Quote :

"Let's ask the blackberry support technician"

hey look, you just proved my point about not having a fucking clue about how successful i am, yet not being too arrogant or stupid to let that get in the way or your pretentiousness

i'm not a "blackberry support technician", but i guess when you get your information from people on TWW who have never met me in their lives, you end up continuing to look like a complete retard

10/20/2008 6:34:56 PM

What is it exactly that you do? Or is it Top Secret (TM)

10/20/2008 6:35:46 PM

What do you do and what knowledge do you have (you've already demonstrated what knowledge you DON'T have) that would suggest anybody should listen to you about public policy ever?

10/20/2008 6:36:04 PM

oh now you want to ask? i thought you knew? btw its ironic that i'm much more successful than both you and Str8foolish

10/20/2008 6:36:14 PM

That wouldn't be ironic, that would be tragic.

Satiated my curiosity. I figure you for dolt.

10/20/2008 6:37:09 PM

You may have more dollars than either of us (it's logically possible, I suppose) but you're clearly less intellectually successful seeing as how you have zero knowledge about anything you talk about on here.

The ultimately ironic thing here is that if you spent ever a mere fraction of your days reading something informative instead of habitually posting content-less shit on here, you'd be well on your way to being qualified.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:37:30 PM

I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU

fuck off, i'm outta this socialist circlejerk, I GOTTA GO TAKE SOME TECH SUPPORT CALLS

Quote :

"You may have more dollars than either of us but you're clearly less intellectually successful"

good luck getting a loan based off that

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:37:43 PM

ahahaha

10/20/2008 6:38:34 PM

Dodged the question. Nice.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : PS- I have monies <3]

10/20/2008 6:38:35 PM

Typical TreeTwista escapism in the face of defeat.

As usual, you lost the argument before you started because you didn't understand what we were arguing.

Then, you lost the argument a second time by attempting to participate in it without knowing anything about the topic.

Then, you lost by conceding defeat otherwise.

10/20/2008 6:39:10 PM

yeah i dodged the question, whats the point? you already know more about me than i do, i might as well let you assume everything about me since you already think you know...i wouldnt want to disappoint you by informing you of something true that you already believe to be false

AS USUAL, I'M SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU EVEN THOUGH I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOU

the only ironic thing is you have both accused me of trolling in this thread

mcdanger you werent even this bad at being a blatant troll when you were posting under the liusclues account

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 6:39:51 PM

I haven't accused you of trolling.

I know you don't amount to anything.

10/20/2008 6:41:45 PM

Quote :

"good luck getting a loan based off that"

Pretty sure from your posting record here that you're a marine science major who now does Visio rollouts.

Laters.

Edit:

Quote :

"major: marine and oceanographic natural resources job: IT and construction PM ^holla"

Hmm, yase.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 6:56 PM. Reason : Old School]

10/20/2008 6:46:40 PM

Quote :

"See the hilarity here is that only Str8foolish and I have actually sat down and researched this."

What a 2 min. search on wikipedia for good sounding articles

Quote :

"ow-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370. Although the flat tax is more progressive than a VAT, it is more regressive than the current system. A flat tax would provide huge gains for 156 Flat tax high-income households, both because their marginal tax rate would fall and because they consume relatively less of their income than do low-income households."

oh knows!!!!

income earners get to keep more money that they earn.

I think you confused taxing income versus taxing wealth.

Quote :

""Making more =/= working harder.""

I think you also are looking to shallowly at the world "working harder"

While the lawyer sitting at his desk may not be doing "hard work" laying bricks; physical labor is not the only aspect that makes a job hard.

The lawyer had to make lots of sacrifices to get to his current position. He has to retain a lot of knowledge and has a lot of responsibility that requires
a skill taht the market says is rarer than the ability to pick up a brick.

10/20/2008 6:57:12 PM

Quote :

"What a 2 min. search on wikipedia for good sounding articles"

Nope.

Quote :

"I think you confused taxing income versus taxing wealth."

Nope but this is what fair taxers are confusing when they claim the policy is "fair".

Quote :

"I think you also are looking to shallowly at the world "working harder" While the lawyer sitting at his desk may not be doing "hard work" laying bricks; physical labor is not the only aspect that makes a job hard. The lawyer had to make lots of sacrifices to get to his current position. He has to retain a lot of knowledge and has a lot of responsibility that requires a skill taht the market says is rarer than the ability to pick up a brick."

