Sorry, that's just BS. It might have been sort of true (you would have to pay high $$$ for talent, oh goodness me!) a year ago, but now, that's just rubbish. I suggest you wait until the next round of hirings before you dispute my claim. There's a lot of talent hitting the streets right now.
I submit that part of the "shortage" was also a money/ego issue: managers didn't like seeing programmers getting paid nearly as much or more than the management. Egos get in the way, and people assume that managers should be paid more, even though it's largely unskilled work. That's why, as a contractor at some larger shops, I'd hear much grumbling from mid-level managers about "contractors being expensive, blah, blah".
I think it was because they see the invoice, and assume that contractors get nearly all of that money. They should know better, but again that management ego kicks in, and I know that has to play a part.
Sorry, that's just wrong. I work in Denver, Colorado. There are people I know personally, who are *programmers*, that are being laid off left and right, and they are not being snapped up immediately. And these are good people, with current skills. And I feel very much so that I might be next. A year ago this was very different. Finding a job was nearly a no-brainer.
I say that absolutely NO MORE H1-B's should be issued, period. At least until the economy picks up again. Programmer shortage...bah! If this kind of nonsense continues, we will end up with labor unions, and that is a cure that is worse than the disease.
What? Streams of encrypted data is a big no-no? Why would that be? What do you call SSL? People use that all the time, and don't even know they are using it, I'll bet. What kind of fascist corp would frown on NOT sending things all things plaintext? I sure don't want to ever work for them, so give me names.
I voted for Browne, too. What you say is correct, but the Democrats and their supporters will repeat this mantra of "selected, not elected" crap until the next election. I hope their tactics blow up in their face, and show them for the little manipulators that they are.
That article starts out with facts, then gets into outright lying about Reagan and the eighties...or blatant omissions. They(liberals/Democrats) always seem to gloss over the fact that Congress during those years was controlled by Democrats, and their spending spiraled out of control, and THAT's what caused increases in the deficit. That's right, even though more money was coming in because of a booming economy CREATED by the very supply-side economics they so hated, they managed to outspend the new-found increases.
I guess that's the first and last time I read a Salon article that has anything to do with politics. What spin-mo-nauts, and what a steaming pile of dung that article was.
See, now you've refuted most of the other points you have tried to make for liberal causes. If this country fosters this business environment that makes people rich, why can't entrepeneurial poor folks make themselves rich? The fact is, that they do, if they have what it takes, and are willing to take risks. That's called the American Dream, and even most liberals think that's a Good Thing. How is this a problem?
I don't care about the situation in India/Ecuador, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. That's why entrepeneurs in those countries MOVE HERE to get rich, BTW. Of course if Gates was in some socialist country he'd be punished for his wealth. You *do* realize that the highest tax bracket pays 39.5% of their taxes, here, in this country. You also realize that in socialist countries in Europe, the people in Gates kind of bracket would be paying something closer to 90% in many cases?
You are right; there is nothing magical about success. It takes hard work, and an environment that fosters success, so why do you want to punish the people that are successful by redistributing their wealth?
Oh, and I would argue that overall there *is* more exceptional intelligence within our borders, since people with more talent of all kinds recognize that they will be better rewarded here, and immigrate to our country, also considered to be a Good Thing, even by liberals. If you are talented, why stay in a country like India or Russia where the corruption or socialist policies are going to only hold you back...move to the States, set up shop, work hard, get rich. Are you saying the American system is not "fair" to other countries now? It sounds like that is what you are saying. You sound like some of the UN people who actually had the gall to propose equal taxes everywhere so businesses had no competition, and had to get taxed equally everywhere, in any country.
Funny. The notion that "Georgie" was selected, as you and other liberals are *still* claiming, has now proven to be ridiculous, as any level-headed person already realized. But, for those who had doubts: using even the most liberal of decision-making for counting the ballots in question, GORE LOST. There has been much rhetoric over the people being disenfranchised, blah, blah, blah, but what about the military voters, hmmm?
Get over it, and stop lying about it. It makes you look stupid. There was no selection on the Republicans' part - if anyone should be talking about voter fraud it shouldn't be the Democrats - that's too close to home for them. The Democrats have a legacy of dead people voting for them, or people voting who live at addresses that are non-residential.
Oh, and I know of no economic theory that claims that a higher tax burden helps the economy. The Debt to which you refer was a direct cause of out-of-control spending by a Democratically controlled Congress in the eighties - well, actually the country's been in debt since WWI (or WWII, I forget) a fact which both sides conveniently ignore in the heat of battle. But in no way was Reagonomics responsible for that debt. Reaganomics DOUBLED the GNP over the course of ten years, if I recall - this is brought up time and time again when you see talking heads facing off over something, and Reaganomics comes up. When the liberal in question is faced with this fact, they always change the topic - I've seen it twice this week already on O'Reilly factor - they never refute it, because they know they can't.
I'm glad you concede that we need a tax cut now, thereby refuting your own claim that raising taxes helps the economy. In what way is Bush's plan not appropriate to help us out?
How can someone like yourself still defend Clinton? Even the ultra-liberal publication (from New York, name escapes me) is ALREADY calling for her resignation after the pardon scandal! Too bad a liberally-biased media only NOW has the balls to say something now, after eight years of sabotage. I mean, the man violates everything groups like NOW is supposed to be against, and they still turned a blind eye, and hinted that the women involved were bimbos/sluts/props of Republicans. Amazing how far someone will go against their idealogy to defend someone who supports the policies they like. Do you personally think it is right that a man in a position of power can sexually harass a subordinate? Why is it okay for Clinton? Why is it just his personal life, when it's on public property, on public time? Why is everything the Bill/Hillary team do that is called into question called a "mistake", and something we need to move past? How can you defend someone who has so obviously been bribed by anyone with money (Communist Chinese, Rich, the Hassidic Jews in New York)? I'm not saying that Bush is flawless. We need to, as a country, keep an eye on him, too, and make sure he's not watching out for only himself and his wife, while screwing over the public. Remember, I'm Libertarian. But so far, he hasn't made a wrong move (as in criminal activity) as Pres. Let's hope it stays that way. I know the media won't fall asleep at the wheel if it's a Republican doing the wrongs, so I fear less when it's a Republican in power.
