Do you honestly believe the democrats are not involved in voter fraud as well? I mean seriously do you think only republicans are commiting voter fraud in this election?
I am married into a south Korean Family and I can tell you that while many wish diplomacy would work they know its not really worth it with the nut-ball running the place now. Hopefully when He dies he will be replaced with someone who has a slightly better grasp on reality than they can talk.
There are people who claim that this will marginalize Colorado's influence as a swing state. However it also makes it more honest. I would much rather see the Dem or Lib ticket get -some- of the votes -all- of the time than see the Reps get ALL of the votes -most- of the time. The more states that do this the more honest representation we get of the true voice of the people. Besides, seeing fewer political ads won't upset me at all:)
Yes it will make Colerado less important than any other state in the union when it comes to presidentail politics. Two huge problems with the CO method.
1) Two get anything more than a 1EV swing you you need to beat your opponent by 22.2%. That large a margin is rare (A handfull in 2000). Therfore Colorade will effectively have fewer EV's than DC.
2) In the event that three thrid parties together pull more than 11% of the vote but none of them get 11 themselves what is done with that EV? I dont know and Im pretty sure neither does the average person in Co.
If you want to break up the EV's and give 3rd parties a better shot the Main and Nebraska systems are the best give out EV's by district and give the over all winner the 2 'senate' votes.
The EC still has some legitimate uses as a filter above an inherrently complicated system. But it is archaic in it's current form and can be revised without be replaced
At the state level yes it can but at the federal level it cannot be touched without changing the constitution.
If all states had a fully proportional vote (except perhaps a state that only had 1 EC vote if such a state exists),
No state is only 1 EV even DC is 3. The numbers are based on the number of house members and the number of senators from that state (min 3). If you dont know how the system works how can you have an informed opinion about how archaic it is?
then the candidates would need to pay attention to the entire country instead of pandering to 10% of the states to influence swing voters.
Huh how would that fix anything? Lets assume that every system put into place the proposed CO system Whats to stop candidates from ignoreing a small state in which they would have to pick of more than 10% than the current polling to pick up the state?
I think by pointing to those numbers you're ignoring the elephant in the room. The real problem isn't the tax brackets or who pays what. The real problem lies with the distribution of wealth in our society.
I think the two are mutually exclusive. As weathy as the top 1% is the do not own 30% of the wealth in this nation so why do they not pay enough taxes? I do think there is an odd problem with the dirtribution of wealth (the Mean has continued to increase but the bell has become more flat over the years.
Whats very interesting is the if you break up incomes by bracket the bottom two and the very top have seen a decrease in their median incomes (so much for the rich getting richer) while the middle two have had an increase. You complaints about stock are kind off odd, that is injecting money directly into the economy in a way far more efficent than thte federal government.
So to answer your question: Do I agree with increasing tax rates on the rich? YES, provided that the per-capita income gap is increasing--which it is... drastically so.
But a fixed % tax will increase the amount they pay every year w/out raising rates (if they are making more money). And you whole premis is off considering the to income bracket (those making over 200,000) have actually had a decrease in real income over the past 15 years (the mean income of their bracket has decreased).
The fact that Kerry only pays 13% of his income says nothing about his willingness to close loopholes and tax the rich.
It says he is so serious about helping others he avoides paying taxes..
. It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts.
Do you honestly believe the tax cut is the main reason for the deficit? Wow you are the sheeple, lets look at the numbers (http://www.federalbudget.com/)..
2000 (Bill Clintons Policy) receipts were 2025 billion Dollars, in 2001 (after 9/11 and the bublble bursting) Receipts were 1991 Billion Dollars (so the difference in receipts was 34 Billion dollars! the estimates for 2004 are estimate to be 2175 Billion dollars (150 billion more in receipts).
Now lets compare to spending:
2000: 1788 Billion
2001: 1864 Billion
So if spending increases by 90 Billion dollars and revenue decreased by 30 Billion dollars which is more at fault? The fact is Bush did fail the American people by growing government something John Kerry did not lift a finger to stop! Name me one major spending bill he voted against? If Bush had not increased spending there would have been no defecit. If I thought for a second two of the most liberal senators would do a 180 and try to cap spending I might just be inclined to vote for them but as it is I have to go third party..
