Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Would you vote for President Bush, if he could run for another term in office?

Why?
Why not?

No, I wouldn't.

He's been president a long time is issue enough.

Glad he was president, yes.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
No, I wouldn't.

He's been president a long time is issue enough.

Glad he was president, yes.

You were happy that Bush was president? Why would you say that?

No, I would not. We need new blood in the Oval Office.

In fact, I would almost say that it's about time for a Democrat to be president.

P.S. Stealthtroll is stealthy.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, I would not. We need new blood in the Oval Office.

In fact, I would almost say that it's about time for a Democrat to be president.

P.S. Stealthtroll is stealthy.

What's up Zeal? Long time no see, buddy.



Anyway. Yes, it think that a democrat will most definitely be president.

I swear, everyone is falling for the "Obama is a Muslim/evil" shit. Even my brothers and sisters are. Everywhere I turn I'm getting, Obama won't do the pledge of allegiance. Obama doesn't salute the American flag. Obama is a Muslim....etc. etc.

Regardless, I still think Obama will be our next president. Bush is done and consequently, so are the Republicans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What's up Zeal? Long time no see, buddy.



Anyway. Yes, it think that a democrat will most definitely be president.

I swear, everyone is falling for the "Obama is a Muslim/evil" shit. Even my brothers and sisters are. Everywhere I turn I'm getting, Obama won't do the pledge of allegiance. Obama doesn't salute the American flag. Obama is a Muslim....etc. etc.

Regardless, I still think Obama will be our next president. Bush is done and consequently, so are the Republicans.

That crap mostly comes from Christians who are supposed to be tolerant, oh well.

Snopes has a "bust" on pretty much every Obama myth, from him evil Muslim terrorist supporting ways to his supposed white-hating anti-Americanism.

Originally posted by Robtard
That crap mostly comes from Christians who are supposed to be tolerant, oh well.

Snopes has a "bust" on pretty much every Obama myth, from him evil Muslim terrorist supporting ways to his supposed white-hating anti-Americanism.

Thanks. And, I know. I refer them (anyone else spouting that refuse) to go to that snopes article and then give me real reasons why they don't like Obama. Tomorrow, I visit a guy who has pretty much told me everything about Obama that is on that snopes site. I wonder what he'll do when he sees it? LOL!

Snopes is part of the liberal media. You should check out President Bush's own collection on there.

Over McCain and Obama?

Yeah, probably.

Originally posted by KidRock
Over McCain and Obama?

Yeah, probably.

The economy, the war and foreign relations have been getting progressively worse these last 8 years, what would you really expect to happen having four more years under the same leadership/direction? I'm sincerely curious to know your opinion on this.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Snopes is part of the liberal media. You should check out President Bush's own collection on there.

I have.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp

I am a big fan of Snopes. I became one when Robtard showed me that the cell phone "selling of numbers" e-mail was a hoax.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Snopes is part of the liberal media. You should check out President Bush's own collection on there.

You forgot "Jew", 'Liberal Jew Media'.

Snopes is very objective and fair, for being Liberal Jews, eh?

Originally posted by Robtard
The economy, the war and foreign relations have been getting progressively worse these last 8 years, what would you really expect to happen having four more years under the same leadership/direction? I'm sincerely curious to know your opinion on this.

Things could get worse under the policies of Obama and I believe they will. 50% of Americans own stock, Obama wants to double the capital dividends tax. Taking MORE money out of the pockets of 152,000,000 Americans doesn't sounds very economically sensible to me. Also all of his big spending during an incoming recession doesn't sound too great either. I also am not a fan of his decision to cut funding to our Missile Shield.

Same goes for McCain. I have plenty of problems with him especially when it comes to immigration as well as his decision to stay in Iraq. I could care less who wins this election. I am looking forward to '12 hoping someone else emerges as a better candidate.

But as I said I would vote for Bush over these two clowns, but not for him if there was a candidate I really liked.

Well, considering he's about to Convert to Catholicism...why not.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Snopes is part of the liberal media. You should check out President Bush's own collection on there. There are a lot of great ones in the Bush section, although proclaimed as false, are still really funny.

President George W. Bush proclaimed, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."

Hoping to attract the singer's attention at the March 2002 Presidential Gala, George W. Bush waved at Stevie Wonder.

Originally posted by KidRock
50% of Americans own stock

WtF are you talking about

Originally posted by KidRock
I also am not a fan of his decision to cut funding to our Missile Shield.

Originally posted by KidRock
Taking MORE money out of the pockets of 152,000,000 Americans doesn't sounds very economically sensible to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
WtF are you talking about

http://www.commondreams.org/views/072600-101.htm

"Nearly half of all American households participate in the stock market."

1) The link is 8 years old.

2)

The way the article puts it is incredibly misleading. This is a very board understanding of playing the stock market. In my vernacular, saying "participate in the stock market" would including owning shares (also, owning A share is next to nothing. do you know how this stuff works?). Having a 401(k) is a very liberal way of saying "nearly half of Americans participate."

What are the exact numbers?

Besides, this is the part you should have quoted:



Because this is exactly what has occurred and this is what is affecting people today.

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072600-101.htm

"Nearly half of all American households participate in the stock market."

true, but they probably own so little it doesn't even matter. The top 5-10% own probably more than half the wealth in terms of stock.

I would not vote for him, even if I could. He should have been voted out of office in 04.

Originally posted by KidRock
Things could get worse under the policies of Obama and I believe they will. 50% of Americans own stock, Obama wants to double the capital dividends tax. Taking MORE money out of the pockets of 152,000,000 Americans doesn't sounds very economically sensible to me. Also all of his big spending during an incoming recession doesn't sound too great either. I also am not a fan of his decision to cut funding to our Missile Shield.

Same goes for McCain. I have plenty of problems with him especially when it comes to immigration as well as his decision to stay in Iraq. I could care less who wins this election. I am looking forward to '12 hoping someone else emerges as a better candidate.

But as I said I would vote for Bush over these two clowns, but not for him if there was a candidate I really liked.
Ending the Iraq war would surely put a huge number back into the budget, and lets not forget, like all left wingers, he's only taking money from the rich, those that got a stupid tax cut from Bush, forcing the middle class to pay more than they can. But of course, IOKIYAR.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ending the Iraq war would surely put a huge number back into the budget, and lets not forget, like all left wingers, he's only taking money from the rich, those that got a stupid tax cut from Bush, forcing the middle class to pay more than they can. But of course, IOKIYAR.

both the left and the right have a pretty even track record when it comes to taxes. The middle class pay for everyone.

Go Obama

Originally posted by inimalist
both the left and the right have a pretty even track record when it comes to taxes. The middle class pay for everyone. Wow, really?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wow, really?

yes?

Originally posted by inimalist
The middle class pay for everyone.

LOL

why is that funny?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
why is that funny?

Because the middle class pays shit in taxes compared to the rich and upper class.

And they will pay even more under Obama to support the middle class.

I agree with the redneck.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with the redneck.

Doesnt mean much coming from a Nazi I suppose.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with the redneck.

considering the poor wording and incorrectness of his statement, this surprises me.

1st: the combined middle class contribute far more than the upper class

2nd: middle class pay far more of a percentage of income in taxes than the upper class.

now if he meant that an individual upperclass pays more dollar-for-dollar, then that would be correct....but what a stupid point to make.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with the redneck.

considering the poor wording and incorrectness of his statement, this surprises me.

1st: the combined middle class contribute far more than the upper class

2nd: middle class pay far more of a percentage of income in taxes than the upper class.

now if he meant that an individual upperclass pays more dollar-for-dollar, then that would be correct....but what a useless point to make.

Originally posted by KidRock
Because the middle class pays shit in taxes compared to the rich and upper class.

And they will pay even more under Obama to support the middle class.

in what country?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
in what country?

So overall which class is paying more money to the US government..the middle class or the rich?

I am not talking about the individual..I mean as a whole.

