Is bush doing a good job?

[QuothTheRaven]

I simply want to poll evryone to see if they think bush is doing a good job being the president.(Fuc* no!)

[U-238]

You probably should've posted a poll with this thread. But that's just me...

Personaly, under the curcumstances he's been through as president, I think he's doing a fantastic job. I only wish he could stay in office one more term. :/

[kongurous]

Why is there only one yes option, and 7 other no options?

EDIT: 7,800th post

[U-238]

Yea I'd say this poll is a little biased. *Calls moderator in to even it out*

[wa123]

FU*K NO

Bush fuc*s everything up.

[Black.Ice]

I don't approve of what Bush is doing, but I do respect him as the president. He's doing as good as a normal president would do in his situation, however, I think he's made some stupid decisions over the years.

[ChaosZon]

If you look at it Bush has achieved some notable successes lately, most importantly:

1. Japan is now entirely in our camp, and the great thing is they did it because they want to (aka because of North Korea).
2. India is on the verge of becoming a long-time US ally (and is a natural counterweight to both Pakistan and China).
3. US-Europe relations thanks to the rising threat of terrorism and European concerns over Iran are closer than any time since immediately after September 11th.
4. By some amazing feat Russia is starting to slowly switch sides on Iran and China is also slowly changing, from running diplomatic cover for Iran and North Korea to saying "Meh we don't really care, whatever."
5. Our more or less total and deliberate turning of the other cheek every time Hugo Chavez opens his mouth has led to the anti-American populist tide in Latin American being stopped, if not reversed altogether.

Oh and there's a whole bunch more (even in Iraq!) but those are the 5 most important ones.

On the domestic side:

1. The tax cuts continue to spur economic growth and government revenues are booming, Bush's goal of halving the deficit as a percentage of GDP by 2009 is on track to be met way way early.
2. Bush is finally taking, albeit reluctantly, some (small) sensible steps on immigration and border control.
3. This has more domestic impact than foreign - Canada and the US, already butt-buddies in almost every way imaginable, are getting even closer thanks to the government of Stephen Harper.

And two or three other things but again those are the most important ones.

[Neo]

Edited teh poll to reflect fairness... or whatever.

I might've fudged up the nos by 1 or 2 votes, but it was already messed up, because you could choose more then one option (so, voting no 4 different ways shouldn't count :P)

-Neo

[Ubergopher]

Uh, the precentages are kinda weird...
33.3%
100%
33.3% does that seem weird to anyone else?

Also, President Bush is doing a good job with whats happened during his presidency.

[GenocideAlive]

I'm not thrilled with Bush's inability to admit he has made an error. I also dislike his spending habits. Whether or not he's a "good" President? I don't know, all in recent memory strike me as giant motherfucking failures.

[Schwitzer]

Uh, the precentages are kinda weird...
33.3%
100%
33.3% does that seem weird to anyone else?
That happened 'cause it's a multiple-choice poll. Editing such polls mucks them up.

[Neo]

Its probably because I miscounted.

The thing with the poll is that 100% of the people could've voted no, and then 33% of those people ALSO voted no/unsure.

The poll itself isn't messed up :o

-Neo

[xodkrm]

I think Bush is doing an okay job.
I mean, I don't know how I could have done anything if I was in Bush's position.
He taught the world america isn't something you can fuck with.

I bet if he didn't start the war, everyone would have called him a pussy, and the world would have thought of him as weak shit.

Of course, I base this on my knowledge of politics and all that stuff, which is very limited.

[WeekendLazyness]

It's a really good thing a lot of you Bush supporters can't vote, seeing as you don't know what you're talking about. This is a prime example:
I bet if he didn't start the war, everyone would have called him a pussy, and the world would have thought of him as weak shit.

ChaosZon, all but about two of your points have nothing to do with any decision Bush has made.

[wa123]

Check this out!
goto www.google.com

type: "failure" in the search tag

press I'm feeling lucky, instead of google search.
I don't know why this happen, but it happen.

[Battlecruiser]

Check this out!
goto www.google.com

type: "failure" in the search tag

press I'm feeling lucky, instead of google search.
I don't know why this happen, but it happen.
That's so old. Read this article if you want to know why it happens (Click Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm))

Here's something else you might find cool (It's somewhat old as well):

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1929/bushcaption6rs.jpg

Anyway, I've never liked Bush. He's not exactly the greatest representation of our country. But I'll be honest. I haven't followed the news lately, so I don't know if he has messed up lately or not.

