http://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpg
http://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpg
http://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpg
http://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpghttp://infinitecoolness.com/gallerie..._timecop04.jpg

Defense budget has only nominally increased as a percentage of GDP because of Iraq. It has been greater in just about every year in the history of the US. The cost of this war and timeframe is only a blip and doesn't affect the economy that greatly. IT is not the reason the Dems want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Dems have been making that speech since the beginning of time. Dems feel that the rich should pay a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. That is their philosophy. People can choose to vote on Dems knowing that this is their platform.

Actually the rich dont pay their fair share,Warren Buffet said that and he isnt a liberal. Stop listening to the pundits.lol

There are some that don't. And yes there are ways that people take advantage of the system. But I know a lot of rich people and I don't know anyone that doesn't have an effective tax rate that is close to 30%. Buffet is in a completely different situation where so much of his income is at the dividend rate of 15% and not at the ordinary income tax rate. But, I would say the benefit of the low dividend rate has far outweighed the cost.

The bottom line:

1. The war in Iraq may be a good thing. If we could all stand together, freedom around the world would prevail. Oil prices may recede, and the economy would recover.

2. Nothing good will ever come from taxing the living shit out of the taxpayers to give it to people who expect Uncle Sam to coddle them their whole lives. Never, ever. Big government is always a bad idea. The taxpayers will flee oppressive tax hells, and the deadbeats will continually want more, more, more. It is a death spiral.

Interesting points, thanks.

:thumbsup

You disgust me.

Taxes were higher under clinton and people made lots of money. You want to be in this great nation it costs, cant reap the benefits then bitch about paying your fair share. I assume they have accountants like I do(I dont make 250K) so they arent blindly paying to the government.

:thumbsup i believe so... :winkwink:

NO! :disgust

And if the family can't afford it? Or the patient has no family? Let them suffer and die because they are not a profitable customer?

I donate significantly to the animal shelter where I volunteer, because animals don't get to vote. But people do have a voice if they have enough motivation to use it. I believe that donating to most charities simply supports the status quo. If people think charities are taking care of everything, that they can relieve their conscience with what amounts to spare change, providing a feel-good but ultimately so-impotent-as-to-be-almost-imaginary safety net, then that only puts us further away from the goal of universal health care for everybody unconditionally. Such charities can never achieve what a government can, because they can't rely on a well funded budget, a donation-based system that leaves doctors begging for resources is unacceptable, because they don't have any power to regulate an industry which seems to have more sympathy for shareholders than sick people.

My default political leanings are toward libertarianism and capitalism. Capitalism works great, except in life-and-death decisions. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who who fear they might contribute more than they get out for a public health care system; even though it would cost less to cover everybody in a not-for-profit system than what americans are all paying insurance companies now to cover less. And the government cannot deny anyone coverage for preexisting conditions. If you end up putting more in than you need out, congrats, you got lucky and won the genetic lottery. Be thankful.

Unless you're such an ideologue that you believe that the fire department should only put out a house if the owner has paid his fire insurance, that the justice department should only lock up your daughters rapist if you've paid your crime insurance, then we're at no more risk of becoming a communist nightmare if we treat health care the same way. And if you're rich, and don't like the system for whatever reason, you can continue to pay for private insurance and private hospitals.

Maybe but it's a long shot.

I agree with much of this. There are many exceptions but I think most times it's squandered. I remember watching a documentary about a guy who undertook an expirment: give a bum $100,000 and offer free councilling and support to help him make decisions on how to use the money and get on his feet. In a month or two the bum had spent all the money; He bought a car for himself and for his friend, and other non-essential items. So he was broke again. I believe this is a microcosm of what happens on a larger scale with many government programs (not to mention the abuses of politicians who pilfer funds in countless ways).

Financial management should be taught in school, probably an offshoot of basic math courses.

