OT: does obama bring change?

[Violent Designs]

Check this out guys:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/inspirational%2Bfat%2Bgirl/FurryFreak/Demotivational%20Posters/obamacastshoperw1.jpg

[1bad65]

Seeing the President crack jokes about the Special Olympics was a disgrace.

[David Jamieson]

Seeing the President crack jokes about the Special Olympics was a disgrace.

where you pulling that from?

oh, and here's a change, He's the first sitting POTUS to go on the Tonight Show.

This guy clearly deems it important to connect to the american people, if you can't see the change in that , then you are blind. period.

and no, it' not this one example. Obama has been more transparent by far than his predecessors.

He doesn't hide from the media and takes on all comers and speaks to all critics. Unlike the previous administration who acted like a bundles of snakes and cowards most of the time.

He's decidedly moderate and non-partisan.

I'm liking this guy more everyday. Especially when he makes that creep glen beck cry like the little fat white haired girl that he is. lol

[SimonM]

Thank you.

As to the inheritance tax, I look at as taxing the dead. That's my opinion and how I feel about it.

Also, not every estate is taxed. If it's under a certain amount, there is no tax. So it is also unfair to larger estates. I feel taxes should apply to ALL people, not just "The Rich".


I'd be in favour of extending estate tax into a graduated system along the lines of other income taxes and bringing it into play on smaller estates.

[1bad65]

where you pulling that from?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
http://primetime.tv.yahoo.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_special_olympics
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/obama-apologizes-special-olympics-bowling-joke/

Do you not pay attention to the news?

Oh yeah, he's already had to apologize for it.

[1bad65]

I'd be in favour of extending estate tax into a graduated system along the lines of other income taxes and bringing it into play on smaller estates.

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

[1bad65]

oh, and here's a change, He's the first sitting POTUS to go on the Tonight Show.

This guy clearly deems it important to connect to the american people, if you can't see the change in that , then you are blind. period.

You point being? :confused:

So it's ok in your book to make jokes about the handicapped, simply because its 'change'?

[David Jamieson]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
http://primetime.tv.yahoo.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_special_olympics
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/obama-apologizes-special-olympics-bowling-joke/

Do you not pay attention to the news?

Oh yeah, he's already had to apologize for it.

I wonder when Bush will apologize for all the dead Iraqis.

Talk about focusing on the unimportant.

[SimonM]

If the 40% who don't pay income taxes have an income small enough that they would need to seek assistance (and would thus be subject to the pursuant bureaucracy with associated costs to the state and ultimately the tax payers) than it is logical that their income taxes would be low to negligible.

And the special olympics thing is largely irrelevant. It was a gaffe, he recognized the gaffe and appologized for it.

So it falls under the category of "so what?"

[BoulderDawg]

I wonder when Bush will apologize for all the dead Iraqis.

I'm sure he has...on numberous occasions.

It's kinda of like Star Trek: "We're on a peaceful mission. Phazers on kill.":D

In fact Bush was extremely good about stuff like that. Remeber Katrina.

[BoulderDawg]

Anyway as far as the Special Olympics comment goes:

Bad has latched on to that now. That will be the official tag line on all his post for the next six months.

You'll have tio admit they're not very good when it comes to things like sports!:D

[SimonM]

more change we can believe in...

full article... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12705

However it is not known what President Obama himself thinks about the idea, since he never commented on it in public.

Experts doubt radical NATO reform

The idea is unlikely to find much support, as both countries that would be invited to a Concert of Democracies and even present-day NATO members may see it as a US-dominated club and be reluctant to join it, Viktor Mizin, a political analyst from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, told RT.

“I doubt that countries like Australia, South Korea or Japan for that matter would rush to support future military operation both financially and militarily,” he said.


Reading is fundamental.

[1bad65]

I wonder when Bush will apologize for all the dead Iraqis.

It's not his job too.

Did FDR have to apologize for all the dead Germans and Japanese?

[1bad65]

You'll have tio admit they're not very good when it comes to things like sports!:D

Talk about a new low.

At least they aren't stupid enough to think some lying white dude is a full-blooded Indian. :D

[1bad65]

If the 40% who don't pay income taxes have an income small enough that they would need to seek assistance (and would thus be subject to the pursuant bureaucracy with associated costs to the state and ultimately the tax payers) than it is logical that their income taxes would be low to negligible.

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

That's one thing that the Founding Fathers feared. They knew if people found out they could just vote themselves money, their immorality could destroy this great nation.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
—Benjamin Franklin

[SimonM]

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.


Perhaps, instead, it comments on the level of poverty in the USA at this time.

[BoulderDawg]

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.


Just exactly how is a six month old baby suppose to pay taxes?

[SimonM]

I am assuming he is referring to those of employable age... I hope he is anyway otherwise there is considerable problems with his statistics.

However that raises a good question: are the unemployed included in this figure?
If yes what is the age cut-off applied?
Who provided the statistics?
What was the source of their data?
Are students included in the figure? Do employed students receive tuition based tax credits as they do in Canada?

[1bad65]

Perhaps, instead, it comments on the level of poverty in the USA at this time.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

[1bad65]

I am assuming he is referring to those of employable age...

Common sense is not a given with BD. I forget SOME PEOPLE aren't rational.

However that raises a good question: are the unemployed included in this figure?
If yes what is the age cut-off applied?
Who provided the statistics?
What was the source of their data?
Are students included in the figure? Do employed students receive tuition based tax credits as they do in Canada?

I think anyone of working age should have their income taxed. The low brackets can be a low percentage, but it has to be something. And every income tax increase must raise EVERY bracket too. To me, that gives everyone some "skin in the game".

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise. But if we are not willing to scrap the current system, what I typed in the above paragraph is how I would make the current system apply to ALL.

[BoulderDawg]

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

Did you not read my post about fairness?

Where did you get the idea that life was fair?

Personally I don't think it's fair that a young mother does not have money to pay to feed her child. However you Neos find no problem with that.

[1bad65]

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

[SimonM]

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise.

A flat tax is nothing more than a method whereby the wealthy divert the entire tax burden to the middle class. It is class warfare plain and simple.

As for sales taxes... well... they just don't provide sufficient revenue for the operation of government.

And I say that as somebody from a country where we have two flat sales taxes (one federal, one provincial), a graduated federal income tax and a graduated provincial income tax.

Ok, I saw your answer.

So it is all those returning a tax return. So that is any individual who is currently employed or has been employed in the past along with every registered voter (if you sysetem is anything like what we have up here). So it would most likely include students who may defer the cost of tuition against income and will certainly include people on federal assistance.

It would certainly include every employed person who lives below the poverty line.

It also makes the assumption of a certain number of non-reporting households (which means that the number is inflated by the same tax evaders that probably are members, people presently in prisons, and, depending on the tax foundation's sources, possibly homeless people and / or people who have died between the completion of the census and the compilation of their statistics. It may also be an estimated number in which case it is entirely useless.)

The language used to refer to those people who pay taxes and later receive a refund equal to their payment is obfuscatory since they are most certainly not outside of the US tax system.

The source for your statistics was a lobby group in favour of reduced taxation.

All in all it raises serious doubts about your 40% figure.

I would call it a seriously flawed statistic.

But thank you for your compliance with my request.

[BoulderDawg]

I think anyone of working age should have their income taxed. The low brackets can be a low percentage, but it has to be something. And every income tax increase must raise EVERY bracket too. To me, that gives everyone some "skin in the game".

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise. But if we are not willing to scrap the current system, what I typed in the above paragraph is how I would make the current system apply to ALL.

if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair

Which is it? All people or everyone of working age...Can't be both. So one way or the other you lied about it. Don't worry. You're in good company with people such as myself, Obama and Ward Churchill.

[Reality_Check]

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

Sigh . . .

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=882634&postcount=794



I'm referring to income taxes. They are BY FAR the largest percentage of taxes the middle class pays.

Actually, no (page 19, Chart 5)....

http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/PDF/4q06davig.pdf


From my link: "Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

Of those 40% that don't pay income taxes (could you please post a link to that statistic?), how many pay taxes via a payroll tax?

[1bad65]

Where did you get the idea that life was fair?

Comrade Obama promises it will be fair under him.

Personally I don't think it's fair that a young mother does not have money to pay to feed her child. However you Neos find no problem with that.

The problem is she had a child she could not afford to care for. It YOU have a proplem with it, give to charity. Or go to a shelter and pass out YOUR money. Leave MY money alone.

Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illegitimacy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

[Reality_Check]

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

That says nothing about payroll taxes; which make up a far larger burden on low to middle income Americans.

[1bad65]

A flat tax is nothing more than a method whereby the wealthy divert the entire tax burden to the middle class. It is class warfare plain and simple.

No, it's a system where somone who CONSUMES more, pays more. A very fair system. If you buy 1 new Mustang, and I buy 5, my tax burden is 5x yours. Sounds fair to me.

As for sales taxes... well... they just don't provide sufficient revenue for the operation of government.

They do in states where they control spending. Notice Texas and Florida (who have no state income tax) are doing ok, while California (who has state income taxes) is dead broke and may need a Federal bailout.

[1bad65]

That says nothing about payroll taxes; which make up a far larger burden on low to middle income Americans.

I'm all for getting rid of that tax. Is Obama? ;)

[1bad65]

Of those 40% that don't pay income taxes (could you please post a link to that statistic?), how many pay taxes via a payroll tax?

You want to bring that up, YOU find the stats.

I'm talking about income tax, which is the biggest tax those who pay it pay.

[1bad65]

Which is it? All people or everyone of working age...Can't be both. So one way or the other you lied about it.

I'll answer this in a way EVEN YOU might be able to understand. ;)

Fine, tax the kids under 15. Hell, tax them double the rate too. Since they earn NO INCOME, they dont pay INCOME taxes anyway. Idiot.

[SharkyT]

Seeing the President crack jokes about the Special Olympics was a disgrace.
Cmon , Dude. Bush ****ed us over, lied about WMDS, which led to more than 4000 americans being killed. While his cronies got rich ( Blackwater, Haliburton). That is not disgrace?.Yet joke about Special olympics is national disgrace. Either you got a ****up gauge of morality or there is something about Obama that effects you personally. I read alot of your posts. Something about Obama really **** you off? I am sure it is color of his skin. Just say it, the guy is black and you know? Stop hiding it, saying " I voted for Alan Keyes" . That is like saying I am not racist, because I got a black friend.
You need a stuart smalley moment ...to let your inner klansman out.Where were you the last eight years? I made some good money, did you

[Reality_Check]

You want to bring that up, YOU find the stats.

Once again you are stating that 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Let's stipulate that. However, I've already shown that:

"Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

So, the implication that these people do not pay into the system is suspect.

I'm talking about income tax, which is the biggest tax those who pay it pay.

Ah...but for low to middle income Americans the payroll tax is "the biggest tax those who pay it pay."

[BoulderDawg]

The problem is she had a child she could not afford to care for. It YOU have a proplem with it, give to charity. Or go to a shelter and pass out YOUR money. Leave MY money alone.

Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illiteracy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

Don't worry. Your money is not wanted here.

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

[1bad65]

I am sure it is color of his skin. Just say it, the guy is black and you know? Stop hiding it, saying " I voted for Alan Keyes" . That is like saying I am not racist, because I got a black friend.
You need a stuart smalley moment ...to let your inner klansman out.Where were you the last eight years? I made some good money, did you

Gee, another one plays the race card. :rolleyes:

Look I've jumped all over individuals like Castro, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Marx to name a few.

Are they all black guys too?

I have a problem with socialists, and those advocating big government. Obama is both. Keyes is the direct opposite of that.

[1bad65]

Don't worry. Your money is not wanted here.

Then go give yours. Actually it is wanted, I give regularly to the Austin Food Bank, and they don't send the checks back.

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

What were they before?

[1bad65]

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

Looks like the total literacy went down: :D

2000: 6.9%
2005: 6.0%

http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/statistics/UIS_Literacy_Regional2002.xls

[SimonM]

I have a problem with socialists, and those advocating big government. Obama is both. Keyes is the direct opposite of that.

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!


Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illiteracy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

[1bad65]

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!

Well, he is by me. And by alot of others. When you say your goal is to "Spread the wealth around", you are a socialist. Period.

[1bad65]

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

Birth rates and illegitamacy rates are two different things.

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.

If the solution to education is more money, every child in the US should be a genius.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

Well it won't. The teacher's union is determined to stamp out as much potential competition as possible. I wonder why?

[SimonM]

Well a gross generalization, even one repeated by many, is no more true just because of it's repetition.

Socialism is a very specific set of economic, sociological and philosophical principles which is much more involved than just "spreading around wealth".

As you have claimed that the distribution of wealth is the primary function of capitalism that would make, by your definition, every capitalist a socialist.

As this is clearly false, and not a position you would be any more likely to subscribe to than I it becomes evident that your definintion of "Socialist" needs refinement.

I have endeavored to give you a working definition in the last few days.

[1bad65]

I indeed mistyped.

I meant to say the illegitimacy rates have shot through the roof.

I apologize for the error. And I admit I made the error.

[BoulderDawg]

Looks like the total literacy went down: :D

2000: 6.9%
2005: 6.0%

http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/statistics/UIS_Literacy_Regional2002.xls

Which is it? Did they go down or did they "Go through the roof"?......can't be both.

