Therapy on the Rocks: because politics will drive you to drink. [Archive]

joep144

07-30-2009, 07:39 AM

Aaron

07-30-2009, 08:02 AM

Ok, I'm going to be THAT guy again

http://quickstopentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7811&highlight=political

randomlogic

07-30-2009, 12:31 PM

Joe, sorry to disagree with you, but:

The causes of the United States’ recession are complicated and numerous, but the symptoms are relatively simple. Banking institutions across the country are reaping the consequences of offering credit too freely to a large number of people who chose to borrow beyond their means to repay their debt. A spike in the number of defaulted loans, combined with plummeting commodity prices, have left a nationwide majority of banks on the verge of bankruptcy and unwilling or unable to provide credit to households or businesses. Corporations, in turn, were forced to cut their costs of doing business by firing employees, slashing man-hours, and attempting to gain more liquidity by selling investments. American families were forced to cut back spending due to their lack of disposable income, further damaging the private sector’s ability to do business.

Optimistically, the current recession can be viewed as a harsh but necessary correction in America’s economy, which had been grossly and artificially overvalued since the beginning of the decade. The federal government is in a unique position to act as a catalyst for growth, and to prevent the economy from collapsing into a full-blown depression.

In a stagnant economy, the government is the only institution with the ability to provide liquid assets, both by spending money borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank, and by printing new money through the Treasury Department. Regardless of how the funds are acquired, the most sensible strategy to rejuvenate the economy involves ensuring that all money borrowed by the government is quickly and completely circulated back into the economy. The wisest move for the United States to make at this point is to spend large amounts on things that will benefit people on a household-by-household basis. Government expansion of unemployment benefits, food assistance, and the welfare system will not only address growing needs of the people in these trying times, but also has the added bonus of requiring relatively small bureaucratic maintenance to quickly get money to the poor. This will result in a rapid inflow of money to the business and banking sectors from the bottom up. Providing money to the lower and middle-class in this way will also have the benefit of increasing demand for goods and services, which in turn will help restore solvency in the banking system.

Only after these short-term needs are addressed should the federal government plan for medium-term investments such as infrastructure and public works projects. This type of investment takes longer to mobilize due to obstacles in state and city administrative systems, but will result in healthy growth as the nation attempts to recover from the recession. These medium-term investments would be best spent on projects that address larger problems in our economy like climate change, transportation, and export demand.

Once these investments are in place, economists theorize that households will decrease spending in the short term to resolve outstanding debt, but that demand will rebound after consumer confidence is restored. A way for governments to expedite this process would be to judiciously invest money in the stock market. One benefit to this tactic would be supplying companies with much-needed liquid assets. The other, far more important benefit is that once individuals, businesses, and banks believe the market has reached its nadir, stock prices will be viewed as reasonably valued, or even as bargains, and the market will begin to recover from its decline.

In the interim, our government should increase spending on things that would benefit society in the long term. In order to remain competitive with other nations, the United States must address facets in our strategy that had been lacking since before the recession began. By increasing government funding in education, we guarantee ourselves a larger pool of talent which can provide us with the innovations that helped make the United States the superpower it is today. Increasing research and development grants will help to equip talented minds with the tools they will need to provide these innovations of tomorrow. Strategic investment now, at a time when all the developed nations are in recession, gives us the opportunity to reposition ourselves at or near the top in education and exportability by the time the recession subsides.

Opponents to this point of view are very vocal against federal government spending while in deficit. However, because government is the only entity that is still able to get credit, deficit spending is necessary to rejuvenate the economy. Deficit spending is certainly not sustainable in the long term, so once these corrective measures are in place, the government must scale back spending and possibly increase taxation to return to equilibrium. As explained by economist Martin Wolf in his February 18th interview with the magazine The Futurist, “Once we get the household sector back in shape, the stock market at a reasonable price, and people again start buying stocks and finance companies through the stock market or through debt, then you will want to see the government deficit start to diminish.”

Using sound economic planning, the United States’ economy will return to stability. Because the economy is cyclical, Americans will undoubtedly see future recessions, but because no two recessions have exactly the same characteristics, there is no guarantee that the plan that works today will be effective in the future. However, hindsight will be able to provide warning signs to future economists who will seek to avoid the critical failures that caused our current financial crisis.

I'm going to go drink some birthday Jack Daniel's.

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 12:39 PM

That is the longest Haiku I have ever read. Ever.

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 12:46 PM

What makes me mad is the resolution which was in the process of being passed by congress to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii as a part of the United States. a resolution “recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State,” contains this provision: “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii”
Now what pisses me off is when I point out the fact that Barack Obama's legitimacy as a United States citizen is indeed questionable and I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Why, if it's just a conspiracy theory, is congress making resolutions putting politicians on record as saying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

Luckily, it seems that the resolution has been blocked, for now.

randomlogic

07-30-2009, 12:50 PM

That is the longest Haiku I have ever read. Ever.

Actually, that is an EXCERPT from an essay I was forced to write to get scholarship money. The full text is much duller. I hate economics.

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 12:54 PM

I don't think that the measures taken by the government at this time, like stimulus packages and bailouts, are having any positive effect on the condition of the economy.

Really, it seems like the government is just scooping water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end of the pool in attempts to make the shallow end deeper

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 01:34 PM

...the fact that Barack Obama's legitimacy as a United States citizen is indeed questionable...

And...where are the facts to back any of that up?

By-tor

07-30-2009, 01:42 PM

And...where are the facts to back any of that up?
Facts? Fuck, Barclay, this is the internet. You don't need no stinkin' facts to argue points on this bitch. ;)

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 01:43 PM

Facts? Fuck, Barclay, this is the internet. You don't need no stinkin' facts to argue points on this bitch. ;)

Obviously. Good point.

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 02:00 PM

And...where are the facts to back any of that up?

What is the legitimacy of the sources saying otherwise? If congress was so sure that he was born stateside, then what reason did the house have to try and pass a resolution that stated that he was born in the United States? What gives congress the authority to say that any one particular person was born in the United States and is therefore a citizen? Is that unconstitutional?

I don't have facts that say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I only have a lot of questions which you can't blame me for asking.

Unfortunately, nobody asks questions anymore because they just want to sit dormant and have someone else tell them the answers.

Aaron

07-30-2009, 02:04 PM

IT'S THE WORLD'S FAULT

What are we talking about?

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 02:10 PM

What is the legitimacy of the sources saying otherwise? If congress was so sure that he was born stateside, then what reason did the house have to try and pass a resolution that stated that he was born in the United States? What gives congress the authority to say that any one particular person was born in the United States and is therefore a citizen? Is that unconstitutional?

I don't have facts that say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I only have a lot of questions which you can't blame me for asking.

Unfortunately, nobody asks questions anymore because they just want to sit dormant and have someone else tell them the answers.
That's the problem. You can't just ask random questions of something and then say that it is a FACT that his citizenship is in question. By definition you ARE a conspiracy theorist. If there were facts which led to the questions, then you would indeed be following a logical line of question and answer.
Every legitimate news outlet has reported the validity of President Obama's birth certificate.
The congressional resolution was intended to put a nail in the coffin of the ridiculous claims. Whether you like the president or hate the president, any sane human being would admit that this entire line of questioning his citizenship is an absurd exercise in grasping at nonexistent straws.
"I don't think President Obama is a citizen."
"Why not?"
"Just because I don't."
"Do you have any facts that lead you to this assertion?"
"No, but his dad was from Kenya."
"And?"
"That's it."
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. A viral email campaign becomes truth in the eyes of the disenfranchised. The world should be ashamed.
What's next - "Colin Powell is really Bat Boy!?"

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 02:12 PM

IT'S THE WORLD'S FAULT

What are we talking about?
deez

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 02:13 PM

DEZE NUTS

Alright, since i have successfully ruined this thread, it's time for a really offensive video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjDr8KKtsE
warning: offensive

Aaron

07-30-2009, 02:14 PM

ZOMG COLIN POWELL IS BAT BOY!

http://www.theatre-musical.com/batboy/batboy.jpg

Who is Colin Powell?

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 02:37 PM

That's the problem. You can't just ask random questions of something and then say that it is a FACT that his citizenship is in question. By definition you ARE a conspiracy theorist. If there were facts which led to the questions, then you would indeed be following a logical line of question and answer.
Every legitimate news outlet has reported the validity of President Obama's birth certificate.
The congressional resolution was intended to put a nail in the coffin of the ridiculous claims. Whether you like the president or hate the president, any sane human being would admit that this entire line of questioning his citizenship is an absurd exercise in grasping at nonexistent straws.
"I don't think President Obama is a citizen."
"Why not?"
"Just because I don't."
"Do you have any facts that lead you to this assertion?"
"No, but his dad was from Kenya."
"And?"
"That's it."
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. A viral email campaign becomes truth in the eyes of the disenfranchised. The world should be ashamed.
What's next - "Colin Powell is really Bat Boy!?"

Well the only reason we had this exchange was because you're just jealous of my equipment, so your argument is invalid!

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 02:47 PM

Well the only reason we had this exchange was because you're just jealous of my equipment, so your argument is invalid!

Dude, you're not making any sense.

Aaron

07-30-2009, 02:48 PM

Dude, you're not making any sense.

Have you not met Acid before?

OhNoBuffalo

07-30-2009, 02:52 PM

Let's just blame everything on the socioeconomic instability of post cold war America and the effect of pre nuclear modern North Korea and its effects 3rd world human rights vs. rabbits.

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 02:56 PM

Have you not met Acid before?

Ya, but this seems to be the "new" Acid. I used to be able to follow him...but now it's all gibberish and "look at me, I'm different."

TheHangingBrain

07-30-2009, 02:57 PM

Politics are total bullshit and are just one of the things that serve to keep us all separated as a people. It makes us focus on our differences instead of seeking common ground and compromising. That is all. You can try to start a debate with me about this, but I won't take part. And no, I'm not a fucking hippy, I just feel pretty strongly about this. I feel the same about organized religion.

RobinHoodDaffy

07-30-2009, 02:58 PM

Dude, Zac everyone knows that Obama is the Democratic version of Serpentor. He is not an American because he is made of the DNA of various world leaders designed to be an appealing President. The conspiracy started at birth, because all of us are tagged with our future careers at the moment of conception. The government along with the Catholic church have been guarding this secret for eons.

Now I have to go back to my bunker, the truth has been exposed and they will be after me.

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 03:10 PM

TheHangingBrain

07-30-2009, 03:13 PM

"I am going to make an extremely polarizing statement and then refuse to discuss it!"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kMs_q1g_CmQ/SHVRUpZmhhI/AAAAAAAAB-g/zmKqdgXgrFo/s400/Mr%2BBurns%2BEvil%2BLaugh.png

You're free to disagree and state your differing opinion, I encourage it. I just refuse to debate it. :)

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 03:15 PM

Ya, but this seems to be the "new" Acid. I used to be able to follow him...but now it's all gibberish and "look at me, I'm different."

I've been on this forum before your account was a twinkle in UncaScrooge's eye, and I HIGHLY don't FUCKING APPRECIATE being MODERATELY CRITICIZED young man!

>:c

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 03:16 PM

I've been on this forum before your account was a twinkle in UncaScrooge's eye, and I HIGHLY don't FUCKING APPRECIATE being MODERATELY CRITICIZED young man!

>:c

Dude... "I've been here longer" totally not going to phase me. *Yawn*

TheHangingBrain

07-30-2009, 03:18 PM

I've been on this forum before your account was a twinkle in UncaScrooge's eye, and I HIGHLY don't FUCKING APPRECIATE being MODERATELY CRITICIZED young man!

>:c

Something might be wrong with your shift key...

Oh and Barclay, I knew you would be the first to pounce on my previous statements on government. Consider yourself baited and caught. ;)

TomHarrington

07-30-2009, 03:18 PM

From Thomas Paine's Common Sense

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

The bold text represents the source of my frustration with those who govern. I don't feel represented. I don't think they share, or can genuinely empathize, with my concerns. They're too far insulated from the reality that most Americans have to live in. They play by a different set of rules.

I seriously doubt members of the previous Bush administration will have to pay for the crimes they've committed. Ted Kennedy should've done prison time for Chappaquiddick, and although the incident cost him a shot at the presidency, the fucktard was still allowed to have a political career, proving that politicians can literally get away with murder.
The IRS once came after me for unpaid back taxes totalling less than $1500 (there were a couple of years that I didn't file returns. I going going through some "stuff". Ooops. Some of the years they actually owed me money, but coincidentally only notified me of my debt when enough time had passed that I could no longer collect the money owed to me) but somehow missed Tim Geithner ($34,000) and Tom Daschel's ($140,000) indiscretions. Tim Geither is now the Treasury Secretary. What a country! Call me cynical, but I suspect that had they not been appointed by Obama their taxes would still be unpaid. And it makes me wonder how many other politicians are doing the same shit.

They all suck monkey butt! Anarchy now!

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 03:20 PM

Dude... "I've been here longer" totally not going to phase me. *Yawn*

I was actually just joking, but I don't post to try and be different. I just post the way I do because I'm acid_soda, and if anyone doesn't like that, then they'll just have to figure out how to deal with that themselves.

TheHangingBrain

07-30-2009, 03:25 PM

They all suck monkey butt! Anarchy now!

Tom, have I told you lately that I love you?:D

That is the same feelings that I have, by the people for the people just doesn't exist anymore. It's just one big billionaire boy's club and they know nothing of the struggles of my life.

OhNoBuffalo

07-30-2009, 03:31 PM

It's just one big billionaire boy's club and they know nothing of the struggles of my life.

Amen brother... :)

joep144

07-30-2009, 04:03 PM

Joe, sorry to disagree with you, but:

I'm going to go drink some birthday Jack Daniel's.

Never be sorry for disagreeing with me, people do it all the time and I have absolutely no problem with it. I will, when I get back from range qualification, address the points in your essay one at a time...........honestly we're not all THAT far apart.

Happy Happy birthday you Haiku writing, John Daniels drinking, AZ baking in the sun, neighbor to my former residence. (When you know him as well as I do you can call him John - Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman). Gotta grab some ammo, to be continued.........;)

Sheriff

07-30-2009, 05:30 PM

OK, I realize that we have a Ventilation thread, but not everyone wants to read a bunch of political BS when they're pissed off about other stuff. (I assume that most posts here will be venting). I also understand that there are VERY few other conservative minded folks here on the QSE, so I fully expect a very large ration of shit from everyone......especially you Zac. All that I ask is that there is not a bunch of personal attacks on each other.

I do know that I have just swatted a hornet's nest, but here we go.........

We have a tried and true model for pulling our economy out of recession in the Reaganomics model, why the HELL are we not following it? Lower taxes equal more money in the pockets of the people making it and in turn they have more to spent, thus driving our economy forward. History has also proven that when the tax rates are lowered, the amount of money coming into the federal coffers increases (it's called the laffer curve).

In addition to cutting taxes, the feds should cut spending! If anyone of us ran a business or our personal finances the way our government does, we'd be living in an 8 x 12 cell with a hairy back guy named Bubba telling us we have a cute butt. We need to stop spending money on stupid shit!

OK, I need to get to work now but I have much more to say. I can't wait to see the comments when I get home........

I tried before (http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?p=170077#post170077) to have a place to argue politics, it just never seems to work. I know there have been a few blowouts on the board and people seem to back off and not post as much and that is not fun. I tend to view this board as a place to get away from it all, as I can turn on Fox/Cnn and get an opinion on to what the dirty politicians are doing wrong right now.

I think it is fundamentally the way people are wired. No matter what, you can find some way that your view is right and the other side is wrong, and that will never change. I like having an open mind and try to see the other side, but sometimes have gone crazy and probably made people's mind's explode from my limited experience, education, and probably flawed trust in humanity. :)

I recently read 1984, and it indirectly gave me a huge insight to how our political system seems to be structured (not to say that our system is totalitarian or that we are being monitored by our TV's). It made me realize that our system is probably one of the best out there and that 30% of the people are going to always vote Democrat, 30% Republican, and the 40% that swing either way is going to make the difference. The way people vote is for different reasons but if either party is running things decently, it will probably stay in power. I think that we should support the government that sheds and self corrects corruption as fast as possible and offers the best opportunities for our offspring. I think the current events with the economy have helped correct some flaws in our system and will give our government more guidance in what it has to regulate (I'm not a fan of regulation but I think it has become apparent that some systems do need it, or at least oversight).

*Probably will make people's mind explode - highlight to read, or not*

As to your specific views on the economy, I think Reaganomics is a reason we are in this mess as I think Dub-ya did try to follow that model. Deficit spending while decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't make sense to me. Reagan is the first President who's budget plan didn't make sense in this way and it unfortunately has continued since then. If you want to know why social security is more of a Ponzi scheme than a program, look to him. I agree that you should favor and let flourish the successful, but it is a balancing act to not let the bottom portion of society linger in poverty, that to me is economic progress.

Sheriff

07-30-2009, 05:40 PM

I'm going to go drink some birthday Jack Daniel's.

Happy birthday Randomlogic, nice post.