Erm. I'm Libertarian. Actually, I know Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarian that are open-minded and kind-hearted. I'm not sure what you are driving at. Well, I do, but it's a red herring.
The Democratic/liberal ideal that they can take money and redistribute it because they "care" is a dubious one, at best, IMHO. At worst, it merely creates and maintains a new class of impoverished people who are dependent on gov't for their well-being...and of course, will vote for Democrats in order to keep the benefits that make up their dependency. How is that kind-hearted, exactly?
Ahh, that was a good read. Thanks for the snappy reply. There are some folks here who don't know anything about history, except what other liberals spout.
At least Reagan didn't sell himself out to the Communist Chinese, either. At least Reagan didn't have allegations of cocaine (ab)use. At least Reagan didn't have allegations of having people killed that were in a position to testify against him - or terrorize people who could be witnesses (killing people's pets, for example). At least Reagan did not abuse every power given to him like Clinton did (pardons, Presidential orders). At least Reagan did not sexually harrass (how many women is it now with Clinton) the women around him. At least Reagan really loved his wife. At least Reagan didn't cause $200,000 in damage to public facilities (White house) on the way out. Now, with all that, I still think we should have gotten to the bottom of the Iran-Contra thing. No one is above the law, Republican/Democrat, President or no. We should pursue Clinton to the maximum extent of the law. Letting him off the hook, and "moving on", as so many people suggest would send the wrong message to those who hold office.
Reagan did not have hardly any scandals until that Iran-Contra thing, and that was even WITH a very oppositional media that wanted to bring him down at every opportunity. God, they STILL hate him. Good to know that most Americans weren't fooled by the past 12 years of spin, though: Reagan was voted most popular prez by a mainstream poll. I was blown away. Of course, Clinton was on there (4th or 5th) so I didn't get all that excited. That guy doesn't even deserve to be called a president, much less be the most popular. History will probably show him and his wife to be what they really are: common criminals that pulled the wool over many folks eyes.
Isn't it the Democrats that always want to cut Defense spending? Methinks the entire Internet would not be here if it were not for DARPA, hmmm?
Much of computer research was funded via military spending (DoD), as well, eh?
Now, as a Libertarian, I would like to see gov't REALLY reduced to only the essentials, but the DoD would definitely be one of the essentials. I think I've seen stats that Democrats grow gov't at a rate of 6% when they get their way, and Republicans (despite talk of small gov't) grow it at a rate of 3%.
In any case, I'm glad we have a Republican in office rather than some crazy land-grabbing double-headed monster (Billary) like we just had.
God, what a pair of hucksters. It's funny that the mainstream media is only now waking up to the fact that they are a pair of criminals, and belong behind bars. Even other Democrats are starting to distance themselves.
Now that Bush has been elected President, it feels like the adults are back in office...not the child-like coup d'etat of the past eight years. Granted, I'd rather it were a Libertarian prez, but a Republican is the next best thing.
BTW, name one policy that Clinton put into effect that improved the economy. Other than leaving in place the Reaganomics he inherited.
Favorite/funniest answer I've ever heard to this question (from a liberal): "he raised taxes". I laughed so hard I nearly fell over...this guy didn't have any understanding of economics. When Clinton raised taxes (1993?), the economy flatlined at about a 2% growth rate until the Republicans took over Congress.
Gosh, I scored higher on my SATs than others; maybe I should give myself a lobotomy so I can "level the playing field". Oh yeah, some athlete is faster than another, maybe we should hobble him so that the others have a chance on the gridiron. After all, it's only fair, isn't it?
You said that they "control" 38% of the wealth. That article seems to imply that they earn that...where's the problem here?
If you make the wealthy pay more and more as more years go by (tax burden is highest it's ever been since WWII), where's the motivation for the wealthy to get where they are at now?
The point is that the wealthy are already paying much more than their "fair share". When will you liberals ever concede that the wealthy pay too many taxes? Will you only ever be happy once everybody makes the exact same amount of money? This may be something your parents did or did not tell you when you were growing up, but let me tell you in case you forget or were not told: life is not fair. Some people have advantages. Some people have big headstarts on the food chain. That's just the way it works. You can try to give some folks who have a disadvantage a leg up, but that can only go so far, and then they have to do the rest themselves. You can't cut the wealthy down to middle-class level and call that fair. If people like yourself want that type of system, move to a country that is receptive to those ideals. More power to you if it works for you, no skin off my back. Revoke your citizenship NOW, and don't try to further spoil what this country is supposed to be about. Nothing personal, mind you.
This is basically, a "me too" post, but I have
much more to add....:)
Ah, class warfare.
I think the stats go that folks who make 115K or more are in the top 2% of earners in America. Now, the Democrats class warfare looks even more preposterous when you know that - hint: that's not really that much money, and if you are a struggling small business, the tax break can really help - if they stay in business, a lot of the "poor" will still have jobs instead of standing in unemployment lines.
Re: the death tax:
The folks who are coming out against repealing the death tax are either ignorant of, or do not care, who the death tax really affects, and it is not the folks who have billions. It is the small farm owners. It is the small business owners. So stop the bitching, it's not about GIVING money to anyone, it's about not showing up and STEALING what is already rightfully theirs (and they've already paid taxes on that which is rightfully theirs).
