OT: Rating the President [Archive]

dogscoff

January 15th, 2003, 12:31 PM

I think George W Bush is a right bastard. He is a corrupt and cynical, and if he was standing next to me right now I'd probably punch him.

1> I believe there was definitely some kind of chicanery involved in the "election" that put him in the whitehouse.

2> His attitude toward environmental issues (refusal to sign Kyoto treaty, drilling for oil in Alaska) is intolerable.

3> He has defiled the memory of all the ppl who died in the twin towers by using their deaths as currency in his warmongering and erosion of civil liberties.

4> His abuses of human rights (those ppl locked up in Cuba without charge, status, trial or legal representation) are intolerable.

5> His relentless agenda for warfare, which will result in countless innocent deaths and no positive change in the middle eastern region is intolerable.

I'm reading a book right now about current American politics. It's very biased, and I take everything with a pinch of salt, but it there is clear evidence in there that Bush is nothing more than a corporate puppet, stripping away environmental protection and sending people to their deaths in order to advance the interests of his oil/ power company backers.

Not that we are any better off in the UK: Tony Blair should get his nose out of Bush's arsehole and lead the world in standing up to him.

The worst thing is that our major opposition party is equally renowned for corruption and as far as I can tell the US opposition party is not much better than Bush.

Just my opinion.

tbontob

January 15th, 2003, 12:45 PM

What I am about to say may upset a few people, but it is my opinion that George Bush missed the boat of being a great president.

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.

With 9/11, he had a magnificent opportunity since almost every nation lost citizens in the twin towers.

IMHO, the shock of the collapse would have galvanized the major nations of the world into establishing a world court with teeth to deal with nations who terrorize others just as our national courts deal with individuals who terrorize individual citizens within national borders.

All, it need was a leader and in this I feel George Bush fell short.

Instead, he choose to go on a crusade against the Al Queda while requesting the rest of world follow. And most of the world did because of the loss of their citizens and because of the shock of the event.

Now he wants to go after Iraq and he also has an issue with North Korea.

I wonder why he didn't take the route of establishing a world court in concert with the support of other nations.

I can only come up with the concept that he feared that the U S of A would have to use its power somewhat more responsibly because it could come up on charges if it misused its powers.

Because as it now stands, the U S of A is the only superpower, both economically and militarily, and most nations do not want to seriously offend the U S of A because if push came to shove, the weaker nation is sure to suffer.

Generally, I feel that the U S of A has an admirable record in conducting itself in world affairs.

But power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. With no outside body like a world court to judge its actions, the U S of A will have to be unusually diligent in overseeing its own actions to ensure it does not misuse it's power.

One can argue we already have the United Nations and a world court. But it is apparent, they lack the the formulation of laws to deal with terrorism as well as the power to enforce it. With 9/11, Bush could have ensured major changes which would have made the world a safer place since all the nations would be an active participant rather than just following the lead of the U S of A whenever it suffers a catastrophe.

And before I am buried under a barrage of vitriol (probably from U.S. citizens), I want to say the above is only my opinion. : )

dogscoff

January 15th, 2003, 12:50 PM

tbon: I agree with all of that (except the bit about Bush having the potential to be a good president:-) ). Well said.

Shoujo

January 15th, 2003, 03:28 PM

Not that we are any better off in the UK: Tony Blair should get his nose out of Bush's arsehole and lead the world in standing up to him. Isn't there hope for Blair still? I mean I thought I read an article saying that his own party, the opposition parties, and the British public all oppose going to war with Iraq (without the sanction of the UN that is). Surely Blair would get the message?

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.
The explanations I've heard is that the US is afraid of a wort could come up on charges if it misused its powers."

Or he thought a world court would be used in a biased manner. I remember for example Sudan being appointed to the human rights commison. Maybe because they have so much experience with violating it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

mottlee

January 15th, 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
George Bush -
"So you don't want us to inspect this palace se Saddam?"

Saddam -
"Go screw yourself you white satan!"

George Bush -
*Smiles* "Na, I have a better plan."

*From satellite imaging*
You see many people running from palace.
Seconds later big white explosion.
Moments later, big hole in ground where Palace used to be.

George Bush -
"Any more Palaces you don't want searched?"

Saddam -
"OMG! You bastard! that was a childrens hospital!"I LIKE THIS!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

mottlee

January 15th, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

3> He has defiled the memory of all the ppl who died in the twin towers by using their deaths as currency in his warmongering and erosion of civil liberties.

4> His abuses of human rights (those ppl locked up in Cuba without charge, status, trial or legal representation) are intolerable.

Just my opinion.3, Did you for get the battle cry of WW2? Rember Pearl Harbor" ?

as to the ppl in Cuba..Taleban?? AlQuada?? they lucky to still be alive!

just mho

Perrin

January 15th, 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Kamog:
The inspectors still haven't discovered any evidence of nuclear or biological weapons in Iraq, right?This is true. In fact the UN inspectors also have not been able to find the Bio/Chem weapons that it found the Last time that they were there in the country. What happened to those weapons? Iraq says they were destroyed. The UN inspectors say ok where are your documents regarding the destruction? Iraq is silent.

AS for a world court. As others have stated why would we support something that would be used as a weapon against us.

Look I know that this is an international forum. But I do not understand why other countries cannot see what the US is trying to do. To me it seems that George W Bush is trying to make the world safer for everybody.

As for drilling for oil in Alaska. If you don't agree with the Iraq policy then you should be in favor of drilling for our own oil so that we do not have to concern ourselves with the middle east.

[ January 15, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Perrin ]

Sinapus

January 15th, 2003, 08:22 PM

Ah yes, Kyoto. Treaty signed by President Clinton, lost ratification by the Senate 98-0, and it's all President Bush's fault.

Ooookay.

rdouglass

January 15th, 2003, 08:24 PM

<$.02>

The thread was about rating George "Dubyah" wasn't it? Well IMHO he isn't doing a great job; adequate but not great. However, he IS standing up for his principles (right OR wrong) and not switching to the political view of the moment. As it pertains to world politics, he seems to say something and commits to it. Just check your own local politician on that level.

To me, that earns him a few points. 'Course all those points are dismissed 'cause some of his principles are kinda' "boneheaded"..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

</$.02>

rextorres

January 15th, 2003, 08:40 PM

From peace and prosperity to war and depression. I think that says it all.

geoschmo

January 15th, 2003, 08:56 PM

All I would like to know is when is it OK for the US to act? When Americans are killed in terrorist actions in other countries we are not supposed to do anything about it cause it didn't happen in our country. But when an attack happens in America we aren't supposed to do anything because people from other countries were killed too?

Why do we need a new court to say what happened on 9/11 was bad? Isn't it patently obvious? Why do we need more laws? Is there a country in the world where those kinds of things are legal now?

At least GWB asked if anyone wanted to join. He could have gone and done it without even consulting anyone. But that's not how things are done anymore. But give him credit for making it perfectly clear that we were taking action with or without help from anyone else.

Geoschmo

Perrin

January 15th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
From peace and prosperity to war and depression. I think that says it all.Oh yes! G.W. Bush forced those terrorists onto the planes and forced them to fly into the twin towers killing 3000 people. No wait I bet he flew the planes himself and jumped out at the Last minute.

We were the ones that were attack idiot! You know I can respect the attack on the Pentagon because it is a valid military target. But how would you like it if your friends and relatives went to work one day and then have to watch as the buildings they work in come tumbling down.

and all you can say is:
Originally posted by rextorres:
From peace and prosperity to war and depression. I think that says it all.You are probably on of those people who thinks we shouldn't have a military. Give me a break!!

geoschmo

January 15th, 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
From peace and prosperity to war and depression. I think that says it all.Actually that doesn't say anything. That's a sound bite. A quip. A sarcastic comment with no substance.

Bush is responsible for us going from peace and prosperity to war and depression?

War came to us. We didn't ask anyone to blow up the World Trade Center. Those plans were put in place during the previous administration. Does that mean they are Clintons fault? Of course not! They are the fault of those that did them.

And secondly we aren't in a depression. We are in a recession, and a fairly mild one at that. Most of the economic problems are a result of fear caused by the downturn in t

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Oops wrong thread

[ January 26, 2003, 16:21: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 06:33 PM

No it is not the wrong thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Suddenly from 16 pages this thread is reduced to 2? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

When I submitted my post, I thought I was somehow transported to another thread.

Does deleted pages happen very often?

Anyways, here is the post I had made, deleted and make again.

It may not make much sense to some people because of the intervening lost pages.

But it does outline my position with my Posts in the face of certain criticisms.
=============================================
Fyron, here is an example where I don't like using the edit button when the pace is fast and furious.

In this thread,
1) I made a post at 13:56
2) Mephisto made a post at 14.05
3) At the same time Mephisto made his post, I edited my post (at 14:05).
4) At 14:06, I posted a reply to Mephisto.
5) At 15:04, Mephisto amended his posting to include my edited posting.

Now anyone reading the posting with think "What the f...! What is tbontob talking about in reading his edited posting."

I think I'll go back to my usual way of doing things.

If things are fast and furious, I will post a new posting.

If things are not fast and furious, I will edit my post in my usual manner.

Whether things are fast and furious or not will be my judgement call.

So, it will just have to be something you are going to have to accept. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And if you can't, well it is your problem, not mine! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EDIT: I am not rigid on this. If God or the administrators of this site dictate I should post in a different manner, then I will comply.

But that is unlikely.

God has not spoken to me recently. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Nor have the administrators. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And the Last time I looked, you did not administer this site.

[ January 26, 2003, 16:47: Message edited by: tbontob ]

rextorres

January 26th, 2003, 07:40 PM

How well do you think GW would do at SEIV? - at this point - that's what I'd like to know.

Kamog

January 26th, 2003, 10:42 PM

You're right, tbontob! This topic used to be a LOT longer than 2 pages! What happened?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif There was a lot of interesting discussions on those pages that vanished. Are they gone forever now?

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 10:45 PM

Yeah, who's the wise guy that decided to kill off our discussions?

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 10:47 PM

Thanks Kamog! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Over two hours had elapsed since my posting and I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed it, or if I was the only one who cared or if I was going just plain crazy and had imagined it all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Tbontob, don't post and edit, use a second window to get it all in 1 post before posting.

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Grrrooooaaaaaannnnn!!!!!

(tbontob breaks down and cries like a baby)

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:05 PM

I wonder if these Posts will be deleted too? I have never seen a thread that has gone off the original topic moderated like this before on Shrapnel. Even the few flames weren't deleted, just locked down. Why is this thread treated differently? More heated debates were allowed to continue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What do you mean by locked down? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:11 PM

There have been a few threads that turned into flames, and those were locked down (no more Posts were allowed).

Kamog

January 26th, 2003, 11:17 PM

I usually type my entire message in Notepad first, including the quotes etc, and then when I've finished composing it, I cut and paste it into the reply box.

There were a few threads which were deleted completely because they discussed things like cheating, hacking the game etc.

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Yes, and those Posts should be removed, because they discuss highly illegal activities. But, comparing them to what was discussed in this thread is not even possible, they are so far apart.

rextorres

January 26th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Even though I'm as guilty as anyone of making this thread heated, I think just as you never talk politics and religion at the dinner table this forum is probably not the best place for these types of threads.

EDIT: That's a good topic for debate

[ January 26, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Censorship = Evil

What more can I say, that that little line doesn't tell you? I personally do not appreciate my benign Posts from being deleted with no warning or no explanation.

[ January 26, 2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I wonder if these Posts will be deleted too? I have never seen a thread that has gone off the original topic moderated like this before on Shrapnel. Even the few flames weren't deleted, just locked down. Why is this thread treated differently? More heated debates were allowed to continue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Yes.

In my view, the discussions were impassioned rather than heated.

On my part there is no rancor or resentment against anyone who has a view which differ from mine.

To paraphrase Voltaire, "I may not agree with what a person says, but I will defend his right to say it."

Actually Voltaire is quoted as saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But this sentance also does not appear to be Voltair's but was was a paraphrase from a letter from Voltaire to Helvetius which she claims was "Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Captain Kwok

January 26th, 2003, 11:27 PM

I'm curious to what happened as well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I don't think it was heated at all and I was learning a lot about different political views!

tbontob

January 26th, 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
I'm curious to what happened as well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I don't think it was heated at all and I was learning a lot about different political views!My feelings exactly! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I would be nice if the person who deleted the postings would return them.