A tax cut of that same size would have done better for the economy had it targeted the middle and lower classes rather than the upper. Rich folks invest and hire when they feel secure about the economy, which they don't; middle-class people spend money on goods and services just as long as they can afford to do so.
Do you have some basis for this? do you really believe rich people stop investing money if the economy looks bad, sell all their stock and put in in their matress? Or do rich people move their money to a safer area of investment (note the money is still being invested).
Plus, there are things the government needs to spend that money on, and is spending that money on without having it (hence the deficit.) Remember Homeland Security?
The real world numbers dont agre with the ysmoke you are blowing, see above if spending had not been increased (or only increased by 60 Billion) there would be no deficit.
Remember No Child Left Behind? Ask some teachers if they're happy with how that's turned out wrt its lack of funding.
And how exactly did John Kerry vote on NCLB? I think the bill was an aweful idea but this was a spending problem not an income problem.
Remember the states and how they're each running their own deficits?
And why did all the states and fed go into the red at the same time? its because there was a bubble in the economy and rather than realize that would burst they spent every dime that came in. When the buble burst (after the y2k spending wore off) the states were left with all these bills on the spending they became addicted to.
If the American people want tax cuts for their wealthy employers they should think of a lot more federal expenditures they can do without.
So the fact the top 1% of wage earners pays 30% of the tax burden and the to 20% pay nearly 70% is not enough for you? I 100% agree spenging needs to be curbed and thats why I am not voting for either party come election day.
And yet John Kerry can legally pay only 13 cents on the dollar. Those other rich people who are paying 35-40% must really hate him and wish that his loopholes were closed.
Than close the existing loopholes, how does raising the bracket do anything other than trick the middle and lower class into thinking kerry gives a damn.
Your failing to see hte big picutre. George Bush says that the rich invest their money and create jobs, so what doesw he do? he gives a tax cut to all Americans (rich and poor) and believes they will put that money into the economy. John Kerry believes that the rich dont pay their fair share and says he wants to roll back to a tak rate *he himself* his not willing to pay!
On is consistant, the other is hunting for votes.. guess which is which..
The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people.
It goes to show that the man condeming people not paying their fair share goes out of his way not to pay his. WHats even more pathetic is his donations to charity (between 1992-1996 it was about 11$ a month). Only when he is going to be in the national view (in his runup to the 2000 and 2004 elections) has he donated any significant amount of money. He is high on talk and slow on action, like edwards who uses chapter S corporations to avoid paying taxes on 600,000$.
He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it.
Yea cause the current 35% in federal taxes is just not enough. I mean who are they to think they are eneitled to more than 60 cents on the dollar they earn..
Anyway, who's running for president who isn't filthy rich? Any politician that climbs that high is already rich so it's automatically against their interests to tax the rich. We're really screwed if even the ones who say they want to tax the rich aren't going to.
Hmm one believes that we should give the rich more chance to invenst their money and publically say so (Bush), the other uses class warfare to win votes and aviodes paying taxes or giving money to charity (John Kerry) You tell me which is worse..
This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.
That would be because the rich pay more in taxes in teh first place. The top 20% of earners pay almost 80% of the federal tax burden, and the top 1% pays nearly 30% of the tax burden. and the bottom 20% pays a scant -2% (as in they get money back) of the tax burden.
Source
So if you give out a tax break who is going to most benefit by it? thats tight the one out of a hundred people responsable for paying 30% of the tax burden. I suppose the bottom 20% shoud get a tax break to -10%?
Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1%
Yes because when you act to increase the amount of taxes somebody spends you are raising their taxes..
in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
Kerry's number (like those of Bush in 2k) dont add up, if you think raising the highest rate will pay for free healthcare (and he did say in the debate *everyone* could use it), free college (for two years of national service), continuing in Iraq (he has promised to commit more soldiers), and to cover the defecit I have some land in Fl to sell you.
Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
And you are complaining about the way the web pages ask the questions?
You backed up someone who is clearly trying to defend Bush any way possible. It makes it appear that you sympathize with him.
I love the fact that the left who pissed and moaned about the 'with us or against us' attitude of Bush do it themselves... Maybe its tru you most hate in other people what you see of yourself. Beware those who sympathize with Bush sympathizers...
