Let me drop some facts on you about the American wealthy:
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
The acting was the only thing that kept it going. When they focused on developing the characters, they ended up with some of the better shows. The ineptitude of the command structure is ridiculous. Our men and women in the Armed Forces are smart than they are portrayed.
I will miss Robert Carlyle's character and David Blue's character the most, followed by Peter Kelamis.
You seem to be missing the point. It is not about lower taxes it is about equal taxation. The infrastructure is there for all to use. If the wealthy use the infrastructure better than you do that is your problem. Learn how to use the infrastructure better. You seem to have a problem with people who make money. You want the rich to pay for goverment and then get upset when they run it. But wait... did you not want them to pay more and they do pay more in percentage, I would guess they pay more than you do unless you make more tham $250,000. If the burden of society is on the rich and they are paying for most of it, which they do http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/the-rich-pay-fo.html, then you should be fine with the elite running the country. It is clear however you are not, yet you want them to pay for most of everything. I hate to break it to you but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Wow... I applaud your passion, but do not necessarily agree with your statements. I assume by tax cuts, you are referring to the Bush tax cuts that have passed the House and Senate. I will diverge here for a second because they were not true tax cuts when implemented because they were not followed by a decrease in spending. Back to the focus, Why do you feel that people who make more money should pay more percentange of the money they make? Everybody has the oppurtunity to work and make money. My friend's parents who came from Croatia 50 years ago started out with a suitcase and that was it. They now own a home, car, have raised a family, etc. My other friend's father-in-law, who is of Hungarian descent, started this company, http://www.edenpure.com/, as well as this one, http://www.ballbike.com/. He started with nothing 15 years ago.
These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful. It is counter-intuitive to punish someone for success. Yes, it is punishment to pay a higher percentage of your money to government, no matter how altruistic they may want you to believe they are. The goverment did not make these people wealthy. They worked hard and came up with services or products that people wanted. In fact depending on what business you go into, the goverment hinders competion to the status quo in the way of regulations, specifically telecomm.
Another thing, it is the prerogative of everyone to invest their money how they see fit. It seem that you might be saying that it is unAmerican if you don't invest your money in the stock market. I hope you are including George Soros as one of your sad f'ers. If you are not then your are not being honest with yourself.
It is sort of funny that taxation was one the things that started the whole American Experiment into motion.
the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible.
Back then our ancestors were tired of taxes and the crown. Yet your rhetoric would probablly be not out of place in the Empire of Brittian at that time. "the fact remains that wealthy Colonists are f'ing traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government, infrastructure, and war that made their wealth possible."
I guess somedays nothing changes...
I know this will draw the ire of some, if not many, but do you not get tired of propping up Republicans for your straw-man or non sequitur arguements. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi, Julius Genachowski, or Barack Obama have your best interest at heart? The elite are elite despite their party affiliation. There is little difference between elitest in the Republican and Democrat party. They both want to control you. It just of matter of do you get pissed on first, then defecated on or defecated on first, then pissed on.
People need to wake-up. Nothing has changed under Obama, just as nothing changed under Bush 2, just as nothing changed under Clinton, just as nothing changed under Bush 1. These people do not care about us like you do for your best buds. They see us as people who do not know how to run our lives and will do it for us.
I can tell you lean Socialist by your quote, which is fine. I just do not think that government is the answer. After all, it is ran by people.
If he was really serious about changes the morals in America, he would do so by helping those in need. In my opinion, people as a whole may listen to the guy who screams the loudest, but they are inspired by the guy doing what they themselves want to do but are either too afraid or too lazy to do.
The problem with this is sci-fi classics like "Time Machine", "Invisible Man", and "Journey to the Center of the Earth". They do not practice science but take one aspect of reality and change it. The argument that everything has to be scientifically sound is bogus, especially when dealing with something that only exists in the writers mind. I love to read Isaac Asimov, but we won't know how scientifically accurate he was until we have such technologies. It is about the story being told and always has been.
You do realize it is "FICTION". Fiction is not necessarily suppose to be scientific. The purpose of Sci-Fi in my opinion is to deal with issues of the day in a format where people won't necessarily reject it out right. Many issues are dealt with and warnings are issued. Lucas screwed up the Star Wars universe with the newest trilogy in my opinion to warn against blind trust in Government, the pitfall of hubris and other things that were pertinent at the time and ring true throughout time. I don't appreciate the poor screenplay or crapping writing, but I understand what he was trying to say.