Financial management is not taught in school for several reasons, the primary one being that money is a very, very controversial subject and many parents would object to what the kids are being taught, on religious grounds, on moral grounds, and because of guilt. No broke parent wants a lesson from little Timmy on how they should be managing their money better.

Let me rephrase that: you make me sad and scared. Sad that freedom could be used as a believable excuse to invade other countries and kill hundreds of thousands. And scared to know many others think the same way you do.

fuck taxes all together!

The US government tried diplomacy for 11 years. Do you remember all the UN resolutions at which Saddam scoffed? Do you remember the games Saddam played with the UN weapons inspectors? Do you remember Saddam's attempted assasination of President GHW Bush?

At what point *would* the US be justified using force?

freedom around the world??? LMAO! Do you actually think that will ever happen? Do you honestly think that this is what all wars are for? To create "freedom" around the world? You're fucking delusional. There will never be freedom around the world and sure as hell not world peace. The Iraq war might be a good thing? Explain how you come up with that conclusion.

If you're making $250k+/yr you deserved to be taxed MORE than you are now.

seeing as you make $250 a month you should be safe.

I'll just jump in here with a couple quick points:

1. We will not really know how Iraq turns out for at least another 10 years. I am of the opinion that eventually there will be some kind of democracy there that will end up being overthrown by a radical and we will be back at square one again. It is also possible there will be a democracy there that supports the radicals and we will not like that either. To me all the war in Iraq has done (other than waste a ton of money and lives) is create terrorist. Sure, we have killed many terrorist, but for every one we will kill our policies create two new ones. That part of the world is under-educated, has such a separation of wealth that the majority of the people live in poverty and has strong government controls on the media. Factor that in with a little radical religion and you have a place that will never know peace. The middle east has known nothing but blood and violence since the beginning of recorded time, there is no reason or evidence to make us believe that will ever change.

2. I think welfare, for the most part, sucks. I think when you allow people to get into the mindset that the government will pay them to sit at home it breeds a culture of failure. A friend of mine worked at a grocery store for many years and there were several women that would come in on welfare and food stamps and every few years they had a new kid so they could stay on the system. One of them had an 18 year old daughter who got knocked up and got on welfare too. The sad thing is they were proud of it. It creates a cycle of poverty and a mindset that allows people to feel good about staying within it.

That said, you have to expect some of that. I just read that around 70% of the strength of our economy is based on consumer spending. Our country survives because people spend money on useless crap they don't need. Remember when Bush took office then there was the Enron and Worldcom collapses, the dot com bubble had burst and then 9/11 happened and the economy was going into the shitter? What did he say to the people? He told us to spend money. Go shopping, take a trip. And that is the key to our economy. When things start looking bad we stop spending and that causes problems. When we spend our money on shit we don't need, our economy thrives. Why do you think they want to give everyone that tax rebate? Because they know most people will just go out and spend it and it could help jump start the econony.

All of this is nice, but let us not forget that the government (and Bush is one of the worst offenders) gives tons of money to companies. It is corporate welfare that pads their profits and often is not used to create new jobs or advance the company. A good example. There was a show on PBS a little while back about a company from Detroit that manufactured instrument panels for different vehicles ( I think they were called Johnson Controls but I may be wrong about that). They did a lot of work for companies like Boeing and had some defense contracts. They had 8000 employees and that year they made 156 million in profit, but they wanted more. The decided to move all of their manufacturing plants to Honduras. Here they could hire people to work for $2 a day instead of $15-$20 per hour and they didn't have to worry about paying overtime or benefits. They laid off around 7,500 of their workers and made the move. The kicker? The Bush administration gave them 20 million dollars in grants to help them with the move. Yeah, they got a smooth 20 million in free money to move 7500 jobs out of the country.

So I ask you this. Which is worse: The government giving 20 million to lazy people who won't work, but will at least spend the money here and put it back into the economy, or giving it to a company to help it move it's manufacturing jobs offshore?

sorry for the long post.