I think you have this lying thing down to an art......much better than Obama.

[BoulderDawg]

Then go give yours. Actually it is wanted, I give regularly to the Austin Food Bank, and they don't send the checks back.


Why would you give money to charity you don't believe in?

[1bad65]

Socialism is a very specific set of economic, sociological and philosophical principles which is much more involved than just "spreading around wealth".

But that is their main goal. You can admit that, right?

As you have claimed that the distribution of wealth is the primary function of capitalism that would make, by your definition, every capitalist a socialist.

We don't think that way. Capitalists let the markets and consumers dictate where the wealth/capital go. A goos Analogy is: Capitalists believe it should be as free-flowing as possible. Socialist believe in large dams.

As this is clearly false, and not a position you would be any more likely to subscribe to than I it becomes evident that your definintion of "Socialist" needs refinement.

And as I posted above, I do not velieve that about capitalism.

I have endeavored to give you a working definition in the last few days.

I understand.

One thing I need confirmation on: There are different types of socialism/socialists, right?

[Reality_Check]

Well, this is interesting:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22340.html

In the rush to file their federal income tax forms for tax year 2006, Americans may not look closely enough at their W-2s and may not realize the true economic incidence of payroll taxes; they may not realize that they probably paid more in federal payroll taxes than in federal income taxes last year. Most economists agree that virtually all of the payroll tax burden is borne by workers, even that portion that is legally paid by the employer. And so when we count that as a tax on the worker, we begin to realize that this 15.3 percent tax rate can be higher than the income tax rate that these individuals are paying; most of them lie below the Social Security cap ($97,500) and fall in the 10 and 15 percent taxable income brackets (with possibly some income being taxed at the 25 percent rate). Only for high-income earners or those who earn most of their income in non-wage form will their income tax burden exceed their payroll tax burden.

The Tax Foundation recently released a Fiscal Fact (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22287.html) looking at how different types of taxes weigh differently on different income groups. Among the study's highlights (from 2004 data):

For households in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale, the average payroll tax burden per household for tax year 2004 was $917, while the average federal income tax burden per household (excluding refundable portion of EITC) was $171.

For the middle income group, the average payroll taxes paid per household was nearly double the average federal income tax.

For the bottom 40 percent of households, property taxes, payroll taxes, and state/local general sales taxes was each a larger hit on households than the federal individual income tax.

The federal individual income tax is much more progressive than state/local income taxes. As a quick illustration, for every dollar in federal individual income taxes paid by the middle income group, the top quintile paid $7.86 in federal individual income taxes. At the state/local individual income tax level, that number was $5.36.

Individual income taxes at both the federal and state/local level drive the bulk of the progressivity in the entire tax system. As a quick illustration, for every dollar of total taxes paid by the middle income group in 2004 at all levels of government, the top quintile paid $3.87 in taxes. However, excluding all individual income taxes, that number drops to around $2.82.

The bottom quintile pays more in taxes on tobacco and alcohol (at all levels) than in federal individual income taxes, even after excluding the refundable portion of EITC.

For more on how different types of households are hit harder by different types of taxes, check out the full working paper (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2282.html) on which these numbers are based.

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001065.html

Two-Thirds of Tax Units Pay More Payroll Tax Than Income Tax

April 15 is synonymous with taxes in the United States, but most Americans actually pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. In 2006 workers and employers each paid 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $94,200 of earnings and 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. While the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split evenly between workers and employers, most economists believe that the employer tax usually translates into lower wages, so workers bear the full burden of the tax. Thus, the total payroll tax rate equals 15.3 percent of earnings for most workers.

About two-thirds of taxpayers owed more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes in 2006. Many households (including most retirees) do not have any wage income and thus pay no payroll tax. Among households with wage earners, 86 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including almost all of those with incomes less than $40,000 and 94 percent of those with incomes less than $100,000. If only the employee portion of payroll taxes is considered, 44 percent of taxpayers and 56 percent of wage earners pay more payroll tax than income tax, including nearly 80 percent of earners with incomes less than $50,000.

[1bad65]

Which is it? Did they go down or did they "Go through the roof"?......can't be both.

I think you have this lying thing down to an art......much better than Obama.

I just posted that I mistyped. And I manned up to it.

Sorry about the confusion.

[1bad65]

Why would you give money to charity you don't believe in?

Where did I say that?

I believe in choosing to donate to charities, I am against it being forced.

[1bad65]

RC,

Why are you hammering me on payroll taxes? :confused:

I'm on record saying they should be abolished.

[SimonM]

Birth rates and illegitamacy rates are two different things.


And you made no previous reference to illegitimacy rates.

Futhermore the question of birth out of wedlock is irrelevant to the discussion at hand except insofar as single parents are likely to have lower incomes.

Furthermore you have presented no information to suggest any net change in illegitimacy rates.


If the solution to education is more money, every child in the US should be a genius.


I would suggest that there are 3 fundamental flaws in the USA education system:

1) Under-funding.
2) Misapplication of funds.
3) Setting funding levels on student performance - with schools that have poor performance thus getting less funding (which further worsens the situation). The tendency of the third problem to ghettoize schooling has been widely commented on both within academic circles and by the media.


Well it won't. The teacher's union is determined to stamp out as much potential competition as possible. I wonder why?

And you can thank your lucky stars for that. Total privatization of education would be the worst possible disaster that could befall the USA - short of a nuclear exchange or a disease pandemic.


One thing I need confirmation on: There are different types of socialism/socialists, right?

There most certainly are different types of socialism.

No type of socialism is a match for Obama, for his policies or for his outlook.

I mean, good grief, the man has put pro-scab regulations in presidential memoranda.

I can't think of any socialist or even NEAR socialist who would countenance such a blantantly anti-worker action.

[BoulderDawg]

I just posted that I mistyped. And I manned up to it.

Sorry about the confusion.


As was pointed out "illegitimacy rates" were not even being discussed. Also you continued on with the illiteracy argument:

Looks like the total literacy went down:

2000: 6.9%
2005: 6.0%

http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/s...gional2002.xls
Today 12:50 PM

Now you're saying you didn't even mean lliteracy even though you responded when questioned about it without saying "Wait a minute.....".

Another lie to cover up a lie?

[SharkyT]

Gee, another one plays the race card. :rolleyes:

Look I've jumped all over individuals like Castro, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Marx to name a few.

Are they all black guys too?

I have a problem with socialists, and those advocating big government. Obama is both. Keyes is the direct opposite of that.

Oh yeah, Obama is a socialist:rolleyes:
The biggest socialist program is progressive taxation brought to us by the repub Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt ( McCain's idol) is a socialist in today's standards. I am tired of the average labeller of Obama being a socialist... are ****tard who sounding like Joe the Plumber or brothers Larry, Darryl and Darryl, making under 50,000. If you make in 33% and up .. tax bracket incomes...then complain...about Obama " spread your wealth" , otherwise be thankful and stfu( in a polite sense:D

[BoulderDawg]

Cmon , Dude. Bush ****ed us over, lied about WMDS, which led to more than 4000 americans being killed. While his cronies got rich ( Blackwater, Haliburton). That is not disgrace?.Yet joke about Special olympics is national disgrace. Either you got a ****up gauge of morality or there is something about Obama that effects you personally. I read alot of your posts. Something about Obama really **** you off? I am sure it is color of his skin. Just say it, the guy is black and you know? Stop hiding it, saying " I voted for Alan Keyes" . That is like saying I am not racist, because I got a black friend.
You need a stuart smalley moment ...to let your inner klansman out.Where were you the last eight years? I made some good money, did you


Good point. Conservatives learned a lot from David Duke. They learned to dress nicely, speak softly and intelligently and promote family and religious values.

However they've evolved since the Duke days. Today they not only to they put forward a professional image but they've learned to keep their racist philosophy to themselves. Now a days they know the way to go it to promote a racist agenda while at the same time condeming racist groups.

[SharkyT]

1bad
here is the typical guy who are complaining about Obama being a socialist , wanting to "spread the wealth".

sorry about the small size of the downloads

[BoulderDawg]

1bad
here is the typical guy who are complaining about Obama being a socialist , wanting to "spread the wealth".

sorry about the small size of the downloads


I disagree with that. I feel those pictures show the average working man. In my opinion the vast vast majority of your average middle class consumer believes that Obama is not socialist and is doing his best to correct the horror from the last eight years.

The people who are yelling "socialists":

These are the people who listen to Limby hours a day then Hannity and O'Reilly for two hours that night. They just parrot what these people say. Most of them could not give you a true definition of a socialist if their life depended on it.:D

[SharkyT]

Good point. Conservatives learned a lot from David Duke. They learned to dress nicely, speak softly and intelligently and promote family and religious values.

However they've evolved since the Duke days. Today they not only to they put forward a professional image but they've learned to keep their racist philosophy to themselves. Now a days they know the way to go it to promote a racist agenda while at the same time condeming racist groups.
Definitely. It is new way to play the same old game.

[BoulderDawg]

Definitely. It is new way to play the same old game.

Oh yeah.....and they just love it if they can get a Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes to stand beside them.

Ha! I've heard stories (nothing that no one would own up to, of course) where JC Watts would go to big Washington fundraisers and him and his wife would be the only black faces there. People were standing in line to get their picture taken with Watts so they could share it with the folks back home....:D

This is the main reason Watts is no longer in politics.

[1bad65]

Futhermore the question of birth out of wedlock is irrelevant to the discussion at hand except insofar as single parents are likely to have lower incomes.

True. But growing up in two-parent homes is almost always better than in one-parent homes. Can we agree on that?

It's also true that those raised in two-parent homes are less likely to have illegitimate children than those raised in one-parent homes.

Furthermore you have presented no information to suggest any net change in illegitimacy rates.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/2000gb/appenm.txt


I would suggest that there are 3 fundamental flaws in the USA education system:

1) Under-funding.
2) Misapplication of funds.
3) Setting funding levels on student performance - with schools that have poor performance thus getting less funding (which further worsens the situation). The tendency of the third problem to ghettoize schooling has been widely commented on both within academic circles and by the media.

And you can thank your lucky stars for that. Total privatization of education would be the worst possible disaster that could befall the USA - short of a nuclear exchange or a disease pandemic.

I'll answer those points in order.
1) I think they are over-funded now. But only because they are so grossly inneficient and ran 'top-heavy'.
2) Again, government is never as efficient as private business. It's a fact. For exmple, alot of states are now using private jails, as it often cheaper to pay a private company to run a jail than fund your own. And again, I bring up that the education system is 'top-heavy'.
3) True. I agree it's flawed cycle now. My solution is that competition with private schools combined with the voucher system being implemented will ensure that only the best schools (and teachers, principles, admins, etc) will survive. The sub-par schools, etc will cease to be.


There most certainly are different types of socialism.

No type of socialism is a match for Obama, for his policies or for his outlook.

I mean, good grief, the man has put pro-scab regulations in presidential memoranda.

I can't think of any socialist or even NEAR socialist who would countenance such a blantantly anti-worker action.

Well I feel he does fit a type of socialism. He may not agree with every plank on a certain type, but that semantics. Like me, I don't agree with every plank on the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, etc. I'm a mix. But you can safely say I'm a small-to-no government guy. It's a general term.

Hell, I'm anti-death penalty. And I can't name any Republicans off the top of my head who are like that. But I generally vote for them because in so many other ways I do agree with their stances on issues.

'Card Check' will be what he does to prove how pro-union he is. Those guys are licking their chops at getting that passed. And Obama will do it. Gee, who here thinks getting away from the right to cast a secret ballot is a bad thing we need to 'change'?

[1bad65]

People were standing in line to get their picture taken with Watts so they could share it with the folks back home....:D

Gee, did it ever cross your mind it was because the man was in the Republican Congressional leadership? :rolleyes:

This is the main reason Watts is no longer in politics.

You've asked him?

Provide a link to that please.

[Reality_Check]

RC,

Why are you hammering me on payroll taxes? :confused:

I'm on record saying they should be abolished.

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

Well Obama is for 'The People'. He is just for the people who don't pay income taxes and who got themselves into financial messes by signing ARMs on houses they couldn't afford.

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=882613#post882613

I'm referring to income taxes. They are BY FAR the largest percentage of taxes the middle class pays.

Speaking of taxes, how do you feel about everyone paying income taxes?

I'm all for it. As it is now, we have millions of people who do not have to pay any income taxes, yet getting to vote for representatives who set tax policy that will not affect them, but will affect millions of others who are actually contributing.

I looked it up for you. And it looks like you don't even have to pick the check up, they are gonna send it to you. ;)

"Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare."

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html


People who don't pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Hence, they contribute. As such they should certainly have a voice in tax policy, no?

[1bad65]

Simon,

Thanks again for being an adult and rationally discussing issues with me/us. I appreciate your manner of debate and discussion.

Thanks again.

[1bad65]

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

I've never said that. But those who do pay income taxes contribute alot more.

People who don't pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Hence, they contribute. As such they should certainly have a voice in tax policy, no?

That's why a flat tax is so fair. We ALL pay based on what we earn (in a flat income tax plan), or what we consume (in a flat sales tax plan).

