I find it funny how every Canadian I've talked to thinks that "Living in America" means "Dodging semi-automatic gunfire so you can jump into your massive SUV".
I guess it's a combination of Canadian media (most media outlets only give out bad news, and when you hear nothing but murder murder murder and you never hear anything positive, it's easy to form a negative opinion) and the fact that every Canadian tourist I've seen wears Canadian symbols all over their body, which is idiotic. Any person with a room temperature IQ will tell you if you travel to another country, try to hide the fact you are a tourist. Tourists get ripped off and tourists get jacked.
Canadian tourists wearing a big red maple leaf on both sides of their shirt would be better off wearing neon crosshairs and a "Tourist carries more than $100 Cash" sign. When they get jacked, they tell their friends.:)
Lived in the US most of my life. Never been mugged or shot. I've been gassed, but that was WTO shit.
Even an HOUR a day isn't close to their league. These are guys who run several hours each and every day, in addition to hitting machines and stuff of that sort. Taking a brisk 5-block morning jog is better than sitting here slashdotting.
Re:sorry people had to bite on this one
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
The fact that you boys are referring to it as "Martial Arts" goes to show that you weren't really into it, or good at it.
Or that we were involved in more than one school of training. Did you consider that?
Please don't fantasize on my watch next time.
Sorry to have wasted your time, Bruce Lee.
Re:Beware the viscious circle.
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
I lived in a small town where jocks were kings...but a new karate place opened up. I was a big fan of Asian stuff, so of course I got signed up for Karate AND Kickboxing. Once word spread that I was in for both and they started seeing I was slimming up and knew how to stop them if they wanted to get physical...they stopped bugging me and wanted to be my friend.:)::evil grin::
Not to take away from your point, but there is something to be said for physical fitness, which is something that, when stretched out over a lifetime, rather than concentrated in someone's first 25 years, can extend someone's lifespan enormously. And that, as well, is extremely valuable.
I'm betting the guy who simply runs every morning is going to last longer than the nerd and the guy who broke every major bone in his body playing football.
Re:For a second there....
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
Don't worry. I thought "Half Mast" was going to be yet another Half-Life mod.
Re:Alex should have just waited
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property
Just the forms that believe it's okay to take from those who achieve and give to those who are not?
The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others.
And the problem with socialist philosophies is that it allows EVERYONE to be trampled over the elite who control the pursestrings (i.e.: The Government). When you rely on government for your livelihood, it's highly unlikely you'll speak out against people who can simply take you from getting money to total poverty.
It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote.
No, it's because the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that a Republican will tell you You're not allowed to do that", whereas a Democrat will say "You're allowed to do that, but not right now".
I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious.
That's alot like saying you're a Pro-Life Abortionist. The concepts are mutually exclusive. How can you be for economic freedom AND for wealth re-distribution?
I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions.
He're the thing though. I simply proposed cutting wasteful programs. I didn't say "let the corporations do what they want". I just said that wealth re-distribution and putting government into where it is naturally inefficient should be stopped. If you're for waste, I'm sorry. But I want government to be accountable for every penny.
Just as much as I want government to ride the asses of corporations, I want them to ride the asses of people who recieve my tax dollars through EIC and Welfare.
You seem to misinterpret my wish for people to stop mischaracterizing all businesses as inherently evil (for every 1 company that heartlessly lays off people, there's at least 10 companies that put employees first) as a wish for all government oversight to end.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how wealth re-distribution helps anyone. Maybe I'm missing something.
I will now engage my standard question: "Why didn't you tell me from the beginning that you are a [Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Other Anti-Capitalist]?" I would've known to simply ignore you as people of your ideology do not believe in the concept of ownership in the first place, thus making logical arguments within the context of ownership ineffective.
It works out better. Avoids wasting your time and my time. I call it the "Your IQ must be this high to debate ColdFusion" system.
You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.
Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses. Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on. What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.
I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support.
You assume I 100% support a man whose theories have been revised and improved. In addition, I don't 100% support one single persons opinions. I'm a hodgepodge of opinions and I overall support libertarianism.
The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.
And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.
How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?
The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.
Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.
From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.
Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government. Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe.
Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm...
Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.
Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes.
I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.
such as what happened with Enron.
Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.
So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company?
I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.
What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.
Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.
It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty? You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?
Drop the newspeak. Or should I say "Jump your cuejuncts for masshappy?"
Yes, capital gains. They have made a profit on their investment, just as if they bought a new car from the factory and sold it at a markup (like a dealer).
Except their profit through the act of investing helped the economy as a whole. Companies and investors don't exist in a vaccuum. When a company in a certain sector comes out with good news, many companies in that sector do fairly good. People buy on the expectation of plenty.
Actually, given the EPS ratio of many stocks, they won't return your investment via dividend within your lifetime.
SOMEONE is getting dividends out there, because there are so many people out there wanting to keep taxes on them. If noone was getting taxed on their dividends, noone would care if the taxes on them were removed.
I probably shouldn't bring up the Earned Income Tax Credit (so I won't). The term "tax break" works either way. Whether it's income -( taxes -break ) or income -taxes +break, it works out the same (except that you could earn more on an investment over time by having more money up front.)
So if someone is paying no taxes (taxes=0%), and you lower taxes for them, then you're talking about socialism. You're giving people money that is taken from others. Do you feel good from stolen money? I couldn't.
You little fool. How much military support do you think we give our Arab allies? Were we not right there when Saddam threatened Kuwait oil? We train, equip, or outright send troops to protect our oil supply. I don't see oil companies paying our goverment for the protection.
What was it you said at the end about running out of logic and resorting to insults? We also protect our allies in the balkans, our Allies in Germany, Japan, Korea...just to name a few. Just because you're hearing about something right now in the middle east, due to tensions in the region, doesn't mean that our military bases in all those countries just suddenly disappear. They are still there. They haven't been evacuated to protect oil fields. They're still crewed and operating at full capacity.
Unfortunately, Detroit Edison's plants are primarily fossil fuel based, but my heat is natural gas. I confess I don't know where the gas is collected. But, FYI, I commute by bicycle year round. The temperature, on my ride in to work yesterday, was -12C.
The heat itself comes from the natural gas, but the distribution system is powered by electricity from Detroid Ed.
