|
|
|
Finally an election where I don't feel like I am picking the lesser of two evils. (I am an Obama supporter)
|
On July 25 2008 14:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
When listening I get this feeling if we can get him elected maybe just maybe there is hope after all. I can honestly say I have never been more passionate about politics than this,
True, I am passionately preparing to move to Taiwan judging by the contenders from both parties.
so much I am actually worried what will happen if the same party is elected.
Or the other party.
I am so sick and tired of war the bashing of people with different ideals, or who question the government only to be blasted by the media and called sympathizers.
QFFT
The Republicans had their chance it's time to give the Democrats a turn and see what they can do.
The same thing?
Hopefully humanity won't fail me this time on this subject.
Welcome to the United States of America.
|
On July 25 2008 14:57 Goosey wrote:
Finally an election where I don't feel like I am picking the lesser of two evils. (I am an Obama supporter)
Hahaha very true!
Obama 08 for me as well. 
|
Obama combines a simple and compelling message, with gritty nuance and command of the very real problems facing the world. Most of all he understands that America doesn't function in a vacuum, that the world is one body, and each part contributes to her healthy funtioning.
It is a singularly powerful message: the world faces near intractable problems, but hope in the future is never misguided.
|
That's a great talk I hope his figures in polls will be closer to what they are in Germany by the time of the election.
|
United States22883 Posts
Part of the hope based on his campaign fund raising strategy is that when he makes it to office, he will be less accountable to lobbyists than any previous modern president.
I like that we're focused on registering new voters right now more than anything else.
|
On July 25 2008 20:22 Jibba wrote:
Part of the hope based on his campaign fund raising strategy is that when he makes it to office, he will be less accountable to lobbyists than any previous modern president.
I like that we're focused on registering new voters right now more than anything else.
Haven't the last two campaigns had things like this? Vote or Die with PDIDDY!
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 25 2008 23:38 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 20:22 Jibba wrote:
Part of the hope based on his campaign fund raising strategy is that when he makes it to office, he will be less accountable to lobbyists than any previous modern president.
I like that we're focused on registering new voters right now more than anything else. Haven't the last two campaigns had things like this? Vote or Die with PDIDDY!
The last 4 democratic presidential campaigns were run poorly. Clinton only won because of Ross Perot. This isn't stupid celebrity crap (although there is a lot of that still), this is a grass roots part of the campaign.
|
I really hope obama can change america. I really hope he will be a hero :D
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I'm actually excited about both candidates. Perhaps that is due to the Bush situation but I think both are an improvement, big time.
|
if you think mccain is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported.
|
On July 26 2008 05:52 tiffany wrote:
if you think obama is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported.
fix'd
|
On July 26 2008 08:41 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2008 05:52 tiffany wrote:
if you think obama is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported. fix'd
This
|
from the little that i know obama sounds like mccain except a he's black and a socialist
|
No matter what, the president will always do a poor job, and no matter who the president is, the same job will be more or less done. It is this reasoning that has made me think of the president as just a ceremonial role, the embodiment of the people, aka the Head of State. And if it comes down to McCain and Obama for that role, then Obama all the way.
|
On July 26 2008 14:27 mahnini wrote:
from the little that i know obama sounds like mccain except a he's black and a socialist
Are you attempting to be funny? Or do you really have no clue what a socialist advocates?
|
Black Panthers all around America are partying tonight.
|
I hate Obama's desire to tax the wealthy into oblivion, but whatever, might as well give the other party a chance. Honestly, if the Democrats can't win in November, they will never win a presidential election.
|
On July 27 2008 00:12 Myxomatosis wrote:
I hate Obama's desire to tax the wealthy into oblivion, but whatever, might as well give the other party a chance. Honestly, if the Democrats can't win in November, they will never win a presidential election.
Obama has a desire to "tax the wealthy into oblivion"?
The tax policies he's advocated have shit on Wilson, Harding, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter in that regard.
|
On July 26 2008 08:41 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2008 05:52 tiffany wrote:
if you think obama is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported. fix'd
are you still angry that you are making 200k a year and getting taxed for it
??????
|
wait my bad, you are angry that you are unable to circumvent the system like the rest of your rich friends, but instead of blaming their illegal practices you are blindly anti-obama
?????
|
He's very charismatic, and the speech was nice, but he's not president yet. We have yet to see actions, not just (maybe hollow) words. 
I like him though, it's good that he's a democrat, his position on the Iraq issue is good, and it's good that he knows that USA have to improve their image and foreign politics drastically. And he can't be worse than Bush, so I think it can only get better.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 27 2008 02:55 tiffany wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2008 08:41 Caller wrote:On July 26 2008 05:52 tiffany wrote:
if you think obama is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported. fix'd are you still angry that you are making 200k a year and getting taxed for it ??????
My dad makes 400k a year, has to put 4 kids through college in the fall, insurance, and all other necessities. With the increase of taxes, after the TAXES only, my dad will only pocket maybe at MOST 100k. That's 1/4th of his pay. -_-' 100k sounds like a lot. Well, he has to pay 4 kids through college (90k) so he has 10k left. He has to pay for food, gas, car insurance, and he is in the red for the next 4 years.
With McCain my dad won't have to pay money out of his retirement plan just to survive the next few years.
|
|
|
On July 27 2008 03:40 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 02:55 tiffany wrote:On July 26 2008 08:41 Caller wrote:On July 26 2008 05:52 tiffany wrote:
if you think obama is a big improvement to bush you either are not following the campaigns carefully or are choosing to selectively ignore the majority of what gets reported. fix'd are you still angry that you are making 200k a year and getting taxed for it ?????? My dad makes 400k a year, has to put 4 kids through college in the fall, insurance, and all other necessities. With the increase of taxes, after the TAXES only, my dad will only pocket maybe at MOST 100k. That's 1/4th of his pay. -_-' 100k sounds like a lot. Well, he has to pay 4 kids through college (90k) so he has 10k left. He has to pay for food, gas, car insurance, and he is in the red for the next 4 years. With McCain my dad won't have to pay money out of his retirement plan just to survive the next few years.
You truly think that the government would take 3/4 of your dad's total income under Obama's tax plan? You need to either do some research or stfu.
|
United States22883 Posts
Not to mention dependents (kids) are tax writeoffs. You're really misinformed.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
its bout 65% plus medicare and shit
|
On July 27 2008 05:33 CaucasianAsian wrote:
its bout 65% plus medicare and shit
So your dad lives in vermont, is self-employed, takes no tax exemptions, and pays the top tax bracket rate on every dollar he earns?
-_-
+ Show Spoiler +
Even that wouldn't get the figure to 65%+
|
On July 27 2008 03:00 tiffany wrote:
wait my bad, you are angry that you are unable to circumvent the system like the rest of your rich friends, but instead of blaming their illegal practices you are blindly anti-obama
?????
a) flame more
b) i already said i don't make nearly that much but it was a poor example evidently
c) look at his political positions, he's in favor of as much foreign intervention as bush is, except not in iraq and iran but in pakistan and turkey and africa. Bush expanded government 75%. Obama's solution is to expand government even more, and basically he agrees with Bush in everything except that he doesn't pay lip service to free markets and is against the "War" on Terror.
d) flame more
e) clearly the practices are legal if they're getting away with it b/c there are loopholes that haven't been closed yet
let's go over obama's DOMESTIC positions, according to wikipedia
Corporate governance
On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced a bill in the Senate (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on pay."
~clearly, if the shareholders don't get the right to something, either they get something else, or something's wrong with the company, in which case they should bail.
Labor rights
Obama supports the bi-partisan Employee Free Choice Act, which passed the House of Representatives in 2007, but failed to pass the Senate. Obama promises to sign the EFCA into law if he is elected President. His political rival, John McCain opposes the EFCA and proposed to outlaw card check union signature drives with a GOP sponsored bill, the Secret Ballot Protection Act.
~both people are bad: Obama is basically forcing providing unfairly strong incentives for everyone to join unions in order to get jobs, which is a BAD thing. Mccain wants to prevent unions from using freedom of assembly, which is also a BAD thing.
Minimum wage
Obama favored the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, and he voted to end the filibuster against a bill to accomplish that.
~I hear gas prices are now going from $5.15 a gallon to $7.25 a gallon.
Equal pay
Obama favors the concept of equal pay (the abolition of wage differences based on gender).[10] He has supported legislation designed to improve the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
~Great idea, but forcing people to do so is not. If there is gender discrimination, file lawsuits/join other companies/flame them through the media.
Education
During an October 2004 debate, Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools.
~They're pretty bad as it is. I don't think it could get much worse in public schools. That being said, I oppose vouchers b/c I'd rather have that money myself.
In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama supported merit pay for teachers, to be based on standards to be developed "with teachers."
~Good idea, but look at bad New York teachers and how hard it is to get rid of them.
Energy Policy
~I agree with most of Obama's energy policies, except for this one:
On June 22, 2008 Obama proposed tightening regulations on oil speculators in an effort to ease record high prices of oil.[34] "My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores common-sense regulation," Obama said.
~Speculators are only increasing prices b/c the dollar is really weak. Regulating prices is the door to communism (not socialism, it's already past that)
Healthcare
On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, "The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured.[37] Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance.
~Health care insurance itself already is a problem. There's no incentive for doctors to lower prices and compete ever since the GOVERNMENT passed a law MANDATING the purchase of HMOs by employers. More government control is definitely not the answer.