[1bad65]

I don't see you Crusaders For The Poor mentioning 'Sin Taxes'. What are you guy's stances on those taxes?

[Reality_Check]

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

I've never said that.

Yes, you did.

Speaking of taxes, how do you feel about everyone paying income taxes?

I'm all for it. As it is now, we have millions of people who do not have to pay any income taxes, yet getting to vote for representatives who set tax policy that will not affect them, but will affect millions of others who are actually contributing.

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

[Reverend Tap]

Well, he is by me. And by alot of others. When you say your goal is to "Spread the wealth around", you are a socialist. Period.
One thing you need to realize is that what you're doing here is fundamentally NO different from what all the kids running around calling Bush a fascist were doing. Bush isn't a fascist by the technical definition thereof, and Obama isn't a socialist by the technical definition thereof. Both instances are exaggeration in the same manner. Did you consider it legitimate when people were doing it under Bush?


'Card Check' will be what he does to prove how pro-union he is. Those guys are licking their chops at getting that passed. And Obama will do it. Gee, who here thinks getting away from the right to cast a secret ballot is a bad thing we need to 'change'?
The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

[SimonM]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/2000gb/appenm.txt


One error with that study that I can immediately identify is that it is based on reported births.

Societal factors with regards to premarital sex being what they are those are most certainly more common than they were previously. This does not indicate that the number of illegitimate births changed to anywhere near that extent.

Sadly it is also unlikely that will ever be truly knowable; it does, however make use of such statistics problematic at best. This is a limitation of statistical sciences.



3) True. I agree it's flawed cycle now. My solution is that competition with private schools combined with the voucher system being implemented will ensure that only the best schools (and teachers, principles, admins, etc) will survive. The sub-par schools, etc will cease to be.


I feel this is exactly the 180 degree opposite of the solution.

Creating competition between schools is precisely what the current model of standardized-test based funding does.

We don't have these problems up here in Canada. We also are rated at fifth in the UN education index. One of the reasons why is because of the fact that we provide for a much more fixed funding formula for schools; people in poor neighbourhoods go to schools which are just as able to attract excellent teachers, to provide full music, arts, athletics and humanities programs in addition to maths, computer studies and sciences as people in wealthy neighbourhoods.

In fact the largest flaw in Canada's education system is the high cost of post secondary education. This is (in fact) controversial because so many have successfully got first class degrees from excellent universities that it is nearly impossible to secure a good job with less than a masters!

The USA, to stop it's slide in the index (currently rated 20th and still falling, far after the much-maligned Cuba which is ranked 13th and rising) and to improve the quality of it's education has to create a funding model that provides adequate funding for comprehensive general education for all public schools. It certainly should not take funds away from public schools through breaks and incentives for private schools, further draining the depleted coffers of public schools.

In other words equal public funds for all (and for only) public schools is necessary to fix the problems with the USA education system.

Beyond that the USA has to stop fighting the bloody scopes monkey trials and has to take a cold, hard, look at the invasion of faith into curricula through the so-called "intelligent design" paradigm.

The USA also has to ensure adequate funding for arts, music, and most especially civics! The fact is that many Canadians have a stronger grasp of American Civics than your own citizens and that just should not be.


Well I feel he does fit a type of socialism. He may not agree with every plank on a certain type, but that semantics. Like me, I don't agree with every plank on the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, etc. I'm a mix. But you can safely say I'm a small-to-no government guy. It's a general term.


The problem is that he agrees with very little compared to Socialists.

About we DO see eye to eye on in fact is that the government should be involved in the fiscal sphere in some manner and that education and health care are essential services for all citizens.

Two axioms that vague do not a member of the movement make.


'Card Check' will be what he does to prove how pro-union he is. Those guys are licking their chops at getting that passed. And Obama will do it. Gee, who here thinks getting away from the right to cast a secret ballot is a bad thing we need to 'change'?

I read a memorandum just the day before yesterday in which he noted that preferred status would be given to contractors who could guarantee no work stoppages. That means union busting and scabs. He is not a union friend.

[BoulderDawg]

The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

Also we have to remember that a union is NOT a democracy. If the members of that union decide they will NOT have a secret ballot then that's the way it's going to be.

Personally if I'm a member of a union I'm going to be very interested indeed to see which ones of my co-workers would stab me in the back.

[Reality_Check]

The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

Correct. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that it will not eliminate the secret ballot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751316400391295.html

"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act..."

[GLW]

To get a feel for the problem with US education, you have to look at how it is administered.

In many countries, funding for Education comes from the national level. There is a National department of education, a regional one (or state/province), and then a local one. In these places, there is a very definite “reports to” hierarchy. The national department controls the ones at the lower levels.

There is also a nationally mandated form of curriculum, requirements for progressing to the next grade levels, requirements to get a High School diploma, often there is a completion diploma that is not quite as good as the HS diploma (sort of like a GED – basically – in those places, the easier one means that you cannot go on to University unless you go back and get the harder one). There is testing that is not the old number 2 pencil standardized computer test (in many of those countries, the tests DO cause a large amount of stress…and yes, even depression and suicide – among students).

Also, in many of those countries, there is a two track system. You know pretty early on – say middle school – if you are on the University or Trade School track. In many of those countries, ‘unskilled labor’ does not exist.

Now, in the US, the Department of Education provides guidelines and funding…but aside from money, they really don’t have much local control. Each state has its own Dept. of Education…and then you get into Independent School Districts….and THOSE are funded by Fed. Fund filtered through the state…by student head count, State funds filtered from the state by head count, and the biggie – property taxes.

The schools in rich areas – yield more in property taxes – and – big surprise, have bigger school budgets.

The “School District” thing is a VERY big deal for real estate markets.

In Texas, for example, there was a big deal about Robin Hood funding. Basically, it was the state saying that the richer districts had to give some of their money to help fund schools in the poorer districts.

Talk about a big stink…the richer districts were angry because they could not see why their tax dollars should not be spent in their district.

The true solution to this would be to model the system after nations that actually show a higher level of education quality – meaning more like Canada, those in Europe, etc… but that would mean that the real estate folks would lose one of their selling points…and that schools could actually be built to serve areas without the old socioeconomic issues.

What does that mean…

Well, in Texas, for example, if there were an unincorporated housing area…new expensive homes…and they did not want to be associated with “those” people – defined however you wish to do that one---it HAS been used quite negatively for as long as I have been on the planet… -- Well, said area would then work to incorporate and form their own Independent School District (ISD)…to keep their kids, money, etc… in their area and away from what they considered the ‘bad element’

In the end, you end up with an imaginary line in a city…on one side of that line, the kids go to a school that has great facilities and small class sizes… and on the other side of that line, you have kids that are being bussed 3 times the distance to a school that is way down the list of quality...

And on top of that, you have those who want to pull their tax dollars out and use vouchers.

Personally, I don’t want a voucher. My daughter is in a private school. It is more convenient for our jobs and allows her to be picked up by grandma. The school by my home would cost almost as much in after school care and not afford the family bond.

I have been at my home since 1985..my daughter is in second grade…so, I have been paying school taxes 24 years. Of that time, only 3 years have I had a real interest in what the schools would be about. Now, the people who live in the apartments a mile away from my home still have their kids attend the same school my daughter would go to if she went to public. They do NOT pay school taxes…they rent and the taxes are on property. Also, the apartments do not pay them…they are commercial property and it is a loophole.

So, the funding is inequitable…but, personally, I don’t have a problem with paying it and don’t want a voucher. I view it as my duty to support education. However, if I were to be given a tax break on tuition, I would use it… But personally, I think that there should be a tax break on all education – (pre-K through University) as well as a tax break on all child care. Education and children SHOULD be a priority in a thriving society.

[BoulderDawg]

Originally Posted by Reality_Check
Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bad65
I've never said that.


Yes, you did.


Whoa!!! Looks like someone got slapped down hard!:D

[Drake]

"The gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks. Holland was not liberated by peacekeepers and fascism was not defeated with a deft pen." -- Rick Mercer

[bakxierboxer]

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.


Ahhhhh....... don't go forgettin' that !@#$%&^^blasted
"Earned Income Tax Credit"!

[Drake]

It's all pretty simple... the more you expect the government to provide you, the more taxes you pay. If you think about it, this does eventually, at the far end of the spectrum, lead to socialism, as you pay more and more of what you make in return for government services.

Not sayin' we're there... I'm just sayin'...

[bakxierboxer]

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!

???????
So, why is it that Obama/"the Feds"/etc now claim that the Gummint/"the People" now own 80% of AIG and most of the other heavily-bailed-out operations?

*************
Answers.com
socialism n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
*************

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

A "first world" malady due to some amount of narcicism,
"cost-of-living"/raising-children, and availability of birth-control and abortion.
Most of the "first world" (particularly Europe) is reproducing a good bit below "replacement-rate" (@1.5/couple). The US is only slightly below "replacement" rate. (@2.13)(no, I don't know where they got their numbers)
(and that is "for no good reason")

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.


US illiteracy is not due to underfunding of the educational "system". If anything it is over-funded.
The "educational establishment" is the source of "all that is bad/wrong" with it... and inter-operates/cooperates quite nicely with the various levels of gummint.
TRULY STUPID theories are used to "educate" kids these days.
One such "system" is "educating for social justice".
There are many others of approximately equal levels of worthlessness.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

To date, the majority of private education schools available within the communities cost less and do more.
Many of these are "parochial schools", some are "charter schools", etc. Of course, "prep-schools" that target getting their students into the Ivy League Unis are "another matter".

Stop writing about things you know nothing about.

[David Jamieson]

How does ownership of a percentage of a few failed businesses amount to socialism?

please answer that.

you can't be "a little bit" socialist. You either are or you aren't. Does your community own your business? Are you paid by the central government? Any of you work under that model?

If not, then you aren't socialist and you aren't even moving towards it.

There is definitely a requirement for a new model taht will function properly in the US as far as governance goes.

If you can't see that your system is broken, then you are either dumb, ignorant or willfully ignorant.

[Lokhopkuen]

Our system isn't "broken" it's corrupted by a small percentage of really greedy people who feel having everything is just not enough.

The AIG thing is mind blowing. The company goes belly up, the government steps in to save the day and they use the government's money to pay outrageous bonuses to the executive officers & nobody goes to jail?

Can you spell KICKBACKS?

[David Jamieson]

Our system isn't "broken" it's corrupted by a small percentage of really greedy people who feel having everything is just not enough.

The AIG thing is mind blowing. The company goes belly up, the government steps in to save the day and they use the government's money to pay outrageous bonuses to the executive officers & nobody goes to jail?

Can you spell KICKBACKS?

corrupted = broken.

semantics yes, but you get my drift.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html

Near the end, he makes an interesting comparison with Executive Officers.

NSFW (language)

[1bad65]

Whoa!!! Looks like someone got slapped down hard!:D

If you think that, you're a bigger moron than I thought.

I pointed out ~40% pay no income taxes. And those people get to vote on increasing taxes they do not pay. They do not pay INCOME taxes. I never said they don't pay ANY taxes AT ALL.

Just because you guys can't understand written English does not mean I got 'slapped down'. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

The USA, to stop it's slide in the index (currently rated 20th and still falling, far after the much-maligned Cuba which is ranked 13th and rising) and to improve the quality of it's education has to create a funding model that provides adequate funding for comprehensive general education for all public schools.

Yet you say underfunding of US schools is a big problem. I'm looking now, but I'm willing to bet Cuba spends alot LESS in total and less per student than we do. If they indeed do spend less, doesn't that disprove the liberal's theory that more money equals higher test scores and a better education?

[1bad65]

All you guys crying about the AIG bonuses, keep in mind Obama and the Democrats wrote the legislation behind closed doors and rammed it through Congress and onto Comrade Obama's desk at record pace.

Yet I'm sure it's all the AIG executive's and the Republican's fault, right? :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

If they indeed do spend less, doesn't that disprove the liberal's theory that more money equals higher test scores and a better education?

Sources?

They are liberals who say we need to put more funds into education but I know of no studies that corelated money and test scores to prove a theory.

Maybe you could point me to that study.

Also, I don't know of any theory put its fairly obvious that Neos feel more money equals more military strenght...Well we're spending 12 billion a month in Iraq and we're like a car struck in the sand. the more we spin our wheels trying to get out the deeper we get.

Who's knows. Mayhap if we could take some of that 12 billion and invest it in something like 2 teachers for every classroom then it might help. I'd be willing to try.

[BoulderDawg]

By the way did anyone notice the moral outrage expressed by Sarah Palin over Obama's special olympics comment?

I found her concern a little disengenoius especially after her announcement that she was going to turn down federal funds for Alaska that would have been used to educated "special needs" children.

Doesn't she have a mentally retarded child? I guess since she and her family is rich they can afford the best care for their child but if you're poor in Alaska and you need help with a special child then it's F you.

Anyway, speaking of children, haven't there been questions about her children? Seems I heard somewhere she's raising one of her daughter's children.....other than the one her daughter just had....and she's calling it her own. I think all her children should undergo DNA testing...That would probably be very interesting.:eek:

[Reverend Tap]

Yet you say underfunding of US schools is a big problem. I'm looking now, but I'm willing to bet Cuba spends alot LESS in total and less per student than we do. If they indeed do spend less, doesn't that disprove the liberal's theory that more money equals higher test scores and a better education?