We still have cheap gasoline even at $1.90/gallon. Own an SUV? Feeling the pinch?
If you're at Sam's club and you buy in large amounts, you get a discount as compared to your friend buying at a local grocery store. Likewise, if our country buys in large amounts, we get a bulk discount. That's why we expect lower prices. I actually own a Honda Accord. High mileage, low emissions. What do you drive?
I think the government should fund R&D towards those thing. Actually, I think our government should be spending 1000 times current levels on alternative/renewable fuel sources, and fuel conservation technologies. But pouring a ton of money into research with no oversight is a good way to fund inefficiency and fraud.
And that's why we should put it into the private sector, given the US Government's 200-year-old history of inefficiency and fraud. I mean, the government. The same people who brought you no moon landings since the 70's, the same people who promised we'd have colonies in space. The same people who brought you Challenger and Columbia (These space shuttles were declared obsolete in the late 80's by Richard P. Feynman, who said that the equipment on the shuttles were so obsolete that the companies the government used didn't even make it anymore...that was in the 80's). The same government that sent up a multi-million dollar space probe, that they botched because they didn't convert metrics. Yeah, I want these people developing the technology for my car.
Reasonable people don't wish to punish success gained from honest, hard work. Reasonable people want to create opportunity for those with few advantages.
I'd have to say you are not reasonable, seeing as your original post seemed highly vindictive against people who do well. In addition you begrudge the military, an excellent source of employment, housing, job training, and education ($100 a month for 12 months buys you a damn nice education, and it's not that much when they're feeding, clothing, and housing you with starting pay of over $1000 a month).
I'm in an Oracle performance tuning class at the moment
You must have no concept of how rich you're going to be after you become extremely proficient at Oracle, because your taxation idea will directly be targeting the group that you will most likely join...unless you plan to never take raises or jobs that pay better.
As far as I understand, your dad would only be paying higher taxes on the 5% raise. If that isn't the system, then the system is braindead. That does not invalidate the general goal of a progressive tax system.
Nope, while that may have been the intent of the people who first implemented it, once you have a raise that bumps you into the next tax bracket up, all of your income becomes taxed at that rate. So a "small" raise effectively becomes a pay cut.
I don't know any rich people saying, "Boy, it sure sucks to be rich." I also don't know any poor people saying, "Boy, I'd be rich, but they pay too much taxes. No money for me, thanks." Decreasing taxes does not amount to a reward. Decreasing payroll taxes will encourage no one to be poor.
Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.
I, as a liberal, will be happy to begin discussing the removal of the social safety net after corporate welfare is long, long gone.
I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.
"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.
I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion. Here's a list of things I support:
1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers. 2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.
3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.
Sorry about the Journal mix-up. I thought I enabled it, but I suppose I should double-check it in the future.
Parsec's point about payroll taxes makes sense, because higher demand could be achieved by putting cash in the hands of poor people. For the immediate future, trickle up economics might do the most good. He didn't say it was the most ethical, he was simply suggesting that it would be effective. You leap to conclusions about his morality.
Unfortunately, the idea of giving poor people money is that you're rewarding a lack of success. If you tell people through your actions, "As long as you make bad decisions, we'll give you more money", they'll make worse decisions. For me, being in a situation where I struggled to pay bills was a learning experience. I learned that every ethical opportunity to get myself out of that situation should be used. And I'm entering the Air Force in September. The military is an example of an opportunity available to people. It's not for everyone, but for those out there who are willing to be disciplined and work hard in exchange for money and education, it can provide a springboard to a better future. And the great thing is that most positions in the military aren't combat-related. For example, I'm going in to be a weatherman.
Likewise, if you choose to continue down the same path that has given you little success, you shouldn't wish to tax those of us in the world who decided to aim for success.
Anyway. Yes, capital gains taxation was a bad plan. We need more responsible ways to generate tax revenue. No, I don't think that means a 20% sales tax.
Name a way that creates tax revenue without punishing success, that is fair on all levels of society, and doesn't piss off other countries (Tariffs). I challenge you.
I think my Sales Tax idea works best, because it doesn't tax money that would go for people to exist on, but rather money spent on things like 400W Amps, those expensive business perks that Parsec complained about, and expensive after-market car upgrades that annoy everyone (those headlights the create massive glare, annoying ricecar muffler noisemakers, and huge spoilers).
And the 20% wasn't the actual figure, it's just a number near reasonable.
I want to thank you for taking the time to respond, however. That's how GOOD ideas happen, is you take an "okay" idea, and you get people together to figure out how to make it better...rather than simply deciding to jack up taxes on the people who contribute the most to the economy.
I WAS going to give mod points out on this topic, but this shit pisses me off so damn much that I've decided to save them for a rainy day. (To all those who would be recieving mod points for this story, I'm sorry. Blame Parsec.)
Anyway, let's go step-by-step.
I wonder where you get that data. Doing the math on the tables in this IRS PDF [irs.gov] (page 17) strongly suggests that the top 5% earn well over $100,000 a year. The AGI minus deficit of $75,000 and up constituted 15%. Tax returns with an AGI of $50,000 up made it into the top 28.23%.
This one is fun as it's a multi-parter. Like thos really bad Star Trek episodes, only less enjoyable. AGI? ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME? I don't even know why AGI is even being considered by you after the fact that Turkey brought up cost of living. AGI is "Income (including wages, interest, capital gains, income from retirement accounts, alimony paid to you) adjusted downward by specific deductions (including contributions to deductible retirement accounts, alimony paid by you); but not including standard and itemized deductions." There's no adjustment taken for a man who lives in DC in a $600/month Apartment (Living near DC, I can say that $600/month will barely get you a crappy apartment). There's no adjustment for 2 kids and a wife trying to finish up her college education. There's no adjustment for food or transportation costs. There's no adjustments for repairs on anything they have that they own. Even if they have a regular house in the suburbs, the $4100/month (BEFORE Taxes) would chop off AT LEAST $2000 right off the top. Car payments not included. Insurance payments. Hell no. So, what you're saying here is that we should judge a persons living situation on their pre-tax income, but not the location of their living? Sounds great to me.
While no return category earning over $500,000 paid more than 7.6% on average. I wonder how they managed that?
