Obama may delay tax-cut rollback for wealthy

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Wait, why is he doing this? Taxing the rich is what's going to fix the economy!

I love how even he now admits that his plan is so shitty, that he has to say: "Well, the economy can't really handle my crappy plan right now, so... we better wait until it picks up a little bit before I tax the crap out of everyone."

Hahahaha, Go Obama!

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081123/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_taxes;_ylt=Aphy81ET1PuaU_abQ2.9gfwDW7 oF)

[tokenuser]

Two advisors - wishy washy language "may" "more likely than not".
Clutching at straws?

Wait until after Jan 20, when Obama, or his actual cabinet team make an announcement, rather than an "advisor".

[phatlip12]

Wait, why is he doing this? Taxing the rich is what's going to fix the economy!

I love how even he now admits that his plan is so shitty, that he has to say: "Well, the economy can't really handle my crappy plan right now, so... we better wait until it picks up a little bit before I tax the crap out of everyone."

Hahahaha, Go Obama!

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081123/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_taxes;_ylt=Aphy81ET1PuaU_abQ2.9gfwDW7 oF)

There's no pleasing you.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Wait until after Jan 20, when Obama, or his actual cabinet team make an announcement, rather than an "advisor".True, we'll see. Hopefully he'll come to his senses by then and realize how stupid it would be.

[comhcinc]

True, we'll see. Hopefully he'll come to his senses by then and realize how stupid it would be.
i agree, it would be stupid not to role back those tax cuts.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

i agree, it would be stupid not to role back those tax cuts.You're right, someone has to pay for other people's free rides.

[comhcinc]

You're right, someone has to pay for other people's free rides.
indeed they do.

[speed]

You're right, someone has to pay for other people's free rides.

You mean like the Wall Street bailout?

[esophagus]

You mean like the Wall Street bailout?
Which I believe he was also against.

[tokenuser]

You're right, someone has to pay for other people's free rides.Yep. I am really happy to see that GM are selling off two of their 5 corporate jets. Hope Chrysler and Ford follow that lead.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Yep. I am really happy to see that GM are selling off two of their 5 corporate jets. Hope Chrysler and Ford follow that lead.I love how Democrats have such an envy of success. Having a little trouble with your own Token, so you like it when the government takes out your failed accomplishments on others?

[tokenuser]

I love how Democrats have such an envy of success. Having a little trouble with your own Token, so you like it when the government takes out your failed accomplishments on others?No, I just hate the hypocricy the big three coming to Washington, cap in hand, for a bailout on private jets at $20000 per trip, when a commercial flight would have cost $250.

I have nothing against personal success, but hate the show of personal excess.

[comhcinc]

I love how Democrats have such an envy of success. Having a little trouble with your own Token, so you like it when the government takes out your failed accomplishments on others?


just remember kiddies, welfare is fine as long as it is corporate.


you only deserve free money if you male, white, rich and not gay.


sorry you don't qualify crumbles.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

No, I just hate the hypocricy the big three coming to Washington, cap in hand, for a bailout on private jets at $20000 per trip, when a commercial flight would have cost $250.

I have nothing against personal success, but hate the show of personal excess.Ah, OK, I misunderstood what you meant. I too think they all should have been forced to fall on their faces.

[masherscf]

I love how Democrats have such an envy of success. Having a little trouble with your own Token, so you like it when the government takes out your failed accomplishments on others?

I don't think these fellows are successful. They're just connected.

For example, I have lifetime appointment in good career that pays a living wage. I enjoy modest professional recognition from the people I work with. I enjoy my work and even look forward to going into the office. Nevertheless, I have plenty of spare time to help raise my family. I'll never be a rich man, but I'm not going in debt and I'll positively effect thousands of lives in my career. There is a measure of success in that somewhere.

However, why is condemning these men for spending money they don't have any different from different from condemning the welfare mom with a new cellphone? Is it the suit?

If you envy these men, you have to check your priorities at the door.

Anyhow, the title of the OP is a little preposterous. Why not just write "Obama may delay tax increase for the wealthy." Why bury this meaning in pointless double-speak?

[tokenuser]

Anyhow, the title of the OP is a little preposterous. Why not just write "Obama may delay tax increase for the wealthy." Why bury this meaning in pointless double-speak?Technically, its not a tax increase. It is a letting a set of TEMPORARY tax deductions put in place under the Bush administration expire. Obama's plan was to expire the TEMPORARY tax deduction early. Net effect is that that taxes will REVERT to previous levels. Some perceive that as a tax increase, instead of the reality being that they were getting an additional tax rebate over the past couple of years (when it could be afforded).

[masherscf]

Technically, its not a tax increase. It is a letting a set of TEMPORARY tax deductions put in place under the Bush administration expire. Obama's plan was to expire the TEMPORARY tax deduction early. Net effect is that that taxes will REVERT to previous levels. Some perceive that as a tax increase, instead of the reality being that they were getting an additional tax rebate over the past couple of years (when it could be afforded).

You mean the sunset on the tax break on capital gains? You mean the tax that gets increased automatically if Obama does nothing.

Is this capital gains tax targeted only at wealthy tax payers? Or does it effect all tax-payers who happen to experience capital gains? Of course, a capital gains tax in the present economy is kind of pointless.

[tokenuser]

Capital gains was only part of the tax package ... there was a general income tax component as well.

[masherscf]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDqw8_eMzrhU&refer=home


End Welfare!

[speed]

I love how Democrats have such an envy of success. Having a little trouble with your own Token, so you like it when the government takes out your failed accomplishments on others?

I don't envy success. I hate ill gotten wealth, though. If a person works their ass off and gets rich because of it, then ok. If, however, a person is born into wealth, power or status, or they gain their power/wealth/status by screwing over others, then they can go screw themselves. Big difference.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I don't envy success. I hate ill gotten wealth, though. If a person works their ass off and gets rich because of it, then ok. If, however, a person is born into wealth, power or status, or they gain their power/wealth/status by screwing over others, then they can go screw themselves. Big difference.And you are the exact reason why the Democrats will always have the poor vote.

"Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

Democrats: the children of the political ring.

[phatlip12]

And you are the exact reason why the Democrats will always have the poor vote.

"Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

Democrats: the children of the political ring.

You're silly.

[masherscf]

You're silly.

I think it's funny.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I think it's funny.Well, you are a dem ya know.

[comhcinc]

Well, you are a dem ya know.
you would be wise to not upset the ruling power.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Considering his bias and behind the scenes trying to perma ban me, you have no idea.

[masherscf]

Well, you are a dem ya know.

It's true. I'm a Democrat. I've been one all my life. I can't remember ever saying, "Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

[phatlip12]

Considering his bias and behind the scenes trying to perma ban me, you have no idea.

LOLZ

Im N yourz mod forumz trying 2 ban YOU! OH NOZ!

When did members get access to the private mod forum? Should I try clearing my browsers cache or something?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

It's true. I'm a Democrat. I've been one all my life. I can't remember ever saying, "Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

Oh, sorry, you just voted for a President who thinks that, my bad.

Obama's website (http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/): "Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility."

Apparently if a wealthy American wants to keep their money, that's greed. If someone wants to take it away from them by force, that's fairness.

GOBAMA!

[masherscf]

So, the quote talks about fairness. It's only you that has interpreted "fairness" as some sort of lower-class money grab. It's clear you don't trust the idea. Why make up stories?

[phatlip12]

GOBAMA!


Yeah! GOBAMA!

[secret-steve-crumbles]

So, the quote talks about fairness. It's only you that has interpreted "fairness" as some sort of lower-class money grab. It's clear you don't trust the idea. Why make up stories?How about instead of the typical "you're wrong, I'm right!" argument, you put out some intelligence and explain to me how that's being interpreted wrong.

[phatlip12]

How about instead of the typical "you're wrong, I'm right!" argument, you put out some intelligence and explain to me how that's being interpreted wrong.

Okie dokie.


It's true. I'm a Democrat. I've been one all my life. I can't remember ever saying, "Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

End of discussion??

[comhcinc]

Considering his bias and behind the scenes trying to perma ban me, you have no idea.
dude, if you hate us all so much and you think we are all out to get you and you feel that we are all socialist/communist/idiots why the hell do you keep coming here?

[phatlip12]

dude, if you hate us all so much and you think we are all out to get you and you feel that we are all socialist/communist/idiots why the hell do you keep coming here?

Thats the million dollar question my friend.

[masherscf]

How about instead of the typical "you're wrong, I'm right!" argument, you put out some intelligence and explain to me how that's being interpreted wrong.

Obama's website (http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/): "Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility."

You've already assumed that by "restoring fairness" Obama means to loot the wealthy of all their hard earned cash and pass it spread it around in some sort of cash bonanza. That sounds pretty "unfair" to me.

Accepting the premise of your argument involves ignoring the actual words and replacing them with a phatasmic hidden meaning.

If we can't agree on the definition of simple words, why continue speaking?

I agree that fairness should be restored in the tax system. What could be wrong with fair taxes?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

dude, if you hate us all so much and you think we are all out to get you and you feel that we are all socialist/communist/idiots why the hell do you keep coming here?Masher does not = "all of you."