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 08:18 PM

I was actually just joking, but I don't post to try and be different. I just post the way I do because I'm acid_soda, and if anyone doesn't like that, then they'll just have to figure out how to deal with that themselves.

Well then, I guess I do get you. I'm just not impressed. I know you don't care. And that's your perogative.

Aaron

07-30-2009, 09:11 PM

http://www.britneyspy.com/news/data/upimages/mpcover-spy.jpg

donkey

07-30-2009, 09:21 PM

It is not for some pencil-necked bureaucrat a thousand miles removed from me to decide what is available on the market for me to exchange my time for. And I for one am sick and tired of over half of every dollar I earn being taken from me and given to someone who hasn't earned it. Selfish? No, I don't think so. I have nothing against charity- private charity. But I should be the one deciding how the hours of my life- which are directly translated into dollars, should be spent. Not an elitist, do-good busy body who has never worked an honest hour in their entire lives.

this isn't true. if you think it is, post some facts to back it up.

If you posit that 50 cents of every dollar you earn is going to taxes, then according to the taxpolicycenter.org, only 26 cents goes to "mandatory spending" of which only 28% can be considered welfare programs (which actually include disability pay for actual government employees) so thats 7.28 cents of every dollar you earn.

pie graph time:
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/donkeyrific/Numbers_Figure-1_How-does-fed-govt-.gif
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/donkeyrific/Numbers_Fig3_How-does-the-Federal-G.gif
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/donkeyrific/Numbers_Figure-4_How-does-fed-govt-.gif

Compare this with the 18.43 cents of every dollar you earn spent on "discretionary" spending. Most of which goes to defense contracts (which for the iraq war have been primarily no bid, sometimes even unfulfilled but still paid.) The rest of which goes to "domestic" programs like farm subsidies and pet projects of politicians.

I understand getting mad about how much Americans get taxed, but at least focus your anger where it would be most useful. How about getting mad that halliburton was given a no-bid contract to do work in iraq and then overbills, under delivers and over charges?

I say cut out that wasteful spending before we go after welfare.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "honk if I'm paying your mortgage". And I thought, where is the bumper sticker that says "honk if I'm paying for your jet, summer home and 3rd sports car".

Why do get angry that the government gives some people roughly $11,000 A YEAR when we over pay haliburton $1 million a month to do laundry.

Sources?

Welfare costs:
http://dayseye.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/officially-on-welfare-i-got-my-unemployment-check/
(there's a pdf link published by CA state about halfway down that details max benefits)

Haliburton costs:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml

Central planning has never worked in any nation that has tried it. Or rather, central planning does not foster innovation or freedom in any place that it has been tried. These places have normal unemployment numbers around 20 percent. Their economies are stagnant. Their people are miserable. And that is the model we are to aspire to?

No, sir. I don't think so.

I'd like to see you cite a source for this. I'm curious as to which nations you mean.

donkey

07-30-2009, 09:35 PM

I wasn't arguing that 50 cents of every dollar you spend goes to the government. I'm arguinging that 50 cents of every dollar you spend goes to "someone who hasn't earned it" because that is the kind of rhetoric that perpetuates hysteria and resentment towards the poor. If you want to be angry about how your taxes are spent, be angry at the right people.

acid_soda

07-30-2009, 10:18 PM

ZBarclay

07-30-2009, 10:34 PM

I say cut out that wasteful spending before we go after welfare.

Show me some valid statistics pointing to Welfare acting as an incentive for people to strive for more, attain education, or learn a trade, and I'll stop going after Welfare. Welfare is a tremendously abused system that is taken advantage of and is simply NOT a positive program. Yes, there are a minority of people that use Welfare for what it is intended, but the amount of recitivism and the amount of people who stay on Welfare because it gives them zero incentive to work are the majority.

joep144

07-30-2009, 10:36 PM

I understand exactly where the money is going and I resent the Hell out of it. In my opinion, the feds have one purpose- defense of the nation- I'm perfectly happy with defense spending. What I resent is bailing out banks, subsidzing new cars, rebate checks to people who don't even pay income taxes. Do you know that there very nearly 50% of the population doesn't pay any income taxes and yet they receive most of the benefits? If you go to the I.R.S. site, they have information detailing exactly who pays what. If it weren't for the so-called rich, there would be NO money for any of these freebies the government is handing out.

MY POINT is that the money I earn is a direct representation of my time... pieces of MY LIFE. Am I not entitled to decide how MY life is spent?

OK......you truly are a man after my own heart. I for the life of me think it is ABSOLUTE BULL SHIT that some arrogant politician thinks they know how to better spend my money than what I do. The money I make should be just that.....mine. If I want to give to charity, I will! I'm sick of seeing able bodied people sit on their ass waiting for their checks to come from the government on the 1st, 8th and 15th of every month depending on how many of the government teats their suckling from......Meanwhile I'm working 2 jobs because I want to save enough money to buy my own house without taking a hand out.

I'm also sick enough to vomit whenever people start demonizing "the rich." Just because someone makes a lot of money doesn't entitle people that make nothing to a cut of their earnings. I wish to share a little story that will in layman's terms explain our unfair tax system, and explain why "the rich" get the tax breaks:

A tax story with a lesson
The following story has been circulating inboxes for years now. But, since I enjoy it so much, I’ll reproduce it here for those who haven’t seen it before. Full credit goes to the anonymous author.

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government’s recent round of tax cuts. “I’m opposed to those tax cuts,” the retired West coast college instructor declared, “because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that’s not fair”. “But the rich pay more in the first place,” I argued, “so it stands to reason that they’d get more money back.” I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.

So I said to him, let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20”. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, “and he got $7!”. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”. “That’s true,” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

By-tor

07-30-2009, 10:53 PM

I had a nice long post(Boston Tea Party reference, even) ready to go, hit the submit, and "web page has expired" hit me in the fuckin' ballsack. :rolleyes:

But what it boiled down to was until we get lobbyists out of Washington, and the back pockets of those that pass our laws, we don't have much of a say in what they(House and Senate) vote for us. It pisses me off, but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it until there is a major overhaul in how laws get enacted.

07-30-2009, 10:56 PM

Best way to be rid of the lobbyists? FairTax (http://fairtax.org). This will return the power to the people and reduce the politicans to what they were meant to be- representatives for the people.

donkey

07-30-2009, 11:15 PM

Do you know that there very nearly 50% of the population doesn't pay any income taxes and yet they receive most of the benefits?

Where are you getting this? specifically on the site. I know it's a pain to link to the IRS reports because they are all direct downloads, but help me out here. I'm looking thru the individual stats page and i see nothing to support this.

If you go to the I.R.S. site, they have information detailing exactly who pays what. If it weren't for the so-called rich, there would be NO money for any of these freebies the government is handing out.

Yeah, but thats kinda logical isn't it? 50% of 20,000 is gonna be a less more then 50% 200,000.

MY POINT is that the money I earn is a direct representation of my time... pieces of MY LIFE. Am I not entitled to decide how MY life is spent?

Not really. But thats government. Every person doesn't get a say in every detail. You get to vote for who you want to make the decisions, but sometimes you don't get your way.

Threadkiller

07-30-2009, 11:16 PM

It pisses me off, but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it until there is a major overhaul in how laws get enacted.

My impression is that a lot of people feel this way. But when it comes time to vote, they don't back it up. Instead, they go ahead and vote for a major party candidate regardless of the fact that it means more of the same thing we've always had. Why? Could be a lot of things. Maybe they get blinded by a single 'hot-button' issue. Or maybe they believe a vote for a third party is wasted.

Either way, there's no point in complaining unless you voted for candidates who represent what you believe. And let's face it, most anyone who has enough financial backing to get on a major party election ticket won't actually consider overhauling the corporate financed democracy we have now.

Vote your conscience. Not what they tell you on TV or the radio. Don't vote out of fear. Don't believe the hype. There are more than two options on the menu.

Somebody gotta cure me of this damn idealism.

donkey

07-30-2009, 11:21 PM

Show me some valid statistics pointing to Welfare acting as an incentive for people to strive for more, attain education, or learn a trade, and I'll stop going after Welfare.

"In fact, in March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work."

From:
"The Historical Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate," The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenriech and France Piven, eds., (New York: Pantheon, 1987), pp. 58-62.

One study of Chicago welfare mothers found that their family's rent and utilities cost $37 more than the welfare check. Even for those few who received housing assistance, that left only $160 to cover all other monthly expenses, such as transportation, clothing, hygiene and school supplies. The typical food stamp allowance was insufficient, and many recipients actually went hungry near the end of the month. To make ends meet, the mothers had to receive income from somewhere else. Some of this came from absent fathers, friends and relatives, but almost half came from work -- work that typically paid $3 to $5 an hour. The authors of the study concluded that "single mothers do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work. They do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare."

From: Christopher Jencks, Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 204.

By-tor

07-30-2009, 11:24 PM

Threadkiller

07-30-2009, 11:47 PM

Ugh, reading threads like this is like watching dogs fight over a bone. It doesn't matter which dog ends up with it. Whether the welfare dog or the military industrial complex dog or the corporate de-regulation dog. Whatever. The bone still gets chewed.

The major parties owe allegiance to their financial backing and nothing more. They establish 'think-tanks' that publish studies supporting them. They employ PR companies and spin-doctors. They count major media companies among those financial backers. I know it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory but they have blinded the voters to the truth of what democracy has become.

I find that few people will dispute this or debate it with me, whether it's because I'm right or because I sound crazy I can never tell. Probably both. Maybe it's asking too much of people to buck the system. Maybe I'm missing the point and this thread only exists as a way to reinforce already deeply held beliefs. It's working for me.

Shäne

07-31-2009, 12:09 AM

I'ma just stay out of here and let the grown-ups talk. :o

phit_demon

07-31-2009, 12:56 AM

"Ladies..."

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/phitdemon/2499835550_8faf925992.jpg

TheHangingBrain

07-31-2009, 02:02 AM

This thread makes me sad...

Shäne

07-31-2009, 02:59 AM

I'm going to start one about religion next. :D

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 03:35 AM

"In fact, in March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work."

From:
"The Historical Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate," The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenriech and France Piven, eds., (New York: Pantheon, 1987), pp. 58-62.

One study of Chicago welfare mothers found that their family's rent and utilities cost $37 more than the welfare check. Even for those few who received housing assistance, that left only $160 to cover all other monthly expenses, such as transportation, clothing, hygiene and school supplies. The typical food stamp allowance was insufficient, and many recipients actually went hungry near the end of the month. To make ends meet, the mothers had to receive income from somewhere else. Some of this came from absent fathers, friends and relatives, but almost half came from work -- work that typically paid $3 to $5 an hour. The authors of the study concluded that "single mothers do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work. They do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare."

From: Christopher Jencks, Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the Underclass (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 204.

The crux of your argument relies on 20 year old statistics. I'm done discussing this with you.

Threadkiller

07-31-2009, 03:40 AM

MY POINT is that the money I earn is a direct representation of my time... pieces of MY LIFE. Am I not entitled to decide how MY life is spent?
Well, that's the foundation of democracy right? The idea that you get to decide how your 'life' is spent and still get the benefits of living under a government (police, guaranteed rights, stuff like that). Unless you are advocating anarchy, I imagine you would agree that at least some taxation is reasonable, to guarantee your rights are protected from those who would take what is yours through force.

The disagreement comes in when we try to decide just how many and which rights the government should be protecting. Am I reading you right or am I missing something?

LoOnEtUnEs

07-31-2009, 06:17 AM

Miguel Sanchez

07-31-2009, 06:49 AM

The crux of your argument relies on 20 year old statistics. I'm done discussing this with you.

Hey man, that sounded kinda nasty.

Lotism

07-31-2009, 08:29 AM

phit_demon

07-31-2009, 08:52 AM

The crux of your argument relies on 20 year old statistics. I'm done discussing this with you.

At least he is citing actual material, instead of just being a dick. Tone it down chief.

donkey

07-31-2009, 09:30 AM

I said...

And the response is...

Pardon me, but what you are saying is, and correct me if I am wrong, that I am beholden to society? That it is, in fact, the government's decision as to how my life is to be spent?!?! I am some sort of slave to 'the greater good'? That I owe society something and it's up to the government to decide exactly how much of my life is forfeit?

Sorry- but I am NO man's slave.

Not for much longer.

If someday I'm no longer here, on these boards, and you never hear from me again, it is because I have finally come to the point where I can let go of everything that I have forged for myself in this society and fully realized that I will not live my life for the sake any other person. I have never asked any one to do so for me and I will never assume that I have the right to demand so of any one else.

(You can ask me what all that means but don't expect an answer other than I'm not going anywhere just yet.)

Yes you aren't 100% free. That's what living in a community means. If you drive on roads, partake in our infrastructure, then you have entered into a contract with the government. And your end of the contract is to pay taxes and obey laws. The government then spends the taxes and oversee's the laws. The fun part about democracy is that you can change the government. And if how the government is spending your money gets you this angry, run for office or start taking to the people in office.

The other option, like you pointed out, is for you to live outside of this social contract with the government. More power to you if you can do it. I'm always in favor of people being happy as long as it doesn't involve hurting other people.

joep144

07-31-2009, 11:43 AM

I have no problem at all paying some sort of tax to provide for the national defense, but that's it. Allow me to reiterate- I'm sick and tired of what is essentially portions of my life funding the welfare state and paying the salaries of assholes like the above. The income tax? Punishes achievement.

Have you been reading my journal? :eek: I'm glad to know that there are more people out there that feel the same way I do. :D

There is so much I wish to add here, but as of late I've only been able to hop on the boards for a few minutes in between meetings, classes, work, and family activities.........and honestly I've wanted to see just how strong and bold I should be with my responses. JK, you've inspired me. ;)

And now my lunch break is over!

07-31-2009, 11:44 AM

I tend to not hold back when it involves my core convictions :cool:

Edit: Okay, this is my last posts in this thread :p

TomHarrington

07-31-2009, 12:08 PM

The so-called representative we have today can't come up with any legislation with less than 500; the average lately seems to be about a thousand.

Not only that, but you could actually understand what was written back then. Now legislation reads like an EULA, only more convoluted and lifeless.

Edit: Okay, this is my last posts in this thread :p

I think you could have a promising career in politics! J/K, JK. ;)

donkey

07-31-2009, 12:08 PM

"I am going to make an extremely polarizing statement and then refuse to discuss it!"

i guess this is the norm.

TomHarrington

07-31-2009, 12:13 PM

i guess this is the norm.

Huh?

http://www.wyomingfilms.net/2ndwind/NORM.jpg

Lotism

07-31-2009, 12:24 PM

i guess this is the norm.

I can tell you don't use Firefox..

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 02:13 PM

At least he is citing actual material, instead of just being a dick. Tone it down chief.

Tone it down? This IS toned down. 20 year old statistics about a social program that has changed for the worse in said period of time are completely inconsequential. It's insulting to anyone involved in the argument to expect them to just go, "Oh...you're right. I see. That's valid."
There is absolutely no validity in quoting statistics that don't apply to the discussion. It would be akin to quoting statistics showing positive economic growth 10 years ago to attempt to nullify the fact that were are now in a recession. It's not even smoke and mirrors, it's just...silly.

Sheriff

07-31-2009, 02:41 PM

I had a nice long post(Boston Tea Party reference, even) ready to go, hit the submit, and "web page has expired" hit me in the fuckin' ballsack. :rolleyes:

When that happens to me, I hit the back button, copy what I've written, sign in, paste, and post.

Of course when I spend that much time thinking and writing a post, it often leads to an argument so sometimes I just let it go :)

MY POINT is that the money I earn is a direct representation of my time... pieces of MY LIFE. Am I not entitled to decide how MY life is spent?

Death and Taxes, right? After getting into it with you a couple times, I feel like I totally know where you are coming from, and don't disagree with a single thing. I almost wish that they would let you decide where your tax dollars went.

JK - 100% defense spending
Sheriff - 100% starving children and disabled Vets

Nice to see that this thread has a more balanced view than previous ones, aka everyone gang up on JK.

By-tor

07-31-2009, 03:11 PM

Tone it down? This IS toned down.
Yeah, I thought so, too. It's inane to argue with stats that are 20 years old. Unless, you can get in a time machine, go back there, and then do some arguing. :rolleyes:

By-tor

07-31-2009, 03:12 PM

When that happens to me, I hit the back button, copy what I've written, sign in, paste, and post.

Of course when I spend that much time thinking and writing a post, it often leads to an argument so sometimes I just let it go :)

I tried. It was gone. :rolleyes: But, I did get the jist of what I lost posted.

donkey

07-31-2009, 04:01 PM

a social program that has changed for the worse in said period of time

Where are your stats and studies to back that up?

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 05:36 PM

Where are your stats and studies to back that up?

Working on it.
To be sure, I will not be using reckless data that has no bearing on the current climate of the issue.