[Aquarian]

Saying that he has done the right thing after 1k Iraqis are killed, shit no.

[Seal]

depends on the point of view. from a somewhat neutral country bush's efforts dont seem that good, but a patriotic family might approve everything bush does.

[AresOfOlympus]

I have my gripes about him, but No pres will ever get a 100% from me so it's no different here. Overall I think hes doing good job in the conditions hes been thrust in. I'm not going to go into all the rhetoric filles political debates so I'll just leave at that saying saying yes.

[U-238]

It's a really good thing a lot of you Bush supporters can't vote, seeing as you don't know what you're talking about.

Soo if john kerry or al gore had been elected they would've done much better?

ya'll are fucking liberals

[QuothTheRaven]

Bush is actually making profit off the war.His brother sell weapons to the army, and I'm asuming bush is getting a cut out of the profits.If you look close enough you can tell bush is a very nervous man.Besides, during the first debate he cheated.Notice the lump he had on his suit's shoulder.Someone was telling him what to say, meaning bush lacks the intelligence to stand his ground in a debate which shows he doesn't have the intelligence to lead this country.Bush had one of the best tailors in the world do his suit.Even if you are not intelligent enough to understand the debates you can tell bush was losing.Bush blinked about one time every 3 seconds, also pay close attention to his facial features.

Bush is just about as fit to lead this country as Arnold is fit to be governer.

[WeekendLazyness]

Soo if john kerry or al gore had been elected they would've done much better?
We sure as hell wouldn't have a war in Iraq right now if Gore had been elected. As for Kerry, we would probably be out of Iraq and very likely be living in a very different America.

ya'll are fucking liberalsThat's alright, Bush has been alienating his party anyway.

I'm wondering how you personally justify illegal acts of our government under the Bush administration, specifically the NSA wiretaps (among other things).

[kongurous]

Bush is actually making profit off the war.His brother sell weapons to the army, and I'm asuming bush is getting a cut out of the profits.If you look close enough you can tell bush is a very nervous man.Besides, during the first debate he cheated.Notice the lump he had on his suit's shoulder.Someone was telling him what to say, meaning bush lacks the intelligence to stand his ground in a debate which shows he doesn't have the intelligence to lead this country.Bush had one of the best tailors in the world do his suit.Even if you are not intelligent enough to understand the debates you can tell bush was losing.Bush blinked about one time every 3 seconds, also pay close attention to his facial features.

Bush is just about as fit to lead this country as Arnold is fit to be governer.

Just because you're nervous doesn't mean you're an idiot.

Btw, none of his family members sell weaponry to anyone.

[ScottieIWU]

I'm not thrilled with Bush's inability to admit he has made an error.That definitely speaks volumes to me about his successes in office. His supporters say it takes true balls to stick to your guns no matter what, but I say it's pretty pointless. There are times and places where you bring yourself down with your ideals, but martyrdom isn't awaiting President Bush in the history books. I think it'd take a bigger man in his shoes to say "holy shit, we got it wrong but now that we've made the mistake let's fucking fix it." Instead, he dicks around and pretends all is well.

I'm also not a fan of his inability to live outside of his little circle. During a press conference in Chicago a reporter asked him a hypothetical question that he didn't like. He flat out refused to answer the question, saying that he "rejected that hypothetical situation" and then continued to interrupt the reporter until he simply had her cut off and gave the mic to someone else.

That, to me, speaks volumes about Bush's ability to lead. He's faced with something he doesn't like and he simply ignores it and shuts it out, rather than faces it. Rumors abound about how his staff keeps him in a bubble where almost no negative information about his presidency reaches him. I might normally not believe such rumors but in general, he seems not to realize how disliked he actually is.

I also dislike his spending habits. I find it humorous that Bush seems to think that giving tax breaks to the rich people is actually the means by which we can stimulate the economy. He's like Reagan, and Reagan's fiscal policies seem to have come from a severely mentally disabled 10 year old.

Overall, I think it'll be interesting to see what the history books say about Bush. I'll say he's probably one of the most contraversial presidents and definitely there are few who truly hold him in the middle ground.

Also, I think some people here might be interested in reading The Price of Loyalty, a book ghostwritten about Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of Treasury for Bush. There are some interesting things, including O'Neill reporting that Bush had been formulating battle plans for Iraq long before the war even started and before 9/11 even came on the horizon. It's an interesting read, though it doesn't hold Bush in the highest esteem.