Obama's website (http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/): "Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility."

You've already assumed that by "restoring fairness" Obama means to loot the wealthy of all their hard earned cash and pass it spread it around in some sort of cash bonanza. That sounds pretty "unfair" to me.

Accepting the premise of your argument involves ignoring the actual words and replacing them with a phatasmic hidden meaning.

If we can't agree on the definition of simple words, why continue speaking?

I agree that fairness should be restored in the tax system. What could be wrong with fair taxes?You still failed to explain what he meant.

[masherscf]

Masher does not = "all of you."

You still failed to explain what he meant.

I'll take a stab at it.

Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.

Seems like pretty standard political vaguary. It contains very few details and fairness is often in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think it has a meaning beyond the face value.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I don't think it has a meaning beyond the face value.OK, no pun intended, but fair enough.

I guess your original assumption was correct then. We'll just have to disagree with the translation of that.

[comhcinc]

Masher does not = "all of you."

you have called me names. you have called other people names. you have made it a point to point out the post of people you want to mock in your sig. there are other thing i don't feel like i need to mention.

you don't seem to like people here? why not go be with people you do like?

[masherscf]

OK, no pun intended, but fair enough.

I guess your original assumption was correct then. We'll just have to disagree with the translation of that.

Suffice it to say, I didn't vote for Obama for this rather progressive sounding tax policy. But, The devil is the details. I'm not sure that Obama has the political clout to do anything drastic. We'll see.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

why not go be with people you do like?Aguilera is taken. :(

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Suffice it to say, I didn't vote for Obama for this rather progressive sounding tax policy. But, The devil is the details. I'm not sure that Obama has the political clout to do anything drastic. We'll see.It's going to be a very interesting 4 years.

[masherscf]

It's going to be a very interesting 4 years.


That's an understatement.

[comhcinc]

Aguilera is taken. :(
man you are trying to make this easy for me?

any way to advance the thread.

do you thank an across the board temporary tax cut will help the economy?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

man you are trying to make this easy for me?

any way to advance the thread.

do you thank an across the board temporary tax cut will help the economy?Wait, you know I was talking about sex, right?

[masherscf]

Wait, you know I was talking about sex, right?

Aguilera? Really? You can do better.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Aguilera? Really? You can do better.Ha, everyone says that. For some reason she does it for me. (Other than my wife that is...)

[speed]

And you are the exact reason why the Democrats will always have the poor vote.

"Boo-hoo, it's not fair that he was born into the money! That's not fair! Give me some!"

I never said that. I do feel, however, that those who are better off have a duty to help those less fortunate make a better life. This does not mean that I want to reward laziness or anything. Obviously, if you can, you should get a job and work, like everyone else. However, those who are born into poverty should get assistance to get out. It's easy to say that people on the streets should get jobs, but much harder for it to happen. If you ran a business, would you hire a guy with no home, no phone, no email, no bank account, hasn't had a shower in who knows how long and doesn't have clean clothes? I sure as hell wouldn't. If you can't afford post-secondary, you should be eligible for government scholarships (actually, I think the government should pay for all tuition, but baby steps) if you have good enough grades in high school.

As for those born into wealth, I may personally resent them, etc. I am by no means advocating a distribution of wealth. That is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the political policies I support. However, the rich should pay higher taxes. No because I'm penalizing success, but because they are benefiting in this society the most and doing the best (at least, according to the definition of success the right likes to throw around), so they should contribute more.

Since I know you won't read what I said and just take something out of context: we should kill the bloody bourgeoisie and spread the wealth around! Marx FTW!

Have fun with that line.

[ariastar]

I never said that. I do feel, however, that those who are better off have a duty to help those less fortunate make a better life. This does not mean that I want to reward laziness or anything. Obviously, if you can, you should get a job and work, like everyone else. However, those who are born into poverty should get assistance to get out.

The "help" we've had in place is a system that has been abused so often that all people accepting said help are seen as lazy assholes now. Someone who wants assistance needs to show a willingness to make a true attempt at self-help instead of relying on hand-outs as a sole means of support. The assistance to get out of poverty shouldn't be the solution, throwing money at someone and saying, "Here, we'll keep giving you move so you aren't in poverty." I've got not problem with TEMPORARY assistance to able-bodied people who need HELP and are not just willing but actually making an effort. But unfortunately, the help-system we have is indeed rewarding laziness. Also, this help shouldn't be available ONLY to people with kids. Singles and couples who've fallen on hard times don't qualify for food stamps or welfare.

[speed]

The "help" we've had in place is a system that has been abused so often that all people accepting said help are seen as lazy assholes now. Someone who wants assistance needs to show a willingness to make a true attempt at self-help instead of relying on hand-outs as a sole means of support. The assistance to get out of poverty shouldn't be the solution, throwing money at someone and saying, "Here, we'll keep giving you move so you aren't in poverty." I've got not problem with TEMPORARY assistance to able-bodied people who need HELP and are not just willing but actually making an effort. But unfortunately, the help-system we have is indeed rewarding laziness. Also, this help shouldn't be available ONLY to people with kids. Singles and couples who've fallen on hard times don't qualify for food stamps or welfare.

At the same time, it's impossible to get out without assistance sometimes. How is a homeless person supposed to get a job? What we should be doing is setting up rent-to-own housing (and building it to look decent, none of that projects BS), and giving companies tax credit for hiring these people and giving them a chance. A portion of the paychecks they get back should then be remitted to go towards paying for the house and eventually they should receive full ownership. This way, the homeless can get back on their feet and have something to show for it. Part of the problem with the projects is that they're ugly as all hell and, since it's all rental, there's no pride of ownership, so no one gives a damn.

Obviously my plan is no good to those with severe mental disorders, but I honestly don't know what to do about that... Leave that problem up to smarter minds.

And there should be severe penalties for anyone caught milking the system. I'm not sure how to prevent such abuse, but the potential for abuse shouldn't prevent us from attempting to help those in need.

The way I see it, it's the duty of those who are better off to help out those who are less fortunate. Full disclosure: my family makes roughly $100,000/year, which is a higher tax bracket, so I'm not saying this as some poor or lazy person who pays no taxes.

[alaskalonewolf]

The way I look at it, taxes are kinda like having everyone you know
together for a shindig. The cost of buying all the beer and food
would be waaay too much for any one individual to handle. Not to mention
the fact you usually got to rent the stripper, the DJ and a bunch of
fireworks. So consequently you all pitch in. Of course, individuals usually
spend a their own money on their personal needs at the party, y'know
like the stupid hats, some farm animals etc... but for the most part the
cost of the party is carried by the group overall, each according to his
relative popularity or friendship level with the host. Think about it though,
don't a bunch of people end up coming that don't pay squat? Don't the
crashers get to party and empty the kegs? Even though individually there's
guys tipping the stripper with singles, at some point she got several crisp
c-notes before the first songs... I'm just saying: If I'm the baller that I
am, aren't I pretty much mandated to be said baller and throw down more
than the dude who took the bus and barely had enough to buy the forty
on his way from his mom's house?

Of course, we're not having the party at that guy's house.

I say the rich ought to show some gratitude for the freedoms and latitudes
they've been given in this country. I say the rich ought to step back a
second and realize that their whole f***ing world can be taken apart, brick
for brick in a single year the way we're going. I say they ought to step
up and pay instead of trying to skip out of their fair share. I'm sick of seeing
the news report of how some rich dude steals even MORE money he'll never
be able to spend in a lifetime... just to prove a point? We spent how much tax
money? We gave the money to who? Why?

No, Obama better bring the change. Or else, as history has proven, change
will be brought to him. And it won't be a very fun party. I know I'll go hang
with someone else if it goes back to the usual bullsh!t.

[rabidbadger]

The way I look at it, taxes are kinda like having everyone you know
together for a shindig....No, Obama better bring the change. Or else, as history has proven, change
will be brought to him. And it won't be a very fun party. I know I'll go hang
with someone else if it goes back to the usual bullsh!t.

Best. Polipost. Ever.

(and one of the funniest)

[skyz]

There's no pleasing you.


not necessarily so

he gets pleasure from arguing (it is always the same argument [all democrats are wrong and all republicans are right] )

and he gets his satisfction from you and others responding

if you really want him miserable do not respond in anyway to anything he says


;)

[skyz]

At the same time, it's impossible to get out without assistance sometimes.

most definitely

let us use a random example: a single young person is walking across the street and is hit by a vehicle ending up in the hospital for a year and running up millions in medical bills

should we just let this person die ?

and if we taxpayers pay for their care should that person bear the burden of debt for the millions paid out by the taxpayers for their care ?

or should they be free to pursue their own hopes and dreams free of debt and hopefully to be at least grateful to the system that took care of them and compassionate enough to be willing to contribute to the care of someone else who had suffered misfortune ?

[alaskalonewolf]

I've just become jaded. Sick of the status quo.
Admittedly I've become cynical. Sooo pissed off.
Irate about how things have ended up. But, I'd
forgive it all, and change my own ways, if for once,
I felt inspired by, or believed in, the rhetoric coming
out of any politicians' mouth these days.