*Edit*
Ok...to start...let's consider this article
"Welfare Payments and Crime

C. Fritz Foley
Harvard Business School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

June 4, 2009

Abstract:
Analysis of daily reported incidents of major crimes in twelve U.S. cities reveals an increase in crime over the course of monthly welfare payment cycles. This increase reflects an increase in crimes that are likely to have a direct financial motivation like burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and robbery, as opposed to other kinds of crime like arson, assault, homicide, and rape. Temporal patterns in crime are observed in jurisdictions in which disbursements are focused at the beginning of monthly welfare payment cycles and not in jurisdictions in which disbursements are relatively more staggered. These findings indicate that welfare beneficiaries consume welfare related income quickly and then attempt to supplement it with criminal income."
-End of Article-

Rather than acting as an incentive to better oneself and move in a positive direction, we see a correlation between crime and exhaustion of welfare monies received.
Also, let's consider the fact that in any criminal detention institution, you will see...without fail...an incidence of over 50% of the incarcerated individuals whose primary income (other than criminal enterprise) is a social program (i.e. SSI, Disability, Welfare, ADC, etc). Among the criminal population in most areas, the recitivism rate is in the higher percentiles (we're talking 70-90% depending on the location). The recitivism, coupled with the social programs shows a trend of several years over a lifetime of repeated behavior. Where is the incentive to improve one's predicament if the social programs have no recourse against those who repeatedly engage in untoward behavior, yet continue to benefit from the social programs. There is currently no policy in place to ensure that repeat offenders do not suck from the teat of the taxpayer who remains lawfully and gainfully employed. There is no expectation (in most states) that those who benefit from social programs prove that they are drug free, actually unable to work, OR actively seeking employment or betterment. Now, let's give more money as more dependents are created, and allow the women who take advantage of such programs as ADC, WIC, HUD or Section 8 housing (benefits intended strictly for women and children) to utilize these benefits (due to the fact that there is very little enforcement or investigation of abuse of the programs) to support their boyfriends that are currently involved in criminal behavior.
Not a program that is overtly abused and corrupted? I disagree. Whole heartedly.

phit_demon

07-31-2009, 05:52 PM

Tone it down? This IS toned down...

Yeah, I thought so, too. It's inane to argue with stats that are 20 years old. Unless, you can get in a time machine, go back there, and then do some arguing. :rolleyes:

That's not what I meant. I don't get involved when you all start talking politics, because I wouldn't pretend to know enough to hold my own.

I was referring to Zac's dismissive comment, which was dickish.

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 06:14 PM

I was referring to Zac's dismissive comment, which was dickish.

It wasn't dickish. It was a response to what was a ridiculous attempt to utilize unrelated and obsolete data. I have no problem with people having differing views, especially on political and religious issues. What I do have a problem with is either the manipulation of facts to say something other than what they say, or the attempt to use facts that are completely unrelated or out of date in order to further one's argument.

Aaron

07-31-2009, 06:21 PM

That's making out that Donkey is some sort of sinister mastermind trying to take over the world with old facts.

He was just trying to back up his point of view.

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 06:32 PM

That's making out that Donkey is some sort of sinister mastermind trying to take over the world with old facts.

He was just trying to back up his point of view.

And I was pointing out why there is no way that data can be used to back up said point of view. I stand by my assertion.

phit_demon

07-31-2009, 06:38 PM

It wasn't dickish. It was a response to what was a ridiculous attempt to utilize unrelated and obsolete data. I have no problem with people having differing views, especially on political and religious issues. What I do have a problem with is either the manipulation of facts to say something other than what they say, or the attempt to use facts that are completely unrelated or out of date in order to further one's argument.

And what I have a problem with is when someone is being a dick and won't admit it.

By-tor

07-31-2009, 07:30 PM

And what I have a problem with is when someone is being a dick and won't admit it.I don't think he was being a dick, at all. I think he was just being to the point about not arguing stats that are out-dated by 20+ years. Like I said, inane to argue with someone using stats that old. With that, I'm heading to DFW to pick up Chelsey from the airport. Cheerio.

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 07:49 PM

And what I have a problem with is when someone is being a dick and won't admit it.

I was not being a dick. I was stating that I was not going to discuss it further, and my reasoning for not feeling it was worth discussing further. I'm not going to defend my statement any more. I was not being a dick.

I don't think he was being a dick, at all. I think he was just being to the point about not arguing stats that are out-dated by 20+ years. Like I said, inane to argue with someone using stats that old. With that, I'm heading to DFW to pick up Chelsey from the airport. Cheerio.

Thank you. Have a safe trip, and enjoy your time with the family!

donkey

07-31-2009, 10:05 PM

Working on it.
To be sure, I will not be using reckless data that has no bearing on the current climate of the issue.

*Edit*
Ok...to start...let's consider this article
"Welfare Payments and Crime

C. Fritz Foley
Harvard Business School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

June 4, 2009

Abstract:
Analysis of daily reported incidents of major crimes in twelve U.S. cities reveals an increase in crime over the course of monthly welfare payment cycles. This increase reflects an increase in crimes that are likely to have a direct financial motivation like burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and robbery, as opposed to other kinds of crime like arson, assault, homicide, and rape. Temporal patterns in crime are observed in jurisdictions in which disbursements are focused at the beginning of monthly welfare payment cycles and not in jurisdictions in which disbursements are relatively more staggered. These findings indicate that welfare beneficiaries consume welfare related income quickly and then attempt to supplement it with criminal income."
-End of Article-

Rather than acting as an incentive to better oneself and move in a positive direction, we see a correlation between crime and exhaustion of welfare monies received.
Also, let's consider the fact that in any criminal detention institution, you will see...without fail...an incidence of over 50% of the incarcerated individuals whose primary income (other than criminal enterprise) is a social program (i.e. SSI, Disability, Welfare, ADC, etc). Among the criminal population in most areas, the recitivism rate is in the higher percentiles (we're talking 70-90% depending on the location). The recitivism, coupled with the social programs shows a trend of several years over a lifetime of repeated behavior. Where is the incentive to improve one's predicament if the social programs have no recourse against those who repeatedly engage in untoward behavior, yet continue to benefit from the social programs. There is currently no policy in place to ensure that repeat offenders do not suck from the teat of the taxpayer who remains lawfully and gainfully employed. There is no expectation (in most states) that those who benefit from social programs prove that they are drug free, actually unable to work, OR actively seeking employment or betterment. Now, let's give more money as more dependents are created, and allow the women who take advantage of such programs as ADC, WIC, HUD or Section 8 housing (benefits intended strictly for women and children) to utilize these benefits (due to the fact that there is very little enforcement or investigation of abuse of the programs) to support their boyfriends that are currently involved in criminal behavior.
Not a program that is overtly abused and corrupted? I disagree. Whole heartedly.

Interesting article, but after downloading the pdf I have some issues with it:

1) His comparisons are not accurate (crime rates over 5 days verses crime rates over 20 days)

2) I can't see any link between the crimes committed and the perpetrators being on welfare.

3) he says the crime rates are higher, but it's at a rate of .05 crimes per day. Statistically thats not a difference.

The data is just all over the place and I'm not convinced. Look at his standard deviations for crime reporting. The deviation is greater then the difference, which means you trust his numbers becuase, in fact, crime might be lower after the 10th of the month.

But I applaud the conversation we are having. Much better for each side to present facts and findings then to just say "no it isn't, I don't want to talk anymore."

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 10:35 PM

Much better for each side to present facts and findings then to just say "no it isn't, I don't want to talk anymore."

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was not disputing your facts and "taking my ball and going home" (I use quotes, not saying that I am quoting you, but simply to illustrate that it is a quote not to be taken literally, as I am not athletically inclined and do not indeed own a ball, but merely intended to replicate the tone in which my statement was perceived.), I was pointing out that the facts were way too old to have any relevance to the discussion at hand.
Also, feel free to acknowledge the additional facts that I stated after the end of the article. These are my facts which are the results of several years of my own research.

donkey

07-31-2009, 10:39 PM

What kind of research did you do?

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 11:00 PM

What kind of research did you do?
Without going into detail about my personal/professional life, I work in a capacity where I deal with the demographic(s) in question on a daily basis.

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 11:29 PM

Why don't you just say my name? :rolleyes:

What's the value in me conversing further with you when you seem to believe that I should accept the government as the ultimate decider of my fate? I've had that argument with more people than I care to think about- it's the equivalent of slamming my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Much better ways I could be spending my time.

So yeah- I took my ball home.

I thought he was referencing the fact that I said I wasn't going to discuss it any further if he was going to quote 20 year old statistics.

07-31-2009, 11:31 PM

I thought he was quite pleased with the discussion you two were having...

ZBarclay

07-31-2009, 11:31 PM

I thought he was quite pleased with the discussion you two were having...

Now...not then.

marksiwel

08-01-2009, 03:07 AM

And what I have a problem with is when someone is being a dick and won't admit it.

Pot meet Kettle

Aaron

08-01-2009, 05:46 AM

Why don't you just say my name? :rolleyes:

This is not an addition to this thread's discussion, it ain't my country so I can't really say who is right or wrong but I'm enjoying reading it.

The only thing I wanted to say was, I've noticed this a lot with you lately JK. You seem to think people are making references to you when they aren't.
As Zac pointed out, Donkey was talking about their discussion with eachother. And it's happened with similar circumstances in the past.
You've talked a couple of times lately about feeling like everyone is against you. I honestly don't think the situation is how you percieve it and I'd hate for a couple of misunderstandings to drive you away from this place.
I don't know what it is that has you feeling like this man, but I hope the shit solves itself soon because we need the old JK back around these parts.

Aaron

08-01-2009, 05:49 AM

Pot meet Kettle

For someone who has left the board, you've posted an awful lot lately

phit_demon

08-01-2009, 07:59 AM

Pot meet Kettle

Ha, says the blackest of black holes. Nobody, bar RB, was a bigger dick than you around these parts.

Did you come back to have your ass rubbed? That door must have left a mighty bruise.

08-01-2009, 08:17 AM

This is not an addition to this thread's discussion, it ain't my country so I can't really say who is right or wrong but I'm enjoying reading it.

The only thing I wanted to say was, I've noticed this a lot with you lately JK. You seem to think people are making references to you when they aren't.
As Zac pointed out, Donkey was talking about their discussion with eachother. And it's happened with similar circumstances in the past.
You've talked a couple of times lately about feeling like everyone is against you. I honestly don't think the situation is how you percieve it and I'd hate for a couple of misunderstandings to drive you away from this place.
I don't know what it is that has you feeling like this man, but I hope the shit solves itself soon because we need the old JK back around these parts.

The offending post has been removed. Sorry.

08-01-2009, 08:28 AM

phit_demon

08-01-2009, 08:33 AM

Since it seems to upset more than a few people when I post about my political convictions, I'll stick with posting about fluff. Since I obviously can't discern when people are talking about me, I'll just stay out of future discussions. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I just avoid these threads because it always causes upset of some kind, plus I'm way out of my depth. For what it's worth though, I never have any problems with your views and posts on these subjects. I don't always agree with you, but you always put forth your point in an admirable way

08-01-2009, 08:38 AM

I'm done with politics. From now on if anyone asks, I'm simply a Texan living in Georgia who occasionally votes.

phit_demon

08-01-2009, 08:41 AM

I'm done with politics. From now on if anyone asks, I'm simply a Texan living in Georgia who occasionally votes.
An aside, but where'd memory hole go?

08-01-2009, 08:45 AM

Like I said, I'm done with the political commentary. I may pick it up a later date, but honestly, I feel like I'm shouting into a deep endless vacuum. And I'm tired. Just plain, dog-assed tired.

Aaron

08-01-2009, 09:13 AM

The offending post has been removed. Sorry.

Nothing to apologise for man. I'm just worried about you as a friend. I could be picking up your feelings wrong but I don't want you feeling like everyone here is against when they're not. You got a lot of friends here, no matter what their political thoughts are.

By-tor

08-01-2009, 09:42 AM

Since it seems to upset more than a few people when I post about my political convictions, I'll stick with posting about fluff. Since I obviously can't discern when people are talking about me, I'll just stay out of future discussions. Sorry for the inconvenience.Dude, don't do that. Like phitzy said, some may not agree with your views(I'm with you on most of 'em), but don't feel like you don't need to express them just so's not to ruffle other's feathers. It's the fuckin' First Amendment, for Odin's sake. Fuck 'em, if they can't take the heat.

I'm done with politics. From now on if anyone asks, I'm simply a Texan living in Georgia who occasionally votes.The bold letters explains alot of the reason why you are so passionate about your views. It's who we are. ;)

08-01-2009, 09:44 AM

I appreciate the concern, but I don't think everyone is out to get me- I was the one in this thread who actually said "I'm done posting in this thread" and when someone mentioned taking the ball and going home after I failed to provide a link to my sources on the IRS website, I took it as a reference to me. Sorry again.

J_Kat

08-01-2009, 09:52 AM

Without going into detail about my personal/professional life, I work in a capacity where I deal with the demographic(s) in question on a daily basis.

I'd just like to weigh in tentatively in support of Donkey a wee bit, and point out it is very often the case that people who work with the demographic in question can have their perspective embittered, by all the instances of jooking the system that they see around them. Just as, similarly, my attitude to welfare is a positive one given my experience with disability and the many people I know who have resorted to welfare to survive and which it kept them going until they were back on their feet as happy contributing members of society. Without it they would still be in the gutter, or worse, dead. Which aint much contribution to society is it! It depends ZB, whether you're railing against the obvious and endemic corruption and abuse of a welfare system (fair enough and which you have more than a right to do given the intimations about your job). Or railing against the principle of welfare as a whole.

Take your stats connecting crime to those on welfare, is that a fault of the principle of welfare itself? Or as you've hinted yourself, a modern, localised (in the USA at least) problem of broader cultural/societal attitudes and policies. Welfare works brilliantly in some countries, with the benefits far outweighing the cost (and instances of corruption) for all. Dismissing it as an impossible liberal-hippy utopia is defeatist, ungrounded and simply false (I'm not sure you've done that in all honesty, but someone did in the course of this thread).

Show me some valid statistics pointing to Welfare acting as an incentive for people to strive for more, attain education, or learn a trade, and I'll stop going after Welfare.

(...)

There is absolutely no validity in quoting statistics that don't apply to the discussion. It would be akin to quoting statistics showing positive economic growth 10 years ago to attempt to nullify the fact that were are now in a recession. It's not even smoke and mirrors, it's just...silly.

Donkey's stats applied to that specific ask and discussion, and comparing it to economic trends is a false analogy given that the latter is pure facts and statistical trends over time whilst the former is trying to establish moral/psychological motivation amidst myriad different socio-economic factors. Donkey's article proves nothing, it only lends weight one way or another. Ideally Donkey's article would be more convincing if it were more recent, but it can't be dismissed as utterly null and void. Despite being 20 years old, it still presents a more convincing case (to me anyway) than the article you presented, and should not be automatically disregarded due to its age alone. Indeed in 1980's Britain (and mirrored in 80's American politics from what I know), the majority opinion seems more against welfare, and probably more people held the belief that it is just the recourse of the criminal and lazy than they do today. A lot has changed since '87 to be sure, but what might have changed to refute the central assertions made in the article? Are people less trustworthy? More morally bankrupt? Difficult things to establish either way, but one cause to sit on the fence on such a determination, is that every society since the beginning of civilisation pretty much felt that its morals were worse than they were ten years ago. I'm not saying Donkey's assertion is rock solid, or isn't necessarily anachronistic, I admit I'm over-simplifying the differences between now and then, and indeed there could be a cocktail of different factors that renders donkeys specific article weightless. But again, there's no reason to dismiss it out of hand without coming up with hard reasons why it doesn't apply to today's application of welfare. Localised counter-examples of corruption don't do that job.

This is all said in good spirit, and only because, aside from Phitzy branding you a dick :D, donkey seemed to be getting little or no support.

Viva la burro! :)

Antonio_Bay

08-01-2009, 09:55 AM

I'll stick with posting about fluff.

We luvs your fluff!!

J_Kat

08-01-2009, 09:58 AM

:( And now my post looks like an incredibly insensitive revival of the argument wedged onto an important discussion between friends... Sorry, I spent a bit of time putting together that other post and you guys had a bit of a heart to heart in the mean time.

Sorry JK, I don't know you well enough to comment, except that ultimately I hope you're happy here and don't feel excessively targeted or excessively muzzled.

ZBarclay

08-01-2009, 10:33 AM

Pot meet Kettle

I'm not sure that means what you think it means.

By-tor

08-01-2009, 10:38 AM

I'm not sure that means what you think it means.It don't matter what he fuckin' thinks. He only drops by to shit on the the place every now, and then. :rolleyes:

ZBarclay

08-01-2009, 10:41 AM

I'd just like to weigh in tentatively in support of Donkey a wee bit, and point out it is very often the case that people who work with the demographic in question can have their perspective embittered, by all the instances of jooking the system that they see around them. Just as, similarly, my attitude to welfare is a positive one given my experience with disability and the many people I know who have resorted to welfare to survive and which it kept them going until they were back on their feet as happy contributing members of society. Without it they would still be in the gutter, or worse, dead. Which aint much contribution to society is it! It depends ZB, whether you're railing against the obvious and endemic corruption and abuse of a welfare system (fair enough and which you have more than a right to do given the intimations about your job). Or railing against the principle of welfare as a whole.