In total, there's no question Cuba spends less on education than the US. It's just a much smaller country. Per student, I found this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev-spending-per-student-primary-level), a bar graph detailing public spending per primary school student by country (expressed as a percentage of per capita GDP), most recent statistics available.
According to it:
Cuba: 34.7% (#6)
U.S.: 17.9% (#36)

At the secondary (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_sec_lev-spending-per-student-secondary-level) level, the gap widens.
Cuba: 41.9% (#8)
U.S.: 22.4% (#51)

And here's the stats for the tertiary (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_ter_lev-spending-per-student-tertiary-level) level, where it gets even more pronounced.
Cuba: 101.7% (#30)
U.S.: 23.9% (#97)


I don't know anything about NationMaster, but all the charts were sourced to UNESCO.

[1bad65]

Sources?

The source is all the liberals saying we need to spend more! Obama is going to triple education spending. Do you think he is saying this won't improve test scores? :confused:

[1bad65]

Doesn't she have a mentally retarded child? I guess since she and her family is rich they can afford the best care for their child but if you're poor in Alaska and you need help with a special child then it's F you.

Funny you put it this way. Let's see how this sounds:

Doesn't Obama have 2 children? I guess since he and his family are rich and can afford to send them to Sidwell Friends, but if you are poor in DC and you want a better education then it's F you.

[1bad65]

Speaking of Sidwell Friends:

The school accepts vouchers under the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, allowing the entry of children whose parents could not otherwise afford to pay for their attendance. However, Congress has passed a bill, which President Obama has now signed, to cancel the program and so to force the removal of those less privileged children at the end of the 09/10 school year.

Obama sure is helping out the poor by taking away quality education programs from them.

[1bad65]

In total, there's no question Cuba spends less on education than the US. It's just a much smaller country. Per student, I found this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev-spending-per-student-primary-level), a bar graph detailing public spending per primary school student by country (expressed as a percentage of per capita GDP), most recent statistics available.
According to it:
Cuba: 34.7% (#6)
U.S.: 17.9% (#36)

I'd be willing to bet that 17.9% of our GDP is exponentially bigger than 34.7% of Cuba's.

I don't know anything about NationMaster, but all the charts were sourced to UNESCO.

You posted a legit source. Thanks for doing that.

I agree that education is a bigger deal to Castro than the US. IMO, he does it for prestige reasons. But why can't Cuba make their own cars? When was the last time a Cuban won a Nobel Prize in anything? How many industrial technological breakthroughs happen in Cuba? How many of the world's best doctor's come from Cuba? What cutting-edge medicines have came out of Cuba?

Remember, the last time Castro was in the hospital needing stomach surgery they flew in a surgeon from Spain.

[Reverend Tap]

I'd be willing to bet that 17.9% of our GDP is exponentially bigger than 34.7% of Cuba's.
Yeah, I tried to find a source citing the figures in real currency amounts, but didn't come up with anything. And you are right about per capitaGDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita):
Cuba: $2,863.68 (#114)
U.S.: $44,155.00 (#8)
(data as of 2003, sourced to World Development Incidators Database and CIA World Factbook)

I agree that education is a bigger deal to Castro than the US. IMO, he does it for prestige reasons. But why can't Cuba make their own cars? When was the last time a Cuban won a Nobel Prize in anything? How many industrial technological breakthroughs happen in Cuba? How many of the world's best doctor's come from Cuba? What cutting-edge medicines have came out of Cuba?

Remember, the last time Castro was in the hospital needing stomach surgery they flew in a surgeon from Spain.
I'm not really defending Cuba. To my knowledge, they do a few things quite well and many things rather poorly. Just wanted to throw the statistics out there, since the question was on the table.

[BoulderDawg]

Speaking of Sidwell Friends:

The school accepts vouchers under the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, allowing the entry of children whose parents could not otherwise afford to pay for their attendance. However, Congress has passed a bill, which President Obama has now signed, to cancel the program and so to force the removal of those less privileged children at the end of the 09/10 school year.

Obama sure is helping out the poor by taking away quality education programs from them.


I had a good laugh over that one.:D

If you're poor and you're expecting to go to Sidwell on your "D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program" Voucher then you had best scrap up a lot on money from somewhere.

Tuition at that school is around 30K a year. The maximum amount you can get from your "Voucher" is $7,500. Most of the poor people I know don't have $22,500 just lying around.

Also I pulled this off of the Sidwell website:

How many students are accepted to each grade?

Although we will accept applications to each grade, we only increase the class size at certain grades. We have 22 openings for PK, 26 openings for K, 16 openings for 3rd, 16 openings for 6th, 16 openings for 7th, 22 openings for 9th. Grades other than those mentioned above will have openings only through attrition.

They are taking less than a 120 students. On their website they said 22% of students receive financial aid. That would be less than 30 students.....

According to Bad we should focus on providing an education for only 30 students while thousands are left out in the cold.

[BoulderDawg]

The source is all the liberals saying we need to spend more! Obama is going to triple education spending. Do you think he is saying this won't improve test scores? :confused:

So your opinion is that we need to spend less on education?

Also, show the link where Obama is going to triple the education budget. By the way, do you have any statistics that show increasing the education budget would not increase test scores?

Of course maybe the Bush Admin spent it that might be true. I'm sure a brand new federally funded ice hockey rink for a school in the Hamptons will not effect test scores at all.:D

[Reality_Check]

I never said they don't pay ANY taxes AT ALL.

Sigh...yes, you did.

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

The "any" being in bold implies that they don't pay any taxes. If you meant they don't pay income taxes, you should have been more clear. "Any" means any...meaing they don't pay taxes.

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

"Nothing" means they don't pay anything. Which would include payroll taxes.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

"Nothing" means they don't pay anything. Which would include payroll taxes.

[1bad65]

According to Bad we should focus on providing an education for only 30 students while thousands are left out in the cold.

I said that? :confused:

So you're saying that since it's only 30 kids, we should just scrap the program, right? Even though that's 30 more poorer kids than would get to with no assistance.

[1bad65]

So your opinion is that we need to spend less on education?

I didn't say that. I think we need to spend smarter, and not just keep throwing money at it.

Also, show the link where Obama is going to triple the education budget.

Here ya go:

"Including $81 billion set aside for education in the $787 billion economic stimulus package, Obama plans to nearly triple spending on education in the 2010 fiscal year, which begins on October 1."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090310/lf_nm_life/us_obama_education

[1bad65]

RC,

You must have flunked English. The way I wrote those sentences AND the context of them makes it clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that I was talking about INCOME taxes. Hell, until you brought up payroll taxes, the ONLY tax mentioned had been income taxes. Let's use some common sense, please.

But just for you, here goes: I don't think it's fair that about 40% of Americans pay no INCOME taxes, yet get to vote in elections that will result in other people's INCOME taxes being affected.

Do you get it now? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Rev,

Thanks again for the links to facts and figures. It makes debate and discussion much more enlightening and interesting.

[Drake]

You can't really argue with numbers... unless, of course...you are a plagiarist! :D

[BoulderDawg]

I said that? :confused:

So you're saying that since it's only 30 kids, we should just scrap the program, right? Even though that's 30 more poorer kids than would get to with no assistance.

I'm willing to scrap any program that sends 30 kids to private school if doing so will benefit 10,000 kids in public school.

By the way this financial aid that I was talking about comes from the school itself. It has nothing to do with the "DC voucher" that you mentioned. In fact the average amount of aid to those getting it is only $19K...that still 11K that the parents have to scrap up......I sincerely doubt many kids of parents who are on welfare send their kids to Sidwell.

Now let's talk about that voucher. The max amount of the voucher is 7.5K. The tuition is 30K...you do the math.

Bad seems to think that the "voucher" is some sort of magic ticket that you can simply carry to any private school in America and they will just greet you with open arms

"This way to your private computer lab, lunch will be served by your butler at noon and, by the way, your polo pony is waiting in the stalls for PE.:D

[BoulderDawg]

I didn't say that. I think we need to spend smarter, and not just keep throwing money at it.

But it doesn't bother you at all that we are spending 12 billion a month in Iraq with no questions asked.:D

[1bad65]

But it doesn't bother you at all that we are spending 12 billion a month in Iraq with no questions asked.:D

Dude, seriously. STFU about Iraq unless we are discussing it. It gets old.

And Obama has voted 'Yes' on EVERY CENT being spent in Iraq, and he still found the money to TRIPLE the education budget. So drop it.

[1bad65]

Now let's talk about that voucher. The max amount of the voucher is 7.5K. The tuition is 30K...you do the math.

Yes, and that proves it helped kids get in whose parents couldn't afford the full amount. Dude, there are levels of help. It's not all or nothing. When I was in school there were kids who got free lunches and kids who got REDUCED price lunches. It depended on their parents income. I, of course, had to pay full price.

Bad seems to think that the "voucher" is some sort of magic ticket that you can simply carry to any private school in America and they will just greet you with open arms

No, 1bad does not think that. Ask him next time instead of distorting his beliefs. It's another thing you do all the time that gets old. I even posted that Sidwell Friends accepted the vouchers. Nowhere did I say it was some sort of 'magic ticket'. Nor did I say any other school accepted that program's vouchers.

Are you so 'challenged' that not only do you fail to comprehend what is written, but that you also see words that aren't even there? :rolleyes:

[Drake]

Dude, seriously. STFU about Iraq unless we are discussing it. It gets old.

And Obama has voted 'Yes' on EVERY CENT being spent in Iraq, and he still found the money to TRIPLE the education budget. So drop it.

Operations in Iraq get audited all the time. It's a very high visibility operation. I knew an auditor in Germany, and she said they are really cracking down over there.

[BoulderDawg]

Yes, and that proves it helped kids get in whose parents couldn't afford the full amount. Dude, there are levels of help. It's not all or nothing. When I was in school there were kids who got free lunches and kids who got REDUCED price lunches. It depended on their parents income. I, of course, had to pay full price.

:D

Wow! I've think I've seen it all now. Comparing a nutritional program to feed poor kids at school to a program to allow kids to go to elite private schools.....only a neo!:p

By the way, as I said the 7.5K number was the max. I think I read that to get that a family of four would have to earn less than 40K a year. Do you honestly think a family of four making 40K could afford to pay 22.5K tuition? It might as well be 250K!:D

Sometimes I wonder if you neos ever stop to think.

As I said this school provides maybe 30 scholarships a year to poor families. Let's say there are 10 more private schools like this in the DC area who also give out 30 scholarships a years.....well what's going to happen when you neos give out school vouchers to 10,000 students in the Washington area and tell them to use them to get a "quality" education at a private school?

Also, let's get back to Mrs. Palin, Federal money is there to aid children who have Downs Syndrome yet Mrs. Palin refuses to take it....I'll be honest, If I'm a US citizen who would qualify for such aide from the government I'm not sure Palin could keep it from me. I guess Ms. Palin doesn't know that everyone out there can afford the type of care she gives to her child.

[1bad65]

Wow! I've think I've seen it all now. Comparing a nutritional program to feed poor kids at school to a program to allow kids to go to elite private schools.....only a neo!:p

You obviously missed the point. :rolleyes:

By the way, as I said the 7.5K number was the max. I think I read that to get that a family of four would have to earn less than 40K a year. Do you honestly think a family of four making 40K could afford to pay 22.5K tuition? It might as well be 250K!:D

Can you provide some proof of that?

Sometimes I wonder if you neos ever stop to think.

So says the guy who fell for a liar that obviously watched the Billy Jack movies too many times.

FYI, Governor Palin is not the only Governor to reject some of the Federal money. Rick Perry of Texas is another. The money rejected is always the money with strings attached. If Obama and Congress think that money is that important to the children of Alaska, they have the ability to offer the money to Alaska without the stipulations on it.

[bakxierboxer]

How does ownership of a percentage of a few failed businesses amount to socialism?

please answer that.

you can't be "a little bit" socialist. You either are or you aren't. Does your community own your business? Are you paid by the central government? Any of you work under that model?

If not, then you aren't socialist and you aren't even moving towards it.

It looks altogether too much like the beginning of a 2nd or 3rd "slippery slope" "situation".


There is definitely a requirement for a new model taht will function properly in the US as far as governance goes.


A good start would be getting the schools to actually teach students to think well enough to see what the lying/thieving pols are actually saying and/or doing.


If you can't see that your system is broken, then you are either dumb, ignorant or willfully ignorant.

Interesting opinion from a denizen of a parasitic neighboring socialist state.
OTOH, there are those who think you're merely scavengers.....
(more useful than parasites)

What is "on the table" is whether or not we're going to "let" the current crop of political mobsters turn our entire nation into nothing more than a gaggle of socialist parasites/scavengers.

[Lokhopkuen]

All you guys crying about the AIG bonuses, keep in mind Obama and the Democrats wrote the legislation behind closed doors and rammed it through Congress and onto Comrade Obama's desk at record pace.

Yet I'm sure it's all the AIG executive's and the Republican's fault, right? :rolleyes:

Crying? Sounds like you got your cut? YAWN. This is your tax dollar on white privilege...

It's quite obvious Republican is synonymous with Greedy A s sH0le.

