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

With Mr. Trump announcing his possible run for the white house-I thought it a good idea to post this:

Who among these 10 ( or if u really want to add your own) Billioniares
would you most likely vote for and who from this list would you choose as their running mate.

If you add someone they must be listed as an American Billionaire

1) Meg Whitman
2) Donald Trump
3) Steven Spielberg
4) Oprah Winfrey
5) Bill Gates
6) Richard Rainwater
7) Dennis Washington
8) Abigail Johnson
9) Warren Buffett
10) Mark Cuban

Forgot to setup the poll...

i wanna b a billionaire so freakin bad.....

Why these people will never be president:

1) Woman and possible closet lesbian
2) Bad hair
3) Jew
4) Black woman
5) Illuminati/Lizard-Man
6) No more Texans in the Oval Office
7) Old man, people vote younger now
8) Woman and linked to The Perkins family, possibly reptilians
9) Too old; people don't trust frugal billionaires
10) Jew and a commie last name

wow...
The point which I did not elaborate on, is would a person who has deomonstrated their ablility in the private sector and so would perhaps have less "personal gain" at stake, be better at directing the country?
We are far removed from the days of thinking purely nation first and only so we need a person who has a global vision and strength of will to enact a strong Pro-American agenda

Originally posted by tru-marvell
The point which I did not elaborate on, is would a person who has deomonstrated their ablility in the private sector and so would perhaps have less "personal gain" at stake, be better at directing the country?

Depends on what you want to improve and what you mean by improve, for that matter. Things like postal service, roads, utilities, the guy will tell you, rightly, that the best way to make them more efficient is to privatize them. But that's not the only factor of being "better", the reason we have publicly owned things isn't economic efficiency its to make sure that at the end of the day they get done and everybody has access.

And that's part of what slows the government down (the other big part being unlimited funding). You have to serve everyone and you have to do so fairly equally. The tricks employed by business are mainly ones that exploit not having to do that. UPS would probably be in the red just as much as the USPS if they had to send a truck to every mailbox in the country every day.

Like there was, mythically, a guy hired to streamline a public school district. He grew blueberries. They ask him, "Where do we start?" He says, "Well first I go out an inspect the blueberries. The inedible ones get thrown out." One of the teachers raises a hand, "But we have to take all the blueberries."

Trump should run as the reform party candidate.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
With Mr. Trump announcing his possible run for the white house-I thought it a good idea to post this:

Who among these 10 ( or if u really want to add your own) Billioniares
would you most likely vote for and who from this list would you choose as their running mate.

If you add someone they must be listed as an American Billionaire

1) Meg Whitman
2) Donald Trump
3) Steven Spielberg
4) Oprah Winfrey
5) Bill Gates
6) Richard Rainwater
7) Dennis Washington
8) Abigail Johnson
9) Warren Buffett
10) Mark Cuban

Forgot to setup the poll...

i wanna b a billionaire so freakin bad..... youll be better off with george soros

vince mcmahon...would give new meaning to the atomic drop

I was gonna say Mark Zuckerberg...then I remembered that a person has to be at least 35 years of age to be elected president (and he's a Jew; that's the real kicker).

Hah, Trump as president. I can see him taking the whole running the country as a business...his business...thing too literally. With downsizing for maximum efficiency, I think someone with nuclear codes is going to have a different interpretation of the phrase "your fired". Then there's the historic deal he's going to make regarding partial ownership of the US after he declares bankruptcy in the first 8 months and renegotiates our foreign debt. Personally, I'd like to live in the Swedish territories.

>Billionaire President


Bruce Wayne.

if the batman was running, i'd get citizenship just to vote for him.

Originally posted by 753
youll be better off with george soros

We should not have someone running the country just because they are good at running a business...a country is not a business. Having said that...most politicians are already rich.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
than with the others on the list? absolutely

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
We should not have someone running the country just because they are good at running a business...a country is not a business. Having said that...most politicians are already rich.

Correct, but running it like a profitable business at least in part would likely be a good idea.

Originally posted by Robtard
, but running it like a profitable business at least in part would likely be a good idea.


Why?

Because running it like a non-profit business does not fix a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because running it like a non-profit business does not fix a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

lulz. That was a good response.


I'd say that running it like a business while pretending to run it like a non-profit, while hiding corruption, with a dash of government only rules on business conduct, does a better job...but that's way too complicated and not "witty" at all.

Originally posted by 753
youll be better off with george soros

Definitely better than everyone in that list.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I was gonna say Mark Zuckerberg...(and he's a Jew; that's the real kicker).
He's atheist.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because running it like a non-profit business does not fix a multi-trillion dollar deficit?

We could fix a lot of that by simply not going to war.

Why is everyone here a fan of George Soros? He's anti American and pro global government. He's the worst of the worst.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
We could fix a lot of that by simply not going to war.

We could stop it from expanding by not going to war. Fixing it would require finding new sources of income.

The first thing to do would be to charge customers very slightly more.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
We should not have someone running the country just because they are good at running a business...a country is not a business. Having said that...most politicians are already rich. Trump made some good points, read his book "The America We Deserve".

That said, just about everything is a business in one way or another, school, government, churches, etc. They just don't admit it.

The people who started the countries were business geniuses who took a start on something, only later the the "politics" come into play.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Trump made some good points, read his book "The America We Deserve".

That said, just about everything is a business in one way or another, school, government, churches, etc. They just don't admit it.

The people who started the countries were business geniuses who took a start on something, only later the the "politics" come into play.

Hafta disagree.

A business by definition is where someone starts an endeavor for the purpose of making a financial return on their investment.

Some schools and churches may be a business but certainly not all are. Just because something operates under a budget does not make it a business.

Countries are formed for various reasons. The most ancient ones were shaped by common languages and culture. Many more recent ones were put in place by former governing nations.

As for Donald Trump...I really don't care what he has to say. He IS a business person in the purest form and thus can only see the bottom line in everything. Such people rarely consider human factors, national identity, environmental issues, etc.

Someone did respond. Good.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Hafta disagree.

A business by definition is where someone starts an endeavor for the purpose of making a financial return on their investment.

You're welcome to disagree, but they actually are business by the most basic definitions. Even business that are non profit are still businesses, the person who started them might not be out for the money, but the people in them look for money to motivate them to continue working, thus it requires a service to a demand to accumulate resources.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Some schools and churches may be a business but certainly not all are. Just because something operates under a budget does not make it a business.
Actually almost all of them are. School and education are one of the most lucrative businesses of them all, even if they don't say it outright. Looking at college alone and the massive amount of student loan debt (now around 1 trillion and has outgrown the credit card debt) the cost of schools have expanded faster than the rate of inflation *and* healthcare, when the demand of education went up. Why do this if it weren't a business? Better yet, the degrees are inflated and have less and less meaning. Just like any other business selling an idea. Martial Arts schools that promise a nice belt after a few years and a monthly fee also qualify, they're selling an idea. They also are in cahoots with private loan companies like Sallie Mae, and when Sallie Mae allows students to enter school, if they don't pay back their loan, which is often, they get a kickback from the government. So neither school nor private loan companies are really in the free market.

Doesn't stop them from being businesses.

Churches definitely are, they need to expand, grow, make money, and the people who work in their have to make money, pay their bills, and pay taxes.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Countries are formed for various reasons. The most ancient ones were shaped by common languages and culture. Many more recent ones were put in place by former governing nations. True, and in the ancient ones the concept of money was almost nill as people used systems such as bartering. Money really started to take off in the industrial age. But America was built by great minds who happened to have great business sense.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
As for Donald Trump...I really don't care what he has to say. He IS a business person in the purest form and thus can only see the bottom line in everything. Such people rarely consider human factors, national identity, environmental issues, etc.

That's not true, he doesn't care about just the bottom line. You are free to not want him as a president, nothing wrong with that. He actually covers many issues very well, and it would be nice to be in a surplus and have someone who negotiates well.

Now, most business people aren't people who just "care about the bottom line" there are ones who are shown that way and it spreads like that. It's how you get there, the bottom line does come, but if the steps there are bad, it grows into a problem sooner or later.


Great post though. I like reading it.

Apparently, Gingrich is talking about possibly throwing his hat in the ring. (He's not a billionaire, though).