As for the terminally ill, and those who have arrived at
the end of life, in death's crosshairs, suddenly, either by
choices they made, or by time and unforseen occurance,
(insert ad for insurance here), I would say that ethically
it is the responsibility of each individual to think about the
future and to plan ahead.

I suggest that these decisions, are part of being an adult.
There is no cut and dried simple answer.

My son had to have surgery as a child (http://www.thechildrenshospital.org/). It costed far more
than I could afford. There are organizations who can help
in the event of crisis. It shouldn't be arbitrarily left to John Q
taxpayer to deal with. Make decisions beforehand, be an
adult; refuse to put people you care about, or those perfect
strangers into a horrible position. If I crash my airplane into
an elementary school, it's not the fault of the airplane.
(Blame the pilot, the mechanic, the manufacturer, the meteorologist
the flight controller, the co-pilot's preflight report, or the refueler...)

Bad things happen to good people, there is ugliness anywhere you
want to look in this world, and often more problems than a
solution, more often than not. Ya' start writing blank checks (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)
willie-nillie and we're all gonna' be drowning. That's why they
tell you to put the mask on yourself (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/26/plane276.jpg) first, before trying to help
someone else. Our government needs to get its priorities straight.
I suggest more of the richly-spoiled, privileged-citizens, who enjoy the
wonderful gifts from this great place on Earth, out of their own accord,
do their best to put us back on course. Tax them. Most of us, are broke.
And then, after collecting enough money to deal with things, don't blow it.

[ariastar]

At the same time, it's impossible to get out without assistance sometimes. How is a homeless person supposed to get a job? What we should be doing is setting up rent-to-own housing (and building it to look decent, none of that projects BS), and giving companies tax credit for hiring these people and giving them a chance. A portion of the paychecks they get back should then be remitted to go towards paying for the house and eventually they should receive full ownership. This way, the homeless can get back on their feet and have something to show for it. Part of the problem with the projects is that they're ugly as all hell and, since it's all rental, there's no pride of ownership, so no one gives a damn.

Obviously my plan is no good to those with severe mental disorders, but I honestly don't know what to do about that... Leave that problem up to smarter minds.

And there should be severe penalties for anyone caught milking the system. I'm not sure how to prevent such abuse, but the potential for abuse shouldn't prevent us from attempting to help those in need.

The way I see it, it's the duty of those who are better off to help out those who are less fortunate. Full disclosure: my family makes roughly $100,000/year, which is a higher tax bracket, so I'm not saying this as some poor or lazy person who pays no taxes.

So they key to getting to own a home is to become homeless? Problem is working people are already struggling. It's not reasonable right now to expect working-class people to fund the living expenses of others. I feel bad for many homeless people I see (not so much the ones with bottles of alcohol in their hands with signs about being hungry - buy food, not alcohol), but at the same time, it's not right to expect working families to have to go hungry because they have to pay for the housing, food, medical care, and all other expenses of someone else. It's not the duty of the family just barely, so barely, scraping by to take care of those less fortunate. When you're getting a better hand by being homeless than by working, something's wrong.

Your family makes enough that nan extra couple hundred in taxes won't make or break whether you eat every day. But for a lot of working families these days, even an extra hundred to pay for the housing of others means picking which day or the week to impose a fast because they can't afford to eat every day.

I am definitely in favor of letting people take care of themselves and their families first rather than forcing people to take care of others with the money they earn, and their own families coming in last. If people weren't forced to pay so much, perhaps people would be more willing to donate to non-profits. I'd rather donate to a non-profit that won't take a huge cut than to be taxed out the ass so politicians can take big cuts and give only a tiny fraction to the people it's supposed to go to.

I stand by what I said that people who want help should be required to show some sort of proof that they're trying to help themselves, and should be required to continue showing proof as long as they're getting tax-payer help. Don't even try looking for a job (I know there's not much to be had, but there's nothing if one doesn't even at the least try), then no money or housing for that person. Get out there and try, even if what you're hearing is no after no, at least you're making an effort, so here's some help until you're back on your feet and paying taxes.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Your family makes enough that nan extra couple hundred in taxes won't make or break whether you eat every day.Ha, I love this argument from the Democrats.

So, let me post a serious question to the Democrats.

How much money do you have to make before you're making too much money?

[masherscf]

Ha, I love this argument from the Democrats.

So, let me post a serious question to the Democrats.

How much money do you have to make before you're making too much money?

I'm kinda with Crumbles on this one. If I have an extra hundred bucks come tax-time, I think it's for me to decided what to do with it.

[alaskalonewolf]

I think that's a dumb question. Here's the rule: If you're wiping your ass with
money, maybe you can hand me a roll of toilet paper when I've ran out. Don't
get me wrong though, I'll use newspaper or leaves if I have to... just sayin...
...it'd be nice.

I'm really sick of hearing people bitch about how bad they got it when
they're playing the back nine at Pebble beach drinking black label because
they 'can't afford' blue label. Gimme a break. Tax the rich, especially the
people that already have more money than they could EVER spend in their
lifetime. Ridiculously wealthy people should see it as their civic duty to give
something back...

[tokenuser]

How much money do you have to make before you're making too much money?Hmm.

Covering a mortgage.
Covering a 401k.
Covering a medical plan.
Covering bills.
Covering child expenses.

That number is going to be different for each family, but I suspect that the $250K proposed is probably about the right point, especially if the medical costs are reduced because of UHC, and mortgage rates and predatory lending practices are regulated.

Lets turn it around.

As a Republican, how much money do you need to make before you are making enough?

Dying with a boatload of cash and investments is pointless if your children cant breath the air, and natural resources have been squeezed to within an inch of their life. Everyone needs to have a social responsibility.

[alaskalonewolf]

Exactly. My point exactly.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I think that's a dumb question. Here's the rule: If you're wiping your ass with money, maybe you can hand me a roll of toilet paper when I've ran out.

I'm really sick of hearing people bitch about how bad they got it when
they're playing the back nine at Pebble beach drinking black label because
they 'can't afford' blue label. Gimme a break. Tax the rich, especially the
people that already have more money than they could EVER spend in their
lifetime. Ridiculously wealthy people should see it as their civic duty to give
something back...Wealth envy. Why the Democrats will always have votes.

As a Republican, how much money do you need to make before you are making enough?Your question is very much different than mine. Not sure if it was intentional or not, so, I'll wait for you to clarify before I answer.

[alaskalonewolf]

I don't (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=24&version=31&context=verse) envy the wealthy. I pity them. True wealth doesn't originate with the balance sheet from your broker.

[skyz]

Hmm.

Dying with a boatload of cash and investments is pointless if your children cant breath the air, and natural resources have been squeezed to within an inch of their life. Everyone needs to have a social responsibility.

exactly even bill gates' kids are going to have to breathe the same air drive on the same highways .....

bill became a great man not by making billions but in being eager and willing to see what good he could be to those with nothing

as long as a person is in the mode of 'this is mine mine mine' they have not outgrown their two year old selves

[alaskalonewolf]

That is an excellent example. Lemme add (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=active&q=oprah&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) another:

http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/uploaded_images/oprah-746465.jpg

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I don't (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=24&version=31&context=verse) envy the wealthy. I pity them. True wealth doesn't originate with the balance sheet from your broker.Ah, right, OK, so you "pity" them by asking them to give you their money. Got it. :rolleyes:

[tokenuser]

Wealth envy. Why the Democrats will always have votes.

Your question is very much different than mine. Not sure if it was intentional or not, so, I'll wait for you to clarify before I answer.It was intentional.

"How much money do you have to make before you're making too much money?" - this set the perceived level of excess.

"How much money do you need to make before you are making enough?" - this sets the perceived level of sustenance.

The problem with asking the "how much is too much" question is that that people answering are going to alway look at more than what they are currently earning. I was amazed at the Republican rallies, that each time the $250K figure was mentioned, there was massive booing - yet I would bet that the median (not mean, not average) income for the attendees at most of the rallies would be less (significantly) than the $250K proposed (2007 census data shows the median US household income to be a little over $50K).

That is why I think asking the "how much is enough" question is better, because you are not judging others, you are judging yourself.

[alaskalonewolf]

No. Actually, I'm calling for them to give "something" back.
For a balance to be returned. It's actually rather simple...
...and I realize, up front, that this will never actually happen.

What would you suggest?

http://thebluerepublic.com/Gallery/albums/Photoshop/eyeneedle.jpg

I compare the standard to a person's diet. How much is too much?
I ask you: How much should your average dinner cost? How about your shoes?
Don't mind me. While waiting for an answer I'll be reading a few articles:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/17/homes-expensive-ten-forbeslife-cx_mw_1117realestate.html
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/home-india-billion-forbeslife-cx_mw_0430realestate.html
http://www.truliablog.com/2008/05/09/worlds-most-expensive-home/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=world's+most+expensive+homes&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/richest-people-billionaires-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305billie_land.html
http://money.aol.com/forbes/general/worlds-richest-people-2008#

[secret-steve-crumbles]

No. Actually, I'm calling for them to give "something" back.Hahaha, Democrats are cute. Wealth envy. They have made too much money, and they need to give it back. I love it.