People with money invest it. No, that doesn't mean they shove it in a mattress and sleep on it for 20 years. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's been all socked away in a airtight bank account. It generally means that the money they have laying around after living expenses and the little frills that make life worth living (for me, it's hardware upgrades and trips to the local DDR machine) goes straight into....THE STOCK MARKET! Yes, that big place with the loud bell that tells most people whether or not they'll have a job.
Invested money doesn't get taxed until it's pulled out, or until dividends are paid (and then they are taxed twice).
Tax breaks for the rich = more buying stuff = more jobs = more money for the poor. Bogus! Try the opposite: tax breaks for the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money (see social science studies and basic costs of living challenges) = more buying = more jobs = more money for the poor. Those who already have all their needs of life met save a greater percentage of their income (take it out of circulation), they don't spend (circulate) it. How many people earning less than $30,000/yr do you know who have any decent life savings?
Here's an economics lesson I learned while in my first few jobs in the real world. Except for one job at a commission joint, I never had a coworker tell me "Goddamn it, my taxes are too high. I'm not getting a return this year". These were all people making less than $30,000 a year, for the most part. Instead, they were saying "Ah, it's so cool to get all my tax money back this year." Why?! Oh, yeah, while money is withheld from the check (a holdover from WW2, it wasn't always this way), for those in the lowest percentage of earners, no taxes are actually paid as the money is returned (excepting Social Security and medicare).
A "tax break" is generally reserved for when you are PAYING money to the government, not getting it returned.
Depends on your definition of government services. If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc.. This [ctj.org] is an interesting document. Besides, those filthy poor people can pay for their own damn food and medicine... I'm trying to save up for my third Rolls Royce!
Here's something funny for you. Most of the oil we get doesn't come from our country drilling it, and we don't directly fund any oil drilling in other countries. We buy oil from other countries. Before I want to hear any criticism from you, I want you to turn off ALL heat, ALL electricity (including computer), and walk EVERYWHERE you go for ONE WEEK. THEN, I want to hear you talk about how life is better without oil.
But wait! There's more! You'll complain about the costs of gas for your car! But then again, you're against letting companies slide if they work their R&D towards something in the national interests. So, the gas prices increase while companies like BP and Honda continue their research into alternate fuel sources.
But wait, you want the alternate fuels NOW and no more oil! And you blame the government...but then again, you're against the government giving grants to researchers who have made your life more easy than it would've been. What the fuck do you think helped make that computer affordable and simple to use? Oh, yeah, it was government grants given to companies like Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and Intel.
My stepfather is a doctor. He works hard for what is very little pay considering the circumstances (10-hour days and 24-hour on call. Imagine if your boss could call you at 2am, tell you to come in...and if you make a mistake because you're tired, you get sued), and he does it for the government to provide healthcare for people with developmental disabilities. Next-to-free care, I might add. (They ask the parents of the people for money, but if the guys have no parents, there's no charge). Of course, you think he's evil, because he is technically "rich" (even though the debts incurred while moving to the new hospital and from a previous marriage (doctors have the highest divorce and suicide rate of any profession, BTW).
Here's what I ask you to consider right now.
If you don't learn one thing from me, I want you to learn this:
IF YOU PUNISH THOSE WHO SUCCEED AND REWARD THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED, YOU CREATE A SOCIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT SUCCEED
It's simple logic. If you make it too expensive to do well, people won't do well. My father came from the backwoods of Kentucky, joined the Army and used all the resources at hand, worked hard, and made something of himself. He's now fairly well paid as the Network Manager of a mid-size hospital in suburban DC. If he were to be offered a Raise of 5% because he saved them $20 million (the savings are most often passed on to the patients who can afford it least, just so you know), he'd have to turn it down, because the raise would put him in a higher tax bracket, and would effectively make his raise turn into a salary cut. Isn't that sad? That a man would have to turn down money that could go towards his retirement after 20 years of service to his country and after saving money for the state and the people who need healthcare, all because you think he's evil?
You sir, are a cad, if you think that working hard and making yourself into a success is evil. You have no morality, if you think that my little sister (Age 2) should grow up in a house of uncertainty because of your communist avarice. And you sir, are an asshole, if you want to take my future from me, as I myself plan on joining the Air Force to make something of myself and hopefully make my way to the top 10%. You sir, are a grassfucker, if you want to pull everyone else down, just because it's too much work to pick yourself up.
Like I said, I upgrade everything else before I upgrade the card. But the bulk-cost discount helps more than you think. It's not $50, it's usually $100 for high-end hardware.
That's buying next-generation at last-generation prices.
CC companies are constantly scanning there databases for "weird" purchases. Like buying gas in NYC at the same time as buying a DVD player in SF.
My dad and stepmom have a shared CC#. Last month, my dad went to San Diego on business, and she stayed home. If she went to Giant at the same time he was getting his rental car gassed up, that'd suck if they termed the card.
When you mentioned your religion I said religion was irrelevent.
You also said that my religion shouldn't be the basis for law. Now you change it to my opinion. After your assumptions have been denied. Just as your assumption that all filters are rock-solid, lack the capability of being temporaily disabled, and block words like "breast" without context.
Hiding your love for female and child exploitation behind a veil of compassion is sick at best and indicitive of a psychotic personality at worst.
I saw your point, and you know what? I have no more right to counter your pro-porn industry comment than you have to counter a person who would like to put pro-cigarette ads inside a school. The moment you say it's cool to give kids porn as long as the parents are lazy, you lose all ethical credibility. It's like saying that it's okay to beat kids to a bloody pulp if the parents are assholes. It's like saying that it's okay to rape a kid, as long as the parents have too much sexual frustration.
Hopefully you won't agree with those last two statements, but knowing your past few posts, you probably will agree with the "parental right to rape and abuse" just to prop yourself up. Either that, or you'll ignore it.
Your religion is irrelevant. Religion is an invalid justification for US law.
You're assuming that believing that the promotion of exploiting women and children for the purpose of creating degrading and disgusting filth such as, again, scat and bestiality porn is somehow linked to a religious belief of some kind.
And just in case breast cancer doesn't "hit home" because you're a man, note that 1 out of every 200 cases of breast cancer is in men. Just try to imagine the stygma of being a man with breast cancer!