Gingrich can go die in a fire. Trump isn't great, but he's going to be better than Romney, Palin, or Huckabee, and he's certainly going to be better than Obama.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Someone did respond. Good.



You're welcome to disagree, but they actually are business by the most basic definitions. Even business that are non profit are still businesses, the person who started them might not be out for the money, but the people in them look for money to motivate them to continue working, thus it requires a service to a demand to accumulate resources.

Actually almost all of them are. School and education are one of the most lucrative businesses of them all, even if they don't say it outright. Looking at college alone and the massive amount of student loan debt (now around 1 trillion and has outgrown the credit card debt) the cost of schools have expanded faster than the rate of inflation *and* healthcare, when the demand of education went up. Why do this if it weren't a business? Better yet, the degrees are inflated and have less and less meaning. Just like any other business selling an idea. Martial Arts schools that promise a nice belt after a few years and a monthly fee also qualify, they're selling an idea. They also are in cahoots with private loan companies like Sallie Mae, and when Sallie Mae allows students to enter school, if they don't pay back their loan, which is often, they get a kickback from the government. So neither school nor private loan companies are really in the free market.

Doesn't stop them from being businesses.

Churches definitely are, they need to expand, grow, make money, and the people who work in their have to make money, pay their bills, and pay taxes.
True, and in the ancient ones the concept of money was almost nill as people used systems such as bartering. Money really started to take off in the industrial age. But America was built by great minds who happened to have great business sense.



That's not true, he doesn't care about just the bottom line. You are free to not want him as a president, nothing wrong with that. He actually covers many issues very well, and it would be nice to be in a surplus and have someone who negotiates well.

Now, most business people aren't people who just "care about the bottom line" there are ones who are shown that way and it spreads like that. It's how you get there, the bottom line does come, but if the steps there are bad, it grows into a problem sooner or later.


Great post though. I like reading it.

Well, we can agree to disagree

Lets see Bill Gates run 2012...

Donald Trump had good results when they looked at the possibility of him running in 00 (or somewhere around there).

Many people that wealthy wouldn't win simply because of the fact they're wealthy.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master

Many people that wealthy wouldn't win simply because of the fact they're wealthy.

Maybe not that wealthy though tell me just one President that has even been middle class. Same applies to MOST Senators and Reps. They're all pretty well off.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Maybe not that wealthy though tell me just one President that has even been middle class. Same applies to MOST Senators and Reps. They're all pretty well off.
Bill Clinton was not middle class. Obama is debatable as well.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bill Clinton was not middle class. Obama is debatable as well. Yea, but after a certain point people will have distrust because of the fact. Millionaire and Mega Billionaire aren't the same thing.

Donald was popular though, but he is more charismatic than Bill Gates. Then again there was Perot.

Who knows?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bill Clinton was not middle class. Obama is debatable as well.

Bill Clinton was rich...as was Obama. All Presidents are rich.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Bill Clinton was rich...as was Obama. All Presidents are rich.
Um, how? Both came from poor, middle-low class single parent households... yes, they may have become rich, BECAUSE they extricated themselves through talent. They weren't some bluebloods who were born into wealth.

Pretty sure that TDC believes that if you have lots of money it has to be because you're a greedy profit is all that matters douchebag.

That would fit his hyper-cynic persona well.

Lincoln was poor, as was Jackson. The majority tend to have money when they get in though.Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Pretty sure that TDC believes that if you have lots of money it has to be because you're a greedy profit is all that matters douchebag.

That would fit his hyper-cynic persona well. I get that vibe from many people. I don't like it as I know people are capable of whatever they want. I grew up in an area of poverty and I have my own company now and everything. I know full well people make of themselves what they want.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Lincoln was poor, as was Jackson. The majority tend to have money when they get in though. I get that vibe from many people. I don't like it as I know people are capable of whatever they want. I grew up in an area of poverty and I have my own company now and everything. I know full well people make of themselves what they want.
Well, to be fair, a lot of people really weren't given much of a chance. Like, some 5 year old shot dead in Darfur, isn't his fault he didn't accomplish much in his life.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, how? Both came from poor, middle-low class single parent households... yes, they may have become rich, BECAUSE they extricated themselves through talent. They weren't some bluebloods who were born into wealth.


That's not my point. The point is they were pretty well off by the time they succeeded in polotics. When was the last time a working stiff was elected to anything other than city council?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Pretty sure that TDC believes that if you have lots of money it has to be because you're a greedy profit is all that matters douchebag.

That would fit his hyper-cynic persona well.


Well, your half right. I do have a very hyper cynic way of looking at things.....

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, to be fair, a lot of people really weren't given much of a chance. Like, some 5 year old shot dead in Darfur, isn't his fault he didn't accomplish much in his life. Yea, but that only goes so far. I mean each person individually is in control of themselves and what they do. I know what it's like to have someone close to me young being killed. I also know many people where I grew up (one of the poorest areas in the US) who think that it is someone else's fault they are what they are instead of the decisions they made. I don't really subscribe to it though, or endorse it. Some backgrounds have a "kick start" but it doesn't determine where they'll end up.

Probably getting off topic though but meh.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Lincoln was poor, as was Jackson. The majority tend to have money when they get in though.

Majority? Name just one president that wasn't in the top 20% economically (income or wealth) when he took office.

Actually a lot of the presidents pre civil war were. Some may have had land or slaves but little actual cash.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Majority? Name just one president that wasn't in the top 20% economically (income or wealth) when he took office.
Jefferson was actually severally in debt.

Oh, yeah, I forgot there were all those guys before the twentieth century.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I know full well people make of themselves what they want.

Not always. Many people, especially in recent years and especially in the technology sector have gotten themselves a good education only to see their job outsourced to another country. It's a fact that only the medical field is growing now in this country, most other industries in the US are shrinking, even for the highly skilled. I've owned two businesses in the past, a resteraunt which I sold because I got tired of working 70-80 hours a week, and an E-Commerce business which I shut down because Ebay and Amazon wanted all the money even though I was doing all the work. Even so, I'm better off than most, I'm 48 and looking to retire in about 2 years, the only thing I worry about is healthcare because if you get sick you can lose everything...even if you have money.

We need leaders in this country who actually care about the middle class and not just the rich, I am hyper cynical we will ever see that though.

Hello again.Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Not always. Many people, especially in recent years and especially in the technology sector have gotten themselves a good education only to see their job outsourced to another country. It's a fact that only the medical field is growing now in this country, most other industries in the US are shrinking, even for the highly skilled. I've owned two businesses in the past, a resteraunt which I sold because I got tired of working 70-80 hours a week, and an E-Commerce business which I shut down because Ebay and Amazon wanted all the money even though I was doing all the work. Even so, I'm better off than most, I'm 48 and looking to retire in about 2 years, the only thing I worry about is healthcare because if you get sick you can lose everything...even if you have money.

We need leaders in this country who actually care about the middle class and not just the rich, I am hyper cynical we will ever see that though. Hate to tell you but to have a job is to put your future in someone else's hands. It's pretty much impossible to have true freedom on a job alone (having a small business is better, but the system stilll relies on you, so for most people it is still a job). The taxes don't benefit it, the time doesn't benefit it, and if someone gets tired of you, then you are gone. Demand creates jobs, jobs don't create demand. Unfortunately the industrial age of what we call a "job" is pretty much over. The notion of a job taking care of you for life after you're retired as well is over. It's too expensive. Even mega companies can't afford it. Look a what happened to GM. The Unions (who were once about the small guy) became greedy and sucked companies dry, which is why they hate them. Workers have become too expensive, and what's worse, most don't really want to work. The work ethic here is terrible compared to other places. We're no longer competing with just ourselves or the people in our classrooms or jobs, we're competing with the world. Things are going global. People who work harder for less. On your side imagine buying a better car for less, you would do it too right?

The system has created too many people who are dependent on the system and not enough risk takers, people expect the job, government, etc. To take care of them. Social Security is a scam and it's reaching it's end, so people are going to have to educate themselves. I prefer it than someone taking my money and giving it to someone who doesn't want to work. The work ethic here is terrible too.