I was amazed at the Republican rallies, that each time the $250K figure was mentioned, there was massive booing - yet I would bet that the median (not mean, not average) income for the attendees at most of the rallies would be less (significantly) than the $250KDemocrats are content with having a mediocre life. Obama supports that lifestyle. I don't make 250k yet, however, I plan on working hard to achieve that or more. My booing would be based off of that, not how much money I currently have.

[alaskalonewolf]

Thanks: And I must say that Republicans are successful.
That's why I look at myself as an Independent, here's why:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson)
Harry S. Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman)
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson)

...those who fail to study history, will repeat it, often.

[skyz]

It was intentional.

That is why I think asking the "how much is enough" question is better, because you are not judging others, you are judging yourself.

i knew it was intentional ;)

and it is an excellent question

the thing is due to our psychological make up enough is a moving target

our needs and wants tend to increase as our income rises

if you make 50 K you think if you made 100 K that would be 'enough' but once you got there you would think '250 K would just about do it'

in order to feel 'enough' you need to think like a zen monk to them 'less is definitely more'

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Thanks: And I must say that Republicans are successful.
That's why I look at myself as an Independent, here's why:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson)
Harry S. Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman)
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson)

...those who fail to study history, will repeat it, often.I like hot dogs.

[alaskalonewolf]

That's weird, me too. You like it (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hot%20dogs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) with ketchup?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

That's weird, me too. You like it (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hot%20dogs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) with ketchup?Fishtanks.

See how pointless it is to change the subject when you have no argument? Let me know when you're ready to address your wealth envy issue. Changing the subject just means you've given up and have no argument.

[alaskalonewolf]

Who doesn't get disenfranchised from time to time?
There's not really an argu (https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/classes/eecs/spring2008/cs381/index.php/Main/ProgrammingAssignment1)ment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_(computer_science)) to be had... or is there?
Saying that the rich should simply hand over their
wealth to balance the scales is silly. Then how would
I ever get to be rich, if those were the new rules?
That would be communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism). We all know that didn't work.

Of course that's sometimes the eventuality of something truly democratic...
...with Republicans endorsing a dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship) being in the opposite direction.

Envy? Dunno if it's da green-eyed monster dat goes
jumpin' around in my house. I guess I get tired of only
eating hot dogs, ramen, and peanut butter. Of course,
ain't complaining about what I do, actually have.
I guess you'd probably say I'm luckier than most people,
from an atheist perspective. Or say I'm blessed, if ya'
believe in the Higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) Power (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/exponent.htm).

My argument is mathematical:
It happens to be the only pure language.
Hence, we're talking distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth).
Not envy.

I guess it's about the ratio. That those who have most, often give least.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Who doesn't get disenfranchised from time to time?
There's not really an argument to be had there.
Saying that the rich should simply hand over their
wealth to balance the scales is silly. Then how would
I ever get to be rich, if those were the new rules?
That would be communism. We all know that didn't work.

Envy? Dunno if it's da green-eyed monster dat goes
jumpin' around in my house. I guess I get tired of only
eating hot dogs, ramen, and peanut butter. Of course,
ain't complaining about what I do, actually have.
I guess you'd probably say I'm luckier than most people,
from an atheist perspective. Or say I'm blessed, if ya'
believe in the Higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) Power (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/exponent.htm).

My argument is mathematical:
It happens to be the only pure language.
Hence, we're talking distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth).
Not envy.Ha, so, you're against communism, but for distribution of wealth. That's awesome. It makes me sick that so many people think like you in this country today.

[tokenuser]

Democrats are content with having a mediocre life.Mediocre life? Yep. All Democrats want to live in a double wide and go shopping with welfare checks.

Democrats want a better quality of life ... and realise that that goes beyond material wealth.

Obama supports that lifestyle. I don't make 250k yet, however, I plan on working hard to achieve that or more. My booing would be based off of that, not how much money I currently have.I don't earn $250K yet either, but as a household, I am doing significantly better than the median US income, and soon I will be doing even better. Being left wing does not make you complacent and wait for handouts.

Republicans have got a very short term view on things. I would spend $50 now if it would save me $100 later. You say that you don't want to be taxed to pay for someone else to go to the doctor (I am using this as an example, I know that in this thread you haven't actually said that), yet lose sight of the fact that the $50 you get taxed now, will save you $100 in health care later.

[alaskalonewolf]

No. Actually not mediocre. Not at all. Haven't actually gotten
to go into space, yet. I endorse an algorithm. I endorse math.
Simple math. Not boolean algebra, or calculus here. Just da basics.
What landed us in this depression? A huge bear market. Another
lame xmas with friends of mine dying on foreign soil? Not complaining
though, mind you. Again, I've been blessed. More than most. I'm
just offering the question: Where do we go from here?

Whether you'd admit it or not, wealth is distributed. It's usually not
looked at, that way, but then again, that's why people do go to college.
Although Yale may be an excellent college, I think there are waaaay
better places to attend if you're looking for a advanced history degree.
It's only my opinion. Distorted and flawed as it may be. I enjoy
critical thinking, and creative solutions, just as much as breaking
stuff, and killing things. It's the balance that's at issue. It's about
people making promises, then following through. The argument is
on who has the answer... it's obvious who has FAILED.

Actually my home (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska) is called an exclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave) so I
don't think I'd see myself as actually
being in this "country" that you speak of.
Maybe it's jus' me though. Sometimes I
feel like I'm the only one in an empty room.

We do agree though:

Your "country" is pretty f*** up right now.
And Republicans are [typically] successful.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Republicans have got a very short term view on things. I would spend $50 now if it would save me $100 later. You say that you don't want to be taxed to pay for someone else to go to the doctor (I am using this as an example, I know that in this thread you haven't actually said that), yet lose sight of the fact that the $50 you get taxed now, will save you $100 in health care later.First, I want to know exactly how $50 you are taxed on now saves you $100 later, that doesn't make any sense. If everyone was taxed $50 and needed $100 worth of healthcare, the system would collapse. Which means that somewhere, somebody is paying $50 for $0 worth of healthcare, which is not fair.

Second, this assumes that all things are being equal, that the QUALITY of healthcare remains exactly the same.

So the only other way you can get taxed $50 and save $100, is if you are getting a 66% reduction in the cost, I.E. - in this case - the quality of your healthcare.

Besides, if you get taxed $50, thus negating you having to pay $100 for healthcare later, you aren't saving $100, you are paying $50 for it. The government is merely mandating a diminished quality of healthcare. They are reducing costs (which everyone loves - on the surface) by rationing and diminishing the quality of services provided (which none of the proponents like to talk about.)

What I look forward to is when it collapses, who the Democrats will blame. Obviously nothing is ever a Democrats fault, so, with the house, senate, president all being Democrats, I can't wait for the creative blaming that will follow soon.

[tokenuser]

I can't find the latest figures, so please accept my numbers that are 5 years (2003) out of date.

ADMINISTRATIVE costs for health care, and that does NOT impact quality of service, just the insane level of administration required because of health insurance providers ...

US (Private health insurance): $1059/capita
Cananda (UHC): $307/capita [source (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php)]

Now, given the proportion of populations (301M to 33M), you would hope that with the economies of scale that a national health system would end up costing even less per capita. That is before we even get to the actual care giving.

Interesting blog post from the NYTimes (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/) about excess administrative cost in US health care.

[alaskalonewolf]

Actually this depression we're in was Bill Clinton's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) fault, and other "rich" people who jus' got greedier. [source (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bill-clinton-al-gore-and-glass-seagall-repeal-did-democrats-crash-world-economy)]
The "war" we're in was George Bush's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) fault... for the same reason:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/George_Bush_-Saudi_Arabia_-_Jan_14_2008.jpg

It's jus' me though, I don't much care for his "friends" no matter how 'popular' they are in MySpace.
Wonder what the health care system is like in Saudi Arabia....

[bigshotprof]

Actually this depression we're in was Bill Clinton's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) fault,

I lost you here. It's pretty hard to argue that the Glass-Steagall act caused this depression. In fact, it was probably the only thing that avoided a catastrophic run on the banks in November. and while Clinton certainly didn't jump in the way and stave off the rush to greed, I don't see how he is especially culpable. I am however--not being a fan of Slick willie-- willing to entertain more on the subject.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Now, given the proportion of populations (301M to 33M), you would hope that with the economies of scale that a national health system would end up costing even less per capita. That is before we even get to the actual care giving.Sounds like all the chanting got to your head. :D

I guess let's just pass a law and "hope" that it turns out the way we "hope" it will.

Besides, Obama's plan surrounds allowing those who already have insurance to keep the providers they have. So how is any "administrative" cost ameliorated?

[tokenuser]

Sounds like all the chanting got to your head. :D

Which chants are you referring to?

The blind "USA USA USA" chants that filled out a Republican rally so that there was no communication of policy.

Or the equally banal "TERRORIST!" chants from the GOP that seem to squash any thoughtful discussion on UHC.

I guess let's just pass a law and "hope" that it turns out the way we "hope" it will.The Bush administration passed many laws. Let "hope" that this time the laws being passed have greater consideration on the long term viability of the USA, instead of the short term pandering of big business.