No I wouldn't, and I voted for him 2x grr, all those promises he made in 2000 about bringing RESPECT BACK to the White House and this is his legacy? Lying 10x worst then Clinton, knowing about 9/11 and not doing anything about it, didn't even want the government to investigate 9/11, when in front of a judge and asked questions about it he was NOT on camera and didn't allow it to be written down what was asked and said. Oh I don't know anything about $4 gas when it's just right around the corner... Pshh yeah what a joke!!! I think a poll should be taken of "Would you still vote for GWB in 2000 if you knew the outcome?'' Shoulda voted for Gore..

Originally posted by Schecter
considering the poor wording and incorrectness of his statement, this surprises me.

1st: the combined middle class contribute far more than the upper class

2nd: middle class pay far more of a percentage of income in taxes than the upper class.

now if he meant that an individual upperclass pays more dollar-for-dollar, then that would be correct....but what a useless point to make. Goddammit, I am sure I wrote up a reply for that yesterday. Must have forgotten to send it.

Anyways, inimalist said " The middle class pay for everyone." and that is obviously incorrect as the rich pay very well for themselves and then some (much) more.

As for your other statements, got some stats on that? I'd be delighted to read.

Originally posted by Bardock42

As for your other statements, got some stats on that? I'd be delighted to read.

I did a Google search, some stories/sources state that the top earners pay most of the taxes, while other stories/sources state that the middle class is the one that takes it in the ass tax-wise.

Before I weigh in, how does one define wealthy or high-income?

But I think the redneck may actually be right depending on how one answers the above question.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Goddammit, I am sure I wrote up a reply for that yesterday. Must have forgotten to send it.

Anyways, inimalist said " The middle class pay for everyone." and that is obviously incorrect as the rich pay very well for themselves and then some (much) more.

As for your other statements, got some stats on that? I'd be delighted to read.
wtf am i your personal google?


"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

perhaps you are confusing upper class with upper-middle class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

I've only seen IRS data (2006) that the upper class (if one defines the upper class as those earning a gross income above $100,000) pay around 70% of the total personal tax revenue.

Either way that still means that the wealthy are paying the bulk percentage of the income tax intake though... which doesn't really support the statement of the middle class paying "shit" but also doesn't support the middle class contributing more than the upper class and paying for everything, nor that the middle class are paying a higher percentage of their income (the latter should be recognized as intuitively wrong considering the upper class are taxed at a higher rate).

There is however a loophole in your tax law whereby millionaire financiers, hedge-fund managers and investment bankers have their income treated as capital gains rather than income, which means they're taxed at far too low a level.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
(if one defines the upper class as those earning a gross income above $100,000) pay around 70% of the total personal tax revenue.

well thats if you accept a generally unaccepted definition of upper-class in the u.s.

Originally posted by Schecter
well thats if you accept a generally unaccepted definition of upper-class in the u.s. Your link to wikipedia defines the top 20%, which you've also chosen to highlight in your post as the apparent "upper class", as those earning $92,000 per annum and upwards. Although if you have a better defining point for being part of the "upper class" I'm open to it.

I don't know if Average Joe USA earning his median income of $32K, would consider someone earning above $100K as being alongside him in the middle class.

Erratum: Actually, your link refers to household income.
This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States that cites the Census Bureau indicates that only 5% earn greater than $100K.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Before I weigh in, how does one define wealthy or high-income?

But I think the redneck may actually be right depending on how one answers the above question.

Well Obama called anyone making over 97,000 a year as the upper class and not middle class lol.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your link to wikipedia defines the top 20% of earners, which you've also chosen to highlight in your post as the apparent "upper class", as those earning $92,000 per annum and upwards.

it gives multiple interpretations of upper-class. it doesnt 'define' anything since its simply based on a highly subjective socioeconomic standard. according to some it is based on 100,000+ HOUSEHOLD income. someone who earns 50K a year would be in an upper-class household if if they married someone of equal income, which is laughable. the widely accepted meaning of 'upper class' are the top 1-2%.

I would consider someone earning more than $100K relatively comfortable, and as noted in my edit above, apparently individuals earning over $100K only constitute around 5% of earners aged 25 and over, which isn't too far off from the apparently more limited definition of upper class you choose.

The fact that Bush is pretty much ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits him disqualifies him in my eyes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would consider someone earning more than $100K relatively comfortable, and as noted in my edit above, those earning over $100K constitute around 5% of earners aged 25 and over.

of course it would be comfortable. i certainly wouldnt debate that. i bet a someone who makes a couple of million a year is a bit more comfy though. i also feel that to put these two individuals in the same bracket is just not sane.

the difference between the top 5 percent and top 2 percent is extremely drastic.

I see your point and I would probably separate those earning 7 figure or more salaries from those earning $100K too, but at the same time I wouldn't consider someone on an individual 6 figure income, even on the low end, as "middle class America." I don't think one has to be Warren Buffett to be considered wealthy.

And while I'm for progressive taxation, considering it's essentially necessary for most governments to function and these people can afford to part with a bigger chunk of their cash - whether one chooses to take the top 20, 10, 5 or 2 percent though, one shouldn't downplay that they are already paying more than their fair share.

never going to happen; dont get this

Originally posted by Schecter
wtf am i your personal google?


"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

perhaps you are confusing upper class with upper-middle class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

So, what that study shows you gave is that the Top 20% rich people pay 64%....sixty ****ing four percent...of all taxes in the US?

Isn't it pretty ****ing apparent that the people paying for "everyone" ... are those 20%?

Also, yeah, if you are going to make blanket statements you better be my ****ing google.

I don't agree with the "the middle class pays shit", that's obviously bullshit, but the upper class gets so much shit from libtards, it should quite be noted that they factually pay and do so much more for the government, country and economy than anyone else, that they could get a break once in a while. But, meh, it's "in" to bash rich people.

Your point that the top 20% are not the upper class, is also noted, but it doesn't matter, obviously the smaller you make the group the less they will be able to contribute in absolute numbers. Agreed, the top 0.00001% pay pretty less compared to the total the government spends, but they pay more than their fair share anyways, on top of other things they bring to the country. Though, obviously the loop holse are a problem in some ways, they are not really enough to make the hate for highest income people justified.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what that study shows you gave is that the Top 20% rich people pay 64%....sixty ****ing four percent...of all taxes in the US?

Isn't it pretty ****ing apparent that the people paying for "everyone" ... are those 20%?

Also, yeah, if you are going to make blanket statements you better be my ****ing google.

again you're subscribing the assumption that the top 20% equals upper class, as fact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't agree with the "the middle class pays shit", that's obviously bullshit, but the upper class gets so much shit from libtards, it should quite be noted that they factually pay and do so much more for the government, country and economy than anyone else, that they could get a break once in a while. But, meh, it's "in" to bash rich people.

hmmm ok, only i wasnt bashing the upper class. while i feel they get too much of a break these days i was simply pointing out that being in the top 20% does not render one 'upper class' or 'wealthy'. they are certainly comfortable, but to play upper and middle statistics between somepne who earns 80k and 110k, yet consider the gap between 100k and a few million as superficial is just insane.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Your point that the top 20% are not the upper class, is also noted

noted and ignored apparently

Originally posted by Bardock42
but it doesn't matter, obviously the smaller you make the group the less they will be able to contribute in absolute numbers. Agreed, the top 0.00001% pay pretty less compared to the total the government spends, but they pay more than their fair share anyways, on top of other things they bring to the country. Though, obviously the loop holse are a problem in some ways, they are not really enough to make the hate for highest income people justified.

its not a superficial play on percentages as you try to turn it into. the top 1-2% is generally regarded as the upper class in the u.s. again there is no final word. some consider a 100k+ household to be upper class. i choose to use the most widely accepted and practical definition which acknowledges rich people. you can assume its bashing all you wish but i never did say anything even derogatory.

I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.

Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?

Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...

Originally posted by inimalist


Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...

Well that is pretty much Barack Obamas key point.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well that is pretty much Barack Obamas key point.

which is unfortunate

imagine how much lower EVERYONES taxes would be if instead of arguing over how much everyone should pay, people eliminated the redundancies and corruption in the bureaucracy that runs America.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.

Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?

Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...

Exactly! Tax cuts don't really do much for the "middle class." Which leads me to this question:

Why would any middle class/working class citizen vote for McCain? Why? Why? Why?

I can't begin to understand it from an economic standpoint.

There is a journal called Political Psychology, it is one of my favs.