This society is going to the people who come up with idea and utilize them, or take a step in another direction. The people who have the mindset to make more money will make it, whether they have it or lose it. The ones with the mindset will lose it even if they get some suddenly, i.e lottery winners and young mega stars.

I think the country should benefit everyone. Not just the lower, or the middle, or the upper, but everyone, and the beginning of that comes with people being responsible for themselves more.
But eh, what do I know.

You raise some valid points but how are small businesses supposed to compete with mega corporations like Wal Mart? The only reason manufacturing isn't viable in this country anymore is because of "free trade". It should be far more difficult to offshore jobs. You are partially right about the unions as well, to a point, some of the blame has to lie in the outragous pay of the top few guys of said corporations like GM. A few years ago when Ford was losing money and it's stock was tanking they still managed to pay the chairman a $200 million bonus alone...where's the logic in that? We have fostered a culture where the super rich take care of each other, not the companies they are running. Often CEO's are board members of multiple companies....each others companies.

As for the work ethic...many workers don't give a crap because they rightly percieve their employer doesn't give a crap about them.

You're right, the system should favor everybody...but it doesn't, right now it favors only the wealthy, and it's getting worse.

Like I said, I'm close to an early retirement, years of good investing, owning one really successful (though life sucking) business helped. I'll be OK. I do have concern about many of my fellow countrymen, especially the under 30 somethings. The future is going to be very hard for most of them.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You raise some valid points but how are small businesses supposed to compete with mega corporations like Wal Mart? The only reason manufacturing isn't viable in this country anymore is because of "free trade". It should be far more difficult to offshore jobs. You are partially right about the unions as well, to a point, some of the blame has to lie in the outragous pay of the top few guys of said corporations like GM. A few years ago when Ford was losing money and it's stock was tanking they still managed to pay the chairman a $200 million bonus alone...where's the logic in that? We have fostered a culture where the super rich take care of each other, not the companies they are running. Often CEO's are board members of multiple companies....each others companies.

As for the work ethic...many workers don't give a crap because they rightly percieve their employer doesn't give a crap about them.

You're right, the system should favor everybody...but it doesn't, right now it favors only the wealthy, and it's getting worse.

Like I said, I'm close to an early retirement, years of good investing, owning one really successful (though life sucking) business helped. I'll be OK. I do have concern about many of my fellow countrymen, especially the under 30 somethings. The future is going to be very hard for most of them. That's the nature of business though, a large corporation isn't evil for being large, the point of coming to America is that anybody can do anyhting they want. Besides having large businesses in certain areas allow lower costs as less people are competing for those materials and they buy in more bulk. The best way to compete against Wal Mart is not to "compete" against it in the same field. My business has competitors who do work really cheap and it's a really overcrowded market. So I sell on quality and service and charge higher. So I find my own field.

Because this is the information age, jobs have since left the idea of the industrial age. "Go to school and get a job to take care of you for life." Well competing with the world now, businesses can't afford half of those things, and the government can't afford things they promise either, like Social Security. Like I said earlier the system has made too many people reliant on the system and too risk averse, and this isn't a market for people looking for a job to take care of them. People are living longer now and have more needs.

Bonuses are tricky, with the clauses they work with. However that is a bad decision on their behalf. But it is far more expensive to overpay employees or give them jobs they don't need. Then there are problems with the middle class and lower. Why should my money go to people who don't want to work and receive a check for doing nothing, That's a problem on its own. Or to people who have too many kids they can't handle?

In terms of money and things like that, people tend to forget America was built off of protest of taxes, and when they needed money, guess who they turned to? The wealthy. They got the idea of taxes across for the war by telling everyone to "tax the rich and punish them" so having something against people with money is nothing new. People with money end up paying half of their money with taxes, and it's only the business owners and investors who have the best chance of making the most money because they have advantages in taxes. That's for the fact they create jobs and housing for people. So they play their role, as does the middle class in driving the economy.

As for work ethic. It's terrible. Americans have become too self entitled and lazy. Even if you weren't crazy about your job, you did it because you were getting paid. Some bosses care more about their employees more than others (and they better take care of their employees and customers as well) but most people really want to be paid more and more to do less and less. When you have unions sucking up all of the money, people can see why hiring work over seas or hiring illegals is a better choice (although hiring illegals *is* illegal). They work harder and for less. They were what America was long ago before it got lazy and self entitled.

Yea, it's going to be rough for a while. Baby boomers had it great, while those retiring in the next few years are really going to feel it. It's opportunity in everything but one must be able to find it. Unfortunately this risk adverse society is going to have a hard time after being trained to be taken care of.

When all of the wealth is going to the top (and it is), something is wrong. Where is the sense of national identity in this new "global" economy? The wealthy...especially the super wealthy, should be taxed and subsidize others because they benefit the most from the system being the way it is. It worked very well doing that for decades. If things continue as they are even the rich will start to suffer because there will be no middle class to buy their products. And you are wrong about the overall work ethic. There are many dedicated hard working Americans, but the business world has ****ed them over. You must be dealing with teenagers...or people making minimum wage. It isn't the litte guy who feels entitled, it's the fat cat prick at the top who already has everything...and everything still isn't enough.

Hey again.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
When all of the wealth is going to the top (and it is), something is wrong. Where is the sense of national identity in this new "global" economy? The wealthy...especially the super wealthy, should be taxed and subsidize others because they benefit the most from the system being the way it is. It worked very well doing that for decades. If things continue as they are even the rich will start to suffer because there will be no middle class to buy their products. And you are wrong about the overall work ethic. There are many dedicated hard working Americans, but the business world has ****ed them over. You must be dealing with teenagers...or people making minimum wage. It isn't the litte guy who feels entitled, it's the fat cat prick at the top who already has everything...and everything still isn't enough.
All of the wealth will always go at the top, because the wealthy understand the concept of financial leverage and making money work for them. Very few people will ever understand that concept hence why most people will never make much of anything. Their mind is programmed the way it is. They'll get any money they make and blow it. Which is why lottery winners end up broke again and people who made it themselves can lose it and have it back again (like Donald Trump). Money doesn't just magically "go to the top" for no reason. Distribute all of the money evenly and you'll see the same effect happen. Most will blow it, a few will save it (which is still losing it), and the last few will actually make the money work for them. It has nothing to do with magic or anything like that. The wealth distribution is also pretty bad in other parts of the world with less rights, so it isn't as bad here.

The concept of anybody "owing" someone money just because they have more of it is ridiculous. Why should I be punished simply because I worked harder and smarter to get what I have? I don't know about these people you're talking about, but I had nothing and grew up in one of the poorest states in the US. The people I know with nothing still play victim and blame the entire world for them not having anything when it is up to them to get what they want (and they still don't want to do anything). I'm not responsible for someone who chooses to lay around and crank out kids, and I know numerous people personally who do this. Those people should be held responsible too. Nobody should be taxed 2 and 3 times for the same thing, like inheritance tax. Overdoing taxes will only drive those with money to move their assets to other places with better taxes. America grew so fast because its low tax rate at the time was appealing to entrepreneurs who started business and created jobs "something the system relies on and where the government makes a huge amount of its tax revenue".

The highest up has always been taxed the highest and has been pushed to tax the highest, the smartest ones find loopholes to reduce their taxes and it goes elsewhere, but as far as the system (which is why there is a middle class in the firstplace) goes, it is changing. The things that made a middle class the middle clase (getting a degree (which is becoming useless, although it helped create one), getting a house (which is at a low point as most had no business doing so, and letting a job take care of them (which is too expensive), is really a system of itself. People should have been tought to take care of themselves.

I'm not wrong about the work ethic, it's horrible. Yes teenagers tend to have it, but the people who work much harder are foreigners, even for a low wage. People want more and more to do less and less. Whether it is at a crappy job where someone doesn't want to do anything, or it is someone at a "good" job who just lays behind a computer.

If someone made their money honestly, gives (which I encourage everyone to do (which the middle class does the least of overall) and works with their money intelligently they can have what they want. People have way too many opportunities to do what they want in particular (especially in America), especially with technology to do what they want. Most just want everything right away and don't want to do it correctly. There are people who become wealthy before hitting 20 while most are hoping to retire with some decent money. Some people keep trying to do better things with the same methods in a changing time. It just won't work.