Define "hard" some other way and you get different results. You don't say. Sounds a lot like defining "fair" in some artificial way and then getting a new result as well. This is fun, I should take up your methods. It's certainly easier to be this intellectually sloppy.

10/20/2008 6:59:20 PM

Quote :

" Nope but this is what fair taxers are confusing when they claim the policy is "fair"."

When the fuck did I EVER post i supported the "fair" tax plan. I never once posted anything about Fair
tax.

Why don't u

Quote :

"Try again buck-o. Taking bets on what try you'll successfully read and understand"

As I advocated for a Flat tax not a Fair tax

Quote :

"A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate.[1] Usually the term flat tax would refer to household income (and sometimes corporate profits) being taxed at one marginal rate."

Quote :

"The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal tax laws of the United States that would replace all federal income taxes[1] with a single national retail sales tax. The plan has been introduced into the United States Congress "

Saying that I believe a Flat tax IS Fair is not the same as arguing that I support a Fair tax which is drafted tax proposal for a national sales tax in place of an income tax

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM. Reason : L]

10/20/2008 7:07:31 PM

I don't have time to read the thread so forgive me if this was threaded.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Quote :

"A Liberal Supermajority Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933. * Article more in Opinion » * Email * Printer Friendly * Share: o Yahoo Buzz more o MySpace o Digg * smaller Text Size larger * If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants. [Review & Outlook] AP Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on. The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010. [Review & Outlook] - Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave. Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed. The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal. - The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list. The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries. - Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition. The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935. - Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP. - The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites. - Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition. - Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time. It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone. In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

Thoughts, comments?

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM. Reason : k]

10/20/2008 7:14:30 PM

Quote :

" Furthermore the 'many' you refer too isn't remotely close to a majority as a vast majority of Americans are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. "

How many americans are that way because they don't know the first thing about personal finances or if they do, they ignore it? Seriously, we live in a country where we have a negative savings rate, and people buying new cars every 5 years, and owning 5 and 6 credit cards all carrying a balance. The fact that americans are fucking stupid has no bearing on the fact that people who actually work at succeeding can and often do succeed.

10/20/2008 7:34:28 PM

personal responsibility ftl

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 7:37 PM. Reason : the government will take care of me]

10/20/2008 7:36:59 PM

^^^ [old]

message_topic.aspx?topic=539332&page=70

message_topic.aspx?topic=544909

10/20/2008 7:37:13 PM

Quote :

"Saying that I believe a Flat tax IS Fair is not the same as arguing that I support a Fair tax which is drafted tax proposal for a national sales tax in place of an income tax"

No kidding.

I have been typing fair and flat so much I typed the wrong thing. I'll admit that mistake, but I had it straight in my head which you supported (flat).

10/20/2008 7:44:38 PM

Wait, fair taxers want tax credits for people living in poverty?

what a bunch of socialists!



It's fun playing this game!

10/20/2008 8:00:39 PM

Quote :

"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.""

What about 2001???

I think Good ole Dubya has done a good job at vastly expanding the gov't. Maybe not an intrusion into your wallet but into your privacy and civil rights instead.

10/20/2008 8:01:15 PM

IM a supporter of the fairtax boone, you have a question I can try to answer? Its one set of rules for all, as fair as it gets.

Now what obama wants to do is straight socialism. Giving tax "credits" to people who paid no taxes is welfare and taking money from those that earned it and giving money to those who didnt.

Quote :

"good luck getting a loan based off that"

LOL, nice.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 9:45:31 PM

i thought under socialism no one is rich?

10/20/2008 9:46:18 PM

Quote :

"Now what obama every president since FDR wants to do is straight socialism. Giving tax "credits" to people who paid no taxes is welfare and taking money from those that earned it and giving money to those who didnt"

^ you're thinking communism

Quote :

"IM a supporter of the fairtax boone, you have a question I can try to answer? Its one set of rules for all, as fair as it gets. "

What we have now is "one set of rules for all" it's just a very broad, encompassing set of rules. I think you meant "one rule for all" which sounds kind of ridiculous doesn't it? Let's have one rule for people of all ages too, that's fair right? Or let's use one rule for men and women because we're identical right? You're kind of like Frodo in a way, on your epic quest for the one rule, to rule them all. HUR can be the dwarf, and treetwista can be gollum.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 9:49:16 PM

so MORE socialism.. feel better moron?