They did a study that shows voters are more swayed by who they feel to be most like them rather than on issues.

and I actually think tax cuts for the middle class are great, because the money that isn't going to the government will be put right back into the economy, whereas tax cuts for the rich may increase investment, but even if it is invested back into the economy, it is only the economy that services the upper class that benefits. Also, the money middle class people spend in the economy eventually makes its way to the top

Originally posted by inimalist


They did a study that shows voters are more swayed by who they feel to be most like them rather than on issues.


Reason is the enemy of democracy... can't remember where I heard it but it is so true.

i agree so much. I want to write something about the science behind human nature and how it is incongruent with the assumptions made about people in democratic philosophy. I'll probably wait until I have at least some letters after my name, but the baseline assumption of humans as rational, self-motivated, political and interested is, as far as I have seen, not true.

Originally posted by inimalist
i agree so much. I want to write something about the science behind human nature and how it is incongruent with the assumptions made about people in democratic philosophy. I'll probably wait until I have at least some letters after my name, but the baseline assumption of humans as rational, self-motivated, political and interested is, as far as I have seen, not true.

I don't have a degree or a TV show so my opinion doesn't matter on this, but I have to agree with that.

I'm going to school to become an English teacher because I believe that people are not "rational, self-motivated, political and interested" because they can not read. By this I mean they do not understand what they read.

If Bush says, "The entire civilized world is against Sadam" what did he just say? Rhetoric is important to understanding how to decipher through the bullshit. I also find, just in my experiences, that even college educated people have a difficult time articulating ideas. That's a huge problem. How can democracy work, the way it was intended, with uninterested, uninformed and unmotivated citizens?

When one can not read and understand what was read, one is a simple being that is lead strictly off base emotion. Piaget talked about this in four stages I believe but I forget how it works.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.

Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?

Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...

I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.


Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.Originally posted by Schecter
again you're subscribing the assumption that the top 20% equals upper class, as fact.



hmmm ok, only i wasnt bashing the upper class. while i feel they get too much of a break these days i was simply pointing out that being in the top 20% does not render one 'upper class' or 'wealthy'. they are certainly comfortable, but to play upper and middle statistics between somepne who earns 80k and 110k, yet consider the gap between 100k and a few million as superficial is just insane.




noted and ignored apparently



its not a superficial play on percentages as you try to turn it into. the top 1-2% is generally regarded as the upper class in the u.s. again there is no final word. some consider a 100k+ household to be upper class. i choose to use the most widely accepted and practical definition which acknowledges rich people. you can assume its bashing all you wish but i never did say anything even derogatory.

All you said really has nothing to do with my point. I addressed your point about making the upper class smaller. Either way, they still pay a shitload.

My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.

Originally posted by Bardock42


My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.

But they pay for it by taking from you... it's just pulling straws putting in that way.

Example (hypothetical): I pay for $150 jersey though I make $6.50 an hour. Guy with his name on back of jersey makes $ 10 million a year. Man who owns franchise on front of jersey gets most of the profit from jersey (after paying the sports league and small dividend to athlethe). Man who owns franchise also does not pay for the arena because the arena is paid for by taxpayers of the city even if they don't give a **** about sports (this is why Seattle just lost the NBA franchise Supersonics because they wouldn't pay for another arena; in fact, they just renovated the NBA arena and paid for a new NFL arena not long ago in Seattle).

This is just how capitialism works. If anything, he should go suck a bunch of dicks because he isn't shit without the cash flow of the middle class.

Originally posted by inimalist
which is unfortunate

imagine how much lower EVERYONES taxes would be if instead of arguing over how much everyone should pay, people eliminated the redundancies and corruption in the bureaucracy that runs America.

A point that is painfully obvious but, unfortunately, it is still "lost" to many people/politicians. "Trim the fat", as Ron Paul put it.

It's not lost. The top brass are greedy, appeal to the emotions of the masses, and then they keep on hustling.

It's on some hip hop hustlin' shit (take the money of hundreds of millions with no repercussions) 'cept it's all legal homie.

Originally posted by chithappens
It's not lost. The top brass are greedy, appeal to the emotions of the masses, and then they keep on hustling.

It's on some hip hop hustlin' shit (take the money of hundreds of millions with no repercussions) 'cept it's all legal homie.

I put "lost" in quotes for a reason...because it is obviously not lost to politicians and some people, but somehow, it isn't really covered or brought up too often...is it?

Ron Paul was viewed and treated as a quack..........but his message of "trimming the fat" has been long over-due for decades now. Those comfortable in their respective climes, feeding and benefiting off of their corrupt exploitations of loop holes and shifting of money are all too prominent and so intertwined in our government that it is nearly impossible for a nice trimming of the fat to take place.

I love my country so all I can do is vote and "write my representative" n'stuff.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.


Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.

All you said really has nothing to do with my point. I addressed your point about making the upper class smaller. Either way, they still pay a shitload.

My point never was that the middle class don't pay much or that they aren't affected, it was just that, if you see a rich person, you should probably go suck their dick cause they ****ing pay for your country.

the mentallity of many is that everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. i dont find it incredibly unfair to tax everyone the same percent out of their income. many do though. they see it as punishing the rich.

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't have a degree or a TV show so my opinion doesn't matter on this

lol, preaching at the choir

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm going to school to become an English teacher because I believe that people are not "rational, self-motivated, political and interested" because they can not read. By this I mean they do not understand what they read.

I couldn't agree with you more. I owe a lot of my intellectual freedom to some good teachers I had in highschool, it is such an important age to get kids thinking in new ways, for them to assert their independence.

But so much of that is gone in the "everyones a special winner" society. Nobody fails, nobody is marked wrong, no red pens on marked tests. LOL, I guess what I am saying is drive those kids hard!

Originally posted by chithappens
If Bush says, "The entire civilized world is against Sadam" what did he just say? Rhetoric is important to understanding how to decipher through the bullshit. I also find, just in my experiences, that even college educated people have a difficult time articulating ideas. That's a huge problem. How can democracy work, the way it was intended, with uninterested, uninformed and unmotivated citizens?

Most of the profs that I have talked to say that they see declining performance in students. I was told in an anthropology of india class that my work was too advanced, thus not following the assignment format, because I had done a decomposition of a subject rather than reading comprehension. 3rd year university.

That, and the smartest and most deserving people I know will probably never get the chance to go to university, whereas everyone I have met there (with some exceptions) has been unmotivated and uninterested in the very subject they decided to dedicate 4 years to, on their parents' dime (full disclosure, my parents do pay for my school too, but I wouldn't be uninterested).

Its all because lower level schools are so antithetical to real learning or self-motivated interests. Bored children are the most disruptive, especially boys during those years, and most people I know (who have very interesting science debates with me) found themselves constantly in trouble with the institution. This doesn't even include the curious intellectual who tries to ask a lot of questions, and stresses out the teacher because they are challenging their answers. Education as it exists does not try to train young minds to be strong independent citizens, but instead rewards passivity, loyalty, obedience, snitching and deference to authority. Also the whole "you are as good as a person as the grades you receive" thing.

ah, another wonderful rant.

Originally posted by chithappens
When one can not read and understand what was read, one is a simple being that is lead strictly off base emotion. Piaget talked about this in four stages I believe but I forget how it works.

not too familiar with Piaget, he is big in developmental, not so much in neuro. But I hear you. We need people to analyze everything that comes at them and trust none of it. Not just believe something because it makes us feel happy or because it scares the shit out of us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure many "liberals" think the taxes for the rich should be increased.

lol, my sig answers that

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, denying that the middle class is likely the most affected would be stupid, fair enough if that's what you wanted to say.

excellent, i understand it might have been confusing though

who would have thought that by saying "the middle class pays for everything" I actually meant something different entirely.

thanks for not calling me on it

It just drives me crazy when Obama preaches "Fairness!" when his plans are anything but that.

Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.