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:30 PM

Hopefully we will receive an explanation soon....

couslee

January 27th, 2003, 12:18 AM

If anything, the whole thread should have been moved to an OT forum. There are a lot of threads cluttering up this board that have nothing to do with the game, and this is the game forum. Deleting the Posts was a bad move (if the admin did it, and it was not a hack atack). Moving it and several other threads to OT would not be. imho.

The thread was a little warm, but thats ok. Political discussions usually are. It was not a flame fest, which "might" merit deltetion, or better yet, a "lock down" and a private note from the admin to the flamers to quit that practice or face banning (temp or perm).

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 12:36 AM

No, moving them would be bad, because they have never been moved like that in the 3 or so years this forum has been up. To start doing so now would be wrong.

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 12:43 AM

Couslee does have a good point.

If it was the administrator that deleted the Posts, a warning would be appropriate.

Then if the transgressions continues (whatever it may have been), then affirmative action could be taken as the warning was ignored.

But because the postings were occasionally impassioned but in no way hostile or heated, my feelings are that we have a hacker in our midst.

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 12:49 AM

And then......

Maybe the president disapproved of the postings and by "executive order" ordered their removal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

couslee

January 27th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, moving them would be bad, because they have never been moved like that in the 3 or so years this forum has been up. To start doing so now would be wrong.With that kind of logic, slavery would still be common. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

LOL tbontob. never know. OR, it could have been an Al Queda attack on Americans over the internet. We now have sufficient reason to go bomb Iraq. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ January 26, 2003, 23:35: Message edited by: couslee ]

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by couslee:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, moving them would be bad, because they have never been moved like that in the 3 or so years this forum has been up. To start doing so now would be wrong.With that kind of logic, slavery would still be common. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Umm... no, not at all. Equating how a forum is run to slavery is illogical. There is no valid basis of comparison.

tesco samoa

January 27th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Yea this is a bad precident in this forum... I would like it to be explained... As it has never happened before... And I hope it does not happen again.

We are an open group of posters who like to chat and chat and chat....

geoschmo

January 27th, 2003, 04:43 AM

It wasn't me. I'd like to know who did it as well. Whoever did it is not following the guidlines for moderating that Richard set down when he gave us all this responsibility.

Geoschmo

Krsqk

January 27th, 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
We are an open group of posters who like to chat and chat and chat....And chat and chat and chat and chat and chat... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

*Krsqk makes sure to click the Add Reply button only a single time, so as not to provoke the ire of Fyron* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Wardad

January 27th, 2003, 05:09 AM

Will George W. Bush continue the family tradition?

Puke, what do you think?

Suicide Junkie

January 27th, 2003, 05:23 AM

It wasn't me. I'd like to know who did it as well. Whoever did it is not following the guidlines for moderating that Richard set down when he gave us all this responsibility.Nor me. The only deletion I made here was a double-post.

Krsqk

January 27th, 2003, 05:38 AM

Will George W. Bush continue the family tradition?
Puke, what do you think?What, the "Thank you, minister-san, for this wonderful *BLEEAAUGHK*" tradition? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif *Thinks this tradition is muy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif *

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It wasn't me. I'd like to know who did it as well. Whoever did it is not following the guidlines for moderating that Richard set down when he gave us all this responsibility.

GeoschmoGeoschmo, how many individuals were given the capability of deleting 14 or 15 pages of Posts.

Krsqk

January 27th, 2003, 07:14 AM

According to the forum main page, Geo, Mephisto, SJ, and Atrocities are Moderators. ISTR that Instar is also SpecOps, though. Maybe there are more unlisted Moderators that I can't remember.

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
According to the forum main page, Geo, Mephisto, SJ, and Atrocities are Moderators. ISTR that Instar is also SpecOps, though. Maybe there are more unlisted Moderators that I can't remember.Well, I don't know if they will find this helpful or relevent, but it happened in a 18 minute period between 16:00 and 16:18 of Jan 26th.

I was accessing the posted Messages to prepare my post and made the post at 16:18.

Captain Kwok

January 27th, 2003, 07:39 AM

I know the answer:

It was the C.I.Eh

The Canadian Intelligence service, they were trying to quash any anti-Americanism before U.S. drug companies get mad and stop selling their products in Canada, where we sell them back to Americans over the internet. Quite lucrative.

[ January 27, 2003, 05:41: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 07:57 AM

If the reason for deleting the posting was because they were not on topic about the president of the U.S. of A., the perpetrator certainly did not succeed.

The postings since the deletion have been on anything but the president.

And if the intention was to delete 14 or 15 pages of postings unrelated to the topic of the president, it should be noted that in doing so, the perpetrator also deleted insightful and pertinent observations and opinions about the president.

Mephisto

January 27th, 2003, 01:34 PM

Hi folks,
just wanted to say I did not delete a single post in this topic. I wonder what happend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif It was a good thread!

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Hi folks,
just wanted to say I did not delete a single post in this topic. I wonder what happend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif It was a good thread!I can vouch for that.

Well, in the sense that Mephisto contributed to the thread with a "Hear, hear" to a quote of a posting I made which was not on topic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Incidentally, that particular posting of Mephisto and which was later edited by him, was the one that prompted my post which discovered the 14 to 15 page deletion.

So, Mephisto, in my mind you are in the clear (along with the other Moderators who have disavowed any involvement).

And the fact that you had contributed to the thread with a post which was not on topic, (and which was deleted) doubly confirms in my mind the truth of what you say.

tesco samoa

January 27th, 2003, 07:10 PM

Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...

dogscoff

January 27th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Hmmm, I get the feeling it wasn't one of the Moderators, and shrapnel would have said sometyihng, so that leaves only one possibole explanation:

The Government did it, with their shadowy secret services and wierd alien technology from area 51.

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.

rextorres

January 27th, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.<hr /></blockquote>Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.

Instar

January 28th, 2003, 12:00 AM

I am specops, but for the RA forum I believe. I couldnt delete anything, if I tried. (or maybe I can, but I doubt it)
Edit:
Ill probably regret this but...
As for the president, I must say that overall, he is not too bad, but he is definately good at bungling along. I mean, he is trying his best to allow religion into the government, which although well intentioned, not right. Once you let government and religion mix, who knows when the next zealot crusader will come out and start going bananas?
The tax cuts I feel are doing more harm to the national deficet than helping the US economy. Nearly every "Economic assistance or reform bill" in the past either had no effect or took so long to be passed that the economy had already recovered.
I read recently that Bush is saying that industry self regulation will help control pollution, which is just pure crap. Pollution controls are an added expense to business, and without much forcing them (public opinion is a factor, but public opinion is hardly the best tool Ill assure you) they won't do much. Ford Motor Co. though is doing a fairly good job at it, from what Ive heard.
As for the war on Iraq, I have no real opinion. I see the benefits of taking out Saddam, but we have totally wrecked any chance of help from our friends, other than like the UK and possibly Canada. However, we are already stretched out around the world, in Afghanistan, Bosnia (I think) and other places. The cost of a war is another deficet inducing problem, so it may end up hurting the economy more.

[ January 27, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Instar ]

Shyrka

January 28th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Hey my post has disappeared too!!
I can't understand...was a very soft one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
The only thing I said was: I will not vote in this poll, because I am not American but Spanish. But I want to say that in this moment, America really scares me.Someone should explain what happened with this thread.

BTW Spain is a kingdom with a King, but power is only between 2 political parties, the PP and the PSOE. Simply pathetic (Spain suffered a fascist government more time than any other nation in the world, 1.939-1.975).

Askan Nightbringer

January 28th, 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.<hr /></blockquote>Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.<hr /></blockquote>I always regarded it as more of a Plutocracy.
In Australia we're sort of a Neo-Colonial MeTooist.

Did I miss anything good before the delete? Anyone call me names? Bloody ISP went down with the SQL virus and didn't get up til an hour ago.

Askan

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Hey why is america slowly becoming a monarchy ???

I mean... a few select families are running that country now... and have been for the Last 30 years...Umm... not really. Just because one person happened to be elected who had a father that was president doesn't mean the country is turning into a monarchy.<hr /></blockquote>Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.<hr /></blockquote>No, I don't think it was that high. Do you still have that link to the IRS report?

rextorres

January 28th, 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
Without debating whether they deserve it or not -1% of the people owning 70% of the wealth arguably constitutes an oligarchy if not a monarchy.No, I don't think it was that high. Do you still have that link to the IRS report?<hr /></blockquote>Sorry it's top 10% own 70% of the wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

You guys have sold me all those poor people aren't paying there fair share. Since everyone who earns less than 50k a year gets a free ride (according to the chart below) we should find a way to have them pay off all the free stuff they are getting like (police, use of roads, education, cheap food, fire department, etc.)

This is the tax chart.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

[ January 28, 2003, 06:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 08:19 AM

You guys have sold me all those poor people aren't paying there fair share.I never said that. I said that middle class and above pay too much taxes. Too much money is collected in taxes as it is.

rextorres

January 28th, 2003, 08:29 AM

I agree with you a 100%! We should privitize everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 28, 2003, 06:30: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
I agree with you a 100%! We should privitize everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Eh?

orev_saara

January 30th, 2003, 07:43 AM

Huh... I finally looked at this thread to see if there was anything interesting. Looks like there was one interesting thing, now there's another. A bit of a whodunnit. I would like to reply to the most recent comment by Instar on the president's performance. You can stop wondering why the prez keeps proposing stuff that's bad for the economy. We've seen it all before as Reagonomics. The plan is, you cut taxes, especially to the wealthiest (funny coincidence there). Then you explode defense spending. At this point a strange phenomenon called "no money for domestic spending" occurs. This has the "unintended" consequence of crashing social programs like welfare, education, civil rights monitoring, environmental regulation, etc., etc., etc. And there you have it! Calling your opponents names makes it all go down easier.

Oh, yeah, about the distribution of wealth thingy, 70 percent controlling ten percent sounds bad, but when you look at global wealth distribution, it doesn't seem like any big deal. And that's just dollars. There's no way to measure political control, but from where I sit, I'd guess that the distribution of political influence in America is a lot worse than the 70% for 10% split in money. Kinda creepy.

Fyron

January 30th, 2003, 09:23 AM

Anyone happen to have saved a Version of the thread before it was slashed? We could easily pick up from there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Askan Nightbringer

January 30th, 2003, 03:28 PM

Yeh! I was enjoying this one.
I do recall thinking about where I was gonna park my yacht but can't remember much after that.

But I can get back on the president track.
Now without much debate I'm sure we can all agree that America is
1. The strongest military power in the world
2. The strongest economic power in the world.

Most people would agree that America does claim to be
3. A democratic nation of sorts
4. Leaders of the Free World.

Most non-Americans would probabaly agree that (I'm getting to the point so hold on)
5. Their/our leaders seem to be doing alot of brown tonguing when George W. is in the room.

Now considering all those points doesn't it make sense that in the next presidential elections the entire world gets to vote (or at the least those who at least pretend to have a democratic system). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
After all, the american president has huge influence in the world economy, world stability and who will be the bad guys in the next 20 hollywood blockbusters. That affects all of us, not just you guys with the funny spelling.

Askan

tesco samoa

January 30th, 2003, 03:49 PM

Now with following the news this week.... What did they find....

Some major players have changed their tune over night on Iraq...

Time will tell I guess, but I am guessing it's not good.

Powell changing his tune was a shocker!!!

My guess is perhaps Feb 16th to 26th. As you don't wanna get involved in a ground war when the heat kicks in.

So far they have been right about everything.

When I first heard the Axis of Evil line I laughed on North Korea... But.....

Perhaps it is the deliverly of the message , or lack there of that bothers me.

P.S.
Now that I do not have to pay a dividend tax on my Us stocks...Like all of you I thought i would take that extra cash and buy a coffee...

E. Albright

January 30th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Anyone happen to have saved a Version of the thread before it was slashed? We could easily pick up from there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well, the Last thing I remember posting (or seeing, 'cause I think it was posted during the Crunch) was a missive rife with atrocious wordplay based on Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Use Theorists. All told, the death of that post might well be counted a blessing, given the popular opinion of plays on words...

