Quote :

"i'd say "happening" is still actually a question, dude."

i'm simply saying the small increase in temperature over the last 100 years happened and i dont think anyone debated the validity of the temp/time graphs except for some of the thermometers near exhaust vents, and the removal of siberian thermometers after the fall of the soviet union

9/14/2008 1:39:11 AM

no the prebate is a compromise, aimed at defusing the idea that the poor will pay more than they do. (which is nothing)

They are using the poverty line as the reference point. He asked me personally if I felt you can assume what the average american needs to survive. I answered it.

Quote :

"Moron, no. I do NOT believe that you can average what someone needs to survive on."

The prebates are estimating how much taxes one would pay to that level, not what one would need to survive on. See the difference?

9/14/2008 1:39:36 AM

I'd say that's a fair assertion, then. so, moron, why do you hate equality?

9/14/2008 1:42:36 AM

Quote :

"The prebates are estimating how much taxes one would pay to that level, not what one would need to survive on. See the difference? "

The poverty line is a minimum average of what someone needs to live on.

Quote :

"But I guess since the State sucks ass, we should start the game with a 20 point lead.. for equality sakes. That your kind of equality? Fairness? "

Are sports competitions about being equal? Because that's news to me. Or, are you saying that like sport competitions, taxes aren't about equality? Or are you saying that the losers in tournaments simply just didn't want to win?

Quote :

"What you choose to do with your life is entirely up to you. "

What you choose to do with your life is clearly not ENTIRELY up to you, it is somewhat up to you. If choice was entirely and uniquely an individual manifestation, then statistics and psychology wouldn't work. The fact is that we know scientifically that certain non-chosen factors affect behavior and choice. That certain specific actions in the past have specific, measurable aspects in our existing society. It would be foolish and detrimental to try and implement a system (which a fair tax is), which is blind to the current state of the existing system.

Let's say that I knew you were a better driver than me, and I wanted you to drive my car, but I didn't let you know that the brakes didn't work properly and needed repair. There is little your driving skill could do, without first fixing the brakes.

Quote :

"Ah, but people dont like taking home less of their money, thats political suicide"

History has shown that people will accept taking home less of their money if it means society benefits.

Quote :

"So, now we draw the lines on what is best politically and not what is best for the country. And this sounds like a good idea for the country to you? come on man "

It sounds like you want to remove politics from politics. You realize that these problems are caused because enough humans have an inherent bend for greed and power (possibly an evolved mechanism)? What you are saying is as idealistic as saying Communism could work if everyone worked together. Sure it could, but it's impossible to get large groups of people to work for 1 single thing. The best we can hope for is a good set of checks and balances (ours is good, but it could be better).

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 1:47:59 AM

Im sorry to turn your thread into a fairtax debate boone.

Burro. With the fairtax the incentive will be to work. The more you work, the more you make. If you get a job making 10/hr, well you take home 10/hr. People at all levels would see an instant increase in thier income. Now some hourly jobs look like an alternative to doing nothing. Since american citizens will be the only ones eligible for the prebate, now there is a benefit for becoming a citizen, as opposed to now. Since EVERYONE in this country will be paying into the pot, you instantly double the amount of federal tax payers overnight, which will increase revenues. You no longer tax working or saving, which will give those responsible more wealth and make them less prone to financial disasters and need for govt intervention. Not to mention job growth from teh influx of companies moving INTO the country. And finally equality. One set of rules for all. No longer will politicians fuck with peoples income simply to pander for votes.

no moron, I want to take politics out of peoples personal property. Its one thing if a greedy company charges too much. People have a choice not to buy thier product. Its another thing for a politician to promise a group of people someone elses property for votes.. then seize that property against the owners will. Big difference.

At least with a fairtax Ive made the decision to spend my money.. not some senator looknig for power.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 1:56 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 1:50:37 AM

Quote :

" Now some hourly jobs look like an alternative to doing nothing. "

Hourly jobs are already a great alternative to doing nothing.

Quote :

"Since american citizens will be the only ones eligible for the prebate, now there is a benefit for becoming a citizen, as opposed to now."

Haha, most illegals WOULD like to become citizens. There are currently great benefits to becoming citizens. Part of the problem is that we don't want more citizens from Mexico.