10/20/2008 9:52:10 PM

^ it's the same amount of socialism as McCain, just for the majority rather than the minority income segments.

10/20/2008 9:57:06 PM

Might I point out that those "Socialist" Nordic countries, by most accounts, have the highest standards of living in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

10/20/2008 10:01:35 PM

Quote :

" it's the same amount of socialism as McCain, just for the majority rather than the minority income segments. "

How do you come to that conclusion?

10/20/2008 10:14:06 PM

^ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-census0608-29.html

McCain's plan is even more expansive than Bush's plan

But under Bush household incomes took a sharp downward decline, only now leveling off, the poverty rate rose sharply, all while the top 20% saw an unabated rise in their share of the wealth. Where is this trickle down that's suppose to be happening? If the wealthy were actually investing in jobs with their tax breaks, you'd see their share stagnate some, while the lower quintiles rise. What appears to be happening is that the top 20% are taking their money and running, while the lower 60 are moving up on their own to the second-from-top 20. This trend can't continue without very negative effects on our gov. and society.

10/20/2008 10:29:10 PM

hahah, and how the fuck is that socialism? seriously

10/20/2008 10:32:38 PM

it's socialism "for the wealthy" because it leads to a society where a few thrive to the detriment of the majority, which is what "normal" socialism is against.

10/20/2008 10:40:27 PM

wait, wait. So allowing people to KEEP more of what they EARN is socialism? That is honestly the point you are arguing? hahah, ok moron. You have a good night now.

10/20/2008 10:43:30 PM

Thanks for that link moron.

eyedrb, the "socialism" thing was tounge in cheek. In "Socialist" societies the safety net is raised a little higher, so that a wider range of people have their "needs" looked after (healthcare, education, etc.). I think the joke is that Bush has been looking after the needs of the rich more than those of the poor (i.e. socialism for the rich - it's a joke because its an oxymoron). I think that the facts bear it out. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/20/2008 10:45:55 PM

^^ you are just grumpy because you ahve to deal with a bunch of worthless lazy mother fuckers that come to your office on medicare/medicaid.

You seem to have more free time than any doctor i know; hence time to post on TWW all day.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : L]

10/20/2008 10:46:09 PM

Quote :

"You seem to have more free time than any doctor i know; hence time to post on TWW all day. "

haha, I love when you all say this. So not only are you libs interested in others money but also how they spend thier time. LOL

bobo, its mighty nice of you to try to bailout moron. OH, how do you feel that bush has been looking out for the needs of the rich over the poor?

Oh, and just to clarify your point. Medicare is for the elderly and disabled, Medicaid is for the poor.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 10:50:51 PM

^Surely you've noticed that HUR is not a liberal...

10/20/2008 10:51:59 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb, the "socialism" thing was tounge in cheek."

exactly

I didn't realize eyedrb was taking socialism "for the wealthy" as literally socialism, I don't think he understand what "socialism" actually means, which actually does shed light on his naive position.

10/20/2008 10:52:05 PM

Quote :

"bobo, its mighty nice of you to try to bailout moron. "

So moron, why do you feel entitled to other peoples money? Just curious?

Oh, I figured HUR was a liberal bc surely he doesnt have a job bc he posts on here all day long.

10/20/2008 10:56:19 PM

^ I don't think most people feel entitled to anyone's money... whose money am I taking?

Why don't you answer this question:

What do you think will happen if the trends in those graphs continue unabated? Could it possible be good for our country in the middle or long term?

10/20/2008 11:00:15 PM

Quote :