~I agree with him on network neutrality and lobbying and abolitioning NAFTA, abet for different reasons.
Taxation
Obama has proposed a tax plan which includes an $80 billion tax cut for poor and middle-class families and repeal the tax cuts for the richest one percent of taxpayers. His tax plan calls for billions in breaks by nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their deductions -- most of whom make less than $50,000 annually -- and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000. Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000.
~Woohoo, I love paying more than twice as much social security and medicare taxes that i will never see to help other people already subsidized to pieces get satellite tv.
Affirmative action
I already flamed on how affirmative action will penalize asians, as seen by this:
Obama writes in his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without diminishing opportunities for white students."
~so basically asians get shafted. nice tyranny of majority you got there.
Faith based programs
In July 2008 Obama announced that he wants to expand federal funding of faith-based programs and establish a "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships".
yeah.......
Guns
During a February 15, 2008 press conference, Obama stated, "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation."
~Wait, common sense regulation? wth is that?
Death penalty
Obama has said that the death penalty is used too frequently and inconsistently. However, he favors it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
~You are hereby condemned to death for treason against the Soviet people.
Civil liberties
Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the USA PATRIOT Act.
~Yeah...
Also, let's not forget how we all should learn Spanish.
|
United States22883 Posts
The Pakistan stuff is debatable, but we're already in Turkey and there is no intervention planned. Africa is something the entire world is looking at, and it's not the US doing it alone like Iraq was.
|
On July 27 2008 07:08 Jibba wrote:
The Pakistan stuff is debatable, but we're already in Turkey and there is no intervention planned. Africa is something the entire world is looking at, and it's not the US doing it alone like Iraq was.
Obama announced a plan — if elected — to deploy an additional 7,000 troops to Afghanistan.
In June 2008, Obama became the first presidential candidate ever to publicly back the traditional Israeli position that Jerusalem remain forever undivided under Israel rule.
On January 19, 2008 Obama announced that as a U.S. Senator, he has stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide, and supports its recognition.
On March 20, 2008 Obama criticized his rivals for undermining America’s security: "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned. This is creating problems in our fragile economy." "It also means we’re having to pay for this war with loans from China. Having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy, it isn’t good for our global leadership, and it isn’t good for our national security.
In a December 2005 Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
In June 2008, Obama called Iran the greatest threat in the Middle East.[132] "There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," Obama said on June 4, 2008.
|
On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000.
It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect.
|
United States22883 Posts
Deploying 7,000 troops is extremely small, and most people agree we've done a poor job there thus far. Still, that's debatable. Lets move on.
Turkey should awknowledge the Armenian genocide. Hell, Armenians should probably get their own country. Just because we criticize them, like we criticize Japan for downplaying all of their war crimes doesn't mean we're going to invade the country, that we're already humongous allies with.
Do you really think we should leave Darfur alone? The rest of the world doesn't think so.
I'm not a fan of Obama's comments regarding Israel and Iran, however McCain is even more of a hawk regarding those two countries.
|
On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect.
payroll tax is not income tax
payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes
and for proof
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/
|
On July 27 2008 07:40 Jibba wrote:
Deploying 7,000 troops is extremely small, and most people agree we've done a poor job there thus far. Still, that's debatable. Lets move on.
the fact that we need more troops is a sign that we're not going to be pulling out any time soon.
Turkey should awknowledge the Armenian genocide. Hell, Armenians should probably get their own country. Just because we criticize them, like we criticize Japan for downplaying all of their war crimes doesn't mean we're going to invade the country, that we're already humongous allies with.
We shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs in the first place. If the Armenians want to revolt, they can do so. They're mostly left alone anyways. Besides its not like we give Britain shit for abusing the Indians.
Do you really think we should leave Darfur alone? The rest of the world doesn't think so.
I've privately donated time and money to helping the people in Darfur through groups like amnesty international and the red cross. But why should other people, whom may have something else in mind or perhaps have a grudge, be forced to help as well?
I'm not a fan of Obama's comments regarding Israel and Iran, however McCain is even more of a hawk regarding those two countries.
I never said I supported Mccain, Mccain is as bad as Obama imho.
|
United States22883 Posts
"Obama: I deserve a tax increase"
What a fucking douche bag.
|
On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/
Why do I even fucking bother?
Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income."
Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 07:46 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:40 Jibba wrote:
Deploying 7,000 troops is extremely small, and most people agree we've done a poor job there thus far. Still, that's debatable. Lets move on. the fact that we need more troops is a sign that we're not going to be pulling out any time soon. Show nested quote +
Turkey should awknowledge the Armenian genocide. Hell, Armenians should probably get their own country. Just because we criticize them, like we criticize Japan for downplaying all of their war crimes doesn't mean we're going to invade the country, that we're already humongous allies with.
We shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs in the first place. If the Armenians want to revolt, they can do so. They're mostly left alone anyways. Besides its not like we give Britain shit for abusing the Indians. Show nested quote +
Do you really think we should leave Darfur alone? The rest of the world doesn't think so.
I've privately donated time and money to helping the people in Darfur through groups like amnesty international and the red cross. But why should other people, whom may have something else in mind or perhaps have a grudge, be forced to help as well? Show nested quote +
I'm not a fan of Obama's comments regarding Israel and Iran, however McCain is even more of a hawk regarding those two countries.
I never said I supported Mccain, Mccain is as bad as Obama imho. Ok, so you're essentially just an isolationist. That's shitty policy IMO.
|
On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to.
it's not that income that is affected
its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected
i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999.
exactly my point with what I was stating before. The tax increase is so stupid. Why work harder to be more stable economically when you are just going to be handing it over to the government anyway and be worse off than someone who makes less than you? Fuck obama.
McCain is a stupid tool who wants to continue Bush's war policy.
Both of them suck ass. We need a REAL democracy. We don't get to choose who becomes president. We get to decide out of the handful that the parties choose for us. If John 3 doors down the road from me wanted to run for president, he would have no chance, instead we get rich party officials.
|
On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999.
Your complete inability to understand is simply stunning.
|
On July 27 2008 10:00 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 08:55 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:47 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 07:42 Caller wrote:On July 27 2008 07:36 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 06:55 Caller wrote:
Persons making at least $250,000 or more would pay payroll tax on their entire income, as opposed to the first $102,000. It amuses me that you bolded this... because it's incorrect. payroll tax is not income tax payroll tax is social security and medicare and all those other weird taxes and for proof www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1 politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/ Why do I even fucking bother? Under Obama's plan, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would not have the payroll tax applied. Thus, there would be no paying "payroll tax on their entire income." Oh, and the medicare tax currently doesn't have a cap on the wages that it applies to. it's not that income that is affected its people that make in that bracket would not have the payroll tax affected i.e. if you make 250k+ you get slammed for 148k + whatever else you make at a 6.2% tax rate, which is what, 9/10k in taxes? people who make $250,001 would get shafted compared to people who make $249,999. Your complete inability to understand is simply stunning.
NOU
on a serious note you may be right, b/c the source i'm reading from is very poorly worded. If that's the case ok, but still there's lots of things that i have problems with with obama. The fact that we're taxing at all confuses me to begin with.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
the fact that we tax the richer percentage wise more than the poor confuses me. Why should those who work harder or who have worked longer be punished more?
If you make a little amount of money, its either:
A) you have worked less
B) you chose the career and knew they make less
Why punish others who have:
A) worked in the profession longer
B) chose a career that makes more money
|
United States22883 Posts
Because society needs lower level jobs and those people often cannot survive without help.
Rich people don't automatically work harder either.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
ugh why dont u people read what i write? I said that why if someone chooses to be a trashman, why should he owe less of his paycheck than someone who decided to take out a loan for college, and got a job as an investment banker.
Obviously the investment banker is going to make more money, plus he works 100+ hours a week, as opposed to 40 hours. Why should he owe more of his paycheck than someone who moves trash to a truck? Or a cashier? Or burger flipper?
The people choose their jobs, they know they dont make much money. If the government wants to help them out, lower the tax percentage, dont make it unfair. With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars. They have to pay nearly their entire salary on necessities, they pretty much are running in the red, worse off than someone who makes less money but gets more money to spend on their needs. It's preposterous.
|
On July 27 2008 13:50 Jibba wrote:
Because society needs lower level jobs and those people often cannot survive without help.
Rich people don't automatically work harder either.
Truly "Rich" people get taxed at 15%, the capital gains tax.
People with high wages get taxed at much higher rates.
If the supply is higher than the demand, price (wages) go down. So either swap to a less demanded position or move to a place where they have fewer demand/more supply. Ex. waiting tables. If you work in the big cities, obviously you won't be paid as well (assuming you don't work in an uber fancy $1000 tip restaurant) as if you worked in an area that has less waiters/waitresses, such as white suburbia.
Those "lower level jobs" can be far more profitable than you think. In my town we have plumbers and landscapers and roofers that own bigger houses and better/larger land than the people they work for. If the job field is too crowded, obviously it's going to be hard to be paid decently. If you can't find a job, move. That's what people did in older times when there was no free lunch and there were no cars/public transportation (i.e. the Jungle, written by Upton Sinclair (the socialist).