Picture this: your parents die in some horrible accident. As if it's not terrible enough, someone knocks on your door and says, hey, I'm taking up to 55% of your money to give to other people. If that someone was anyone other than an IRS rep, you'd be justified in shooting them, because that is called theft by most people's definition. But it is the gov't, so you have to roll over. Wasn't
oppressive taxes what the Am. Revolution was about in the first place? Let me reiterate: the death tax is taking up to 55% of what has already BEEN TAXED. That's shameful. And you know, I will never be in that position, but I recognize that as wrong. It's not me vs. the rich, because I know the rich provide a lot of benefit without institutionalized stealing and "progressive" taxing. BTW, "progressive" is a liberal's code word for socialism, IMHO.
And all this talk about "creating an aristocracy" is just nonsense. The people coming out against repealing it are probably qualified for an aristocracy anyway, death tax or no (45% of billions still leaves you a billionaire), and don't want the next guy on the totem pole to have a fighting chance - or to teach the unwashed masses to rely on a gov't that will keep them in poverty and in the dark (literally, apparently, in CA).
Democrats shouldn't be lambasting aristocracies anyway; what the heck are the Kennedys if not an aristocracy?
When have we declared war on a country just to do a land/resource grab? If you say Iraq with their oil, wrong...we were asked to be there by those being invaded/about to be invaded. Anyway, are you saying now that USSR has fallen, that we are out of check?
Okay, we did, but we paid for reconstruction in BOTH countries. You conveniently left that part out. And yes, we set up Japan to not allow Japan to have a standing army, but WE are their standing army (and suffer the costs) - and we recognize both countries as sovereign countries. That's not the way the superpowers of the past worked (Roman Empire, English Empire).
Some credit has to be given where it's due, here.
It's easy to bash U.S. (I myself do a lot of it); everything we do is highly scrutinized, etc....but I seriously doubt any other country in our position of power would do a better job.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks. Gosh, I'm so ignorant. Okay, got that over with.
Anyway, to your points: no, the homeless don't just eat burger and drink booze, there are soup kitchens here, as well as other charities. No one is suffering from malnutrition here, that was my point.
And I did not specifically mention Africa, now did I?
And as for you wanting to be a poor person in Africa rather than a homeless person in inner city of U.S., well, to each his own. I don't have stats, but I'd wager that even homeless folks here have a longer life span than the average life span in Africa...of course, I'm sure it depends quite a bit on which country in Africa.
As for reading newspapers, I never read newspapers, serious or otherwise...I don't care much for all the ink stains on my hand, not to mention the waste the paper creates. I do listen to NPR, read news sites, etc. If I *were* to read a paper, it'd probably be the Wall Street Journal, and the African situation probably gets negligible coverage in there.
1. So you are saying I should be a xenophobe towards the people of socialist countries instead of thinking maybe the idealology their country adopted is flawed? That's great. No, what I believe, is that, if say, the US was to become socialist, that we would fail (with the exact same set of people that we have now) just as miserably as USSR has.
2. There has never been a truly communist country. Ever. The largest-scale truly communistic society ever noted was/is some indigenous tribes in Australia.
3. I don't believe in killing someone who disagrees with me on the best way to run economies/governments. So even if you claimed to be a socialist/communist, I wouldn't want to kill you. The best revenge is living well, and that's what capitalism allows us to do in mass quantities.
3.5. Explain how capitalism is parasitic? I really have no clue what you are driving at here, and it really sounds absolutely ludicrous, but I'm willing to read your thoughts on this interesting economic theory.
4. Now, didn't USSR "want" capitalism to fail? Why didn't THAT happen? Surely USSR had/has more resources than we did?
Of all the other socialist nations, why haven't they been able to foil us because of what they "wanted"? Hell, there is people within our country's border that want it fail...so what makes you think that America played anything other than a minor role in the failure of USSR's socialism?
5. Please explain to me EXACTLY how the American economy builds on wars, etc...seems to me that we've been in debt since WWII, and that was something we even only reluctantly entered (after Japan decided to bomb us we really had no choice, now did we?). We ARE remarkably peaceful, you have to admit. We could easily be world dictators, and yet we have not done this. After fall of Japan/Germany, we could have claimed these countries as colonies of US. Would you rather USSR was in our position of world power? Do you think they would really be so benevolent as the U.S. has been? Or China, how about that country as world power - they've shown such civility to Tibet, and all, let's give over the power to them, since U.S. has been so darned evil.
Yes, but those homeless are not starving, are they? In fact, they look better nourished than an average person in any of our favorite third world countries.
I feel sorry for socialist countries, but at least they are learning some lessons, and, I've noticed, cutting back their social programs, and cutting taxes. Maybe they will learn, and more of their populations will actually be able to own houses instead of rent apartments.
Your opinion on whether GWB is smart/skilled/driven is irrelevant. Give me some hard evidence to back up your beliefs. I think there are Texans that would strongly disagree with you. Interestingly enough, Gore didn't win his home state of Tennessee...hmm, maybe they know something the rest of the country was able to figure out, eh?
GWB has, what, a masters from Harvard? And bachelor's from Yale? Yeah, he must be a total dumbass slacker. He's not a great speaker like Clinton is, but that's okay, I'm more interested in the policies than the rhetoric anyway...and it gives me a warm and fuzzy to know that the adults are back in the White House again after eight years of amateur hour...even though I voted Libertarian.
Besides, GWB has already surrounded himself by folks who are up to the task...and those are the people that are important. The prez is mostly a figurehead - if he is egoless enough to surround himself with competent folks, then that's how the job gets done.