It's essentially shifting money between hands. I don't feel like paying for some dumb ass who wouldn't quit smoking. I could think of a million of these.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well obviously the middle class are the most affected by taxes. But when someone in that top 2% be they the 98 percentile or the 100th percentile is already essentially paying for another 19 people, I don't know if it's entirely reasonable to ask them to pay even more - for services that they'll likely never use, considering they are the megarich and don't need them.

all taxes taken from people are immoral, as the government has no right to people's hard earned money. There is no inherent moral difference between taxing the rich and taxing the poor.

however, the harm done to the individual by taxation is much greater for those in the middle class and working class than for those in the upper class. It makes no sense that government should attack more people and affect them more adversely than cause inconvenience to a much smaller portion. This is without considering the pragmatic economic benefits of more wealth in more hands, and the economic security of more people being able to save and invest in pension.

blah... not ranting this time. Boo government!

We all went to school and know about the Education part, as well.

I studied Arts (Music) Performance & Education. I took some graduate Education coursework in New Orleans & D.C. & Cleveland & went to some conservatories. Now, I am on a long, long sabbatical and will probably chose another field, but who knows.

---

I don't know if everyone likes the emphasis on standardized tests because it shows the failure of the teachers.

Bush has made a good statement with these things in the past 8 years. I think most of his plans are run-through.

I have a lot of hands-on experience with it.

---

What would you do as president? I've looked into childcare a lot last year. I'm now onto racial issues.

Originally posted by Schecter
the mentallity of many is that everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. i dont find it incredibly unfair to tax everyone the same percent out of their income. many do though. they see it as punishing the rich.

So you rather go the other way and make the rich pay a shitload more taxes?


I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.
Originally posted by chithappens
But they pay for it by taking from you... it's just pulling straws putting in that way.

Example (hypothetical): I pay for $150 jersey though I make $6.50 an hour. Guy with his name on back of jersey makes $ 10 million a year. Man who owns franchise on front of jersey gets most of the profit from jersey (after paying the sports league and small dividend to athlethe). Man who owns franchise also does not pay for the arena because the arena is paid for by taxpayers of the city even if they don't give a **** about sports (this is why Seattle just lost the NBA franchise Supersonics because they wouldn't pay for another arena; in fact, they just renovated the NBA arena and paid for a new NFL arena not long ago in Seattle).

This is just how capitialism works. If anything, he should go suck a bunch of dicks because he isn't shit without the cash flow of the middle class.

They didn't "take" it from you, they gave you something that you wanted to buy for the price you were willing to pay. The positive effects their business has on the economy as a whole is also not included.

As for the arena, I'm with you on that, ****ing bullshit, but, to be fair, again, it's the richer people that payed the biggest junk of that arena.

Originally posted by Bardock42


I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.



What do you mean by "but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that,"?

Not trying to be an ass, just want to make sure I understand.

Originally posted by Bardock42

They didn't "take" it from you, they gave you something that you wanted to buy for the price you were willing to pay. The positive effects their business has on the economy as a whole is also not included.

As for the arena, I'm with you on that, ****ing bullshit, but, to be fair, again, it's the richer people that payed the biggest junk of that arena.

Well they didn't take it from me, no; however, in terms of entertainment there is a lot of bullshit everywhere.

The fact that people will pay $200 for a pair of sneakers is just crazy. I see people put rims on their cars (which brings more attention and chances of them getting robbed, etc.) but they live in the "ghetto." I worked as a waiter at a retirement community and this guy wore his $200 Jordan sneakers to work simply to show them off (also this same day he wore a Gucci set he claimed was around $500), but we are making $7.00 an hour. The point here is that you are right: people voluntairly spend the money, but would a rational, confident person do that if it were really outside their means (which I'm saying it an issue of being well informed and educated to understand what it is they are doing instead of blaming everything on bullshit)?

To address the arena issue again, I will mention what happened in Memphis, TN, where I live. The NBA franchise Grizzlies came to Memphis and played in an arena known as the Pyramid. It was getting old, but it was adequate enough to play games if renovated here and there. Instead, the Grizzlies proposed that the city of Memphis pay for most of it. Here's how the money came out:

Memphis: 20 year, $250 million lease.

Owners: $10 million...

Every year since 2000, they have cut MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from the Memphis City School budget (and the arena wasn't being built until 2004), for example. Taxes keep rising over and over, but it doesn't even make sense (To be fair, I should mention the main owner of the NBA franchise Washington Wizards put in $200 million of his own money to build that arena).

Now the rich probably pay just as much as the middle class in taxes, but what are they doing. One would be hard pressed to say the rich are doing "hard work". My mother is a labor and delivery nurse and she is helping brings lives into the world. Meanwhile, the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product. The more work you do, it seems the less you get paid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you rather go the other way and make the rich pay a shitload more taxes?


I think a flat tax would probably be one of the fairer standards...personaly I'd probably prefer an only VAT system, but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that.



as i said, i feel that we should all pay an equal percentage of our income. if that equals a "shitload" more, then so be it. it has nothing to do with class wars and everything to do with fairness. it will never really be equal since people with a massive income and high paying accountants will always be able to understate some income and find loopholes and deductions. so equality is indeed an impossible dream but i think it should at least be attempted.

Originally posted by inimalist


I couldn't agree with you more. I owe a lot of my intellectual freedom to some good teachers I had in highschool, it is such an important age to get kids thinking in new ways, for them to assert their independence.

But so much of that is gone in the "everyones a special winner" society. Nobody fails, nobody is marked wrong, no red pens on marked tests. LOL, I guess what I am saying is drive those kids hard!



Ha, that reminds me that my girlfriend (she is a camp conselour) was talking about this little girl in the camp she works in: everyone was coloring and girl A was admiring the way my girlfriend was coloring her picture. Girl B hops up and screams, "I can color too! Look! I'm an artist!" but hardly any lines were colored in. It is good to encourage children, but it's another thing to continue that same mentality from pre-school on up to high school and then in college/"the real world" say, "Ok, now it's time to get real!"

I'm going to teach middle school. By that time they can read but I feel like it is around that age one begins to fine tune HOW they read and think which will begin to affect later in what ways they decide to make changes in their life to improves themselves. I feel like high school is not too late, but it is easier to impress the issue I'm trying to hit at middle school. Everyone is a smart ass in high school and I'm too young to start there.

Originally posted by inimalist



Most of the profs that I have talked to say that they see declining performance in students. I was told in an anthropology of india class that my work was too advanced, thus not following the assignment format, because I had done a decomposition of a subject rather than reading comprehension. 3rd year university.

That, and the smartest and most deserving people I know will probably never get the chance to go to university, whereas everyone I have met there (with some exceptions) has been unmotivated and uninterested in the very subject they decided to dedicate 4 years to, on their parents' dime (full disclosure, my parents do pay for my school too, but I wouldn't be uninterested).

Its all because lower level schools are so antithetical to real learning or self-motivated interests. Bored children are the most disruptive, especially boys during those years, and most people I know (who have very interesting science debates with me) found themselves constantly in trouble with the institution. This doesn't even include the curious intellectual who tries to ask a lot of questions, and stresses out the teacher because they are challenging their answers. Education as it exists does not try to train young minds to be strong independent citizens, but instead rewards passivity, loyalty, obedience, snitching and deference to authority. Also the whole "you are as good as a person as the grades you receive" thing.

ah, another wonderful rant.



Ha, I don't what else I can add to that because I feel pretty much the same.

It's weird because I have a cousin who sells dope and I feel like he is smarter than me. I think that if we switched spots, he would succeed and go further than I have so far, and I would probably being doing what he was, if not worse. He came from schools that really don't give a damn and will just give you a grade so graduate (this includes help on standardized test they give here in the U.S.) so they won't have 20 year old seniors in high school and so they don't lose money because of those dumb ass test (which does make one question why you would take money from a failing school and then give high performing schools all the money a failing school would have gotten; **** No Child Left Behind, it happened before NCLB but still...)

Now I'm ranting

Originally posted by inimalist


not too familiar with Piaget, he is big in developmental, not so much in neuro. But I hear you. We need people to analyze everything that comes at them and trust none of it. Not just believe something because it makes us feel happy or because it scares the shit out of us.

Regarding Piaget, when he discussed moral development, he says that most people never reach a stage where they can believe things outside of what their peers believe. They can not disagree and feel ok with it (I wish I could find a link that goes into detail on this, but they all seem cluttered with unnecessary jargon). All the links also focus on children only but he also states that adults act in this same manner. I hate I can't remember this.