Everybody played their part in this, rich, middle, and poor. No one party is guilty and it will take efforts from all sides to fix thing.

You're wrong about a lot of things...and I'll leave it at that

Thanks for helping me see the light.Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You're wrong about a lot of things...and I'll leave it at that

Actually speaking of taxes. They should be lower anyways, why should any class of people pay more to have it go right to the government who mismanages it anyways?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Thanks for helping me see the light.

Actually speaking of taxes. They should be lower anyways, why should any class of people pay more to have it go right to the government who mismanages it anyways?

I'm done with this discussion. We aren't going to change each others minds so why waste time continuing this? You have the typical Libertarian attitude that "It's all about meeee, I care only about meeee."

everyone is aware that the social security rhetoric the right wing throws around these days is equivalent to the anti-communist rhetoric of yesterday?

keep everyone scared, America is doomed, etc etc etc.

Social security is set for many years, on average over a decade, and thats if they collected no more money at all.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But eh, what do I know.

something that isn't economics?

Libertarian, right wing, left wing, none of that matters to me. I believe what I believe, and putting all people in a mold is really not a beneficial thing to do for any argument or any reality. Threads like this trend socialist though.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'm done with this discussion. We aren't going to change each others minds so why waste time continuing this? You have the typical Libertarian attitude that "It's all about meeee, I care only about meeee." You're right about that, I wasn't trying to change your mind, but more or less speak my side. Blaxican was right, you have the typical mindset of "Whoever has wealth is making it by taking advantage of other people. People owe me/us and should take care of me/us."

A few quick things about myself that I thought I might have made clear. I'm all for giving, I have a separate account that exists solely for doing so. Tithes, offerings, donations, charities, etc. I feel it's everyone's job to give back regardless of income as it helps you grow anyways. I like to also teach people and train them how to do more with themselves for those who wish to move ahead. I have an independent and harsh mindset. If I do poorly then I know the blame ultimately falls back on me. Not my parents, not the world, not God, myself. This entitlement mentality is annoying. I don't believe in wasting my time trying to help someone who won't help themself?

Oh and I'm not speaking on just ideals. I've hired the people who have said the same thing you say, "The world is unfair, it's someone else's fault I'm in this position, etc. Then sure enough they don't show up on time, or at all, and they don't do anything, they expect a handout. Hence why I know what I say is true. I can say the same thing about loans and other things. The same people who were broke, kept themselves like that. Instead of paying me back, they went and gambled. Friends of mine who don't like to work, have parents who blow all of their money too, and then say its the world fault they are in their situation at all. Not the fact that instead of paying the heating bill, they bought a car, or a tv, or some other junk. I've also mentored to people who were in and out of juvenille detention on their way to something worse. You can guess how that went, even the family said I was wasting my time.

Charity and welfare aren't the same thing. One is help until the person recovers, and the other is something that makes people feel entitled to what they have. I've seen both ends of the spectrum and I know how drastically different the mentality is.

That said, everybody plays a part, and it isn't just one person's job to fix it, not even the president.
Originally posted by inimalist
everyone is aware that the social security rhetoric the right wing throws around these days is equivalent to the anti-communist rhetoric of yesterday?

keep everyone scared, America is doomed, etc etc etc.

Social security is set for many years, on average over a decade, and thats if they collected no more money at all.



something that isn't economics?

Social Security is a ponzi scheme, although I'm not worried about it. I fund my own future. America *is* in a tough time, but I don't by the doom and gloom speech. I've grown and increased more than ever.

Now. America is changing with the rest of the world, we are in an information age instead of an industrial one, and things are changing at a faster rate. Now more than ever people have the opportunities to do what they want, but using methods that may have worked when your grandparents were growing up may not have the same impact. Doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's changing.

I embrace change. I also like knowing lots of information on lots of things, hence I see opportunities relatively quickly.

How are things where you're at?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
How are things where you're at?

you mean Canada?

our economy is stronger than yours, growing faster (I think atm we have less unemployment than you, which isn't normally the case), we have a higher standard of living than you, or education and health care systems are better and cheaper than yours, our banks didn't need and in fact refused a government bailout (there are numerous articles that describe our banks as the envy of the world), despite the fact that we artifically lower the value of our currency ours is worth more than yours (this actually hurts our economy), we have a better record of human rights, we are involved in less wars, we outrank you in nearly every international ranking system (in fact, we are generally near the top), gays freely get married, weed is "defacto" decriminalized... oh, and we have more sex than you guys do too

... I did a huge post about this a while ago that I thought was really funny, those are only the ones off the top of my head, and of course, its more a tongue and cheek way of saying, "geez, look at how terrible a modestly higher tax rate is", almost more as an attempt at expressing what could be possible with the amount of wealth in your nation. But I suspect sharing is at odds with self sufficency?

Originally posted by inimalist
you mean Canada?

our economy is stronger than yours, growing faster (I think atm we have less unemployment than you, which isn't normally the case), we have a higher standard of living than you, or education and health care systems are better and cheaper than yours, our banks didn't need and in fact refused a government bailout (there are numerous articles that describe our banks as the envy of the world), despite the fact that we artifically lower the value of our currency ours is worth more than yours (this actually hurts our economy), we have a better record of human rights, we are involved in less wars, we outrank you in nearly every international ranking system (in fact, we are generally near the top), gays freely get married, weed is "defacto" decriminalized... oh, and we have more sex than you guys do too

... I did a huge post about this a while ago that I thought was really funny, those are only the ones off the top of my head, and of course, its more a tongue and cheek way of saying, "geez, look at how terrible a modestly higher tax rate is", almost more as an attempt at expressing what could be possible with the amount of wealth in your nation. But I suspect sharing is at odds with self sufficency?

Nah, I don't mind. It's actually a whole cycle of problems. You can't expect people to manage their money well if the governemnt doesn't either. When taxes drop, their revenues increase and they go spending like a kid in a candy store. I'm looking to traveling soon.

Every country has its rough points though, we are no exception.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nah, I don't mind. It's actually a whole cycle of problems. You can't expect people to manage their money well if the governemnt doesn't either. When taxes drop, their revenues increase and they go spending like a kid in a candy store. I'm looking to traveling soon.

Every country has its rough points though, we are no exception.

actually, I agree with that entirely

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I agree with that entirely I try to see where both sides are coming from, although in discussions like these I'm in the minority by default. Ah well, I've seen the results of what I'm saying. I want things to be better for everyone, but no one man can change another man's mind, much less a nation's by themselves.

Here if the government has extra money left over, they do budget cuts, which makes sectors of government want to spend it faster to have more money. It's really a big problem.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I try to see where both sides are coming from, although in discussions like these I'm in the minority by default. Ah well, I've seen the results of what I'm saying. I want things to be better for everyone, but no one man can change another man's mind, much less a nation's by themselves.

Here if the government has extra money left over, they do budget cuts, which makes sectors of government want to spend it faster to have more money. It's really a big problem.

fair enough, I think I might have read too much into what you were saying. There is a lot of talk about major cuts to social security, etc, in the states, sort of thought thats where you were going, my bad

Nah it's cool. As I said pointing the finger all over the place won't change anything. There are things that should be changed, but I won't let it get in the way of *me*.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Majority? Name just one president that wasn't in the top 20% economically (income or wealth) when he took office.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Actually a lot of the presidents pre civil war were. Some may have had land or slaves but little actual cash.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Jefferson was actually severally in debt.

He did say wealth.

By that measure, they were almost all fairly wealthy and WELL into the top 20th percentile EXCEPT FOR this list: James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Harry S. Truman.

http://247wallst.com/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/2/

Yea Lincoln was broke, not sure about Jackson.

Georgie married into his if I'm not mistaken.

George Soros is a liberal, so morons think he's on the side of the people.

iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continent atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses

There is one thing Trump USED to support that I am 100% for and would go a LOOOONNNNG way in fixing our national problems. And that is a mandatory surtax on net worth for extremely wealthy individuals. If I remember correctly, it would theoretically raise something like $1.5 TRILLION annually in federal revenue. I think it was something like 10% annually for everyone worth over $20 million or some such thing.