Besides, Obama's plan surrounds allowing those who already have insurance to keep the providers they have. So how is any "administrative" cost ameliorated?It wont be entirely, but it should still decrease. Obama's health plan does not go far enough in terms of socialised medicine, but it is smart ... it is putting the infrastructure in place so that a move to full socialised/nationalised health care is an easy step. Moving 300M Americans over to a UHC overnight would be a nightmare. As a project manager, I can appreciate this staged approach (and I sincerely hope it cleans up the VA medical system in the process too - that is fucking shameful).

[alaskalonewolf]

Dunno if it's actual chanting dude, might be a larger problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia). I think you are cool either way though,
and in my opinion, even a person that is, actually 'crazy', can still be right.
Sh!t, who knows, maybe even President.

BTW, when you take the safety mechanism off a gun
don't get pissed when you shoot yourself in the foot.
Bill Clinton's era of economic progress was engineered
by sacrificing certain crucial pieces of legislation put
into effect in the aftermath of the first Great Depression.
History repeats itself. I saw this coming when Bush one first
took office. I knew it was gonna happen when I first saw
them talking about it on C-SPAN, and they were all tired
from patting themselves on the back, spending all kinds
of time an energy undoing what the smarter people in the
timeline designed to keep us outta harm's way. Then came
Bush part deux...

Great guy. Didn't expect him to completely forget every
single lesson he studied in college though, in lieu of some
chip on his shoulder or the last chip he bet on a game of
Russian roulette... so the NEXT cowboy behind the desk could
get saddled with a nearly impossible task. Thanks for nothing.
Y'know, I've been to NYC. Never felt "safe" there. That's why
I call Alaska home. We have guns, and interceptor missiles.
Not to mention some of the best fighter pilots, ...anywhere.

Being President isn't so much leading the country, as how you
leave the country. Did you advance the interests of future
generations? Did you create a more stable world? Did you
recognize and avoid pitfalls as defined by history?

Dude. FAIL BUS. All aboard. Dick Cheney trying to talk about how
Biden won't be as influential, and trying to hand-out a op-ed lesson
to VP-elect is akin to a retard trying to educate Stephen Hawking on
astrophysics, or Adam Sandler trying to teach Mariah Carey how to sing,
or a blind dude trying to tell a NYC cab driver how to find a Sizzler...
...dude I could go on for decades in a non-stop Cheney ragathon.

This eight year saga has been an excellent example
of "what not to do" when you get elected. Republicans et. al.
Lemme tell you something, how could the Democrats do ANY worse...
...short of Hillary pressing the "launch" button.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Which chants are you referring to?

The blind "USA USA USA" chants that filled out a Republican rally so that there was no communication of policy.

Or the equally banal "TERRORIST!" chants from the GOP that seem to squash any thoughtful discussion on UHC.No... it was the "hope" one.

The Bush administration passed many laws. Let "hope" that this time the laws being passed have greater consideration on the long term viability of the USA, instead of the short term pandering of big business.Uh, ok, let's hope so?

It wont be entirely, but it should still decrease. Obama's health plan does not go far enough in terms of socialised medicine, but it is smart ... it is putting the infrastructure in place so that a move to full socialised/nationalised health care is an easy step. Moving 300M Americans over to a UHC overnight would be a nightmare. As a project manager, I can appreciate this staged approach (and I sincerely hope it cleans up the VA medical system in the process too - that is fucking shameful).Shit I hope he's long gone before that step happens. Please God.

Token, I think our arguments might be better founded...uh... well... arguing (stupid thesaurus) the socialist perspective. I won't ever convince someone who's a socialist not to like socialist things. However, if I could convince you not to be socialist, then perhaps your support of those issues would wane. However, I understand your roots are from down under, so, you're obviously more keen to socialism than I. So this might be a lose lose argument. I do enjoy the debates though. You actually take the time to support your arguments. I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't see myself ever becoming a socialist, no matter what you argue and vice versa for you with whatever I argue. However, I enjoy our debates as they provoke thought.

[alaskalonewolf]

I think the United States government, running the health care system
would be the single greatest mistake in the history of the country.
Much like many other issues, our health care system is nothing
but a symptom of a greater disease. And it revolves around
the almighty dollar, and those who are actually in control.

[bigshotprof]

Y'know, I've been to NYC. Never felt "safe" there.


New York is ironically the best existing laboratory for Libertarian philosophy. There is no way it should work as well as it does. as I said to a woman on Atlanta mass transit one day (after her screed on how dirty the NY subways were)--between 8-5 on weekdays the NY subways carry the entire population of Atlanta. That's EVERY day. Given the number of people, the huge and glaringly obvious disparity between rich and poor, and the sheer number of opposing and hotly contested racial, ethnic and political points of view, New York ought to be in flames. Instead, it is one of the most productive and, yes, congenial and safe places in America.

Obviously there are places that one does not go in the middle of the night, but the stats speak for themselves--per capita, NYC is not even in the top 15 most dangerous cities in America. I have worked in NYC for over twenty years and have been robbed there exactly the same number of times I was during my three years in Champaign-Urbana Il.

Come on back for a visit. I will buy you a baked Alaska!

[alaskalonewolf]

I know. It's the smell. One place that is truly amazing is NYC. My dog had
a full-scale panic attack during a day-long sniffathon. The sheer scale of it all.
In a lot of ways I look at the city as a mock-up of the entire planet, and
in a lot of ways the future of our planet. So many things about it trouble me.
Of course, the place, has it's dark side for certain, and you don't have
to look for it. Maybe it's jus' me, but I only actually feel "safe" when I
can hear true silence and know, exactly, what is roaming around in the dark.

http://www.dinochick.com/alaska/FranandJohnsAlaskaHouse.JPG

....I know, and it's jus' me, but I have my own prejudices.

http://novaren.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/nyc.jpg

...and I have to go back. Because I never did find the pizza I was after.

[emceeppantz]

I wish we were all as afraid of socialism as you and could as easily and readily dismiss someone's arguments on such a basis.


Token, I think our arguments might be better founded...uh... well... arguing (stupid thesaurus) the socialist perspective. I won't ever convince someone who's a socialist not to like socialist things. However, if I could convince you not to be socialist, then perhaps your support of those issues would wane. However, I understand your roots are from down under, so, you're obviously more keen to socialism than I. So this might be a lose lose argument. I do enjoy the debates though. You actually take the time to support your arguments. I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't see myself ever becoming a socialist, no matter what you argue and vice versa for you with whatever I argue. However, I enjoy our debates as they provoke thought.

[ariastar]

I wish we were all as afraid of socialism as you and could as easily and readily dismiss someone's arguments on such a basis.

Crumbles is known for loving to find something to complain about and his hatred of anything even vaguely socialist. Crumbles would prefer someone who had a job with benefits who got sick and couldn't work and lost that job and the benefits to DIE if that person can't afford medical care than to have universal health care. He's more of a hard-core libertarian.

Hell, I'm not in favor of giving poor people everything under the sun on the labor of middle-class people, but certain things are things everyone benefit from. Still, he'd prefer to have it all for himself and the other wealthy people than to put into place anything that would lower costs if it would benefit everyone.

His latest bitch is about some politician wanting to register bullets with a fee per bullet of $0.005 per bullet. So one single penny per 200 bullets. And he's bitching about that.

[esophagus]

Crumbles is known for loving to find something to complain about and his hatred of anything even vaguely socialist. Crumbles would prefer someone who had a job with benefits who got sick and couldn't work and lost that job and the benefits to DIE if that person can't afford medical care than to have universal health care. He's more of a hard-core libertarian.

Hell, I'm not in favor of giving poor people everything under the sun on the labor of middle-class people, but certain things are things everyone benefit from. Still, he'd prefer to have it all for himself and the other wealthy people than to put into place anything that would lower costs if it would benefit everyone.

His latest bitch is about some politician wanting to register bullets with a fee per bullet of $0.005 per bullet. So one single penny per 200 bullets. And he's bitching about that.Hey, when did Crumbles start writing in pink? Oh, sorry, that's just someone else putting words in his mouth.

[alaskalonewolf]

I don't see what this has to do with Obama's tax policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLRLhV9U0kQ
Although I must say, I enjoy pink (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2-kWXlKTUA).

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I wish we were all as afraid of socialism as you and could as easily and readily dismiss someone's arguments on such a basis.Uh, did you actually read what I said?

Hey, when did Crumbles start writing in pink? Oh, sorry, that's just someone else putting words in his mouth.lol

Crumbles is known for loving to find something to complain about and his hatred of anything even vaguely socialist.Aria is known for changing her religion every five seconds, being anorexic, favoring socialism, and posting personal blogs on these forums. Oh, and yes, I hate socialism.

Crumbles would prefer someone who had a job with benefits who got sick and couldn't work and lost that job and the benefits to DIE if that person can't afford medical care than to have universal health care. He's more of a hard-core libertarian.Yes, you're right. I prefer it when people DIE. That's just who I am, I like when people DIE. (All caps on DIE make it seem like I'm so much more evil, doesn't it?)

Sorry toots, no one in the US is turned down for medical help when they need it. If you go to the ER they treat you and release you. It is not illegal in this country to have a debt. Yet.