As for being unable to survive without help, there's local charities, soup kitchens, food stamps, all those things. Why do they need a welfare check that comes from me involuntarily? Why should I donate $50 of my own good well when the government will essentially extort another $50 to go to the exact same purpose? There's no incentive for people to rise up in the ranks if you get (basically) free money.
One more thing: my parents were/are 1st wave Chinese immigrants who arrived in America practically penniless (as the communists had confiscated everything that their parents/grandparents had owned). They were still able to get a college education and find decent, stable jobs (although they could be more secure/more profitable, but everybody could use more money, espeically to pay for college), and they didn't have any help from the government-they actually had to and have to put up with shit from INS, sign forms, pay fees, etc, green cards, etc. etc. etc. Yet now, without any government help, we're doing ok. Not fantastic, but well enough that I know the power will still be on and there will be heat/air conditioning. Why should we pay up to help other people whom for some reason can't get up even with financial aid and the lot?
|
On July 27 2008 14:03 CaucasianAsian wrote:
ugh why dont u people read what i write? I said that why if someone chooses to be a trashman, why should he owe less of his paycheck than someone who decided to take out a loan for college, and got a job as an investment banker.
Obviously the investment banker is going to make more money, plus he works 100+ hours a week, as opposed to 40 hours. Why should he owe more of his paycheck than someone who moves trash to a truck? Or a cashier? Or burger flipper?
The people choose their jobs, they know they dont make much money. If the government wants to help them out, lower the tax percentage, dont make it unfair. With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars. They have to pay nearly their entire salary on necessities, they pretty much are running in the red, worse off than someone who makes less money but gets more money to spend on their needs. It's preposterous.
that's not entirely true, the part about being an investment banker. In order to be an investment banker, you often have to have strong connections and the like in order to succeed. In that sense, being part of the old-school benefits you. As such, its unfair to other people whom may not have these connections (filial or friendships) and as such there needs to be a lowering of the so-called glass ceiling, for those unable to become that high in position. Same with politics. Every single politician is part of the same circle, as its the only way they can get into power.
Waitttttttt a minute....
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
Or you can go to a good business school such as MIT, Princeton, Carnegie, etc... and the doors open up to become an investment banker. My sister has no connections, but she has a job offer to be an investment banker upon graduation.
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard?
|
Why I'm willing to pay more progressive tax percentage in Taiwan than in the United States:
a) I can buy more with less
b)
Paying taxes is a must
We’re not going to tell you what we’re doing with it
All you need to know is you have to pay taxes and it will be a textual pain in the eyes/ass
Also gender and racial equality
Also hooking up fellow bureaucrats in need of more money through “official” association
Paying taxes is a good thing!
Elves collect taxes from you at night, just like the tooth fairy?
We’ll use it to build infrastructure and protect the environment/our country!
Pictures make it easy on the eyes and to the point!
We actually care what you have to say!
|
seriously, the irs picture is a fucking handjob.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard?
See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does...
You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing.
Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services.
BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS.
You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage...
|
United States22883 Posts
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand.
|
On July 27 2008 14:03 CaucasianAsian wrote:
With a 65% tax to people who make more than 250k a year, that's like 140k going to taxes, then they have to pay mortgages, insurance, house bills, gas for their cars.
As I explained before, there is no fucking way that you're going to reach a 65% tax on anything.
And, apparently, you have no idea how a progressive tax works.
|
On July 27 2008 15:58 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today? You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS. You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage...
Wow, that's the most ignorant thing I've read in a long long time. Without trying to insult you here CA, at least make an effort to educate yourself a bit before making ridiculous and for many people highly offensive statements.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
Alright, let's use the New York Post as a source.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_tiger_of_a_tax_118143.htm
Its an article about Obamas tax plan and Tiger Wood's. Just imagine it wasn't Tiger Woods and some nice wealthy business partner for a huge firm. Let's say he didn't win a golf tournament and instead made $1,350,000 a year. In the end, he gets to pocket only 43% of what he made, just under the tax increase. Then there is the uncapped, Medicare and State Taxes, which tallied up add up to another 2-3%. So going from pocketing 43% instead the person only gets to keep 40% of his earnings.
Obama's tax increase does not make sense. In a stage where the United States Ecnomony is drastically falling, taxing the wealthier even more right now, is going to send each class 1 step down. So the high class with become the middle high class, etc... The Economy is in poor shape, and making people even poorer is not going to fix it.
|
On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today?
I'm agreeing with you that the conditions really sucked back then. And 30, 20, even 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you that government regulations are preserving the workplace and keeping people from getting screwed.
However, we now have internet, mass communication. I can even go to some ghettos and 'hoods in the United States and still see many people with cell phones that are better than mine. The fact is, if so-and-so company is treating employees poorly, we have lawsuits, we have the internet, we have digg, we have all these methods to tell people that so-and-so company is screwing the employees. That's a great way to lose skilled workers and drive yourself out of business. Therefore now, having poor working conditions simply won't work.
My parents came to the United States in the 70s, right after the Great Society, which was arguably the biggest amount of government increase before George W. Bush. Yet they ended up getting screwed by the government from that day onward, even more so than they would have in (then) semi-fascist Taiwan (which is ironically higher than the United States in civil liberties and progressive tax).
And I know perfectly well what the jungle was meant to do. But my point was also how if you actually did read the jungle, the government officials, if any, were being bought out through rigged voting and supported the industrialists factory owners. If anything, that's definitely not laissez-faire, which was more of the 1920s, rather than 1905(?), when the Jungle was written. Those policies are corporatism, which I am even more against than socialism.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 28 2008 00:55 CaucasianAsian wrote:Alright, let's use the New York Post as a source. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_tiger_of_a_tax_118143.htmIts an article about Obamas tax plan and Tiger Wood's. Just imagine it wasn't Tiger Woods and some nice wealthy business partner for a huge firm. Let's say he didn't win a golf tournament and instead made $1,350,000 a year. In the end, he gets to pocket only 43% of what he made, just under the tax increase. Then there is the uncapped, Medicare and State Taxes, which tallied up add up to another 2-3%. So going from pocketing 43% instead the person only gets to keep 40% of his earnings. Obama's tax increase does not make sense. In a stage where the United States Ecnomony is drastically falling, taxing the wealthier even more right now, is going to send each class 1 step down. So the high class with become the middle high class, etc... The Economy is in poor shape, and making people even poorer is not going to fix it.
First, he was referring to every other horribly incorrect statement you said. Second, you should never use the New York Post as a source.
|
On July 28 2008 12:39 Jibba wrote:
Second, you should never use the New York Post as a source.
except when it comes to sports
other than sports, agreed.
|
United States22883 Posts
I think the free market instruments you brought up, when they actually work, do so in long term but not short term, and with effective marketing and PR they may not work at all.
|
On July 28 2008 13:09 Jibba wrote:
I think the free market instruments you brought up, when they actually work, do so in long term but not short term, and with effective marketing and PR they may not work at all.
these days its not very hard to go on digg or w/e or even tl and be like "ROAR MY COMPANY SUCKS AND HERES WHY." you never know, the internet generation is rapidly approaching the prime of power and the upper managers/vps/ceos of said company might be browsing, see the post, and reply or fire the people responsible.
Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.
Keep in mind that almost always any short-term solution results in a long term problem. And saying that the next generation will fix it is the argument of last generation.
|
United States22883 Posts
How often does an inferior product beat out a more capable one? It still happens. iPod, Bluray, any HP computer that ever gets sold, etc.
Or look at shoes. Is there any way you can look at a Nike product line and determine the quality of each product? Probably not.
Free market requires free information, and that simply will never exist. The internet helps tremendously, but then you're tied down by trying to determine credibility and other things.
|
On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2008 13:09 Jibba wrote:
I think the free market instruments you brought up, when they actually work, do so in long term but not short term, and with effective marketing and PR they may not work at all. these days its not very hard to go on digg or w/e or even tl and be like "ROAR MY COMPANY SUCKS AND HERES WHY." you never know, the internet generation is rapidly approaching the prime of power and the upper managers/vps/ceos of said company might be browsing, see the post, and reply or fire the people responsible.
anonymity?
Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.
dumbest thing i've ever heard
Keep in mind that almost always any short-term solution results in a long term problem. And saying that the next generation will fix it is the argument of last generation.
keep in mind no body wants to get fucked in the short term for long term benefits.
recession now? SOCIAL RELIEF PLS, i dont care if my children have to pay more taxes because of it i want monies nowwww.
On July 28 2008 13:59 Jibba wrote:
How often does an inferior product beat out a more capable one? It still happens. iPod, Bluray, any HP computer that ever gets sold, etc.
Or look at shoes. Is there any way you can look at a Nike product line and determine the quality of each product? Probably not.
Free market requires free information, and that simply will never exist. The internet helps tremendously, but then you're tied down by trying to determine credibility and other things.
When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business.
|
On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand.
Umm, if we're talking about teachers here the issue is the local / state budget rather than them getting paid less for the same amount of work. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek.
If we talk about private schools I'm sure they get paid more and there are higher standards or public and private universities I'm sure they get 100k+ and higher. Granted, it may not be as much as a working professional in the field they may be teaching, but then again they are "just" teaching. It's comparatively easier to teach something you already know on a day to day basis than use and apply them in strenuous real world situations.
P.S. That was a really shitty cop out "too young and inexperienced" lolz
|
Nono mahnini, we're talking about the claim that people who don't earn a lot of money don't work hard, which is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on TL.
|
topic successfully derailed;
pretty captivating speech though
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek.