I like it if they were even for everyone percentage wise, including people who don't pay at all, that is fair to me. *Shrugs*

Originally posted by tru-marvell
With Mr. Trump announcing his possible run for the white house-I thought it a good idea to post this:

Who among these 10 ( or if u really want to add your own) Billioniares
would you most likely vote for and who from this list would you choose as their running mate.

If you add someone they must be listed as an American Billionaire

1) Meg Whitman
2) Donald Trump
3) Steven Spielberg
4) Oprah Winfrey
5) Bill Gates
6) Richard Rainwater
7) Dennis Washington
8) Abigail Johnson
9) Warren Buffett
10) Mark Cuban

Forgot to setup the poll...

i wanna b a billionaire so freakin bad.....

dont know who whitman,rainwater,washington,johnson or cuban are but I would take Oprah over all the other ones nos 2,5,and 9,their all corrupt. Speilberg I would have as her running mate.

Corrupt how?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There is one thing Trump USED to support that I am 100% for and would go a LOOOONNNNG way in fixing our national problems. And that is a mandatory surtax on net worth for extremely wealthy individuals. If I remember correctly, it would theoretically raise something like $1.5 TRILLION annually in federal revenue. I think it was something like 10% annually for everyone worth over $20 million or some such thing.

Interesting. That would motivate the "rich" to continually try to make money else their money would slowly decay via taxes until they were worth less than $20 million.

75 year stock market investment average, by year: 12%


Savings yield average: <2%



So somewhere in there, they'd have to invest in something. Not even bonds would yield enough.



Sounds like a good idea, to me.

A quite good idea.

I was receptive to Trump until he came out as a birther recently.

Personally, I would prefer Bill Gates.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A quite good idea.

I was receptive to Trump until he came out as a birther recently.

Personally, I would prefer Bill Gates.

At first, I thought that was a sick joke on your part...


So I looked up the word "birther" to make sure I was thinking of the right thing.

Dude...

tooooooootally not what I thought a "birther" was.

The "birther" definition I knew is the second definition on urban dictionary and it is quite a disgusting definition. (look it up... )



Anyway, yeah, birthers are pretty much "idiots". I agree that Gates would be a kick ass "CEO" choice as he's very free with his money and charity. He's a great example of how I think real capitalism should work in a very libertarian society: people that make shit loads of money off of their hard work should be more than happy to give shit loads away (Bill Gates has given tens of billions of dollars away!)

I'm not a hypocrite as I would be more than willing to give or fund genuinely charitable projects. I wouldn't be an idiot and give too much away, but I'd certainly donate quite a bit.

Based on that statement I think Trump is just another demogogue stirring up fear to increase his own popularity... not someone I would want to vote for under any circumstances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At first, I thought that was a sick joke on your part...


So I looked up the word "birther" to make sure I was thinking of the right thing.

Dude...

tooooooootally not what I thought a "birther" was.

The "birther" definition I knew is the second definition on urban dictionary and it is quite a disgusting definition. (look it up... )



Anyway, yeah, birthers are pretty much "idiots". I agree that Gates would be a kick ass "CEO" choice as he's very free with his money and charity. He's a great example of how I think real capitalism should work in a very libertarian society: people that make shit loads of money off of their hard work should be more than happy to give shit loads away (Bill Gates has given tens of billions of dollars away!)

I'm not a hypocrite as I would be more than willing to give or fund genuinely charitable projects. I wouldn't be an idiot and give too much away, but I'd certainly donate quite a bit.
And he does more than just give money, he also initiates some rather beneficial projects. I recall reading something about a project he was bankrolling from his own pocket to design a good computer for children in developing nations that would be sold for under $100 each.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And he does more than just give money, he also initiates some rather beneficial projects. I recall reading something about a project he was bankrolling from his own pocket to design a good computer for children in developing nations that would be sold for under $100 each.
That was a pretty interesting project. I know about it and it designed those comps well. Also can be powered by a small hand crank.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A quite good idea.

I was receptive to Trump until he came out as a birther recently.

Personally, I would prefer Bill Gates. He was supporting him at first from what he wrote, he might have had some reason to say what he said, but it was too late in the term anyways.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
He was supporting him at first from what he wrote, he might have had some reason to say what he said, but it was too late in the term anyways.
What? He just said that a few weeks ago not when Obama was running.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What? He just said that a few weeks ago not when Obama was running. What I mean is that he was more supportive of him back when he started and didn't mention that. He mentioned it now but it's later in the term where it is less relevant.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There is one thing Trump USED to support that I am 100% for and would go a LOOOONNNNG way in fixing our national problems. And that is a mandatory surtax on net worth for extremely wealthy individuals. If I remember correctly, it would theoretically raise something like $1.5 TRILLION annually in federal revenue. I think it was something like 10% annually for everyone worth over $20 million or some such thing.

And tax them on their income additionally? And if so, how much?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There is one thing Trump USED to support that I am 100% for and would go a LOOOONNNNG way in fixing our national problems. And that is a mandatory surtax on net worth for extremely wealthy individuals. If I remember correctly, it would theoretically raise something like $1.5 TRILLION annually in federal revenue. I think it was something like 10% annually for everyone worth over $20 million or some such thing.

According to today's standards, this is socialism, spreading the wealth around and the reason Zeal Ex Nihilo gets migraines. As the Republican party has recently begun polling at 51% 'birther', there is a better-than-ever chance Mr. Trump could make traction. Policies like this one you mention, however, will only be turned against him should folks like the Kock Brothers ever begin to take him seriously. He won't last as long as the primaries because he's not really as batshit crazy as he is pretending to be right now. (I assure you, his more level-headed solutions will go right out the window should he keep his footing after more supposedly serious politicians toss their hat into the ring. I would say that America is just about due to elect a reality tv star to the presidency. He could fill his cabinet positions with all 62 members of the duggar family.

You know the doomsday clock, and how important it was to know how far from midnight we were, during the Cold War? Well, I'd like to suggest to all those birthers and conspiracy theorists out there that we replace it with an "Idiocracy Clock", which will let us know just how long we have before we're all the Mt. Dew-guzzling, sitting on a toilet as comfortable as a recliner watching TV, "Welcome to Costco, I love you" morons suggested by the 2006 Mike Judge film, Idiocracy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And he does more than just give money, he also initiates some rather beneficial projects. I recall reading something about a project he was bankrolling from his own pocket to design a good computer for children in developing nations that would be sold for under $100 each.

I can guarentee that it would end up being sold right here, in the US of A, and targeted at low income individuals. When you have that much money, charity is a must, as it allows you more direct control over how your money is spent. It's nice that he spent his own money to research it, under a tax shelter, and then end up making as much money off of that as those who owned those cheap cell phone plans that errupted in the inner city and then spread through the youth market because it was 'gangsta.

I think his and his wife's and his father's foundations have done a lot of good. But I think the man is shrewd, as well.

Seems like a waste of time. Just another rich white guy who wants political power.

Originally posted by skekUng
I can guarentee that it would end up being sold right here, in the US of A, and targeted at low income individuals. When you have that much money, charity is a must, as it allows you more direct control over how your money is spent. It's nice that he spent his own money to research it, under a tax shelter, and then end up making as much money off of that as those who owned those cheap cell phone plans that errupted in the inner city and then spread through the youth market because it was 'gangsta.

I think his and his wife's and his father's foundations have done a lot of good. But I think the man is shrewd, as well.
Um, they HAVE existed, for over two years at least. And they are not being sold in the US like you say.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What I mean is that he was more supportive of him back when he started and didn't mention that. He mentioned it now but it's later in the term where it is less relevant.
Its only "relevant" since he's trying to stir up hatred and fear for Obama so he has a better shot of winning next year. It isn't an impact on Obama's presidency this term.

Originally posted by skekUng
According to today's standards, this is socialism, spreading the wealth around and the reason Zeal Ex Nihilo gets migraines. As the Republican party has recently begun polling at 51% 'birther', there is a better-than-ever chance Mr. Trump could make traction. Policies like this one you mention, however, will only be turned against him should folks like the Kock Brothers ever begin to take him seriously. He won't last as long as the primaries because he's not really as batshit crazy as he is pretending to be right now. (I assure you, his more level-headed solutions will go right out the window should he keep his footing after more supposedly serious politicians toss their hat into the ring. I would say that America is just about due to elect a reality tv star to the presidency. He could fill his cabinet positions with all 62 members of the duggar family.