People can't analyze because they don't know how to read. They assume everything is black and white when truthfully almost nothing is that simple. Even in wars, there is almost ALWAYS at least a third player involved. People want simple answers. They want to feel comfortable. They want to know why. Speak with confidence and strong diction and the people who agree with you will just agree with you more. It's sadly that simple to manipulate the masses which I why I agree with Piaget's understanding of moral development.

Originally posted by chithappens
...

Now the rich probably pay just as much as the middle class in taxes, but what are they doing. One would be hard pressed to say the rich are doing "hard work". My mother is a labor and delivery nurse and she is helping brings lives into the world. Meanwhile, the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product. The more work you do, it seems the less you get paid. I've been in and out of a lot of field options, and people just want to see people perform, as in, become a clown, as in, lay the golden egg, as in, put on a bug circus before they eat the other person! I'm setting everything down to be a performer. I was considering the private life, even in music education, but I don't think so.

I was just wondering on what you meant by, "the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product."

Yea.. a lot of people prefer the quiet life, nowaday, but particularly the older people. You know? What are you planning on in life?

Film actors, models, and musicians get paid a lot. Classical musicians don't.

Originally posted by Schecter
as i said, i feel that we should all pay an equal percentage of our income. if that equals a "shitload" more, then so be it. it has nothing to do with class wars and everything to do with fairness. it will never really be equal since people with a massive income and high paying accountants will always be able to understate some income and find loopholes and deductions. so equality is indeed an impossible dream but i think it should at least be attempted. Did you remember that the more complicated your job, the more tired you get? It ties in in different ways. Count off seeing the psychiatrist or maybe frequent dental appointments, childcare services, eating out? Privacy for people in entertainment & catering services or whatever is a high price and not just a big check. Money doesn't buy a whole lot, in short..

Pay and Position Raise
Being a minimum wager, I don't know what the manager does but have more legal pressure + direct involvement, thus a bigger exertion in a small amount of time. Where I started, they had the 1st year workers who were 14 or 15, and each year after that they had more managerial work. Some places just induce pay raise, like if you work at a theme park, or maybe move you to the cash register. I never worked a cash register, yet. True, if you did cheerleading or dance, you might even be thin enough to get a performance or modeling job with fair ease. It's very rigorous. You can even get hired first hand to answer questions, esp. if you have some significant college work. It's all about your persona.

Originally posted by chithappens
Ha, that reminds me that my girlfriend (she is a camp conselour) was talking about this little girl in the camp she works in: everyone was coloring and girl A was admiring the way my girlfriend was coloring her picture. Girl B hops up and screams, "I can color too! Look! I'm an artist!" but hardly any lines were colored in. It is good to encourage children, but it's another thing to continue that same mentality from pre-school on up to high school and then in college/"the real world" say, "Ok, now it's time to get real!"

I'm going to teach middle school. By that time they can read but I feel like it is around that age one begins to fine tune HOW they read and think which will begin to affect later in what ways they decide to make changes in their life to improves themselves. I feel like high school is not too late, but it is easier to impress the issue I'm trying to hit at middle school. Everyone is a smart ass in high school and I'm too young to start there.



Ha, I don't what else I can add to that because I feel pretty much the same.

It's weird because I have a cousin who sells dope and I feel like he is smarter than me. I think that if we switched spots, he would succeed and go further than I have so far, and I would probably being doing what he was, if not worse. He came from schools that really don't give a damn and will just give you a grade so graduate (this includes help on standardized test they give here in the U.S.) so they won't have 20 year old seniors in high school and so they don't lose money because of those dumb ass test (which does make one question why you would take money from a failing school and then give high performing schools all the money a failing school would have gotten; **** No Child Left Behind, it happened before NCLB but still...)

Now I'm ranting



Regarding Piaget, when he discussed moral development, he says that most people never reach a stage where they can believe things outside of what their peers believe. They can not disagree and feel ok with it (I wish I could find a link that goes into detail on this, but they all seem cluttered with unnecessary jargon). All the links also focus on children only but he also states that adults act in this same manner. I hate I can't remember this.

People can't analyze because they don't know how to read. They assume everything is black and white when truthfully almost nothing is that simple. Even in wars, there is almost ALWAYS at least a third player involved. People want simple answers. They want to feel comfortable. They want to know why. Speak with confidence and strong diction and the people who agree with you will just agree with you more. It's sadly that simple to manipulate the masses which I why I agree with Piaget's understanding of moral development. I know what you mean about the high school thing. I ended up doing everything, but all the institutes themselves were failures. I still have dreams, but I don't feel encouraged.

I know what you mean about the cousin in dope. I can't believe it when my show-off relatives play on that they have a s***** job.

Yea, most of my friends are only concerned about all guilty things they made happen such as this, but it still made the world a bad place.

Originally posted by demon-lllama

I was just wondering on what you meant by, "the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product."

Yea.. a lot of people prefer the quiet life, nowaday, but particularly the older people. You know? What are you planning on in life?


By the board of directors thing, I was being literal. They don't do a whole lot. Make themselves feel important while someone who is trying to take their seat kisses their ass for a minute and then they go to a penthouse. The stressed people are the "little men" under them. No one should get too stressed if you even have millions to lose - this means you had millions in the first place (then again, Paris Hilton thought losing her dog was the end of the world; everyone feels their situation is important).

I'm doing nothing significant. Be a teacher. Hopefully publish some of my poems, short stories and novels (pushing a sitcom pilot now). I'm a low-key guy. Help out people where I can, raise a family and grow up with my close friends. For me this is ideal, but I doubt it will work out just like this.

Originally posted by chithappens
By the board of directors thing, I was being literal. They don't do a whole lot. Make themselves feel important while someone who is trying to take their seat kisses their ass for a minute and then they go to a penthouse. The stressed people are the "little men" under them. No one should get too stressed if you even have millions to lose - this means you had millions in the first place (then again, Paris Hilton thought losing her dog was the end of the world; everyone feels their situation is important).

I'm doing nothing significant. Be a teacher. Hopefully publish some of my poems, short stories and novels (pushing a sitcom pilot now). I'm a low-key guy. Help out people where I can, raise a family and grow up with my close friends. For me this is ideal, but I doubt it will work out just like this. I had a strong interest in research in Education and was in Music Performance & Education. (They do Education at the conservatories, as well.) In the end, I felt too dumb to go into that particular field. It made me uncomfortable about the hard payments in the Education field. It's just enough to get by, but they get pay raises and do publish things and do their own businesses with their families. I did make the right choice to change to Psychiatry Pre-Med, but now I want to do anything related to entertainment. I'm conscious about my looks compared at least with the people I know, so I want to be a model when I can get rid of my acne and am not as addicted to partying. I got an invite from Miami on MySpace to try out and get training etc. for a few months, working out/exercising, etc. They said, when you have a big name, you'll get pushed up for a job in acting, and you know they have lots of small films out there, as well, and ones that don't make it to theaters.

Most businesses are in software systems for money and things that connect with governments.

Assuming you don't have any debt, $40,000 is a decent starting salary, for example. Managing money is important. I just advise being very careful about debt. That is killing college graduates

Originally posted by chithappens
What do you mean by "but the government is way too big as of now to be supported by that,"?

Not trying to be an ass, just want to make sure I understand.

I meant that the government is too expensive to be supported by a reasonable VAT as of now. Meaning, you would have to cut a lot of the "services" the government pretends to provide in order to make it feasible.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well they didn't take it from me, no; however, in terms of entertainment there is a lot of bullshit everywhere.

I agree, but I hardly see that as the fault of the people providing the entertainment, but more of those longing for it and actually paying a shitload to see it.

Let me give you an comparison, personally I find circuses and freak shows pretty stupid and pointless, but I wouldn't blame the director and the artists and the "freaks" for trying to make a living that way...if they can make a really good living that way, more power to them, but the people paying for it are morons imho.