Take your stats connecting crime to those on welfare, is that a fault of the principle of welfare itself? Or as you've hinted yourself, a modern, localised (in the USA at least) problem of broader cultural/societal attitudes and policies. Welfare works brilliantly in some countries, with the benefits far outweighing the cost (and instances of corruption) for all. Dismissing it as an impossible liberal-hippy utopia is defeatist, ungrounded and simply false (I'm not sure you've done that in all honesty, but someone did in the course of this thread).

Donkey's stats applied to that specific ask and discussion, and comparing it to economic trends is a false analogy given that the latter is pure facts and statistical trends over time whilst the former is trying to establish moral/psychological motivation amidst myriad different socio-economic factors. Donkey's article proves nothing, it only lends weight one way or another. Ideally Donkey's article would be more convincing if it were more recent, but it can't be dismissed as utterly null and void. Despite being 20 years old, it still presents a more convincing case (to me anyway) than the article you presented, and should not be automatically disregarded due to its age alone. Indeed in 1980's Britain (and mirrored in 80's American politics from what I know), the majority opinion seems more against welfare, and probably more people held the belief that it is just the recourse of the criminal and lazy than they do today. A lot has changed since '87 to be sure, but what might have changed to refute the central assertions made in the article? Are people less trustworthy? More morally bankrupt? Difficult things to establish either way, but one cause to sit on the fence on such a determination, is that every society since the beginning of civilisation pretty much felt that its morals were worse than they were ten years ago. I'm not saying Donkey's assertion is rock solid, or isn't necessarily anachronistic, I admit I'm over-simplifying the differences between now and then, and indeed there could be a cocktail of different factors that renders donkeys specific article weightless. But again, there's no reason to dismiss it out of hand without coming up with hard reasons why it doesn't apply to today's application of welfare. Localised counter-examples of corruption don't do that job.

This is all said in good spirit, and only because, aside from Phitzy branding you a dick :D, donkey seemed to be getting little or no support.

Viva la burro! :)
I, like JK, am going to remove myself from this discussion. It is going no where and there is very little deductive reason and critical analysis (aside from donkey pointing out some valid questions about the statistics in the article that I used as illustration - for which I applaud him). I am also going to refrain from discussing any topic that people tend to look at with their heart. It's pointless. I will never be able to convince with fact. Discussing anything of this type seems to be about who can yell the loudest and or restates their belief more often.

-J Kat, although I agree with nothing that you said (aside from showing support for donkey, which is a friendly thing to do) I would like to point out that I appreciate the thought and organization that you put into your post.

By-tor

08-01-2009, 10:46 AM

Discussing anything of this type seems to be about who can yell the loudest and or restates their belief more often.
Shit, you missed some good stuff back in the day when Wingman and RB would get into it. But, RB would argue that the sky wasn't blue. ;)

Aaron

08-01-2009, 11:05 AM

Shit, you missed some good stuff back in the day when Wingman and RB would get into it. But, RB would argue that the sky wasn't blue. ;)

It's not REALLY blue actually. Hence why you get red skies too. It's all about our perecption of light...

... and stuff

By-tor

08-01-2009, 11:08 AM

It's not REALLY blue actually. Hence why you get red skies too. It's all about our perecption of light...

... and stuff
http://fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/stone-cold-steve-austin.jpg
WHAT?!!!

Aaron

08-01-2009, 11:11 AM

Sigh... I really need to stop posting without proof reading first.

WHAT?!?!
http://www.breakawaytours.com/getfile/87f67fbb-f310-430d-a1bf-8a98451977b6/LIL-JON.aspx

RobinHoodDaffy

08-01-2009, 02:10 PM

I'm a little late to this party, but I do find it odd that politics seem to really get people riled up round these parts. It is the new religion.

"God don't exist"
"Eh, whatever, fucktard, it's your perspective"
"And more taxes"
"Oh, now it's on!"

I like Aaron and concerned about you, JK, not because of whatever belief system you have, but the exhaustion you express. Changing ideas and perspectives is hard work, and requires open minds on both sides.

Mainly, however, I believe that I, and many others on this board, consider you our friend. So when you post that you can't sleep and you seem stressed and angry about the state of the world, we worry. Taking away your blog link and saying you are sticking to fluff, do not change the fact that the tone of your postings seems sad.

I think what Aaron, By-Tor, and now I am trying to say, is it has nothing to do with politics or what is or is not offesive, we love you and wonder what we can do to help bring you a modicum of peace.

Threadkiller

08-01-2009, 03:19 PM

Nobody, bar TK, has a bigger dick around these parts.

FTFY

TomHarrington

08-01-2009, 03:33 PM

Pot meet Kettle

I thought you rode off into the sunset. Did your horse get lost?

You’re a meatwhistle. Here’s why:

If only the guy who runs this site would put some sort of warning, or note on the Smodcast download page, about Smith not posting here, and where you could reach him.
But that would be logical, now wouldnt it.

I miss Ryall

Right. So…

1) It’s Ken’s fault when some idiot posts here.

2) There is a logical solution to the problem, but logic escapes Ken.

3) You miss Ryall. This kind of thing wouldn’t have happened if he was here.

Way to be unfair and insulting to the guy who keeps the place running.

And this thread about sums up why I dont come or post here anymore.

That makes as much sense as your signature.

Expect for now, because someone sent me a PM and I noticed this stupid shit.

You “noticed” this shit? If you came back just to read a PM you wouldn’t have seen that thread. You came back to troll.

You jump all over they guy for what? Because you dont like a few of his posts or for making stupid jokes. Fuck, you should have lynched phitdemon years ago then

Phit_demon was voted Funniest Poster two years running, right? What does that tell you? He posts things that make people laugh. He contributes to the forums in a positive way. You won an award, too, didn’t you? I think it was “person who should get out more”.

You insult our admin, the community at large and phit_demon, specifically. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. So please, be a man of your word and just leave already.

08-01-2009, 03:52 PM

The exhaustion is mostly due to working 4 tens with 2 1/2 hours of commuting- I don't get home until 1 a.m., sometimes 2. Sleep, when it happens, comes at around three or four. The significant other's alarm goes off at 6 am, 6:09, 6:18, 6:27, 6:36, and then 6:45, when she finally turns the damn thing off and gets up around seven. I don't get to go back to bed until 7:30am but by then the neighborhood, though I live in the sticks, is a symphony of slamming car doors and garage door openers. I'd use earplugs, but the tinnitus is so bad I have considered sticking pencils in my ears and learning sign language. Seriously. So by 9 am, I just give up and get up. I usually down an entire pot of coffee and a couple of Dr Peppers by eleven when I hit the showers. I leave the house by noon-12:30pm and slog through traffic. Then I get to work and sit around with my thumb up my ass, waiting for log management to send play lists and xmls down. Then usually around ten is when the C3 shit happens- quick turnaround packages that have to be out the door before the sun comes up- That shit hasn't run smooth in almost two months- the signal I'm recording off of craps out, someone reroutes my source, the tapes from Feeds have broken time codes, and the ingest decks drift a few frames, adding video flashes that I have to get rid of by either reingesting or reprocessing (can't push it through an Avid because that'll strip the Nielsen watermark.) On top of that shit, there's... six new, top-secret projects we're testing at once, with equipment not meant for what we're doing.

And usually it's Friday afternoon at 4pm when the log group dumps a week's worth of work and guess who is the only one in the office Friday afternoons? And don't get me started on the actual metrics- for 2008, we proccessed over 528,000 hours worth of work. 2009 is only halfway done and we've already done twice that with the same No. of staff, which is essentially myself and my brohim 'Dra doing the heavy lifting.

So yeah, I'm pretty fucking exhausted. And I've been doing this schedule for eight months now. Hopefully that will illustrate why I get so touchy about what is done with the money I earn 'cause I am busting my ever-loving ass to get it.

Yeah, I get paid to watch TV... :rolleyes:

And honestly, I do appreciate all your concerns- you guys mean a lot to me. Coming here is usually a great relief to the bullshit I deal with every damn day. :cool:

TheHangingBrain

08-01-2009, 05:04 PM

You insult our admin, the community at large and phit_demon, specifically. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. So please, be a man of your word and just leave already.

Damn Tom, I didn't know you had it in you. You Got Served, Mr. marksiwel.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg211/xanadian9/128769397208228462.jpg

I'd use earplugs, but the tinnitus is so bad I have considered sticking pencils in my ears and learning sign language.

I suffer from pretty bad tinnitus as well and I can't stand silence. I usually have a fan or tv going at all times to keep from going bat shit insane. Hang in there brother, I may not agree with all of your views but I will fight to the death for your right to have them. ;)

Sheriff

08-01-2009, 07:42 PM

And honestly, I do appreciate all your concerns- you guys mean a lot to me. Coming here is usually a great relief to the bullshit I deal with every damn day. :cool:

Cheers bro - I'm in the same boat.

Omaru

08-02-2009, 05:02 AM

I suffer from pretty bad tinnitus as well and I can't stand silence. I usually have a fan or tv going at all times to keep from going bat shit insane.

Sorry I hate to go all off topic in what seems to be some candid open guy talk, but is Tinnitus where you can't hear anything except the blood flowing through the ear canal, and its so bad that it sounds like sea crashing against rocks? Or do I sometimes suffer with something else entirely?

JasterIsFett

08-02-2009, 05:10 AM

Sorry I hate to go all off topic in what seems to be some candid open guy talk, but is Tinnitus where you can't hear anything except the blood flowing through the ear canal, and its so bad that it sounds like sea crashing against rocks? Or do I sometimes suffer with something else entirely?

there's a lot of different severities of the condition. Its mostly a hearing loss with constant or intermittent buzzing/ringing/etc. Hence the need for additional white noise to distract form the noise in your head.

Tinnitus is the word usually used to describe extreme cases, i believe.

TomHarrington

08-02-2009, 06:21 AM

Damn Tom, I didn't know you had it in you.

I held my toungue for as long as I could. But then my mouth started getting dry. Is that how you spell toungue? It should be tung. I shouldn't post when I'm drunk. If we had a better admin this wouldn't happen.

phit_demon

08-02-2009, 06:33 AM

FTFY
You saw through my code.

Roughly 90% of my posts are actually about the gargantuosity (it's a word now) of your member. I'm just surprised it took you this long figure it out.

You’re a meatwhistle...You have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. So please, be a man of your word and just leave already.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/phitdemon/Iwuvyouthismuch.jpg

TomHarrington

08-02-2009, 06:42 AM

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/phitdemon/Iwuvyouthismuch.jpg

I'd so do you if you were a chic. Hell, meet me halfway with a passable wig and we're in business. God wants to hook up with you! Woooo!

Omaru

08-02-2009, 06:44 AM

there's a lot of different severities of the condition. Its mostly a hearing loss with constant or intermittent buzzing/ringing/etc. Hence the need for additional white noise to distract form the noise in your head.

Tinnitus is the word usually used to describe extreme cases, i believe.

I must have a mild form since I experienced the 'seashell effect' for weeks, I think I may have had my ipod volume too high, I restricted it to about 60% around 6 weeks ago and I don't listen to it as much being housebound. Now I just get the odd slight white noise but it goes away in as much time as it took to acknowledge it.

I held my toungue for as long as I could. But then my mouth started getting dry. Is that how you spell toungue? It should be tung. I shouldn't post when I'm drunk. If we had a better admin this wouldn't happen.

I think it's tongue, and I think our admin have their hands full enough without the onus of our literacy, watching each others backs seems to get the job done ;)

TomHarrington

08-02-2009, 06:50 AM

washing each others backsides seems to get the job done ;)

Beggars can't be choosers. ;)

Hey, in the drunken "I love you guys" spirit, good to see you posting, relic.

phit_demon

08-02-2009, 07:22 AM

I'd so do you if you were a chic. Hell, meet me halfway with a passable wig and we're in business.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/phitdemon/0058.jpg

TomHarrington

08-02-2009, 07:37 AM

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/phitdemon/0058.jpg

Submit, submit! You win the funny showdown this day. Next time, gadget. Next time...

phit_demon

08-02-2009, 07:41 AM

Submit, submit! You win the funny showdown this day. Next time, gadget. Next time...

I just burped and tasted vomit. That is all.

08-02-2009, 08:03 AM

My tinnitus is a very loud, high pitched whistle in both ears. Directly caused by two factors: too much time on a flight line without adequate hearing protection, and being strapped in a dentist's chair with my jaw jacked open too far for four and a half hours. Both incidents while serving in the Navy. And the record of the hearing loss mysteriously vanished from my medical records when I went through separations. So, after 15 years, it can drive you a tad CRAZY. But personally, I'm fine- it is not I who am crazy. It is I who am mad! My beloved ice cream bar is not like the others. It likes the same things I do...

*looking left... looking right*

I've said too much.

TomHarrington

08-02-2009, 08:14 AM

and being strapped in a dentist's chair with my jaw jacked open too far for four and a half hours. Both incidents while serving in the Navy....
...I've said too much.

It's not your fault...

http://phoenix.fanster.com/blackjesusdisciples/files/2009/02/its-not-your-fault.jpg

By-tor

08-02-2009, 12:52 PM

20+ years of having a few of these...
http://www.exhibitoronline.com/exhibitormagazine/images/october_2006/parade/cymbals_medium.jpg
...pounded on five feet away from me have left my ears fucked. Can't sleep at nite unless there's a fan blowing about 3 feet from the bed. The high pitched ring never stops. Just gotta try to put it out of your mind. :rolleyes:

TheHangingBrain

08-02-2009, 03:03 PM

Sorry I hate to go all off topic in what seems to be some candid open guy talk, but is Tinnitus where you can't hear anything except the blood flowing through the ear canal, and its so bad that it sounds like sea crashing against rocks? Or do I sometimes suffer with something else entirely?

Can't sleep at nite unless there's a fan blowing about 3 feet from the bed. The high pitched ring never stops. Just gotta try to put it out of your mind. :rolleyes:

To me it's the ringing explained by By-Tor, 24-7. Some days are better than others but it's always there. I don't play in a band or anything, but I do like my music loud and have paid the price.

08-04-2009, 09:54 AM

Latest U.S. tax statistics released. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html)

Jen and I fall in the top ten percent.

So... yeah. :rolleyes:

donkey

08-04-2009, 10:06 AM

top 10% seems a good place to be.

The 11-25% and the 1-5% pay more percentage wise then the 6-10%.

Thanks for finding the tax foundation tho! It's gonna be a good place to look around. Really interesting data.

08-04-2009, 10:08 AM

yeah... the top ten percent of taxpayers are responsible for 71.22% of the income taxes paid. Very happy to be a part of that group. :rolleyes:

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 11:53 AM

yeah... the top ten percent of taxpayers are responsible for 71.22% of the income taxes paid. Very happy to be a part of that group. :rolleyes:

Oh sorry dude. It's so sad that you fall in that percentage. Sucks to be you. Lucky me though, I fall in the bottom 50%. Is that because I'm a dead-beat drug addict who loves living on the dole? Nope, I'm a graduate student, living in the ghetto and working my ass off. Boy am I living the high-life now that the taxes have changed. I think I'll take all that extra tax money I'm saving and start rebuilding a classic motorcycle, oh wait, I need it help pay my family's medical bills. wooo!

Look, I know you're sensitive about this stuff but, like you, I'm the type who can speak my mind once in a while. I'm not blaming you for having money. Hell, I'm in school so I can start making money. I honestly think it's great that you have worked hard and built a life for yourself. But at some point, public complaints like this just make you sound like an elitist dick. There are a lot of people in a whole lot worse situation through no fault of their own.

08-04-2009, 12:05 PM

Fine, consider this the last fucking time I mention it.:mad: I'll be an elitist disk elsewhere.

But when you start making money and you start carrying the 40 percent of the population that pays no income taxes, I guarantee you will change your tune.

By-tor

08-04-2009, 12:56 PM

Yep, the last two posts pretty much explain it all. If you need help from the government, it's great that it's there. If you don't, and it taxes the shit out of you, it ain't so great.

ZBarclay

08-04-2009, 01:00 PM

Yep, the last two posts pretty much explain it all. If you need help from the government, it's great that it's there. If you don't, and it taxes the shit out of you, it ain't so great.

Well put.

By-tor

08-04-2009, 01:08 PM

...alot of stuff...Pretty vicious, there, brother. Agree with peoples' views and opinions, or not, but there's no reason to get nasty about it.

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 01:16 PM

Pretty vicious, there, brother. Agree with peoples' views and opinions, or not, but there's no reason to get nasty about it.

You're right. I apologize. Got caught in a bad mood. Something must have pissed in my cheerios this morning. That's no excuse to take it out on people here though. While I think my point was valid, the way I expressed it detracted from its credibility. Sorry folks.

Edit: I do my best not to bring my personal problems or complaints here because this place is my escape from all that. I realize that other people come here for the opposite reason, to seek consolation or whatever, and it would serve me well to accept that rather than resent them for it.

By-tor

08-04-2009, 01:29 PM

You're right. I apologize. Got caught in a bad mood. Something must have pissed in my cheerios this morning. Might have been this little bastard...
http://ablogination.tn420.org/blog/media/users/tn420/pissincornflakes.jpg

08-04-2009, 01:51 PM

A 1987 Suzuki Savage is hardly a classic. I paid $1100 for it and over two years, I've scraped up about another grand here and there and taught myself how to do the work.