You know the doomsday clock, and how important it was to know how far from midnight we were, during the Cold War? Well, I'd like to suggest to all those birthers and conspiracy theorists out there that we replace it with an "Idiocracy Clock", which will let us know just how long we have before we're all the Mt. Dew-guzzling, sitting on a toilet as comfortable as a recliner watching TV, "Welcome to Costco, I love you" morons suggested by the 2006 Mike Judge film, Idiocracy.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png


Oh and not sure if that's the affordable laptop project you guys talked about that he supported, but I love this one: http://one.laptop.org/

It's so great, also I wanted that laptop since I first heard about it

Originally posted by King Kandy
Its only "relevant" since he's trying to stir up hatred and fear for Obama so he has a better shot of winning next year. It isn't an impact on Obama's presidency this term. True, although I wonder how many plan on supporting Obama.

Originally posted by Bardock42



Oh and not sure if that's the affordable laptop project you guys talked about that he supported, but I love this one: http://one.laptop.org/

It's so great, also I wanted that laptop since I first heard about it

wtf is this bullshit. Poor people in other countries get Bill Gates certified cheap laptops to use in School? I live in a not poor country and I got no laptops in school!

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf is this bullshit. Poor people in other countries get Bill Gates certified cheap laptops to use in School? I live in a not poor country and I got no laptops in school!

the poor in America need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps

and besides, look how bad the government/corporations always mess up poor communities, whereas there has never been a time that white people have messed up African nations with their interference

lol

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf is this bullshit. Poor people in other countries get Bill Gates certified cheap laptops to use in School? I live in a not poor country and I got no laptops in school! That would explain your bad grammar.

Exactly!

I demand a Bill Gate's poor person computer. I've been cheated.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png


Oh and not sure if that's the affordable laptop project you guys talked about that he supported, but I love this one: http://one.laptop.org/

It's so great, also I wanted that laptop since I first heard about it

But, that doesn't even address the point of the movie.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, they HAVE existed, for over two years at least. And they are not being sold in the US like you say.

the beauty of a statement like "it would end up being", is that it doesn't have to be true at the moment for it to be correct.

Lots of hundred dollar bills floating around the third world, isn't there?

Originally posted by skekUng
the beauty of a statement like "it would end up being", is that it doesn't have to be true at the moment for it to be correct.

Lots of hundred dollar bills floating around the third world, isn't there?
So basically your idea is unfalsifiable because if it doesn't happen, you can just say it hasn't happened yet.

Nice to know since now its safe to ignore it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
wtf is this bullshit. Poor people in other countries get Bill Gates certified cheap laptops to use in School? I live in a not poor country and I got no laptops in school!

Actually, the US is one of the major benefactor of this if you look at the world map, with almost 100 000 laptops in use....so...yeah.Originally posted by skekUng
But, that doesn't even address the point of the movie.

Indeed, this addresses the people who watched the movie and behave like that.

It addresses your idea of us all becoming that though and it being a horrible, horrible thing.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
With Mr. Trump announcing his possible run for the white house-I thought it a good idea to post this:

Who among these 10 ( or if u really want to add your own) Billioniares
would you most likely vote for and who from this list would you choose as their running mate. This reminds me of the recent fiasco regarding NYC's Mayor Bloomberg's picking Cathie Black for school chancellor, even though she had zero educational experience, never went to public school, and her children were attending a private school in another state. Mikey figured, she's a "good manager" -- look how well she did in business -- and a good manager should be good at managing anything.

Needless to say, Black's short, miserable stint as chancellor proves how wrong that thinking is, something that was obvious to everyone else (with common sense) from the start.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically your idea is unfalsifiable because if it doesn't happen, you can just say it hasn't happened yet.

Nice to know since now its safe to ignore it.

no, it's nice to know that once these things are finished being useful under the tax shelter that R&D provides, the product will be marketed here.

Originally posted by Mindship
Cathie Black for school chancellor, even though she had zero educational experience, never went to public school, and her children were attending a private school in another state.

/facepalm

ah politics...

Originally posted by Bardock42
And tax them on their income additionally? And if so, how much?

Well here's the problem with how people have been fooled into believing bullshit in this country. It's been framed that the insanely high taxes on high income pre-Reagan was an effort to redistribute wealth when in actuality, with the way right-offs were setup, they were a clever way for government to basically twist the rich's arm into growing their business and hiring. The idea was that you either grow your business and make a little more next year or you get punished for being unamerican. Free trade complicates that since America is more or less the least protectionist nation on the planet and the richest people receiving income exclusively from capital gains makes it worse. A good tax plan to eliminate the deficit and actually recover the economy would look like this-

-70% tax on income over $1 million. This can be written off by investing in domestic companies.
-90% tax on capital gains levied on all citizens under 65 who do not earn an additional income.
-5% luxury tax on net worth for all citizens and legal residents owning property in the United States or its territories worth over $5 million. To be increased to 15% during economic deficits and 30% during wartime, regardless of whether congress has declared war.
-Flat 30% write-off for charitable contributions regardless of income.
-All income subject to Social Security tax.
-20% sin tax on all recreational drugs, prostitution, political contributions and pornography with the exception of alcohol.
-Unpaid corporate income tax to be levied against the personal income of all boardmembers and executives of said corporations (additional 35%, regardless of whether it exceeds 100% of income).
-Penalty for dodging taxes using offshore havens-seizure of all assets and a minimum of 35 years in prison.
-Revoke tax on unemployment insurance payments.
-Revoke tax on pay and awards for Peace Corps and AmeriCorps corpsmembers and all military NCO's and CO's earning under $50,000 annually.

That's just tax policy and I would vote for any billionaire touting that kind of budget. If we're going to have horrific income inequality, we should solve it by having the people hoarding 50% of the wealth foot 95% of the tax burden.

lol, sin tax? and not on alcohol?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, sin tax? and not on alcohol? ok, apply it to alcohol over 20 proof. Instead of banning everything, why not socially engineer society through campaigns of stigmatization and discouragement while forcing users to pay for their partying?

because social engineering is wrong?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well here's the problem with how people have been fooled into believing bullshit in this country. It's been framed that the insanely high taxes on high income pre-Reagan was an effort to redistribute wealth when in actuality, with the way right-offs were setup, they were a clever way for government to basically twist the rich's arm into growing their business and hiring. The idea was that you either grow your business and make a little more next year or you get punished for being unamerican. Free trade complicates that since America is more or less the least protectionist nation on the planet and the richest people receiving income exclusively from capital gains makes it worse. A good tax plan to eliminate the deficit and actually recover the economy would look like this-

-70% tax on income over $1 million. This can be written off by investing in domestic companies.
-90% tax on capital gains levied on all citizens under 65 who do not earn an additional income.
-5% luxury tax on net worth for all citizens and legal residents owning property in the United States or its territories worth over $5 million. To be increased to 15% during economic deficits and 30% during wartime, regardless of whether congress has declared war.
-Flat 30% write-off for charitable contributions regardless of income.
-All income subject to Social Security tax.
-20% sin tax on all recreational drugs, prostitution, political contributions and pornography with the exception of alcohol.
-Unpaid corporate income tax to be levied against the personal income of all boardmembers and executives of said corporations (additional 35%, regardless of whether it exceeds 100% of income).
-Penalty for dodging taxes using offshore havens-seizure of all assets and a minimum of 35 years in prison.
-Revoke tax on unemployment insurance payments.
-Revoke tax on pay and awards for Peace Corps and AmeriCorps corpsmembers and all military NCO's and CO's earning under $50,000 annually.

That's just tax policy and I would vote for any billionaire touting that kind of budget. If we're going to have horrific income inequality, we should solve it by having the people hoarding 50% of the wealth foot 95% of the tax burden.

Me (a German in Germany) asking you what your preferred tax rate is is proof of how people in your country have been fooled into believing bullshit?



What?