Back to your point about the best not rising to top in politics: I actually agree with you that politicians do not represent the best case scenario at all times (example: Clinton, who served two terms when I wouldn't trust him to pump my gas). That's because politics and economics are not the same thing, for one. Also contributing would be the fact that most Americans think there are only two parties, or even if they know about others, they think voting something other than Republican or Democrat is throwing away a vote. This in effect creates a duopoly.
And lastly, to avoid a monarchy type of government, there is the limit on the time the prez can serve, being eight years. In the case of Reagan, it would have behooved us to have him for a third or more term, but the law does not allow for that, so we had Bush Senior, the next best choice.
Just out of curiousity el_chicano, how old are you? What kind of job do you do?
In what country do you live?
Haha. That depends on whether you consider the act of calling someone a "liberal" an attack or not. I don't think it is, since the poster in question was a liberal, and I'm sure he would not take being called a liberal if he was one. If not, then I apologize.
And so, by calling me an asshole, you exclude yourself from any rational discussion taking place here. Thanks for playing as well, el_chicano. Maybe your comments will hold more merit on the playground. Run along now.
BTW: I've read your other comments on other discussions, el_chicano, and now I generally tend to ignore any posts I see from you - except for this one, since you are addressing me directly. Thanks for the laughs.
I'm not contesting your other points, but there is much more to taxation than just income tax. There's social security and medicare being taken out, then there's the state income tax, property tax, death tax, capital gains tax...it's enough to make you ill. I don't know how anyone who is rich can hang on to their money...it must become a full time job hiding your money from the jack-booted members of State.:)
Yes, but WHY is is that foreigners come to America? Could it be, perhaps, just maybe, that we set up a system where they could succeed, and profit from their success? Also, if Americans are such failures, why do so many foreigners come here for their collegiate studies? Hmm?
Name one major software corp that does not have an equal or better competitor within the borders of the United States. SAP, you say? I say Peoplesoft. You can say what you want about Microsoft, Oracle, what have you, but they do well in the markets they are going after, that is undeniable. I'm talking money here, not necessarily quality. And that's what it comes down to. If you make the best product in the world, and your company tanks, what good is that? There are only certain markets where that can succeed (quality over bottom line) and those are the ones in which you can charge much, much more because of demand: example being something like a Mercedes Benz.
I'm not claiming that only the U.S. has smart folks, every country has smart people. But not every country has a system where those smart/skilled/driven people can rise to the top. And yes, capitalism is not perfect, but if you are proposing socialism as the cure for the ills that capitalism might have, you are dead wrong.
And yes, many, many, many breakthroughs/ideas happen in other countries. But America is the best (overall) at harnessing them, repackaging them, making them practical, etc. There are places where we ARE lacking, one of them being mass transit, which is downright pathetic here, and
definitely could use some boosting from breakthroughs elsewhere - like the high speed monorails common in Europe and Japan.
And honestly, since the world, and esp. the US, is moving towards a service-based economy, I could give a rat's ass about the sale of American cars - old-school industry like that we can do without, thanks.
And Bjarne Stroustrup is Scandinavian, I believe. Not sure which country. BTW, he worked with Bell Labs, an American company.
For every example that you have about some niche that foreign companies might have an edge in, I can dig up a counterexample, or a reliance that those companies or individuals might have had with American companies or individuals. For instance, Allen Bradley PLC's are the de facto standard in manufacturing - nothing else comes even close to having the level of trust they have. Now, many robots are run by those, even if the robot is something German like, say, Fanuc.
Stroustrup did C++, but he relied on earlier research in other languages that supported OO, some of the researchers being American. And C itself is from Americans, is it not?
What's my point? My point is that Americans have played and will continue to play a part in being on the forefront of virtually all development of new technology. Maybe it's sour grapes on YOUR part that we have a system (and that system is capitalism) that allows us to have such success. That is not to say other countries don't play a major COLLECTIVE role, but what other SINGLE country can you point to as a catalyst of such change? Germany/Japan might come close, but still no cigar. It's still the U.S., and all your whining will not change that fact.
Re: the pollution bit, check out India/China/Russia/Mexico on that. You might be really surprised at how much they are doing. Esp. for developing nations. Wait until they move into full swing.
Uh, I put a lot of stock in science. However, there are scientists that also refute that global warming is occurring, or even that people have more than negligible affect on it even if it is happening. Ie, when a volcano blows its top, it puts out a lot of harmful things, and in some cases, can effectively blot out for large areas...not to mention the damage the ash itself can do. Maybe what we need to do is regulate volcanoes.
How short our collective memory is - wasn't it just 25-30 years ago that we were told that the Earth is cooling off, and we could be entering another Ice Age?
Regarding your facts about U.S. polluting more per capita, is the "per capita" relevant here? In any case, look at the kind of pollution that occurs in Mexico, India, Russia and China, and tell me again that Americans are the worst offenders. There are some absolutely horrible things going on there.
So, America is not a stable country? When's the last time we had a war on our soil? And when did Europe last have war on a majority of its soil? Again, those short collective memories. You do agree that war ranks fairly high on the UNstability chart, do you not?
I do agree with you about the large cars, though - I f***ing HATE SUV's. They are the most idiotic trend to come along in years.
I strongly DISAGREE about your statement about Europe being 50-100 years ahead of the US in the "ethical evolution" of mankind. Ethics is a very slippery subject, and it's really hard to claim that one set of ethics is more "evolved"
than another. Much of Europe seems to believe that redistribution of the wealth is a good thing, and that is something that sticks in the craw of the U.S. For those that like Europe's system (socialism), I suggest you move there, you're not wanted here, esp. if you are trying to effect a change here in the direction of socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that's just BS. It might have been sort of true (you would have to pay high $$$ for talent, oh goodness me!) a year ago, but now, that's just rubbish. I suggest you wait until the next round of hirings before you dispute my claim. There's a lot of talent hitting the streets right now.