People don't die because they don't have health insurance. They die because they get sick or hurt. You will never find a death certificate with "lack of health insurance" listed as the cause of death. But you aren't really wanting to debate this. You'd rather insult me than talk about it. (Oh, but emceeppantz, remember, I'm the bad guy. DIE!)

44 million Americans who don't have health insurance. You'll hear that number time after time after time listening to these Democrats. What you don't hear is that most of these people don't have health insurance because they've made a conscious decision not to purchase health insurance. Oh, they have that new car with rims, pay that cell phone bill on time, and go on vaction twice a year -- issues far far more important to them. Thanks to the Democrats, I'll now be paying their insurance for them.

Hell, I'm not in favor of giving poor people everything under the sun on the labor of middle-class people, but certain things are things everyone benefit from. Still, he'd prefer to have it all for himself and the other wealthy people than to put into place anything that would lower costs if it would benefit everyone.Yes, you nailed it on the head with that statement. It's like you know me so well! I'm totally in favor of making things more expensive. That's what I'm all about! Not that I disagree with ARIA'S HEALTHCARE SOLUTION (note the all caps for emphasis) -- it's that I want to make things more expensive for everyone. You got it babe, that's exactly it. ARIA'S WAY, OR THE HIGHWAY!

His latest bitch is about some politician wanting to register bullets with a fee per bullet of $0.005 per bullet. So one single penny per 200 bullets. And he's bitching about that.Yea, that's exactly what my complaint was in the thread.

Don't you have some bowing to your alien god, or some eating to do rather than post such bullshit?

[tokenuser]

Token, I think our arguments might be better founded...uh... well... arguing (stupid thesaurus) the socialist perspective. I won't ever convince someone who's a socialist not to like socialist things. However, if I could convince you not to be socialist, then perhaps your support of those issues would wane. However, I understand your roots are from down under, so, you're obviously more keen to socialism than I. So this might be a lose lose argument.You are correct to a point. Australia shares a lot of socialist ideals, despite being a country that is politically fairly similar to the US in as much as we have a right wing conservative party (ironically - they are the "Liberal Party") and a left wing democratic party (called the "Labour Party" with its roots founded int he trade labor union movement). BUT because of our heritage and history, as a country Australia has a greater "social consciousness", with very little class differentiation.

This has resulted in our wealth distribution to be more balloon shaped than the US model that is more pyramidal. That is, we have a much smaller "poor" segment of the population, a huge middle classs, and smaller upper/weathy class.

We look after each other pretty well - wages really are living wages. There is no shame in bussing tables - you get paid a wage, not a wage less the perceived value you *might* earn from tips. Tipping is a bonus for good work (reward) not an expectation. If you are long term unemployed, you are expected to work (volunteer) or retrain to get your dole (unemployment ins) payment. With medical covered (UHC), you are not sacrificing health for food.

Health and education are treated as part of the national infrastructure, and are as important as energy, transport, and water (something many in US take for granted).

Moving beyond that though, the Australian economy at the recent IMF (International Monetary Fund) conference held up Australia's banking and business regulation as being the best in the world, and largely insulated us from the credit crisis (though we got hit with collateral damage due to our major trading partners - US and China - being hit). Basically - if you cant afford it, you cant buy it. No loans made to people who cant afford to pay them back, and a regulatory block on the purchase of foreign debt as an investment.

I do enjoy the debates though. You actually take the time to support your arguments. I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't see myself ever becoming a socialist, no matter what you argue and vice versa for you with whatever I argue. However, I enjoy our debates as they provoke thought.

People need to realise that ADULTS can have a different opinion, and still remain civil. Not agreeing with someone is not trolling.

[skyz]

I don't see what this has to do with Obama's tax policy.

it has this to do with obama's tax policy or any other policy he might propose

people pay attention to obama and hardly anyone pays attention to ssc

the fact that this other person (who happens to be democrat) managed to rise so far out of mediocrity to grab the most influential soapbox currently available on this planet is upsetting to ssc aka the voice crying in the wilderness

to be a child is a very frustrating position because all these bigger people are making decisions that affect you and almost never make the decisions that would please you most so you throw tantrums and scream in the aisles of the supermarket

even as we get slightly older and more mature we are still annoyed when the remote control is in someone else's hands (doesn't matter whose hands just that is not in our hands)

it doesn't matter what obama does or says or whether it is actually beneficial or not to ssc and family

what matters is that it is not ssc that is the one saying or doing anything that anyone really cares about

it is an existential issue not political at all

[skyz]

People need to realise that ADULTS can have a different opinion, and still remain civil. Not agreeing with someone is not trolling.

yes indeed

however is adding 'assholes' to the end of a post considered civil ?

i'm so glad you brought it up as i have been wondering about this ever since i saw it and assumed the mods had also seen it and by their inaction implied it passed as 'ok by my standards'

[secret-steve-crumbles]

yes indeed

however is adding 'assholes' to the end of a post considered civil ?

i'm so glad you brought it up as i have been wondering about this ever since i saw it and assumed the mods had also seen it and by their inaction implied it passed as 'ok by my standards' They probably ignored it as I was being accused of being in a clan and a few other various insults I was replying to justifying them being assholes. Get it now?

[alaskalonewolf]

Don't feel bad.
I mean, I'm an asshole.
But assholes think I'm pretty cool.

[tokenuser]

yes indeed

however is adding 'assholes' to the end of a post considered civil ?

i'm so glad you brought it up as i have been wondering about this ever since i saw it and assumed the mods had also seen it and by their inaction implied it passed as 'ok by my standards' They probably ignored it as I was being accused of being in a clan and a few other various insults I was replying to justifying them being assholes. Get it now?

Bingo. If in doubt, read this post here (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=429850&postcount=1).

[tokenuser]

Don't feel bad.
I mean, I'm an asshole.
But assholes think I'm pretty cool.Denis Leary sang it pretty well too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU).

[alaskalonewolf]

If you haven't already noticed, I try to channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship) him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Wvlo2YhpA), as much as possible, without getting myself banned.
Trapped somewhere between George Carlin and Richard Pryor in a non-stop technolust inspired rantathon.
..while earnestly watching with the whole R3 gang, especially the likes of Martin serving as my spirit guides.

[tokenuser]

If you haven't already noticed, I try to channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship) him, as much as possible, without getting myself banned.
Trapped somewhere between George Carlin and Richard Pryor in a non-stop technolust inspired rantathon.There is a little Denis Leary in all men.

Women on the other hand channel Kathy Griffin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgJBR0VSBE). Some more, some less ... but there is a little Kathy in all of them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uu2MWW2mVQ).

[rabidbadger]

Maybe, but this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q37qFxNl3lk) is in Everybody!

[alaskalonewolf]

...lately I've been thinking most of the girls I date channel Sarah Silverman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk

...and to tie this all together, I'm glad that I did actually make it down to Florida
evidently in the nick of time to make sure this whole f***ing country got turned around...
...f*** you Jeb, you heard me, ...right in the ear. You two-time election stealing prick.
Maybe our new President will be able to fix what other's have broken, even if we all
never actually agree on what the tax code should be. Sh!t that's almost a limerick.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Denis Leary sang it pretty well too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU).I have that cassette tape (no cure for cancer) !!!

Remember cassette tapes!

Used to listen to that song and the Irish Folk song all the time.

[alaskalonewolf]

...dude I still have 8-tracks. They're like gold.

[tokenuser]

I have that cassette tape (no cure for cancer) !!!

Remember cassette tapes!

Used to listen to that song and the Irish Folk song all the time.Cassette? Tapes??? Oh yeah, the things they recycled vinyl LPs into so people too poor to own a CD player could listen to music as well ;)

BTW - I dated way more Kathys than Sarahs. Funny thing is though, apart from the obsession with watching pre-award red carpet shows so she can see the dresses, my wife is much more a Sarah (minus the Jewish connection).

[alaskalonewolf]

Yeah. Me too. People think cuz my home is Alaska,
that I'm all crazy about the other Sarah. Not so much.
Not after:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

...dude, while I was watching this Sarah, I was somewhere between
Jerry Lewis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pBEuw-zfw) and Sam Kinison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwG9Tojg9I), trying unsuccessfully in every attempt
to swallow my Moosehead (http://images.google.com/images?q=Moosehead&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) without completely f***ing losing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sq-HYGfnIo) it.

Was also the day that I completely turned my back on Republican politics, forever.
Then became completely aware of the world of politics and that I should, at least,
say something, before the whole world comes to an end.

[skyz]

They probably ignored it as I was being accused of being in a clan and a few other various insults I was replying to justifying them being assholes. Get it now?

ok you hve provided a reason: retaliation

but steve have you ever thought that mediocrity includes behaviors

sure you can claim your 'right' to respond in kind

but has it ever occurred to you that not claiming that 'right' would be rising above mediocrity ?

and that might be in some way not entirely mystical connected with the life above mediocrity that you want for yourself ?

and for you child and for the world he will grow up to live in ?

just a thought you might find useful

[alaskalonewolf]

I think that it's just a symptom of the disease. Tit for tat.
It pretty much sums up republican politics in general.