No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year.
When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right."
|
On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote:On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. Show nested quote +When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right."
it's not a free market, we've already said this
it's a market that discourages new start ups and keeps large companies with plenty of change in business.
See "Regulation."
|
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 15:39 mahnini wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote:
[quote]Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.[/quote]
dumbest thing i've ever heard
.[/QUOTE]
not quite, have you seen the cigarette companies ads? on one hand they attract custormers on the other hand it costs money and may attract more detractors as well.
|
On July 27 2008 15:58 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today? You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS. You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage...
Have you ever worked a day as a physical laborer? Try roofing or doing any kind of contrsuction and tell me that ain't working hard.
This post screams 'IM A SPOILED LITTLE BITCH'. I really hope you wake up and realize how ignorant you sound before your parents cut you lose and you hit the real world.
|
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 23:06 Caller wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 15:39 mahnini wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 28 2008 13:51 Caller wrote:
[quote]Marketing and PR these days is becoming less and less effective. Too many people and too easy/cheap of a medium to change minds. Sure, companies can spend money on those, but its a risk and if the company director chooses to do so, that could salvage their reputation or hasten their failure.[/quote]
dumbest thing i've ever heard
.[/QUOTE]
not quite, have you seen the cigarette companies ads? on one hand they attract custormers on the other hand it costs money and may attract more detractors as well.[/QUOTE]
Marketing and PR ineffective? What the christ?? I guess that's why people spend millions on ads for the Superbowl each year? Budweiser must be the best selling domestic beer purely because of its taste?
|
On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote:On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year.
I was mostly bringing issue to your analogy but keep in mind you are doing the exact same thing as CA expect reverse. Just because people are privileged doesn't mean they don't work hard as well, it does mean their parents worked their ass off and decided to hand it down to their kids. That's the choice of the parent and that's just life.
As for the issue of people who make don't make money don't work hard, it entirely depends on what you mean by working hard. Is being a garbage man hard work? I bet it is and I bet it sucks, but you can't outright say he's there because some shmuck with a trust fund screwed him over. He's there because he has no education etc, etc. So in a sense, yes, they didn't work as hard in the past to get where they are now. You can talk about the inequality of backgrounds or whatever but the fact of the matter is the free market doesn't give a shit. If you decide to do a job that other people are willing to do for less money that's your own fault and no amount of fuck the man / richman can help you.
Show nested quote +When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right."
No, completely wrong. There is much more appeal to the iPod or like you said Nike shoes than just product quality. They are both established brands, they've done their research and attracted the right audience and gave their products the "feel" that people are looking for. The highest quality product or most efficient product won't always win. The products that win are the ones that generate consumer desire. This is the free market, it's not about the guy who makes the best product that the consumer buys, it's the guy who makes the best overall package and that convinces the consumer that he wants what he's selling.
Not to mention the iPod isn't exactly a bad product, I have no idea about shoes but that's just nitpicking.
|
On July 28 2008 23:45 Hawk wrote:
Marketing and PR ineffective? What the christ?? I guess that's why people spend millions on ads for the Superbowl each year? Budweiser must be the best selling domestic beer purely because of its taste?
No, I said that Marketing and PR are not as effective as they used to be. Back when there was no internet, it was really hard to convey rumors, stories, anecdotes, and other details-you were forced to watch cable news and the like, most of which was sponsored by people and thus those stories would tend not to be released. Thus, marketing and PR were quite powerful. However, with the day of the internet, marketing does not quite have the widespread effect it has today, and often times a stupid (not intentionally) ad will get people laughing at you than buying your stuff.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 28 2008 23:39 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 15:58 CaucasianAsian wrote:On July 27 2008 15:06 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2008 14:17 CaucasianAsian wrote:
She worked hard, and it paid off. Why pay off who don't work hard? See, that's the type of bullshit statement that shows how ignorant you really are. Sorry, but it's true. Try telling your school teachers that they're not working hard and that's why they make 1/10th of what your father makes. I'm sure they really put in 1/10th of the effort he does... You grew up well-to-do and quite likely you've never worked as hard in your life as many of the people you're criticizing. Caller, the entire point of the Jungle was to point out just how awful living conditions were and why laisse faire was a failure. I'm sure you know this, but it sounds like you're wishing we return to the "good old days" where children worked 80 hours a week for 1/4th pay and had a 1/20 chance of getting their hand chopped off. All of that shit was stopped by bigger government. Laisse faire is a bad policy and the free market simply doesn't exist. The countries at the top of the UN Development Report tax the hell out of their citizens, and provide good services. BTW, don't you think your parents would've appreciated it if they had access to what's available today? You really have to read what the hell I'm saying. PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS KNOW THEY DONT MAKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. THEY CHOSE THAT PROFESSION FOR OTHER MEANS. You seem to believe that people who work for minimum wage work hard? There's a reason why they make minimum wage... Have you ever worked a day as a physical laborer? Try roofing or doing any kind of contrsuction and tell me that ain't working hard. This post screams 'IM A SPOILED LITTLE BITCH'. I really hope you wake up and realize how ignorant you sound before your parents cut you lose and you hit the real world.
I used to work construction night shifts working on roads, made $15 an hour. It is tough, that is why I am going to school in the fall. It is however not minimum wage, and it is possible to make enough money to live off of nicely. Maybe you can't drive a brand new car, and you might have to take the public transportation bus once in a while. But, you still can afford a place to live, afford to buy food, and go on a vacation once in a while. Given, you don't own a single family home, you might be sharing a house with some other people, or an apartment.
What you still do not understand, a minimum wage job would be for example, filling up a soda can at your local movie theatre, emptying trashcans at your local burger king. These people don't work nearly as hard as other people, for example, roofers, construction which is what you stated. I worked for a roofing company a year ago, where I would help out. I wasn't a full time employee and I made like $13/hr. Full time employees made nearly twice that.
Blue collard jobs are not minimum wage, you can make decent living. My friend is an electrician technichian, he is 18, and went right into the business, what he does is tough, he does hands on jobs, but he enjoys it and makes good money, he makes $45k a year.
If you are going to try to call me ignorant, you should probably get your facts right and read what I write. Minimum wage jobs are not hard.
Jobs such as working in a factory. A family friend of mine works in an airplane factory. He works on an assembly line. He makes $40k a year. What he does is stress provoking, and as told by Karl Marx, working in an industry as a labor worker, is very depressing. He doesn't like his job, his job is difficult, even though it is very repetitious it is a very mentally extraneous career.
Then a job such as a teacher. Usually when a person wants to become a teacher, they do it because they want to influence the younger minds. They want to take part in hundreds of peoples lives, and watch people grow into what they will become in their future. They don't do it for the $60,000 a year salary with benefits. It's nice, but they have other reasons to teach. They know they aren't going to go into the field making millions. They don't worry about that. This is what I have been trying to portray to you. People who do go and get a college education, and decide to do something that doesn't involve making thousands and thousands of dollars, do it for other reasons than making tons of money.
Maybe I am ignorant, maybe I don't know how the real world works. I have had past jobs, and I have had tons of stress from those jobs. I have made minimum wage, I have worked a labor job. I have first hand experience which you most likely do not have. Please if I am wrong, tell me why.
|
Back on topic...
Obama is one hell of a politician. His substance is actually starting to look like substance now, and his position papers are decent.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 29 2008 02:36 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote:On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote:On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. I was mostly bringing issue to your analogy but keep in mind you are doing the exact same thing as CA expect reverse. Just because people are privileged doesn't mean they don't work hard as well, it does mean their parents worked their ass off and decided to hand it down to their kids. That's the choice of the parent and that's just life. As for the issue of people who make don't make money don't work hard, it entirely depends on what you mean by working hard. Is being a garbage man hard work? I bet it is and I bet it sucks, but you can't outright say he's there because some shmuck with a trust fund screwed him over. He's there because he has no education etc, etc. So in a sense, yes, they didn't work as hard in the past to get where they are now. You can talk about the inequality of backgrounds or whatever but the fact of the matter is the free market doesn't give a shit. If you decide to do a job that other people are willing to do for less money that's your own fault and no amount of fuck the man / richman can help you. I'm not saying that privileged people don't work hard, I'm saying if you grow up in an upper class house, it's a lot easier to succeed. Take his sister for example and compare her to a student who has to support her own way through college, or a highschooler his age who doesn't know when his next meal will be. It doesn't apply directly to all individual examples, but I bet it applies to most.
Show nested quote +When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right."
No, completely wrong. There is much more appeal to the iPod or like you said Nike shoes than just product quality. They are both established brands, they've done their research and attracted the right audience and gave their products the "feel" that people are looking for. The highest quality product or most efficient product won't always win. The products that win are the ones that generate consumer desire. This is the free market, it's not about the guy who makes the best product that the consumer buys, it's the guy who makes the best overall package and that convinces the consumer that he wants what he's selling.
Not to mention the iPod isn't exactly a bad product, I have no idea about shoes but that's just nitpicking.
The free market doesn't work properly without total information and that simply doesn't exist. Marketing is one of the ways that the lines get blurred. And even if it does work, maybe the majority of humans don't make the best decision for improving society and overall quality of life.
CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience.
|
On July 29 2008 10:48 Jibba wrote:
The free market doesn't work properly without total information and that simply doesn't exist. Marketing is one of the ways that the lines get blurred. And even if it does work, maybe the majority of humans don't make the best decision for improving society and overall quality of life.
CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience.
the reason total information doesn't exist is that there is currently corporatism. It's really easy to hide everything if politicians are protecting your back. And if we can't trust the majority of humans to improving society and quality of life, why should we trust a socialism or even a communism, which are composed of people that are picked by a majority?
Teachers in my area don't make 60k (i wish i did... lol) but they do fairly well for themselves, as well as having a kick ass pension.
And escaping poverty is a lot easier than you think. It just requires incentive. If people are getting free money and stuff for being poor, is there any incentive for rising up than the ranks?
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 29 2008 10:48 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2008 02:36 mahnini wrote:On July 28 2008 21:32 Jibba wrote:On July 28 2008 16:03 mahnini wrote:On July 27 2008 22:49 Jibba wrote:
Reread these posts in 5-6 years (if they still exist) when you enter the real world. I'm not going to bother pointing out everything because you're obviously too young and inexperienced to understand. In this case, however, you can still make a case that the harder working person would do the proper research, etc. before dedicating themselves to a profession in which they will make an insufficient amount of money to live the lifestyle they seek. No, you really can't. That argument is bogus. Just like it is to call people lazy if they make less money than you. CA obviously grew up in a privileged household and has likely never faced any real challenges besides school. He has no barometer for what it takes to succeed besides his own, and I think we can all agree it's a lot easier to do well if you grow up in a family making 400k+ a year. I was mostly bringing issue to your analogy but keep in mind you are doing the exact same thing as CA expect reverse. Just because people are privileged doesn't mean they don't work hard as well, it does mean their parents worked their ass off and decided to hand it down to their kids. That's the choice of the parent and that's just life. As for the issue of people who make don't make money don't work hard, it entirely depends on what you mean by working hard. Is being a garbage man hard work? I bet it is and I bet it sucks, but you can't outright say he's there because some shmuck with a trust fund screwed him over. He's there because he has no education etc, etc. So in a sense, yes, they didn't work as hard in the past to get where they are now. You can talk about the inequality of backgrounds or whatever but the fact of the matter is the free market doesn't give a shit. If you decide to do a job that other people are willing to do for less money that's your own fault and no amount of fuck the man / richman can help you. I'm not saying that privileged people don't work hard, I'm saying if you grow up in an upper class house, it's a lot easier to succeed. Take his sister for example and compare her to a student who has to support her own way through college, or a highschooler his age who doesn't know when his next meal will be. It doesn't apply directly to all individual examples, but I bet it applies to most. Show nested quote +When you say product you have to take into account everything that is done to create the product and bring it to the consumer, build quality, packaging, marketing, etc.
So what if Apple is good at marketing the iPod? They generate huge revenues because of it, not to mention they have name recognition in addition to being the pioneer of the mp3 player segment. Just saying if you take all factors into account there will always be a reason for why one product will beat out another. That's just business. Which is why you can't rely on the free market to adjust to "what's right." Show nested quote +
No, completely wrong. There is much more appeal to the iPod or like you said Nike shoes than just product quality. They are both established brands, they've done their research and attracted the right audience and gave their products the "feel" that people are looking for. The highest quality product or most efficient product won't always win. The products that win are the ones that generate consumer desire. This is the free market, it's not about the guy who makes the best product that the consumer buys, it's the guy who makes the best overall package and that convinces the consumer that he wants what he's selling.
Not to mention the iPod isn't exactly a bad product, I have no idea about shoes but that's just nitpicking.
The free market doesn't work properly without total information and that simply doesn't exist. Marketing is one of the ways that the lines get blurred. And even if it does work, maybe the majority of humans don't make the best decision for improving society and overall quality of life. CA, I'm curious where you live that teachers make $60,000 a year. The problem is almost all of your statements reek of "poor people deserve to be poor", when you've had no experience with it whatsoever. Blue collar jobs like plumbers and electricians actually get paid pretty well, but those require further training. It's not as simple as "working hard" to get somewhere, there's a whole host of issues that happen in every day life and make it more difficult to escape poverty. It's a substantive experience.
I live in northern virginia, and public school teachers make between 40k and 80k depending on how long you've been teaching. I never said anything about poor people deserve to be poor, if that is how it is being portrayed, that is not what I'm trying to describe. Instead, I believe that no matter your current circumstance, it is possible to better yourself and your family. Of course there are some people living in the ghettos, and are forced into drug dealing or being killed, and they can't get out of their situation. I'm talking about the people over than the 36 million currently in poverty.
It is very difficult to get out of poverty, there are so many circumstances etc... that are causing the situation, and many more to come every day. What I am instead saying, if you are not one of the 36 million in poverty, you have all the chances in the world to improve your living conditions. It is a choice people make to be where they are. Even if they don't say "I want to be a McDonalds cashier" they instead say things like, "I don't want to join the military, I don't want to get a college loan, I don't want to take this opportunity". It is a conscious decision to decide where they are.
Almost everyone decides their fate of where they are economically. Maybe not for the first 18 or so years, but after that, there are so many chances to get out of your circumstance.
Back, 20-30 years ago, going to college was for the rich, and usually upper class. Because they are the ones who could afford it. However, now, with so many other chances such as scholarships, grants, loans, military service which pays for your college education, etc... Gaining a further education than high school is almost an affair everyone goes through if they live in the U.S. In some states, such as Georgia, college is free if you meet the requirements. (It's similar to Germany's way)
Since everyone has a chance to get an education for how widespread and convenient it is, with online classes, community colleges, etc... There is very little room to argue that people don't decide that they are poor. People who are poor in the long run, are there for reasons that they chose, no matter how ignorant that sounds, it is true. With hard work, people can literally do and become anything they want, given they are not one of the 37 million Americans living in poverty.
What this has to do with Obama is that, he wants to help those 37 million who live in poverty, by reducing their federal income. What I don't think you understand, is that the majority of these people who do live in Poverty, don't have a job. My uncle is one of them. My Uncle Lee had everything for him, he had a free house to live in, left in his parents will. He used to have a job where he made maybe 200k a year working as a manager in a steel factory. After the factory went under and he lost his job when he was 21, he never worked again. He never worked on the house, he never applied for a job. Eventually just a year ago, his house caved in, and he lives off of wellfare checks given by the government so he can live in a rundown apartment.
It is his fault he is there, he never tried to get a job, he never tried to help his living arrangements.
I don't know how ignorant this sounds, but I'm not just throwing things out of my ass, the majority of people Obama wants to help, don't want to help themselves. My Uncle as an example. And the majority of the people Obama wants help from (the increase in tax from the richer class) are the ones who decided, "Hey, I'm not going to live off wellfare checks, I'm going to make something of myself, I'm going to be independent." Labor jobs, Business, Athletes, laweyers, doctors, teachers, trashmen, etc...
I do look down upon people who don't work hard. If a person is a trashman, and that is the best they can do, if they have tried and tried, and worked so hard, and that is the best they can do, then I am proud of them, I accept them and respect them. However if someone doesn't do shit like my Uncle, I don't give a fuck who you are, you are not working, you are in poverty because you decided not to work, you decided not to get a job, you decided to be where you are.
|
United States22883 Posts
You definitely gained a lot of respect in my book for that post and it's a lot more clear what your intentions were early on. I agree with a lot of what you wrote and I misjudged you early on.
There's still a couple of points that I think are off. Even though it's easier to attend college, education inflation has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. In 1960 you could get your highschool diploma and immediately begin a factory career, living very comfortably and probably being upper middle class when you retire. Now a college degree is the norm, and most people who get one aren't going to live as well as that factory worker from 1960.
I think an important issue to tackle is the psychological discouragement that can easily occur if you grow up in that situation. Those things are rooted in education, poor services and a lot of other issues that need to be addressed. It becomes far more difficult to fight your way out of something when you become depressed, and that's still a serious issue in this country. That's a lot of what the Hope campaign is about. If you simply look at taxes and welfare plans, you're missing the big picture on how it's trying to improve society. Community building is a huge part of the campaign structure at the moment, and he's trying to encourage more community service and to simply create more visible opportunities so people understand how they can become independent.
It's skimming from the top, but the goal is that everyone benefits in other areas in the long run. And it's not simply bs, he takes a very academic point of view in many areas, especially those relating to social sciences.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
On July 29 2008 13:40 Jibba wrote:
You definitely gained a lot of respect in my book for that post and it's a lot more clear what your intentions were early on. I agree with a lot of what you wrote and I misjudged you early on.
There's still a couple of points that I think are off. Even though it's easier to attend college, education inflation has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. In 1960 you could get your highschool diploma and immediately begin a factory career, living very comfortably and probably being upper middle class when you retire. Now a college degree is the norm, and most people who get one aren't going to live as well as that factory worker from 1960.
I think an important issue to tackle is the psychological discouragement that can easily occur if you grow up in that situation. Those things are rooted in education, poor services and a lot of other issues that need to be addressed. It becomes far more difficult to fight your way out of something when you become depressed, and that's still a serious issue in this country. That's a lot of what the Hope campaign is about. If you simply look at taxes and welfare plans, you're missing the big picture on how it's trying to improve society. Community building is a huge part of the campaign structure at the moment, and he's trying to encourage more community service and to simply create more visible opportunities so people understand how they can become independent.