I realize there are people in the lower tax brackets working their asses off. I was one of them. And lately, I'm working my ass ragged just to maintain my present level of material comfort. I may be in the top ten percent of tax payers, but I'm living paycheck to paycheck. The hundred plus grand* a year gross income only goes so far when you have a mortgage, two car payments, ridiculous property taxes, school taxes (don't even have kids yet) and the goddamn credit cards and a couple of loans you had to take out so you could go home and bury your relatives half way across the country.

If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

I don't fucking care anymore.

*me and the significant other combined

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 02:33 PM

I'm working my ass ragged just to maintain my present level of material comfort. I may be in the top ten percent of tax payers, but I'm living paycheck to paycheck...have a mortgage, two car payments, ridiculous property taxes, school taxes (don't even have kids yet) and the goddamn credit cards and a couple of loans you had to take out so you could go home and bury your relatives half way across the country.[/SIZE]

You and I aren't so different. Except we drive old beaters with repair bills that fall a bit short of a real car payment. The mortgage, taxes, no kids and family expenses are all there though.

If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

That's just it, I know you aren't an elitist. I know you worked for stuff and it didn't come easy. That's maybe why it bothers me to hear you sound otherwise. You said that when I finally start earning money commensurate with my level of education I might change my tune. I hope I don't. I hope I remember all the times I dropped out or almost had to drop out of school because I couldn't afford it. How close I came to missing out on an education that I count as the second greatest blessing in my life (next to my family).

The fact that you worked so hard for what you have explains why you guard it so diligently. It should be upsetting to see others, who didn't work for it, take what you worked for. But there is that other side of the coin, the person who is working hard and, because tuition keeps going up astronomically, or because the insurance industry in this country is such a cluster-fuck or because there simply aren't any jobs above the poverty line, won't have the opportunities that I've enjoyed.

freetoaster

08-04-2009, 03:37 PM

I'm too cheap to even pay off my court costs to remove the warrant that's out for my arrest, but I did overpay on my taxes last year.

After you've gotten down to smoking thrown away cigarette buts off the street...who gives a shit about taxes. :)

08-04-2009, 04:08 PM

That's just it, I know you aren't an elitist. I know you worked for stuff and it didn't come easy. That's maybe why it bothers me to hear you sound otherwise. You said that when I finally start earning money commensurate with my level of education I might change my tune. I hope I don't. I hope I remember all the times I dropped out or almost had to drop out of school because I couldn't afford it. How close I came to missing out on an education that I count as the second greatest blessing in my life (next to my family).

The fact that you worked so hard for what you have explains why you guard it so diligently. It should be upsetting to see others, who didn't work for it, take what you worked for. But there is that other side of the coin, the person who is working hard and, because tuition keeps going up astronomically, or because the insurance industry in this country is such a cluster-fuck or because there simply aren't any jobs above the poverty line, won't have the opportunities that I've enjoyed.

That's why I am so defensive of my achievements and the work I have done and what I have earned- because I remember when I lived in my car. I remember having to move from parking lot to parking lot to avoid the cops, bathing in sinks at rest stops. I swore I'd never get into that situation again. I have empathy for the people who are working like hell to to improve their lot in life, but, like I said before, I resent the Hell out of the people who feel they are entitled to what is essentially pieces of my life simply because...

I don't see those people as human- I see parasites. I see looters. I'm more than happy to help those who are willing to work and to earn, but the rest can rot for all I care.

If that offends some here, too bad. I'm done caring how people see me.

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 04:38 PM

You know, despite me being an ass about this, I appreciate your willingness to discuss it anyway. It's something many feel strongly about and probably worthy of exploring other points of view.

I swore I'd never get into that situation again.

What I'm wondering is if you paid taxes while you were in that situation, or more importantly, when you were just starting to get out of that situation? Do you think you should have or that what you paid was fair? Maybe the real answer is just massive inheritance and gift taxes and income taxes only on corporations.

I resent the Hell out of the people who feel they are entitled to what is essentially pieces of my life

This, I understand. I don't think anybody is happy with how tax money is spent or how much tax money is spent. But that story is a different one from who in what tax bracket pays the most.

I don't see those people as human- I see parasites. I see looters.

I don't know who you are talking about besides a sort of hypothetical character from an Ayn Rand novel. I realize such people do exist, but it's often difficult to tell them apart from those with a legitimate gripe. Where do you draw the line? Disabled vets? Mentally disabled? Foster kids, or adults who came up through that f'ed up system? Unwilling immigrants? Victims of bureaucratic blunders (Katrina survivors?) Do we owe any of these people anything at all? It's a tough call, but if we start classifying some of them as 'less than human' based on arbitrary factors, we have started down a slippery slope.

Now, if you're just referring to many politicians, I agree with you completely. Less than human. They loot simply because they can, any sense of entitlement is a fabrication of their own twisted morality.

If that offends some here, too bad. I'm done caring how people see me. Spoken like a true bastard. You always were the man JK.

08-04-2009, 05:20 PM

Income taxes are punishment for achievement. I think it ridiculous that the top 1% of earners pay more income taxes than all the bottom 95% of earners combined. I don't think anyone should pay income taxes. Tax consumption, not production. Stop rampant government expansion, take the federal government back to what it was intended to be as opposed to the nanny state it has become and all this discussion is rendered moot.

And the leeches I am refering to include the politicians and of course those who suckle off the government teat, but more directly, in my opinion, they are anyone who looks at someone else's achievements and damns them for it, calls them "fortunate" or "lucky", anyone who buys into and perpetuates the class envy rhetoric established by the politicians. The ones who are out the door and gone by five o'clock everyday, not a second later. The ones who work their forty hours a week and on Friday give their bosses the finger as they fly out of the parking lot and head to whatever watering hole they congregate in. They're not worth my time. Or my money. They put in just enough effort to have food and shelter but never more than what is required. And yet they curse the people who have the nice house or drive the nice car or get to take a nice vacation once in a while. They see the trappings of that lifestyle, but they don't bother to see the 70-80+ hour work weeks. They don't see the hours spent away from friends and family. All they see are the rewards and they wag their tongues and point their fingers and proclaim "look at that lucky son of a bitch." I didn't get my house by being lucky. I didn't get away from living in rusted out Chevelle by being lucky. I worked. And I paid taxes. And I think I have paid more than my fair share over the twenty years I've been a part of the work force. And I really don't think there is anything that will change my views on this topic.

JasterIsFett

08-04-2009, 05:54 PM

I don't know who you are talking about besides a sort of hypothetical character from an Ayn Rand novel. I realize such people do exist, but it's often difficult to tell them apart from those with a legitimate gripe. Where do you draw the line? Disabled vets? Mentally disabled? Foster kids, or adults who came up through that f'ed up system? Unwilling immigrants? Victims of bureaucratic blunders (Katrina survivors?) Do we owe any of these people anything at all? It's a tough call, but if we start classifying some of them as 'less than human' based on arbitrary factors, we have started down a slippery slope.

I could have come into this little soiree at quite a few points in the past weeks or so, I've just lost the heart for debating about politics.

Two examples:

1) A friend (I use this term loosely) has been unemployed since she was around...16, 5 years ago. She was fired, not laid off, from her job for incompetence. Her mother is disabled (Multiple Sclerosis [sp?]) to the point that my friend will recieve completely paid-for schooling without any effort on her part. She attends a Jr. College, gets paid more than 4 times what is needed for her schooling/books/etc. The excess money that she recieves from the government, that she is given from the taxpayers (when none of the people: her, her mother, her aunt, cousin and friend who are all living at a near rent-free house are working) is used to buy herself clothes, go out to clubs, buy things that are luxuries. Her house has cable and wi-fi. She is a leech.

2) Similar situation. Friend (loose) recieves full government support for schooling which he intends to stay in as long as possible. Both parents have lived in the country since they were children, are still illegal and pay only sales tax as far as I know. Any money he recieves is used for drugs or to pay for his brand new Mitsubishi Lancer. He works for a minimum wage job and occasionally sells drugs on the side.

These are slightly extreme examples, but real people nonetheless, not Ayn Rand creations.

freetoaster

08-04-2009, 06:39 PM

I could have come into this little soiree at quite a few points in the past weeks or so, I've just lost the heart for debating about politics.

...so you show up now and talk smack about your friends...;)

By-tor

08-04-2009, 06:39 PM

And, guess what? There are thousands of people out there that are doing the same. No wonder the US in debt by the trillions. :rolleyes:

joep144

08-04-2009, 08:17 PM

And, guess what? There are thousands of people out there that are doing the same. No wonder the US in debt by the trillions. :rolleyes:

And now the wizards of smart (our government) want to have "free health care" for everyone in the US?.......WTF!!!:mad:

08-04-2009, 08:23 PM

And now the wizards of smart (our government) want to have "free health care" for everyone in the US?.......WTF!!!:mad:

Watch out, you can be reported for that now (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/). :rolleyes: Sieg Heil! :mad:

joep144

08-04-2009, 08:26 PM

Ya, I heard about that. After silencing my free speech the bastards are going to try to take my firearms.........Good luck with that Fucko's

Just got my permit to carry too.....

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 08:34 PM

I didn't get my house by being lucky. But through bad luck, you could lose it. And let's face it, there are probably more rich Americans who owe their wealth to luck or dishonesty than to hard work and intelligence. That's why I brought up inheritance taxes. The problems go a lot deeper than social assistance programs.

1) A friend ... Her mother is disabled... There's more to this story than you're telling or probably know. For example, social security disability is based on the wage you earned before you were disabled. So, to afford a house, a parent probably worked a solid job at some point and contributed taxes to the social security program. Bottom line though, I bet most people in that position would trade in their luxurious lifestyle of free school, clubbing and moderately priced clothes for their mom's health. I hope so at least.

2) He works for a minimum wage job Are you saying he should pay more taxes than you do? I'm not seeing people with a sense of entitlement here, I'm seeing people who would be stupid not to take the money that our foolish system throws indiscriminately their way. Hell, I'd take it too, does that make me less than human? Anyone who thinks someone is morally bankrupt for taking government benefits should immediately return their Bush tax rebates.

I see the same argument against immigrants, when the truth is, if I could easily but quasi-legally emigrate to Canada and instantly increase my salary 1000% it'd be hard to to resist, especially if I had a family to feed. Our government has silently consented to undocumented immigration since its inception yet people seem to think the immigrants themselves are evil criminals for taking advantage of it. Screw that, the evil comes from the system that encourages employers to hire them but ensures that they remain second class citizens with no constitutional rights. For the most part, these immigrants work a lot harder for a lot less than many American citizens.

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 08:37 PM

And now the wizards of smart (our government) want to have "free health care" for everyone in the US?.......WTF!!!:mad: Yeah, I say we have a designated spot near every emergency room for people who can't afford to go there to wait for either death or someone to show up with a few bucks.

The system is fucked. There's tons of money to go around but the big players don't want to share. That's why no health care plan will ever be popular, nobody wants to surrender their share of the profit and the silent taxpayer is left to shoulder the burden.

08-04-2009, 08:44 PM

Anyone can walk into an emergency room RIGHT NOW and get emergency care, regardless of their finances. I've done it before- when I was living in my freaking car- crushed my foot and needed the big toenail removed. Would have done it myself, but I passed out the first time I tried.

Want to fix healthcare? Two words:

Tort reform.

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 08:45 PM

Watch out, you can be reported for that now (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/). :rolleyes: Sieg Heil! :mad:

Are you referring to this?

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

God forbid the proponents of a plan simply want to address a misinformation campaign aimed to torpedo it. It's much more logical to assume that they are compiling a list of people who might not be completely loyal. Then, they can make sure to investigate those people when they try to fly on commercial airlines, and maybe even detain a few of them without due process in an off-shore detention facility. Good thing we already have legislation in place that allows them to do that. Go Patriot Act, stop the seditious anti-communists.

Threadkiller

08-04-2009, 08:45 PM

Anyone can walk into an emergency room RIGHT NOW and get emergency care, regardless of their finances. I think that was my point. Healthcare is already free.

joep144

08-04-2009, 08:50 PM

But through bad luck, you could lose it.

Through poor planning and bad decision making maybe, but bad luck?........

........let's face it, there are probably more rich Americans who owe their wealth to luck or dishonesty than to hard work and intelligence. That's why I brought up inheritance taxes.

No! Why should the government be entitled to wealth that my family may wish to leave to me (not that there is, but for argument's sake) whether it be in their living years or through their passing? I also refuse to accept the premise that most "rich" Americans obtained their wealth through dishonest means. That mind set is a crutch that people use to support their argument for redistribution of other people's wealth.

joep144

08-04-2009, 09:01 PM

God forbid the proponents of a plan simply want to address a misinformation campaign aimed to torpedo it.

The people that are pushing this big campaign for government health care are the same people that are putting out the most misinformation about the plan!! Where the hell are we suppose to turn these ass holes in? The slavish institutional media is no longer interested in the truth of a matter......they are just willing lap dogs for the democrat party.

08-04-2009, 09:04 PM

But through bad luck, you could lose it. And let's face it, there are probably more rich Americans who owe their wealth to luck or dishonesty than to hard work and intelligence. That's why I brought up inheritance taxes. The problems go a lot deeper than social assistance programs.

Honestly, I don't believe in luck. Good or bad. I could lose my house through piss poor decisions like blowing off the mortgage payments. Or I could lose it by what the insurance companies used to refer to as Acts of God, like a tornado. Or I guess I could lose it by some asshat setting it on fire, which is criminal activity. I doubt a flood could take it out since I live nowhere near a flood plain. And if the creek in my back yard rose enough to get to the house, we ALL fucked. So no- no bad luck.

And I find it exceptionally hard to believe that most of the wealth in this country is earned through dishonest means or inheritence. There are the old money types out there, but there a lot of men and women who fall in that upper five percent of income earners that are considered "rich" who worked their asses off building up restauraunt chains, own gas stations, garages, and a multitude of other small businesses who didn't "luck" into it. They work for it.

J_Kat

08-04-2009, 09:09 PM

And, guess what? There are thousands of people out there that are doing the same. No wonder the US in debt by the trillions. :rolleyes:

See its the perspective of this that gets me, not the gripe itself. Leechers = shit. Fair enough.

But that even a million of them is even a drop in the ocean in the big budget scheme of things? Nonsense. Tax dollars are utterly wasted in much greater proportions on the most banal of things.

It just strikes me that there's a lot better targets for misspent tax rage than the douche spiffing up his Lancer. Be pissed off with the banks and Enron's of this world, wasting millions or needing billions of bail outs, not the losers not even worth your time.

Complaining about them is just disturbingly Daily Mail (a tabloid in the UK that can best be described with the tagline, "racist in public so you don't have to be". Its Gypsies and the Polish leeching for them, but the sentiment and distorted perspective is just the same.

Before anyone jumps the gun I'm calling no one racist, or as bad as. There just is a slippery slope lurking around here somewhere, and some perspective needed for how our money is really wasted.

08-04-2009, 09:22 PM

Oh, believe me- the bailouts? Horrible way to spend tax dollars. The so-called stimulus plans? Garbage. They would have gotten better results giving that all money back to the taxpayers and then printing the money they printed anyway. Super-inflation... it's coming.

J_Kat

08-04-2009, 09:24 PM

Honestly, I don't believe in luck. Good or bad. I could lose my house through piss poor decisions like blowing off the mortgage payments. Or I could lose it by what the insurance companies used to refer to as Acts of God, like a tornado. Or I guess I could lose it by some asshat setting it on fire, which is criminal activity. I doubt a flood could take it out since I live nowhere near a flood plain. And if the creek in my back yard rose enough to get to the house, we ALL fucked. So no- no bad luck.

And I find it exceptionally hard to believe that most of the wealth in this country is earned through dishonest means or inheritence. There are the old money types out there, but there a lot of men and women who fall in that upper five percent of income earners that are considered "rich" who worked their asses off building up restauraunt chains, own gas stations, garages, and a multitude of other small businesses who didn't "luck" into it. They work for it.

So a tornado really is not bad luck but the hand of God punishing you?

And for me I don't think so much that its dishonest or lucky acquisition thats the problem but the proportions. That the top 1% of the population of the States owns 38% of the wealth is fucked up. And you can't tell me they all worked their asses off to get it, they aren't the restaurant owners, or even small business owners you speak of. You also seem to think that how hard you work is proportionate to how much you'll earn, in the ideal world it is. But throughout human history the hardest workers have generally always been the poor fuckers at the bottom. Its just the way it is, and if a system of welfare can be put in place to address that so much the better.

08-04-2009, 09:27 PM

Fine- you've all won me over... all hail the Proletariat. Screw the evil rich, they're all bastards. We should all put our paychecks into one communal account and we'll all just draw from it according to our needs.

Edit: Yeah- act of God, Mother Nature, Gaia (or however you spell it)... forces of nature

J_Kat

08-04-2009, 09:29 PM

But to be honest I don't think I needed to post that last post, cos at least we agreed on something and you've had people on your back enough about this I reckon.