" The intellectual aspect of American Socialism is what makes the Democrat Party's position so popular with pseudo intellectuals, celebrities and nouveaux riche, it's empathetic, politically correct, and doesn't take much thought because the ivory tower guys have done the thinking for them. 89% of our journalists sucked this Democrat Socialist Ideal up like mothers milk in college resulting in retarding their instinct for objectivity, hence our biased media. Our Hollywood celebrities gravitate to this Democrat dogma in their incessant quest for popularity and political correctness, hence the popular culture endorsement. Largely lower income Americans have endorsed American Socialism, albeit not by name. Not attributable to their political analysis, but because they're the major beneficiaries of these empathetic social (ism) program safety nets. The un-debated oversight of this socialistic idealism is the fact that socialism is top-heavy with government management (bureaucracy). Government is run by people, mostly lazy people with little oversight or accountability. This is what separates Socialist Idealism from Socialist Utopia. This is the reality of human nature, and it's fallibility. Clearly American Socialism is distinctively different from the above definition. In America where we remain a capitalistic free market society. Incrementally we're instituting social programs. Instead of a system owned collectively by the people, our system is owned privately but taxed mercilessly by the government for wealth re-distribution for our collective social good. I.E. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Education. This results in the American Socialism Model, better known as our social (ism) programs. The socialism paradigm penalizes success and rewards mediocrity and failure. It brings to mind an old Russian saying. "The government pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work." An apropos epithet for USSR'S Gross Domestic Product. We're penalizing productivity for the alleged benefit of all. All being those that can't or won't provide adequate income, retirement or medical care for themselves, and those who don't need it, but having had it extorted from them, insist on receiving their rebate as a social entitlement program. Americans are a compassionate people, and we have always had a safety net for the needy as we should. However, as time goes on and we're taxed into oblivion everyone is starting to demand their piece of our collective safety net, and the people we elect promise us just that. And they do their best to deliver said safety net for their re-election insurance, no mater the cost! As much as we are taxed, it isn't enough to cover current entitlements (socialism programs), hence our $5.7 trillion collective National Debt. As I listen to our politicians speak, I realize that incrementally we're becoming a nation of dependent pan-handlers. To the best of my recollection it wasn't a bunch of folks with their hands out that made this country great. All I can say America is, "We better be careful what we ask for"! "

http://www.free-press.biz/usa/American-Socialism.htm

10/20/2008 11:03:27 PM

Quote :

" 89% of our journalists sucked this Democrat Socialist Ideal up like mothers milk in college resulting in retarding their instinct for objectivity, hence our biased media"

what a great way to call out the media for its bias

^ that's long on talking points and banalities, but unsurprisingly short on data and analysis. But it makes up for in in blatantly in-factual statements.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 11:05:08 PM

well, as an obama supporter those over 250k moron.

What do you think will happen if we continue to punish the productive? Or continue to have politicians pander so the majority votes to steal from the minority? Do you feel its the governments job to maintain everyones lifestyle?

I like the idea of the fairtax, bc everyone should have to pay something towards the govt and shouldnt be penalized simply for being productive.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

So true, and exactly the direction we are moving in. How many times have you heard, "I dont care, i dont make over 250k." Or better yet, "Im cutting taxes for 95%" haha

10/20/2008 11:06:24 PM

Quote :

"As I listen to our politicians speak, I realize that incrementally we're becoming a nation of dependent pan-handlers. To the best of my recollection it wasn't a bunch of folks with their hands out that made this country great. "

Wow, I love that. So sad, yet true.

10/20/2008 11:12:17 PM

^^ I noticed you didn't answer my question.

I will also point out that I backed up my position with hard numbers, where as you spew ambiguous, false, misleading, or disingenuous statements like:

Quote :

"well, as an obama supporter those over 250k moron."

Quote :

"What do you think will happen if we continue to punish the productive? "

Quote :

"Or continue to have politicians pander so the majority votes to steal from the minority? "

Quote :

"Do you feel its the governments job to maintain everyones lifestyle? "

You realize the only actual support you've offered for your position is meaningless talking points?

My position is based on the mathematics of the reality of the situation we're currently in, and yours is based on an apparently shortsighted adherence to a philosophy that has no basis in reality.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 11:13 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 11:13:24 PM

oh, im sorry. I thought obama has mentioned raising taxes on those making over 250k. Im SURE i heard that somewhere.

10/20/2008 11:15:40 PM

Quote :

"Might I point out that those "Socialist" Nordic countries, by most accounts, have the highest standards of living in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index"

10/20/2008 11:15:46 PM

^^ Still dodging the question I see.

And if your problem is with all taxes, then I hate to disappoint you, but there's not a single developed country on the planet that you'd be happy in.

10/20/2008 11:18:43 PM

Im not dodging your question moron. Go back and look at your graph, do you notice any trends? Look in the past hoss.(hint)


bobo. LOL

Quote :

"My position is based on the mathematics of the reality of the situation we're currently in, and yours is based on an apparently shortsighted adherence to a philosophy that has no basis in reality. "

I think its economic theory that if you want less of something, tax it. If you want more, subsidize it. That real enough for ya?

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 11:24:27 PM