Secondly, illegals already live in shit conditions as it is (relatively), what makes you think they have any fear of this?

9/14/2008 1:55:22 AM

Quote :

"Secondly, illegals already live in shit conditions as it is (relatively)"

And they are surviving? Whats it cost.. on average?


A low paying hourly job is not an alternative when you can get on the system and make more doing nothing. Have some kids, get them on disability...good money to be made in being lazy. Esp if you make too much, you lose your benefits.

One of the first things Social services tells us when we are calling in for a patient without ins. to get temp medicaid to pay for a procedure... "tell them to quit working" I shit you not. that is what our system encourages.

9/14/2008 2:00:34 AM

Oh noes, Tree disagrees!

Quote :

"by all but the most partisan among the right"

Quote :

"too early to know"

Bush: Please. As far as domestic issues go, he's pulled off the amazing feat of only getting stuff done that both sides dislike. Other than an expansion of prescription drug entitlements and No Child Left Behind, what's he done? As far as foreign policy issues, he'll be defined by Iraq. Speaking of which...

Iraq: Hardly. None of our reasons for entering the war panned out. Then it turned into a $500 billion mess that killed thousands of our people and tens of thousands of theirs. If Iraq turns out to be halfway decent government, Bush certainly won't get any of the credit for it, nor will he deserve it.

I don't see how any of that will improve with age.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 7:49 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 7:28:41 AM

Quote :

"One of the first things Social services tells us when we are calling in for a patient without ins. to get temp medicaid to pay for a procedure... "tell them to quit working" I shit you not. that is what our system encourages."

That is pretty messed up, but it sounds like a problem that would be fixed by universal health care... they could keep working AND get the procedure done.

9/14/2008 12:02:48 PM

I'm not sure how you could say "liberals were correct about Iraq" since so many voted for invasion (Clinton? Edwards? Kerry? etc).

9/14/2008 12:27:27 PM

No Democrats that I knew of supported the war.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : that I knew personally.]

9/14/2008 12:32:32 PM

"Nobody I know voted for Nixon!"

Seriously, support for the war was - unfortunately - around 70% when we went in. I'm pretty sure Democrats/liberals make up more than 30% of the voting population - ergo, it stands to reason that there was a significant contingent of them cheering this war from the start who bailed once the political winds turned south.

But don't take my word for it - let's go to the tapes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq#Passage

In the House...
Y N A NV
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 81 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 296 133 0 3

And the Senate:

Y N NV
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

Hm - that number for Democrats sure looks a lot higher than "zero", now doesn't it?

9/14/2008 1:31:34 PM

Which TWW liberals were for the war?

9/14/2008 1:55:34 PM

i made a post in January '03 expressing my disapproval of the war, so I could have a record of my feelings before everything turned to shit.
.... Then they started purging TWW of posts more than couple years old

9/14/2008 2:17:03 PM

Quote :

"Which TWW liberals were for the war?"

Shifting the goalposts a little, aren't we? I don't recall you limiting the scope to "TWW" in your original post - and surely if you did, it would whittle down the space to draw from your ideological opponents, no?

...besides which, isn't Socks`` some kind of Democrat?

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 2:36:17 PM

Quote :

"After reflecting on the debates I've seen in TSB..."

And Socks dot dot is so kicked out of the club.

9/14/2008 2:42:54 PM

Quote :

"here is an analogy of how this works. You walk into a bar on saturday night. The bar all votes to have you the bar owner pay for everyones drinks. Now that fair, look at all the people who benefitted and you the bar owner, well you the bar owner didnt need all that money anyway. right"

That would be more analogous if we're talking about taxing the highest income earners.

Can someone explain why we need to remove corporate taxes? Wouldn't it be just as feasible to stimulate the economy and create jobs with non-corporate businesses?

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ?]

9/14/2008 2:49:44 PM

^^So, what, TSB is a parallel world now? The debates in TSB were all indeed hypotheticals that had no bearing on real-world actors and events? The Democrats out in the real world are simply bizzaro-world counterparts of TWW?