Yes, and in addition to that, there's risk factors I have for Heart Disease, Pancreatic cancer, Lung Cancer, Type 2 Diabetes, and Prostate cancer. Not to mention that I am going slowly deaf and blind due to staring at computer screens and listening to the pulsing musical styles of Duel Jewel and Mitchell Akiyama.
Look, I've come to the conclusion that you are impervious to all discussion, as the abstract concepts of analogies, redirects and rebuttals are not in your lexicon or in your posting behavior.
You mentioned a link between all Christians hating Harry Potter, so aside from the original topic, I wanted to straighten it out that that was technically not true. It's an easy assumption that many people come to because the loudest and stupidest christians are anti-Harry Potter. Similarly, for most people, nudism is seen as bad. I don't see it as bad, but most people think people are in it for the sex. I know better, but if you were to correct me, I wouldn't go nuts accusing you of being a nudist nazi. Don't take a clarification of an incorrect analogy as the will to impose any dogma upon you, especially given that you probably couldn't guess my religion with 5 tries.
I also made the point that there are certain things that most people agree on. There has to be. I mean, just because someone thinks it's okay to start picking people off with an AR-15 doesn't make it so according to most people. Similarly, most people think that kids shouldn't be exposed to certain things until they have reached a level of maturity to handle it. You can be different and hold different opinions, and that's cool. But when you start accusing me of being a prudish dogmatic puritan nazi because I think that 7 year olds checking out scat porn is something that should be avoided, you really hurt your credibility.
You never did rebut my comment on better filters. I guess you found it to make sense so it wasn't worth including in your mindless trolling.
Now, you said, "BRCA1 gene carries a breast cancer risk of over 90%!". I have a simple, innocent question. How do you expect a person who doesn't have a home computer/internet connection to get their hands on genetic screening. I have a cutting-edge computer with a cable modem and I don't know if I have that gene or any of the other billion genes out there. All I know is that I'm a white male with brown hair, green eyes and chronic bronchitis. I didn't mean this question to be facetious, but I would really like to know, because I need to get some access over here.
"Enviornmental factors are more complex and some studies can come to different conclusions."
Understatement. There are literally billions of factors that may create chaotic differences that, to the naked eye, looking at a graph, may appear to be a correlation. I mean, there are obvious environmental factors for many diseases like smoking, being overweight, or exposure to radioactive material, those are fairly univeral. But specific and random factors like the amount of apples eaten over a given period of time or exposure to specific forms of light, may have differences with a wide spectrum of metabolisms, genetics, skin pigmentation, body chemistry factors, and effects of current or previous diet trends. Environmental studies, in order to be worthwhile, at least in my worthless (in your opinion) opinion, should fit three characteristics:
1) Control- There should be a heavy amount of control dealing with those factors above. If the genetic screening is available, people grouped together for a study should have at least somewhat similar genetic makeups, metabolism, and body chemistry. The groups should then be checked against each other with comparisons. If there is a correlation in all groups, then you may have something.
2) Duration- The duration should be longer than a year, and definately longer than a few months. The duration of the study should include at least a one-or-two month preparation phase where any thing that may create serious problems. Like a person on a diet of Ramen noodles and coke will likely behave differently, examination-wise, than a person on a diet of wine and fresh Chilean Sea Bass.
3) Frequency- One thing that gets me is that the first series is always published, even if the study conditions have not been repeated and verified. Before being published, it should have gone to trial twice, or at least been in two separate trials, not having to be one after the other. They could be simultaneous, but there has to be a repeatability, otherwise, anything dealing with the publishing of an unrepeated trial is suspect at best, and unethical and scientific at worst.
Odds are you're going to find some random misunderstood phrase, word, or comment and use it to attack me personally as some evil bible thumper, so I'm not expecting much. But I do like surprises.
What the hell are you babbling about? I say there's valuable information on the internet that you can't get in a book and you start babbling about gibbous moons?
I'm talking about the fact that every month, researchers find something that increases your chance of getting X disease. The next month, the researchers refute the previous month's findings and state that something else leads to the disease. Then next month, they refute that, blame something else and the cycle continues.
Many patient support groups simply could not exist without the internet. We don't need some idiot filter blocking a patient support chat room when anyone mentions breast cancer.
Then urge your local library to choose a different filter. The one at my local library has a double-check system. A filter with a blacklist of "untrusted" sites as well as a system with a "IF [suspicious word like "breast"] is found, disallow if not followed by [innocent noun like "cancer"]" system. It's fairly accurate most of the time, but when it's not, I get a librarian who has a program that lets her temporarily disable the blocking, and if it's encountered enough, she can add it to an automatic whitelist. It sounds complex, but it really isn't. Fairly simple concept.
Hell, forget *my* local community, some families live in nudist communities. Families with young children. And THEY think it's perfectly fine for their children to be "exposed to nudity".
Yes, but these filters generally don't block "nudity". They block wanton sex acts. I mean, if you think it's cool for a 7 year old to be at "hardcorescatandbestialitypr0n.com", then cool for you, but most people don't.
Of course you think there's a consensus among "responsible adults" - anyone who dissagrees with you obviously isn't a "responsible adult" LOL! I'm no nudist, but if you say nudists aren't "responsible adults" I'll laugh in your face.
Again, most people believe that kids shouldn't go to goatse.cx and bukakkeworldforj00.com
Maybe your definition of "pornography" is people walking around naked, but when I think of pornography, I think of shit like Hustler magazine. I don't see Michaelangelo's David as porn. I see scat, BDSM, bestiality, and all that other retarded shit. And I don't think it's a good idea to have kids checkin' it out.
And as far as I can tell every condemnation of the Harry Potter books did in fact come from catholic churches.
For all the attention you pay to breast cancer, you think you'd have seen this on the news somewhere: http://film.guardian.co.uk/harrypotter/news/0,10 608,888674,00.html
I hope someone told you that the Columbia had an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
I really wish I had more mod points. ::Sighs::
:)
I find it funny how every Canadian I've talked to thinks that "Living in America" means "Dodging semi-automatic gunfire so you can jump into your massive SUV".