[U-238]

I find it humorous that Bush seems to think that giving tax breaks to the rich people is actually the means by which we can stimulate the economy.

I actually have a paper on why that works. I'll see if I can find it on the internet (it's kinda old). Anyhow it explains perfectly how giving tax cuts to the rich helps everyone.

We sure as hell wouldn't have a war in Iraq right now if Gore had been elected. As for Kerry, we would probably be out of Iraq and very likely be living in a very different America.


Exactly, and we'd be sitting here (our country) and sucking our thumbs whining because people got hurt on 9/11 and the countless more terrorist attacks that possibly would occur if nothing had been done and saddam and his nukes would end up in the hands of terrorists.

[ScottieIWU]

I actually have a paper on why that works. I'll see if I can find it on the internet (it's kinda old). Anyhow it explains perfectly how giving tax cuts to the rich helps everyone.I hope it also includes a scanned copy of your Bachelor's Degree in Economics that gives you the credibility to make that determination. Because, well, forgive me if I'm skeptical of the 16 year old who is writing a paper on economics yet has probably never taken more than an introductory high school course on the subject.

Exactly, and we'd be sitting here (our country) and sucking our thumbs whining because people got hurt on 9/11 and the countless more terrorist attacks that possibly would occur if nothing had been done and saddam and his nukes would end up in the hands of terrorists.Bush, in his press conference in Chicago, pointed out that isolationism helps nobody, etc. He made a big deal about it, said it is our responsibility to help the world. Well, I kind of have to disagree.

You see, had we not gotten involved in situations in the Middle East long ago, we'd not have gotten attacked on 9/11. We make ourselves more of a target by interfering and trying to push our idealogy of "democracy" on nations that culturally may not actually be ready for it. They sure as hell don't need a tyranny that kills civilians, sure, but that doesn't mean that the US should act like Superman and jump into every situation where we don't approve of what's going on. We're the democracy evangalist of the world and it gets other people angry.

Also, show me the proof of a link between Sadaam and terrorism. The problem with the Iraq war is that most Americans (wrongly) saw it as linked to the war on terror. Sadaam wasn't a good man but he didn't necessarily fall into the jurisdiction of "war on terror." It's convenient, however, that most of the US is as misinformed as you because then everybody makes that connection and supports a war we probably shouldn't have fought.

[WeekendLazyness]

Exactly, and we'd be sitting here (our country) and sucking our thumbs whining because people got hurt on 9/11 and the countless more terrorist attacks that possibly would occur if nothing had been done and saddam and his nukes would end up in the hands of terrorists.
A gross disregard for history. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, except to provide an excuse for Bush's war.

[U-238]

I hope it also includes a scanned copy of your Bachelor's Degree in Economics that gives you the credibility to make that determination. Because, well, forgive me if I'm skeptical of the 16 year old who is writing a paper on economics yet has probably never taken more than an introductory high school course on the subject.


I didn't write it duh! And on the subject of writing papers I odn't have much expierence on it but I have taken the collegate intro to it and am going to probably get a masters in economics. And a bachelors in buissiness thank you very much. I'm not one of these arverage american idiot kids who don't care about anything and just go along with the shit the medias pumping out.

You see, had we not gotten involved in situations in the Middle East long ago, we'd not have gotten attacked on 9/11. We make ourselves more of a target by interfering and trying to push our idealogy of "democracy" on nations that culturally may not actually be ready for it. They sure as hell don't need a tyranny that kills civilians, sure, but that doesn't mean that the US should act like Superman and jump into every situation where we don't approve of what's going on. We're the democracy evangalist of the world and it gets other people angry.

Then we're not talking about bush are we?

Also, show me the proof of a link between Sadaam and terrorism. The problem with the Iraq war is that most Americans (wrongly) saw it as linked to the war on terror. Sadaam wasn't a good man but he didn't necessarily fall into the jurisdiction of "war on terror." It's convenient, however, that most of the US is as misinformed as you because then everybody makes that connection and supports a war we probably shouldn't have fought.

Link? Link??? You need a link????????? Look at all the terrorism he pushed on his own country! He openly invaded Kuwait way back when and I believe even Bin Laden has stated that saddam had helped him (not sure on that one though). Don't go telling me he wasn't connected to terrorism. That man was as much of a terrorist asbin laden himself.