Phyruxus you have to stop jumping on people because you either 1) disagree with them, or 2) hate the fact that they defended somebdoy the left attacked.
Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now.
And in doing so will you stop bitching about it when conservatives do it? are you that bored in Albany, I've been there its a nice area..
Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others.
Really! there has not been pissing and moaning for four years? And why did seing many liberal senators (including Kerry) vote for the patriot act and the Iraq war not draw fire from your gut?
Well Im out to NY to visit my wifes family, play nice kids..
I wrote what's below first, but screw it, b-baggins was just spinning against KTD's original post. You backed b-baggins up when leftie stood up to him, and I'm going to back up leftie.
Of course, becuase its better to blindly attack someone you disagree with than actually have a discussion..
Lets follow the conversation...
b-b: Don't count on it. The truly motivated people are already working.
Left:It's hard work being a truly motivated fast food employee. It's hard work trying not to get sick when you have no health insurance. (notice here that leftie just questioned the motivation of fast food employee's)
b-b: A highly motivated fast food employee is a high school or college kid under his parents' insurance. A highly motivated adult manages a fast food restaurant and hires high school and college kids.
left:There is no evidence supporting your claim. Ok short summary LEftie said its hard for a fast food employee to be motivated, b-b said that the motived ones are the teens, and leftie asked where was his proof, my responce was
N3W:His claim that motivated teenagers work fast food or that motivated adults manage fast food? How is the any lsee substancial than your claim?
Im pointing out both claims are absolut partisan bullcrap! And I did it without personally insulting either of them.
To this you jump in: For starters, he's full of shit. It's idiocy to imply that anyone who works fast food and isn't young is not motivated. And neither you nor he have the balls to go into a McDonalds and say what you say here. QUIT TROLLING!
So you jump in and insult b-b (the first insult on the thread), and call me a troll (and still can not point out how my post was a troll.
And that's just supposed to get swept under the rug because republicans are at ease bullying and harranguing.
The first person to insult, curse, and demand the other party shut up was you... sounds like a bully..
Fucking A, I can't believe how much shit you republicans get away with by just making vague implications and flippantly dismissing anything inconvenient.
You mean like conservatives are evil bastards? it cuts both ways, you are as intolerant an abrasive to anyone who disagrees with you as you accuse me of being.
Don't you know that Bush is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than any president, ever? Of course not.
Are you illerate or just plain lazy, yes I am a conservative, and no I am not voting for Bush because I feel at best hes a below average president. I am also not voting for Kerry because the man (and his running mate) condem corporate loopholes at the same time they use them.
Ten years from now this country is going to be in the GUTTER and it'll be bush's fault, but we won't be able to do anything about it, then.
This is exactly what I mean by things are too partisan, the damage being done is being done by both parties. The Democrats have voted more than 50% of their numbers to any Bush policy for four years. Kerry voted for the Patriot act, NCLB, the Tax Cut, The Medicare Tax increase,..... Are you starting to see a pattern?
And because of people like you and b-baggins, we run a 50-50 chance of being able to do something about it now! We are making more enemies than we need!
Sign it almost makes me want to vote for bush when people like you condem me for being a conservative and assume the 50% of people who disagree with you are evil and maybe not just wrong...
The moderation on slashdot has become heavily conservative lately. And mostly it's emotional battling; liberal views modded troll and flamebait when in fact expressing a valid point because they were inconvenient to conservatives.
Its going both ways I have been modded troll (hell you tried to call me out on this thread) because I disagree with you... 'hold all conservatives responsable' get a life you are the only extreemest on this thread..
I posted this earlier, but I think it is important enought to do it again. The Republican party is showing signs of splitting. IMO it has gone too far to the Social Conservative side...
Actually the ones leaving the party are the conservative ones.
My consern is will he try to make it so you have to be a chirstian to be a full citizian?
No where would you ever get that idea? The constitution guarentees any natual born American citizenship and the constitution. This nothing but scare tactics.
my fear is that Peroutka may not understand this aka all regiogions are equaly protected, be it christians, muslumes, jews, athiasts, satinists, what ever.