LOL, ya spamming all his ref links in every thread :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Maybe, but I wish we'd try redirecting some of what we're already paying first.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/im...ryfy07prop.gif

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/...5d99ed9a3d.jpg

Hey, I want to reduce spending ... does that make me a conservative?

Fuck the tax man :mad:

Then why were you on here begging/scamming for money today?

a very good post.

You are not seriously comparing Iraq to WWII?? LMAO, there could'nt be two scenarios more further apart. And you think it will end with the second coming of the industrial revolution? economic stability for the US and cheaper gas? Not bloody likely.

You don't have to let anyone suffer. You are free to do as you wish with your money.

What if someone can't afford their rent?
What if someone can't afford a car?
What if someone can't afford their electric bill?
What if someone can't afford a yacht?

What right does one group of people have to take someone else's earnings and give them away for any of these things? Why not a yacht? Buy some serious dignity for the homeless.

What if someone is dying of AIDS in africa?
What if someone is dying of malaria in South America?

Should more money be taken from us to pay for these things? How abut a UN tax?

Intentionally misleading. Discretionary spending is just the non-mandated portion of the budget and is less than half of the US budget. When you look at the whole budget, social programs (Health+Medicare+Social Security+Income Security) are almost 3x what defense spending is.

Nevertheless, I would be more than happy to cut defense spending in addition to those things. I think Medicare D was a mistake (blame Bush first). I'd raise the age for social security benefits to reduce expenses there.

I don't mind having my pockets picked a little but they whack me over the head and steal everything I earn through April.

someday I will

But we pay for those programs through a clearly labeled separate tax. Everybody knows exactly how much they're putting into social security and what it is to be used for, so I don't feel bad about paying that part. It would be nice if other taxes were as clearly divided, so people would at least know which portions to point to if they want to protest something. Oh, and I want a unicorn too.

What's in a name? That which we call a tax by any other name would still smell just as foul.

great response. Hes a chump who wants his cake without working for it.

States made WAY more on WW II than they could ever "save" by staying neutral, although Russians really HAVEN'T drived US trucks to Berlin :winkwink:

Of course the Iraq war will pay dividends, although the investition into the oil was huge.

Did you take your Meds today??...

Just shut up before becoming the new minusonebit. :1orglaugh

You keep gaining enemies on a daily basis here with your Conservative Dictator claims and you will not be able to keep stealing people's money with your worthless overpriced domains.

I agree, Halbucks is a tard.

He needs to read this:
fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart."

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

The warmongers need to wake up and realize the war on terror is a joke and anyone who thinks Iraq and Iran can be conquered and turned into beautiful democracies are fucking whacked. :321GFY

Iraq War = Crime

War on Terror = abandoned?

DaddyHalSucks = One ignorant, stupid motherfucker

Who attacked us on 9/11? Why are we in Iraq? Fucking SCAM!!!


I think the WAR bill should be paid by ONLY THE FUCKERS THAT VOTED FOR BUSH! They have NO ROOM to complain about a higher tax bill with all his government spending in that criminal invasion of Iraq.

Some day someone will hold GWB and his cabinet responsible.

Dude, seriously? You're comparing life-saving medical treatment to cars and yachts? :ugone2far "Needs" and "wants" aren't so confusing that normal people can't easily tell them apart.

But yeah, I also believe shelter and warmth should be considered a basic human right in the most prosperous country on earth in the 21st century. If civilized society makes you rich, the least you can do is be civil back. You don't have to take this libertarian capitalist thing to the extreme, because like any ideology it breaks down when you get all absolutist about it.

Even if you don't have a moral bone in your body, do it because you still have to live surrounded by these poor/unlucky people and they're less likely to rob or murder you if they're not stuck living in some social darwinist's wet dream.

And sure, eventually we can hope that all the people of the world will do their best to care for eachothers basic needs (though that obviously goes against our selfish natures) but for now our government covers the geography it covers and until we've got that under control we can be excused from not solving the whole worlds problems all at once.