From here on I'm done,

rest easy folks :cool:

TheHangingBrain

08-04-2009, 10:08 PM

"Do you care if it falls?"
"What?"
"The Roman Empire?"
"... Fuck it."

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/56939-8603.jpg

JasterIsFett

08-04-2009, 11:25 PM

There's more to this story than you're telling or probably know. For example, social security disability is based on the wage you earned before you were disabled. So, to afford a house, a parent probably worked a solid job at some point and contributed taxes to the social security program. Bottom line though, I bet most people in that position would trade in their luxurious lifestyle of free school, clubbing and moderately priced clothes for their mom's health. I hope so at least.

Let me state this differently. She is an ex-girlfriend. We dated for about 6 months. She ended up being a terrible person and a great actor and I was naive and desperate and probably not too smart either. Her mom is generally a nice person and a hard worker, that doesn't excuse her daughter from using her money that is given to her for use in her education for unnecessary extravagance. She chooses, and I use this word very carefully because I have spoken to her about it at great length, to not get health insurance that she could afford if she either got a job or used her college money or both, because, and I quote "I can just go to the emergency room."

Are you saying he should pay more taxes than you do? I'm not seeing people with a sense of entitlement here, I'm seeing people who would be stupid not to take the money that our foolish system throws indiscriminately their way.

Our government has silently consented to undocumented immigration since its inception yet people seem to think the immigrants themselves are evil criminals for taking advantage of it. Screw that, the evil comes from the system that encourages employers to hire them but ensures that they remain second class citizens with no constitutional rights.

Isn't that the point that JK and joe and ZB were trying to make. You don't have to take benefits just because they are available to you especially when its using the taxpayer dollars, of which you pay very little of. Weren't they going on and on about how the system is, excuse my French, fucked? Our government is punishing any form of success and rewarding mediocrity and the status quo.

I don't give a damn about what type of job he has, he's working, great. The problem I have is that both of my parents have worked their whole lives to get where they are in the world and because they were successful I qualified for absolutely shit in financial aid. I, thankfully got a bit of money from scholarships, but why does this asshole who doesn't (admittedly so) want to finish college get a free ride and I have to pay out the ass for various student fees?

I'm descended from immigrants. My grandmother is an immigrant, my grandfather was an immigrant, many of my relatives are immigrants, but they all took the time to 1) Get legal citizenship and 2) Make themselves a productive member of society. I'm not gonna go into any arguments about immigration, I know how hard it is, I've helped many friends' families go through the process and I know how long it takes. I can't stand when people haven't made the slightest effort to become citizens and they do it because (again, I have confirmed this through conversations with them) they don't have to pay taxes.

Our system doesn't force them to remain second class citizens, it allows them to. It is becoming to that something called "illegal" immigration is simply "undocumented" immigration. There is no punishment for these people breaking the law. We allow "illegal" occupants of this country to get credit cards, purchase property...

I think that was my point. Healthcare is already free.

This is exactly why we disagree. It most certainly is not free. Its paid for by people who pay taxes. Sure, taxpayers can use it but so can everyone else, free of any contribution the the United States Government for any service they receive. I like that its available, I've used it on more than one occasion because it was open and my local urgent care wasn't, but it isn't my only source of healthcare and I would try my damnedest to make sure that it wasn't.

I'm gonna stop because I'm on a rant. God...I see why JK hates this...

JasterIsFett

08-05-2009, 12:08 AM

Y'know what...sorry, I don't want to argue, especially here of all places.

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt306/JasterIsFett/handshake.jpg

truce?

Threadkiller

08-05-2009, 12:59 AM

truce?

Hey, no worries. I never have any bad feelings about anyone here unless they either make things too personal or take things too personal.

If you ask me, it'd be pretty fucking boring if we all had the same point of view.

08-05-2009, 01:09 AM

Hey, no worries. I never have any bad feelings about anyone here unless they either make things too personal or take things too personal.

Like cracks about "classic" motorcycles?

JasterIsFett

08-05-2009, 02:05 AM

Like cracks about "classic" motorcycles?

http://www.theworldofgoddess.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kelso_burn2.gif

Cuclean

08-05-2009, 03:03 AM

Why are you doing this? Why? Isn't the universe big enough for the both of us? What is wrong with you people? We could work together. Why be enemies? Cos we're different? Is that why? Think of the things that we could do. Think how strong we would be. You... and me... together. There is nothing that we could not accomplish. Think about it... Think about it... Why destroy? When you can create? We can have it all. . . or we can smash it all. Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out?

Why can't we all just. . . get along?

http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/io9/2008/07/MarsAttacks2.jpg

ZBarclay

08-05-2009, 04:20 AM

This thread has ceased being a philosophical discussion point, or a place for even productive argument. It's spiraled into a competition of name calling and personal attacks.
I think everyone should just step back and give it a rest for awhile.

RobinHoodDaffy

08-05-2009, 05:54 AM

Aaron

08-05-2009, 06:41 AM

I've had a fascinating time reading all of this.
And from what I've read, everyone has kept civil (in the vast majority of posts) about it too, which is nice.

Haven't got a clue about most of it, but fascinating...

Threadkiller

08-05-2009, 09:44 AM

Like cracks about "classic" motorcycles?I already said I have no excuse for that.

08-05-2009, 10:30 AM

God forbid the proponents of a plan simply want to address a misinformation campaign aimed to torpedo it. It's much more logical to assume that they are compiling a list of people who might not be completely loyal. Then, they can make sure to investigate those people when they try to fly on commercial airlines, and maybe even detain a few of them without due process in an off-shore detention facility. Good thing we already have legislation in place that allows them to do that. Go Patriot Act, stop the seditious anti-communists.

You don't find it just a little bit creepy that, via the official White House website, the current administration is asking that you and I and every other American report not just those incessant emails sent via mothers-in-law, but "casual conversation" "in the hallways" that is counter to the party line? Most of what I have heard- just about everything, actually- concerning the health care bill is taken directly from the text of the legislation. I don't rely upon hearsay- I looked it up myself. And most of what I have heard regarding what is actually in the bill is anger, utter disagreement and outrage. In essence, the White House is asking us to report anyone who disagrees with the health care reform- oops, I'm sorry, it's now it's health insurance reform. What do you think they going to do with the list of names they will compile? Send us a copy of the legislation? (Already have a .pdf of it) Send out a book about it, much like they did with Hillary-care? (I doubt that, because that helped sink Hillary-care.) I'd like to know.

donkey

08-05-2009, 11:15 AM

but "casual conversation" "in the hallways" that is counter to the party line?

From the actual website:

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Not asking you to report casual conversation specifically says emails and webpages.

08-05-2009, 11:41 AM

From the actual website:

These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help.

What are we supposed to infer from that? Huh?

Threadkiller

08-05-2009, 11:55 AM

Haven't got a clue about most of it.

That's because your country kicked the English out for reasons more compelling than a desire to avoid paying taxes.

You don't find it just a little bit creepy

Yes. But less creepy than the campaigns of misinformation that have been waged against this administration since before it was even elected.

I'm not saying your information is bad, I am saying that there is a lot of bad information out there. So bad that it alarms me to think so many people actually believe it and propagate it. It all feeds into this hyper-paranoia/fear campaign that the apocalypse is coming and a major political party is fostering the anti-christ even as we speak. News flash, it's probably not that bad, and if it is that bad, each major political party is just as responsible as the other.

ZBarclay

08-05-2009, 12:07 PM

But less creepy than the campaigns of misinformation...

Slander! Libel! Stuff!

08-05-2009, 12:18 PM

Yes. But less creepy than the campaigns of misinformation that have been waged against this administration since before it was even elected.

I'm not saying your information is bad, I am saying that there is a lot of bad information out there. So bad that it alarms me to think so many people actually believe it and propagate it. It all feeds into this hyper-paranoia/fear campaign that the apocalypse is coming and a major political party is fostering the anti-christ even as we speak. News flash, it's probably not that bad, and if it is that bad, each major political party is just as responsible as the other.

I was talking about this pogrom against the health care reform naysayers, not something that happened prior to January 20th. I could not care less about the birth certificate or any of the meaningless pap concerning the Anti-Christ conspiracy theories. What do you say about the facts that are in the bill and the current administration's desire to silence any opposition to the bill? More and more people are dead set against this legislation and yet the people who are supposed to represent the will of the people are Hell bent on ramming it through NOW. Why is that? Why must we pass this legislation now when it won't even go into effect for four years? What do they not want the voters to realize about this legislation?

By-tor

08-05-2009, 12:26 PM

What do they not want the voters to realize about this legislation?
That this guy will be everyone's new doctor...
http://www.uncoached.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/carrot_top_12.jpg

Threadkiller

08-05-2009, 12:49 PM

I was talking about this pogrom against the health care reform The fact that you used the word 'pogrom' to describe it makes my point that the negative reactions are typically vastly over-exaggerated. Of course, equating the 'report fishy emails' to a Nazi policy had already done as much.

In truth, I don't disagree with you as much as it sounds, it's the way that things in these discussions are typically portrayed in absolute and extreme terms that I have a real problem with. To me, it's posturing. A way of trying to 'win' an argument by setting the limits of the discussion at ludicrous levels. Basically saying you don't have to see the other side of the debate because they are too wrong to even comprehend fully. The only way to defend from such attacks is to make equally extreme remarks about your point of view.

Hell bent on ramming it through NOW. Why is that? Why must we pass this legislation now when it won't even go into effect for four years? What do they not want the voters to realize about this legislation?

It's very simple. They want it passed now because it's very unpopular. No doubt about it. They present the opinion that a popular health care plan is not possible, but doing nothing is the worst course of action. So, rock, meet hard place. Given that, they want to get it over with while they still have some political capital left. The longer it takes, the more likely it will fail and we're back where we started.

donkey

08-05-2009, 01:26 PM

From the actual website:

What are we supposed to infer from that? Huh?

you can infer that a lot of people are talking about "pogroms" and that this health care plan is going to force you to loose your doctor and it might kill your mother (http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402).

And instead of being quiet, the White House wants to know what people are saying, so they can answer these concerns with what the laws actually say.

08-05-2009, 04:48 PM

The fact that you used the word 'pogrom' to describe it makes my point that the negative reactions are typically vastly over-exaggerated. Of course, equating the 'report fishy emails' to a Nazi policy had already done as much.

In truth, I don't disagree with you as much as it sounds, it's the way that things in these discussions are typically portrayed in absolute and extreme terms that I have a real problem with. To me, it's posturing. A way of trying to 'win' an argument by setting the limits of the discussion at ludicrous levels. Basically saying you don't have to see the other side of the debate because they are too wrong to even comprehend fully. The only way to defend from such attacks is to make equally extreme remarks about your point of view.

It's very simple. They want it passed now because it's very unpopular. No doubt about it. They present the opinion that a popular health care plan is not possible, but doing nothing is the worst course of action. So, rock, meet hard place. Given that, they want to get it over with while they still have some political capital left. The longer it takes, the more likely it will fail and we're back where we started.

The latest ads, approved by Obama himself, call anyone opposing the health care bill a "mob". That's over 50% of the American population this administration has taken direct aim at. I see it as nothing less than a pogrom of sorts. There is a reason it's becoming more and more unpopular- people are reading the bill and they see what's in it and they understand that it the WRONG thing for America.

you can infer that a lot of people are talking about "pogroms" and that this health care plan is going to force you to loose your doctor and it might kill your mother (http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402).

And instead of being quiet, the White House wants to know what people are saying, so they can answer these concerns with what the laws actually say.

It is IN THE BILL- The rationing? Government deciding who you will see and when? It's all there if you take the time to READ the BILL. The White House wants people to shut up and accept the bill. The Democrats are saying again and again, in spite of what the White House is now claiming, they want nothing less than a single payer system. A government run system. Look up Barney Frank's recent quotes. Some woman I can't recall her name... they want to run 23% of the economy. They want to control health care. And by proxy, they will control you and me. What is more personal than your own well-being?

If it's such a good damn idea, how come Congress won't give up their health care plan? Riddle me that... :rolleyes:

Sheriff

08-05-2009, 06:12 PM

Watch out, you can be reported for that now (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/).

Finally a way to report JK to a higher authority!

Irony? :p

That Tax Foundation site is awesome. As I read it, the AIG of ~$113k is individual (so JK both you and your wife would have to average that, at least that's how I interpreted it, lucky). It is amazing that 1% pay 40% of the taxes.

I have heard that the very top, like 0.001% (or something) isn't even reported in those lists. So the top is probably more biased than that.

Speaking of reporting, the pie charts on spending that we have been looking at usually exclude things that are 'off budget', so anything that the government is spending a shit-ton of money on isn't in there (like the current police actions/wars). The Obama administration has expressed a desire to move everything 'on budget' for reporting purposes.

I think the biggest thing bothering me about taxes is that someone making $250k in Colorado/Texas would probably be considered fairly well off, if you make $250k living in NYC you are a welfare case :)

donkey

08-05-2009, 07:28 PM

It is IN THE BILL- The rationing? Government deciding who you will see and when? It's all there if you take the time to READ the BILL. The White House wants people to shut up and accept the bill. The Democrats are saying again and again, in spite of what the White House is now claiming, they want nothing less than a single payer system. A government run system. Look up Barney Frank's recent quotes. Some woman I can't recall her name... they want to run 23% of the economy. They want to control health care. And by proxy, they will control you and me. What is more personal than your own well-being?

If it's such a good damn idea, how come Congress won't give up their health care plan? Riddle me that... :rolleyes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Theres the bill. Before responding i will indeed read every line of it. posting the link for anyone else who wants to too.

NomenNescio

08-05-2009, 07:54 PM

The latest ads, approved by Obama himself, call anyone opposing the health care bill a "mob". That's over 50% of the American population this administration has taken direct aim at.

More like 29%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx) So that's 71% of people who want health care reform, hardly the kind of clamor you're describing, unless you're going off different numbers.

freetoaster

08-05-2009, 08:26 PM

Sigh... I really need to stop posting without proof reading first.

WHAT?!?!
http://www.breakawaytours.com/getfile/87f67fbb-f310-430d-a1bf-8a98451977b6/LIL-JON.aspx

Freak...

Threadkiller

08-05-2009, 08:41 PM

The latest ads, approved by Obama himself, call anyone opposing the health care bill a "mob". That's over 50% of the American population this administration has taken direct aim at. I see it as nothing less than a pogrom of sorts.
Ooh boy, I love arguing semantics.

Pogrom: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pogrom) an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews
Pogrom (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/pogrom): Organized persecution of an ethnic group (especially Jews).
Pogrom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pogrom): A massacre or persecution instigated by the government or by the ruling class against a minority group, particularly Jews.

Even if you wanted to be an alarmist fear-monger I would suggest you choose a new word. Maybe massacre, mass execution or outright slaughter.

Either way, you never really responded to my point, that language like this does nothing but muddle the debate and adds absolutely nothing in the way of credibility or common sense to your position. It's not a penis measuring thing or a yo-mama contest. It's not about who can frighten enough people into reactionary fanaticism. At least, it shouldn't be about that.

I wouldn't even be in this thread if it weren't for arguments like that.

If it's such a good damn idea, how come Congress won't give up their health care plan? Riddle me that... :rolleyes: It doesn't have to be a good idea. It just has to be better than what we've got, which isn't too hard to do.

I think the biggest thing bothering me about taxes is that someone making $250k in Colorado/Texas would probably be considered fairly well off, if you make $250k living in NYC you are a welfare case :)Now why didn't I think of that? Even businesses routinely factor in local cost-of-living when they hire or transfer employees.

08-05-2009, 08:43 PM

More like 29%. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx) So that's 71% of people who want health care reform, hardly the kind of clamor you're describing, unless you're going off different numbers.

all the polls i've seen say around 52% don't want anything to do with obamacare

08-05-2009, 08:46 PM

TheHangingBrain

08-05-2009, 08:59 PM

Really fellas, this thread is the exact reason nothing will ever really change or get done. We will just attack each other and champion our own opinions, when the only real solution lies in the middle somewhere. It's so fucking frustrating to see people argue over this shit.

Bottom line is that some form of government is necessary because the human race on a whole just sucks. The big question for me is: Do we allow the government control or just let the big businesses run rampant and become a form of "government" themselves? I think the real answer is that they're both one in the same and no matter what, were all just slaves anyways.

Together we stand, but divided we will most certainly fall.

But yeah, my 2 cents.

U-N-I-T-Y ;)

NomenNescio

08-05-2009, 09:19 PM

all the polls i've seen say around 52% don't want anything to do with obamacare

Links? Numbers like that look arbitrary without an actual source to back them up.

Really fellas, this thread is the exact reason nothing will ever really change or get done. We will just attack each other and champion our own opinions, when the only real solution lies in the middle somewhere. It's so fucking frustrating to see people argue over this shit.

I'm really getting tired of people overstating the malice and negativity being displayed in this thread. It's not that bad. Not bad at all, actually. People are being very civil.