Yes it is. The idea is that society benefits because we are redistributing wealth to keep old people from burdening their children and dying in the streets because they planned their retirement poorly (Personally I think if someone fails to plan ahead they should get what's comming...). The government is taking your money and giving it to the general public presumably for the benefit of everybody.
No its not about distributing anything. If you pay zero dollars into the system you dont get anything out. You get a statement every october which tracks how much you get in, based on the about you get in you get so much out. You earn credits.
For example right now If I became disabled I would get more than twice what my wife would get, wanna know why... Because I have put twice as much in as she has.
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
So they should just do away with SS# the current system does not punish anyone.
I disagree. Motivation has to do with *effort*, effort does not gaurantee success.
I meant above and beyond in terms of effort, not just the result.
How about a 41 year old ex Iron worker who works 80 hours a week at minimum wage to feed his family? Is he unmotivated because he isn't studying? He sure as hell isn't lazy.
So youre assuming he does not qualify for foodstamps, fica, or any other assistance. Having family that worked in social service I can tell you for the most part that is not the case. But under lets assume your right what is his wife doing working, is she studying to get ahead?
No, I really think you and b-baggins were trolling, given that the whole thread was an argument started by b-baggins who implied that the only problem fast food workers face is their own laziness.
And how do I get lumped into that I never implied that, I asked for proof *either* way..
My point is that some people in fast food ARE motivated adults.
No doubt, that has alwaysbeen the case in every profession
What I am saying is that there are more "motivated adults" than there are jobs.
This may or may not be true, all we have on this thread is opions, and extreemly partisan opinion at that. The fact I got jumped on for saying that there is no proof one way or the other if a person is motivated because they are in fast food.
It sounded to me like you and b-baggins were implying that unemployed and underemployed people are *ALL* lazy.
Not for a moment, you read the post through partisan eyes. But having worked in library and having a wife who now works part time in a library I can tell you that I did not see many people there reading up on things to better market themselves.
I believe *in general* Gen-X is lazy (I am a member so I have seen it first hand) They think things should be handed to them, and think because they do the bare minimum they should get 'props'. I blam the boomers who raised them. If the depression generation had the attitude of Boomers/X they all would have starved to death..
h, I see. So fast food workers are automatically lazy pot heads? When you were selling trinkets at parades, would you have appreciated being painted with those broad strokes?
Now who is the troll putting word in people mouths. I never said because someone is in fast food I said *IF*
1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
I would put money that some adults who work fast food are infact lazy and unmotivated, I would also put money some IT managers are lazy and unmotivated, I would als bet that there are some Fast Food workers who go home and study to imrpove their situation. Up your dose a bit more..
And as John Edwards points out, those same opportnities aren't there anymore. Kerry and Edwards want to bring back those types of opportunities to Americans who work hard and play by the rules.
Bull those opportunities are still there but just like when Johns dad wa working not everyone takes advantage of them..
Obviously, you should be voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Yea cause I am going to vote for a guy who thinks taxes should be higher but takes advantage of every loohole out there... No thanks..
Yes, I have also slung around 50lbs of plastic crap for three hours in 95$ heat without a break only to be called names by parents who were teaching their kids teh wrong example of how to view hard work. Having done that and now having to work in middle management at an IT shop I can tell you the IT thing is much harder.
It's tiring, tedious work. I don't think George W. Bush could keep a minimum wage fast food job.
Nor could Kerry or edwards whats your point?
lets clear one thing up I have zero hopes for either major party candidate. but if a teenager can do it while going to school (as I did) I dont think a grown man doing it gives him a title of motivated individual..
To be fair to you I am sure 2.59 includes single parent families. Look I am not on anyones side but the truth here, I just hate the retoric on both sides.
If a guy flips burgers and then goes home an studies to make his life better he is motivated, if he goes home and watches TV he is not motivated.
Look at Edwards latest pathetic "my daddy worked in a mill" story, it was about how his fater was up late at night learning math that was a motivated man and it rubbed off on his sun (no matter how much I disagree with his politics).
So we will disagree with this I dont think working for fast food, or IT is a sign of motivation. Its how hard you work and what you do beyond youre job.. That one of the problems with Gen-X the bare minimum is condisered something to be applauded..
WTF is your point? "Are they motivated adults?" Of course they're motivated.