I submit that part of the "shortage" was also a money/ego issue: managers didn't like seeing programmers getting paid nearly as much or more than the management. Egos get in the way, and people assume that managers should be paid more, even though it's largely unskilled work. That's why, as a contractor at some larger shops, I'd hear much grumbling from mid-level managers about "contractors being expensive, blah, blah".
I think it was because they see the invoice, and assume that contractors get nearly all of that money. They should know better, but again that management ego kicks in, and I know that has to play a part.
Sorry, that's just wrong. I work in Denver, Colorado. There are people I know personally, who are *programmers*, that are being laid off left and right, and they are not being snapped up immediately. And these are good people, with current skills. And I feel very much so that I might be next. A year ago this was very different. Finding a job was nearly a no-brainer.
I say that absolutely NO MORE H1-B's should be issued, period. At least until the economy picks up again. Programmer shortage...bah! If this kind of nonsense continues, we will end up with labor unions, and that is a cure that is worse than the disease.
Time to install SpyCop, then, and find out what's doing on that machine.
What? Streams of encrypted data is a big no-no? Why would that be? What do you call SSL? People use that all the time, and don't even know they are using it, I'll bet. What kind of fascist corp would frown on NOT sending things all things plaintext? I sure don't want to ever work for them, so give me names.
I voted for Browne, too. What you say is correct, but the Democrats and their supporters will repeat this mantra of "selected, not elected" crap until the next election. I hope their tactics blow up in their face, and show them for the little manipulators that they are.
Wasn't Trent just paraphrasing Nietzche?
That's odd, I submitted a related article, one pointing to a good website: www.spychecker.com. My article also got rejected.
That article starts out with facts, then gets into outright lying about Reagan and the eighties...or blatant omissions. They(liberals/Democrats) always seem to gloss over the fact that Congress during those years was controlled by Democrats, and their spending spiraled out of control, and THAT's what caused increases in the deficit. That's right, even though more money was coming in because of a booming economy CREATED by the very supply-side economics they so hated, they managed to outspend the new-found increases.
I guess that's the first and last time I read a Salon article that has anything to do with politics. What spin-mo-nauts, and what a steaming pile of dung that article was.
See, now you've refuted most of the other points you have tried to make for liberal causes. If this country fosters this business environment that makes people rich, why can't entrepeneurial poor folks make themselves rich? The fact is, that they do, if they have what it takes, and are willing to take risks. That's called the American Dream, and even most liberals think that's a Good Thing. How is this a problem?
I don't care about the situation in India/Ecuador, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. That's why entrepeneurs in those countries MOVE HERE to get rich, BTW. Of course if Gates was in some socialist country he'd be punished for his wealth. You *do* realize that the highest tax bracket pays 39.5% of their taxes, here, in this country. You also realize that in socialist countries in Europe, the people in Gates kind of bracket would be paying something closer to 90% in many cases?
You are right; there is nothing magical about success. It takes hard work, and an environment that fosters success, so why do you want to punish the people that are successful by redistributing their wealth?
Oh, and I would argue that overall there *is* more exceptional intelligence within our borders, since people with more talent of all kinds recognize that they will be better rewarded here, and immigrate to our country, also considered to be a Good Thing, even by liberals. If you are talented, why stay in a country like India or Russia where the corruption or socialist policies are going to only hold you back...move to the States, set up shop, work hard, get rich. Are you saying the American system is not "fair" to other countries now? It sounds like that is what you are saying. You sound like some of the UN people who actually had the gall to propose equal taxes everywhere so businesses had no competition, and had to get taxed equally everywhere, in any country.
Funny. The notion that "Georgie" was selected, as you and other liberals are *still* claiming, has now proven to be ridiculous, as any level-headed person already realized. But, for those who had doubts: using even the most liberal of decision-making for counting the ballots in question, GORE LOST. There has been much rhetoric over the people being disenfranchised, blah, blah, blah, but what about the military voters, hmmm?
Get over it, and stop lying about it. It makes you look stupid. There was no selection on the Republicans' part - if anyone should be talking about voter fraud it shouldn't be the Democrats - that's too close to home for them. The Democrats have a legacy of dead people voting for them, or people voting who live at addresses that are non-residential.
Oh, and I know of no economic theory that claims that a higher tax burden helps the economy. The Debt to which you refer was a direct cause of out-of-control spending by a Democratically controlled Congress in the eighties - well, actually the country's been in debt since WWI (or WWII, I forget) a fact which both sides conveniently ignore in the heat of battle. But in no way was Reagonomics responsible for that debt. Reaganomics DOUBLED the GNP over the course of ten years, if I recall - this is brought up time and time again when you see talking heads facing off over something, and Reaganomics comes up. When the liberal in question is faced with this fact, they always change the topic - I've seen it twice this week already on O'Reilly factor - they never refute it, because they know they can't.
I'm glad you concede that we need a tax cut now, thereby refuting your own claim that raising taxes helps the economy. In what way is Bush's plan not appropriate to help us out?
How can someone like yourself still defend Clinton? Even the ultra-liberal publication (from New York, name escapes me) is ALREADY calling for her resignation after the pardon scandal! Too bad a liberally-biased media only NOW has the balls to say something now, after eight years of sabotage. I mean, the man violates everything groups like NOW is supposed to be against, and they still turned a blind eye, and hinted that the women involved were bimbos/sluts/props of Republicans. Amazing how far someone will go against their idealogy to defend someone who supports the policies they like. Do you personally think it is right that a man in a position of power can sexually harass a subordinate? Why is it okay for Clinton? Why is it just his personal life, when it's on public property, on public time? Why is everything the Bill/Hillary team do that is called into question called a "mistake", and something we need to move past? How can you defend someone who has so obviously been bribed by anyone with money (Communist Chinese, Rich, the Hassidic Jews in New York)? I'm not saying that Bush is flawless. We need to, as a country, keep an eye on him, too, and make sure he's not watching out for only himself and his wife, while screwing over the public. Remember, I'm Libertarian. But so far, he hasn't made a wrong move (as in criminal activity) as Pres. Let's hope it stays that way. I know the media won't fall asleep at the wheel if it's a Republican doing the wrongs, so I fear less when it's a Republican in power.