[ScottieIWU]

I didn't write it duh! And on the subject of writing papers I odn't have much expierence on it but I have taken the collegate intro to it and am going to probably get a masters in economics. And a bachelors in buissiness thank you very much. I'm not one of these arverage american idiot kids who don't care about anything and just go along with the shit the medias pumping out.Okay, well my mistake. However, you don't have those degrees currently, do you? And a college course isn't exactly a suitable standpoint to make economic decisions and policy from.

Furthermore, economists disagree all the time. Economics has sides just like politics and some people would disagree with tax cuts while others would agree. The bigger problem is that neither side is necessarily wrong.

And, I don't see the point of the last part of this, other than you obviously displaying your utter disdain for grammar.



Then we're not talking about bush are we?No, but history is obviously the reason for us being where we are now. Moreover, Bush did not have to react as he did to 9/11, etc. The point is that he didn't look at history and realize that our involvement has caused us problems. As a result, he charges head-first into a situation without thinking.



Link? Link??? You need a link????????? Look at all the terrorism he pushed on his own country! He openly invaded Kuwait way back when and I believe even Bin Laden has stated that saddam had helped him (not sure on that one though). Don't go telling me he wasn't connected to terrorism. That man was as much of a terrorist asbin laden himself.Learn about arguments, fool. You made the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. It is not up to me to disprove your unproven claim to begin with. So, let's see your source on the fact that Sadaam was tied to terrorism.

[WeekendLazyness]

Here's a fun site:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Personally, I'd rather have $1,182 and my friend's brother to be alive.

[Nuts]

Did someone complain about tax breaks to the rich?

Let's see here.... the average tax rate for the top 1% earners in the U.S. in 2003 was 24.31%. As you know, percentages don't lie. The percent of a person's income can vary greatly with regard to the total amount of taxes paid, correct? It's basic math, so I'll assume you know this.

Now, the average tax rate for the top 50% of Americans is 13.35%. Wow, that's a large difference there, ain't it? It's as if to say that richer people deserve less of their money than a poor person, since wealth is evil, right?

Now, understand that the top 50% of all Americans pay 96.54% of ALL income taxes. That means that the other 50% of Americans only pay 3.46% of the total tax bill to the government. In other words, 148 million people are taxed at a rate of 3.46% OR LESS.

From 2002 to 2003, the American people received a tax cut of approximately 1-3% . The wealthiest amongst us went from 27.25% to 24.31% tax rate; still a whopping 10.96% higher than the bottom 50% of Americans!

I don't think we don't tax the poor enough. How about a flat tax for everyone, even the poor! You got 5 children, too bad. Your baby daddy not paying child support, oh well. You get a tax bill like everyone else, and if you don't pay it, you go to work on the side of the road and sweat off your portion of the tax burden while I drive by laughing my fucking ass off because you're too damn lazy or too damn proud to get a job a flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Oh boo fucking hoo, the rich got a tax break.

[ScottieIWU]

I don't think we don't tax the poor enough. How about a flat tax for everyone, even the poor! You got 5 children, too bad. So instead we'll punish the poor for being poor, only making their situation worse and punishing them yet again.

[ChaosZon]

A gross disregard for history. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, except to provide an excuse for Bush's war.

You know if I wanted to I could pound you into a fine dust in about ten minutes.

Also, show me the proof of a link between Sadaam and terrorism. The problem with the Iraq war is that most Americans (wrongly) saw it as linked to the war on terror. Sadaam wasn't a good man but he didn't necessarily fall into the jurisdiction of "war on terror." It's convenient, however, that most of the US is as misinformed as you because then everybody makes that connection and supports a war we probably shouldn't have fought.

Okay you know what? You've convinced me.

Let's just run through a quick list since you guys really aren't worth the time of an explanation on how the West has tried to deal with the problem of terrorism, both by stateless groups, intelligence agencies, and state-backed stateless groups, and how the approach to all three and the offending governments in the case of the latter two changed after September 11th.

We'll ignore all pre-Persian Gulf War Iraqi state terrorism, for sake of convenience.

First there was the attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush in Kuwait City in 1993.

All during the 1990s there was funding of the PLFP.

Also all during the 1990s and possibly right up to the war was funding and supplying of guns and materiel to the Jemiaah Islamiyah.

