owners and the only way for them to grow is for the middle and lower classes to have MORE money to spend, not less.
Like I said earlier, infrastructures, building things, is a good way to inject government money.
60 years ago it was. Now the what we need for that kind of success is in India, China and Taiwan growing THEIR economies.
At 100k+, they do contribute more than enough to society. It's just that our goverment fails at spending. Giving the government more money that they don't need will only make their spending that much more fail.
Right now the top 1% pays 1/3 of all the taxes of the country. That's plenty. The top 5% pays more than half. The bottom 50% pays around 4% of the taxes. The rich are already getting slammed. We don't need to do it to them more. We need to have competent spending in the government.
Competent spending won't cut it. The bulk of our discretionary spending goes to the military. We'll need to seriously cut back on that. In order to that though, we need to stop being the World's police. We have to learn to tell other countries "go talk to Europe, we're tapped out"; and we need to learn to deal in a non-military manner with threats like terrorism (which can be better handled by infrastructure and police than military action).
Reagan was genious in dealing with the U.S.S.R., but peace by strength of arms is a policy that will be ineffective in this century. With disproportionate warfare (nations V terror groups) making up the bulk of the 21st century's conflicts to date, we need a different kind of strength to mantain peace. A kind of peace built upon the kind of international cooperation and dependence that makes a lot of the old guard uncomfortable.
And even if we can do this, we'll likely need to both cut spending and raise taxes (and likely issue debt bonds to private citizens) to fully pay off the debt.
You can blame the Democrats for the Tea Party and its elected individuals, some of whome are crazy.
You can, but I prefer to blame those at fault, if fault is what you consider it. That is to say, those who organized, sponsored, and got elected by the Tea Party are responsible/at fault/whatever, not those who did their best (however much that may not have been) in opposition.
In any case, it wouldn't matter if 100% of the Tea Party is Republican, the GoP isn't being run by the Tea Party. His claim was that the Tea Party IS the GOP.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
Only if you want to get into a semantics debate. The intent, that the Tea Party is simply a sub-section of the GOP, is true, whether it could have been phrased more accurately or not.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to intent, but Underwear_ninja has made so many outrageous claims that I'm going to take what he actually says as his intent, so as far as I'm concerned, he stated that the Tea Party was the GOP in its entirety.