Erm. I'm Libertarian. Actually, I know Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarian that are open-minded and kind-hearted. I'm not sure what you are driving at. Well, I do, but it's a red herring.
The Democratic/liberal ideal that they can take money and redistribute it because they "care" is a dubious one, at best, IMHO. At worst, it merely creates and maintains a new class of impoverished people who are dependent on gov't for their well-being...and of course, will vote for Democrats in order to keep the benefits that make up their dependency. How is that kind-hearted, exactly?
Ahh, that was a good read. Thanks for the snappy reply. There are some folks here who don't know anything about history, except what other liberals spout.
At least Reagan didn't sell himself out to the Communist Chinese, either. At least Reagan didn't have allegations of cocaine (ab)use. At least Reagan didn't have allegations of having people killed that were in a position to testify against him - or terrorize people who could be witnesses (killing people's pets, for example). At least Reagan did not abuse every power given to him like Clinton did (pardons, Presidential orders). At least Reagan did not sexually harrass (how many women is it now with Clinton) the women around him. At least Reagan really loved his wife. At least Reagan didn't cause $200,000 in damage to public facilities (White house) on the way out. Now, with all that, I still think we should have gotten to the bottom of the Iran-Contra thing. No one is above the law, Republican/Democrat, President or no. We should pursue Clinton to the maximum extent of the law. Letting him off the hook, and "moving on", as so many people suggest would send the wrong message to those who hold office.
Reagan did not have hardly any scandals until that Iran-Contra thing, and that was even WITH a very oppositional media that wanted to bring him down at every opportunity. God, they STILL hate him. Good to know that most Americans weren't fooled by the past 12 years of spin, though: Reagan was voted most popular prez by a mainstream poll. I was blown away. Of course, Clinton was on there (4th or 5th) so I didn't get all that excited. That guy doesn't even deserve to be called a president, much less be the most popular. History will probably show him and his wife to be what they really are: common criminals that pulled the wool over many folks eyes.
Isn't it the Democrats that always want to cut Defense spending? Methinks the entire Internet would not be here if it were not for DARPA, hmmm?
Much of computer research was funded via military spending (DoD), as well, eh?
Now, as a Libertarian, I would like to see gov't REALLY reduced to only the essentials, but the DoD would definitely be one of the essentials. I think I've seen stats that Democrats grow gov't at a rate of 6% when they get their way, and Republicans (despite talk of small gov't) grow it at a rate of 3%.
In any case, I'm glad we have a Republican in office rather than some crazy land-grabbing double-headed monster (Billary) like we just had.
God, what a pair of hucksters. It's funny that the mainstream media is only now waking up to the fact that they are a pair of criminals, and belong behind bars. Even other Democrats are starting to distance themselves.
Now that Bush has been elected President, it feels like the adults are back in office...not the child-like coup d'etat of the past eight years. Granted, I'd rather it were a Libertarian prez, but a Republican is the next best thing.
BTW, name one policy that Clinton put into effect that improved the economy. Other than leaving in place the Reaganomics he inherited.
Favorite/funniest answer I've ever heard to this question (from a liberal): "he raised taxes". I laughed so hard I nearly fell over...this guy didn't have any understanding of economics. When Clinton raised taxes (1993?), the economy flatlined at about a 2% growth rate until the Republicans took over Congress.
Gosh, I scored higher on my SATs than others; maybe I should give myself a lobotomy so I can "level the playing field". Oh yeah, some athlete is faster than another, maybe we should hobble him so that the others have a chance on the gridiron. After all, it's only fair, isn't it?
You said that they "control" 38% of the wealth. That article seems to imply that they earn that...where's the problem here?
If you make the wealthy pay more and more as more years go by (tax burden is highest it's ever been since WWII), where's the motivation for the wealthy to get where they are at now?
The point is that the wealthy are already paying much more than their "fair share". When will you liberals ever concede that the wealthy pay too many taxes? Will you only ever be happy once everybody makes the exact same amount of money? This may be something your parents did or did not tell you when you were growing up, but let me tell you in case you forget or were not told: life is not fair. Some people have advantages. Some people have big headstarts on the food chain. That's just the way it works. You can try to give some folks who have a disadvantage a leg up, but that can only go so far, and then they have to do the rest themselves. You can't cut the wealthy down to middle-class level and call that fair. If people like yourself want that type of system, move to a country that is receptive to those ideals. More power to you if it works for you, no skin off my back. Revoke your citizenship NOW, and don't try to further spoil what this country is supposed to be about. Nothing personal, mind you.
This is basically, a "me too" post, but I have :)
much more to add....
Ah, class warfare.
I think the stats go that folks who make 115K or more are in the top 2% of earners in America. Now, the Democrats class warfare looks even more preposterous when you know that - hint: that's not really that much money, and if you are a struggling small business, the tax break can really help - if they stay in business, a lot of the "poor" will still have jobs instead of standing in unemployment lines.
Re: the death tax:
The folks who are coming out against repealing the death tax are either ignorant of, or do not care, who the death tax really affects, and it is not the folks who have billions. It is the small farm owners. It is the small business owners. So stop the bitching, it's not about GIVING money to anyone, it's about not showing up and STEALING what is already rightfully theirs (and they've already paid taxes on that which is rightfully theirs).