I'm half-tempted to resume where I'd left off, but I'll be good. No gas on the fire.

E. Albright

kalthalior

January 31st, 2003, 06:06 PM

It would seem that the US still has friends in Europe, despite news reports to the contrary.

London Times Editorial (http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html)

Perrin

January 31st, 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Krsqk:
According to the forum main page, Geo, Mephisto, SJ, and Atrocities are Moderators. ISTR that Instar is also SpecOps, though. Maybe there are more unlisted Moderators that I can't remember.Well, I don't know if they will find this helpful or relevent, but it happened in a 18 minute period between 16:00 and 16:18 of Jan 26th.

I was accessing the posted Messages to prepare my post and made the post at 16:18.<hr /></blockquote>Could the slammer worm be responsible for the missing Posts?

Preacherman

January 31st, 2003, 08:40 PM

my post is gone where i stated that i don't want to participate in this thread any more, so i'm free again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It would seem that the US still has friends in Europe, despite news reports to the contrary.
It was never in question wether the us has friends in europe or not, they have, but friendship is not that we always are your opinion. i am from germany, i do not like bush, i often do not like his politics and i certainly am not for a war without a resolution by the un, but that means not that i do not like americans! i hope you see the differences.

the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un.

Fyron

January 31st, 2003, 10:00 PM

Do you expect the media to ever give a fair account of anything? They leave facts out of all stories that conflict with what they want to report.

Phoenix-D

January 31st, 2003, 10:18 PM

"the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un. "

If you read the article, you might notice it never mentions going it alone. According to that, Iraq is in violation of the UN accords and should be invaded because of that.

And if anyone says "give him another chance" if and when these inspections fail..how -many- "another chances" are we talking about here? This isn't the first time this has happened.

Phoenix-D

oleg

February 1st, 2003, 03:36 AM

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

Krsqk

February 1st, 2003, 03:41 AM

At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority. They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Not at all a side note, but rather the crucial (and conveniently neglected) fact of the latest resolution: the inspectors aren't there to find WMDs. They're there for Iraq to prove they longer have them. They haven't found any evidence of the destruction of previous stockpiles; they have found unreported weapons; and previously reported/found weapons have been moved from their locations. That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

The inspectors can't be there to hunt down WMDs, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. I get ~10 years to hide stuff in California. You get to pick 108 people to look for it. World opinion demands that you find at least 15% of it to prove that I have it (and even them some won't believe you).

Also interesting: Nancy Pelosi (Senate minority leader) claimed Iraq doesn't have any WMDs, but later said we shouldn't go into Iraq "because Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons on our troops." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif I guess when truth is negotiable, anything goes. Ironically, as minority leader, she receives more classified information than all but 3 other members of Congress, so she knows more of the truth than almost anyone (although she can't discuss it in public).

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.Again, the onus of proof is on Iraq. That is the 15-0 consensus of the Security Council. They haven't even left what was previously found sealed and in the same places. We have found some undeclared weapons. We can't even find the vast majority (~98%) of what was previously declared or found. Iraq continues testing/production of liquid-fueled missiles with range sufficient to strike anywhere in the Mideast and parts of Europe (far in excess of the UN-required 90km). What more do we want? Saddam to give us a hand-written list of all facilities, along with the keys and launch codes? I have a bridge to sell you, then, too.

[ February 01, 2003, 02:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

oleg

February 1st, 2003, 06:01 AM

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ? Because Bush is prosecuter, judge and jury. As to UN relevance, it is a joke. How many times Israel violated UN resolutions and so what ? I have a nugging feeling that in fact it does not matter if Saddam has WMD, Bush wants Saddam' blood and he will get it, UN or no UN.

Phoenix-D

February 1st, 2003, 06:04 AM

"When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ?"

Because this isn't a murder trial. If you want a comparison, try a probation violation. Iraq lost a war and signed a treaty or two dealing with WMDs to end it. It hasn't been living up to that deal. By my logic, that means the treaty is null and the war is still on.

Phoenix-D

Wanderer

February 1st, 2003, 08:13 AM

and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un. Do you expect the media to ever give a fair account of anything? If you read the article, you might notice it never mentions going it alone.Argh, I can't let this go! It's not an editorial, or an article. Check the bottom of the page - it's a letter from eight European heads of state. Mind, it's interesting that they've put it in the editorial section and not the letters page (maybe it was too big).

I'll admit that whatever happens, various sections of the media will push their own agenda... "Discovered chemical warhead was 'planted by American spy'", "Saddam officially 'worse than Hitler' says scientific report" etc.

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you.He's not being accused of murder (well, he is but that's a separate thorny issue [how many world leaders are responsible for gratuitously killing members of their populace? - sadly all too many to use it as a casus belli]). The analogy to law is that he's already been found guilty of a crime (being caught with an illegal weapons program), and could be guilty of violating his parole (by not dismantling said weapons program in an open and verifiable manner).

In Northern Ireland, the Unionists don't like the fact that although the IRA are decommisioning weapons under the eyes of an independent third party, there's no real way of telling how many weapons they obtained in the first place. If my understanding of what Blix said is correct, Iraq appears to have fairly complete records of weapons built, but incomplete records of them being dismantled. To continue the analogy, this would be enough to get a search warrant and arrest (but probably not yet charge) the suspect.

Like a lot of people, I don't want a war, but if we do invade, I want it to be under the auspices of the UN. Acting alone could cause more problems than it solves - to strain the analogy past breaking point, we don't want the pair of policemen (who initially don't get on but by the end of the film have formed a Lasting bond) to have their badges taken off them and told they're off the case, leaving one to mutter "I'm getting too old for this s**t" and the other to become suicidally paranoid http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Wardad

February 3rd, 2003, 06:42 AM

Presidential poll .
The Democratic National Committee is currently polling Americans through the Internet to determine the electability of Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States in 2004. If you would like to show your support for Hillary and encourage her to run for President of the United States in 2004 please click the link below.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf

Fyron

February 3rd, 2003, 08:36 AM

She would be a worse president than her husband was...

E. Albright

February 3rd, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority.So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.As to whether or not this constitutes a material breach can be (and is being) argued. And furthermore, I don't remember anything about material breaches demanding military repercussions. IIRC, the word was that a material breach would have "grave consequences". Bush takes this to mean "We get to bLast 'em, an' right now!", whereas the "old" Europeans take this as "We shall pass another resolution saying that we get to bLast them, should we see fit". This double interpretation was to my knowledge generally acknowledged as the reason why the US and OE were able to agree on 1441, as it "gave" them both what they wanted...

They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )Um, no. No, no, no. English isn't meant to be anything in particular, other than whatever Anglophones make it into. There is no fixed "standard" of what English should be (no, not even the OED http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ), and to claim otherwise is pushing an agenda. Yes, English traditionaly used the masculine as the default gender (but not the neuter gender, mind; one can and must make a distinction 'twixt the two), but that doesn't mean that Anglophones ought to continue to speak thusly (argumentum ad antiquitatem). I'll spare you examples of analogous reasoning, but I reiterate: smiley or no, language can change, will change, and must change, and to demand that it oughtn't is naught but to jam one's finger into one of the multitude holes in the dike whilst ignoring all others...

As an aside (and likely a rant, but still), I'm annoyed by the lack of a generally recognized neuter gender in English. Yes, you can use "one", but if you speak to an average Anglophone, they'll think you're rather odd. And you can refer to people in the third-person plural, but again, if an average speaker is addressed, one will regard you strangely. And I'll admit, neither of the preceding solutions really sound "right" to my ear, tho' I personaly tend towards they-ing.

Eh, 'tis naught but the whimsy of the current structure of the language clashing with my worldview; for comparison, French has a nice, common neuter gender (tho' yes, it also has a masculine default, but word gender has slightly different implications en fran�ais), but I'm maddened by the lack of an equivalent to "Ms.". What it comes down to is that language is formed by consensus, so I either need to find a language tied to a culture that matches my worldview very tightly, bend my own langauge to my worldview, or get over it and accept that people will use and change language in ways that might trouble me...

geoschmo

February 3rd, 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Wanderer:
Like a lot of people, I don't want a war, but if we do invade, I want it to be under the auspices of the UN. Acting alone could cause more problems than it solves - to strain the analogy past breaking point, we don't want the pair of policemen (who initially don't get on but by the end of the film have formed a Lasting bond) to have their badges taken off them and told they're off the case, leaving one to mutter "I'm getting too old for this s**t" and the other to become suicidally paranoid http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .Try as I might, I just can't picture Kofi Annan as the grizzeled veteran police lieutenant popping antacids and shouting obcenities at his hotshot detective team. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Krsqk

February 3rd, 2003, 08:48 PM

So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken. "If you do that again, I'm going to tell you what's going to happen if you do that again after I talk about what I should tell you I'll tell you if it happens again..." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

RE: the English thingy: It was a joke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's why it had a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . Maybe it needed another smiley. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 03, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

E. Albright

February 4th, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken. Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V. And let's see what they say re: resolutions:

Article 14
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen. This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions?

(Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

[Edit: script cleanup, typos]

[ February 04, 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Krsqk

February 4th, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by E. Albright:
Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V.Oops. *prepares to be sued* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen.1) You don't win if you don't try; 2) You're not going to get a country to pass a SC resolution demanding things unacceptable to its ally. Great Britain's not going to demand that we return Hawaii to the natives, either, although there's a movement for that.

This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions? (Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)I'm not a mind-reader, but it's not for any supposed symapthy for the Israelis on the part of the media. They lean more toward headlines like "Israelis Attack Settlement; 25 Palestinian Children Die." Then, near the end of the article, they bury a half-sentence or so stating that the intended target was the group of gunmen hiding in the middle of the children. I can't seem to find too many articles which "forget" the existence of the Palestinians. The NY Times, for example, seems quite aware of them. The AP and Reuters articles printed in the Orlando Sentinel and its parent, the Chicago Tribune, are also frequently pro-Palestinian.

This brings up a point which always irks me. Papers always defend themselves against claims of bias by pointing to their editorials. No one's complaining of bias on the opinion page; it's the slant of the news that matters. It's like a cattle farmer claiming to run a zoo because he keeps a dog on his porch. "See? We don't just have cows!"

[ February 04, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

E. Albright

February 4th, 2003, 06:43 PM

All right, from my perspective the OT: RtP thread is right back where it was before the Crunch. We've people with radically different outlooks squabling about what it is to be biased, with no hope of reaching a consensus. On the other hand, things have advanced beyond that point, 'cause I seem to recall having made some lofty statements claiming I wouldn't "throw gas on the fire" or somesuch. So...

E. Albright,

Recalling his resolution of 30 January 2003 to cease and desist in the posting of argumentantive replies to the OT: Rating the President thread,

Recognizing his failure to abide by his 30 January 2003 resolution,

Taking note that he really has better things to do with his time,

Reaffirming the potential discourtesy involved in argumentative political discussion,

Reaffirming also the futility of arguing about subjective perceptions of subjectivity,

Recognizing the need to not waste Shrapnel server space on wildly off-topic debate,

 Decides to unilaterally withdraw from the OT: Rating the President thread; Urges other Members to refrain from doing likewise; Urges all Members to remain seized of the subjectivity of bias perception in the meanwhile; Decides to shut up and be done with it.

Wardad

February 4th, 2003, 08:57 PM

EVEN MORE ON TOPIC:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Bush administration overhaul of decades-old labor regulations could force many Americans to work longer hours without overtime pay.

STORY: http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1151/2-1-2003/20030201064503_065.html

On the Net:

Overtime exemptions fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

Overtime requirements fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs23.htm

*** SO NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BUSH? ***
*** Don't worry, Australia or Canada is not so bad. ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's odd, I can not connect with WWW.DOL.GOV (http://WWW.DOL.GOV) from the coporate server???
OOPS, gotta go, my phone is ringing.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ February 04, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Wardad ]

rextorres

February 5th, 2003, 01:48 AM

With the deficit budget currently proposed by the resident thing are kind of scary. The fed will eventually need to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. Unfortunately - the proposals put out are counting on growth to make up for the deficit which raising interest rates will have hamper.

Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.

Fyron

February 5th, 2003, 02:13 AM

I see nothing bad in that article. The article even states that more low-income employees will be eligible for forced overtime pay.

"If this minimum level is raised, more employees automatically will be entitled to overtime, thus providing additional protections to low-wage workers," she said.

geoschmo

February 5th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.Probably because we understand it's not voodoo, but sound economic policy that realizes the economy isn't a zero sum game, encourages entrepreneurship and economic growth instead of incentivising counter productive behaiviors. The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that. You don't obviously.

Geoschmo

[ February 05, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

rextorres

February 5th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:

The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that.

GeoschmoYou know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

[ February 05, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Askan Nightbringer

February 5th, 2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan

geoschmo

February 5th, 2003, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:

The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that.

GeoschmoYou know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.<hr /></blockquote>And he was right. What's your point? Oh, I forgot. You don't have a point. You have soundbites.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

February 5th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan<hr /></blockquote>Uh no. The only thing Bush had to do with Enron was they gave some campaign donations. Enron gave loads of cash to both sides. That's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics. It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Who was president while Enron was doing all it's shenanigans? Not Bush.

Geoschmo

rextorres

February 5th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Herbert Hoover didn't do anything during the depression, because governments role was to "stay out of the way" and he's blamed for making the depression worse.

Besides there is an assumption that "taxing the rich" is a redistribution of wealth or is some sort of hand out for the poor. You know what taxes pay for and it's not welfare. All you guys that support a millionaire subsidy still haven't said what sort of things you'd cut from the budget to pay for it - which btw is why we have a deficit because the resident doesn't have the leadership to cut anything either.

[ February 05, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

rextorres

February 5th, 2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Who was president while Enron was doing all it's shenanigans? Not Bush.

GeoschmoHUH!

W used Enron's plane to fly around the country during his campaign and Enron and Ken Lay were W's biggest contributors.

The reason Ken Lay supported Kyoto was because he was afraid of stricter regulation - Kyoto was a compromise.

Enron donated 3x as much money to republicans as democrats.

http://www.commoncause.org/publications/jan02/011102.htm

EDIT: It was Gingrich's "Contract on America" that caused all the problems with Enron because of the deregulation that occurred blaming Slick for Enron doesn't make any sense.

[ February 05, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Askan Nightbringer

February 5th, 2003, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uh no. The only thing Bush had to do with Enron was they gave some campaign donations. Enron gave loads of cash to both sides. That's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics. It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.
How bout Lay's involvement in the Bush/Cheney's Energy Plan. The energy companies got nice subsidies and tax breaks and the plan was written with the "help" of Enron and the like.
It was being investigated by the Government Accounting Office (whoever they may be).

And if its the whole process then that really sux. Never trust the establishment no matter what they say.

Askan

tesco samoa

February 5th, 2003, 08:02 PM

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

Sinapus

February 5th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

GeoschmoUm... and here I was thinking the Senate all but scrapped the Kyoto treaty.
(Hint: if the President signs a treaty, it is not binding until the Senate ratifies it. At best a Presidential signature means "we'll consider it". Which is apparently something that many people living inside and outside the US do not realize.)

Fyron

February 5th, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Herbert Hoover didn't do anything during the depression, because governments role was to "stay out of the way" and he's blamed for making the depression worse.FDR, who did a lot during the depression, did not make the economy better in any way. In fact, before WWII began, the economy was getting steadily worse. WWII is the only thing that saved the country from the Great Depression. So, Hoover didn't throw money away and massively inflate the national debt, and the economy didn't get better. FDR threw tons of money away and vastly inflated the national debt, and the economy did not get any better. Looks like Hoover's plan was better to me, because at least the national debt was not increased and money wasn't wasted.

People that blame Hoover for making the Depression worse need to take some basic history and economics classes again to learn how they are dead wrong.

rextorres

February 5th, 2003, 11:41 PM

Huh?

Do you believe what your saying or is it just rhetorical?

Well I guess Coolidge who was even more laissez faire than Hoover, was more responsible, but Hoover pretty much sat by for two years and watched thing get from bad to worse until even he felt that he had to intervene and that's why he is mostly blamed for the suffering of the depression.

I just pulled out my trusty history book and here is an excerpt:

". . . In his second term, Coolidge continued to be sympathetic to business. He appointed William Humphrey to the Federal Trade Commission, who systematically refused to investigate various monopolies. Coolidge also passed the Revenue Act in 1926 this act chopped taxes on high incomes with very little cuts for middle incomes. In 1924, after a decline in business, the Reserve banks created over $500 million in new money. Because of the fiscal policies, banks could now lend out over $4 billion. The enormous credit expansion sowed the seed for the stock market crash in 1929, the depression, and the New Deal. (sound familiar? lower taxes on the wealthy make people want to borrow by lowering interest rates)"

The main cause of the depression was lack of regulation of the stock market and banking institutions.

As far as Roosevelt spending money - (if you read your history books - I agree - there is a lot of debate whether Roosevelt's policies were effective) - still there was very much a possiblility that the there could be a revolution there was up to 20% unemployment 80% in some industrial cities and war veterans were marching on Washington - I guess trying to help these people doesn't fit into your philosophy, but a revolution probably would have been worse - and the New Deal helped alleviate the tensions.

As far as the deficit goes - where did you get your info or did you just make that up? The deficit didn't start ballooning until the eighties when a Reagan passed HIS millionaire subsidy. There was a spike during WWII - but based on how you feel about war that shouldn't bother you.

[ February 05, 2003, 21:44: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fian

February 6th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Explain to me how requiring the rich to pay less taxes is a subsidy to them? Personally, I think it is shameful how we are exploting the rich and using class warfare to justify it. Even with Bush's plan, many people with kids will end up RECEIVING money from the government instead of paying income tax. A family of 4 with two kids that makes 40k a year will pay almost no income tax. The top 50% of those in the US pay almost all of the income tax. (See www.rushlimbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com) for figures and analysis (he quotes the IRS I believe))

rextorres

February 6th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Well this chart is income tax this chart does NOT include Social Security tax.

Rush (conveniently) forgets to mention that everyone pays 8.9% of their income to Social Security for the first 77k of income so the %s are deceptive. So someone making $20K pays ~ $1900 BEFORE deductions and 40K pays $3800 BEFORE deductions and someone making $1million pays 77K x 8.9% (whatever that is). There are a lot more people making less than 77k.

All this is supposed to go to Social Security and theoretically your supposed to get that back when you retire BUT it is all being lumped together together in the general fund to pay for non social security line items (that is what the lock box is all about BTW for those of you who don't know) - so Rush's figure is partly right because even though it seems like the wealthy are paying a huge amount more - they are not.

So since the tax cut applies only to income tax not Social Security tax someone making 20k doesn't get any tax cut but still pays the same rate of 8.9% for social security. Someone making a million dollars gets a 3%(?) tax cut.

Voila the millionaire subsidy.

EDIT: If the resident had been sincere about giving "the people back their money" he would have also lowered the Social Security tax but he didn't. Why not? The Social Security tax is 44% of revenue AND is mostly paid by lower income people.

[ February 05, 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fian

February 6th, 2003, 02:07 AM

OK, I will agree that everyone does pay other types of taxes. You could also have mentioned the gas tax as well (and probably the employer side taxes as well). So long as the cost of Social Security don't decrease, I don't see a reason to decrease the Social Security tax (in fact with the prescription drug benefit maybe we should be thinking about expanding it). In my opinion, the Poor/Middle Class should pay Social Security tax as it is a benefit that they are receiving, just like I paid into a 401k plan for my retirement as well. One other reason that social security and gas taxes have not been discussed in a reduction is that they haven't been raised recently, unlike income tax. In a lot of ways, Bush's tax cut is a repeal of Clinton's tax hike, who IIRC, placed the lion's share of the tax increase on the "rich." So this is the way it always seems to work. On a tax increase, most of the tax increase is placed on the rich. On a tax refund, people complain if most of the tax increase goes to the rich. As a result, the difference between the wealthy at 39% and the poor at 10% has become severe (forgive me if I have the tax brackets wrong). And with inflation people keep getting pushed up to higher and higher tax brackets.

Bottom line: If we like to raise taxes against the rich, then we should also reduce their taxes when we are looking at a tax refund.

rextorres

February 6th, 2003, 02:29 AM

O.K. Let's say the millionaires deserve a tax cut because they have been taken advantage of by the system.

W is claiming that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. What he is doing, however, is giving the top 5% a tax cut and financing it with the money collected through the social security tax which is meant to be used for social security.

If your in the top 5% make over 128k I suppose you'd want this, but if your not then your being duped into thinking that your getting a tax cut and the money your putting into social security and supposed to get back is being spent.

As I mentioned Social Security amounts to 44% of revenue which people forget and it is NOT being put away for social security.

EDIT: If you don't care about Social Security fine just tell people that the money they're paying for Social Security isn't for Social Security and call it what it is: Income Tax.

[ February 06, 2003, 00:50: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fian

February 6th, 2003, 03:07 AM

"O.K. Let's say the millionaires deserve a tax cut because they have been taken advantage of by the system."
OK, we agree here. (:

"W is claiming that EVERYONE is getting a tax cut. "
My understanding is if you pay income tax, OR have children, you are getting a tax cut. To be honest, if you aren't doing either, and are at a workable age, you are a drain on society, and certainly don't deserve to be getting even more money from the government.

"If your in the top 5% make over 128k "
I probably make just under 100k a year, so no, I am not in the top 5% by your numbers. I am not pushing this because it benefits me. I push it because it is the right thing to do. If I ever do make it to the top 5%, I would like to think I was treated fairly.

"but if your not then your being duped"
More of this class warfare argument. Rich versus poor. Well, in America the Rich are the ones persecuted, because they make a smaller voting block than the poor. I for one, would like it to stop, and start giving back to them some of the money that has been taken away.

"If you don't care about Social Security fine just tell people that the money they're paying for Social Security isn't for Social Security and call it what it is: Income Tax."

My understanding is that when you go into deficit spending (which we currently are), you do raid Social Security funds. For a while there when we had a surplus, we were not raiding Social Security funds. It therefore appears to me (and in case you haven't noticed yet, I am not an expert in federal budgets, but my guess is you aren't either (: ), that the 44% of the money that is SS, is not considered a part of the budget money. Only a small fraction is raided when you run into deficit spending. George Bush's plan is that this tax cut will spur the economy which will raise tax revenues, which will make borrowing from SS unnecessary. If we can actually manage to avoid deficit spending for some time, we might be able to better analyze whether the current SS taxes are too high based on the demand of the SS system. If we find, that we can meet the needs of SS with a lower tax rate on it, I am all for cutting it. However, at this point, there is more concern that SS will be inadequate and therefore the tax rate raised. If that occurs, cutting it right now for "everyone" would be sending the wrong message about Social Security.

Dralasite

February 6th, 2003, 03:25 AM

Here something I don't understand. How is W's tax policy different from Bush seniors? I don't think they call it "trickle down" economics anymore (its "supply side" now, right?), but I can't tell how it is different, if it is.

Fyron

February 6th, 2003, 03:47 AM

(sound familiar? lower taxes on the wealthy make people want to borrow by lowering interest rates)"Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.

The main cause of the depression was lack of regulation of the stock market and banking institutions.No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).

I guess trying to help these people doesn't fit into your philosophy, but a revolution probably would have been worseDon't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.

the New Deal helped alleviate the tensions.My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression.

As far as the deficit goes - where did you get your info or did you just make that up?Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit.

There was a spike during WWII - but based on how you feel about war that shouldn't bother you.And how do I feel about war? I have made no Posts indicating how I feel about war. What do you base this on?

Askan Nightbringer

February 6th, 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Fian:
Well, in America the Rich are the ones persecuted, because they make a smaller voting block than the poor.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Now thats funny. If they are persecuted why don't we get rich american boat people down here, instead of poor iraqi/afghani/pakistani ones?
They might be a small part of the voting block but I've got this suspicion they're somehow getting their own way, based on the facts that they own every fricken thing and continue to get richer and richer.