I guess it's a combination of Canadian media (most media outlets only give out bad news, and when you hear nothing but murder murder murder and you never hear anything positive, it's easy to form a negative opinion) and the fact that every Canadian tourist I've seen wears Canadian symbols all over their body, which is idiotic. Any person with a room temperature IQ will tell you if you travel to another country, try to hide the fact you are a tourist. Tourists get ripped off and tourists get jacked.
Canadian tourists wearing a big red maple leaf on both sides of their shirt would be better off wearing neon crosshairs and a "Tourist carries more than $100 Cash" sign. When they get jacked, they tell their friends.
Lived in the US most of my life. Never been mugged or shot. I've been gassed, but that was WTO shit.
Screw Bandwidth! ::presses button::
Sexy female voice: "Chronosphere activated".
...you may like seeing them replace the dog with Ein from Cowboy Bebop! :)
Plucky little corgi w/ l33t h4x0r sk1llz.
Even an HOUR a day isn't close to their league. These are guys who run several hours each and every day, in addition to hitting machines and stuff of that sort. Taking a brisk 5-block morning jog is better than sitting here slashdotting.
The fact that you boys are referring to it as "Martial Arts" goes to show that you weren't really into it, or good at it.
Or that we were involved in more than one school of training. Did you consider that?
Please don't fantasize on my watch next time.
Sorry to have wasted your time, Bruce Lee.
I lived in a small town where jocks were kings...but a new karate place opened up. I was a big fan of Asian stuff, so of course I got signed up for Karate AND Kickboxing. Once word spread that I was in for both and they started seeing I was slimming up and knew how to stop them if they wanted to get physical...they stopped bugging me and wanted to be my friend. :) ::evil grin::
Not to take away from your point, but there is something to be said for physical fitness, which is something that, when stretched out over a lifetime, rather than concentrated in someone's first 25 years, can extend someone's lifespan enormously. And that, as well, is extremely valuable.
I'm betting the guy who simply runs every morning is going to last longer than the nerd and the guy who broke every major bone in his body playing football.
Don't worry. I thought "Half Mast" was going to be yet another Half-Life mod.
Dammit! Where are all my mod points!?
you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property
Just the forms that believe it's okay to take from those who achieve and give to those who are not?
The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others.
And the problem with socialist philosophies is that it allows EVERYONE to be trampled over the elite who control the pursestrings (i.e.: The Government). When you rely on government for your livelihood, it's highly unlikely you'll speak out against people who can simply take you from getting money to total poverty.
It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote.
No, it's because the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that a Republican will tell you You're not allowed to do that", whereas a Democrat will say "You're allowed to do that, but not right now".
I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious.
That's alot like saying you're a Pro-Life Abortionist. The concepts are mutually exclusive. How can you be for economic freedom AND for wealth re-distribution?
I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions.
He're the thing though. I simply proposed cutting wasteful programs. I didn't say "let the corporations do what they want". I just said that wealth re-distribution and putting government into where it is naturally inefficient should be stopped. If you're for waste, I'm sorry. But I want government to be accountable for every penny.
Just as much as I want government to ride the asses of corporations, I want them to ride the asses of people who recieve my tax dollars through EIC and Welfare.
You seem to misinterpret my wish for people to stop mischaracterizing all businesses as inherently evil (for every 1 company that heartlessly lays off people, there's at least 10 companies that put employees first) as a wish for all government oversight to end.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how wealth re-distribution helps anyone. Maybe I'm missing something.
I will now engage my standard question: "Why didn't you tell me from the beginning that you are a [Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Other Anti-Capitalist]?" I would've known to simply ignore you as people of your ideology do not believe in the concept of ownership in the first place, thus making logical arguments within the context of ownership ineffective.
It works out better. Avoids wasting your time and my time. I call it the "Your IQ must be this high to debate ColdFusion" system.
You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.
Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses. Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on. What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.
I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support.
You assume I 100% support a man whose theories have been revised and improved. In addition, I don't 100% support one single persons opinions. I'm a hodgepodge of opinions and I overall support libertarianism.
The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.
And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.
How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?
The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.
Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.
From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.
Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government. Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe.
Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm...
Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.
Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes.
I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.
such as what happened with Enron.
Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.
So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company?
I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.
What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.
Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.
It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.
You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty? You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?
Drop the newspeak. Or should I say "Jump your cuejuncts for masshappy?"
No shit, you got better data?
Real world apartment hunting is the best data.
Yes, capital gains. They have made a profit on their investment, just as if they bought a new car from the factory and sold it at a markup (like a dealer).
Except their profit through the act of investing helped the economy as a whole. Companies and investors don't exist in a vaccuum. When a company in a certain sector comes out with good news, many companies in that sector do fairly good. People buy on the expectation of plenty.
Actually, given the EPS ratio of many stocks, they won't return your investment via dividend within your lifetime.
SOMEONE is getting dividends out there, because there are so many people out there wanting to keep taxes on them. If noone was getting taxed on their dividends, noone would care if the taxes on them were removed.
I probably shouldn't bring up the Earned Income Tax Credit (so I won't). The term "tax break" works either way. Whether it's income -( taxes -break ) or income -taxes +break, it works out the same (except that you could earn more on an investment over time by having more money up front.)
So if someone is paying no taxes (taxes=0%), and you lower taxes for them, then you're talking about socialism. You're giving people money that is taken from others. Do you feel good from stolen money? I couldn't.
You little fool. How much military support do you think we give our Arab allies? Were we not right there when Saddam threatened Kuwait oil? We train, equip, or outright send troops to protect our oil supply. I don't see oil companies paying our goverment for the protection.
What was it you said at the end about running out of logic and resorting to insults? We also protect our allies in the balkans, our Allies in Germany, Japan, Korea...just to name a few. Just because you're hearing about something right now in the middle east, due to tensions in the region, doesn't mean that our military bases in all those countries just suddenly disappear. They are still there. They haven't been evacuated to protect oil fields. They're still crewed and operating at full capacity.
Unfortunately, Detroit Edison's plants are primarily fossil fuel based, but my heat is natural gas. I confess I don't know where the gas is collected. But, FYI, I commute by bicycle year round. The temperature, on my ride in to work yesterday, was -12C.
The heat itself comes from the natural gas, but the distribution system is powered by electricity from Detroid Ed.
We still have cheap gasoline even at $1.90/gallon. Own an SUV? Feeling the pinch?