Besides which, trying to use your ancillary introduction as a post-hoc means of limiting the scope is weaksauce. As is trying to hem in the lines around anyone whose brazen stupidity has caused you to grimace every time you see them post. I doubt you're so charitable to your opponents to grant them the same.

Quote :

"Can someone explain why we need to remove corporate taxes? Wouldn't it be just as feasible to stimulate the economy and create jobs with non-corporate businesses?"

Such as? And to answer your first question, it's because we have the highest rates in the world. Now, imagine we're on a hill - where we're at the top. Now, which way do things roll from where we are...?

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ^^]

9/14/2008 2:52:44 PM

Alright, if there's a need to get nitpicky, then when did "Democrat" get brought into the discussion?

This is about liberals.

Unfortunately, many Democrats took a very conservative stance on the Iraq War in anticipation of the 2004 elections. If only they'd listened to the liberals.

9/14/2008 3:01:39 PM

So, what? John Edwards isn't a liberal? John Kerry? (Dozens of others?) Some, surely are not - Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton come to mind. But the fact is, plenty of those we'd call "liberals" signed onto this war. (Hell, plenty of liberal pundits signed on as well.)

The fact is, there were plenty of chumps of all ideological stripes - and liberals were far from exempt on this one. Sure, plenty of liberals denounced this as a boondoggle from the start - as did plenty of libertarians and even a few conservatives.

But the fact is, plenty of liberals signed on to this venture for whatever reason too. So it seems inappropriate to call this one a, "We told you so." I'd call this one a wash.

9/14/2008 3:08:46 PM

REVISIONIST HISTORY!1

Really, though. Do you not remember the debates? Do you not remember how partisan even the national debates were, and how the Democrats had to rationalize the crap out of voting to allow the war? How they fed us lines like "I was merely authorizing the possibility of force, not directly authorizing it," and whatnot?

9/14/2008 3:12:16 PM

Such as applying capital and investments to non-incorporated businesses. I don't see why, if corporate taxes are so astronomical, investers don't just move their money into other types of ownership.

9/14/2008 3:13:52 PM

Quote :

" How they fed us lines like "I was merely authorizing the possibility of force, not directly authorizing it," and whatnot?"

I seem to recall them feeding us that tripe about two years after their votes - you know, after it started to stink up the place. I seem to recall at the time they were just as committed to "acting tough" as the next Republican. With the possible exception that really, what they wanted was the U.N. to give the rubber stamp to it. As if invading and occupying a sovereign nation on faulty premises is A-OK if the U.N. gives its seal of approval.

9/14/2008 3:17:58 PM

Quote :

"Such as applying capital and investments to non-incorporated businesses."

Becuase these don't carry the legal liability protections of incorporating. Check any small business - chances are, even many of them are incorporated, such to prevent their owners from losing their shirts if they get sued.

Quote :

"I don't see why, if corporate taxes are so astronomical, investers don't just move their money into other types of ownership."

Uh... they do. Offshore holdings accounts. Holding capital in other countries. Outsourcing production.

I mean, if you're looking for an opposite example of this, take Ireland - they set a competitive tax structure and had massive capital inflows.

9/14/2008 3:21:37 PM

I was thinking it was a liability issue; I just wasn't sure if there were other aspects to it as well.

As for switching ownership, I was thinking there were other more ethical options; however, I guess not, if trying to avoid both liability and taxes.

9/14/2008 3:28:39 PM

wow, Boone is backpedaling like a French army battalion in this thread

9/14/2008 8:04:53 PM

Quote :

"3. Climate Change: happening, then anthropogenic"

Possibly happening, but not yet confirmed as anthropogenic. However, anthropogenic global warming will necessarily occur (and is today by some degree).

9/14/2008 8:08:21 PM

Let me add a few. Here are the most obvious points:

5. Eugenics: duh, our country has been overrun by the feeble-minded

6. Jimmy Carter: great president

7. Sea Level: worldwide, its been falling since June. also, B.O. started healing the planet then

8. Surge in Iraq: not reducing violence at all


I don't need to back up these claims with any evidence, because the truth is so painfully evident. If you disagree, you must have been home schooled by your inbred family from West Virginia.

9/15/2008 1:17:57 PM

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, LIBERALS WERE FOR THE WAR

I don't even know where to begin addressing this.