Picture this: your parents die in some horrible accident. As if it's not terrible enough, someone knocks on your door and says, hey, I'm taking up to 55% of your money to give to other people. If that someone was anyone other than an IRS rep, you'd be justified in shooting them, because that is called theft by most people's definition. But it is the gov't, so you have to roll over. Wasn't
oppressive taxes what the Am. Revolution was about in the first place? Let me reiterate: the death tax is taking up to 55% of what has already BEEN TAXED. That's shameful. And you know, I will never be in that position, but I recognize that as wrong. It's not me vs. the rich, because I know the rich provide a lot of benefit without institutionalized stealing and "progressive" taxing. BTW, "progressive" is a liberal's code word for socialism, IMHO.
And all this talk about "creating an aristocracy" is just nonsense. The people coming out against repealing it are probably qualified for an aristocracy anyway, death tax or no (45% of billions still leaves you a billionaire), and don't want the next guy on the totem pole to have a fighting chance - or to teach the unwashed masses to rely on a gov't that will keep them in poverty and in the dark (literally, apparently, in CA).
Democrats shouldn't be lambasting aristocracies anyway; what the heck are the Kennedys if not an aristocracy?
When have we declared war on a country just to do a land/resource grab? If you say Iraq with their oil, wrong...we were asked to be there by those being invaded/about to be invaded. Anyway, are you saying now that USSR has fallen, that we are out of check?
Okay, we did, but we paid for reconstruction in BOTH countries. You conveniently left that part out. And yes, we set up Japan to not allow Japan to have a standing army, but WE are their standing army (and suffer the costs) - and we recognize both countries as sovereign countries. That's not the way the superpowers of the past worked (Roman Empire, English Empire).
Some credit has to be given where it's due, here.
It's easy to bash U.S. (I myself do a lot of it); everything we do is highly scrutinized, etc....but I seriously doubt any other country in our position of power would do a better job.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks. Gosh, I'm so ignorant. Okay, got that over with.
Anyway, to your points: no, the homeless don't just eat burger and drink booze, there are soup kitchens here, as well as other charities. No one is suffering from malnutrition here, that was my point.
And I did not specifically mention Africa, now did I?
And as for you wanting to be a poor person in Africa rather than a homeless person in inner city of U.S., well, to each his own. I don't have stats, but I'd wager that even homeless folks here have a longer life span than the average life span in Africa...of course, I'm sure it depends quite a bit on which country in Africa.
As for reading newspapers, I never read newspapers, serious or otherwise...I don't care much for all the ink stains on my hand, not to mention the waste the paper creates. I do listen to NPR, read news sites, etc. If I *were* to read a paper, it'd probably be the Wall Street Journal, and the African situation probably gets negligible coverage in there.
1. So you are saying I should be a xenophobe towards the people of socialist countries instead of thinking maybe the idealology their country adopted is flawed? That's great. No, what I believe, is that, if say, the US was to become socialist, that we would fail (with the exact same set of people that we have now) just as miserably as USSR has.
2. There has never been a truly communist country. Ever. The largest-scale truly communistic society ever noted was/is some indigenous tribes in Australia.
3. I don't believe in killing someone who disagrees with me on the best way to run economies/governments. So even if you claimed to be a socialist/communist, I wouldn't want to kill you. The best revenge is living well, and that's what capitalism allows us to do in mass quantities.
3.5. Explain how capitalism is parasitic? I really have no clue what you are driving at here, and it really sounds absolutely ludicrous, but I'm willing to read your thoughts on this interesting economic theory.
4. Now, didn't USSR "want" capitalism to fail? Why didn't THAT happen? Surely USSR had/has more resources than we did?
Of all the other socialist nations, why haven't they been able to foil us because of what they "wanted"? Hell, there is people within our country's border that want it fail...so what makes you think that America played anything other than a minor role in the failure of USSR's socialism?
5. Please explain to me EXACTLY how the American economy builds on wars, etc...seems to me that we've been in debt since WWII, and that was something we even only reluctantly entered (after Japan decided to bomb us we really had no choice, now did we?). We ARE remarkably peaceful, you have to admit. We could easily be world dictators, and yet we have not done this. After fall of Japan/Germany, we could have claimed these countries as colonies of US. Would you rather USSR was in our position of world power? Do you think they would really be so benevolent as the U.S. has been? Or China, how about that country as world power - they've shown such civility to Tibet, and all, let's give over the power to them, since U.S. has been so darned evil.
Yes, but those homeless are not starving, are they? In fact, they look better nourished than an average person in any of our favorite third world countries.
I feel sorry for socialist countries, but at least they are learning some lessons, and, I've noticed, cutting back their social programs, and cutting taxes. Maybe they will learn, and more of their populations will actually be able to own houses instead of rent apartments.
Your opinion on whether GWB is smart/skilled/driven is irrelevant. Give me some hard evidence to back up your beliefs. I think there are Texans that would strongly disagree with you. Interestingly enough, Gore didn't win his home state of Tennessee...hmm, maybe they know something the rest of the country was able to figure out, eh? GWB has, what, a masters from Harvard? And bachelor's from Yale? Yeah, he must be a total dumbass slacker. He's not a great speaker like Clinton is, but that's okay, I'm more interested in the policies than the rhetoric anyway...and it gives me a warm and fuzzy to know that the adults are back in the White House again after eight years of amateur hour...even though I voted Libertarian. Besides, GWB has already surrounded himself by folks who are up to the task...and those are the people that are important. The prez is mostly a figurehead - if he is egoless enough to surround himself with competent folks, then that's how the job gets done. Back to your point about the best not rising to top in politics: I actually agree with you that politicians do not represent the best case scenario at all times (example: Clinton, who served two terms when I wouldn't trust him to pump my gas). That's because politics and economics are not the same thing, for one. Also contributing would be the fact that most Americans think there are only two parties, or even if they know about others, they think voting something other than Republican or Democrat is throwing away a vote. This in effect creates a duopoly. And lastly, to avoid a monarchy type of government, there is the limit on the time the prez can serve, being eight years. In the case of Reagan, it would have behooved us to have him for a third or more term, but the law does not allow for that, so we had Bush Senior, the next best choice. Just out of curiousity el_chicano, how old are you? What kind of job do you do? In what country do you live?