If you're at Sam's club and you buy in large amounts, you get a discount as compared to your friend buying at a local grocery store. Likewise, if our country buys in large amounts, we get a bulk discount. That's why we expect lower prices. I actually own a Honda Accord. High mileage, low emissions. What do you drive?
I think the government should fund R&D towards those thing. Actually, I think our government should be spending 1000 times current levels on alternative/renewable fuel sources, and fuel conservation technologies. But pouring a ton of money into research with no oversight is a good way to fund inefficiency and fraud.
And that's why we should put it into the private sector, given the US Government's 200-year-old history of inefficiency and fraud. I mean, the government. The same people who brought you no moon landings since the 70's, the same people who promised we'd have colonies in space. The same people who brought you Challenger and Columbia (These space shuttles were declared obsolete in the late 80's by Richard P. Feynman, who said that the equipment on the shuttles were so obsolete that the companies the government used didn't even make it anymore...that was in the 80's). The same government that sent up a multi-million dollar space probe, that they botched because they didn't convert metrics. Yeah, I want these people developing the technology for my car.
Reasonable people don't wish to punish success gained from honest, hard work. Reasonable people want to create opportunity for those with few advantages.
I'd have to say you are not reasonable, seeing as your original post seemed highly vindictive against people who do well. In addition you begrudge the military, an excellent source of employment, housing, job training, and education ($100 a month for 12 months buys you a damn nice education, and it's not that much when they're feeding, clothing, and housing you with starting pay of over $1000 a month).
I'm in an Oracle performance tuning class at the moment
You must have no concept of how rich you're going to be after you become extremely proficient at Oracle, because your taxation idea will directly be targeting the group that you will most likely join...unless you plan to never take raises or jobs that pay better.
As far as I understand, your dad would only be paying higher taxes on the 5% raise. If that isn't the system, then the system is braindead. That does not invalidate the general goal of a progressive tax system.
Nope, while that may have been the intent of the people who first implemented it, once you have a raise that bumps you into the next tax bracket up, all of your income becomes taxed at that rate. So a "small" raise effectively becomes a pay cut.
I don't know any rich people saying, "Boy, it sure sucks to be rich." I also don't know any poor people saying, "Boy, I'd be rich, but they pay too much taxes. No money for me, thanks." Decreasing taxes does not amount to a reward. Decreasing payroll taxes will encourage no one to be poor.
Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.
I, as a liberal, will be happy to begin discussing the removal of the social safety net after corporate welfare is long, long gone.
I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.
"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.
I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion. Here's a list of things I support:
1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.
2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.
3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.
Sorry about the Journal mix-up. I thought I enabled it, but I suppose I should double-check it in the future.
Parsec's point about payroll taxes makes sense, because higher demand could be achieved by putting cash in the hands of poor people. For the immediate future, trickle up economics might do the most good. He didn't say it was the most ethical, he was simply suggesting that it would be effective. You leap to conclusions about his morality.
Unfortunately, the idea of giving poor people money is that you're rewarding a lack of success. If you tell people through your actions, "As long as you make bad decisions, we'll give you more money", they'll make worse decisions. For me, being in a situation where I struggled to pay bills was a learning experience. I learned that every ethical opportunity to get myself out of that situation should be used. And I'm entering the Air Force in September. The military is an example of an opportunity available to people. It's not for everyone, but for those out there who are willing to be disciplined and work hard in exchange for money and education, it can provide a springboard to a better future. And the great thing is that most positions in the military aren't combat-related. For example, I'm going in to be a weatherman.
Likewise, if you choose to continue down the same path that has given you little success, you shouldn't wish to tax those of us in the world who decided to aim for success.
Anyway. Yes, capital gains taxation was a bad plan. We need more responsible ways to generate tax revenue. No, I don't think that means a 20% sales tax.
Name a way that creates tax revenue without punishing success, that is fair on all levels of society, and doesn't piss off other countries (Tariffs). I challenge you.
I think my Sales Tax idea works best, because it doesn't tax money that would go for people to exist on, but rather money spent on things like 400W Amps, those expensive business perks that Parsec complained about, and expensive after-market car upgrades that annoy everyone (those headlights the create massive glare, annoying ricecar muffler noisemakers, and huge spoilers).
And the 20% wasn't the actual figure, it's just a number near reasonable.
I want to thank you for taking the time to respond, however. That's how GOOD ideas happen, is you take an "okay" idea, and you get people together to figure out how to make it better...rather than simply deciding to jack up taxes on the people who contribute the most to the economy.
If you liked that, check my journal. Feel free to post comments.
http://slashdot.org/~C0LDFusion/journal/25365
I WAS going to give mod points out on this topic, but this shit pisses me off so damn much that I've decided to save them for a rainy day. (To all those who would be recieving mod points for this story, I'm sorry. Blame Parsec.)
Anyway, let's go step-by-step.
I wonder where you get that data. Doing the math on the tables in this IRS PDF [irs.gov] (page 17) strongly suggests that the top 5% earn well over $100,000 a year. The AGI minus deficit of $75,000 and up constituted 15%. Tax returns with an AGI of $50,000 up made it into the top 28.23%.
This one is fun as it's a multi-parter. Like thos really bad Star Trek episodes, only less enjoyable. AGI? ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME? I don't even know why AGI is even being considered by you after the fact that Turkey brought up cost of living. AGI is "Income (including wages, interest, capital gains, income from retirement accounts, alimony paid to you) adjusted downward by specific deductions (including contributions to deductible retirement accounts, alimony paid by you); but not including standard and itemized deductions." There's no adjustment taken for a man who lives in DC in a $600/month Apartment (Living near DC, I can say that $600/month will barely get you a crappy apartment). There's no adjustment for 2 kids and a wife trying to finish up her college education. There's no adjustment for food or transportation costs. There's no adjustments for repairs on anything they have that they own. Even if they have a regular house in the suburbs, the $4100/month (BEFORE Taxes) would chop off AT LEAST $2000 right off the top. Car payments not included. Insurance payments. Hell no. So, what you're saying here is that we should judge a persons living situation on their pre-tax income, but not the location of their living? Sounds great to me.
While no return category earning over $500,000 paid more than 7.6% on average. I wonder how they managed that?