I don't disagree with taxing rich people an appropriate rate btw. I think there's probably a decent median to be found between the almost nothing the US does now, and your (ridiculous) ideas.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree with taxing rich people an appropriate rate btw. I think there's probably a decent median to be found between the almost nothing the US does now, and your (ridiculous) ideas.

from what I've seen, reinstating Clinton era tax rates, only marginally higher (~5% iirc), on the richest Americans would almost eliminate major fiscal woes.

not that that would be some final solution (ha, dropping that in a convo with a Jew and a German), but it seems the most rational step at this point, imo

Originally posted by inimalist
from what I've seen, reinstating Clinton era tax rates, only marginally higher (~5% iirc), on the richest Americans would almost eliminate major fiscal woes.

not that that would be some final solution (ha, dropping that in a convo with a Jew and a German), but it seems the most rational step at this point, imo

Well, with Obama being a Republican President, nothing much is going to be done in that area I suppose, it is rather sad, in retrospect, that he won, as it screwed the US for at least two terms, but what can you do.

Oh and my sarcastic reply to Darth Jello seems idiotic now in a rereading, as it appears he meant it's wrong in general, rather that I am an example of how it is wrong....D'OH

President Obama announced yesterday that he will raise taxes on the wealthy to slightly higher than Clinton era figures and that there will be no further compromise on the Bush era tax cuts. He used some of his most directed and bold language I've heard from him since the '08 campaign. Although he did announced he was beginning his '12 run only a few short days earlier.

Originally posted by skekUng
President Obama announced yesterday that he will raise taxes on the wealthy to slightly higher than Clinton era figures and that there will be no further compromise on the Bush era tax cuts. He used some of his most directed and bold language I've heard from him since the '08 campaign. Although he did announced he was beginning his '12 run only a few short days earlier.

it sounded good, but he still promoted a plan that has massive cuts of what are called "entitlements" and lots of tax loop holes

I do have a slight hope that if he gets reelected, he won't care so much about appearing all centrist anymore and kick some ass and take some names.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldnclcOg1n1qzefq8.gif

Hahahaha, that's awesome.

Originally posted by inimalist
it sounded good, but he still promoted a plan that has massive cuts of what are called "entitlements" and lots of tax loop holes

I heard him address those loopholes in the speech he gave. I was listening on NPR, so I don't think they edited it in any way.

We are too far in debt to continue spending the way we have, but I agree that eliminating parts of the support systems that aide the poor and educate their children isn't the best way.

Originally posted by skekUng
I heard him address those loopholes in the speech he gave. I was listening on NPR, so I don't think they edited it in any way.

RG9AMyFsRdg

Originally posted by skekUng
We are too far in debt to continue spending the way we have, but I agree that eliminating parts of the support system's that aide the poor and educate their children isn't the best way.

:/

you Americans and your tax mythology...

Originally posted by skekUng
I heard him address those loopholes in the speech he gave. I was listening on NPR, so I don't think they edited it in any way.

We are too far in debt to continue spending the way we have, but I agree that eliminating parts of the support systems that aide the poor and educate their children isn't the best way.

There's one very, very clear sector of spending in the US that should have some cuts.

Originally posted by skekUng
President Obama announced yesterday that he will raise taxes on the wealthy to slightly higher than Clinton era figures and that there will be no further compromise on the Bush era tax cuts. He used some of his most directed and bold language I've heard from him since the '08 campaign. Although he did announced he was beginning his '12 run only a few short days earlier.
Yeah, I was incredibly happy to hear it. The first Obama policy I actually liked.

Finally includes cuts to the military as well, iirc.

Originally posted by inimalist



:/

you Americans and your tax mythology...



I might have missed it, but I didn't hear anything about loopholes. Or was your point that it was a great speech that will mean nothing when it comes down to it? I admit, my least favorite line of the speech was when the president said that he doesn't expect the final agreement to exactly reflect what he'd just spent 10 minutes talking about.

I liked text bug at the bottom of the screen that siad "GOP accuses Pres of Class Warfare". damn right. If I were less naive, I'd say he sould run on that poor v rich argument, but the poor have no money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, I was incredibly happy to hear it. The first Obama policy I actually liked.

Finally includes cuts to the military as well, iirc.

The cuts are pretty all-inclusive. sadly, I can't recall if he said that defense spending would be cut, or if it was just in Ryan's plan. It's a lot to digest when you have a job and a family on top of keeping up with politics.

Originally posted by skekUng
I might have missed it, but I didn't hear anything about loopholes. Or was your point that it was a great speech that will mean nothing when it comes down to it? I admit, my least favorite line of the speech was when the president said that he doesn't expect the final agreement to exactly reflect what he'd just spent 10 minutes talking about.

I liked text bug at the bottom of the screen that siad "GOP accuses Pres of Class Warfare". damn right. If I were less naive, I'd say he sould run on that poor v rich argument, but the poor have no money.

my point is, for all the rhetoric, people who report on the president seem to think he is going to accept the Simpson-Bowels budget plan, which is not nearly as progressive as the language of the speech.

Basically, his words were entirely cynical, trying to bolster support from his base running up to an election, so that he has some progressive "street cred", after caving to the Reps for nearly $40b in cuts that his base didn't want.

Originally posted by inimalist
my point is, for all the rhetoric, people who report on the president seem to think he is going to accept the Simpson-Bowels budget plan, which is not nearly as progressive as the language of the speech.

Basically, his words were entirely cynical, trying to bolster support from his base running up to an election, so that he has some progressive "street cred", after caving to the Reps for nearly $40b in cuts that his base didn't want.

I did mention that it was a strong speech that took place only a few days after he annouced the beginning of his '12 campaign.

However, I think that you could find two more talking heads from both sides of the aisle that would disagree with these two.

Originally posted by skekUng
no, it's nice to know that once these things are finished being useful under the tax shelter that R&D provides, the product will be marketed here.
And when will that be?

Originally posted by skekUng
I did mention that it was a strong speech that took place only a few days after he annouced the beginning of his '12 campaign.

However, I think that you could find two more talking heads from both sides of the aisle that would disagree with these two.

I'm sure you could...

how many people who report on presidental policy are saying he isn't going with the Simpson-Bowels plan though?

Simpson and Bowels were even at the whitehouse today meeting with the president. I could be wrong, but some flowery language doesn't really convince me that Obama is on any swing back to the left.

Originally posted by inimalist
because social engineering is wrong?

Weeeeeelllllll...there's really no difference between what he's suggesting on the "sin-tax" and what is actually happening, now.



It's just that...


His way is more up-front about it and liberal.


Originally posted by inimalist
not that that would be some final solution (ha, dropping that in a convo with a Jew and a German)




holy sh*t

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weeeeeelllllll...there's really no difference between what he's suggesting on the "sin-tax" and what is actually happening, now.

eh, maybe

I'm not against an extra tax on things like fast food or tobacco or alcohol because of the increased risk of cost associated with health care, and if the taxes were set up like that I'd be fine.

Simply saying "we are going to tax something that is legal just because we don't like it and want to control your behaviour", imho, is different both in theory and practice.

setting a line at any point has nothing to do with science, and such scales are anthropic based on various measures of harm, The Lancet had several simialr ratings based on various health professions, and alcohol never scored worse than heroin.

besides, the government has no right to regulate what I put in my body, even if it is 100% fatal

I don't really support a sin tax. I am in favor of local communities trading without much oversight. For instance when talking about weed legalization, many dream of "tax revenue", I dream of "trading it among individuals as one might do with produce you grew in a garden"

Why would anyone in their right mind do that?

To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors.

F*ck that. Anomie is where it's at.

Originally posted by inimalist
setting a line at any point has nothing to do with science,

Maybe I do not understand that real point you're trying to make, there, because it's very obvious that "has nothing to do with science" is very much wrong. What you said above would insult many people involved in that various branches of pharmacology and psychology.

We could get into a philosophically layered discussion about this and actually end up going nowhere, if you want to.




Based on your past postings on this topic, I think you are trying to say that the lines drawn would be arbitrary and extremely biased. That's still very much wrong as you could still come up to logical, medical conclusions and set a line at a tolerance/damage level. That's how pharmaceuticals are handled. Why should schedule I and II (A, B, and C, in the UK) be any different?

By that scale some pharmaceutical grade drugs would have to be more regulated or even banned.

Originally posted by inimalist
and such scales are anthropic based on various measures of harm,

Yes, a measure of how humans interact with each other is going to be...anthropic. But I'd prefer a more apt term: social.