Askan

Fyron

February 6th, 2003, 04:30 AM

People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.

rextorres

February 6th, 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe you need to read an economics text book too. Those 2 things are in no way directly related. Lowering interest rates does not _always_ cause problems. In fact, sometimes it is the best thing to do for the economy. It depends on the current issues at hand. And, the president has NO influence/control over interest rates.The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.

No, that is not true. There were many things that caused the depression, not just 2. Overproduction as a result of WWI caused a lot more damage than lack of regulation. Regulation in no way equals prosperity. Too much regulation does more harm than not enough regulation (unless you want to support the huge corporations at the expense of small businesses, of course).That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.

Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.

My argument was that FDR's actions did nothing to help the economy. The GDP continued to fall throughout most of the first and second New Deals. Only WWII saved us from the depression. You may be right - I am not going to look up the number, but the New Deal was instituted because there was a genuine fear that the government might collapse.

Let's see... overspending + low tax revenue = deficit. You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.

Askan Nightbringer

February 6th, 2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The rich own/control pretty much everything.

Fyron

February 6th, 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People with no money can't buy things. How could the poor by a lot of things? Only the ones with money can make purchases. It only makes sense that the rich own more per-person than the poor. But, the rich do not own _everything_.Ok, now your just being a bit too fastidious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The rich own/control pretty much everything.<hr /></blockquote>That is how it is everywhere. That is how it has always been. Why is the US so special in that regard?

The point I was making is that the situation now is analogous to the situation before the depression: Cut taxes on the wealthy, induce spending. And the President may not sit in the Fed meeting, but he certainly has influence over what the fed does.Except that the economy is not so simplistic as it has to be for that to work.

That's a matter of opinion: some people would argue that the reason we haven't had a depression again is because of regulation - overproduction might have been a factor, but if overproduction were the cause of a depression then there would have been a worse depression after WWII.There was less overproduction after WWII than there was after WWI. I did not say that overproduction was the only cause, only that it was more important than the 2 things you mentioned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pretend to know my philosophies based on an occasional post or two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right I shouldn't draw any conclusions from your Posts.Don't take what I said out of context. That is worse than drawing conclusions about things I never mentioned.

You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's.The deficit did not magically become a problem in the 80s. It was a problem long before then. The 80s are only when it became popular for people to complain about it.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

February 6th, 2003, 05:28 AM

ohhh those poor rich lobby Groups...

Business does not want the tax removed from dividends...

Now every yahoo will want dividends...

But sorry this whole point that rich people are the minority thus they in the minority because of voting...

Ummm.... I do not see this to be a problem in the USA or Canada or any other country for that matter.

The majority of people do not want levies on cdr's... but still we get them...

Govn't is run by money , influenced by buisness and their lobby Groups.

The day where you and I made a difference in voting on country wide issues and policies are long gone. But still I vote as it is my right to vote.

where is this going... Bah I do not know...

But I do know that were we are in life is where we will remain. Once you realise that the carrot on the end of the stick was really just a stick and no carrot , or string...

The great wheel of beaurocracy controls all in Canada and USA.

Instar

February 6th, 2003, 06:37 AM

Here, I have a solution.
Elect me supreme ruler of Earth. Everything will be fixed in about 3 months! <-- My campaign promise

Askan Nightbringer

February 6th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Instar:
Here, I have a solution.
Elect me supreme ruler of Earth. Everything will be fixed in about 3 months! <-- My campaign promiseWell, the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, providing I am that dictator.

Askan,
Apologising to Plato.

Fyron

February 6th, 2003, 08:59 AM

There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship.

Askan Nightbringer

February 6th, 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship.And why is that?

Krsqk

February 6th, 2003, 03:29 PM

"You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's."

Um, I think we're mixing up deficit and debt. A deficit is just the annual bottom line. If you spend more than you took in, you ran a deficit. That's acceptable for short periods of time when you have extra money and have a specific short-term goal which will increase your income. Debt (borrowing) is only acceptable when cash (or rapidly liquifiable assets) are insufficient to cover the cost for a transaction, or when doing so would disrupt normal fiscal operation. In either case, debt must be paid off as quickly as possible, both out of moral obligation and fiscal prudence.

Congress perpetually runs deficits with no short-term goals; they borrow to cover their deficit spending; and they have no production to pay for their spending. Reagan gets slammed for "his" deficit spending. It couldn't be, of course, that the Democrat-run Congress passed the tax cuts they promised him, but didn't cut spending (like they also promised him), and then took advantage of the booming deficits to attack him. Too bad the American people saw through it and re-elected him.

Fian

February 6th, 2003, 07:13 PM

If the rich really were running the country, why isn't their tax rate lower? Maybe a flat tax? It is precisely because we are a democracy, and their vote equals the same as a poor man's that we have such a disparity in the tax rates. The poor continue to want services that they can't pay for (prescription drug benefit), and the rich are then the ones that end up paying for it.

As for the rich owning everything, I don't know if that is true. Can you provide any evidence that it is? We have a large middle class in America that owns stock, and as a whole might own more than the richest 5%.

rextorres

February 6th, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Fian:
If the rich really were running the country, why isn't their tax rate lower? Maybe a flat tax? .Um . . . well actually when you factor in the Social Security tax which is just thrown into the general fund (and not in a "lock box" remember Gore "lost") the top 5% make 35% of the income but only pay 21% of the REVENUE. (Pretty good if you ask me and something conservatives seem to conveniently always forget).

Originally posted by Fian:

As for the rich owning everything, I don't know if that is true. Can you provide any evidence that it is? We have a large middle class in America that owns stock, and as a whole might own more than the richest 5%.Well they don't own everything, but 70% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population. Pretty good if you ask me.

http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/wealth-distribution.htm

Originally posted by Krsqk:

Reagan gets slammed for "his" deficit spending. It couldn't be, of course, that the Democrat-run Congress .REVISIONIST HISTORY (please don't make things up!!)- the Republicans controlled the senate when Reagan passed his tax cut from (1981 -1987)- link below.

http://www.swishweb.com/Politics/USA/Congress/politics01con.htm

Originally posted by Krsqk:

"You implied the deficit was a problem, during the depression it wasn't, it didn't become a problem until it ballooned in the 80's."

Um, I think we're mixing up deficit and debt. A deficit is just the annual bottom line. If you spend more than you took in, you ran a deficit.The "debt" tripled in the eighties with a Senate controlled by the Republicans and Reagan in the white house because the "deficit" was ballooned. Reagan gave everything to everybody without worrying about the future. The deficit causes the debt so yes the deficit is a problem.

[ February 06, 2003, 18:16: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

February 6th, 2003, 10:21 PM

If you get your information from extremely biased web sites, it can't be relied upon, period.

Instar

February 6th, 2003, 10:54 PM

Yes, information from the web may or may not be valid, just as personal experience is a very poor source as well. Appeals to authority or testimonials are just as flawed.
Statistics can go either way, depends on what test you are using (Ive done some of the more insane ones -- augh) and the confidence values and ugh I dont want to talk about it.
Nevertheless, the national debt did increase significantly during Reagan's two terms.

Fian

February 6th, 2003, 11:11 PM

"Um . . . well actually when you factor in the Social Security tax which is just thrown into the general fund (and not in a "lock box" remember Gore "lost") the top 5% make 35% of the income but only pay 21% of the REVENUE. (Pretty good if you ask me and something conservatives seem to conveniently always forget)."

Once again only a small portion of SS is spent on things other than Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be a self-sufficient benefit to all citizens, so it is perfectly reasonable for the poor to pay this benefit as well as the rich. As we have discussed before, reducing the SS tax would be a bad thing, because all projections seem to indicate that we will run out of money when all the Baby Boomers retire, forcing us to raise taxes anyway.

"the top 5% make 35% of the income but only pay 21% of the REVENUE"
Not quite sure how the top 5% pays most of the income tax, their portion of Social Security, and they end up paying less than the rest? Would you explain your numbers in more detail? I believe you said somewhere else that there is a cap on SS deductions? I suppose we could change that, and instead of the rich getting a cap on how large their Social Security check, they could actually get the amount that they contributed. The thing is, I don't believe anyone would want that.

And here is another fundamental issue. Should the rich be obligated to pay for the poor? Is it the obligation of a rich person to pay for a woman on welfare with 3 kids? And if they want to reduce how much they give, do they then become evil and greedy in your view? Should the rich not instead deserve our praise for all the help that they provide for the needy? I think that jealousy is a big factor here. The poor man doesn't like it that he doesn't have a lot of money and the rich man does. He never considers the sacrifices and hard work that the rich man had to make to get that wealth. He doesn't respect the ingenuity of the rich man to succeed in a competitive market. The poor man believes that he should have as much as the rich without having to work for it. That in my opinion is envy and jealousy, and not something that I want to reward.

rextorres

February 7th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Fian:
Once again only a small portion of SS is spent on things other than Social Security. I know it's crazy and people refuse to believe it but in the 80s congress ordered the Treasury Department to use the money in the Social Security Trust Fund as though it were general revenue, promising to pay it back. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.

If you look at the US budget at:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
that's how its presented.

Originally posted by Fian:
Not quite sure how the top 5% pays most of the income tax, their portion of Social Security, and they end up paying less than the rest? Would you explain your numbers in more detail? (if the below is too dry for you than you can just take my word that the top 5% pay less taxes than the rest but make more than a third of the income).

People don't get this but you only pay SS tax on the first 77k of income. So someone making $1million pays same gross dollar amount as someone who makes 77k for social security tax which is 8.9%.

According to the Government report on Rush's website ( http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html ) the top 5% pay 56% of the income tax and have 35% of the income.

But the way the government SPENDS is by revenue collected. (look at link above)

44% is social security
10% is corporate tax and fees
46% is income tax.

So the 56% is really (56% of 46% of the total money the government collects and spends).

There were ~8million tax returns by people in the top 5% out of ~128million total returns.

The other 120 million paid 44% of the income tax + most of the social security tax.

If you do the math (if don't want to take my word for it look it up) then the #s you question hold up.

Originally posted by Fian:
And here is another fundamental issue. Should the rich be obligated to pay for the poor? Is it the obligation of a rich person to pay for a woman on welfare with 3 kids? And if they want to reduce how much they give, do they then become evil and greedy in your view? Should the rich not instead deserve our praise for all the help that they provide for the needy? Well first of all I wouldn't call someone who works 40 hours a week at minimum wage lazy. There is a myth that welfare is a huge part of the budget when it is less than 4%. No one is saying that the rich shouldn't be rich. But the disparity of wealth is getting so bad that it's dangerous.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you get your information from extremely biased web sites, it can't be relied upon, period.I am not sure what Data your questioning:

Distribution of Wealth: The data is from the census - I guess we can argue if the census was accurate but the census tends to miss poor people.

Here is another website that says the same thing
http://www.policyideas.org/Issues/Social_Economic/Household_Wealth.pdf

Senators: You can look up the ratio of senators that is pretty cut and dry I don't know what argument you have with this.

The Deficit: Data comes from the website below which is a government agency.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history

Income information: Data also comes from a government agency.

[ February 07, 2003, 00:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

February 7th, 2003, 03:01 AM

The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.

Instar

February 7th, 2003, 03:16 AM

Guys guys guys guys!
I get enough of debates in my philosophy classes! Agh! Save me!
Haha, just kidding, but seriously, this is a deep philosophical question of the time.

Askan Nightbringer

February 7th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.So what is an unbiased source? The government and media commentators definetly aren't.

Originally posted by Fian:
If the rich really were running the country, why isn't their tax rate lower? Maybe a flat tax? It is precisely because we are a democracy, and their vote equals the same as a poor man's that we have such a disparity in the tax rates. The poor continue to want services that they can't pay for (prescription drug benefit), and the rich are then the ones that end up paying for it.

As for the rich owning everything, I don't know if that is true. Can you provide any evidence that it is? We have a large middle class in America that owns stock, and as a whole might own more than the richest 5%.Well if the poor and middle class were running the country why isn't their tax rate lower? Don't know about the US but in Australia the tax-free threshold (the amount of income your earning before you have to pay tax) has moved about 10% in the Last 20 or so years, not really in line with the cost of a loaf of bread.

The rich also benefits from the services the poor gets. ie
1) The waiter serving them food is dying from some treatable illness.
2) The guy receiving welfare isn't robbing him.
3) The person who just left school has the education and skills necessary to flip burgers in his McDonald's franchise.