[skyz]

I think that it's just a symptom of the disease. Tit for tat.


i agree it is a diss ease but goes way beyond politics

you can respond to opposition and still maintain some class even gracefulness

i would find that quality more admirable more desirable than wealth as defined by cash and investments

[alaskalonewolf]

I just wish the argument would settle into some basic math skills.
Prove an argument that incorporates real mathematics and I'll agree.
That's the beauty of being independent. Show me numbers that work...

Because, dude, if you truly have the answers, I am ALL ears.

Additional References:

http://www.wolfram.com/
http://www.hoover.org/bios/wolfjr.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/wolf-blitzer/
http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/315?ijkey=67XyacRRzWPCs&keytype=ref
http://wolfcrossing.org/category/wolf-politics/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DF1E3DF931A35756C0A9659582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/B/Books%20and%20Literature

[emceeppantz]

One acceptance of the legitimacy of someone's mere right to hold an opinion (still liberally peppered with, what I can only assume is, an attempt at the slanderous use of the word 'socialism') yep, I read what you said. I know a few "news" stations that do the same thing... can't remember what rupert called it...
Let me try it out:
Crumbles, I disagree, but clearly your fascist beliefs are simply at odds with my pristine patriotic beliefs. I know fascists can have some strong emotional ties to their form of government, oppression seems to bring out that stockholm syndrome, but your fascist self obviously believes in what you say. But maybe, just maybe, if I can baptize you in the saving waters of christianity your heathenly fascist sins might disappear and those fascist ways might mend themselves. The water, crumbles, the water will save yo...

no, it's still not working, sorry. However thick the guise, it's still an insult.

Edit: Sure, this is a benign example, that's for sure - but it's a much deeper problem with mainstream political discourse as of late. Call someone a terrorist enough times in a 'newscast' and pepper the accusation with a few "but I agree, here's a substantive bone to continue the conversation... you filthy terrorist" and you win. Far too many people are coming up in their formative years thinking *that* is political discourse.

Uh, did you actually read what I said?

[alaskalonewolf]

... what rupert called it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqMc9B7uDV8

...yeah, I think that this is definitely an example of a fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) at work:
Ignorant, and somewhat mentally-retarded, even if it's only an act.
Would like to avoid the discussion becoming a lesson on forum etiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette).
Although, the lack, thereof, is soooo often fodder for some great comedy.

[Sidebar: Being a terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) is a matter of perspective.
To them, they are freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion) fighters and holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) warriors,
whereas, we as UN soldiers are the real terrorists. It
is a subjective term, which changes colour based on
your geographical location as much as the politics.
We should instead, focus on the quality of the matter
involved, set the description based on how it may tend
to resemble other things. Like a 'terrorist' being instead
named 'criminal', from actions going against a standard
such as a "law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law)" in which we all can agree. I prefer math.
(civilians > military) / death :: good for mankind? Most happy?

For example: In the United States, Fosters (http://www.curryhotline.net/images/foster_4_pack.jpg) is an 'import'
however, in Australia, it's just another 'cheap' beer much
like Budweiser (http://www.adclassix.com/images63budweiser.jpg). Personally, I much prefer Alaskan Amber (http://www.go2stones.com/images/AlaskaTrip/Juneau/AlaskanAmber.jpg).
A standard should be considered with reference to definitions.
Hopefully, I won't be banned for mixing beer with politics...]

[tokenuser]

Fosters is definitely a domestic beer - just like Bud - in Australia. Irony is that the US import comes not from Downunder, but up north (brewed by Molson), and is not even an Aussie company anymore :)

With respect to the "terrorism is a matter of perspective" idea ... it is one I have used frequently. I think the best example is Hamas. The world sees them as a terrorist organisation, who launch attacks on foreign soil.

They see themselves as a domestic military service trying to repel an occupying force. The only country they attack is Israel - who they view as occupying their lands (which is true - prior to 1947, Palestine and Israel where two parts of the same place ... and indeed, Palestine didn't exist before 1920).

[alaskalonewolf]

I think that Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) is a damn good example.
And, if you ask me, I'd go in there like the Orkin (http://www.orkin.com/) man,
and not leave until they don't bug anyone, ever again.
Then turn the entire piece of land into a National (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park) Park (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/منتزه_وطني).
Do it with a style somewhere between Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon) and Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan).
You don't see Alaska natives fighting over their land,
hmmmm, why is that? The same reason why you don't see
gang-bangers and hookers walking the streets in -50F...
...to me it's common sense. Too bad I'm not the quarterback.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

One acceptance of the legitimacy of someone's mere right to hold an opinion (still liberally peppered with, what I can only assume is, an attempt at the slanderous use of the word 'socialism') yep, I read what you said.Then you didn't understand what I said. You assumed I was being mean by calling him a socialist. Not the case here. It was actually a well thought out statement that I'm sure token agrees with me on. Not sure why of all my posts you're choosing this one to have some issue with. You're making that post into something it's not.

ok you hve provided a reason: retaliation

but steve have you ever thought that mediocrity includes behaviors

sure you can claim your 'right' to respond in kind

but has it ever occurred to you that not claiming that 'right' would be rising above mediocrity ?

and that might be in some way not entirely mystical connected with the life above mediocrity that you want for yourself ?

and for you child and for the world he will grow up to live in ?

just a thought you might find useful

Dude, seriously. I don't know what it is with your posts but my brain just can't follow the formatting and the lack of grammar. I get about half way through and when I read a sentence that starts off with and: "and that might be in some way not entirely mystical connected with the life above mediocrity that you want for yourself ?" I honestly just give up. I'm not trying to be mean, but damn, damn.

[emceeppantz]

Then you didn't understand what I said. You assumed I was being mean by calling him a socialist. Not the case here. It was actually a well thought out statement that I'm sure token agrees with me on. Not sure why of all my posts you're choosing this one to have some issue with. You're making that post into something it's not.

"Edit: Sure, this is a benign example, that's for sure - but it's a much deeper problem with mainstream political discourse as of late. Call someone a terrorist enough times in a 'newscast' and pepper the accusation with a few "but I agree, here's a substantive bone to continue the conversation... you filthy terrorist" and you win. Far too many people are coming up in their formative years thinking *that* is political discourse."

Yes, I do recognized this is particular post is benign enough, but it does seem to be a running thread in your posts, no?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

"Edit: Sure, this is a benign example, that's for sure - but it's a much deeper problem with mainstream political discourse as of late. Call someone a terrorist enough times in a 'newscast' and pepper the accusation with a few "but I agree, here's a substantive bone to continue the conversation... you filthy terrorist" and you win. Far too many people are coming up in their formative years thinking *that* is political discourse."

Yes, I do recognized this is particular post is benign enough, but it does seem to be a running thread in your posts, no?Are you saying that Token isn't a socialist and I keep calling him one? Is that what your point is here? Because I thought he said once he was...

[alaskalonewolf]

Exactly. Regardless of the label (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Label). Show me the pure numbers.
People often move away from true arguments, because these
involve difficult math, with concepts including remainders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remainder).
Why not talk about taxes? A relatively new concept in our timeline.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

People often move away from true arguments, because these
involve difficult math, with concepts including remainders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remainder).Yes, people (http://revision3.com/forum/member.php?u=48794) sure do do that a lot.

see what I did there?

[alaskalonewolf]

Cute. But rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric). Proving everything and nothing, simultaneously.
Now, how about it: Taxes? Just for the rich? How much is too much?
Why draft another stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stimulus_act) package? Another New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal)? Again. All ears.

I say we need to get back to basics.
History proves what doesn't work...

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Cute. But rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric). Proving everything and nothing, simultaneously.
Now, how about it: Taxes? Just for the rich? How much is too much?
Why draft another stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stimulus_act) package? Another New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal)?As we've all seen, stimulus packages don't work. What does work is giving people more of their money they earn (http://www.fairtax.org/). I know I know this is a tough concept for Democrats to grasp. Work hard for your money, you get to keep it.

But...

If the FairTax were around (also the most benificial tax for poor people) it would be hard for the economy to take a dive.

It would also be harder for politicians to buy votes. The big reason the FairTax is going to be hard to implement.

[alaskalonewolf]

You're saying we need to repeal the 16th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)?
Hmmmm... that's revolutionary. Where praytell will our
United States government get it's money from? Jus' askin'...
You'll note Alaska never ratified that one. So we may agree.

[tokenuser]

You're saying we need to repeal the 16th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)?
Hmmmm... that's revolutionary. Where praytell will our
United States government get it's money from?They'll just print it like they always do.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

You're saying we need to repeal the 16th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)?
Hmmmm... that's revolutionary. Where praytell will our government get it's money from?Ha, that's awesome. It's impossible for a Democrat to comprehend anything other than stealing.

You like to waste so much time posting links to random shit, go read my link. Has all your answers.

[tokenuser]

Are you saying that Token isn't a socialist and I keep calling him one? Is that what your point is here? Because I thought he said once he was...Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I don't believe in total socialism, but I do believe in the provision of government services for both physical (transport, energy, communication) and social (education, health, law/order) infrastructure. That means I have socialist leanings, and understand the benefits of socialism, but does not mean I am socialist.