It's skimming from the top, but the goal is that everyone benefits in other areas in the long run. And it's not simply bs, he takes a very academic point of view in many areas, especially those relating to social sciences.
I agree with what you are saying, however with Obama, and his viewpoint on getting more community services to build the community a better place. The majority of people who already don't help out in a community by helping out a canned food drive, or building houses, or even picking up trash at the local park, will continue to not help out.
I don't know his whole side of on this subject, but from what I can grasp from the bits and pieces of it, is that he is hoping that people are going to just up and out of the blue with a little persuasion join in at the local habitat for humanity center.
There are commercials all the time for just a dollar a week to help a starving child. That's $52 a year. For many people, less than a days work. If people aren't helping out by just sending in four quarters which they can use from the change they got when they bought their fast food item from the drive through, it is hard to see that they would be willing to actually get on their hands and knees and break a sweat for their community.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, people are angry all the time. They hate waiting in traffic for an hour to get to work, they hate the weather for being too hot, too dry, too wet, to cold, too windy, not enough wind etc... They hate people who accidently bump into them in the elevator, or cross roads at an intersection, etc... People don't say their "please and thank you's" (my mom always told me to say that to my friends parents when i hung out).
It may spark a few people to join in on the cause, but the majority of people are just going to ignore it and continue on their lives not thinking about somone who is less fortunate about themselves. I personally have helped out at food drives and community shelters, and the number of people who do need help is eye opening. Then, the number of people who don't even know about it is jaw dropping. However, the thing that just makes me amazed, and nearly go overboard is the number of people who knows there is so many people, especially children and single mothers who need help, and couldn't give a rats ass.
This is why I don't think it really is practical, because people just don't care about anyone else except for themselves. I think it's a natural instinct, probably defensive to keep surviving and going for that American viewpoint of success. Who knows, but with the bitter taste people now get of even the word the president, it will be hard to see how people are going to be willing to help out others, if they never had done before, or even thought about it.
Maybe Obama is trying to get that idea different. But my viewpoint on his taxation is still a little -_-' to me. For reasons stated in my previous post.
|
Bah. I can't tell if people are bringing up side issues, important issues, or deal-breakers. (Importance rated by them, of course - I have my own opinions.) Is the proposed tax policy change a deal breaker for everyone? How about the vote for retroactive telecom immunity?
BTW, CaucasianAsian brought up how a measly sum (negligible to us) can be lifesaving for others, but we still don't do it. I say it's because of the hassle of doing it, not because of the value of the donation. Make it easy to donate. Like, so easy that you can click on a big red button saying "Donate!" and be done, not fill out any forms, not click on another button afterwards. Unfortunately, very difficult to do.
|
United States22883 Posts
The FISA crying is stupid. FISA needed to be updated and it wasn't perfect, but the telecom immunity was a small sideportion of the bill that got a lot of coverage. Bleeding heart liberals are as bad at understanding compromise as war hawk conservatives. The rest of FISA (the main part) was solid and it's simply not possible to get your own "perfect" bill.
CA, he's proposing a $4,000 college scholarship in exchange for 100 hours of community service. He estimates it'll cost 10 billion per year, but that number seems a bit low to me. I think there's also some incentive grants for teachers and doctors.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
Oh, I see. That's like $40/hr, idk, I can see the government losing even more money than it already is by doing that.
|
On July 29 2008 13:40 Jibba wrote:
You definitely gained a lot of respect in my book for that post and it's a lot more clear what your intentions were early on. I agree with a lot of what you wrote and I misjudged you early on.
There's still a couple of points that I think are off. Even though it's easier to attend college, education inflation has increased dramatically over the past 40 years. In 1960 you could get your highschool diploma and immediately begin a factory career, living very comfortably and probably being upper middle class when you retire. Now a college degree is the norm, and most people who get one aren't going to live as well as that factory worker from 1960.
I think an important issue to tackle is the psychological discouragement that can easily occur if you grow up in that situation. Those things are rooted in education, poor services and a lot of other issues that need to be addressed. It becomes far more difficult to fight your way out of something when you become depressed, and that's still a serious issue in this country. That's a lot of what the Hope campaign is about. If you simply look at taxes and welfare plans, you're missing the big picture on how it's trying to improve society. Community building is a huge part of the campaign structure at the moment, and he's trying to encourage more community service and to simply create more visible opportunities so people understand how they can become independent.
It's skimming from the top, but the goal is that everyone benefits in other areas in the long run. And it's not simply bs, he takes a very academic point of view in many areas, especially those relating to social sciences.
Yeah, my bad about before. What you initially stated came off as shitty.
I;ve gotta agree with Jibba about the psycological issue. While there's still plenty of people that can escape poverty or the low level incomes just above it (my dad, his brother and basically all his friends did this, but they have plenty of friends who still live in the hood.) that whole level doesn't have the upward mobility that say, an average middle class joe would have.
Yeah, there's a lot more opportunities now with cheap/free college and what not. But the thing is, when you're that poor, people are typically short sighted in nature. They don't have the luxury of thinking, 'if I put my self through school and some debt for four years, I can make $50k coming out' Instead, it turns into that $30k as a manager at McDonalds looks like an easy way to make a living and get a roof over my head. And the older you get and the more comfortable you get with getting a decent paycheck, the harder it is to get yourself back into school.
Plus, probably the biggest factor in being unable to move up is just that, typically, everyone around you is in the same shitty situation. Granted, people are able to escape. But think of it as someone who has an alcoholic in the family. You have a much higher chance of turning out like that as well.
|
Korea (South)11583 Posts
I agree as well, of course psychological issues always are a factor. I recently read the book, "Brothers and Keepers" which is a nonfictional book about two brothers in the ghetto of Pittsburgh, and they go about different paths to escape poverty. One brother did it through school, got a good education, got a scholarship to harvard, and is now a college professor. The other brother loved being a black man in the ghetto and he wanted to get rich by selling drugs etc... He would eventually join a gang, and preform heists and he accidently killed a guy and is now in jail serving a life sentence.
How this takes place in the conversation is that even though there are tons of factors that are blocking your sight to escape poverty and the ghettos. However it all depends on your priorities and likes and dislikes, if you like getting high with ur buddies on heroin and crack and that is what you want to do, then just live how you are in poverty and you can do it all day. But, if you believe education or sports or what have you can get you where you want, then go for it. What I don't agree with is that if someone doesn't try to do what they want, and just sits on their ass and lets things take action all on themselves, then why should we help them?
I grew up in two different life styles. I have one house in pennsylvania on a farm, in a small city of about 900 people. There, everyone is poor, and so you didn't think much about getting that new nintendo game, or whatever. Then down in Northern Virginia, where the average income is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, people are worrying about the color of their brand new 60k car, where in pennsylvania, you would be lucky if your parents could afford to give you a 1990 honda accord with 250 thousand miles on it. So I was able to see the difference between the two people of my age.
In Pennsylvania, people my age who just graduated high school, they are either joining the military, working on the farm, or some other job such as a mechanic at the local gas station. Then in Northern Virginia, it really amazes people if you are going to even a community college. Everyone here goes to college, it's the norm. There is no question of, "What are you doing after high school?" Instead, "What college are you going to?" Even though I went to a public high school, people are very rich. It is normal to see parents buying $200 pants for their kid, just for the hell of it etc...where in Pennsylvania, if you got $5 pants from the local Salvation Army on christmas you are happy.
Life really is different based on who you live around. What I really noticed, is that people in the suburbs are a lot more on edge and full of anxiety, where as in my small town in pennsylvania, there is no rush to do anything. It's real laid back and just full of people relaxing. There, people are a lot more friendly which I have come to realize as well.
|
United States20661 Posts
Where I live high school teachers make... 80-120k ish?
Average salary in Los Altos I actually have no idea about. I'd be surprised it it were less than a quarter of a million a year. I'd guess around half.
However, despite the fact that my neighborhood is objectively affluent, you can't buy shit with your money. A bloody shack with two bedrooms and two bathrooms ran for nearly 2 million a few months back.
That kind of income in most other parts of the country would allow you to live like a king. Here, you're just comfortably middle class.
A national tax rate in a country as diverse as the United States should be low; too high of a tax rate fails to consider different areas of the nation and fails as a result.
Furthermore I hate being in the highest tax bracket without actually feeling like a rich person. The highest tax bracket needs to be adjusted a couple hundred thousand dollars upwards to introduce some sort of equity in the system; right now the 250-750k/year crowd gets shafted.
p.s. the Taiwan tax thing is cute. People here [referring to Taiwan now] don't mind taxes because we get socialized healthcare and solid government programmes that do all sorts of shit. Highest tax bracket is two and a half percent more than the highest tax bracket in the United States was [before Bush's cuts] and its set at a lower equivalent dollar amount.
Sigh~
|
United States22883 Posts
How much of that is because of California's income tax?
|
it's both due to the higher standard of living in CA as well as its highest state tax of 9.3%. i suppose differences between government programs in CA and say in a state like TX which has no state tax is pretty apparent though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 31 2008 00:28 tiffany wrote:
it's both due to the higher standard of living in CA as well as its highest state tax of 9.3%. i suppose differences between government programs in CA and say in a state like TX which has no state tax is pretty apparent though.
you mean with electricity and water shortages and uncontrollable bushfires? right.
|
United States20661 Posts
We have fucking Arnold. That's better than anything any other state has come up with. Ventura's got nothing on the Governator.
|
CA, it is so incorrect to say that aside from the 37 million in poverty, the rest deserve their lot in life, saying that the opportunity to go to college and "make something" of yourself is readily available. This is where your ignorance about the middle class comes into play.