People with money invest it. No, that doesn't mean they shove it in a mattress and sleep on it for 20 years. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's been all socked away in a airtight bank account. It generally means that the money they have laying around after living expenses and the little frills that make life worth living (for me, it's hardware upgrades and trips to the local DDR machine) goes straight into....THE STOCK MARKET! Yes, that big place with the loud bell that tells most people whether or not they'll have a job.
Invested money doesn't get taxed until it's pulled out, or until dividends are paid (and then they are taxed twice).
Tax breaks for the rich = more buying stuff = more jobs = more money for the poor. Bogus! Try the opposite: tax breaks for the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money (see social science studies and basic costs of living challenges) = more buying = more jobs = more money for the poor. Those who already have all their needs of life met save a greater percentage of their income (take it out of circulation), they don't spend (circulate) it. How many people earning less than $30,000/yr do you know who have any decent life savings?
Here's an economics lesson I learned while in my first few jobs in the real world. Except for one job at a commission joint, I never had a coworker tell me "Goddamn it, my taxes are too high. I'm not getting a return this year". These were all people making less than $30,000 a year, for the most part. Instead, they were saying "Ah, it's so cool to get all my tax money back this year." Why?! Oh, yeah, while money is withheld from the check (a holdover from WW2, it wasn't always this way), for those in the lowest percentage of earners, no taxes are actually paid as the money is returned (excepting Social Security and medicare).
A "tax break" is generally reserved for when you are PAYING money to the government, not getting it returned.
Depends on your definition of government services. If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc.. This [ctj.org] is an interesting document. Besides, those filthy poor people can pay for their own damn food and medicine... I'm trying to save up for my third Rolls Royce!
Here's something funny for you. Most of the oil we get doesn't come from our country drilling it, and we don't directly fund any oil drilling in other countries. We buy oil from other countries. Before I want to hear any criticism from you, I want you to turn off ALL heat, ALL electricity (including computer), and walk EVERYWHERE you go for ONE WEEK. THEN, I want to hear you talk about how life is better without oil.
But wait! There's more! You'll complain about the costs of gas for your car! But then again, you're against letting companies slide if they work their R&D towards something in the national interests. So, the gas prices increase while companies like BP and Honda continue their research into alternate fuel sources.
But wait, you want the alternate fuels NOW and no more oil! And you blame the government...but then again, you're against the government giving grants to researchers who have made your life more easy than it would've been. What the fuck do you think helped make that computer affordable and simple to use? Oh, yeah, it was government grants given to companies like Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and Intel.
My stepfather is a doctor. He works hard for what is very little pay considering the circumstances (10-hour days and 24-hour on call. Imagine if your boss could call you at 2am, tell you to come in...and if you make a mistake because you're tired, you get sued), and he does it for the government to provide healthcare for people with developmental disabilities. Next-to-free care, I might add. (They ask the parents of the people for money, but if the guys have no parents, there's no charge). Of course, you think he's evil, because he is technically "rich" (even though the debts incurred while moving to the new hospital and from a previous marriage (doctors have the highest divorce and suicide rate of any profession, BTW).
Here's what I ask you to consider right now.
If you don't learn one thing from me, I want you to learn this:
IF YOU PUNISH THOSE WHO SUCCEED AND REWARD THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED, YOU CREATE A SOCIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT SUCCEED
It's simple logic. If you make it too expensive to do well, people won't do well. My father came from the backwoods of Kentucky, joined the Army and used all the resources at hand, worked hard, and made something of himself. He's now fairly well paid as the Network Manager of a mid-size hospital in suburban DC. If he were to be offered a Raise of 5% because he saved them $20 million (the savings are most often passed on to the patients who can afford it least, just so you know), he'd have to turn it down, because the raise would put him in a higher tax bracket, and would effectively make his raise turn into a salary cut. Isn't that sad? That a man would have to turn down money that could go towards his retirement after 20 years of service to his country and after saving money for the state and the people who need healthcare, all because you think he's evil?
You sir, are a cad, if you think that working hard and making yourself into a success is evil. You have no morality, if you think that my little sister (Age 2) should grow up in a house of uncertainty because of your communist avarice. And you sir, are an asshole, if you want to take my future from me, as I myself plan on joining the Air Force to make something of myself and hopefully make my way to the top 10%. You sir, are a grassfucker, if you want to pull everyone else down, just because it's too much work to pick yourself up.
Like I said, I upgrade everything else before I upgrade the card. But the bulk-cost discount helps more than you think. It's not $50, it's usually $100 for high-end hardware.
That's buying next-generation at last-generation prices.
$459 is the RETAIL price.
Like any REAL serious hardcore gamer, I have connections that allow me to purchase hardware at bulk-cost discount.
Of course, I'm upgrading my CPU to the 2 Ghz range before I upgrade my GeForce4.
CC companies are constantly scanning there databases for "weird" purchases. Like buying gas in NYC at the same time as buying a DVD player in SF.
My dad and stepmom have a shared CC#. Last month, my dad went to San Diego on business, and she stayed home. If she went to Giant at the same time he was getting his rental car gassed up, that'd suck if they termed the card.
When you mentioned your religion I said religion was irrelevent.
You also said that my religion shouldn't be the basis for law. Now you change it to my opinion. After your assumptions have been denied. Just as your assumption that all filters are rock-solid, lack the capability of being temporaily disabled, and block words like "breast" without context.
Hiding your love for female and child exploitation behind a veil of compassion is sick at best and indicitive of a psychotic personality at worst.
I saw your point, and you know what? I have no more right to counter your pro-porn industry comment than you have to counter a person who would like to put pro-cigarette ads inside a school. The moment you say it's cool to give kids porn as long as the parents are lazy, you lose all ethical credibility. It's like saying that it's okay to beat kids to a bloody pulp if the parents are assholes. It's like saying that it's okay to rape a kid, as long as the parents have too much sexual frustration.
Hopefully you won't agree with those last two statements, but knowing your past few posts, you probably will agree with the "parental right to rape and abuse" just to prop yourself up. Either that, or you'll ignore it.
Your religion is irrelevant. Religion is an invalid justification for US law.
You're assuming that believing that the promotion of exploiting women and children for the purpose of creating degrading and disgusting filth such as, again, scat and bestiality porn is somehow linked to a religious belief of some kind.