Not that I would find that offensive. It is not like you were calling me a republican or something like that.

BTW - I like the idea of the FairTax, but it will never happen in the US. It works in some countries because they do not have the seperate city, country , and state taxes that get tacked onto everything over here. I will say that GST (Goods and Services Tax) introduced in Australia pretty much drove my in-laws out of business due the the administrative overhead of collecting and calculating taxes. He was a builder - renovations and such - and some of his supplies were taxable, others weren't and he needed to collect the tax from his clients as part of his bill for some items, not others, and labour/services, etc. It is a complex calculation performed per job, but calculated and collected quarterly, and they were nearing retirement anyway - so they got out of the business.

[alaskalonewolf]

I'm saying that undoing (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=478976&postcount=126) a piece of legislation begs the question
as to why it was written in the beginning. Yes, I read your link (http://www.fairtax.org).
I actually liked the break-down. Reminds me of Dr. Paul's (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html) take
on our situation, and in a lot of ways, I do agree with you.
However, the sales tax (http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/TAX_NATIONAL_SALES.HTM)? No. I have to object to that one.
That rarely proves successful. And, by definition, is socialist.
I've never considered a sales tax, ever being fair. It
usually means people travel to make their purchases elsewhere.
Devil's advocate: What would you say, would be the parts that
don't work? Most of the idea you presented intrigues me though...
(Never saw it before, thx)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Not that I would find that offensive. It is not like you were calling me a republican or something like that.LOL! You kill me sometimes. I literally laughed out loud at work when I read that. :D

[emceeppantz]

where do such grandiose claims originate? where is your threshold for determining if a stimulus package has worked or not? Could it not be said that any stimulus package that was set and was not followed by the complete destruction and loss of an economy is successful?

When has fairtax ever even had a chance to be tested? How can you possibly claim it "works"? How could you even attempt to explain how it would be hard for the economy to take a nose dive in the presence of fair tax? These are all completely unsubstantiated claims.

ter'rist, fascist, democrat, republican... are you getting my previous point yet? That's not debate, that's completely polarizing and unaccepting of possible contrary views, the complete opposite of debate. I know people love to throw the term ad hominem around a lot, but christ man...

As we've all seen, stimulus packages don't work. What does work is giving people more of their money they earn (http://www.fairtax.org/). I know I know this is a tough concept for Democrats to grasp. Work hard for your money, you get to keep it.

But...

If the FairTax were around (also the most benificial tax for poor people) it would be hard for the economy to take a dive.

It would also be harder for politicians to buy votes. The big reason the FairTax is going to be hard to implement.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

where do such grandiose claims originate? where is your threshold for determining if a stimulus package has worked or not? Could it not be said that any stimulus package that was set and was not followed by the complete destruction and loss of an economy is successful?You can keep living in fantasy land all you want, but it's clear the stimulus package ain't doin shit.

When has fairtax ever even had a chance to be tested? How can you possibly claim it "works"? How could you even attempt to explain how it would be hard for the economy to take a nose dive in the presence of fair tax? These are all completely unsubstantiated claims.I can't beleive I'm hearing this from a Democrat. Come on, where's your spirit of "change" at? Failed Bush policies require "change" remember? Unless your "change" is just more of the same shit that isn't working.... hmm.....

ter'rist, fascist, democrat, republican... are you getting my previous point yet?No.

[emceeppantz]

It was a simple question, not related to any specific stimulus package..
You can keep living in fantasy land all you want, but it's clear the stimulus package ain't doin shit.

Again, I asked a question, this is not an answer. You claimed it worked, I was wondering where this evidence existed.


I can't beleive I'm hearing this from a Democrat. Come on, where's your spirit of "change" at? Failed Bush policies require "change" remember? Unless your "change" is just more of the same shit that isn't working.... hmm.....

[alaskalonewolf]

Well, this is just my opinion, but historically, statistically, and mathematically
speaking, as currently written in their proposal, "Fair Tax" would spell the end of our
economy, further deepening the United States into the quicksand of the next
Great Depression, version 2009...

However, the concept has merit, in some parts. Maybe jus' needs polish?
And, at least is better than no plan: which is a typical Republican theme.
I suggest a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, first.
We need something RADICALLY different, and I'm not saying that I have the answers...
Maybe, perhaps, a four-year blanket tax on all incomes over $500,000 to around 40%...
An increase in capitol gains tax by 10%, and no more non-profit status for religious groups.
Period. No exemptions. End of paragraph.

You can keep living in fantasy land all you want, but it's clear the stimulus package ain't doin shit.

I couldn't agree more. Of course, that was a "bi-partisan" asleep at the wheel,
poor-leadership approved, Republican package, that lacked both creativity
and any genuine forethought. I kinda expected it to FAIL. Maybe we can agree?

No more priming the pump.
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/3/19/finsect_2008_03_14.jpg
There's a lot of graphics to go with the argument too. A band-aid on cancer doesn't work.
The economy looks even more bleak, the more you look at it, especially since October (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ar33MwWqPjdQ&refer=home) with
basically the bottom falling out of the bottom. Surprised more dudes didn't fling themselves
out their office windows... perhaps they are seeing something that I'm not. Oh yeah, I remember why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling).

Here's what doesn't make sense, at least to me:

http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges08.png

If, as a nation, we keep on making more and more, then why are we broke? Hmmmmm... where did (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&q=Iraq+War&btnG=Search+Images) all (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&q=government+aid&btnG=Search+Images) that (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&q=national+debt&btnG=Search+Images) money (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&q=foreign+aid&btnG=Search+Images) go?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I couldn't agree more. Of course, that was a "bi-partisan" asleep at the wheel,
poor-leadership approved, Republican package, that lacked both creativity
and any genuine forethought. I kinda expected it to FAIL.Your main chica is gabling away at approving this crap too.

I have massive issues with Bush. I consider him a Democrat. I've always found it ironic that Democrats hate him so much.

[alaskalonewolf]

Dude. Independent. Not taking sides here.
I am a member of the mathematic party...
...strangely enough, I actually liked Bush,
in the before-time when the World Trade Center
was still a place in NYC. Strange how things
change, eh? You'll notice Dubai isn't struggling.
War costs money. We need a better way to do
business when we throw a party, for either side.
I tend to like rookies too, always in it for the
under-dog, read all the best-selling books of
our new President, I still have doubts though...

What I "hope (http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/hope.jpg)" though, is that the next cowboy
will actually listen to the voice of reason, rather
than be surrounded by idiots like Dick Cheney.
Don't mind me, I am just one of the natives here,
and it often seems like we always lose.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

You do know you can keep typing in the WYSIWYG box when you post and don't have to hit enter at the end, right?

You're not Sky's brother, are you?

[alaskalonewolf]

Me, no, I'm an orphan... thx for the tipz.

[tokenuser]

You do know you can keep typing in the WYSIWYG box when you post and don't have to hit enter at the end, right?

You're not Sky's brother, are you?ALW has mentioned in the past that he posts from an old Decwriter using punch cards. Limitation of the punchcard is 77 chars + control chars on end.

There is a donation fund out there that you can use that might allow him to purchase an 80x24 AMBER monitor (yes, AMBER ... all the cool kids got the AMBER text instead of green).

[alaskalonewolf]

Yeah, pretty excited about this new technology too... last year I was still using morose code.
Either way, it's still a step up from smoke signals.

[rabidbadger]

Yeah, pretty excited about this new technology too... last year I was still using morose code.
Either way, it's still a step up from smoke signals.

Morose (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morose) code? That's the passive/agressive body language of the bummed out, right? ;)

/grammarnazi

[alaskalonewolf]

Or the desperate: ...---... ...---...

.--. .-.. . .- ... . .... . .-.. .--. ... .- ...- . --- ..- .-. . -.-. --- -. --- -- -.--

You're right though, I put in an extra "o" but that (http://www.onlineconversion.com/morse_code.htm#morse2english) was for you 'Badger. :)

[skyz]

Morose (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morose) code? That's the passive/agressive body language of the bummed out, right? ;)

that's funny :D

[alaskalonewolf]

BTW Skyz, I adore your signature line. Absolutely love it.

[tokenuser]

Morose (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morose) code? That's the passive/agressive body language of the bummed out, right? ;)

/grammarnaziOnly place I have ever "scene" it used was at the mall where the teens can't decide between Hot Topic or the Abercrombie & Fitch next door.

[skyz]

BTW Skyz, I adore your signature line. Absolutely love it.

thx :)

i like it because to leo that flight ws pure imgination yet real enough for him to deduce that statement

a glimpse into the inner workings of genuis :cool:

[alaskalonewolf]

Yeah, and he saw the same thing in birds that Tesla did.

[tokenuser]

Yeah, and he saw the same thing in birds that Tesla did.Guano as a source for nitrates to create gunpowder?

[alaskalonewolf]

No. Something along the lines of your signature Tok.
Word for word, it was a small scribbled note in one of
Tesla's few handwritten documents from a time before
America was fully electrified, or most of the world for
that matter... right next to sketches of the pigeons he
was looking after from his apartment in the big city.
I sometimes wonder what Tesla would've made if he'd
gotten serious about building an aircraft.