There was the attempt to hire "foreign Arabs" by the IIS to blow up Radio Free Europe in 1998.

There was the Fedayeen Saddam training an unspecified number (in the thousands) of foreign Arabs at Fedayeen Saddam training camps during the 1990s and right up to the invasion itself. After being schooled in paramilitary, guerilla, and terrorist strategy and tactics by Saddam's government, they were sent back to their home countries where God knows what they've been up to.

There was the curious coincidence of two Iraqi WMD scientists being in Khartoum at the same time as the IIS Intelligence Chief for Sudan met with high-level al-Qaeda members, including a reported sit-down between the Chief and Osama bin Laden.

Another curious coincidence was how when we invaded Afghanistan and discovered those al-Qaeda experiments with chemical weapons, the chemicals made were made by a process developed and used solely by... Iraq, during the 1980s.

Yet another curious coincidence would be the case of the man who became a VIP driver at the airport in Kuala Lampur who got his job thanks to the good word of an employee at the Iraqi embassy. This driver worked when the embassy man told him to work, called off when he told him to call off, drove two of the 9/11 hijackers to a hotel for a two-day planning session regarding the attacks (and stayed with them)), worked twice after that, then disappeared. The driver was arrested in Qatar six days after September 11th, and on him was contact information for a number of high-level AQ leaders, including the man who is called "Osama bin Laden's best friend" by Western intelligence agencies. He was, for a reason I don't know, released, and arrested again, in Jordan, in 2002. The Iraqi government (Saddam Hussein's government) specifically demanded that the Jordanian government release him. In what they now acknowledge as a mistake, the CIA told the Jordanians the man was of no importance and they didn't care if he was let go or not. The man then hopped a flight from Amman to Baghdad and hasn't been seen since.

Then there are the numerous mentions of IIS intelligence agents operating in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 liberation and cooperation between them and Taliban / AQ.

And then there was the newest thing I've read from translated captured documents taken from the old Iraqi government, namely that being that Ayman al-Zawahiri traveled to Baghdad in 1999 and talked with quite a few Iraqi officials, the highest being the Iraqi VP. He reportedly left Baghdad with a few hundred thousand dollars more than what he arrived with. Another thing from the documents is that far from being an independent terrorist who had no links with Saddam when he ran from Afghanistan to Iraq, Zarqawi's presence was not only known of in Baghdad but there was contact and cooperation between the two.

These are all easily found right here on the internet, translated by independent translators, plucked from the huge amount of documents the Army has released from the big warehouse in Kuwait where they have all this shit hauled out of the Baathist government's ministry buildings and such.

So please people, don't make me do this again, those are only the highlights. Just please don't be so fucking ignorant, k?

[Nuts]

So instead we'll punish the poor for being poor, only making their situation worse and punishing them yet again.

So taxes are punishment? Does that mean the wealthy are being punished for being successful? What about the middle class, what are they being punished for?

The poor in this country don't pay a dime in taxes. Didn't you know that? Check out your tax return and find where it says "head of household" deduction and "personal deduction." If you income is less than the total of your deductions, guess what? No TAXATION. And don't forget the free money for having kids; them suckers are worth about two thousand dollars a pop. So you can be poor, pay no taxes and still get a refund totalling more than your paid for the year.

If that's punishment, sign me up fer sum of that!

[ScottieIWU]

So taxes are punishment? Does that mean the wealthy are being punished for being successful? What about the middle class, what are they being punished for?Flat taxes are. The fact is that a person earning over $5 mil a year can do to part with 25% of that, wheras a person earning 10k a year has a hard time parting with even 3%.

Flat taxes make it good to be rich and bad to be poor, and decent to be middle-class. I understand the point of your post, being that the rich pay so much, but I think they'll get by without that extra $200,000 yacht.

[ChaosZon]

ChaosZon, all but about two of your points have nothing to do with any decision Bush has made.

...
...
...

Yeah okay obviously you know absolutely nothing about international relations. Please, don't say another word in this thread. Just, please. The supreme executive official of a country has nothing to do with that country's foreign relations?

This is the problem with trying to discuss complex issues that require a teeny bit of knowledge with people who not only know absolutely nothing, they act like they can just wing it because Justin Raimondo or that Cockburn moron or Ron Paul told them that Iraq wasn't connected to terrorism or that George Bush is responsible for any and every bad thing that has happened or to a certain point of view has happened in the past five years. Sorry, no. Facts are facts are facts and all you whiny ignoramuses have is your ignorant, arrogant opinion.