9/15/2008 4:04:54 PM

Quote :

"I don't even know where to begin addressing this."

Its getting cold, better put on a sweater.

9/15/2008 4:41:13 PM

JUST THROW THE FLAG INTO THE FIREPLACE

9/15/2008 4:44:16 PM

Quote :

"IN SOVIET RUSSIA, LIBERALSWAR WEREIS FOR THE WARLIBERALS"

get it right, man...

9/15/2008 6:46:32 PM

Quote :

"JUST THROW THE FLAG INTO THE FIREPLACE"

made me laugh

9/16/2008 8:56:15 AM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/09/church_of_england_apologizes_t.html

Sorry, Darwin!


Oh, and #Whatever: CAFE standards.

9/17/2008 4:05:09 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and #Whatever: CAFE standards."

Uh, I'd hardly say liberals have carried the day on that one. If you're looking at reducing gasoline usage, fuel prices have done wonders to spur people to start choosing more efficient cars. As would a fuel tax, if reduction in demand is your goal.

9/17/2008 4:08:16 PM

Option #1 is reactive.

Option #2 isn't on the table.

9/17/2008 4:10:09 PM

And how exactly are CAFE standards, then? Last I recall, the people howling most about them have been... auto-workers unions! Not exactly conservative enclaves, last I checked.

Ask any mainstream economist which policy is more effective at reducing demand - CAFE standards or a fuel tax - and it's not even going to be a debate. You're going to see almost near-consensus on the latter.

So, what - liberals "told us so" at policies of marginal effectiveness, compared to simple laws of supply and demand?

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2008 4:14:29 PM

CAFE is absolutely on the table.

It's already in effect, and it was just recently raised.

Meanwhile, if raising the gas tax isn't political suicide, then nothing is.

Quote :

"So, what - liberals "told us so" at policies of marginal effectiveness, compared to simple laws of supply and demand?"

They "told us" that regulation of some sort was needed. That they managed to get CAFE through despite the GOP's kicking and screaming over any regulation at all is noteworthy.

TOUCH

DOWN

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2008 4:17:13 PM

So, let's go back to the scoreboard.

We've planned on slowly ratcheting up CAFE standards over the next decade or two.

Meanwhile, fuel prices have caused dramatic changes in car-purchase and car-driving behavior over the course of a few years.

Yeah. You really told us so there. It's a policy of marginal effectiveness at best and incomprehensibly inefficient compared to more direct options, but it passed, so you told us so. Ignore the fact that the market is already working on the problem far more effectively than CAFE ever will.

Next up: Liberals told us that the sun rises and the earth is round.

Quote :

"They "told us" that regulation of some sort was needed. That they managed to get CAFE through despite the GOP's kicking and screaming over any regulation at all is noteworthy. TOUCH DOWN"

And for all that "need" of regulation, looks like fuel prices have been doing the job a lot faster.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, there.

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2008 4:21:54 PM

CAFE is the biggest crock of shit ever. WTG California douches

9/17/2008 4:26:30 PM

What about pay-per-mile auto insurance?

9/17/2008 4:33:27 PM

Quote :

"If you disagree, you must have been home schooled by your inbred family from West Virginia."

I bet West Virginians can't wait til McCain gets elected so they have no choice but to be home schooled by their inbred families

9/17/2008 5:26:09 PM

Quote :

"I bet West Virginians can't wait til McCain gets elected so they have no choice but to be home schooled by their inbred families"

They have these new things now called jokes. Have you heard of them?

9/18/2008 8:33:35 AM

They never taught me about jokes in school. (I'm from WV)

9/18/2008 9:15:25 AM

DrSteveChaos:

Quote :

"We've planned on slowly ratcheting up CAFE standards over the next decade or two ... [but] the market is already working on the problem far more effectively than CAFE ever will ... looks like fuel prices have been doing the job a lot faster ... "

Racheting up CAFE standards over the next decade or two? ... For the last 30 years we've known that dependence on imported oil was a national security issue (since the 1975 oil embargo anyway). Not only have Republicans not done anything about it for 30 years, they exempted SUVs from milage restrictions causing the national average MPG to actually go up for the last 20 years.