MIllions of working-class and middle class families, who are above the poverty line, cannot afford health care, cannot afford to live anything but the most basic of lifestyles, because health care is too expensive, wages are too low.
Now, you are telling a mother of 2 children, who works two full-time blue-collar type jobs just to support her kids and herself, and who cannot afford health insurance and who cannot afford to send her children to anything but their shitty zoned public schools in an urban area, that she should take an online course to make something of herself. Sorry, but she works two full-time jobs, and she has no time to get a degree in anything of worth while still being able to feed her children. This example is typical of the kinds of people who need help in this country. What I wrote is not an exaggeration.
And this is not mentioning the 37 million or whatever the fucking number actually is of the people who are below the poverty line.
Your uncle may be a salient figure in your life but his experience does not represent the millions of people in this country who need help.
And to get programs like a national affordable healthcare plan, urban development, and better funding for schools, you need tax money. Given that the people who need help are the poor, working and middle class, it would make more sense to tax the rich more than the poor. In fact, a tax break for the poor and working class, coupled with an increased tax rate for the rich, is exactly what this problem needs, and that's what Obama promises.
Not saying you have, but if you were to argue that supply side economics works just as well in dealing with the aforementioned problems, you would just be completely wrong.
And arguing that the rich deserve to keep more of their money because they worked for it is so ridiculous and ignorant I don't know where to begin. I know you have discussed this topic with some thoughtfulness but in the end, the message that comes across from you is that you believe in general people who aren't rich have chosen their path and thus deserve it. Take a look at the example I gave again. Would you hold true to this belief of yours if what I said was true? : that the example of the mother working two jobs to support her children exemplifies (note, not models) the situation of the plurality, if not the majority, of the "poor" people that we're talking about.
And just speaking in general, if you make 400k a year, and you want to vote your pocketbook and complain about the squeeze. ignoring the problems this country faces:
1) you have more than enough money to live comfortably
2) hey, that's your prerogative but you still end up as an undoubtedly selfish asshole
|
|
|
i like how everyone thinks the middel class is somehow entitled to endless amounts of bail outs from rich people and then when the rich people arent giving enough, holy shit fuck those fat cats.
look, the problem is if you are below the poverty line somewhere along the timeline of your life you fucked up hard. do you deseve it? maybe. but we sure as hell dont tax the people who are pay 20%+ of the total federal income tax more.
how about telling the government to go fuck itself silly with its wasteful spending so maybe we can have some money left over for your social programs? government has failed, lets call in the rich fat cats (those bastards i hate them but i need them to pay for my government aid).
how about all you retards go ahead and think how middle class tax cuts will affect the government budget without taxing the upper class to high hell and substantially decreasing market investments in the process.
you cut a substantial amount of taxes from the largest income bracket in the US and your governemtn budget gets fucked and the middle class families gets what? 1k more per year? enough to make a difference, to increase consumer spending to drag us out of our approaching recession?
by the way, that mother of two children shouldnt have had children in the first place, or maybe she should hire some babysitter to take care of her kids while she goes to night school or something. impossible? only to you.
|
On July 26 2008 14:27 mahnini wrote:
from the little that i know obama sounds like mccain except a he's black and a socialist
You need to shut the fuck up and get out of this thread because you readily admit you don't know shit, and you don't
|
On July 31 2008 13:52 mahnini wrote:
how about telling the government to go fuck itself silly with its wasteful spending
Yeah, that's why I want Obama over Mccain
by the way, that mother of two children shouldnt have had children in the first place, or maybe she should hire some babysitter to take care of her kids while she goes to night school or something. impossible? only to you.
Babysitters cost money, and they still need to be fed. Moron.
|
On July 31 2008 13:29 ahole-surprise wrote:
CA, it is so incorrect to say that aside from the 37 million in poverty, the rest deserve their lot in life, saying that the opportunity to go to college and "make something" of yourself is readily available. This is where your ignorance about the middle class comes into play.
MIllions of working-class and middle class families, who are above the poverty line, cannot afford health care, cannot afford to live anything but the most basic of lifestyles, because health care is too expensive, wages are too low.
Now, you are telling a mother of 2 children, who works two full-time blue-collar type jobs just to support her kids and herself, and who cannot afford health insurance and who cannot afford to send her children to anything but their shitty zoned public schools in an urban area, that she should take an online course to make something of herself. Sorry, but she works two full-time jobs, and she has no time to get a degree in anything of worth while still being able to feed her children. This example is typical of the kinds of people who need help in this country. What I wrote is not an exaggeration.
And this is not mentioning the 37 million or whatever the fucking number actually is of the people who are below the poverty line.
Your uncle may be a salient figure in your life but his experience does not represent the millions of people in this country who need help.
And to get programs like a national affordable healthcare plan, urban development, and better funding for schools, you need tax money. Given that the people who need help are the poor, working and middle class, it would make more sense to tax the rich more than the poor. In fact, a tax break for the poor and working class, coupled with an increased tax rate for the rich, is exactly what this problem needs, and that's what Obama promises.
Not saying you have, but if you were to argue that supply side economics works just as well in dealing with the aforementioned problems, you would just be completely wrong.
And arguing that the rich deserve to keep more of their money because they worked for it is so ridiculous and ignorant I don't know where to begin. I know you have discussed this topic with some thoughtfulness but in the end, the message that comes across from you is that you believe in general people who aren't rich have chosen their path and thus deserve it. Take a look at the example I gave again. Would you hold true to this belief of yours if what I said was true? : that the example of the mother working two jobs to support her children exemplifies (note, not models) the situation of the plurality, if not the majority, of the "poor" people that we're talking about.
And just speaking in general, if you make 400k a year, and you want to vote your pocketbook and complain about the squeeze. ignoring the problems this country faces:
1) you have more than enough money to live comfortably
2) hey, that's your prerogative but you still end up as an undoubtedly selfish asshole
I have a question
where is this particular mother working two jobs
can we see a picture of her
or is this just some "idealized" example of the people that we need to help america protect at the expense of those greedy rich people that steal from everybody and try to destroy the environment and make everybody else's lives miserable.
But that's a different topic for a different day.
Let's start with healthcare. There's a reason why healthcare is expensive. Insurance. Suppose you had someone that guaranteed that no matter how much money you lose in blackjack, they'll refund it to you in exchange for 10$50 a month. So naturally, regardless of how much you're betting (and losing) you would keep betting and betting and betting whenever you got the opportunity. That's the premise of insurance these days.
Now the problem with insurance is that nobody is checking how much doctors are charging for their fees. You might compare barbers and restaurants and gas prices and even supermarkets, for the dollar or two you might save, but when it comes to doctors you just drop your copay and pay your insurance premiums. There is no incentive for doctors to compete price wise, so they can jack it up to whatever price they want.
Now, why are insurance companies such a big part in this? Because the government forced all sorts of employers to have an HMO program for their employees. As such, everybody has insurance, nobody bothers to check prices anymore... healthcare costs go up.
But it's not the doctors' fault, either. They spend 8 years in school, and proceed to have 3 years of further training afterwards where they make no money. That schooling easily costs $500,000. Even upper middle-class people have trouble having that much money, especially after progressive taxes combined with inflation. Loans are about the only option, and those you have to pay back. Not to mention insurance costs, maintenance, rent, etc. etc. etc. and the average family doctor keeps about 41% of all the income. For a typical doctor, that would be $155,000 a year. Sounds great, until you deduct all sorts of taxes and loan interest and malpractice insurance/suits, in which case it gets quickly crushed to $50,000 a year. Why did you spend 11 years in school again? Why do I want to be a doctor anyway? (my parents ask me that question all the time and the answer gets harder)
Now why are medical costs so high? Inflation, for both costs and for doctors. How is inflation created? By printing money, which is what the government does when it spends more than it can take in. In other words, BIG government increases inflation, which means costs go up, which means the middle class and lower class get screwed even harder. You can "give them" a tax break and tax the "rich," but the really rich people aren't paying the 35% progressive tax. They're paying a 15% capital gains tax, if anything at all. The only people that get screwed by Obama's plan are upper-middle class people-which coincidentally are most of the youth that support Obama. So much for class mobility. At least in medieval times some merchants could become upper-class.
How are all these European and Scandivanian and Asian countries doing so well with their healthcare systems? Because they're homogenous. The income disparity between people is quite low in thoes countries, aside from the immigrants (Muslims in Europe, Chinese/Koreans in Japan) who generally don't qualify for the healthcare anyways. America, if anything, is not homogenous. There is high income disparity, due to a clever little thing called government kickbacks and big government. How else are politician families able to stay in power for so long? The Kennedys, for one, but even Obama is related to several former presidents.
One more thing.
And arguing that the rich deserve to keep more of their money because they worked for it is so ridiculous and ignorant I don't know where to begin.
So naturally, we should take all their money and give it to other more deserving people. Oppress one to save ten. Please tell me you don't know what happens when someone wins the lottery: they don't know what to do with all the money, and end up poorer than before.