Flat taxes make it good to be rich and bad to be poor, and decent to be middle-class. I understand the point of your post, being that the rich pay so much, but I think they'll get by without that extra $200,000 yacht.

Did you earn their money?

No.

So what right do you have, again, to tell them what to do with it?

It's not yours. You have absolutely no claim to a single cent of it.

So that's right, you have absolutely no right to tell them what to do with it.

This simple fact is lost on most people: money is not collective. It is a medium of exchange that is legally private property, unless you're dealing with the government, who conveniently ignores their own principles to take it from us.

[Nuts]

Flat taxes make it good to be rich and bad to be poor, and decent to be middle-class. I understand the point of your post, being that the rich pay so much, but I think they'll get by without that extra $200,000 yacht.

I don't understand. If you make less money, you pay less taxes. How is this bad?

As for the yacht, why should a wealthy person do without? Did they steal the money? If they did, we should prosecute immediately. Is it not possible that wealthy people actually earned their money? Should we punish them for being successful?

If this is the case, where is the motivation for a poor person to work harder? So they can be punished?

I don't get it.

[ChaosZon]

I don't get it.

Well if Ronald Reagan was around he'd set us straight right quick, but he's dead and I doubt most of these guys have ever read a single thing he wrote or said except maybe the line about the Berlin Wall.

[GenocideAlive]

This discussion has swerved pretty seriously off-topic, but I'd like to point out that it's more important for the many to enjoy their quality of life moderately than it is for the few to enjoy their life to a psychotically ridiculous degree. Let's not forget from whom the rich made their money.

[WeekendLazyness]

...
...
...

Yeah okay obviously you know absolutely nothing about international relations. Please, don't say another word in this thread. Just, please. The supreme executive official of a country has nothing to do with that country's foreign relations?

This is the problem with trying to discuss complex issues that require a teeny bit of knowledge with people who not only know absolutely nothing, they act like they can just wing it because Justin Raimondo or that Cockburn moron or Ron Paul told them that Iraq wasn't connected to terrorism or that George Bush is responsible for any and every bad thing that has happened or to a certain point of view has happened in the past five years. Sorry, no. Facts are facts are facts and all you whiny ignoramuses have is your ignorant, arrogant opinion.
I'll admit that I probably don't know as much about international relations than you claim to. However, it seems to me as if several of the points you made were more a byproduct of the choices of other countries, not our own. You must realize yourself that there are a number of other factors involved, not only Bush himself.

Also, insulting me and saying I lack the knowledge to debate with you just because I disagree is not only rude (and shows you don't realize that a debate is also for learning, not just petty arguing), but is also an example of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

Also, your post about how 9/11 and Iraq are in fact connected is very disjointed and hard to understand. All I got out of it was that some people from al-Qaeda and others from Iraq had met each other in the past. Could you please clarify it for me?

[ScottieIWU]

I don't understand. If you make less money, you pay less taxes. How is this bad?

As for the yacht, why should a wealthy person do without? Did they steal the money? If they did, we should prosecute immediately. Is it not possible that wealthy people actually earned their money? Should we punish them for being successful?

If this is the case, where is the motivation for a poor person to work harder? So they can be punished?

I don't get it.

To a person whose income is $10,000 a 5% tax comes to $500 a year (forgive me for doing the math, I know you can do it, but I wish to explain fully.) Should his taxes be cut to 3%, he gets $200 more a year of Disposable Income. To people making $10,000/yr, $200 may be the difference between a month's rent or eating for a month.

For a person whose income is $100,000, a 25% tax is $25,000. He pays a shitload more, but he still has $75,000. Does the $25,000 make much of a difference? Only if said person insists on living in a multi-million dollar mansion. Otherwise, I'd say that his quality of living isn't at stake because of the high taxes. Should this person get taxes cut by 5% and get $5,000 more DI, do you suppose that goes to necessities that he might not have been able to have had it not been for the tax cut? Probably not, it probably goes to a vacation in the Bahamas or to getting a new Mercedes.

Basically, what GA was saying is the root of this: people making $100,000+ can afford to give up that 25% because all it costs them is the luxury of living in obscene comfort. Those paying 5% on an income of $10,000 barely getting by can increase their quality of living by having that little bit back.