Now that gas fuel prices are at crisis levels (and drasticly effecting the economy) these same people now say, "see, the market works" (all this at a time when "the market" is tanking by the way). I'd like to see a little more leadership than "crisis, desperate reaction, and then claims of victory".

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/18/2008 9:23:54 AM

Quote :

"hahah, silly me moron. Here I thought equality meant everyone having the same set of rules."

Not necessarily the case.

Imagine two people, A and B. A spends 95% of his monthly income on essential goods and services (housing, food, transportation -- we could include more in this list, but this is probably the biggest set of things we agree on). B spends 2% of his monthly income on essential goods. Are you really suggesting it's "fair" to impose a 10% income tax on both of these people?

I mean you could take the naive view that equal percentage (in this case, equal application of a simple rule) is fair. I think the above case shows that to be absurd, however. Keep in mind if the rules are conditional depending upon how much you currently have, those rules ARE the same for everybody -- if person A became as rich as person B under such a system, they'd be treated by the same clause. It's not arbitrarily advantaging certain people.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 9:25:43 AM

Quote :

"Racheting up CAFE standards over the next decade or two? ... For the last 30 years we've known that dependence on imported oil was a national security issue (since the 1975 oil embargo anyway). Not only have Republicans not done anything about it for 30 years, they exempted SUVs from milage restrictions causing the national average MPG to actually go up for the last 20 years."

You can cry "crisis!" all you want, but the fact is, Democrats from Michigan and automotive workers' unions have been just as responsible for sinking CAFE standards as have Republicans. (Again - even assuming CAFE standards are the right way to go - which they're not.) And the fact that we're planning on slowly ratcheting up standards is the work of your own left-wing heroes in Congress - even they haven't planned on "doing something" right away.

The fact is, if you're worried about oil consumption, CAFE standards are a terrible way to implement fuel economy. Economists have been saying for years that the right way to do it would be a fuel tax. And now, we're seeing that - oh wait - people do respond to market incentives, once the price of gasoline goes precipitously up. And they respond to market incentives like price pretty fast - a hell of a lot faster than the automotive turnover from CAFE, which wouldn't even be fully implemented for more than a decade.

So now - where do I get to say, "I told you so?" Because this game is pretty fun.

9/18/2008 10:30:56 AM

^ We will just have to disagree. I don't consider the state we are currently in a "successful" energy, or national security, or economic policy.

Republican presidents have turned a blind eye to this problem for 30 years, even encouraging consumption through SUV fuel exemptions. Rather than reduce dependance of foreign oil they, and their partners in business, promoted consumption as "good for business" - even in the face of the national security risks. Even their strategy for easing those national security risks revolved around consumption - "We'll buy oil, and stick it in a hole in the ground until we are desperate for it." Would a little effort on the demand side have hurt? Sometimes I don't think the Republicans can see past their nose, or farther than the next income statement anyway.

"The problem with vision is that it takes thirty years to figure out who's got it."

9/18/2008 1:09:17 PM

Quote :

"Would a little effort on the demand side have hurt? Sometimes I don't think the Republicans can see past their nose, or farther than the next income statement anyway."

Dude. This is the point I've been making, which you keep ignoring. If you want to fix the demand side of the problem, ultimately the most effective way to do it is to raise the floor on fuel prices. Which, whether one would call the current energy policy a "success" or not, the current situation has had the effect of doing. Which vindicates what I've been saying thus so far - rising price of fuel = less demand for fuel. Therefore, if people would have listened to economists and the economically literate a long time ago, we could have already taken care of the demand side.

CAFE standards are a ham-handed way of accomplishing this that take decades to permeate through. Fuel prices work now. And don't act like this is just the Republicans' fault - 8 years of Clinton didn't produce much movement on either front you describe either. Particularly where it would have been most effective - in nudging up fuel prices to lower demand. If you want to actually do something about oil demand, fuel taxes are the most effective policy. The fact that Democrats are just as queasy about it as Republicans merely proves the point that nobody actually wants to held accountable for the problem - just to look like they're "doing something" about it. No matter how ineffectual it is.

9/18/2008 1:21:10 PM

you notice the dems dont talk about FISA much...lol

9/18/2008 11:18:28 PM