If I could provide everybody with enough to eat, a place to sleep, and care when they're sick by giving away everything I own, I wouldn't hesitate. But alone it would do little good and then I'd be just another needy person myself. Advancing civilization requires everybody working together; in some cases through the sort of organization that only a government can provide.

Signed,
a reclusive atheist who personally can't fucking stand most people most of the time, but somehow I retain some empathy for those suffering the human condition alongside myself.

WHAT FUCKING MORON really thinks that "Democracy" is all they need?

Democracy is NOT A GOOD THING BY ITSELF. IT requires a complex system of checks and balances to make it work.


Democracy = MOB RULES!

Don't fall for stupid Republican "catch phrases"!!!


They hate us for our freedom = FUCKING LIE!

We want to spread Democracy = FUCKING JOKE!

Whenever the majority rules, that society FUCKING ABUSES MINORITY GROUPS!!!!!!


GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU FUCKING REPUBLICAN MORONS - Democracy by itself SUCK DONKEY COCK!!!!!! It is no better than a dictatorship! You ignorant motherfucker.

Moving jobs offshore is a good idea IF we trade up. By 'trade up' I mean move the lower paying jobs offshore. If we have the support of education to replace those lost jobs with higher paying more skilled jobs at home, then it is a very good idea. Unfortunately, I don't think we are doing so well at that. We are replacing lost jobs with umemployment and welfare, a recipe for disaster.

If candid, thoughtful, and respectful comments breed 'enemies,' then I am not sure what is lost. I don't think I'd want those people as 'friends.'

:2 cents:

President Harry Truman was hated in his time. Now he is admired as a great.

The same will happen with GWB.

There's been some very interested studies about tiered tax rates, and what is truly the most effective tax rate (that produces the most revenue).

The answer was a flax tax rate. Reason being, the more you tax the rich (who are your doctors and other smart skilled people generally capable of generating revenue), the more likely they won't try earning that extra $10,000 each year. In the 80's with tax rates of 90%, they simply quit working harder and played golf because why bother.

This meant that they worked less, and hired fewer people.

In fact the studies actually suggested that if a tiered tax rate were in place, it should actually LOWER taxes as you go up each tier, as incentive to generate more revenue.

Yep, the problem is that most of the good paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced with lower paying retail and service industry jobs. In order to make the same money many of these people are in the situation where they have to go back to school and if you have a family and mortgage and commitments that is not always a very realistic option and even it you can manage it you could end up losing a lot in the process.

You know that is not true right? Social programs are much cheaper then military ones. Look at the spendy habits of the last 10 presidents and Republicans are way harder on the budget then Democrats.

This possible tax increase still sucks.

It's called hyperbole. ;-)

I pay my housekeeper well. That doesn't count for anything?

Not yet..... :(

fuck, i make $35, what taxes should i pay?

:upsidedow

Why would we want to prolong lives? We want to collectively pool our money to make people live longer so they will have to receive even more money in their old age? Living 78 years is way too long. There was nothing wrong with 65. You're born with the "right" to live about 45 years on average. Not 78. Anything on top of 45 is a "gift". Who really saves lives in this country? Big Pharma. That's right. Pfizer, Merck and the rest. Vaccines created by one man at Merck save 5 million lives every year .


But hey, you really wanna save lives? I can do it a lot easier and it won't you and me a dime. Outlaw cigarette smoking. That will save up to 400,000 lives per year in the US. 20% of all the deaths in the country. Thank you for NOT smoking.

Daddyhalbucks doesn't understand this. If you allow democratic elections in a former theocracy, they'll elect a religious zealot (ie dictatorship) and you're back where you started. The only way you'll get the secular leadership that you want is by screwing with the election process - something the US is notorious for doing in 3rd world countries.

W might make it to average with some luck. His biggest potentially positive legacy will be creating the Department of Homeland Security.