TheHangingBrain

08-05-2009, 09:21 PM

I'm really getting tired of people overstating the malice and negativity being displayed in this thread. It's not that bad. Not bad at all, actually. People are being very civil.

Relax tiger, it was just a general statement. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone at all. :rolleyes:

freetoaster

08-05-2009, 09:22 PM

TheHangingBrain

08-05-2009, 09:23 PM

Who wants to smoke a joint in the garage? I have beers and sub sammiches.

Dude, I'm so fucking there. :D

NomenNescio

08-05-2009, 09:23 PM

Relax tiger, it was just a general statement. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone at all. :rolleyes:

Really fellas, this thread is the exact reason nothing will ever really change or get done. We will just attack each other and champion our own opinions, when the only real solution lies in the middle somewhere. It's so fucking frustrating to see people argue over this shit.

Your diction suggests otherwise, sir.

TheHangingBrain

08-05-2009, 09:25 PM

Your diction suggests otherwise, sir.

We as in We the people..., sorry if comes off otherwise. ;)

freetoaster

08-05-2009, 09:26 PM

Where the fuck is La Porte anyway?

NomenNescio

08-05-2009, 09:28 PM

Where the fuck is La Porte anyway?

The "TX" doesn't give it away? :rolleyes:

TheHangingBrain

08-05-2009, 09:32 PM

Where the fuck is La Porte anyway?

Near la water? (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=La%20Porte&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)

freetoaster

08-05-2009, 09:39 PM

Near la water? (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=La%20Porte&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)

I just got back from Matagorda beach on Sunday. Suck off a fish for me will yeah...

I miss the beach the Coronas the Pelicans and the pot...

08-05-2009, 10:47 PM

Ooh boy, I love arguing semantics.

Pogrom: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pogrom) an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews
Pogrom (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/pogrom): Organized persecution of an ethnic group (especially Jews).
Pogrom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pogrom): A massacre or persecution instigated by the government or by the ruling class against a minority group, particularly Jews.

Even if you wanted to be an alarmist fear-monger I would suggest you choose a new word. Maybe massacre, mass execution or outright slaughter.

Either way, you never really responded to my point, that language like this does nothing but muddle the debate and adds absolutely nothing in the way of credibility or common sense to your position. It's not a penis measuring thing or a yo-mama contest. It's not about who can frighten enough people into reactionary fanaticism. At least, it shouldn't be about that.

I wouldn't even be in this thread if it weren't for arguments like that.

It doesn't have to be a good idea. It just has to be better than what we've got, which isn't too hard to do.

Now why didn't I think of that? Even businesses routinely factor in local cost-of-living when they hire or transfer employees.

Okay- the pankillers are working somewhat- I know exactly what a pogrom is. My ancestors managed to live through the literal ones. And what we're seeing here is a political pogrom if you needed the modifyier to clarify what I was saying. I thought it was obvious, considering Obama's modus operandi when it comes to things like this: remove all opposition from the playing field? It was bvious to me anyway...

Ergo, my use of the word stands.

And damn straifght the plan Congress enjoys is better than anything they're demanding we accept. Why was it that the ammendment put forth by Coburn shot down in flames? Because they know that the plan they're foisting upon we the Proletariat is shit. Why do they need to assume complete control over our health care? Vote buying is one reason. Why can't they just offer catastrophic coverage to the 4 million people who atre unisured? (those numbers are from the Census bureau, look it up) Which brings me to:

Links? Numbers like that look arbitrary without an actual source to back them up.

Can't anyone else look this shit up? I've found it once, twice- several times. It's not that hard. Work for it. And I'm too tired and in too much pain right now to spend another hour cutting and pasting links. Google is your frined. Use it. Quit beating the shit out of me because I think a man is entitled tokeep what he earns and someone who hasn't owrked for it is NOT entitled to it.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 12:14 AM

Okay- the painkillers are working somewhat- Apparently mine aren't because you lost me in there somewhere. So I'm going to let it go for now. Cheers!

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 12:25 AM

Can't anyone else look this shit up? I've found it once, twice- several times. It's not that hard. Work for it. And I'm too tired and in too much pain right now to spend another hour cutting and pasting links. Google is your frined. Use it.

The problem here is I've already found contrary numbers (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx). In fact, polls bankrolled by opponents of health care reform (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/poll-bankrolled-by-foes-of-health-care-reform-finds-overwhelming-support-for-public-plan/) are turning up results of public favor for reform (53% strongly in favor and 30% somewhat in favor for a total of 83% favorability overall -- even throwing out the somewhats, the majority still falls on the pro-reform side). Indeed, it's not that hard and I am working for it. However, I can't say the same of you.

If you claim a contrary position, then it's your responsibility to provide the evidence to support it. That's how debate works. I've presented my evidence and if there's something erroneous about it or if I'm ignorant of other polls, other evidence, I'd love to hear about it. But it's no burden of mine to piece together someone else's position, much less find evidence to support it. Your thoughts and your speech are yours to have and to make. If you're too tired and in too much pain to deal with it right now, fine, your personal problems are no business of mine (though you do have my sympathies), but don't use them as an excuse to unfairly shift your burden onto me.

Quit beating the shit out of me because I think a man is entitled tokeep what he earns and someone who hasn't owrked for it is NOT entitled to it.

One the one hand, this kind of hyperbole gives me little hope for a civil resolution to this debate, but on the other, "beating the shit out of" makes it sound like I'm winning. :D

Kidding, of course.

ZBarclay

08-06-2009, 01:41 AM

Links? Numbers like that look arbitrary without an actual source to back them up.
Look. The guy's no idiot. He's not making stuff up, he just disagrees. If everyone went to the trouble of citing every fucking source, this thread would be an even bigger mess than it already is.

I'm really getting tired of people overstating the malice and negativity being displayed in this thread. It's not that bad. Not bad at all, actually. People are being very civil.
No, really. It has gotten rather snarky and personal. I've been reading it ever since I removed myself from the argument. And that's what it is...an argument. People are letting their feelings get involved and people are getting angry. People on both sides of the argument. No side is going to gain traction, no minds are going to be changed. Everyone just needs to step back and process the information for awhile. Productivity is lost...

Aaron

08-06-2009, 03:32 AM

No, YOU shut up!

:D

Sheriff

08-06-2009, 06:52 AM

Uh,

We have gone between very civilized arguments and snarky remarks but I think the shift has been back to civilized, so please rejoin Z.

Like I said earlier, you can find the correct sources to back up whatever argument you want to make. When people are actually debating these things intellectually I don't think it's a waste of time to do so.

I (as always) am learning as we go... and am hopeful everyone can keep an open mind to others viewpoints.

Aaron

08-06-2009, 07:20 AM

When people are actually debating these things intellectually I don't think it's a waste of time to do so.

I (as always) am learning as we go...

And I think this is a very valid point.

I for one, who knew nothing about this other than what I've heard on tv and such now know lots more after hearing from both sides.
I can only assume many others have too, so this sort of discussion is definitely not a waste of time as in the end the winner is knowledge
And knowledge is power.

By-tor

08-06-2009, 08:52 AM

And knowledge is power.Making you, virtually powerless. :p

donkey

08-06-2009, 09:49 AM

I've got to say I'm in favor of links and backing up numbers. And yes it is the responsibility of the person quoting the study or poll to provide a link to that poll. It makes your argument stronger when you do. You don't have to put in pictures or copy large swathes of text, which does clutter up the thread (and I knwo I'm guilty of this so i apologize.)

But I think if the general purpose of this thread is to increase knowledge and awareness, then putting links to where you get your info is the only way to go.

Otherwise we can end this thread now by saying 100% of americans hate the obama health care plan and 100% of americans love the obama health care plan. Thank you and goodnight.

08-06-2009, 10:57 AM

The Hollow-eyed Aging Hippie from Haight-Ashbury (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas .html)

Add that to the "mob" spot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTBkxvBq88&feature=player_embedded), and the DiFi incident (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/30/state/n184320D61.DTL&tsp=1), where instead of talking with a small group of senior citizens, she hides in her office and calls the police on 'em.

The proponents of the health care bill don't want a discussion. These so-called town hall meetings are not an attempt at dialog, they're still trying to sell it to the people.

And regardless of what Gallup and CNN and the Huffington Post say, the people do not want it. Partly because of the over 1 trillion estimated cost (which will be much much more if you have ANY common sense concerning the costs of federal programs) but mostly because of what is in the bill, H.R. 3200.

Like some of these highlights:

If you choose not to have coverage, which a lot of people do, you will be taxed.

Sec 102 pretty much outlines the process for disallowing and eliminating private insurance.

Sec 123 establishes a committee that will decide what benefits you will have. And you have no say in it.

Sec 152 basically says everyone will receive tax-payer funded health care, regardless of citizenry.

Sec 1173a says that at the time services are rendered, your finances will be open to scrutiny to determine if you are actually eligible for the services you are seeking. And you may have to have a national health ID card. (Sounds a little like rationing to me) And I thought this was supposed to be free for everyone, regardless of social class and/or income.

Sec 203 - even if you are somehow able to maintain your private insurance, the health Commissioner will decide what benefits you will have.

Sec 1145 - rationing for cancer patients

Sec 1177 - limits the amount of care for special needs patients

Sec 1233 - Advance care planning consultation - read it your damn self.

Just a few of the wonderful benefits of government run health care.

JasterIsFett

08-06-2009, 11:15 AM

Sec 1173a says that at the time services are rendered, your finances will be open to scrutiny to determine if you are actually eligible for the services you are seeking. And you may have to have a national health ID card. (Sounds a little like rationing to me) And I thought this was supposed to be free for everyone, regardless of social class and/or income.

I read this too, got me wondering if they are going to operate in the same fashion that they do for other government-aid programs. If you make more than a certain amount of money, will you not be eligible for, say, someone with the exact same medical problems who makes less.

Gorram it all...

08-06-2009, 11:18 AM

It's not about health care, it's about hurting Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ&feature=player_embedded). :rolleyes:

ZBarclay

08-06-2009, 11:30 AM

Uh,

We have gone between very civilized arguments and snarky remarks but I think the shift has been back to civilized, so please rejoin Z.

I disagree.
I give up. Scratch each other's eyes out.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 12:20 PM

If you choose not to have coverage, which a lot of people do, you will be taxed.
If I choose not to call the police or fire department, go to school or drive on the highways. Still get taxed.

Sec 102 pretty much outlines the process for disallowing and eliminating private insurance.
This entire section only applies plans already in existence that want to convert to QHBPs (see below). The first line of the bill says that the bill provides a public healthcare option to go alongside the private ones.

Sec 123 establishes a committee that will decide what benefits you will have. And you have no say in it.
The first sentence of that section says the committee will "recommend". Good thing you underlined and italicized the world "will" there, I'd hate for someone to be misled. It also provides for public input. Finally, it only applies to the government (QHBP) plans, not the private ones.
Sec 152 basically says everyone will receive tax-payer funded health care, regardless of citizenry.
This is a bad thing? It's pretty much the status quo as we've discussed. A change would mean a waiting area outside emergency rooms for those who forgot their identification to prove they have a right to healthcare. Nice.
Sec 1173a says that at the time services are rendered, your finances will be open to scrutiny to determine if you are actually eligible for the services you are seeking. And you may have to have a national health ID card. (Sounds a little like rationing to me) And I thought this was supposed to be free for everyone, regardless of social class and/or income.
This only applies to people on Medicare, which remains separate from QHBPs and therefore requires those claiming the benefits to qualify.
Sec 203 - even if you are somehow able to maintain your private insurance, the health Commissioner will decide what benefits you will have.
Here we go, this is the real meat of it. Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP) are those that you can use the government 'credit' to pay for or help pay for. The coverage provided by these plans is dictated by the Dept of Health and Human Services. There are four levels of this plan with added expense if you choose to go with the enhanced or premium stuff. This is the thing that upsets people because the government is using tax money to buy health insurance for us. However, none of this precludes you from getting whatever health coverage you want outside of these QHBPs. Section 121(b)(3) specifically says that none of the stuff in there affects health benefits offered under separate insurance policies or contracts. You can still have whatever health insurance you want, but your taxes are going to have purchased a certain minimum level of insurance for you already.
Sec 1145 - rationing for cancer patients
I don't see where you get that. I read it as a way to stop certain cancer hospitals from price gouging cancer patients who have no other treatment options. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if...costs incurred by hospitals...exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services. Insofar as the Secretary determines...that costs incurred by hospitals...exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services...the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate adjustment
Sec 1177 - limits the amount of care for special needs patients
This is a complete misread. Nothing in this section refers to special needs patients. It refers to 'special needs' plans adopted by States who integrated medicare/medicaid with their own stuff because the state had a special need.
Sec 1233 - Advance care planning consultation - read it your damn self.
I did and it looks good. Note that it only applies to Medicare.

Just a few of the wonderful benefits of government run health care.I wouldn't call them wonderful but they don't seem like the worst possible solution either.

08-06-2009, 12:49 PM

You didn't address the actions of the Democrats to demonize the people who have concerns about things they have seen in the bill that are highly suspect, in spite of your analysis. That was the whole damn point of my last post. Which was meant to be a more direct and less pain-killer induced response to your post about pogroms and what-not.

And also, someone please point out where I made a personal 'attack' on another board member.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 01:39 PM

You didn't address the actions of the Democrats to demonize the people Really? I could have sworn you were talking about the health care plan, what with all the section of the plan and whatnot. I'm really lost now.

Edit: Actually, I didn't respond to that because I agree with it for the most part. I mean, they are stupidly responding to the equally stupid criticisms being leveled against their plan. I won't argue with that. That said, I still don't think it rises to the level of a pogrom. It's just politicians doing what they do best.

08-06-2009, 01:46 PM

It's just politicians doing what they do best.

Labeling anyone who opposes government takeover of health as brown shirts and accusing them of waving swastikas at these town hall meetings?

:rolleyes:

Neo-Marxist projection.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 01:53 PM

Labeling anyone who opposes government takeover of health as brown shirts and accusing them of waving swastikas at these town hall meetings?

Nancy's freedom of speech protects her right to label anyone anything she wants no matter how stupid. Just as it protects the rights of people to wear swastikas if they want. The greater crime (pogrom?) would be if she didn't have the right to say such stupid things. You can't have it both ways and say they are trouncing your freedom of speech through the exercise of their own.

08-06-2009, 02:09 PM

Just as it protects your right to label me an elitist dick? :rolleyes:

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 02:19 PM

Just as it protects your right to label me an elitist dick? :rolleyes:
Yes, no matter how ass-headed it makes me sound, I have the right to say it. What's your point?

(and for the record, I said your post made you look like one. I have since admitted that I was wrong to say it and that I don't believe you are one.

OhNoBuffalo

08-06-2009, 02:21 PM

Wow and I thought the Atheist discussion in the Mars thread would spiral into crazed fun loving insanity.....

08-06-2009, 02:35 PM

Yes, no matter how ass-headed it makes me sound, I have the right to say it. What's your point?

It's one thing to voice a difference of opinion, it's an entirely different thing to demean someone's character. Or in Pelosi's case, outright lie about someone.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 02:38 PM

It's one thing to voice a difference of opinion, it's an entirely different thing to demean someone's character. But didn't you do the same thing when you accused them of conducting a pogrom? Essentially the equivalent of calling them disorganized Nazis.

That's my point, such things don't accomplish anything. Which is why I regret resorting to it myself.

08-06-2009, 02:48 PM

OhNoBuffalo

08-06-2009, 03:05 PM

What is the point. Where are they going. Who is the Gerbil Man. Tune in tomorrow kids to find out, Same bat Channel. Same Bat Time......

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 03:06 PM

But I have no regrets about labeling the political pogrom being conducted the DNC as such, because that's what it is. They are working hard to politically eliminateany opposition. Do you really think I meant they are literally trying to massacre groups of people or are you just incapable of making the logical inference from my statements?
So basically, it's okay for you to call someone's character into question because they started it? That's what I'm seeing. Or is it only okay to insult their character because they are bad people?. Either way, it sounds like this: "They called people Nazis so they are the equivalent of Nazis themselves." Use of a word like pogrom, no matter it's 'political' context is an insult to the character of the people you accuse of conducting it. Before you complain about what 'they' are saying, maybe you should consider your own words more carefully.

Since when has 'politically working hard to eliminate any opposition' ever been anything worthy of moniker like 'Pogrom' anyway? It would be like calling Bush's replacement of Brownie as FEMA director the political equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives. He wasn't actually killing Brownie, just replacing him, so it's okay. :rolleyes:

And this is really getting nowhere fast.
You got that right.
You think this health care bill is what we need,
I never said that and it's not necessarily true. I only defended it against attacks that I see as unreasonably inflammatory or outright incorrect. If the thing fails, I want it to be on its merit, not as the result of some guerrilla campaign of misinformation.
I think it is an egregious affront to personal liberty. Finally, it's expressed as a reasonable and valid opinion rather than a fact with which no sane person could disagree. Good on ya.
You don't seem to have a problem with taking earnings from one person and using them to take care of another
To an extent it's true, I think modern society is based on such a principle. You yourself said taxation is okay when it's to pay for national defense (which I assume includes law enforcement). That means taking money from you to take care of someone else by protecting them from harm. The real quibble comes in how far the government should go to this end. I'm not as left leaning as you might assume from my posts here.
I'm leaving it at that.
Fair enough. We've all had our say.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 03:07 PM

What is the point. Where are they going. Who is the Gerbil Man. Tune in tomorrow kids to find out, Same bat Channel. Same Bat Time......I'm glad someone else can find this as entertaining as I do.

freetoaster

08-06-2009, 03:23 PM

I'm glad someone else can find this as entertaining as I do.