Humans are a rather social species.

Measuring how drugs change those social interactions is a good way to measure how drugs change those social interactions.

Additionally, we can get philosophical about this and say silly things like, "all science is anthropic."


Originally posted by inimalist
The Lancet had several simialr ratings based on various health professions, and alcohol never scored worse than heroin.

Ah. I get where you're coming from, now.

Originally posted by inimalist
besides, the government has no right to regulate what I put in my body, even if it is 100% fatal

This assumes that the government already isn't doing so when it most certainly is.

Dropping the 'line' to all of those items rated as a 20 or below is a huge gigantic leap into liberal drug legislation. You prefer complete freedom when that's not going to happen any time soon.




Edit - As of right now, that "line" is not a line but an almost random dot of tolerance magnitude in society based on various reasons of bias, industry, or even religion. We need something more based in science and way less random. Setting a scientific threshold is much better than the systems* we have in place, now.

*legislation

Originally posted by King Kandy
To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors. Oh, sorry. I meant realistically.

Originally posted by King Kandy
To be a nice, contributing member of the community? It would certainly do wonders to improve relations with your neighbors.

That's a pipe dream.

*rim shot*


Thank you, I'll be hear all night...and forevers.



I do share your sense of community, however. I would love to live in a pure communisitic society.

That seems realistic to me. I already trade garlic, onions etc without any taxation, among many who also grow. I know many people who would definitely grow weed if it was legal so I see no reason this couldn't be extended.

Why would you give weed away for free to random strangers when you can sell it for money (and people will pay said money)?

They aren't random strangers, they are good friends of your neighborhood.

So you mean, give weed to your friends. Alright... people do already do that, I agree.

I guess when you said "communities" I assumed you were talking about like, county's or cities. Not... the dude living down the street from you. My mistake.

Nah its fine.

What i'm trying to say is, I think if it was legalized, it should primarily be done by individual growers going "under the radar" with their own circle of friends and neighbors. I don't think it would be best handled in some kind of very regulated way like how state liquor stores operate.

Why do you think, ooc?

Cheaper product (since less profit is expected)
Close knit group (I favor a strong, mutually supportive community)
Self regulating (because everyone is able to see the growing process, there is no need to fear pesticides or the like)

Makes good contributions to potlucks, parties, all manor of community events.

What about the big cities?

There could be clubs. (or, more likely, the law could just be drafted by the cities themselves and thus vary according to their needs).

Originally posted by King Kandy
There could be clubs. (or, more likely, the law could just be drafted by the cities themselves and thus vary according to their needs).

If I'm not mistaken, the early colonial charters had similar accomodations for the bartering concepts you mentioned. "British coin" was not really feasible.

what does it mean; "liberal drug legislation"?

Originally posted by skekUng
what does it mean; "liberal drug legislation"?


What is your definition of liberal drug legislation or how would you interpret that?


For me, of course, I've already very clearly answered that question as I interpret it.

So, only liberals regulate drugs and come for your freedoms? Pisshh!

Originally posted by skekUng
So, only liberals regulate drugs and come for your freedoms? Pisshh!

Are you assuming that my use of "liberal" is a noun rather than an adjective?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe I do not understand that real point you're trying to make, there, because it's very obvious that "has nothing to do with science" is very much wrong. What you said above would insult many people involved in that various branches of pharmacology and psychology.

We could get into a philosophically layered discussion about this and actually end up going nowhere, if you want to.

Based on your past postings on this topic, I think you are trying to say that the lines drawn would be arbitrary and extremely biased. That's still very much wrong as you could still come up to logical, medical conclusions and set a line at a tolerance/damage level. That's how pharmaceuticals are handled. Why should schedule I and II (A, B, and C, in the UK) be any different?

By that scale some pharmaceutical grade drugs would have to be more regulated or even banned.

yes, thus making the scale arbitrary and anthropic. There is no reason to draw a line at any point, other than what appeals to human logic. There is no real, scientific , demarcation where "harm" becomes ok to regulate through the state.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, a measure of how humans interact with each other is going to be...anthropic. But I'd prefer a more apt term: social.

Humans are a rather social species.

Measuring how drugs change those social interactions is a good way to measure how drugs change those social interactions.

not even close, no...

anthropic means something that is designed and reflects human cognitive processing. Therefore, saying your demarcations are anthropic means you have invented something based on how you think it should work, not based on any measure or predictive use of science.

how harmful a substance is IS NOT a scientific measure of whether or not that substance should be regulated, that you think harm is a good place to base law is anthropic and subjective. There is no science that supports that conclusion, and in fact, the opinion presented there is something science has almost nothing to say about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Additionally, we can get philosophical about this and say silly things like, "all science is anthropic."

/facepalm...

dude... i know you like to be contrarian, but look at what you are saying...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah. I get where you're coming from, now.

This assumes that the government already isn't doing so when it most certainly is.

Dropping the 'line' to all of those items rated as a 20 or below is a huge gigantic leap into liberal drug legislation. You prefer complete freedom when that's not going to happen any time soon.

There are lots of points where I would find your plan contentious. The biggest is the fact you are trying to present it as a "science", which it isn't, at all. In fact, it is an abuse of the term "science", and almost an identical use as was seen throughout the 19/20th century where "scientific" societies were created, and subsequently the science of racism and sexism destroyed countless lives.

otherwise, no, I don't feel we should abandon a broken system for an additionally broken system that now has some twisted semblance of "scientific" justification.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - As of right now, that "line" is not a line but an almost random dot of tolerance magnitude in society based on various reasons of bias, industry, or even religion. We need something more based in science and way less random. Setting a scientific threshold is much better than the systems* we have in place, now.

*legislation

so because things are messed up now I have to accept a system that attempts to use science in a way that restricts personal freedom and, in fact, in no way represents science?

just FYI, suicide is legal in Canada. it is our drug laws that don't reflect our other laws, not the other way around. I don't know about America, but yes, your system has many more restrictions on personal freedom than does ours (except in very symbolic issues, like letting Nazis publish books )

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, with Obama being a Republican President, nothing much is going to be done in that area I suppose.

Obama's a Democrat. He just does a really, really good Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter impersonation...all the time. You Germans just don't understand. Don't you know that the best way to alleviate a crisis is a combination of placating everyone who caused the crisis and doing absolutely nothing over a long period of time?

All sarcasm aside, you and a lot of people, mainly liberals, have hope. I feel as a person who would be considered a radical rather than a liberal by American standards have a different perspective. The president is sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and the people of the United States. In practice, here's a list of things that that have a higher priority for every president since 1964, considering that the last president who truly had different ones ended up with his cerebellum in his wife's lap-

Things more important to a president than his sworn oath of office-
1. His life.
2. His popularity.
3. His poll numbers.
4. Making friends with everyone, or at least with people who think like him.
5. His personal legacy.
6. Vacation.
7. Living comfortably.
8. Reelection.
9. His ideology and faith.
10. Protecting himself from slander and libel.
11. Sticking to a particular narrative describing reality.
12. Not dealing with common people.
13. Hiring legacies from past administrations regardless of their merit or criminal histories.

This last one is a big part of Obama's problem. Larry Summers? Geithner? Bernanke? He may as well have appointed Dick Cheney defense secretary, James Watt to head the EPA, and James Dobson Surgeon General.

Markets are better off fixing themselves with no government interference. Or as little as possible.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Markets are better off fixing themselves with no government interference. Which is exactly why every country that stuck by this credo collapsed 12 times faster than the USSR.

Free markets have a lot of advantages, but certain regulations, some of them not even contrary to capitalist theory, are beneficial, many problems are introduced by government created monopolies, be it through patents or delegation of resources.

As usually a healthy mix seems like the best way to go.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Free markets have a lot of advantages, but certain regulations, some of them not even contrary to capitalist theory, are beneficial, many problems are introduced by government created monopolies, be it through patents or delegation of resources.

As usually a healthy mix seems like the best way to go. exactly, which is why i think some version of social democracy is the best system. The free market especially fails in industries where competition or delivering services is not profitable. If free marketeers had their way in the early part of the 20th century, a majority of the midwest and west would have no roads, phone lines, or power.