Dude:

The People spoke, YOU GREEDY BACKWATER TEXAS JAGOFFS LOST!! Please try to look past your delusions of being an independant state and get with the program. Succession ain't never gonna happen that's why it's called THE UNITED STATES. Here you are
p issing and moaning about our new President whom like many Black Men through out history has had to come along and clean up a mess a White man made. Quit your whining lies, stop planting seeds of dissent and go practice your martial art. Hopefully your practice might plant the seeds of the concepts of HARMONY, then maybe you'll become part of the solution instead of promoting the problem. Bashing the President serves nothing except high lights the fact that your neck is very red under your collar.

Dub Ya & the Bush family F U C KED this country over in no uncertain terms and you have the nerve to blatther here and attempt to blame it on the new administration?

The last crew screwed the pooch SO BAD EVEN MAJORITY WHITE PEOPLE said "Lets give the handsome, articulate black guy a chance." McCain LOST LOOSER get over it. You disgruntled crackers need to move on and band together and make this country work!

People with your attitude are what's really wrong with this country. When's your birthday I'll send you a ceremonial seppuku knife with instructions:p

Riddle:
How do you find Texas from California?

Go east till you smell it and south till you step in it. LOL!

[Kansuke]

Well there's a carefully considered statement...


You're a regular political scientist, aren't you? :rolleyes: Right up there with Boulderdope.

[David Jamieson]

Interesting opinion from a denizen of a parasitic neighboring socialist state.
OTOH, there are those who think you're merely scavengers.....
(more useful than parasites)



lol. Interesting opinion on the nation of Canada. It is interesting as well that you call for more education and yet still make this kind of statement.

How wonderfully odd.

Considering the current situation and the relative health of each economy based upon the measures in place to ensure health of said economies.

But keep those nationalistic insults coming, they are truly outstanding examples of your thinking! Bravo.

[Drake]

Crying? Sounds like you got your cut? YAWN. This is your tax dollar on white privilege...

It's quite obvious Republican is synonymous with Greedy A s sH0le.

Dude:

The People spoke, YOU GREEDY BACKWATER TEXAS JAGOFFS LOST!! Please try to look past your delusions of being an independant state and get with the program. Succession ain't never gonna happen that's why it's called THE UNITED STATES. Here you are
p issing and moaning about our new President whom like many Black Men through out history has had to come along and clean up a mess a White man made. Quit your whining lies, stop planting seeds of dissent and go practice your martial art. Hopefully your practice might plant the seeds of the concepts of HARMONY, then maybe you'll become part of the solution instead of promoting the problem. Bashing the President serves nothing except high lights the fact that your neck is very red under your collar.

Dub Ya & the Bush family F U C KED this country over in no uncertain terms and you have the nerve to blatther here and attempt to blame it on the new administration?

The last crew screwed the pooch SO BAD EVEN MAJORITY WHITE PEOPLE said "Lets give the handsome, articulate black guy a chance." McCain LOST LOOSER get over it. You disgruntled crackers need to move on and band together and make this country work!

People with your attitude are what's really wrong with this country. When's your birthday I'll send you a ceremonial seppuku knife with instructions:p

Riddle:
How do you find Texas from California?

Go east till you smell it and south till you step in it. LOL!

And you guys call 1Bad racist? :confused::eek::confused:

[David Jamieson]

And you guys call 1Bad racist? :confused::eek::confused:

where are you seeing anything more than well deserved vitriol being thrown here?

racism?

what choo talkin bout willis?

:confused:

[Drake]

where are you seeing anything more than well deserved vitriol being thrown here?

racism?

what choo talkin bout willis?

:confused:

The cracker comment in particular, not to mention the insinuation that Obama's election was a black victory and white defeat. Only us crackers can call each other cracker. :D

[1bad65]

Crying? Sounds like you got your cut? YAWN. This is your tax dollar on white privilege...

It's quite obvious Republican is synonymous with Greedy A s sH0le.

What part of 'Obama and the Democrats wrote the legislation behind closed doors and rammed it through Congress' didn't you understand?

Oh yeah, the whole thing. :rolleyes:

Riddle:
How do you find Texas from California?

Go east till you smell it and south till you step in it. LOL!

They find it pretty easy. I'm seeing alot more California license plates these days. And for the first time in decades, California actually had a net loss of people. They are likely going to lose a Congressional seat in 2010. That state has been ran into the ground so bad that people are leaving in droves for states not run into bankruptcy by liberal Democrats.

Article on population shifts, including CA:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Do-you-believe-we-are-in-a-depression--Why-or-why-not

[1bad65]

And you guys call 1Bad racist? :confused::eek::confused:

Yup, and over and over too. :rolleyes:

And what's even more ridiculous is one of those calling me a racist is a guy defending a white con man who stole a job reserved for a Native American.

[BoulderDawg]

And what's even more ridiculous is one of those calling me a racist is a guy defending a white con man who stole a job reserved for a Native American.

You're showing your ignorance now. As I mentioned to the other guy; Do you even know what tenure is?

[BoulderDawg]

They find it pretty easy. I'm seeing alot more California license plates these days. And for the first time in decades, California actually had a net loss of people. They are likely going to lose a Congressional seat in 2010. That state has been ran into the ground so bad that people are leaving in droves for states not run into bankruptcy by liberal Democrats.

You can rest assured that most of those Cal plates are just passing through to other places. Texas? Haven't been there in years and don't plan to go back. Especially for night life. I go to a club to dance or be with friends not to fight. In Hollywood I can walk into any club with gay friends or maybe a black girlfriend and have a good time. In Texas, especially with a black girl, we wouldn't last 15 minutes in that club before trouble would start.

[Drake]

Yup, and over and over too. :rolleyes:

And what's even more ridiculous is one of those calling me a racist is a guy defending a white con man who stole a job reserved for a Native American.

Stole it AND used it for his own ultra-liberal platform. That's like... double exploitation.

[1bad65]

You can rest assured that most of those Cal plates are just passing through to other places. Texas?

Showing your ignorance yet again. Texas, and especially Austin, is full of high-tech companies. California has 'Silicon Valley', we have 'Silicon Hills'. We hired a guy just last year as a Director from Southern California. Alot of them are coming here for those jobs.

Oh, where would they be 'passing though' to? Mississippi? Louisiana? Alabama? Use your head, idiot.

In Texas, especially with a black girl, we wouldn't last 15 minutes in that club before trouble would start.

You've never been to Texas have you? Much less Austin. Of course you're an expert on Texas. :rolleyes: Just like you have no military experience, but you are an expert on military affairs as well. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

You're showing your ignorance now. As I mentioned to the other guy; Do you even know what tenure is?

Tenure is what he got by LYING.

Can you name JUST ONE professor of the Arts at that university without a PhD? Besides that plagiarizing poseur, of course. ;)

[BoulderDawg]

Tenure is what he got by LYING.

Right! That definition came straight out of the dictionary!:D

[BoulderDawg]

You've never been to Texas have you? Much less Austin. Of course you're an expert on Texas.

Love to see ya try it. Take a black girl to one of these Urban Cowboy bars in Austin with sawdust on the floor and a mechanical bull over in the corner. Start making out with her on the dance floor....see how long you last!

Whereas in Hollywood I could go into any bar/club anything and have no trouble at all!

[Drake]

Showing your ignorance yet again. Texas, and especially Austin, is full of high-tech companies. California has 'Silicon Valley', we have 'Silicon Hills'. We hired a guy just last year as a Director from Southern California. Alot of them are coming here for those jobs.

Oh, where would they be 'passing though' to? Mississippi? Louisiana? Alabama? Use your head, idiot.



You've never been to Texas have you? Much less Austin. Of course you're an expert on Texas. :rolleyes: Just like you have no military experience, but you are an expert on military affairs as well. :rolleyes:

Apparently he thinks Texas is nothing but cowboys and racists. He might be going by those cute kids maps, that show the cowboy in the middle of Texas, and a big cactus in Arizona. I've only been through the state about 20 times, so what do I know?

[Drake]

Hey 1Bad. A fellow officer here is from TX, and he was saying that Austin is so culturally diverse, they use it as a proving ground for restaurants, saying that if you can't make it in Austin, you can't make it anywhere. Did you hear that one?

[1bad65]

Hey 1Bad. A fellow officer here is from TX, and he was saying that Austin is so culturally diverse, they use it as a proving ground for restaurants, saying that if you can't make it in Austin, you can't make it anywhere. Did you hear that one?

No, but it's not surprising.

We have several Universities, UT being the main one. We are the State Capitol too. Austin is well known for being very tolerant to the gay and homeless communities too. Of course high-tech is a main employer too. It really is a melting pot.

Up until Bergstrom AFB closed, we had quite a few Air Force personnel living here too. We still have Camp Mabry, but it's much smaller.

[1bad65]

Right! That definition came straight out of the dictionary!:D

I'm still waiting for you to name just ONE professor of the Arts at that University without a PhD. Other than the plagiarizing poseur, of course.

[1bad65]

Love to see ya try it. Take a black girl to one of these Urban Cowboy bars in Austin with sawdust on the floor and a mechanical bull over in the corner. Start making out with her on the dance floor....see how long you last!

Whereas in Hollywood I could go into any bar/club anything and have no trouble at all!

Dude, just STFU about something you know nothing about. Name ONE 'Urban Cowboy' bar in MY city. The Broken Spoke is a famous bar, while it does have it's share of cowboy types, it's also a popular hangout for the local roller derby girls and their fans. You know that type, younger, tattooed, usually 'smokers'. And their is never any trouble at that place.

Speaking of LA, there are places there that if I went into, there would be trouble. It's like that EVERYWHERE, not just Texas. Idiot.

[BoulderDawg]

I'm still waiting for you to name just ONE professor of the Arts at that University without a PhD. Other than the plagiarizing poseur, of course.


I don't know any and don't have the inclination to look it up. Are you saying he falsified his record to reflect a PHD? He was at CU for a very long time before he became a professor. He got tenure though his job performance.

Now I answered you question there is a question out there for you. What is tenure? Without going to your favorite website, Wiki, why don't you tell me on your own.

[BoulderDawg]

Speaking of LA, there are places there that if I went into, there would be trouble.

No doubt, I'm sure you cause trouble in a lot of places. Trouble from Non locals like you is handled real quickly in Hollywood.

[1bad65]

I don't know any and don't have the inclination to look it up. Are you saying he falsified his record to reflect a PHD? He was at CU for a very long time before he became a professor. He got tenure though his job performance.

My point is he was the ONLY non-PhD to be a tenured professor. Then he became a Department Head. And he did it by LYING about his ethnicity to get the job! Is this so tough for you understand? :rolleyes:

And he also got his tenure without the normal prerequisite time as a professor. He got that because of his FALSE ancestry claims as well.

The guy is a con-man, plain and simple.

[1bad65]

Trouble from Non locals like you is handled real quickly in Hollywood.

Isn't that EXACTLY what you said was so horrible about Texas? :confused:

You're a walking contracticion. And a loon to boot.

[1bad65]

You also failed to name ONE 'Urban Cowboy' bar in my city.....

[BoulderDawg]

Bad -

What is tenure?

[1bad65]

Let's say I start using a wheelchair full time. And I fight for the rights of the physically disabled. And they invite me to speak about their problems and how to find solutions. For that they give me awards and say I am a handicapped man who fought for the rights of all handicapped people.

Then it comes out that I was never paralyzed and am a completely able-bodied man. I'd be con man wouldn't I?

[BoulderDawg]

Isn't that EXACTLY what you said was so horrible about Texas?

Not at all. In Hollywood I feel safe going into a bar with anyone. In Texas I would not risk walking into a bar with a girl friend of a different race or a gay friend. I simply would not feel safe. The same is true for Georgia. I've been in plenty of clubs in Georgia and the "Wrong kind of people" are not welcomed there.

You can have trouble in any club in the world. The difference being is that in Hollywood the people causing the trouble is not the majority.

[Drake]

Isn't that EXACTLY what you said was so horrible about Texas? :confused:

You're a walking contracticion. And a loon to boot.

Actually, Hollywood was danger central. Texas, on average, was pretty laid back. I've been to both.

[BoulderDawg]

That state has been ran into the ground so bad that people are leaving in droves for states not run into bankruptcy by liberal Democrats.

In Cal I thought Gov Arnold was suppose to put things right. Somewhere Gray Davis is laughing his ass off!:D

[1bad65]

In Texas I would not risk walking into a bar with a girl friend of a different race or a gay friend. I simply would not feel safe.

You do realize we actually have gay clubs down here, right?

[1bad65]

In Cal I thought Gov Arnold was suppose to put things right. Somewhere Gray Davis is laughing his ass off!:D

Arnold is not very conservative. He has done some spending cuts, but I do believe he has signed in tax increases as well.

It's obviously better than it was under 'Gray-Out' Davis. After all, they do have constant, working electricity now that he's gone.

[1bad65]

Actually, Hollywood was danger central. Texas, on average, was pretty laid back. I've been to both.

Southern California has some of the highest crime areas in the US. What just happened in Oakland yesterday?