I don't think most Christians believe 2012 will be anything special. The line of the Maya long calendar usually tends to fall in the New Age circles and the interpretation range from it is just the start of the "Age of Aquarius" to the end of the world. Granted there are some who do call themselves Christian who do spout the Mayan calendar as a sign; but my rule of thumb is, if you don't know your own holy book, you really aren't what you say you are.
Hate to break it to but the whole "Population Bomb" has been proven wrong. All the predictions that Ehrlich made never happened or the opposite happened. Look at the various bets made by Paul Ehrlich vs Julian Lincoln Simon. Ehrlich lost each and everyone. According to Ehrlich, the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999("Eco-Catastrophe!". Ramparts. Sept 1969. pages 24â"28). He was not a little off, but completely wrong. Yet for some reason people still look to his work as pinnacle. I do not understand that. When you make predictions and say your data backs it up and you are wrong, then you are wrong. Move on, but people want to hold onto it for some reason. I could only guess that it is politically motivated instead of scientifically motivated. Please stop propping up bad science.
Parent should be rated "Funny", not Informative. Didn't you notice the ":D" at the end. It is called sarcasm. Now please rate me Informative as I have explained the previous post. Thank you.:D
Regulation is the issue that keeps small competitors out of markets because they do not have the man power to go to each municipality to get the approval. I have talked about that here on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143321&cid=27012091&art_pos=3.
There is where regulation will either hurt or harm you. Part of our current economic shortfall today has been because of bad regulation followed by poor deregulation. The key with regulation is to shore up loopholes with penalizing businesses. If they changed the regulation for telco to the county level, it might allow more competition.
That is exactly what they did in Wadsworth, where i used to live. They made it a utility. TWC bitched and the town said screw you. I worked as a night auditor back then in 2000 and told our management we should switch because it would be cheaper. We looked into and did. TWC threaten us with litigation, we told them to go fornicate with goat and our lawyers took care of it. This is ridiculous when a private company is stifling competition. More communities need to do this. If they would not have wasted the 250 billion given to them by Clinton, they would be having this issue.
I wish I had mod points to give because you hit the nail right on the head. This is my opinion, but a certain side seems to be more concerned with limiting the press and free market when they want to re-enact the "Fairness Doctrine" or whatever guise they push it as. Reagan did a good thing by killing it.
I do not have a problem with a religious body supporting a candidate. I do have a problem with a religious body, hell anyone, that says unless you support this candidate, you hate Jesus or you're not American, or dumb shit like it is American to pay taxes and the more you pay the more American you are. I take issue with all of that. Why, because you should explain why you support a candidate or ideal and let others decide for themselves. It is hard to debate and discourse with someone who says unless you Y then you are or are not Z. There are times for ultimatums, but politics is not usually one of those. (I think this mostly due to the fact politicians have forgotten how to tell the truth.) That's my three cents, because I don't know when to shut up.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, it is the way the regulations are that cause the problems and not a lack of them. It is similar but not the same as the regulations why you either AT&T or Verizon available for your land line and not both. I know we have antiquated regulation that make updating "the last mile" a pain because you have to get approval in each municipality. Just part of the problem with old models that promote large companies with resources.
Why not shoot the people of Florida? I can't imagine people being happy about living in crowded, polluted cities all the time. The population is way too big and alligators, unlike humans, doesn't destroy the environment or to drive other species to extinction. Not to mention that they were there first.
It's called survival of the fittest. Cockroaches were... ah damn it, they'll be here way after we off ourselves. Foiled again by my own argument.
Also, fuck you.
Slashdot Mirror
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy. More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
The acting was the only thing that kept it going. When they focused on developing the characters, they ended up with some of the better shows. The ineptitude of the command structure is ridiculous. Our men and women in the Armed Forces are smart than they are portrayed.
I will miss Robert Carlyle's character and David Blue's character the most, followed by Peter Kelamis.