See, its a win-win situation. Putting more pressure on the poor is eventually going to find its way up the chain and eventually you'll get a peasant revolt and there's nothing more annoying than when your entertaining friends at your manor and angry peasants are burning your cars. Welfare/public services benefits society as whole, not just the individuals who receive it.

As for the rich owning everything. I've clarified that, they own/control almost everything. A large chunk of American's might own stocks but they still have no say in the company they own a part of. The major stockholders do. The advertisers in newspapers have more say in the "content" of the stories than the readers.

Askan

Fyron

February 7th, 2003, 05:11 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is an unbiased source? The government and media commentators definetly aren't.Less so than some web site owned by some random person.

In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.

[ February 07, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rextorres

February 7th, 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.That is not true! What is your definition of a poor person? What is your definition of a tax?

EVERYONE who works pays social security tax BEFORE deductions. So a family of four making 20k (poverty level) still pays $1900 in taxes that they can't get back - even with credits. This applies even to a welfare check!!

That's a tax if you ask me.

Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool since its lumped into the general fund.

[ February 07, 2003, 04:20: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Askan Nightbringer

February 7th, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Less so than some web site owned by some random person.

In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.Most media commentators are random people with their own beliefs.

And do do you guys have sales tax over there? How bout petrol tax? Excise taxes on smokes and alcohol? Stamp duty on the purchase of houses? No taxes at all based on consumption?

Askan

rextorres

February 7th, 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Less so than some web site owned by some random person.

In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.Most media commentators are random people with their own beliefs.

And do do you guys have sales tax over there? How bout petrol tax? Excise taxes on smokes and alcohol? Stamp duty on the purchase of houses? No taxes at all based on consumption?

Askan<hr /></blockquote>Yup . . . those are other taxes people conveniently forget about - some states even have a sales tax in California it is 7.5% - that's like a VAT.

[ February 07, 2003, 06:18: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

February 7th, 2003, 11:26 AM

We were talking about income tax...

Most media commentators are random people with their own beliefs.Yes they are. I think I made a point about them earlier...

[ February 07, 2003, 09:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

dogscoff

February 7th, 2003, 11:53 AM

He never considers the sacrifices and hard work that the rich man had to make to get that wealth. He doesn't respect the ingenuity of the rich man to succeed in a competitive market.
Hang on, not every multi-millionaire with his finger in the political pie is a hero of capitalism. Sure, a rich guy might slog through regular 70 hour weeks but if he is doing all that work to line his own pockets and shaft the rest of the world in the process then I'd rather he stayed at home and put his feet up by the pool.

I will concede that there are plenty of rich ppl out there who pulled themselves up from the lower wage brackets to make their fortunes. As long as they got where they are honestly then I can respect them and sympathise with their claims to a fair deal.

However, these all american heroes of capitalism are probably not in the majority, and even if they are they won't necessarily have much power. That is held by another class of rich guy: The one who didn't work for his money. The rich guys currently running the world (for example... ooohhh... let's just pluck a name out of the air... say, someone like George W Bush) tend to be rich because of "old money", first established generations ago by God only knows what means.

The inheritors of this wealth all too often have no understanding of the lives of the little people they use and discard: They were handed their power on a silver spoon and because they didn't earn it they never learned about using it responsibly. All they value is their own position, and they will quite happily pollute, exploit, decieve, despoil and destroy to continue the family legacy and keep power out of the hands of the plebs.

These people should be forced to make a significant contribution to society because you can be damn sure they will be doing everything in their considerable power to dodge most of it. Until a culture emerges among the inherited rich to bring up their children into a tradition of benevolence and social responsibility they should be chased out of politics by angry mobs waving ****ty sticks and flaming torches.

The poor man believes that he should have as much as the rich without having to work for it.
No, the (average) poor man just wants to have a chance to earn a decent quality of life and the assurance that if fate drops a bomb on him he won't end up homeless, starving or wasting away from a curable disease like some medieval peasant at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the US tax system, other than the fact that I wouldn't trust most politicians as far as I could spit them when it comes to introducing a fair or honest system.

Fian

February 7th, 2003, 07:16 PM

Thanks for the responses about the SS and all. Personally, I think the system is fair as-is. Do you want to see a reduction in the Social Security tax?

Now in to the other person's response.

"Hang on, not every multi-millionaire with his finger in the political pie is a hero of capitalism. Sure, a rich guy might slog through regular 70 hour weeks but if he is doing all that work to line his own pockets and shaft the rest of the world in the process then I'd rather he stayed at home and put his feet up by the pool."

What rich people do is CREATE jobs. That is the best help that the poor have. I am sure that you can find those that are bad and abuse the power that money brings, but the point is that all-in-all rich people are a great benefit to people. You take the rich people out of America, you end up with lots of poor people in greater poverty with no work.

"That is held by another class of rich guy: The one who didn't work for his money. "

In their case, they inherited it. If I have a billion dollars, should I not be able to give it to my children? What is so evil about that? Would you in your righteousness take it away and give it to Uncle Sam?

"The inheritors of this wealth all too often have no understanding of the lives of the little people they use and discard: They were handed their power on a silver spoon and because they didn't earn it they never learned about using it responsibly. All they value is their own position, and they will quite happily pollute, exploit, decieve, despoil and destroy to continue the family legacy and keep power out of the hands of the plebs."

One, a rich person is not obligated to understand the life of a poor person, any more than a poor person is obligated to understand the life of a rich person. Not understanding the poor is not a sin. Accusing the rich of exploting the poor is totally unfair. We don't have sweatshops in the US. If you had the money and power, would you exploit people? I would hope the answer is no. Why do you think a rich person is any different? You have made a serious accusation against a class of people without any evidence to back it up.

It should also be noted that while their may be the "bad rich" who supposedly deserve to be taxed into oblivion, income tax is not set up to punish the bad rich. Every rich person is taxed. You are punishing an entire class of people for the sins of a few.

rextorres

February 7th, 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Fian:
Thanks for the responses about the SS and all. Personally, I think the system is fair as-is. Do you want to see a reduction in the Social Security tax?Not necessarily, but, some people claim that the rich pay too much taxes - when in reality they pay about the same or a little less in taxes than everyone else. People use this argument to justify the proposed tax cut when in reality (if you look at the whole picture) the tax cut is unfair.

[ February 07, 2003, 17:50: Message edited by: rextorres ]

kalthalior

February 7th, 2003, 08:25 PM

I hestitate to get re-engaged in this topic, but I would like to make a point about SocSec. When it was implemented, there were something like 13 workers for every person drawing funds. Now that ratio is approximately 3:1, and will drop to 2:1 in the near future. And the funds have been used as general revenue to fund the government since the inception of the program, all the recent talk about the "lockbox" was simply the result of the concern about the changing demographics that threaten the program.
Another point is that if you consider ALL taxes, most US citizens work 5+ months out of the year to pay for the various levels of government.

Fyron

February 7th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Dogscoff, most of the rich people in the US are first generation money, not "old money".

Fian

February 7th, 2003, 11:22 PM

"Not necessarily, but, some people claim that the rich pay too much taxes - when in reality they pay about the same or a little less in taxes than everyone else. People use this argument to justify the proposed tax cut when in reality (if you look at the whole picture) the tax cut is unfair."

I am going to take a look at your numbers in a bit. They still don't make sense to me. But it appears that the only tax cut solution that would be acceptable is if the poor were given even more money back from the Federal government. Instead of getting $500 per kid (is that what is it now? I lost track), maybe they should also get $500 back for themselves? Frankly, I disagree with this approach, but I would like to see how you would cut taxes.

Before looking at your SSN numbers, I am doing the folling math in my head:
Very rich pay 38% on their income tax
close to 0% of their income on SS
Total percent of their wealth given to the Federal government: 38%

Poor:
0% of their income tax
8.5% on their social security tax
Total percent of their wealth given to the Federal government: 8.5%

How else can you look at this? Any way you slice it, the wealthy are paying far more taxes than the poor. I'll look at your numbers next and see if I can figure out how you arrived at your conclusion.

Fian

February 7th, 2003, 11:51 PM

OK, I looked at your sources, and they still don't quite make sense.

First, what is your source for the wealthy 5% having 35% of the income? I couldn't find that anywhere.

Second, Rush Limbaugh is quoting 2000 data. The budget link you gave me was for 2002-2008. I also couldn't find in there the 46/10/44 breakdown that you gave me. What is your source for that information?

Even with your numbers I calculated the wealthy 5% paying 31% not 21%. Still not great, but not as bad as you were saying.

Here were my calculations:
Wealthy 5% pays 56% of taxes
Your figures state that is only 46% of total revenue. So 56 * 0.46 = 25.76% of total revenue.
Wealthy 5% presumably pays AT LEAST 5% of the total SSN revenue, presumably more since they would pay all the way up to the 77k amount while the poor be paying less. So of the 44% that SSN contributes to the government income, 2.2% comes from the wealthy. So far we are at the wealthy paying 28% of revenue. I then noticed that you were including corporate taxes for your breakdown. If you strip that out, you find of the people tax, the rich pay 31%.

Oh btw, if there are 128 million households, 5% of that would be 6.4, not 8.

jimbob

February 8th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Well I'm not American, so I don't know the ins and outs of your system all that well (though our media is dominated by American interests, so I probably know your system better than you know ours http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) --> that's a joke by the way.

One, a rich person is not obligated to understand the life of a poor person, any more than a poor person is obligated to understand the life of a rich person. Not understanding the poor is not a sin. I agree with this, it's been subtly hinted at for years (decades? centuries?) that if you're rich, you're bad/wrong/immoral. In some cases, individual rich guys are immoral/ungenerous, in other cases individual poor guys are jealous. The role of the gov't and the people who run it is to ensure that there is law and order, safe boarders, and nobody is starving to death - IMHO - not understand what it is to live in another demographic. Empathy is nice, but isn't a pre-requisite to morality.

Accusing the rich of exploting the poor is totally unfair. We don't have sweatshops in the US. If you had the money and power, would you exploit people? Anyone reading this message has a computer, that puts you in the top 10% (or so) of the wealthiest people in The World. Hope you've made your World Vision donation, and don't shop at Wal-Mart. The fact that you live in N.A., most of Europe, etc. should make you ask yourself, do I exploit people? Me personally - I'm in the top 10% income bracket in the world, and own Nike shoes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I don't think I should be complaining about how the top 5% spend their money. Instead I should learn to be generous, and maybe it'll catch on with the big cats.

It should also be noted that while their may be the "bad rich" who supposedly deserve to be taxed into oblivion, income tax is not set up to punish the bad rich. Every rich person is taxed. You are punishing an entire class of people for the sins of a fewCouldn't agree more. The question is, are people generous in helping others. The more it's required by law, the less generous people tend to become - again, totally IMO. No data to back it up, other than the observation of the "I've already helped" mentality.

-jimbob

Fian

February 8th, 2003, 12:56 AM

I don't know about those that are forced to be generous are any less generous when it is voluntary. The US gives much to many other nations, and many US individuals still choose to help those less fortunate tham themselves. Interestingly enough, it appears (ok, I know this is true in Mexico only) that the countries where Americans help, they find that few nationals are willing to join them and help their own people.

Thanks for the support though. It is nice to know that not everyone believes the rich are evil. (:

tesco samoa

February 8th, 2003, 01:44 AM

http://www.theyrule.net/

need i say more

rextorres

February 8th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Fian:
I don't know about those that are forced to be generous are any less generous when it is voluntary. The US gives much to many other nations, and many US individuals still choose to help those less fortunate tham themselves. Interestingly enough, it appears (ok, I know this is true in Mexico only) that the countries where Americans help, they find that few nationals are willing to join them and help their own people.

Thanks for the support though. It is nice to know that not everyone believes the rich are evil. (:No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair.

rextorres

February 8th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.theyrule.net/

need i say moreCool!