And I'm pretty sure that the situation is not as horrific 1920's sweatshops as you make it seem it is. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair portrays people in a completely unregulated corrupt time, and they lived better than your "exemplified plurality," even without subsidized cable.
|
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does.
|
On July 31 2008 13:57 Caller wrote:
Paragraphs on why healthcare costs a lot
Do you see why this really is not relevant because neither candidate is going to fix the issue you addressed, but at least Obama is trying to make healthcare affordable to those who can't afford it.
There is high income disparity, due to a clever little thing called government kickbacks and big government.
Are you seriously advocating the stance that small government is less likely to induce high income disparity than big government?
So naturally, we should take all their money and give it to other more deserving people. Oppress one to save ten. Please tell me you don't know what happens when someone wins the lottery: they don't know what to do with all the money, and end up poorer than before.
The point I'm making is that it's pointless to argue about who deserves the money and the better criterion to decide who gets taxed more is relative need.
And I'm pretty sure that the situation is not as horrific 1920's sweatshops as you make it seem it is. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair portrays people in a completely unregulated corrupt time, and they lived better than your "exemplified plurality," even without subsidized cable.
It's not as horrific as that, but we've come a long way as a society and the fact that 47 million (according to the Obama website, check other figures if you want) can't afford health insurance is an important issue that needs to be dealt with.
|
On July 31 2008 13:56 ahole-surprise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 13:52 mahnini wrote:
how about telling the government to go fuck itself silly with its wasteful spending
Yeah, that's why I want Obama over Mccain
Obama? The same obama that wants to fund the shitload of social programs the 90% of americans wont even benefit from? im not saying im supporting mccain but obama is no prize pig himself. where is the money going to come from to fund these programs? we cut military spending and all of a sudden we arent trillions of dollars in debt again? oh yeah thats right just tax the rich people.
Show nested quote +
by the way, that mother of two children shouldnt have had children in the first place, or maybe she should hire some babysitter to take care of her kids while she goes to night school or something. impossible? only to you.
Babysitters cost money, and they still need to be fed. Moron.
what the kids cant eat themselves? the mother cant find a relative? a friend? a neighbor? the kid of a neighbor? people need to accept that some people are stuck where they are because they are stupid and suck at life. are there exceptions? sure there are always exceptions, but most people are just stupid.
|
On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does.
supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump
|
On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump
George H. W. Bush disagreed.
|
On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed.
now you know im right
|
On July 31 2008 14:08 ahole-surprise wrote:Show nested quote +Do you see why this really is not relevant because neither candidate is going to fix the issue you addressed, but at least Obama is trying to make healthcare affordable to those who can't afford it. Show nested quote +
There is high income disparity, due to a clever little thing called government kickbacks and big government.
Are you seriously advocating the stance that small government is less likely to induce high income disparity than big government? Show nested quote +
So naturally, we should take all their money and give it to other more deserving people. Oppress one to save ten. Please tell me you don't know what happens when someone wins the lottery: they don't know what to do with all the money, and end up poorer than before.
The point I'm making is that it's pointless to argue about who deserves the money and the better criterion to decide who gets taxed more is relative need. Show nested quote +
And I'm pretty sure that the situation is not as horrific 1920's sweatshops as you make it seem it is. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair portrays people in a completely unregulated corrupt time, and they lived better than your "exemplified plurality," even without subsidized cable.
It's not as horrific as that, but we've come a long way as a society and the fact that 47 million (according to the Obama website, check other figures if you want) can't afford health insurance is an important issue that needs to be dealt with.
Alright then, here's a tl:dr version:
MAKING GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF HEALTHCARE 30 YEARS AGO SCREWED THE SYSTEM UP. MAKING GOVERNMENT TAKE CARE OF HEALTHCARE NOW IS GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE.
Instead of making everybody buy "healthcare" which people equate with health, why not just have people go to the f****** doctor and pay, say, $35 or whatever the market decides is a fair price? There's actually some doctors that don't take insurance and charge reasonable prices. Props to them for not sucking the government infused HMO's dick.
The problem with Obama is that he's distracting everybody from the real problem (stealing politicians and old-school powermongers like himself) and focusing it on the greedy "rich" who aren't even that rich but are in the upper middle class. It's as bad as Bush blaming 9-11 on Iraq and using it as a cassus belli.
And yes, I actually do think smaller government results in less income disparity. In big government, you have the powerholders, who are well-to-do, fat, and rich, and everybody else, who is poor. In small government, nobody can use force to obligate people to do things (legally) so there's a fairer place for people to start business and the like without being crushed by regulation that is sponsored by a paid off senator. In other words, the difference between small and big government is the middle class, which I am a part of and would not like to be poor in order to maintain the wealth of some old inbred coots.
Ok, we tax people more. Now who gets to spend it. Ted Stevens, or his cronies (i.e. the entire Congress and Executive and Judicial Branch)? Yeah. I trust my money, they won't spend it on bridges to nowhere.
And sure, the situation may have gotten worse. But telling people that the solution is the middle class is almost as bad as Hitler telling everybody that the Jews were responsible for WWI's defeat (yay godwin's law) or Stalin purging the kulaks for ruining the quality of life when it was the fault of the government (oh wait).
|
On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed. now you know im right
Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points.
|
On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George W. Bush disagreed.now you know im right
fixed
|
The problem with Obama is that he's distracting everybody from the real problem (stealing politicians and old-school powermongers like himself) and focusing it on the greedy "rich" who aren't even that rich but are in the upper middle class. It's as bad as Bush blaming 9-11 on Iraq and using it as a cassus belli.
Also note that Obama your middle class hero is the same person that wants to spend BILLIONS bailing out the Big 3 so he can fellate the UAW and get more votes.
|
On July 31 2008 14:24 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George W. Bush disagreed.now you know im right fixed
wat
|
On July 31 2008 14:22 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed. now you know im right Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points.
i dont really know much about bush's supply side policies, links would be appreciated. also what debt went up?
|
On July 31 2008 14:28 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:24 Caller wrote:On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George W. Bush disagreed.now you know im right fixed wat
George W. Bush is also a corporate fascist who thinks supply side economics is giving all your buddies money.
As was his father, George H.W. Bush
and his maybe-successor, George John McCain Bush III
|
On July 31 2008 14:28 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:22 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed. now you know im right Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points. i dont really know much about bush's supply side policies, links would be appreciated. also what debt went up?
In 1980 (or was it '79?) he referred to Reagan's proposed tax plans as "voodoo economics," but he is frequently referred to as being Reagan's third term, and even though he reneged on the whole "no new taxes" pledge, he pretty much stayed on Reagan's Course.
The debt I was referring to was the national debt, but as a % of the GDP.
I'm sure someone has the exact numbers somewhere, but this is the best I can do right now:
http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/n/G/095.png
And if that's correct, then it appears that I was underestimating when I said 20 points.
|
On July 31 2008 14:30 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:28 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:24 Caller wrote:On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George W. Bush disagreed.now you know im right fixed wat George W. Bush is also a corporate fascist who thinks supply side economics is giving all your buddies money. As was his father, George H.W. Bush and his maybe-successor, George John McCain Bush III
My point was that, at one time, George H.W. Bush wasn't.
|
On July 31 2008 14:47 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:30 Caller wrote:On July 31 2008 14:28 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:24 Caller wrote:On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George W. Bush disagreed.now you know im right fixed wat George W. Bush is also a corporate fascist who thinks supply side economics is giving all your buddies money. As was his father, George H.W. Bush and his maybe-successor, George John McCain Bush III My point was that, at one time, George H.W. Bush wasn't.
O.O
|
On July 31 2008 14:46 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 14:28 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:22 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:21 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:19 Mindcrime wrote:On July 31 2008 14:13 mahnini wrote:On July 31 2008 14:00 Caller wrote:
oh and by the way i agree that supply-side economics was a bit of Reaganesque stupidity
What we need is a free market, not a corporate fascism like today.
And Obama takes kickbacks too. At least, his wife does. supply-side economics is not coporate fascism. if you cut taxes for businesses the same business have more capital to invest, fund r&d, hire needed workers etc, etc, driving market supply up and prices down and eventually demand will rise and all of a sudden we are out a economic slump George H. W. Bush disagreed. now you know im right Nah, after he started to agree with you, the debt as a % of the GDP went up by around 20 points. i dont really know much about bush's supply side policies, links would be appreciated. also what debt went up? In 1980 (or was it '79?) he referred to Reagan's proposed tax plans as "voodoo economics," but he is frequently referred to as being Reagan's third term, and even though he reneged on the whole "no new taxes" pledge, he pretty much stayed on Reagan's Course. The debt I was referring to was the national debt, but as a % of the GDP. I'm sure someone has the exact numbers somewhere, but this is the best I can do right now: http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/n/G/095.pngAnd if that's correct, then it appears that I was underestimating when I said 20 points.
Hmm, national debt is expected to go up if you cut taxes without covering it with the budget totally.
But during that time GDP was also rising and inflation plummeted.
federalreserve.gov+ Show Spoiler +
forgot where this came from but i think it was a textbook+ Show Spoiler +
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
On July 31 2008 15:02 oneofthem wrote:
this is cute
Stay out of this thread, I'm warning you.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh of course, i'd rather be amused by swashbuckling resistance fighters armed with decades old rhetoric and the new york post.
death to the irs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/toprate_historical.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6259/irsyj2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/800/taiwantaxrd0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.earlyentrancefoundation.org/peep/images/irs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2007/200726/img55.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7751/usgdpwp3.png)