Having a job does not mean youre motivated. I dont think that 90% of our population is motivated do you?
we're losing manufacturing and technology jobs and they're being replaced with fast food jobs. So either motivated people are working fast food, or unmotivated people are working fast food and motivated people are unemployed, which is even worse.
Slow down take a breath and think for a second... Did I ever say if someone works in fast food they are unmotivated? No I said just because they work in fast food does not mean they are motivation. Motivation has to do with going above and beyond not just getting by. If a 41 yo ex Iron worker now flips burgers but goes home and reads books on being a legal clerk, or on something else he is motivated..
Get lost, troll.
Yes according to you a troll is someone who disagrees..
Slashdot Mirror
Do you honestly believe the democrats are not involved in voter fraud as well? I mean seriously do you think only republicans are commiting voter fraud in this election?
I am married into a south Korean Family and I can tell you that while many wish diplomacy would work they know its not really worth it with the nut-ball running the place now. Hopefully when He dies he will be replaced with someone who has a slightly better grasp on reality than they can talk.
I support a house member for DC but not two senators . DC is a special case because of its place in the constitution.
Yes it will make Colerado less important than any other state in the union when it comes to presidentail politics. Two huge problems with the CO method.
1) Two get anything more than a 1EV swing you you need to beat your opponent by 22.2%. That large a margin is rare (A handfull in 2000). Therfore Colorade will effectively have fewer EV's than DC.
2) In the event that three thrid parties together pull more than 11% of the vote but none of them get 11 themselves what is done with that EV? I dont know and Im pretty sure neither does the average person in Co.
If you want to break up the EV's and give 3rd parties a better shot the Main and Nebraska systems are the best give out EV's by district and give the over all winner the 2 'senate' votes.
The EC still has some legitimate uses as a filter above an inherrently complicated system. But it is archaic in it's current form and can be revised without be replaced
At the state level yes it can but at the federal level it cannot be touched without changing the constitution.
If all states had a fully proportional vote (except perhaps a state that only had 1 EC vote if such a state exists),
No state is only 1 EV even DC is 3. The numbers are based on the number of house members and the number of senators from that state (min 3). If you dont know how the system works how can you have an informed opinion about how archaic it is?
then the candidates would need to pay attention to the entire country instead of pandering to 10% of the states to influence swing voters.
Huh how would that fix anything? Lets assume that every system put into place the proposed CO system Whats to stop candidates from ignoreing a small state in which they would have to pick of more than 10% than the current polling to pick up the state?
I think the two are mutually exclusive. As weathy as the top 1% is the do not own 30% of the wealth in this nation so why do they not pay enough taxes? I do think there is an odd problem with the dirtribution of wealth (the Mean has continued to increase but the bell has become more flat over the years.
Whats very interesting is the if you break up incomes by bracket the bottom two and the very top have seen a decrease in their median incomes (so much for the rich getting richer) while the middle two have had an increase. You complaints about stock are kind off odd, that is injecting money directly into the economy in a way far more efficent than thte federal government.
So to answer your question: Do I agree with increasing tax rates on the rich? YES, provided that the per-capita income gap is increasing--which it is... drastically so.
But a fixed % tax will increase the amount they pay every year w/out raising rates (if they are making more money). And you whole premis is off considering the to income bracket (those making over 200,000) have actually had a decrease in real income over the past 15 years (the mean income of their bracket has decreased).
It says he is so serious about helping others he avoides paying taxes..
. It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts.
Do you honestly believe the tax cut is the main reason for the deficit? Wow you are the sheeple, lets look at the numbers (http://www.federalbudget.com/)..
2000 (Bill Clintons Policy) receipts were 2025 billion Dollars, in 2001 (after 9/11 and the bublble bursting) Receipts were 1991 Billion Dollars (so the difference in receipts was 34 Billion dollars! the estimates for 2004 are estimate to be 2175 Billion dollars (150 billion more in receipts).
Now lets compare to spending:
2000: 1788 Billion
2001: 1864 Billion
So if spending increases by 90 Billion dollars and revenue decreased by 30 Billion dollars which is more at fault? The fact is Bush did fail the American people by growing government something John Kerry did not lift a finger to stop! Name me one major spending bill he voted against? If Bush had not increased spending there would have been no defecit. If I thought for a second two of the most liberal senators would do a 180 and try to cap spending I might just be inclined to vote for them but as it is I have to go third party..