Originally posted by chithappens
The fact that people will pay $200 for a pair of sneakers is just crazy. I see people put rims on their cars (which brings more attention and chances of them getting robbed, etc.) but they live in the "ghetto." I worked as a waiter at a retirement community and this guy wore his $200 Jordan sneakers to work simply to show them off (also this same day he wore a Gucci set he claimed was around $500), but we are making $7.00 an hour. The point here is that you are right: people voluntairly spend the money, but would a rational, confident person do that if it were really outside their means (which I'm saying it an issue of being well informed and educated to understand what it is they are doing instead of blaming everything on bullshit)?


To address the arena issue again, I will mention what happened in Memphis, TN, where I live. The NBA franchise Grizzlies came to Memphis and played in an arena known as the Pyramid. It was getting old, but it was adequate enough to play games if renovated here and there. Instead, the Grizzlies proposed that the city of Memphis pay for most of it. Here's how the money came out:

Memphis: 20 year, $250 million lease.

Owners: $10 million...

Every year since 2000, they have cut MILLIONS AND MILLIONS from the Memphis City School budget (and the arena wasn't being built until 2004), for example. Taxes keep rising over and over, but it doesn't even make sense (To be fair, I should mention the main owner of the NBA franchise Washington Wizards put in $200 million of his own money to build that arena).

Now the rich probably pay just as much as the middle class in taxes, but what are they doing. One would be hard pressed to say the rich are doing "hard work". My mother is a labor and delivery nurse and she is helping brings lives into the world. Meanwhile, the board of directors are arguing what to name the next product. The more work you do, it seems the less you get paid.

They may not do "hard work" in your opinion, but they certainly do important work and work that sells and probably, in many cases, work that most others could never do....they don't get paid huge amounts of money for nothing (granted, some might, but that's really the problem of the people paying them the money, not mine), they actually provide services that are as worthy or more worthy than what they make.

As you might know I don't see any particular class as the enemy (and also not big corporations like many do today)...I think the problem is the government, in particular the huge size of the government. So, yes, rich people can use breaks and loopholes easier, middle class people get ****ed in the ass and poor people live shitty lives (though probably benefitting the most from what the government offers, but the problem is really the government doing that shit....not another class.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant that the government is too expensive to be supported by a reasonable VAT as of now. Meaning, you would have to cut a lot of the "services" the government pretends to provide in order to make it feasible.



I agree but I think we both think that's not likely to happen as of now.

Originally posted by Bardock42


I agree, but I hardly see that as the fault of the people providing the entertainment, but more of those longing for it and actually paying a shitload to see it.

Let me give you an comparison, personally I find circuses and freak shows pretty stupid and pointless, but I wouldn't blame the director and the artists and the "freaks" for trying to make a living that way...if they can make a really good living that way, more power to them, but the people paying for it are morons imho.



I do agree, but there is a huge number of idiots. Often times, people are going far beyond their means. To me, this is weird. Going to a movie, for example, is not going to destroy anyone's income, but paying thousands of dollars to go to a sports playoff game is much more likely to hurt. The average, loyal fan who cares is shut out while rich, casual, "I want to be seen" celebrities fill up the seats.

Just a bit annoying. It is what it is though.

Originally posted by Bardock42


They may not do "hard work" in your opinion, but they certainly do important work and work that sells and probably, in many cases, work that most others could never do....they don't get paid huge amounts of money for nothing (granted, some might, but that's really the problem of the people paying them the money, not mine), they actually provide services that are as worthy or more worthy than what they make.

As you might know I don't see any particular class as the enemy (and also not big corporations like many do today)...I think the problem is the government, in particular the huge size of the government. So, yes, rich people can use breaks and loopholes easier, middle class people get ****ed in the ass and poor people live shitty lives (though probably benefitting the most from what the government offers, but the problem is really the government doing that shit....not another class.

In my opinion, the people who get paid the most are not doing anything the average guy couldn't do if given the same oppurtunity and education.

The "worth" of a job is completely up to subjectivity, but if you compare salary with difficulty and importance, it can get kinda appalling in my opinion (even though these qualities are also subjective). It's easy for a politician to say that we should go to war, but do you ever see them strap on the boots?

It is the government, but the government is run by people; people who want to profit and obviously are not always trying to meet the needs of the people.

In Plato's "Republic" he talks about "philosopher kings that basically run the political stuff. They are wise and make the best decisions for the utopia:

Philosopher kings (wiki link)

The problem with governments (and the idea of a philosopher king) is that people are corrupted by power. Even a dictatorship could work in a way that was fair for the people (at least attempting to be so) of the society given that the dictator cares for his followers, but this is not the case. You'd be hard pressed to find a person who has complete, absolute faith in all that their specific government does (doesn't mean they are well-informed).

Yes the problem is the "government(s)" but the government(s) is run by people and so are the big corporations so I see it as a joint problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...poor people live shitty lives (though probably benefitting the most from what the government offers, but the problem is really the government doing that shit....not another class. That's true, but most of them make the wrong decisions, as well.

I'll focus on a few parts, as we mostly agree on the others and/or I have no idea what to say:

Originally posted by chithappens

In my opinion, the people who get paid the most are not doing anything the average guy couldn't do if given the same oppurtunity and education.

I don't know, I somehow doubt that everyone could invent google or be a master surgeon or even make genius stock market decisions...regardless of education. But I do, in a way, agree with the point that is kinda implied in it, that everyone should get a chance to prove and better themselves (being an anarchist I just don't believe that anyone else should be forced to pay for it)

Originally posted by chithappens

The "worth" of a job is completely up to subjectivity, but if you compare salary with difficulty and importance, it can get kinda appalling in my opinion (even though these qualities are also subjective). It's easy for a politician to say that we should go to war, but do you ever see them strap on the boots?

Yes, the worth of a job is subjective...it is how much other people value it. I value a guy mowing my lawn at about 5$ an hour...anything much above it I rather do it myself. So I won't pay more than that and the "worth" of a job (at least in the way I use it) is determined just that way...how many people value your work at what price. Which is why I am all for Basketballers getting millions of dollars. Apparently there are a shitload of people who'd pay 50 bucks and more to see them play...

But you are right I am not talking about "worth" in a moral sense at all, strictly monetary.

Originally posted by chithappens

It is the government, but the government is run by people; people who want to profit and obviously are not always trying to meet the needs of the people.


True, that's kinda my point though, the government is not inherently "bad" or "selfish", people are, the government, sadly though, is a immensely powerful tool to let people indulge in their selfishness. The government is basically like one big ****ing gun forcing everyone to do what they want (also a reason why I am for citizens having lots of little guns).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'll focus on a few parts, as we mostly agree on the others and/or I have no idea what to say:



I don't know, I somehow doubt that everyone could invent google or be a master surgeon or even make genius stock market decisions...regardless of education. But I do, in a way, agree with the point that is kinda implied in it, that everyone should get a chance to prove and better themselves (being an anarchist I just don't believe that anyone else should be forced to pay for it)



Yes, the worth of a job is subjective...it is how much other people value it. I value a guy mowing my lawn at about 5$ an hour...anything much above it I rather do it myself. So I won't pay more than that and the "worth" of a job (at least in the way I use it) is determined just that way...how many people value your work at what price. Which is why I am all for Basketballers getting millions of dollars. Apparently there are a shitload of people who'd pay 50 bucks and more to see them play...

But you are right I am not talking about "worth" in a moral sense at all, strictly monetary.



True, that's kinda my point though, the government is not inherently "bad" or "selfish", people are, the government, sadly though, is a immensely powerful tool to let people indulge in their selfishness. The government is basically like one big ****ing gun forcing everyone to do what they want (also a reason why I am for citizens having lots of little guns). I know what you mean about creating Google. People have escalated MySpace and Facebook in their minds beyond belief.

LOL @ the lawn, if you actually afford it. I used to let the grass grow for the sake of the grass when I had strength. I mean, @ the pace, LOL, imagine someone going slow to make more money.

Yea, my favorite things in movies is like the new movies Johnny Depp did, I dunno I am from Fort Lauderdale. Anyway, when people finally get to having a point on the net when we discuss is when they say they are in Pirates for the money. They don't say anything after, which makes me feel I have a liberty to state their worthlessness and not be harassed for saying so. These people I talk to are 14 or 15, too, and I am 22.