Fian

February 8th, 2003, 02:53 AM

"need i say more"

It is an interesting website, but yes, please do say more. (: Is being on the board of multiple companies a bad thing? Is it wrong that a wealthy person does have a great deal of influence in American life?

tesco samoa

February 8th, 2003, 02:56 AM

i really did not have anything more to say http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fian

February 8th, 2003, 03:09 AM

"No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair. "

I suppose this is an issue of how you view Social Security. My understanding is that Social Security is a "forced" retirement plan on US citizens. The amount you receive from the plan should be somewhat comparable to the amount you contributed to it. It is handled by the government to average out things of people dying soon (and not collecting any) and people living too long (exhausting any amount they would have contributed). Just being an American citizen does not guarantee you that you have social security. You must pay into it over a period of around 20 years I believe in order to have full eligibility. Since it is a retirement plan that is supposed to ensure people avoid poverty, not to ensure they have the same way of life they had while working, I believe that it is reasonable to cap the amount people are paying in (otherwise they would have an inequity where people were paying too much and never had the hope of using all of the money contributed). The wealthy, however, don't plan on living on just want SS would give you at 77k per year, so they normally are going to invest in 401k plans, IRAs, and in other ways contribute to retirement plans in excess of the 77k per year limit. So in that sense, they still are paying social security.

On the other hand, if you look at social security as something like free medical insurance like you have in some countries, then I can see how you would view it as just another government expenditure, and in which case you might as well must make it all a part of income tax, and not have a separate line item for it.

As for the comments about social security and income tax all being used for the general budget, yes, I am sure they are all in the same bank account, held by Uncle Sam. Yes, I am sure, that during times of deficit spending, if there is a surplus with Social Security, other programs will take money from it to avoid having to issue bonds (which does save the taxpayers money). In theory, if SS starts to demand more money to maintain the benefits it provides, I would imagine that the income tax revenues would be touched to ensure no loss of benefits would occur (and probably a raise of the Social Security tax as well). Yet, for the most part, the money sent in for Social Security gets spent on Social Security benefits (correct me if I am wrong). As such, I don't feel it is fair to view it as the same as income tax, and as such, I don't feel the poor are being treated unfairly if the rich have their income tax rates reduced.

Fyron

February 8th, 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fian:
I don't know about those that are forced to be generous are any less generous when it is voluntary. The US gives much to many other nations, and many US individuals still choose to help those less fortunate tham themselves. Interestingly enough, it appears (ok, I know this is true in Mexico only) that the countries where Americans help, they find that few nationals are willing to join them and help their own people.

Thanks for the support though. It is nice to know that not everyone believes the rich are evil. (:No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair.<hr /></blockquote>No, the tax system as it is is unfair.

rextorres

February 8th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fian:
I don't know about those that are forced to be generous are any less generous when it is voluntary. The US gives much to many other nations, and many US individuals still choose to help those less fortunate tham themselves. Interestingly enough, it appears (ok, I know this is true in Mexico only) that the countries where Americans help, they find that few nationals are willing to join them and help their own people.

Thanks for the support though. It is nice to know that not everyone believes the rich are evil. (:No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair.<hr /></blockquote>No, the tax system as it is is unfair.<hr /></blockquote>I agree with you 100%!

Fian

February 9th, 2003, 07:25 AM

OK, so what is a fair tax system?

Phoenix-D

February 9th, 2003, 07:37 AM

Here's my concept, then..or rather my "hey, this would be a good idea" section.

1. No tax brackets. If the tax rate goes up as income goes up, make it do so -gradually-. Leads to 2..

2. No matter what, you make more money you -bring home- more money. A tax system that doesn't do this is almost the definition of unfair.

3. Simple is good. Unfortunately you get problems here. Simple means people try to weasel their way out of things. Laws are written in very specific anal ways for a reason unfortunately.

Phoenix-D

Fyron

February 9th, 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Fian:
OK, so what is a fair tax system?Something where people pay a fair share, not where the rich pay huge amounts of their income in taxes. You know, something more like a flat tax system. As it is, rich people pay a drastically higher percentage of income in taxes than poor people, but get much less in the way of benefits than they do. That is not fair in any way.

[ February 09, 2003, 07:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slick

February 9th, 2003, 10:07 AM

You folks might be alluding to a consumption tax.

Income tax taxes income, obviously, which in a way discourages more work because it puts you in a higher tax bracket making your harder work not worth as much. But you can spend as much as you want under this system (yes, most states have excise taxes too but this is theory). So basically the income tax system encourages more spending and discourages more work. Now why would you want a system that does that?

In a consumption tax system, you pay no income tax but you pay taxes on what you spend i.e. all taxes are excise taxes. In this system you are discouraged from spending and encouraged to work because your income is not taxed. People & businesses that consume a lot pay a lot. Most consumption tax proposals do not tax food & medical expenses. Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong?

Slick.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:09: Message edited by: Slick ]

Fyron

February 9th, 2003, 10:10 AM

Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.

Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong? That is a recipe for disaster. Spending is what makes the economy run. If people horde money, workers lose jobs. Store employees lose jobs. Everyone suffers.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slick

February 9th, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong? That is a recipe for disaster. Spending is what makes the economy run. If people horde money, workers lose jobs. Store employees lose jobs. Everyone suffers.<hr /></blockquote>You should read some basic economics sometime.

Fyron

February 9th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Why, because I know what a progressive tax system is and that hording money causes economic problems?

Askan Nightbringer

February 10th, 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only "normal" progressive income taxes discourage getting pay raises. Flat taxes and reasonable progressive income taxes (as in, the richest pay maybe 2x as much as the poorest that do not qualify for tax exemption for being below a poverty line) do not discourage that.
A payrise is still a payrise. I'm in the top Australian tax bracket which means I pay a hefty 47% tax on my income over $60k AUD and I've never felt "discouraged" about getting pay rises. I've only ever seen people get upset about pay rises when theirs was less than a co-worker who they believe does inferior work. Satisfication with income is always based on comparitive measures, never absolute.

Askan

Askan Nightbringer

February 10th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why, because I know what a progressive tax system is and that hording money causes economic problems?Fyron is correct, saving is bad for the economy. Interest rates are low to discourage saving and encourage spending (financed through debt).

Askan

Fian

February 10th, 2003, 07:02 PM

While storing your money in a hole in the ground may be bad for the economy, saving it in a bank is not. Savings allow the financing of big projects plus the creation of new companies (who usually take several years to become profitable) which creates new jobs. While not an economist, I can't see how anyone would think that saving money is a bad thing. Encouraging people to go into debt to continue to keep spending levels up (which incidentally requires that someone must have saved that money in order for them to borrow it) is the true recipe for disaster.

On another note, while the idea of a federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax sounds like a good idea, it would be devastating to the economies of areas near Canada or Mexico. Currently, goods in Mexico are more expensive than the goods in the US, so you find that many Mexicans drive accross the border to purchase American goods, devastating the local economy on the Mexican side. If the situation were reversed, you would see the American side devastated and everyone going accross the borders to buy their goods. You would also need to deal with the export of goods as well. If we were to charge other countries our sales tax, that would raise the prices of our goods, making them less competitive, hence fewer American goods would be purchased. This second issue, probably has ways around it, though, like no tax on exported goods, however I suspect it wouldn't be that simple.

Fyron

February 11th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Fian, economics works pretty much opposite of how you just said in your first paragraph.

Fian

February 11th, 2003, 02:17 AM

I am pretty sure that I am not wrong on this (heck, even the Investor's Business Daily agrees that saving is a good thing). Encouraging spending via debt is only a temporary benefit to an economy. Saving ensures the long term stability of an economy. Where do you think all of this money is coming from that people borrow? It is only possible because some people choose to save their money in banks, which then in turn loan the money to borrowers. If there are no savers, there can also be no borrowers as well. I didn't realize I was talking about rocket science here.

Fyron

February 11th, 2003, 02:38 AM

Spending money causes stores to make money. Their employees make money, and can then spend it to fuel the economy. The stores can buy more product from manufacturers, who can then pay their employees, who can then spend money. If you save your money, none of those people make any money, and less action goes on in the economy.

If you save money in a bank and do not borrow, the banks hardly make any money. If the banks make less money, they have less to lend to other people, who can then not buy anything, and the whole spending cycle dies off.

If people Save all their money and not spend it, it is bad; very, very bad.

orev_saara

February 11th, 2003, 08:21 AM

Wow, this thread is poppin again! I had some things to say to older Posts, but the moment has passed on most of them. A couple of quick resopnses before my statements:

I'm afraid that there ARE sweat shops in the US. I will grant that they are less common here than in many places. I forgot my other response.

One thing I would like to throw on this debate is my take on the fundamental purpose of government. I think that many people don't think enough about what "govern" really implies. Government is a form of oppression.

Hear me out: The whole nature of government is that it prevents people from doing what they would do without it and compels people to do what they would not without it. The only real differences in policy involve who does the oppressing and who is on the business end of it. And, of course, the severity of the oppression.

Taxes are oppressive. They are also a necessary evil if we are to have government, which everyone who doesn't want to live in Somalia accepts as a necessary evil. Some of these people don't realize that they want to live in Somalia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif So who gets taxed and how much? Obviously that depends on what services people want. Clearly, current tax revenues are insufficient to pay for current services. So, we run a deficit. I'd like to point out that running a deficit is not necessarily bad. See, I have studied economics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif To the point, low taxes and deficit spending are thought of by many economists as beneficial in times of economic downturn like today. Going to war without huge public support and spending gobs of that money on defense and diplomacy are not such good ideas.

On the question of which services to provide, people will disagree (duh). But there are a few things that I feel like I should point out. Several of the folks posting here have pointed out that there is no moral obligation for anyone to take care of anyone else and do not lie when they say it. There are, however, practical concerns. Those who have the highest proportion of wealth may control most of our nation's policy-making institutions, governmental and economical, but we middle-class types are the ones who drive the economy. Or at least, we should be. There are more of us, aren't there? It doesn't make good sense to expect someone who makes $40k/yr to pay the same fraction of his income as someone who makes $300k/yr. Unless, of course, we want to remove most of our social services, which some would like to see. This is a viable model, but not for very long. History has shown that nations with extreme disparity of wealth often get in trouble from it. I'm not saying that we would have a revolution, not anytime soon, but those who are concerned with posterity might want to think about it.

If I were inclined to lie to you, I could provide some very good statistics from all sorts of reliable sources, backing up my claims. I actually am a statistician, and I know how all of that goes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But I don't want to trick anyone. I confess that I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and an egg-headed intellectual to boot, so I tend to feel that the poorer end of the scale is getting screwed. I also tend to want to help those people, because I don't like to see people get screwed. But I'm not worried. I'll just do my thing, and that's enough for me.
I was going to say more, but this is a long post already, and the rest gets almost mystical, so never mind. Have a nice day, everybody. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

By the way, it seems like the conservatives in this thread tend to outrank the liberals. Does this have some hidden meaning, or is it mere coincidence? Maybe I should do some sort of study...

[ February 11, 2003, 06:23: Message edited by: orev_saara ]

orev_saara

February 11th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Oh, I remembered! I agree with Fyron that saving can become problematic if spending gets low, but we should remember that conspicuous consumption is one of our basic cultural values today, so it might balance out.

Or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Fian

February 11th, 2003, 06:45 PM

While I can see how extreme savings can be bad for an economy, an extreme lack of savings is also bad. Currently American society spends more than they make. This is possible due there being money in banks to borrow (probably due to excessive savings in the past, plus foreign investment). If spending exceeds savings for a long period of time, one would expect that eventually the money in banks would run out, abruptly forcing an end to spending. This would be cause an abrupt end to spending, preventing future investment in infrastructure and new businesses, resulting in a major depression in an economy. A lack of savings would also result in a weak civilization unable to fight an extended war (one reason why WW1 and WW2 Lasted so long was because the European nations had a deep reserve of money, plus the Americans were also willing to lend money to European nations as well). On the other hand, a society with a high emphasis on savings would have a constant drag on their economy, never fully achieving their potential when it comes to economic output. I have never heard of civilization collapse due to excessive savings, but I suppose it is in theory possible, maybe driven by a threat of war.