I spend most of my waking hours thinking about this thread. :)

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 03:45 PM

Look. The guy's no idiot. He's not making stuff up, he just disagrees. If everyone went to the trouble of citing every fucking source, this thread would be an even bigger mess than it already is.

Well, the fact that I find conflicting numbers indicates that somebody is doing something wrong here. So what? I should just accept it at his word? Sorry, he seems like a nice guy, but it ain't gonna happen. If someone is going to make a statement to further their political position (and cite specific numbers to boot), then they better have a source to back it up. And I very much doubt that one link (all that's necessary for any one claim) will clutter this thread up as much as you think.

People are letting their feelings get involved and people are getting angry.

Who's angry? Who? Who specifically has done anything that could possibly be construed as a fit of anger? You're exaggerating. Honestly, what stake do you have in making this thread look like some kind of clusterfuck of a flame war?

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 03:54 PM

I spend most of my waking hours thinking about this thread. :)

It's pathetic but one time I got so into a debate on gay marriage over at the Red vs. Blue forums that I could barely think about anything else the next day.

But then again, talking about constitutional law in any context is enough to fuck me up for a while.

freetoaster

08-06-2009, 03:56 PM

This is what happens when you remove all the prOn.

ZBarclay

08-06-2009, 04:00 PM

Well, the fact that I find conflicting numbers indicates that somebody is doing something wrong here. So what? I should just accept it at his word? Sorry, he seems like a nice guy, but it ain't gonna happen. If someone is going to make a statement to further their political position (and cite specific numbers to boot), then they better have a source to back it up. And I very much doubt that one link (all that's necessary for any one claim) will clutter this thread up as much as you think.

Who's angry? Who? Who specifically has done anything that could possibly be construed as a fit of anger? You're exaggerating. Honestly, what stake do you have in making this thread look like some kind of clusterfuck of a flame war?
Hey. New guy. Let me point something out to you. If I (of all freaking people on this board) can notice when an argument is going nowhere, getting personal, and has devolved into nothing but a back and forth "no, it's not/yes it is", then obviously it's getting a little froggy. I'm not exaggerating, I'm observing.
In response to your challenge to the statement I made about requiring cited sources. The fallback challenge any time someone hasn't agreed at any part of this argument (and I'm including in this the short time that I was involved and utilized the technique as well) has been, "where are your sources?" The only way to make everyone happy would be to cite a source every time someone made a point backed by fact. This isn't a fucking thesis, it was started as a discussion, that turned into an argument. The difference you ask? Discussions are productive, arguments are adversarial. If you can't see that, you're not only new to the board, you're new to basic human interaction. Take a step back. Stop trying to infer that I'm painting the thread to be something that it's not out of some kind of personal agenda. And just relax. I know what I see. I see some people that normally get along swimmingly, fighting (yes, fighting, not discussing) tooth and nail over an issue that none of them are going to change their stance on. It's more important to me to maintain the friendships on this board than it is for me to see this argument continue.
Stop trolling for a secondary argument with me.

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 04:48 PM

Hey. New guy. Let me point something out to you. If I (of all freaking people on this board) can notice when an argument is going nowhere, getting personal, and has devolved into nothing but a back and forth "no, it's not/yes it is", then obviously it's getting a little froggy. I'm not exaggerating, I'm observing.

Well, forgive me if I don't recognize your authority on this matter because from all that I've read you're the only one who's displayed any kind of overt perturbation from anything that's been said in this thread. Sure, there's the snarky comment here, a little sarcasm there, but that's just people being people with no overt malice that I can see. Continually, you say people are getting personal and overly serious, yet, reading over the posts again, I don't read that. I don't see people fighting. I see people discussing. I see debate. And, yes, arguing. Arguing not in the adversarial sense, however, but in the Socratic sense. Hell, I've been on more heated politics-oriented boards that don't even approach what your describing. In fact, this is timid in comparison.

The fact that Aaron and Sheriff seem to see the same civility displayed here that I do indicates that you are, indeed, making mountains out of mole hills. Obviously, you know these people better than I do, but it only takes a bit of common sense to see that nothing the likes of what your describing is happening in this thread.

Calling me on being the new guy all you want, they know these boards as well as you do and if even they don't see the problems you do, what do you think that says?

The fallback challenge any time someone hasn't agreed at any part of this argument (and I'm including in this the short time that I was involved and utilized the technique as well) has been, "where are your sources?"

Because factual, reliable sources substantiate and justify claims. If someone makes a claim and then someone else makes a contrary claim, what else are you going to do other than provide sources? Take them both at their word? No, you demand evidence. Of course nothing extensive is expected, but at the same time you can't let people make unsourced claims. That's when the thread really starts to get cluttered and muddled, when anyone can say anything they want without having any obligation to those involved in the discussion to justify those claims. Evidence-based argument (debate, discussion, call it what you want) makes for fuller, more productive argument.

And, really, all that's really required is a single link to a single article. Nothing extensive, nothing that requires anything more than a cursory Google search. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly harmless.

If you can't see that, you're not only new to the board, you're new to basic human interaction.

Nice ad hom attack. Real colorful.

Like I said, with these kinds of insults, you're the only one who appears to be taking any of this personally. And, ironically, you tell me to "just relax" as if I'm some raging bull. Honestly, the only thing bringing this thread down is your hyperbole.

Stop trolling for a secondary argument with me.

I wouldn't be "trolling" anything if you just let things be, or, better yet, listen to some of the people here who you know well and trust far more than me say the thread is civil and fine and question your own assessment of it. Because of all the back-and-forth in this thread, this exchange between you and I has been the most heated, the only thing that possibly approaches the uncivil debate you seem to see.

Threadkiller

08-06-2009, 05:06 PM

this exchange between you and I has been the most heated,

Maybe I can help resolve this.

Suitorette, suitor number one has done nothing but pine over you all day. Trying to figure out a way to win you back. And when this public opportunity to literally do that arose, he pulled his shit together and faced the odds to get up here and give it his best shot.

I'm tired of this whole thing. You're both retarded for each other. Why don't you forget about the shit that happened and do what you're supposed to?

I think the audience would agree with me there.

http://akuheibakery.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mallrats.jpg

08-06-2009, 05:10 PM

Because factual, reliable sources substantiate and justify claims. If someone makes a claim and then someone else makes a contrary claim, what else are you going to do other than provide sources? Take them both at their word? No, you demand evidence. Of course nothing extensive is expected, but at the same time you can't let people make unsourced claims. That's when the thread really starts to get cluttered and muddled, when anyone can say anything they want without having any obligation to those involved in the discussion to justify those claims. Evidence-based argument (debate, discussion, call it what you want) makes for fuller, more productive argument.

And, really, all that's really required is a single link to a single article. Nothing extensive, nothing that requires anything more than a cursory Google search. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly harmless.

So pretty much everything anyone claims is suspect without verifiable sources? I didn't realize this was Wikipedia...

Are you really rwiggum? ;)

Do I need to provide a link if I claim the quality of health care provided by the VA and the military are lackluster at best? And do I need to provide a link if I claim that what we'll get with the government/single payer plan can be previewed just by looking at what they're doing to the military? I'm a vet- do I need a link to my DD214 to prove I know what I'm talking about in regards to sick call? Copies of my medical records? I'm sure you saw the story about the god awful conditions at the VA hospital.... or do I need to hold your hand and provide a link to that headline making story?

Thanks to government run health care, I suffer from horrible tinnitus. My left knee is shit. And let's not forget a few pretty scars from getting shot and stabbed and then given a bottle of Percocet and some band-aids.

Or do I need to provide at least three verifiable sources?

I can't wait to be back under the government's thumb when it comes to my health care.[/sarcasm]

ZBarclay

08-06-2009, 05:11 PM

Well, forgive me if I don't recognize your authority on this matter because from all that I've read you're the only one who's displayed any kind of overt perturbation from anything that's been said in this thread. Sure, there's the snarky comment here, a little sarcasm there, but that's just people being people with no overt malice that I can see. Continually, you say people are getting personal and overly serious, yet, reading over the posts again, I don't read that. I don't see people fighting. I see people discussing. I see debate. And, yes, arguing. Arguing not in the adversarial sense, however, but in the Socratic sense. Hell, I've been on more heated politics-oriented boards that don't even approach what your describing. In fact, this is timid in comparison.

The fact that Aaron and Sheriff seem to see the same civility displayed here that I do indicates that you are, indeed, making mountains out of mole hills. Obviously, you know these people better than I do, but it only takes a bit of common sense to see that nothing the likes of what your describing is happening in this thread.

Calling me on being the new guy all you want, they know these boards as well as you do and if even they don't see the problems you do, what do you think that says?

Because factual, reliable sources substantiate and justify claims. If someone makes a claim and then someone else makes a contrary claim, what else are you going to do other than provide sources? Take them both at their word? No, you demand evidence. Of course nothing extensive is expected, but at the same time you can't let people make unsourced claims. That's when the thread really starts to get cluttered and muddled, when anyone can say anything they want without having any obligation to those involved in the discussion to justify those claims. Evidence-based argument (debate, discussion, call it what you want) makes for fuller, more productive argument.

And, really, all that's really required is a single link to a single article. Nothing extensive, nothing that requires anything more than a cursory Google search. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly harmless.

Nice ad hom attack. Real colorful.

Like I said, with these kinds of insults, you're the only one who appears to be taking any of this personally. And, ironically, you tell me to "just relax" as if I'm some raging bull. Honestly, the only thing bringing this thread down is your hyperbole.

I wouldn't be "trolling" anything if you just let things be, or, better yet, listen to some of the people here who you know well and trust far more than me say the thread is civil and fine and question your own assessment of it. Because of all the back-and-forth in this thread, this exchange between you and I has been the most heated, the only thing that possibly approaches the uncivil debate you seem to see.
This is the exact "yes it is/no it's not" bullshit I'm talking about.
Debate shows progression. Argument shows stagnation. Now there are two arguments in this thread. It is now doubly unproductive.

JasterIsFett

08-06-2009, 05:21 PM

It is now doubly unproductive.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n254/faustus777/TheOffice-ThatsWhatSheSaid-Michael.jpg

wait...that didn't work out as well as I'd hoped...oh well...

EDIT: Y'know. You've been replying for quite some time now...;p

Sheriff

08-06-2009, 06:02 PM

I spend most of my waking hours thinking about this thread. :)

Freetoaster and TomHarrington are virtually tied in my brain in the race for 'Most interesting poster award' this year.

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 06:26 PM

If that's the way you feel, Zac, then fine, though I still think that if you just give this thread an honest chance, you'll find it more productive.

Do I need to provide a link if I claim the quality of health care provided by the VA and the military are lackluster at best? And do I need to provide a link if I claim that what we'll get with the government/single payer plan can be previewed just by looking at what they're doing to the military?

If that's what you're claiming, then yes. The military health care system (as well as the health care politics in general) are in no way my specialty, so linking to various sources would aid my, and everyone else's, ability to discuss the matter.

I'm a vet- do I need a link to my DD214 to prove I know what I'm talking about in regards to sick call? Copies of my medical records? I'm sure you saw the story about the god awful conditions at the VA hospital.... or do I need to hold your hand and provide a link to that headline making story?

Thanks to government run health care, I suffer from horrible tinnitus. My left knee is shit. And let's not forget a few pretty scars from getting shot and stabbed and then given a bottle of Percocet and some band-aids.

I'm in no way claiming that government run health care is or will be perfect. In fact, it's these kinds of imperfections that highlight why reform is necessary in all sectors -- military, public, private, all of it. Currently, the US has the second highest infant mortality rate (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html) of any other first world nation and all the things required to lower that rate -- "female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth and use of family planning services" -- aren't being provided adequately through the private system. And the fact that every other nation with lower infant mortality rates (and higher life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) as well) utilize universal health care systems is highly suggestive of the fact that government run health care is more effective than private care.

ZBarclay

08-06-2009, 06:39 PM

If that's the way you feel, Zac, then fine, though I still think that if you just give this thread an honest chance, you'll find it more productive.

I've followed this thread from page one.
And we're not on a first name basis.

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 06:42 PM

Sorry. Listen to enough podcasts and you start to feel like you really know somebody. My bad.

Why is there no awkward, apologetic grin smilie? I think I need it more than anyone.

Cuclean

08-06-2009, 06:43 PM

And we're not on a first name basis.

Care for a http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/203128945_eda8531579.jpg?v=0?
:D ;)

08-06-2009, 07:03 PM

If that's what you're claiming, then yes. The military health care system (as well as the health care politics in general) are in no way my specialty, so linking to various sources would aid my, and everyone else's, ability to discuss the matter.

So my three years, three months, and eleven days of personal experience with military health care doesn't count for shit? Are you implying that I would lie about it? I could tell you personal stories that would make you absolutely sick- like the poor woman who went in for a simple gyno check up and was killed because an Army nurse couldn't read a fucking chart. I had to guard the body until it could be shipped back to California for a private autopsy.But since I can't find links on the All Powerful World Wide Web, that didn't happen, huh?

Oh, and since you can't seem to be bothered to look it up yourself... Walter Reed and others (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html)

I'm in no way claiming that government run health care is or will be perfect. In fact, it's these kinds of imperfections that highlight why reform is necessary in all sectors -- military, public, private, all of it. Currently, the US has the second highest infant mortality rate (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html) of any other first world nation and all the things required to lower that rate -- "female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth and use of family planning services" -- aren't being provided adequately through the private system. And the fact that every other nation with lower infant mortality rates (and higher life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) as well) utilize universal health care systems is highly suggestive of the fact that government run health care is more effective than private care.

Those life expectancy numbers are a myth (http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00321).

And considering where I work, I find ANYTHING from CNN highly suspect. And considering that the US has much, much stricter guidelines for what constitutes live birth and what doesn't (http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php), both your suppositions are false.

Try again.

Or don't. I don't care anymore.

By-tor

08-06-2009, 07:10 PM

Shit!!! Where's Shane when you need him? What this thread REALLY needs, right now, is a Rick-rolled link snuck into the middle of a post. I would have done it, but I don't need JK taking a quick flight back to the homeland to kick my ass. :D;)

JasterIsFett

08-06-2009, 07:11 PM

If that's what you're claiming, then yes. The military health care system (as well as the health care politics in general) are in no way my specialty, so linking to various sources would aid my, and everyone else's, ability to discuss the matter.

I'm just wondering...why is it his responsibility to educate you on a subject if you are discussing it. If the discussion were being held in a forum where there was not access to the largest source of information that has ever existed (the internet) then he might be obliged to inform you as to the specifics to which he was referring.

In this case, you are suggesting that you entered into a discussion, completely un-versed in any of the subject matter, doing no research of your own and demanding that the people who are making a claim cater to your every desire for knowledge. This is both vanity and sloth rolled into one lovely package.

He is not beholden to you to provide information. If this were an official debate of any sort, you would be laughed out of the building for being unprepared.

Understandably, sources should be provided in discussions where more than one side is debating an issue, which JK did many times earlier in the thread, I'm not sure why, but all of those posts seem to have been deleted, but its not my place to comment on that.

However, the claim that the military health care system did not provide JK with adequate service is one based on personal isses and to call those claims into question would be to call into question his moral quality and the call for sources would be unreasonable. His experience might have been an entirely individual one, completely out of the norm for the U.S. Navy, but it was his experience, he is living proof; living evidence, if you will, that the military provided inadequate medical services for his health issues. Sources should be provided when there is an objective point trying to be made, but in this case they are compltely unnecessary.

Unless you want to call the man a liar...but always remember this when dealing with JK.

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt306/JasterIsFett/mm_guns.gif

08-06-2009, 07:33 PM

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt306/JasterIsFett/mm_guns.gif

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2786487141_b88f5b1239_m.jpg

;)

I'm really just a teddy bear.

NomenNescio

08-06-2009, 07:55 PM

So my three years, three months, and eleven days of personal experience with military health care doesn't count for shit? Are you implying that I would lie about it?

Never would I imply such a thing, sir. And...frankly, I don't know where to go from here. I've been rereading that post over and over again trying to figure out where that implication could possibly come from and, well, I'm at a loss. So I just want to apologize if that's what you really took away from what I said. I would never ever do something like that.

I'm just wondering...why is it his responsibility to educate you on a subject if you are discussing it.

Not what I've been saying at all. In fact, what I've been getting at is exactly what you stated, that "sources should be provided in discussions where more than one side is debating an issue" and "Sources should be provided when there is an objective point trying to be made." But I guess I fucked that up somewhere along the way.

And with that, I think I'm giving up on this thread as well (at least for now). Seems like I'm only alienating more and more people with each post. Apologies all around, guys.