You seem to be missing the point. It is not about lower taxes it is about equal taxation. The infrastructure is there for all to use. If the wealthy use the infrastructure better than you do that is your problem. Learn how to use the infrastructure better. You seem to have a problem with people who make money. You want the rich to pay for goverment and then get upset when they run it. But wait... did you not want them to pay more and they do pay more in percentage, I would guess they pay more than you do unless you make more tham $250,000. If the burden of society is on the rich and they are paying for most of it, which they do http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/the-rich-pay-fo.html, then you should be fine with the elite running the country. It is clear however you are not, yet you want them to pay for most of everything. I hate to break it to you but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
We out spend any other nation when it comes to war. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for that, although Democrats do get us involved in more: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/why-the-u-s-outspends-the-world-on-defense/
Public education is the biggest failure. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/
We out spend everyone on healthcare as well. http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2593-Chart-1-US-Gov.-outspends-world-on-health.html
The problem here is that you want people to change their morality. You do that through social means, not the strong arm of goverment.
Back to the focus, Why do you feel that people who make more money should pay more percentange of the money they make? Everybody has the oppurtunity to work and make money. My friend's parents who came from Croatia 50 years ago started out with a suitcase and that was it. They now own a home, car, have raised a family, etc. My other friend's father-in-law, who is of Hungarian descent, started this company, http://www.edenpure.com/, as well as this one, http://www.ballbike.com/. He started with nothing 15 years ago.
These people have worked hard to get where they are and I do not believe they should have to pay a higher percentage of tax because they are sucessful. It is counter-intuitive to punish someone for success. Yes, it is punishment to pay a higher percentage of your money to government, no matter how altruistic they may want you to believe they are. The goverment did not make these people wealthy. They worked hard and came up with services or products that people wanted. In fact depending on what business you go into, the goverment hinders competion to the status quo in the way of regulations, specifically telecomm.
Another thing, it is the prerogative of everyone to invest their money how they see fit. It seem that you might be saying that it is unAmerican if you don't invest your money in the stock market. I hope you are including George Soros as one of your sad f'ers. If you are not then your are not being honest with yourself.
It is sort of funny that taxation was one the things that started the whole American Experiment into motion.
the fact remains that wealthy Americans are fucking traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government and the infrastructure that made their wealth possible.
Back then our ancestors were tired of taxes and the crown. Yet your rhetoric would probablly be not out of place in the Empire of Brittian at that time. "the fact remains that wealthy Colonists are f'ing traitors for refusing to pay their fair share for the government, infrastructure, and war that made their wealth possible."
I guess somedays nothing changes...
I know this will draw the ire of some, if not many, but do you not get tired of propping up Republicans for your straw-man or non sequitur arguements. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi, Julius Genachowski, or Barack Obama have your best interest at heart? The elite are elite despite their party affiliation. There is little difference between elitest in the Republican and Democrat party. They both want to control you. It just of matter of do you get pissed on first, then defecated on or defecated on first, then pissed on.
People need to wake-up. Nothing has changed under Obama, just as nothing changed under Bush 2, just as nothing changed under Clinton, just as nothing changed under Bush 1. These people do not care about us like you do for your best buds. They see us as people who do not know how to run our lives and will do it for us.
I can tell you lean Socialist by your quote, which is fine. I just do not think that government is the answer. After all, it is ran by people.
Document everything and then turn them in. Of course the previous look for another job applies as well.
What more needs to be said.
Hamato Yoshi got his pet from.
Hey sexy mama...wanna kill all humans with me??!
If he was really serious about changes the morals in America, he would do so by helping those in need. In my opinion, people as a whole may listen to the guy who screams the loudest, but they are inspired by the guy doing what they themselves want to do but are either too afraid or too lazy to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Suit_Gundam_00
And what is wrong with hot blue chicks that are slightly feral? I know as I kid I lived the hot green chicks in the Original Star Trek.
The problem with this is sci-fi classics like "Time Machine", "Invisible Man", and "Journey to the Center of the Earth". They do not practice science but take one aspect of reality and change it. The argument that everything has to be scientifically sound is bogus, especially when dealing with something that only exists in the writers mind. I love to read Isaac Asimov, but we won't know how scientifically accurate he was until we have such technologies. It is about the story being told and always has been.