And just in case breast cancer doesn't "hit home" because you're a man, note that 1 out of every 200 cases of breast cancer is in men. Just try to imagine the stygma of being a man with breast cancer!
Yes, and in addition to that, there's risk factors I have for Heart Disease, Pancreatic cancer, Lung Cancer, Type 2 Diabetes, and Prostate cancer. Not to mention that I am going slowly deaf and blind due to staring at computer screens and listening to the pulsing musical styles of Duel Jewel and Mitchell Akiyama.
Anyway, have fun.
Look, I've come to the conclusion that you are impervious to all discussion, as the abstract concepts of analogies, redirects and rebuttals are not in your lexicon or in your posting behavior.
You mentioned a link between all Christians hating Harry Potter, so aside from the original topic, I wanted to straighten it out that that was technically not true. It's an easy assumption that many people come to because the loudest and stupidest christians are anti-Harry Potter. Similarly, for most people, nudism is seen as bad. I don't see it as bad, but most people think people are in it for the sex. I know better, but if you were to correct me, I wouldn't go nuts accusing you of being a nudist nazi. Don't take a clarification of an incorrect analogy as the will to impose any dogma upon you, especially given that you probably couldn't guess my religion with 5 tries.
I also made the point that there are certain things that most people agree on. There has to be. I mean, just because someone thinks it's okay to start picking people off with an AR-15 doesn't make it so according to most people. Similarly, most people think that kids shouldn't be exposed to certain things until they have reached a level of maturity to handle it. You can be different and hold different opinions, and that's cool. But when you start accusing me of being a prudish dogmatic puritan nazi because I think that 7 year olds checking out scat porn is something that should be avoided, you really hurt your credibility.
You never did rebut my comment on better filters. I guess you found it to make sense so it wasn't worth including in your mindless trolling.
Now, you said, "BRCA1 gene carries a breast cancer risk of over 90%!". I have a simple, innocent question. How do you expect a person who doesn't have a home computer/internet connection to get their hands on genetic screening. I have a cutting-edge computer with a cable modem and I don't know if I have that gene or any of the other billion genes out there. All I know is that I'm a white male with brown hair, green eyes and chronic bronchitis. I didn't mean this question to be facetious, but I would really like to know, because I need to get some access over here.
"Enviornmental factors are more complex and some studies can come to different conclusions."
Understatement. There are literally billions of factors that may create chaotic differences that, to the naked eye, looking at a graph, may appear to be a correlation. I mean, there are obvious environmental factors for many diseases like smoking, being overweight, or exposure to radioactive material, those are fairly univeral. But specific and random factors like the amount of apples eaten over a given period of time or exposure to specific forms of light, may have differences with a wide spectrum of metabolisms, genetics, skin pigmentation, body chemistry factors, and effects of current or previous diet trends. Environmental studies, in order to be worthwhile, at least in my worthless (in your opinion) opinion, should fit three characteristics:
1) Control- There should be a heavy amount of control dealing with those factors above. If the genetic screening is available, people grouped together for a study should have at least somewhat similar genetic makeups, metabolism, and body chemistry. The groups should then be checked against each other with comparisons. If there is a correlation in all groups, then you may have something.
2) Duration- The duration should be longer than a year, and definately longer than a few months. The duration of the study should include at least a one-or-two month preparation phase where any thing that may create serious problems. Like a person on a diet of Ramen noodles and coke will likely behave differently, examination-wise, than a person on a diet of wine and fresh Chilean Sea Bass.
3) Frequency- One thing that gets me is that the first series is always published, even if the study conditions have not been repeated and verified. Before being published, it should have gone to trial twice, or at least been in two separate trials, not having to be one after the other. They could be simultaneous, but there has to be a repeatability, otherwise, anything dealing with the publishing of an unrepeated trial is suspect at best, and unethical and scientific at worst.
Odds are you're going to find some random misunderstood phrase, word, or comment and use it to attack me personally as some evil bible thumper, so I'm not expecting much. But I do like surprises.
You'll still know they are clueless if they complain that they need to upgrade their keyboard to include an any key.
"Damn it, I knew I shouldn't have purchased the cheap keyboard."
What the hell are you babbling about? I say there's valuable information on the internet that you can't get in a book and you start babbling about gibbous moons?
0 608,888674,00.html
I'm talking about the fact that every month, researchers find something that increases your chance of getting X disease. The next month, the researchers refute the previous month's findings and state that something else leads to the disease. Then next month, they refute that, blame something else and the cycle continues.
Many patient support groups simply could not exist without the internet. We don't need some idiot filter blocking a patient support chat room when anyone mentions breast cancer.
Then urge your local library to choose a different filter. The one at my local library has a double-check system. A filter with a blacklist of "untrusted" sites as well as a system with a "IF [suspicious word like "breast"] is found, disallow if not followed by [innocent noun like "cancer"]" system. It's fairly accurate most of the time, but when it's not, I get a librarian who has a program that lets her temporarily disable the blocking, and if it's encountered enough, she can add it to an automatic whitelist. It sounds complex, but it really isn't. Fairly simple concept.
Hell, forget *my* local community, some families live in nudist communities. Families with young children. And THEY think it's perfectly fine for their children to be "exposed to nudity".
Yes, but these filters generally don't block "nudity". They block wanton sex acts. I mean, if you think it's cool for a 7 year old to be at "hardcorescatandbestialitypr0n.com", then cool for you, but most people don't.
Of course you think there's a consensus among "responsible adults" - anyone who dissagrees with you obviously isn't a "responsible adult" LOL! I'm no nudist, but if you say nudists aren't "responsible adults" I'll laugh in your face.
Again, most people believe that kids shouldn't go to goatse.cx and bukakkeworldforj00.com
Maybe your definition of "pornography" is people walking around naked, but when I think of pornography, I think of shit like Hustler magazine. I don't see Michaelangelo's David as porn. I see scat, BDSM, bestiality, and all that other retarded shit. And I don't think it's a good idea to have kids checkin' it out.
And as far as I can tell every condemnation of the Harry Potter books did in fact come from catholic churches.
For all the attention you pay to breast cancer, you think you'd have seen this on the news somewhere:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/harrypotter/news/0,1
I hope someone told you that the Columbia had an accident.