One thing that I dislike about the presentation of economic theories in the classroom (my wife is currently taking an economic course) is that they tend to present truth in the form of black versus white. Spending is good. Saving is bad. I believe it would be better to look at economics as a series of competing forces that must be kept in balance. Encouraging spending is good, yet a certain level of savings is necessary as well. During economic good times, savings should slightly exceed debt spending. During economic bad times, savings should be slightly lower than debt spending. Can anyone disagree with this?

dogscoff

February 11th, 2003, 07:03 PM

In response to:

By the way, it seems like the conservatives in this thread tend to outrank the liberals. Does this have some hidden meaning, or is it mere coincidence? Maybe I should do some sort of study...
look at the first few sentences of this (http://www.invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/Imperial%20Ego).

orev_saara

February 11th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Heehee... hey, wait! I'm an egomaniacal totalitarian whatever, and I... oh, yeah.

To Fian: The amount of money in the country is far from fixed. In fact, the vast majority of money doesn't even really exist. It's just ones and zeroes in computers. The actual amount of money increases all the time, so it isn't actually necessary for banks to have all of that borrowed money in reserve somewhere. Money has become almost completely abstracted.

Sigh... if only financial math weren't so Damned boring I could be rolling in dough right now with the rest of the actuaries...

Fyron

February 11th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Fian:

No. Banks make more money by SPENDING it! They buy interest by loaning money out to people. They then loan out the money they make on interest, to make even more money. If people didn't spend more money than they make, and therefore have to borrow it from banks, and just saved all that they made in bank accounts, the banks could not make as much money, and so would loan out less at higher rates, and those that would have borrowed could not afford to borrow any money. As long as people are spending money, banks won't run out of it.

[ February 11, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Fian

February 12th, 2003, 02:06 AM

"No. Banks make more money by SPENDING it! They buy interest by loaning money out to people. They then loan out the money they make on interest, to make even more money. If people didn't spend more money than they make, and therefore have to borrow it from banks, and just saved all that they made in bank accounts, the banks could not make as much money, and so would loan out less at higher rates, and those that would have borrowed could not afford to borrow any money. As long as people are spending money, banks won't run out of it."

Wow, I didn't realize what I was talking about was viewed as so controversial. Question one: How do banks get money that they can loan in the first place? Someone chose to deposit it in the bank. What if no one ever deposited money into a bank, how much money would the bank have to loan to the spenders? 0. If a bank has 1 million dollars, and 100 people want to borrow that million dollars, who will the bank lend the money to? The person willing to pay the highest interest rate for it (or if the rates are regulated, maybe they will hide the extra money in "fees" that they charge). If 10 banks have 1 million dollars, and only one person is interested in borrowing it, what interest rate will the person pay? The lowest rate offered by a bank.

Based on the above comments, banks need people to save in order for them to exist. If there is too little money saved, interest rates will be pushed higher due to competition (supply versus demand). If there is too much money, interest rates will be pushed lower (supply versus demand). Greenspan setting interest rates confuses the matter, but I am sure that feedback from banks in regards to their supply does affect the decisions that he makes as well. If people should be encouraged to borrow more so that they will spend more, why does Greenspan ever raise interest rates? The reason is that the rate of spending needs to be balanced, not overdone.

"Banks make more money by SPENDING it!"
If you consider a person depositing money into a bank which is then loaned out to another person as "spending." Then I would agree that "spending" is good. I recommend more people "spend" their money by depositing it in a bank.

"If people didn't spend more money than they make, and therefore have to borrow it from banks, and just saved all that they made in bank accounts, the banks could not make as much money"
I agree that if everyone saved and no one borrowed, then there would be an economic problem. They key here is balance. Saving versus spending must be kept in balance.

"As long as people are spending money, banks won't run out of it."
I am not sure about this, but I don't believe that the interest that banks earn on their money is lent back out in the market. Most of the interest made is paid out to those who deposited their money in the banks, staff/equipment who run the bank, and shareholders who own the bank. The rest of the profit could in theory be deposited back into the bank, but I have doubts about that keeping pace with inflation/growth of the economy. If inflation or the economy grows faster than people save, you will eventually run into a point where the banks don't have enough reserves to satisfy all of the loan requests resulting in higher inflation.

Phoenix-D

February 12th, 2003, 03:01 AM

"If 10 banks have 1 million dollars, and only one person is interested in borrowing it, what interest rate will the person pay? The lowest rate offered by a bank."

If 10 banks have 1 million dollars, and -no one- interested in borrowing (because everyone is saving as much as they can), what happens? The bank goes out of buisness. This is what Fyron is talking about.

Phoenix-D

Fyron

February 12th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Fian:
It is not controversial, you are just confused as to how banks operate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Of course if no one deposists any money in the bank they won't have any to loan out. But, there are always people depositing money in the bank. And even if no one deposited for a while, banks own stocks in the stock market, and make money off of that. They already have money in their vaults (~80% figuratively, depending on the current Federal Reserve Rate), and loan it out to make profit off of. It would take a bizarrely unusual amount of circumstances to deplete the banks of all money with how the banking system operates in this day and age.

People depositing money in the bank are not spending it. The bank goes and "spends" that money to make more money. There is a colossal difference.

I am not sure about this, but I don't believe that the interest that banks earn on their money is lent back out in the market. Almost all of it is loaned out to new customers. Banks make a lot more money in interest than their operational costs and the interest they pay people with savings accounts.

The interest made on a savings account is designed to be significantly less than the rate of inflation, and so the banks minimize their losses on savings accounts.

jimbob

February 14th, 2003, 02:57 AM

If people didn't (1) spend more money than they make, and (2) therefore have to borrow it from banks, and just (3)saved all that they made in bank accounts, the (4)banks could not make as much money, and so would loan out less at higher rates, and those that would have borrowed (5)could not afford to borrow any money. I don't know. I think that banks have become pirates who take and take. I personally think it would be better for most nations/economies if people worked with people to make things happen instead of people borrowing from institutions (and my goodness, there is a huge difference between how people interact with eachother vs. how institutions treat people). I honestly feel that one of the worst things in the modern era is the degree of indebtedness people are in to their respective institutions, and usually only because they're addicted to buying beyond their means!!! (oooh.. gotta have that DVD player, that brand new car....)

1) people spending more money than they make results in/is deficit/debt spending. I don't know why our current society believes that this is a good idea, but it sure is addicted to it. Look, if someone needs a car, they should buy within their price range or save up until they can afford it. Constant interest payments aren't good for people!

2) that said, there are times when large investments should be made (ie starting a business). but this doesn't necessitate the existance of banks, it actually requires somebody with liquid assets, eg. a business partner. When loaning money, the bank is just a business partner who gets paid interest for not showing up to work!

3) with the paultry interest rates and the amount of service charges, the only thing the bank has over my trusty mattress is a few armed guards and a vault door! People should save some money, but they should also invest some money. They should not give any of it to the banks, because their money ends up with shareholders - instead they should invest so that they are the shareholder! But hopefully they can be the shareholder of an organization more productive/valuable than just a money-grubbing bank http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

4) this assumes that banks are a required institution... they're just a handy institution, not a requirement for a healthy thriving economy.

5) and so people would have to band together to start up capital projects, businesses, etc. etc.
Hmmm people working together, people dominated by a bank, people working together, people dominated by a bank....

I just think there are some weak/sick points in how our modern economies run, is all.

[ February 14, 2003, 01:00: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Fyron

February 14th, 2003, 03:02 AM

1) people spending more money than they make results in/is deficit/debt spending. I don't know why our current society believes that this is a good idea, but it sure is addicted to it. Look, if someone needs a car, they should buy within their price range or save up until they can afford it. Constant interest payments aren't good for people!Can you afford to go write a check for a brand new car today? The whole thing at once. What I meant was, I can't afford to buy a car today. So, I take out a loan to spend more money than I have. I pay the loan back over a period of months/years, as I can afford small payments over a time period, but not all at once. Take houses for a better example. Who (that is not rich) could afford to go write a check from their checking account and buy a house today? Almsot noone, that is who.

This is what banks are for. Banks are a necessity.

[ February 14, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

jimbob

February 14th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Banks in our current society are a necessity, but what ever happened to the extended family, people working together, etc. Before banks existed in their current form, people survived (as did the economies) quite well! The idea of a banking institution loaning out money to joe nobody for just about anything (lines of credit, loans for vacations,etc) is a recent affair. And I'm pretty sure that you could write a cheque (note the spelling, Canadian http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) to buy a car, it would just have to be a used car in the 400-500$ range is all.

N.A. was settled on the basis of hard working/entreprenurial people banding together to achieve greater things. There was an era in our contries when farmers did barn raisings, families bought and ran stores together, people lived in extended family housing arrangements, etc. Banks are not needed for any of these functions, because human relationship can fulfill any of these.

I will concede that very very few of us can buy a house outright, and that a mortgage is a likely requirement. However at least in this case the borrower will end up with a decent asset at the end... but wouldn't it be better if we could avoid paying double or more of the houses value by having a society of lender/borrowers instead of a society of banks/borrowers.

dogscoff

February 14th, 2003, 06:42 PM

will concede that very very few of us can buy a house outright, and that a mortgage is a likely requirement. However at least in this case the borrower will end up with a decent asset at the end... but wouldn't it be better if we could avoid paying double or more of the houses value by having a society of lender/borrowers instead of a society of banks/borrowers.
The other thing to consider about mortgages is that before banks and mortgages, houses were generally much cheaper. They were made of simple, readily avvailable local materials and families would often build their own homes. The technology and materials involved in house building is far more complex and expensive than it was, but in most cases the price of a property is mainly to do with the cost of the land it's built on. If all we were paying for was the bricks and mortar (and glass and central heating and electrics and solar panels=-) then houses would probably be in the same kind of price range as that of a car.

Of course it's all complicated these days by the estate agents' markup, the legal fees involved in buying and registering a home, the labour of the various professionals required to design and build the house to the necesaary legal standards...

EDIT: Am I imagining this, or did I see a thing about a place in Australia somewhere wher, in the absence of building materials (they're in a desert) they dug themselves an entire town out of the rock beneath their feet, and still live there very comfortably now. Need a new bedroom? Get the pick axe Norma...

[ February 14, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Fyron

February 14th, 2003, 11:50 PM

Banks in our current society are a necessity, but what ever happened to the extended family, people working together, etc. Before banks existed in their current form, people survived (as did the economies) quite well!Yes, centuries ago before banks were around, people survived just fine (although just barely, and more often than not did not survive). Not that banks allowed people to survive, mind you. The economies of the ancient world were extremely simplistic, and people did not need to borrow money, because they lived, worked and died in the same spot all their lives, and just barely managed to eke out a living. You can not maintain a more complex economy with out a banking system, period. I for one will not be joining you in your effort to return to a primitive society of farmers with no basic luxuries at all (things like hostpitals, cars, canned food, supermarkets, etc.). Social and economic progress is when less people have to spend their entire lives working to grow enough food to feed themselves, and so more and more people can work in other areas, developing arts, technologies, whatever. I for one would not want to return to an agrarian society.

[ February 14, 2003, 21:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

jimbob

February 15th, 2003, 01:44 AM

I'd say that the early american (primarily US) economy did quite well, circa Adams (what would that be, 1850s?) right up until WWI. During this period, your average Joe Bagodonoughts wouldn't just trundle on down to the local banker and procure a loan for a "frivolous" expense such as a brand new - top of the line - horse/automobile, let alone a line of credit so that he/she could go off on a holiday. The primary purpose of a bank was to help people who wanted to undertake "serious" investment get the starting capital (and then of course the bank gets its pound of the pie). (that said, there was the stock market crash which had bank involvement, but that was more a sickness of the stock markets than the banks)

Today the average Joe is encouraged by nearly every banking (and/or credit card) institution on the planet to enroll themselves in even more debt for the sake of lifestyle. I just can't agree that this is a healthy modus operandi by which to run an economy!

Now I didn't choose the pre-WWI time period at random - interestingly the time period in which Western Civilization controlled the largest % of world capital/wealth is now past, and as the Western Civs produce less but consume more, their wealth as a percentage of total world wealth is declining. (I've got the numbers if ya want them)

And so my summary equations regarding a vibrant and growing economy:

Savings = good
Stagnant Savings = bad
Consumption = good
Reinvestment = better
Rabid consumption = extremely imbalanced = bad
banks = unnecessary (except for large capital projects)

Now I'm just a biologist, but them's my views!

[ February 14, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: jimbob ]