Haha. That depends on whether you consider the act of calling someone a "liberal" an attack or not. I don't think it is, since the poster in question was a liberal, and I'm sure he would not take being called a liberal if he was one. If not, then I apologize.
And so, by calling me an asshole, you exclude yourself from any rational discussion taking place here. Thanks for playing as well, el_chicano. Maybe your comments will hold more merit on the playground. Run along now.
BTW: I've read your other comments on other discussions, el_chicano, and now I generally tend to ignore any posts I see from you - except for this one, since you are addressing me directly. Thanks for the laughs.
I'm not contesting your other points, but there is much more to taxation than just income tax. There's social security and medicare being taken out, then there's the state income tax, property tax, death tax, capital gains tax...it's enough to make you ill. I don't know how anyone who is rich can hang on to their money...it must become a full time job hiding your money from the jack-booted members of State. :)
Yes, but WHY is is that foreigners come to America? Could it be, perhaps, just maybe, that we set up a system where they could succeed, and profit from their success? Also, if Americans are such failures, why do so many foreigners come here for their collegiate studies? Hmm?
Name one major software corp that does not have an equal or better competitor within the borders of the United States. SAP, you say? I say Peoplesoft. You can say what you want about Microsoft, Oracle, what have you, but they do well in the markets they are going after, that is undeniable. I'm talking money here, not necessarily quality. And that's what it comes down to. If you make the best product in the world, and your company tanks, what good is that? There are only certain markets where that can succeed (quality over bottom line) and those are the ones in which you can charge much, much more because of demand: example being something like a Mercedes Benz.
I'm not claiming that only the U.S. has smart folks, every country has smart people. But not every country has a system where those smart/skilled/driven people can rise to the top. And yes, capitalism is not perfect, but if you are proposing socialism as the cure for the ills that capitalism might have, you are dead wrong.
And yes, many, many, many breakthroughs/ideas happen in other countries. But America is the best (overall) at harnessing them, repackaging them, making them practical, etc. There are places where we ARE lacking, one of them being mass transit, which is downright pathetic here, and
definitely could use some boosting from breakthroughs elsewhere - like the high speed monorails common in Europe and Japan.
And honestly, since the world, and esp. the US, is moving towards a service-based economy, I could give a rat's ass about the sale of American cars - old-school industry like that we can do without, thanks.
And Bjarne Stroustrup is Scandinavian, I believe. Not sure which country. BTW, he worked with Bell Labs, an American company.
For every example that you have about some niche that foreign companies might have an edge in, I can dig up a counterexample, or a reliance that those companies or individuals might have had with American companies or individuals. For instance, Allen Bradley PLC's are the de facto standard in manufacturing - nothing else comes even close to having the level of trust they have. Now, many robots are run by those, even if the robot is something German like, say, Fanuc.
Stroustrup did C++, but he relied on earlier research in other languages that supported OO, some of the researchers being American. And C itself is from Americans, is it not?
What's my point? My point is that Americans have played and will continue to play a part in being on the forefront of virtually all development of new technology. Maybe it's sour grapes on YOUR part that we have a system (and that system is capitalism) that allows us to have such success. That is not to say other countries don't play a major COLLECTIVE role, but what other SINGLE country can you point to as a catalyst of such change? Germany/Japan might come close, but still no cigar. It's still the U.S., and all your whining will not change that fact.
Re: the pollution bit, check out India/China/Russia/Mexico on that. You might be really surprised at how much they are doing. Esp. for developing nations. Wait until they move into full swing.
1. Ah. The ad hominem attack. A favorite of liberals everywhere.
2. And your italicized and bolded text implies that you'd like to scream your remarks.
Both of which would put you up for disqualification from a rational discussion.
Thanks for playing.
Maybe now you can call me a twit, too.
Uh, I put a lot of stock in science. However, there are scientists that also refute that global warming is occurring, or even that people have more than negligible affect on it even if it is happening. Ie, when a volcano blows its top, it puts out a lot of harmful things, and in some cases, can effectively blot out for large areas...not to mention the damage the ash itself can do. Maybe what we need to do is regulate volcanoes.
How short our collective memory is - wasn't it just 25-30 years ago that we were told that the Earth is cooling off, and we could be entering another Ice Age?
Regarding your facts about U.S. polluting more per capita, is the "per capita" relevant here? In any case, look at the kind of pollution that occurs in Mexico, India, Russia and China, and tell me again that Americans are the worst offenders. There are some absolutely horrible things going on there.
So, America is not a stable country? When's the last time we had a war on our soil? And when did Europe last have war on a majority of its soil? Again, those short collective memories. You do agree that war ranks fairly high on the UNstability chart, do you not?
I do agree with you about the large cars, though - I f***ing HATE SUV's. They are the most idiotic trend to come along in years.
I strongly DISAGREE about your statement about Europe being 50-100 years ahead of the US in the "ethical evolution" of mankind. Ethics is a very slippery subject, and it's really hard to claim that one set of ethics is more "evolved"
than another. Much of Europe seems to believe that redistribution of the wealth is a good thing, and that is something that sticks in the craw of the U.S. For those that like Europe's system (socialism), I suggest you move there, you're not wanted here, esp. if you are trying to effect a change here in the direction of socialism.