Sure, the rich get shafted but the point is, as I've made so glib, that those who have millions of dollars in the bank can live without a yacht or a BMW.

[Seal]

when did this thread become an IR discussion anyway?
progressive taxes are a good thing btw. rich people don't really need all that money, and they still get more money than the poor.

[GenocideAlive]

Also, insulting me and saying I lack the knowledge to debate with you just because I disagree is not only rude (and shows you don't realize that a debate is also for learning, not just petty arguing), but is also an example of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
Which is also a sparkling example of why myself and at least two other regular members of the IR ignore ChaosZon when he posts.

[ChaosZon]

This discussion has swerved pretty seriously off-topic, but I'd like to point out that it's more important for the many to enjoy their quality of life moderately than it is for the few to enjoy their life to a psychotically ridiculous degree. Let's not forget from whom the rich made their money.

What part of "you had no part in earning it" don't you understand?

Nuts, when did GA turn into a socialist?

I'll admit that I probably don't know as much about international relations than you claim to. However, it seems to me as if several of the points you made were more a byproduct of the choices of other countries, not our own. You must realize yourself that there are a number of other factors involved, not only Bush himself.

I never said otherwise, but international cooperation does not magically appear from one side without actions by the other, ever.

Also, insulting me and saying I lack the knowledge to debate with you just because I disagree is not only rude (and shows you don't realize that a debate is also for learning, not just petty arguing), but is also an example of ad hominem.

Wrong.

Pointing out that you lack knowledge on the subject is not an attack on you, it is an attack on your argument for being based on an incomplete grasp of the facts.

But yes your attitude pissed me off - a blatantly untrue, smug attack on what I consider as the most important rationale for the war - so I worded it rather ungently.

Also, your post about how 9/11 and Iraq are in fact connected is very disjointed and hard to understand. All I got out of it was that some people from al-Qaeda and others from Iraq had met each other in the past. Could you please clarify it for me?

I'm sorry, I didn't know strawmen were acceptable. I don't recall saying anywhere that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

If you didn't understand the part where Iraq was giving money, guns, training and expertise to terrorist groups and jihadis around half the globe, and actively attempting to be the director of attacks as well, then you aren't going to understand it.

...

GA's cheek is still smarting from where I slapped him around on his immature and ignorant ideas about Western government, I see.

If you ignored me, sir, then kindly stop insulting me. Oh, wait, I don't care either way. We already know you're an inferior hypocrite unworthy of shining the shoes of anyone with an actual analytical interest in politics and government, and we already know you're a petty little man too GA.

Oh snap, that was insulting, wasn't it?

[WeekendLazyness]

I'm sorry ChaosZon, but based on your reply (the fact that you pretty much missed my comment that a debate is about learning and not insulting others [be it an implied insult or not]), I'm going to have to go with GA's policy of simply ignoring you. I know this will upset you, but if you aren't going to debate in an intellectual way, there's no reason for me to continue to reply to your posts. Sorry.

[QuothTheRaven]

I am neither nervous nor stupid kong.Anyway bush really did have his binocs closed while he was looking into them.

[kongurous]

I am neither nervous nor stupid kong.Anyway bush really did have his binocs closed while he was looking into them.

I never said you were, however for interpretting it as such, you gain the stupid title. btw... military binoculars use non-glare lenses. Without a closer glance, you don't know if he didn't take off the caps, or its just at an adverse angle. Considering Bush was in the National Guard, I think its the adverse angle.

[QuothTheRaven]

I never said you were, however for interpretting it as such, you gain the stupid title. btw... military binoculars use non-glare lenses. Without a closer glance, you don't know if he didn't take off the caps, or its just at an adverse angle. Considering Bush was in the National Guard, I think its the adverse angle.Y ah, i did take a closer look.It's called zoom.By the way, petty insults are getting you nowhere.

[kongurous]

Y ah, i did take a closer look.It's called zoom.

The sheer idiocy of this is astounding.

By the way, petty insults are getting you nowhere.

It isn't my fault your observational skills are subpar and you are a naive person looking for reasons to say Bush is an idiot.

The man graduated from Yale, he is not stupid. You were bringing up because he was nervous, he was an idiot. Coming to this conclusion not only destroys your credibility, it makes people wonder exactly how smart you are.

Those binoculars did not have a glare for a reason, and that reason is glare-less lenses. The fact I'm in the military should give this statement enough backing, but I am more than happy to dig up the appropriate Snopes article and other links if you so desire.