Originally posted by Bardock42


I don't know, I somehow doubt that everyone could invent google or be a master surgeon or even make genius stock market decisions...regardless of education. But I do, in a way, agree with the point that is kinda implied in it, that everyone should get a chance to prove and better themselves (being an anarchist I just don't believe that anyone else should be forced to pay for it)



I certianly do not mean to imply that everyone who is in the upper class is full of shit and useless. Often times rich people are spoon fed what they are given. You cover the rest of what I mean.

Originally posted by Bardock42



Yes, the worth of a job is subjective...it is how much other people value it. I value a guy mowing my lawn at about 5$ an hour...anything much above it I rather do it myself. So I won't pay more than that and the "worth" of a job (at least in the way I use it) is determined just that way...how many people value your work at what price. Which is why I am all for Basketballers getting millions of dollars. Apparently there are a shitload of people who'd pay 50 bucks and more to see them play...

But you are right I am not talking about "worth" in a moral sense at all, strictly monetary.



I have no issue with what you say here at all. I just find it peculiar that a lot of the high risk jobs do not pay more than they do.

Originally posted by Bardock42


True, that's kinda my point though, the government is not inherently "bad" or "selfish", people are, the government, sadly though, is a immensely powerful tool to let people indulge in their selfishness. The government is basically like one big ****ing gun forcing everyone to do what they want (also a reason why I am for citizens having lots of little guns).

This is true and also a more concise way of putting what I said. This is also why I want to teach kids how to understand what they read because the rhetoric thrown out by something like Bush saying, "The entire civilized world is against Hussein," is pretty ironic when you think about it: the democratic, civilized people take over the undemocratic, uncivilized people through brute force without taking a democratic approach.

Originally posted by chithappens
I have no issue with what you say here at all. I just find it peculiar that a lot of the high risk jobs do not pay more than they do.

Capitalism at work.

Originally posted by chithappens
I have no issue with what you say here at all. I just find it peculiar that a lot of the high risk jobs do not pay more than they do.


Symmetric Chaos is right, though I find his condescending tone misplaced. The reason they get less is because there are many people that could do their job as well if they would refuse to and probably because the work is just not as valuable (from a monetary sense) as others.

Though I am sure the evil capitalists want to pay as little as possible...personally I am quite a fan of unions in a free country.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Symmetric Chaos is right, ... You do realize all your arguments are based on how the "average white hick" gets all the attention and every social pleasure they want.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
You do realize all your arguments are based on how the "average white hick" gets all the attention and every social pleasure they want.

N-no, that thought somehow never crossed my mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Symmetric Chaos is right, though I find his condescending tone misplaced. The reason they get less is because there are many people that could do their job as well if they would refuse to and probably because the work is just not as valuable (from a monetary sense) as others.

I think it's more likely a skilled vs unskilled thing. There are plenty of necessary, dangerous, economically important jobs that just about anyone can do. Large available work force drives down wages no matter how much the job is worth to the higher ups.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it's more likely a skilled vs unskilled thing. There are plenty of necessary, dangerous, economically important jobs that just about anyone can do. Large available work force drives down wages no matter how much the job is worth to the higher ups. That's what I meant when I said "because there are many people that could do their job as well". So, yeah, agreed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I meant when I said "because there are many people that could do their job as well". So, yeah, agreed.

Ah, poor reading on my part.

Well the question remains, from a financial standpoint, why would any working class/middle class citizen vote for McCain?

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the question remains, from a financial standpoint, why would any working class/middle class citizen vote for McCain?

There isn't really any good economic reason. In all honesty, the main reasons would likely be because there are people that really believe in Republicans and there are certainly people who would do it just because they don't want a black guy as President.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the question remains, from a financial standpoint, why would any working class/middle class citizen vote for McCain? From a financial standpoint I have no idea why anyone would vote for McCain (or Obama for that matter...though to a lesser degree), I assume all the reasons are moral or ideological.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the question remains, from a financial standpoint, why would any working class/middle class citizen vote for McCain?

Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.

Same with if they want to leave a business or money to their kids..vote McCain, since Obama would be taking 55% of whatever you want to pass down to your kids.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.

Same with if they want to leave a business or money to their kids..vote McCain, since Obama would be taking 55% of whatever you want to pass down to your kids.

Should vote libertarian.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Should vote libertarian.

But won't, thus presenting a severe problem for Libertarians.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Should vote libertarian.

I would be happy to see Bob Barr take the election.

Both Democrats and Republicans (especially Republicans) need to find better candidates.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.

Same with if they want to leave a business or money to their kids..vote McCain, since Obama would be taking 55% of whatever you want to pass down to your kids.

yeah, and he'll convert them to islam too. (since we're just making shit up, lets sex it up a bit)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But won't, thus presenting a severe problem for Libertarians. Word.

Originally posted by Schecter
yeah, and he'll convert them to islam too. (since we're just making shit up, lets sex it up a bit)

What was made up?

hes gunna take our jobs!

Originally posted by KidRock
Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.

I'll admit im not familiar with McCain's economic policies, but I can't imagine it is far from the Regan era philosophies (sort of the bread and butter of modern republicanism/neoconservativism), basically trickle down economics (re: Rich people pissing on you), which has been pretty exhaustively shown not to raise up lower income people because money given to the elite and highest class does not make it into the economy where most middle class people work.

So, I don't see how McCain would differ from other Republicans on this one, as it is so fundamental to follow Regan. I could totally be way off on this, but explain to me how McCain's policies wont just continue the corporate socialism that runs the American economy?

Originally posted by KidRock
Same with if they want to leave a business or money to their kids..vote McCain, since Obama would be taking 55% of whatever you want to pass down to your kids.

thats actually major bullshit, people who work hard to earn wealth should be able to leave it to whoever or whatever they want. Like those people who leave millions to their pets, God bless them.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the question remains, from a financial standpoint, why would any working class/middle class citizen vote for McCain? He seems to favor the poor.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.

People are easily fooled.

Originally posted by inimalist



thats actually major bullshit, people who work hard to earn wealth should be able to leave it to whoever or whatever they want. Like those people who leave millions to their pets, God bless them.

I agree..death taxes are no fun, especially 55%.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats actually major bullshit, people who work hard to earn wealth should be able to leave it to whoever or whatever they want. Like those people who leave millions to their pets, God bless them.

I do find those people very, very odd.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do find those people very, very odd.

oh totally, from any moral or pragmatic standpoint they are fools and extremely selfish. I also don't understand the why very much... Maybe they want to make sure whoever they leave the pets in the care of doesn't just pocket the cash and kennel them up?

but ya, they should still be able to do it.

Although, the interesting question would be what happens when the pets die?

Originally posted by inimalist
trickle down economics (re: Rich people pissing on you)

I love it. The humor not the piss. Though I do love piss.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do find those people very, very odd.

Fortunately I doubt it's hard to challenge the decision in a court.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh totally, from any moral or pragmatic standpoint they are fools and extremely selfish. I also don't understand the why very much... Maybe they want to make sure whoever they leave the pets in the care of doesn't just pocket the cash and kennel them up?

but ya, they should still be able to do it.

Although, the interesting question would be what happens when the pets die?

I assume they would make a clause for that, not sure though. Either way, I think it doesn't matter too much to the economy whether money is spend on lamborghinis or golden dog bowls.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I love it. The humor not the piss. Though I do love piss.

ha ha! Though I did steal the joke from Bill Maher or John Stewart

Originally posted by Bardock42
Either way, I think it doesn't matter too much to the economy whether money is spend on lamborghinis or golden dog bowls.

totally agree

Originally posted by KidRock
Well if those working class or middle class folk have any dreams of becoming rich I would assume they would vote McCain.



Explain

Lol, who wouldn't support him?

hell no **** bush. the man reminds me of ralph wiggum from the simpsons. guy dosent know what he's doing.

Nah, I'd say he's more like Bobby or Peggy Hill.

Originally posted by chithappens
Explain

he means that mccain is a republican so you can trust him.

Republicans, they start wars, break the economy, don't help the needy, don't care about people's health, don't care about people's rights, lie to the public, do whatever they can so multi-million businesses stay on top, but at least they care about family values, and that's all that matters right now.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Republicans, they start wars, break the economy, don't help the needy, don't care about people's health, don't care about people's rights, lie to the public, do whatever they can so multi-million businesses stay on top, but at least they care about family values, and that's all that matters right now.