A tax cut of that same size would have done better for the economy had it targeted the middle and lower classes rather than the upper. Rich folks invest and hire when they feel secure about the economy, which they don't; middle-class people spend money on goods and services just as long as they can afford to do so.
Do you have some basis for this? do you really believe rich people stop investing money if the economy looks bad, sell all their stock and put in in their matress? Or do rich people move their money to a safer area of investment (note the money is still being invested).
Plus, there are things the government needs to spend that money on, and is spending that money on without having it (hence the deficit.) Remember Homeland Security?
The real world numbers dont agre with the ysmoke you are blowing, see above if spending had not been increased (or only increased by 60 Billion) there would be no deficit.
Remember No Child Left Behind? Ask some teachers if they're happy with how that's turned out wrt its lack of funding.
And how exactly did John Kerry vote on NCLB? I think the bill was an aweful idea but this was a spending problem not an income problem.
Remember the states and how they're each running their own deficits?
And why did all the states and fed go into the red at the same time? its because there was a bubble in the economy and rather than realize that would burst they spent every dime that came in. When the buble burst (after the y2k spending wore off) the states were left with all these bills on the spending they became addicted to.
If the American people want tax cuts for their wealthy employers they should think of a lot more federal expenditures they can do without.
So the fact the top 1% of wage earners pays 30% of the tax burden and the to 20% pay nearly 70% is not enough for you? I 100% agree spenging needs to be curbed and thats why I am not voting for either party come election day.
Than close the existing loopholes, how does raising the bracket do anything other than trick the middle and lower class into thinking kerry gives a damn.
Your failing to see hte big picutre. George Bush says that the rich invest their money and create jobs, so what doesw he do? he gives a tax cut to all Americans (rich and poor) and believes they will put that money into the economy. John Kerry believes that the rich dont pay their fair share and says he wants to roll back to a tak rate *he himself* his not willing to pay!
On is consistant, the other is hunting for votes.. guess which is which..
It goes to show that the man condeming people not paying their fair share goes out of his way not to pay his. WHats even more pathetic is his donations to charity (between 1992-1996 it was about 11$ a month). Only when he is going to be in the national view (in his runup to the 2000 and 2004 elections) has he donated any significant amount of money. He is high on talk and slow on action, like edwards who uses chapter S corporations to avoid paying taxes on 600,000$.
He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it. Yea cause the current 35% in federal taxes is just not enough. I mean who are they to think they are eneitled to more than 60 cents on the dollar they earn..
Anyway, who's running for president who isn't filthy rich? Any politician that climbs that high is already rich so it's automatically against their interests to tax the rich. We're really screwed if even the ones who say they want to tax the rich aren't going to.
Hmm one believes that we should give the rich more chance to invenst their money and publically say so (Bush), the other uses class warfare to win votes and aviodes paying taxes or giving money to charity (John Kerry) You tell me which is worse..
Shame this got modded as a troll its funny (80's comment), and insightful (pointing out the bias)..
That would be because the rich pay more in taxes in teh first place. The top 20% of earners pay almost 80% of the federal tax burden, and the top 1% pays nearly 30% of the tax burden. and the bottom 20% pays a scant -2% (as in they get money back) of the tax burden. Source
So if you give out a tax break who is going to most benefit by it? thats tight the one out of a hundred people responsable for paying 30% of the tax burden. I suppose the bottom 20% shoud get a tax break to -10%?
Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1%
Yes because when you act to increase the amount of taxes somebody spends you are raising their taxes..
in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
Kerry's number (like those of Bush in 2k) dont add up, if you think raising the highest rate will pay for free healthcare (and he did say in the debate *everyone* could use it), free college (for two years of national service), continuing in Iraq (he has promised to commit more soldiers), and to cover the defecit I have some land in Fl to sell you.
Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?
And you are complaining about the way the web pages ask the questions?
I love the fact that the left who pissed and moaned about the 'with us or against us' attitude of Bush do it themselves... Maybe its tru you most hate in other people what you see of yourself. Beware those who sympathize with Bush sympathizers...