And Austin is VERY laid back. I think it's funny that some idiot who has never been down here considers himslef such an expert on the city. BD, you do realize in 2000 we had a homeless transvestite finish second in our mayoral election, right? Yeah, sounds like a place those 'different from us' can't be safe.

[Drake]

Southern California has some of the highest crime areas in the US. What just happened in Oakland yesterday?

Texas gets an unfair stereotype. It's a very diverse state, but people always focus on the rural areas when they think about it. This probably is because most people, myself included, normally cut through the northern areas up around Amarillo. Even coming from the midwest, you still miss the major cities on I-20, and there's nothing on the western end of I-10 until El Paso. I was on that route about 3 weeks ago, actually.

[SimonM]

It's all pretty simple... the more you expect the government to provide you, the more taxes you pay. If you think about it, this does eventually, at the far end of the spectrum, lead to socialism, as you pay more and more of what you make in return for government services.

Not sayin' we're there... I'm just sayin'...

And that tax money is then money you don't have to pay for private schools, private medicine, private pensions (not that the government ones are too sh1t hot at the moment either but that's another story), etc.

The net effect is to create a state where those who HAVE more are expected to CONTRIBUTE more to the common good.

This is a good thing.

And this is where we return to my discussion of rights and responsibilities.
???????
So, why is it that Obama/"the Feds"/etc now claim that the Gummint/"the People" now own 80% of AIG and most of the other heavily-bailed-out operations?


Well I rather think that "the people" now own that percentage of AIG because they effectively bought it with the huge bail outs.

[Drake]

And that tax money is then money you don't have to pay for private schools, private medicine, private pensions (not that the government ones are too sh1t hot at the moment either but that's another story), etc.

The net effect is to create a state where those who HAVE more are expected to CONTRIBUTE more to the common good.

This is a good thing.

And this is where we return to my discussion of rights and responsibilities.

And that would be contrary to the concept of America. America is actually designed to do the opposite. It was planned and created as a means to escape government, not be a function of it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is my view:
I don't agree with bailouts.
That said, IF you are gonna do it, do it where it does the most good.
EX:
The Ontario government gave GM in Oshawa over 200 million.
GM took it and said thank you.
Did it make any difference?
Nope, even GM said so.
Now, wouldn't that 200 million have been better spend in local or even provincial businesses?
EX:
Give 200K to 1000 local business on the condition that they hire at least 2 employees for at least 2 years.
Just created the 2000 new jobs.

Is it me??

[1bad65]

And that would be contrary to the concept of America. America is actually designed to do the opposite. It was planned and created as a means to escape government, not be a function of it.

Thank you. Well said.

[1bad65]

Simon,

In your example the Government is basically acting as a middle man. As anyone with any business sense knows, if there is a middle man the consumer ends up paying more for the goods/services.

And yeah, we can already see these bailouts are not working. AIG needs more money, GM needs more money, and Chrysler needs more money. And all of these companies have already gotten a bailout.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Simon,

In your example the Government is basically acting as a middle man. As anyone with any business sense knows, if there is a middle man the consumer ends up paying more for the goods/services.

And yeah, we can already see these bailouts are not working. AIG needs more money, GM needs more money, and Chrysler needs more money. And all of these companies have already gotten a bailout.

Back to my point, IF you are gonna bail business out, the big ones are the worse, because it is, truly, a drop in the bucket for them.

[1bad65]

Back to my point, IF you are gonna bail business out, the big ones are the worse, because it is, truly, a drop in the bucket for them.

This is true.

But the big ones always get the bailouts for 2 reasons: 1: They have more money to 'donate' to politicians giving them bailouts 2: Their number of employess. If a restaurant goes under, a few dozen people are out of work. If GM goes under, thousands are out of work.

[SimonM]

And that would be contrary to the concept of America. America is actually designed to do the opposite. It was planned and created as a means to escape government, not be a function of it.

America has rarely been anything like the anarchic ideal that the anti-taxation brigaide likes to tout.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the United States was ideologically established as an escape from "government" fair taxation is morally, rationally and structurally right.

And therefore it doesn't matter a hill of beans if you take the Boston Tea Party as your founding myth. The truth is that the United States is a nation state with a complex and valuable government which - although far from perfect - is much better than the TYRANNY of a state with no government at all; a playground for the powerful to oppress with impunity those who by happenstance of birth or circumstance are meek.

[1bad65]

GOP Depicts Doomsday If Obama Budget Passes

"Congressional Republicans on Sunday predicted a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Barack Obama's massive spending blueprint wins passage.

Senate Republicans warned of deficits that could climb to $20 trillion in coming years and a weakened dollar if Obama and his Democratic allies get their proposed $3.6 trillion budget plan passed.

"The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "There's no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals which are in this budget over the 10-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt; our dollar will become devalued."

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who sided with Obama on his $787 billion economic stimulus plan, said she couldn't support the White House plan this time.

"It would double the public debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. ... That is not sustainable. It poses a threat to the basic health of our economy," Collins said."

http://cbs2.com/politics/barack.obama.budget.2.965301.html


Again I ask: Why during these tough economic times must us 'little people' tighten our belts, while the Government goes on it's biggest spending spree in history?

[1bad65]

America has rarely been anything like the anarchic ideal that the anti-taxation brigaide likes to tout.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the United States was ideologically established as an escape from "government" fair taxation is morally, rationally and structurally right.

And therefore it doesn't matter a hill of beans if you take the Boston Tea Party as your founding myth. The truth is that the United States is a nation state with a complex and valuable government which - although far from perfect - is much better than the TYRANNY of a state with no government at all; a playground for the powerful to oppress with impunity those who by happenstance of birth or circumstance are meek.

So says a man who isn't even American.

Read up on our Founding Fathers. They feared government, but they knew we needed some form of it. So they wrote The Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a way to control the Government, not grow it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is true.

But the big ones always get the bailouts for 2 reasons: 1: They have more money to 'donate' to politicians giving them bailouts 2: Their number of employess. If a restaurant goes under, a few dozen people are out of work. If GM goes under, thousands are out of work.

And that is where Government shows how truly stupid they are and why they can be allowed to "control funds".
Most Small businesses employee under 10 people, lets say 5 for arguments sake, if 2000 small business go under, a ver CONSERVATIVE number, 10K people are out of work.
It takes a lot less to keep those people employed and to even creat MORE jobs in small business than it does in big business, as I showed before how you can create a few thousand jobs within a given city.

[SimonM]

So says a man who isn't even American.

Read up on our Founding Fathers. They feared government, but they knew we needed some form of it. So they wrote The Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a way to control the Government, not grow it.

I have read up on your Founding Fathers.

I do not, however, hold them in such great reverence as you. Furthermore these men lived over 230 years ago and their world view is about as relevant today as that of Pitt the Younger and Qianlong - contemporaries of your Founding Fathers.

I would no more structure a modern state on the political ideals of Qianlong (though he was one of China's most successful emperors) or William Pitt the Younger (one of the UK's most influential politicians) than I would on the political ideals of George Washington.

He founded your nation this does not change the fact that the united states is a state and to believe that it need not operate as one is flawed.

[bawang]

founding fathes were men, not gods

[SimonM]

Precisely. Thank you Bawang.

[Shaolinlueb]

silly canadians, they always know so much more about the united states then the people living in the actual country. :eek::eek::eek::p;):D

[SimonM]

Like I said:

You guys really need more of a focus on civics in your education system. :p

[1bad65]

The Founding Fathers created this nation only some 230 years ago. In that short span of time we went from a rebellious colony to the world's lone superpower and richest country in the world.

They were some of the greatest men who ever lived.

[1bad65]

He [George Washington] founded your nation this does not change the fact that the united states is a state and to believe that it need not operate as one is flawed.

You don't know very much about our country. Not near as much as you think you do.

FYI, George Washington wasn't even a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Founding Fathers created this nation only some 230 years ago. In that short span of time we went from a rebellious colony to the world's lone superpower and richest country in the world.

They were some of the greatest men who ever lived.

Dude, I am all for giving our ancestors their due, but seriously, What did someone in the 18th century have to do with stuff going on in the 21st?

[Shaolinlueb]

Dude, I am all for giving our ancestors their due, but seriously, What did someone in the 18th century have to do with stuff going on in the 21st?

well the government is still in use with the basic principles it was found on. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for free land owning white men. :eek::eek::eek:

[BoulderDawg]

You don't know very much about our country. Not near as much as you think you do.

FYI, George Washington wasn't even a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

I think you're the one that needs to bone up on history. So what if GW didn't sign the Declaration? He is known as the "Father of our country". To me that sounds pretty close to "Founder".

[SimonM]

The other two people I mentioned were contemporaries of the Founding Fathers.

Other contemporaries of the Founding Fathers (please note that this provides a cross-section of the most powerful politicians in the world in 1775):

King George III (england)
Louis XVI (france)
Emperor Joseph II (holy roman empire)
Catherine II (Russia)
Abdul-ul-Hamid I (Ottoman Empire)
Qianlong (China)
Shogun Tokugawa Ieharu (Japan)

Which of the above have continued relevance in the modern political world?
So what makes you believe that the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers are not likewise subject to obsolescence?

And George Washington was your first commander in Chief. Considering that the Declaration of Independence is NOT your constitution I feel this makes him viable as a valid "founding father".

PS: I know I mentioned Qianlong twice... He fit the list so well.

[BoulderDawg]

The Founding Fathers created this nation only some 230 years ago. In that short span of time we went from a rebellious colony to the world's lone superpower and richest country in the world.

They were some of the greatest men who ever lived.

Bad you need to make up your mind. In a post not 3-4 posts back you said the US is going bankrupt......Now we are the richest country in the world.:confused:

Also, Bad why shouldn't the politicians of that time by held to the same standard as the ones today? You speak of great admiration for these men but many were accused of scandal. It was even suggested that Ben Franklin had a taste for adolescent girls. Should not your prim and proper Neo morals demand you distance yourself from these people?

[BoulderDawg]

GOP Depicts Doomsday If Obama Budget Passes

"Congressional Republicans on Sunday predicted a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Barack Obama's massive spending blueprint wins passage.

this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt; our dollar will become devalued."

Scary isn't it how the Neos use words like "doomsday" and "bankruptcy" when talking about President Obama.

They know it only takes one crazy out there to believe that crap and try to prevent "doomsday". That's the reason they talk like that. At least one time in the election John McCain had the sense to try and stop some of that talk.....just that once though.

[1bad65]

And George Washington was your first commander in Chief. Considering that the Declaration of Independence is NOT your constitution I feel this makes him viable as a valid "founding father".

He was no doubt instrumental, but you said "He founded your nation".

[1bad65]

Bad you need to make up your mind. In a post not 3-4 posts back you said the US is going bankrupt......Now we are the richest country in the world.:confused:

I've also posted where the Founding Fathers said this country could be destroyed by people voting themselves money. Which is EXACTLY what Obama is doing.

We currently are the richest country in the world, but tripling our debt is a very dangerous thing to do.

Also, Bad why shouldn't the politicians of that time by held to the same standard as the ones today?

They were. And they invited it. They gave us the First Amendment, and it applied to them.

It was even suggested that Ben Franklin had a taste for adolescent girls. Should not your prim and proper Neo morals demand you distance yourself from these people?

You're a piece of garbage. :rolleyes: So you defend a con-man, but fire off UNFOUNDED allegations about a truly great man.

Maybe if Franklin had just lied about his ancestry to get a job, he would get a pass in your book. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

They know it only takes one crazy out there to believe that crap and try to prevent "doomsday". That's the reason they talk like that.

Oh Jeez. Not this again. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

You don't see liberals out there preaching death to everyone because of what some politician does in Washington.

If you truly believed that you could prevent doomsday by killing somebody would you not do it.

If Neos continue with "Your family is going to die" "The world is coming to an end" "doomsday is here" all because of Obama...how long do you think it's going to take before someone does something about it?

[SimonM]

Washington's status as a "Founding Father" vis his position as first commander in chief of your armed forces and first head of state for your nation notwithstanding you have yet to respond to my question regarding the relevance of the political theories of the late eighteenth century and the opinions of the political luminaries of the late eighteenth century on the twenty-first century.

I stand by the argument that what the founding fathers did or said is of little or no relevance compared to what Americans in this day and age are doing and saying.

I furthermore stand by the argument that the united states, post declaration of independence has been one which has functioned only because of the presence of a government and not despite it.

[BoulderDawg]

Update on the Churchill trail:

By the way if anyone is interested here's the best blog I found to keep up with the trial:

http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/

It's a legal blog totally unbaised and is usually updated twice daily.

*********

So far it's looking good. It's nice to see all the support pouring in. I understand Russell Means arrived today. I don't know if he will testify or just give moral support.

The trail is set to end this friday. I'm going to try and make it down at least one day this week to show my support for Ward and for our right to freedom of speech.

[1bad65]

notwithstanding you have yet to respond to my question regarding the relevance of the political theories of the late eighteenth century and the opinions of the political figures of the political luminaries of the late eighteenth century on the twenty-first century.

They created a blueprint, if you will, for our system of Government. It's still how our Government functions. They also allowed a way for it to be amended as needed.

IMO, it's still as relevant today as it was the day it was written.

I stand by the argument that what the founding fathers did or said is of little or no relevance compared to what Americans in this day and age are doing and saying.