Bit like the Democrats...

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
I would not vote for him, even if I could. He should have been voted out of office in 04.

No he shouldn't...he won the election.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ending the Iraq war would surely put a huge number back into the budget, and lets not forget, like all left wingers, he's only taking money from the rich, those that got a stupid tax cut from Bush, forcing the middle class to pay more than they can. But of course, IOKIYAR.

Nice policy- invade...OK lets withdraw and leave the guys with our mess...again.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav

Nice policy- invade...OK lets withdraw and leave the guys with our mess...again.

i love the assumption that we're helping. the u.s. is just the little dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.


hehe i said 'finger in the dyke'

I laugh at all the Democrats who believe Obama is so honest and for the people and not just another scumbag politician.

Originally posted by Schecter
i love the assumption that we're helping. the u.s. is just the little dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.


hehe i said 'finger in the dyke'

helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...

Originally posted by KidRock
I laugh at all the Democrats who believe Obama is so honest and for the people and not just another scumbag politician.

I love how you think that only the democrats are scumbags. You people like to point the finger at the other party, as though your own candidates are not shitbags. Welcome to the process: they're all scum. That's how they get to be candidates.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...

Unfortunately it's not a mess that can be attributed to one nation. There's a history to the nation. Hussein; he's ours, no doubt. As far as I'm concerned these people have every right to be pissed off at the west. We've been dipping our fingers into their lives and pie for decades. Just don't shoot the messenger because he delivers the wrong message. This is a world that didn't ask for our help or influence. The sooner middle America and the corner baptist church figure that out, the sooner the propoganda will stop working. In fact, they have a much more humane record than does our western christian world. Suck it fundamentalists. Oh, and you too catholics. You're just as bad.

Originally posted by KidRock
I laugh at all the Democrats who believe Obama is so honest and for the people and not just another scumbag politician.

You know, Obama is proving to have a lot of issues: the whole Reverend Wright thing, "redefining" his troop withdrawal plan, drifting towards the center, and to a lesser extent, talking about smoking weed in high school and college (in detail) in his book Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. He's really giving his enemies and people on the fence about him a lot of ammunition to use against him.

And I think the main reason things are coming up about him out of the woodworks, is because McCain has been a celebrity for 30 years, where as 5 years ago, no one outside of IL really knew who Obama was.

-----

FYI: Kid Rock is gonna be on Letterman tonight.

I'm a pretty stalwart supporter of Obama (now, at least ), and I still don't buy into the whole "transcendent figure" crap; I just think he'll be a better president that McCain. And in fact better than anyone the Republican Party has to offer.

And his past run-ins with marijuana and cocaine, in my view, shouldn't cause people who are "on the fence" to not support him; it's a mark of his honesty that he included it, instead of just omitting it like other aspiring politicians would. Yes he tried illegal drugs, but haven't we all? Why should that alone be a reason to vote against him?


I'd love to continue a conversation in this line in a different thread, but isn't this thread about whether you'd vote for a third Bush term?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...

You always with your weird moral judgements.

Originally posted by Devil King
Unfortunately it's not a mess that can be attributed to one nation. There's a history to the nation. Hussein; he's ours, no doubt. As far as I'm concerned these people have every right to be pissed off at the west. We've been dipping our fingers into their lives and pie for decades. Just don't shoot the messenger because he delivers the wrong message. This is a world that didn't ask for our help or influence. The sooner middle America and the corner baptist church figure that out, the sooner the propoganda will stop working. In fact, they have a much more humane record than does our western christian world. Suck it fundamentalists. Oh, and you too catholics. You're just as bad.

You know who I blame...the gays...

Originally posted by Bardock42
You always with your weird moral judgements.
Indeed.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...

considering American troops in the region is the number one percipitating factor of violence, helping and not being there any more seem to be synomymous in this case.

Originally posted by Strangelove
And his past run-ins with marijuana and cocaine, in my view, shouldn't cause people who are "on the fence" to not support him; it's a mark of his honesty that he included it, instead of just omitting it like other aspiring politicians would. Yes he tried illegal drugs, but haven't we all? Why should that alone be a reason to vote against him?

Well said. One thing: Was admitting to smoking weed actually a mistake?


I have more respect for a person who smokes weed than a person who smokes a cigarette. Weed is less toxic to our body. A google will find conflicting evidence; propaganda machines at work. obviously.


Originally posted by Strangelove
I'd love to continue a conversation in this line in a different thread, but isn't this thread about whether you'd vote for a third Bush term?

Also correct.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have more respect for a person who smokes weed than a person who smokes a cigarette. Weed is less toxic to our body. A google will find conflicting evidence; propaganda machines at work. obviously. Iirc, he did the latter up until recently as well. I would consider the latter more politically negative, despite it's legality, for some reason.

Originally posted by KidRock
I laugh at all the Democrats who believe Obama is so honest and for the people and not just another scumbag politician. Better than assuming he's an idiot for saying "I've visited fifty...eight states, can't visit Alaska or Hawaii".

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Iirc, he did the latter up until recently as well. I would consider the latter more politically negative, despite it's legality, for some reason.

I was aware of his "cigarettes" as well. Sad, really. I didn't know that he quit, though.

I also would also consider it politically/publicly a bad move to be an open smoker.

Is it possible that his quitting was a political ploy to gain favor the public eye as "strong willed and master of evils"? It wouldn't put it past the publicly hypersensitive political machines vying for office nowadays. Not to be redundant, but it could be just another tool to gain more votes. I'm fairly sure that Betty-Joe in Tallahassee who has been trying to quit for the last 10 years will see this as a great strength in his character.


Am I looking through the facade or am I so used to bullshitters that I am finding imaginary bullshit?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Am I looking through the facade or am I so used to bullshitters that I am finding imaginary bullshit?

blah, I hate that feeling

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...

as i said, i love the assumption that we are capable of fixing it.

Bush screwed us.
I wish they would impeach him before he leaves.

i hate president bush. what gets to me is that people always killed the good presidents but yet this nimrod is alive and breathing

Originally posted by vluxury
Bush screwed us.
I wish they would impeach him before he leaves. Do you really want Cheney to be president?

Originally posted by P23
i hate president bush. what gets to me is that people always killed the good presidents but yet this nimrod is alive and breathing

what gets me is how people look at assassinated presidents as though they specifically represented their own world view

I am assuming you are talking about Kennedy, the womanizing, quick talking, Vietnam intensifying and bay of pigs launching "leftist"?

and ya, to XYZ's point, if Bush goes, in comes Chenney and the real core of neoconservative ideology

Originally posted by inimalist
what gets me is how people look at assassinated presidents as though they specifically represented their own world view

I am assuming you are talking about Kennedy, the womanizing, quick talking, Vietnam intensifying and bay of pigs launching "leftist"?

and ya, to XYZ's point, if Bush goes, in comes Chenney and the real core of neoconservative ideology




cheney is the anti-christ and bush is the dick in his ass

Originally posted by P23
cheney is the anti-christ and bush is the dick in his ass

if they iced bush, 20 years from now they'd be saying it was a government conspiracy

and he would be one of the "good ones"

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
helping or not...you made the mess its your job to fix it...
In a sense, yes, we have a huge responsibility. If there can be any kind of example to learn from, Britain pulling out of the Iraqi territory in the 1930's led to a huge mess, with the infrastructure that helped the new nation grow nearly collapsing afterward. It would create a much bigger mess if we were to hastily pull out, and it's a lot of our work that has been invested in the area.

That's why I'm going to feel so sorry for the next man to become President. Bush isn't pushing an agenda at this point, and the next President is going to have a lot of tough decisions to make.

Since I consider a fair amount of the President's duty is to serve as the avatar of the American Government, I find Obama to be more appealing, especially considering the current U.S.-world view.

Oh, and no, I wouldn't vote for Bush again.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Do you really want Cheney to be president?

NO...but doesnt matter...all this bush era crap was set into motion long ago...it wouldnt have mattered who was pres...they still have to do what they are told...