Phyruxus you have to stop jumping on people because you either 1) disagree with them, or 2) hate the fact that they defended somebdoy the left attacked.
Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now.
And in doing so will you stop bitching about it when conservatives do it? are you that bored in Albany, I've been there its a nice area..
Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others.
Really! there has not been pissing and moaning for four years? And why did seing many liberal senators (including Kerry) vote for the patriot act and the Iraq war not draw fire from your gut?
Well Im out to NY to visit my wifes family, play nice kids..
Of course, becuase its better to blindly attack someone you disagree with than actually have a discussion..
Lets follow the conversation...
b-b: Don't count on it. The truly motivated people are already working.
Left:It's hard work being a truly motivated fast food employee. It's hard work trying not to get sick when you have no health insurance. (notice here that leftie just questioned the motivation of fast food employee's)
b-b: A highly motivated fast food employee is a high school or college kid under his parents' insurance. A highly motivated adult manages a fast food restaurant and hires high school and college kids.
left:There is no evidence supporting your claim. Ok short summary LEftie said its hard for a fast food employee to be motivated, b-b said that the motived ones are the teens, and leftie asked where was his proof, my responce was
N3W:His claim that motivated teenagers work fast food or that motivated adults manage fast food? How is the any lsee substancial than your claim?
Im pointing out both claims are absolut partisan bullcrap! And I did it without personally insulting either of them.
To this you jump in: For starters, he's full of shit. It's idiocy to imply that anyone who works fast food and isn't young is not motivated. And neither you nor he have the balls to go into a McDonalds and say what you say here. QUIT TROLLING!
So you jump in and insult b-b (the first insult on the thread), and call me a troll (and still can not point out how my post was a troll.
And that's just supposed to get swept under the rug because republicans are at ease bullying and harranguing.
The first person to insult, curse, and demand the other party shut up was you... sounds like a bully..
Fucking A, I can't believe how much shit you republicans get away with by just making vague implications and flippantly dismissing anything inconvenient.
You mean like conservatives are evil bastards? it cuts both ways, you are as intolerant an abrasive to anyone who disagrees with you as you accuse me of being.
Don't you know that Bush is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than any president, ever? Of course not.
Are you illerate or just plain lazy, yes I am a conservative, and no I am not voting for Bush because I feel at best hes a below average president. I am also not voting for Kerry because the man (and his running mate) condem corporate loopholes at the same time they use them.
Ten years from now this country is going to be in the GUTTER and it'll be bush's fault, but we won't be able to do anything about it, then.
This is exactly what I mean by things are too partisan, the damage being done is being done by both parties. The Democrats have voted more than 50% of their numbers to any Bush policy for four years. Kerry voted for the Patriot act, NCLB, the Tax Cut, The Medicare Tax increase, ..... Are you starting to see a pattern?
And because of people like you and b-baggins, we run a 50-50 chance of being able to do something about it now! We are making more enemies than we need!
Sign it almost makes me want to vote for bush when people like you condem me for being a conservative and assume the 50% of people who disagree with you are evil and maybe not just wrong...
The moderation on slashdot has become heavily conservative lately. And mostly it's emotional battling; liberal views modded troll and flamebait when in fact expressing a valid point because they were inconvenient to conservatives.
Its going both ways I have been modded troll (hell you tried to call me out on this thread) because I disagree with you... 'hold all conservatives responsable' get a life you are the only extreemest on this thread..
Actually the ones leaving the party are the conservative ones.
The repubs are in no more danger that the DNC..
No where would you ever get that idea? The constitution guarentees any natual born American citizenship and the constitution. This nothing but scare tactics.
my fear is that Peroutka may not understand this aka all regiogions are equaly protected, be it christians, muslumes, jews, athiasts, satinists, what ever.
And this fear is based on..
No its not about distributing anything. If you pay zero dollars into the system you dont get anything out. You get a statement every october which tracks how much you get in, based on the about you get in you get so much out. You earn credits.
For example right now If I became disabled I would get more than twice what my wife would get, wanna know why... Because I have put twice as much in as she has.
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
So they should just do away with SS# the current system does not punish anyone.