You do realize it is "FICTION". Fiction is not necessarily suppose to be scientific. The purpose of Sci-Fi in my opinion is to deal with issues of the day in a format where people won't necessarily reject it out right. Many issues are dealt with and warnings are issued. Lucas screwed up the Star Wars universe with the newest trilogy in my opinion to warn against blind trust in Government, the pitfall of hubris and other things that were pertinent at the time and ring true throughout time. I don't appreciate the poor screenplay or crapping writing, but I understand what he was trying to say.
I don't think most Christians believe 2012 will be anything special. The line of the Maya long calendar usually tends to fall in the New Age circles and the interpretation range from it is just the start of the "Age of Aquarius" to the end of the world. Granted there are some who do call themselves Christian who do spout the Mayan calendar as a sign; but my rule of thumb is, if you don't know your own holy book, you really aren't what you say you are.
Hate to break it to but the whole "Population Bomb" has been proven wrong. All the predictions that Ehrlich made never happened or the opposite happened. Look at the various bets made by Paul Ehrlich vs Julian Lincoln Simon. Ehrlich lost each and everyone. According to Ehrlich, the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999("Eco-Catastrophe!". Ramparts. Sept 1969. pages 24â"28). He was not a little off, but completely wrong. Yet for some reason people still look to his work as pinnacle. I do not understand that. When you make predictions and say your data backs it up and you are wrong, then you are wrong. Move on, but people want to hold onto it for some reason. I could only guess that it is politically motivated instead of scientifically motivated. Please stop propping up bad science.
Me thinks your boss thinks he's very funny
What exactly are you typing in that porn is popping up? Me thinks that you forget you are at work.
Parent should be rated "Funny", not Informative. Didn't you notice the ":D" at the end. It is called sarcasm. Now please rate me Informative as I have explained the previous post. Thank you. :D
Regulation is the issue that keeps small competitors out of markets because they do not have the man power to go to each municipality to get the approval. I have talked about that here on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143321&cid=27012091&art_pos=3. There is where regulation will either hurt or harm you. Part of our current economic shortfall today has been because of bad regulation followed by poor deregulation. The key with regulation is to shore up loopholes with penalizing businesses. If they changed the regulation for telco to the county level, it might allow more competition.
That is exactly what they did in Wadsworth, where i used to live. They made it a utility. TWC bitched and the town said screw you. I worked as a night auditor back then in 2000 and told our management we should switch because it would be cheaper. We looked into and did. TWC threaten us with litigation, we told them to go fornicate with goat and our lawyers took care of it. This is ridiculous when a private company is stifling competition. More communities need to do this. If they would not have wasted the 250 billion given to them by Clinton, they would be having this issue.
I wish I had mod points to give because you hit the nail right on the head. This is my opinion, but a certain side seems to be more concerned with limiting the press and free market when they want to re-enact the "Fairness Doctrine" or whatever guise they push it as. Reagan did a good thing by killing it.
I do not have a problem with a religious body supporting a candidate. I do have a problem with a religious body, hell anyone, that says unless you support this candidate, you hate Jesus or you're not American, or dumb shit like it is American to pay taxes and the more you pay the more American you are. I take issue with all of that. Why, because you should explain why you support a candidate or ideal and let others decide for themselves. It is hard to debate and discourse with someone who says unless you Y then you are or are not Z. There are times for ultimatums, but politics is not usually one of those. (I think this mostly due to the fact politicians have forgotten how to tell the truth.) That's my three cents, because I don't know when to shut up.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, it is the way the regulations are that cause the problems and not a lack of them. It is similar but not the same as the regulations why you either AT&T or Verizon available for your land line and not both. I know we have antiquated regulation that make updating "the last mile" a pain because you have to get approval in each municipality. Just part of the problem with old models that promote large companies with resources.
Why not shoot the people of Florida? I can't imagine people being happy about living in crowded, polluted cities all the time. The population is way too big and alligators, unlike humans, doesn't destroy the environment or to drive other species to extinction. Not to mention that they were there first.
It's called survival of the fittest. Cockroaches were... ah damn it, they'll be here way after we off ourselves. Foiled again by my own argument.
Also, fuck you.
Here is a decent link to the differences in use and treatment: http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html