Then we disagree. What's wrong with the right to free speech? Or the right to a speedy trial by your peers? Are those outdated?

I furthermore stand by the argument that the united states, post declaration of independence has been one which has functioned only because of the presence of a government and not despite it.

I completely disagree. And the Founders agreed with me.

I feel we would be alot better off with alot less Government.

Simon, here is a question: Can you give an example of founders of any other country who you think did a better job than ours did?

[1bad65]

You don't see liberals out there preaching death to everyone because of what some politician does in Washington.

You seem to have forgotten the Democrats of the 1980s.

[1bad65]

I'm going to try and make it down at least one day this week to show my support for Ward and for our right to lie in order to get jobs.

Fixed that for ya.

[BoulderDawg]

You seem to have forgotten the Democrats of the 1980s.


What about the democrats? I didn't say anything about them. I was talking about liberals.

Also, wasn't it James Watts who, when questioned about providing a cleaner environment for future generations, remarked, "I don't know how many future generations that we have left."

[SimonM]

Simon, here is a question: Can you give an example of founders of any other country who you think did a better job than ours did?

Just off the top of my head:

Sir John A. MacDonald (despite being a drunk) - First Prime Minister of Canada and father of Confederation
The Riksdag of the Estates - Framers of the first of the four documents that compose the modern constitution of Sweden
Michael Collins - Leader of the IRA, negotiated the peace treaty that led to the creation of the modern republic of Ireland.
Solon - Father of classical Athenian democracy
Christian Michelseon - Architect of the modern state of Norway

[Drake]

Actually, folks like Jefferson and Hamilton were far more influential than Washington ever was. Washington was a figurehead due to his maneuvers during the Rev War. However, he played virtually no role in the design of the nation.

Jefferson is still quite relevant.

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases
to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Be polite to all, but intimate with few.

Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Yes...I'd say he is still very much relevant...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Jefferson is still quite relevant.

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.



Yes...I'd say he is still very much relevant...

Too bad they forgot this when they started income tax !!

[SimonM]

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases
to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.


And yet you guys oppose taxation! :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

And yet you guys oppose taxation! :eek:

EXCESSIVE taxation.

[Drake]

And yet you guys oppose taxation! :eek:

He meant the minorities' right to do as they please. Not their right to take money from others.

[BoulderDawg]

Too bad all of that Bill of Rights stuff didn't apply to black people....

[Drake]

"Excessive taxation... will carry reason and reflection to every
man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.

[SimonM]

See I still look at that and go: if this man were alive today he'd probably agree that fair taxation is appropriate.

And although Jefferson and I might have some disagreement over what constitutes "fair" he would not be seeking the abolition of taxation.

However I persist in saying that the situation NOW is much more relevant than the will of a man two hundred years dead.

[BoulderDawg]

What I find interesting is that countries such as Japan and France rank higher on the standard of living index than the US yet folks there pay higher taxes.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

What I find interesting is that countries such as Japan and France rank higher on the standard of living index than the US yet folks there pay higher taxes.....

Its not how much you pay, it what you GET for what you pay.

[SimonM]

This is true.

A government that taxes it's populace and then does not provide medicine, education, control over fundamental resources, good roads, clean cities and all the other services a government provides is even worse than a government that simply doesn't tax and then provides no service.

I've said before any government that is making a profit is doing something severely wrong.

However in order to provide all of the above taxation is required. And thus a good government DOES tax and at a high enough rate to make sure that everybody in their nation can be clean, well fed, well educated, gainfully employed and healthy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is true.

A government that taxes it's populace and then does not provide medicine, education, control over fundamental resources, good roads, clean cities and all the other services a government provides is even worse than a government that simply doesn't tax and then provides no service.

I've said before any government that is making a profit is doing something severely wrong.

However in order to provide all of the above taxation is required. And thus a good government DOES tax and at a high enough rate to make sure that everybody in their nation can be clean, well fed, well educated, gainfully employed and healthy.

Taxation is only part of the equation, look at us here, we pay federal and provincial taxes, plus municipal taxes, and gas tax and road tax and income tax and cap[ital gains tax, and business tax and health tax and...well, after writing all thatI am even more ****ed.

[SimonM]

Yup. We have a responsible taxation system.

Don't forget Tobacco tax, Alcohol tax, EI and CPP! :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yup. We have a responsible taxation system.

:rolleyes:

Freak.
Have you figured out where all the money to the federal government goes and what it does with it?
Oh wait, never mind, I just remembered the Sponsorship program.
:mad:

[SimonM]

I vote for the NDP. We didn't like the sponsorship issue either.

Corruption is "teh bad".

[sanjuro_ronin]

I vote for the NDP. We didn't like the sponsorship issue either.

Corruption is "teh bad".

The countries with the highest tax burdens like Denmark and Sweden for example, with close to 50% taxes, give their tax payers and busniness far more benefits than we do, longer maternity leaves, longer EI, EI for those wishing to start a business, grants for small businesses and start up loans, etc.
We don't get that here, we are far behind the curve on that, much further than people even realize.

[SimonM]

And I think there is much to reccommend the models of those nations with regards to government services.

Our system is far from perfect.

But it's better than what our American friends have.

And ditching our tax base won't fix it.

Please note that the titularly socialist party of Canada, the NDP, is actually more strongly in favour of small business incentives and support than the conservatives or the liberals.

I think I summed it up to Dave Ross well a while ago:

"Please, go, be an entrepreneur, start a business, be successful...

and then pay your taxes."

And providing EI to those trying to start a business would be a D4MN good idea. But right now it's all focusing on retraining. Lots of new truck drivers coming out of EI.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And I think there is much to reccommend the models of those nations with regards to government services.

Our system is far from perfect.

But it's better than what our American friends have.

And ditching our tax base won't fix it.

Actually, the amount of tax we collect is fine, when you include business into it, it is comparable to those other countries, its the government spending on CRAP that is the issue.
Sure they'll give 100's of millions to a company in which that money won't make a bit of difference, but they won't give anything to small businesses that keep the economy going in times like this.

[BoulderDawg]

The problem with the budget is no one questions it. Everyone just assumes it cost 12 billion a month to stay in Iraq. Everyone just assumes a bridge cost a 100 million to build.

The first thing we should do is totally cut off any money for Iraq. They get nothing. This will save 12 billion a month right off the top.

The next thing is to totally cut off any more bailout money. This will save untold billions.

the next thing is to hire a team of auditors (thousands of them) to track every penny that goes out and question things like why does the military pay $500 for a hammer?

Also the government should estimate contract before bids go out. If a fair price for a contract is 50 million we should question bids that come in for 120 million. Also, once your company signs a contract with the government that's it. There will be no price overruns.

Education budgets should be audited too. A school district should not get a brand new school just because the current one is 50 years old.

[SimonM]

Actually, the amount of tax we collect is fine, when you include business into it, it is comparable to those other countries, its the government spending on CRAP that is the issue.
Sure they'll give 100's of millions to a company in which that money won't make a bit of difference, but they won't give anything to small businesses that keep the economy going in times like this.

Well... that's the tories for you. :rolleyes:

[SimonM]

Education budgets should be audited too. A school district should not get a brand new school just because the current one is 50 years old.

Well unless the cost and time necessary to renovate a 50 year old school in order to bring it up to modern standards would be more than the cost of building a new one.

Because, to be frank, pegagogy has changed a lot in 50 years and a 50 year old school building may not be up to the task of being a modern school.

However school funding should start first and foremost with ensuring equal funding to all public schools and NO public funds for private schools.

[1bad65]

See I still look at that and go: if this man were alive today he'd probably agree that fair taxation is appropriate.

Fair is appropriate. But the ~40-50% total taxes the average American pays now is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers were burdened with ~2% total taxes and they felt they were over-taxed.

[1bad65]

"Please, go, be an entrepreneur, start a business, be successful...

and then pay your taxes."

In theory, this sounds brilliant. In theory. But if they are taxed so much they can't afford to stay in business, your system will fail. Agreed?

[SimonM]

More inaccurate taxation stats from anti-tax lobby groups? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Again; The poor, oppressed people of the world come here to realize their dreams.

You don't see them give up everything just to get into France, Cuba, China, or Canada, etc like they do to get into the US.

If socialism is so great, why doesn't Cuba, China, Venezuela, and Vietnam have the problems the US does with too many immigrants wanting in?

[1bad65]

More inaccurate taxation stats from anti-tax lobby groups? :rolleyes:

You're above that. The statistics I used are quite accurate.

Do you have statistics to the contrary?

[SimonM]

In theory, this sounds brilliant. In theory. But if they are taxed so much they can't afford to stay in business, your system will fail. Agreed?

Thing is that by the time a small business is being taxed to anything resembling a high level they would have to have expanded well beyond the startup phase.

Taxation has really almost nothing to do with new business failure.

Now under-capitalizing is a major cause of business failure. To solve that issue I would support the idea of bailout money being reallocated from protecting failing large businesses to providing loans for people starting small businesses.

[1bad65]

Thing is that by the time a small business is being taxed to anything resembling a high level they would have to have expanded well beyond the startup phase.

This is not always true. Some businesses stay 'mom and pop' size. Just a small tax increase can force them out of business.

Taxation has really almost nothing to do with new business failure.

I agree with you there.

Now under-capitalizing is a major cause of business failure. To solve that issue I would support the idea of bailout money being reallocated from protecting failing large businesses to providing loans for people starting small businesses.

I'm against ALL bailouts. Big or small, it's not the Government's job to bail out private businesses.

[BoulderDawg]

You're above that. The statistics I used are quite accurate.

Oh, yes....like the time you said illiteracy rates were increasing and, in the next post, you said they were decreasing.

Yes, your stats are quite accurate!:p

[1bad65]

Oh, yes....like the time you said illiteracy rates were increasing and, in the next post, you said they were decreasing.

Yes, your stats are quite accurate!:p

Idiot, I mistyped. I corrected myself and set the record straight. You are the only one here who hasn't quite figured that out yet. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

Now under-capitalizing is a major cause of business failure. To solve that issue I would support the idea of bailout money being reallocated from protecting failing large businesses to providing loans for people starting small businesses.

That shows your knowledge of business start up. The vast, vast majority fail within 3 years...and that's with deep pockets. You are going to come closer getting your money back from GM than you are if you gave Joe the Plumber a couple of mill to start a business.

I have a friend here in Boulder who opened up a business a little over two years ago..........I listened to the guy's idea and it was all I could do to keep from laughing. Anyway he hasn't made a profit in any month since he's been in operations......I'm just glad it's his money and not mine or the taxpayers. Said to see him pising his money off but sometimes when people get some sort of notion in their heads about a business you cannot tell them how dumb it actually is.

[1bad65]

Hell, Ted Kennedy misspoke and called Obama "Osama", then he corrected himself. Does that mean Kennedy thinks that is his real name? Or does it mean he made a mistake and corrected himself?

Use your head.

[BoulderDawg]

Idiot, I mistyped. I corrected myself and set the record straight. You are the only one here who hasn't quite figured that out yet. :rolleyes:


If that's so how come you didn't mention it when I called you on the iliteracy stats after your first post? You continued with another post about illiteracy....

This sounds like a lie to me.....and another lie to cover it up.

*******************

Funny a man like Ward Churchill is suppose to write thousands and thousands of pages completely error free yet we are suppose to give you a pass when you can't get a few paragraphs correct......don't think so.

[1bad65]

You are going to come closer getting your money back from GM than you are if you gave Joe the Plumber a couple of mill to start a business.

You apparently missed the news that GM will likely run out of money real soon without ANOTHER bailout.

[BoulderDawg]

You apparently missed the news that GM will likely run out of money real soon without ANOTHER bailout.

Doesn't matter, you still have a better chance of getting your money back from GM than from Joe The Plumber.

[Drake]

Socialist economies move at a snail's pace. Once more...look at Ireland. They are doing what we should have.

[1bad65]

This sounds like a lie to me.....

And you're the only one.

Just like you're the only one who believes a white con man is a full-blooded Indian.

[1bad65]

Socialist economies move at a snail's pace. Once more...look at Ireland. They are doing what we should have.

Liberals try and forget about Ireland. They always bring up Canada, England, or France. Of course France's economy got so bad under the liberals they recently elected a very conservative PM.

Doesn't Canada have a conservative PM too?

[Drake]

More completely irrelevant stuff from Jefferson... :D

"The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] is
not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings,
priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the
people in ignorance." --Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786.

"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means
with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to
what we acquire by those means without violating the similar
rights of other sensible beings." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre
Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.


Let's switch over to Hamilton, k?

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

“Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things” (almost like he KNEW that things were going to change!)

“Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.”

Here's some more...

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

But the real proof that we are inherently anti-tax...

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson

I strongly disagree with our Canadian friends about the nature of our country.