Industry 2002 2012 Percent Change
Software publishers 256 430 68
consulting services 732 1,137 55 (Management, scientific, and technical)
elderly/resid care 695 1,078 55
Computer systems design 1,163 1,798 55
Employment services 3,249 5,012 54
rehabilitation serv 1,269 1,867 47
Ambulatory health care 1,444 2,113 46
IS, data proc 529 773 46
Water, sewage 49 71 45
Child day care 734 1,050 43
There are jobs to be had and fields that are growing (http://www.collegeboard.com/article/0,3868,4-24-0 -237,00.html)
It's not realistic to assume that everyone who is underemployed or unemployed is unmotivated.
Based on what?
A poor person who can't afford college is at a disadvantage to a middle class person who floated through college.
They are called student loans, I got them.. I knoew of people who lived off of the in addition to going to school.
I meant above and beyond in terms of effort, not just the result.
How about a 41 year old ex Iron worker who works 80 hours a week at minimum wage to feed his family? Is he unmotivated because he isn't studying? He sure as hell isn't lazy.
So youre assuming he does not qualify for foodstamps, fica, or any other assistance. Having family that worked in social service I can tell you for the most part that is not the case. But under lets assume your right what is his wife doing working, is she studying to get ahead?
No, I really think you and b-baggins were trolling, given that the whole thread was an argument started by b-baggins who implied that the only problem fast food workers face is their own laziness.
And how do I get lumped into that I never implied that, I asked for proof *either* way..
No doubt, that has alwaysbeen the case in every profession
What I am saying is that there are more "motivated adults" than there are jobs.
This may or may not be true, all we have on this thread is opions, and extreemly partisan opinion at that. The fact I got jumped on for saying that there is no proof one way or the other if a person is motivated because they are in fast food.
It sounded to me like you and b-baggins were implying that unemployed and underemployed people are *ALL* lazy.
Not for a moment, you read the post through partisan eyes. But having worked in library and having a wife who now works part time in a library I can tell you that I did not see many people there reading up on things to better market themselves.
I believe *in general* Gen-X is lazy (I am a member so I have seen it first hand) They think things should be handed to them, and think because they do the bare minimum they should get 'props'. I blam the boomers who raised them. If the depression generation had the attitude of Boomers/X they all would have starved to death..
Now who is the troll putting word in people mouths. I never said because someone is in fast food I said *IF*
1. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
2. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
3. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
I would put money that some adults who work fast food are infact lazy and unmotivated, I would also put money some IT managers are lazy and unmotivated, I would als bet that there are some Fast Food workers who go home and study to imrpove their situation. Up your dose a bit more..
Bull those opportunities are still there but just like when Johns dad wa working not everyone takes advantage of them..
Obviously, you should be voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Yea cause I am going to vote for a guy who thinks taxes should be higher but takes advantage of every loohole out there... No thanks..
It's tiring, tedious work. I don't think George W. Bush could keep a minimum wage fast food job.
Nor could Kerry or edwards whats your point?
lets clear one thing up I have zero hopes for either major party candidate. but if a teenager can do it while going to school (as I did) I dont think a grown man doing it gives him a title of motivated individual..
Exactly, he was motivated where as people who just went home and did nothing were not..
If a guy flips burgers and then goes home an studies to make his life better he is motivated, if he goes home and watches TV he is not motivated.
Look at Edwards latest pathetic "my daddy worked in a mill" story, it was about how his fater was up late at night learning math that was a motivated man and it rubbed off on his sun (no matter how much I disagree with his politics).
So we will disagree with this I dont think working for fast food, or IT is a sign of motivation. Its how hard you work and what you do beyond youre job.. That one of the problems with Gen-X the bare minimum is condisered something to be applauded..
Having a job does not mean youre motivated. I dont think that 90% of our population is motivated do you?
we're losing manufacturing and technology jobs and they're being replaced with fast food jobs. So either motivated people are working fast food, or unmotivated people are working fast food and motivated people are unemployed, which is even worse.
Slow down take a breath and think for a second... Did I ever say if someone works in fast food they are unmotivated? No I said just because they work in fast food does not mean they are motivation. Motivation has to do with going above and beyond not just getting by. If a 41 yo ex Iron worker now flips burgers but goes home and reads books on being a legal clerk, or on something else he is motivated..
Get lost, troll.
Yes according to you a troll is someone who disagrees..