[BoulderDawg]

Interesting day at the Churchill trial,

Russ Means was called as a witness:

Professor Russell Means was sworn in. Meanes described himself as a chief facilitator for the Lakota Republic as well as a long time university lecturer. Means’ testimony was similar to that of Tinker, though focused somewhat more on the role of oral tradition and Churchill’s reputation for truth and honesty in the American Indian community. Means also discussed his review of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct’s report, holding back tears and calling it a “scholarly massacre.” Although his most memorable statement that “they do not treat white professors at CU the same way,” was stricken, Means also testified to the fact that after the SCRM’s report was released he filed a complaint with the committee against CU Professor Wilkinson (originally wrongly identified as law school Dean Getches). Means said that he had found errors in Wilkinson’s work that were more egregious than any committed by Churchill, yet the SCRM issued a denial of the charges. Cross-examination largely focused on a clarification of the inquiry process triggered by the complaint filed against Wilkinson.

Strange that a complaint against a white professor was for all intent purposes blown off...par for the course I guess.

Ward himself took the stand late in the day and will continue tomorrow.

[1bad65]

Russ Means was called as a witness:

So he called in a guy who got thrown out by the Indians. :rolleyes:

What are you going to do if the plagiarizing poseur loses? :p

[1bad65]

I strongly disagree with our Canadian friends about the nature of our country.

So did the Founding Fathers.

[BoulderDawg]

So he called in a guy who got thrown out by the Indians. :rolleyes:

What are you going to do if the plagiarizing poseur loses? :p

You told me you were a supporter of Professor Means. You can't really support Means unless you believe in freedom of speech and human rights. I don't believe you believe in either of those ideals.

I had a good laugh at the name calling. This seems like a major trait of you neos.:D Anyway, as I have said before. The actual trail that is going on now is just the first step. No matter how the decision turns out the case will be appealed and probably wind up in the supreme court.

Personally, I'm hoping for the best but expecting to lose this round. I see this going the way of the Scopes Monkey trail.

Much of it is dependant on the instructions given to the jury. I actually think we'll have a better chance if it's an all or nothing decision. Either find for the defense or the plaintiff. If the jury can decide things like: determine a suspension is in order instead of the firing, then my guess is the jury will try to split the baby.

I can't really see his job totally restored. If Ward was to win and CU was forced to take him back he would be a tenured professor with no responsibilities.....However that would give him more time for research!:D

******************

So what is it with you Neos anyway? You won't find me talking about a conservative professor in another part of the country. I figure it's up to the community to decide who they want at their universities. But you Neos think you have to interfere and dictate the affairs of a community you'll probably never vist.

[SimonM]

Here is a quotation for you:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[1bad65]

You told me you were a supporter of Professor Means.

:confused: I did???

You call him "Professor". What University does he teach at? Does he have a PhD?

[1bad65]

And I'm all for freedom of speech. I just don't think that gives you right to lie to your employer and not be fired for it.

[Drake]

Here is a quotation for you:

Written by the same guys who opposed excesive taxation. They figure we're smart enough to figure it out.

[BoulderDawg]

You call him "Professor". What University does he teach at? Does he have a PhD?

Russ Means is probably the world's leading expert on indigenous people and the struggles they go through. Through his life's work he has more than earned the title of "Professor". Most PHD's wish they had half the knowledge of Russell Means.

I think this piece from his website sums up Russell:

Russell Means has lived a life like few others in this century - revered for his selfless accomplishments and remarkable bravery. He was born into a society and guided by way of life that gently denies the self in order to promote the survival and betterment of family and community. His culture is driven by tradition, which at once links the past to the present.

The L.A. Times has called him the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

Both Professors Means and Chruchill have made it their life's work to help other people. No matter what the white man may do to them they'll always have the respect of millions around the world.

[SimonM]

Written by the same guys who opposed excesive taxation. They figure we're smart enough to figure it out.

No.

The sixteenth ammendment was ratified in 1913 - by the 61st congress under presidency of Taft.

No member of the 61st congress was also one of the founding fathers.

Again with you guys need better civics courses in school.

Score 1 for USA as a state with needs different from those in 1775 and also score 1 for constitution as living document subject to change and not gospel of the founding fathers.

So can we quit it with the famous dead guy quotes please?

Because, to be frank, there is no measuring the extent to which I don't care what Thomas Jefferson thought about taxation.

[1bad65]

So, he just gave himself the title of "Professor". :rolleyes:

[Drake]

No.

The sixteenth ammendment was ratified in 1913 - by the 61st congress under presidency of Taft.

No member of the 61st congress was also one of the founding fathers.

Again with you guys need better civics courses in school.

Score 1 for USA as a state with needs different from those in 1775 and also score 1 for constitution as living document subject to change and not gospel of the founding fathers.

So can we quit it with the famous dead guy quotes please?

Because, to be frank, there is no measuring the extent to which I don't care what Thomas Jefferson thought about taxation.

-1 for me for not reading completely what you wrote.

[1bad65]

Because, to be frank, there is no measuring the extent to which I don't care what Thomas Jefferson thought about taxation.

Well we do. When someone puts EVERYTHING on the line for the freedoms of others, they deserve some respect.

Keep in mind, after the British surrendered, some of Washington's subordinates congratulated him on winning the war and told him it was great he would be the King. Washington obviously rejected that idea.

Let me ask you this; How many men do you know of who risked their lives fighting for a cause, then after they win they gave EVERY BIT of power to the people and keep NONE of it for themselves?

[SimonM]

Well we do. When someone puts EVERYTHING on the line for the freedoms of others, they deserve some respect.


He was a slave owner who railed about tyranny.

[Baqualin]

I don't always agree with you , but I have a GROWING respect for your knowledge and ability to keep the conversation in its proper parameters;)
BQ

[SimonM]

Thank you Baqualin. I do try to remain on topic and I also try to avoid being overly inflammatory. At times my passion gets the better of me and then I try to rein it in.

[1bad65]

He was a slave owner who railed about tyranny.

He wasn't the only one who risked everything. Plenty of men who were anti-slavery and owned no slaves risked everything they had too.

Again, Washington was not the sole founder of our country.

Speaking of slavery, didn't the British allow it even before the Revolution?

[SimonM]

Actually I was referring to the slaves Jefferson owned since it was Jefferson you and Drake kept quoting with reference to taxation as tyranny.

However I ask what the level of sacrifice of the founding fathers has to do with whether the modern nation of the united states is in fact a state or is some sort of anarchic non-state that should not provide services in exchange for taxation.

Because, you see, the core of my argument is that the USA is, in fact a state and thus, like all states, should charge taxes (on a fair basis) in exchange for the provision of services to the populace.

My argument is supported by the sixteenth ammendment of your constitution.

The fact that the sixteenth ammendment was not in fact written by the founding fathers further strengthens my sub-argument which is that the character of the USA, as a nation, has changed over the last 234 years since 1775.

[1bad65]

Because, you see, the core of my argument is that the USA is, in fact a state and thus, like all states, should charge taxes (on a fair basis) in exchange for the provision of services to the populace.

I agree with you that we need some taxation. We obviously disagree on what we consider 'fair'.

My argument is supported by the sixteenth ammendment of your constitution.

Well, there are Constitutional scholars who say the income tax is unconstitutional.

The fact that the sixteenth ammendment was not in fact written by the founding fathers further strengthens my sub-argument which is that the character of the USA, as a nation, has changed over the last 234 years since 1775.

The nation has changed. That much agree 100% with you. I feel that the principles our nation was founded on should not change.

[1bad65]

Simon,

Please address this one: Speaking of slavery, didn't the British allow it even before the Revolution?

[BoulderDawg]

Well, there are Constitutional scholars who say the income tax is unconstitutional.

Real simple questions:

Who?

What qualifies them to be a "Constitutional Scholar"?

[SimonM]

Well, there are Constitutional scholars who say the income tax is unconstitutional.


And yet in case after case US courts keep saying that income tax IS constitutional.

Please ref:

Brushaber v. UPR
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States
United States v. Thomas
Baker v. Comissioner
Buchbinder v. Comissioner
Parker v. Comissioner
Abrams v. Comissioner

as examples. There are others.

[1bad65]

Real simple questions:

Who?

What qualifies them to be a "Constitutional Scholar"?

You had the audacity to type that!

You're the guy says that just because someone says they are an Indian, they are an Indian. And if someone says they are a professor, they are a professor.

Just keep embarrassing yourself.

[1bad65]

And yet in case after case US courts keep saying that income tax IS constitutional.

True. But not the scholars, nor the judges can see inside the Father's heads.

But I'd bet everything I have that the Fathers would be stunned and sickened that the average American pays ~40-50% of their income in taxes. Remember, when they rebelled they were paying ~2%.

[1bad65]

The white guy who lied about being an Indian to get a job as a professor has called a guy who lies about being a professor to be a character witness in his court case.

It's like Mental Illness Theater!

[SimonM]

And I reiterate: The founding fathers did not pen the 16th ammendment to the constitution of the USA and thus their opinion of it is irrelevant.

They were guys.

Furthermore they were guys whose heads YOU can not see into any clearer than the judges who you don't care for.

Regardless of Jefferson's letters with regards to taxation Article 1 sub-section 8 of the US constitution states that Congress has the power:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States

Emphasis mine.

A later government then ammended the constitution with the sixteenth ammendment which further cemented the authority of congress to impose income tax.

As for their rebellion I seem to recall a slogan:

"No taxation without representation"

The second half of that statement is, in my eyes, probably more the issue than the first.

They rebelled because they were taxed while remaining essentially non-citizens, unimportant collonials to be disregarded.

Tell me: Are you unrepresented in government? Does Austin not have any congressional districts? Did you not get an opportunity to vote for a president vis your electoral college delegates? Does Texas lack senators? A governor? A state legislature?

Because it seems a lot of people want to change "no taxation without representation" to "no taxation, we don't want representation"... and that is a significant disconnect - nearly a non-sequitur.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well... that's the tories for you. :rolleyes:

It was just as bad under the Liberals.

[BoulderDawg]

You had the audacity to type that!

You're the guy says that just because someone says they are an Indian, they are an Indian. And if someone says they are a professor, they are a professor.

Just keep embarrassing yourself.

BS, you can't name any scholars (other than maybe someone like Rush Limbaugh:D) who could give a rational argument to the constitutionality of taxes.

Now you are using your indignation to try and bluff your way out of this. Par for the course.

[sanjuro_ronin]

True. But not the scholars, nor the judges can see inside the Father's heads.

But I'd bet everything I have that the Fathers would be stunned and sickened that the average American pays ~40-50% of their income in taxes. Remember, when they rebelled they were paying ~2%.

It not only the % that is the issue, IMO, its HOW its is collected.
Right out of your wages and you don't even see a dime.
No.
That is simply wrong.
Income Tax is wrong.
I am ok with sales tax, even property tax, but income tax?
Thems grounds for revolution !!

[1bad65]

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States .

Notice it doesn't say 'welfare for the people'.

[1bad65]

BS, you can't name any scholars (other than maybe someone like Rush Limbaugh:D) who could give a rational argument to the constitutionality of taxes.

Nor could you name ONE Arts professor at that University who did not have a PhD.

I'll research some tonight. I will no doubt be able to come up with plenty of names. And unlike that plagiarizing poseur and his buddy, they will have real, verifiable credentials. ;)

[1bad65]

It not only the % that is the issue, IMO, its HOW its is collected.
Right out of your wages and you don't even see a dime.

This is true. Let's say you pay over and thus you get a tax return of $3000. You overpaid your taxes because they took too much out. And they return your money once a year. The kicker is that they do not pay you a dime of interest on your money they kept from you.

[Drake]

No.

The sixteenth ammendment was ratified in 1913 - by the 61st congress under presidency of Taft.

No member of the 61st congress was also one of the founding fathers.

Again with you guys need better civics courses in school.

Score 1 for USA as a state with needs different from those in 1775 and also score 1 for constitution as living document subject to change and not gospel of the founding fathers.

So can we quit it with the famous dead guy quotes please?

Because, to be frank, there is no measuring the extent to which I don't care what Thomas Jefferson thought about taxation.

I confused what you wrote with Section 8 of the Constitution, btw.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Nothing to do with Civics courses. I was just in a hurry and made the mistake of skimming over your post.

[BoulderDawg]

Nor could you name ONE Arts professor at that University who did not have a PhD.

Nor did I state there was. In fact you're the one who brought up that entire subject. If you're interested in it then you look it up.

I'm not responsible for verifying statements I did not make. However you made the statement about "Constitutional scholars". Put your money where your mouth is...back it up.

[Drake]

This is true. Let's say you pay over and thus you get a tax return of $3000. You overpaid your taxes because they took too much out. And they return your money once a year. The kicker is that they do not pay you a dime of interest on your money they kept from you.

It's one of the bigger ripoffs out there.

[Drake]

If you want a simple lesson is corporate tax, simply compare any socialist country economically (choose your stats) with Ireland over the last 10 years or so.

[Drake]

Nor could you name ONE Arts professor at that University who did not have a PhD.

I'll research some tonight. I will no doubt be able to come up with plenty of names. And unlike that plagiarizing poseur and his buddy, they will have real, verifiable credentials. ;)

I think BD is actually racist. He actually defends people who exploit minorities for their own gain. Notice he disregarded VALID and VERIFIED information on how WC was not only publicly kicked out of being an "honorary" member of a tribe, but the chief of the tribe himself took the time to mention what a slimeball WC is. If he's trying to help the Indians, they clearly don't see it... or want it. So by defending a verified liar and plagiarizer (trial aside, as I showed it in black and white anyway), he is also supporting an exploiter of minorities.