Its sad when you get owned by me. Honestly... it is.

[Ubergopher]

I am neither nervous nor stupid kong.
No, you are juts some kid (yes kid, child, none of that "young adult" bull) who thinks they know stuff, but is usually just feeding off of what their parents tell them...
Edit 2 ftw...

and this is just 2 pet peeves of mine that is completly unrelated to this topic. When people refer to President Bush as just "Bush" or "King George" or whatever, I find it disrespecful to both the man and the office.
The other one is when people say "He isn't my president" unless you live in another country that is bull shit, you might now have voted for him, but he is YOUR president until someone else is sworn into office.

[GrassDragon]

I am neither nervous nor stupid kong.Anyway bush really did have his binocs closed while he was looking into them.
Give me a break:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

[Nuts]

This discussion has swerved pretty seriously off-topic, but I'd like to point out that it's more important for the many to enjoy their quality of life moderately than it is for the few to enjoy their life to a psychotically ridiculous degree. Let's not forget from whom the rich made their money.

Economics 101

That crazy old rich guy, he's not saving his money under a mattress. No, he's investing and buying things...things that are built by people of median and low income. People that make helicopters and yachts and people that work for companies traded on the NYSE and NASDAQ. Every employee of a publicly traded company owes his or her job to the investors, those crazy white rich folk that carelessly toss their money around as if it were some sort of game. A game of....economics, maybe?

To a person whose income is $10,000 a 5% tax comes to $500 a year (forgive me for doing the math, I know you can do it, but I wish to explain fully.) Should his taxes be cut to 3%, he gets $200 more a year of Disposable Income. To people making $10,000/yr, $200 may be the difference between a month's rent or eating for a month.

Firstly, let's be realistic. A person making $10,000 a year is either lazy, incompetent or a college student. But for argument's sake, let's use your example. A person making $10K yearly is eligible for $8200 in instant deductions, assuming he or she doesn't have any large deductions such as a mortgage or student loans, etc. Considering the least amount of deductions, our person would have a tax liability of $1800, of which he or she would owe $181, or $3.48 per week, the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Now, in our perfect world, perhaps this person has no vices and he or she spends every bit of money on food, shelter and clothing. Is our hypothetical person without assistance from the government? Surely someone making $10,000 a year is eligible for some measure of assistance, right?

Let's see what our person is eligible for:

HUD Homes (http://www.hud.gov/)
Up to 90% of your house is paid for by the government. Sweet deal if you're poor.

Section 502 Program - Guaranteed Rural Housing Program (http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/fl/rhssfh.htm)
Gee, you make a mortgage payment equal to 22-23% of your income. What a deal!

Free Utilities? (http://www.liheap.ncat.org/profiles/Florida.htm)
Up to $150 monthly to cool that brand new government subsidized house?
Wow, where do I apply?

Got Milk? (http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/)
Free food so long as you're working and not making more than 130% of the poverty level and guess what our poverty level is? $9310! Our person is gonna get em some free steak and potatoes tonight!

I gonna git me sum edumcation! (http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/)
Free financial aid to go to school and get a degree so you can make real $$$ and end this vicious cycle permanently!

All this can be yours for the amazingly low price of $181 or 12 easy payments of $3.48!! If you act now we'll throw in a free set of Ginsu knives....but wait, there's more.....

http://www.natoonline.org/operators.jpg

Operators are standing by.

----------------------------------

And another thing; if Bush had not invaded Iraq, his approval ratings would likely be relatively high. There is really no alternative for him since he committed us to this engagement. If we leave Iraq now, he's going to be criticized by the same people who lambaste him daily for remaining there. It's a glorious catch 22 and one that will go down in history as his Achilles heel. Hopefully historians will recognize this for what it is and not what is was painted by certain activist media outlets.

[Yoda]

I agree with Michael Moore's perspective on George Bush (except not as biased). Means 'no'

[Nuts]

I agree with Michael Moore's perspective on George Bush (except not as biased). Means 'no'

Translation: I have no independent thought process.

Seriously, Michael Moore has no position on George Bush other than hate mongering every chance he gets.

[ChaosZon]

You also forget Nutsy that the money he has in the bank is being loaned out by the bank to other people for any number of things, from cars to houses to remodeling their kitchen to starting a new business of their own to whatever.

That's how banks work. You deposit your money and the bank then starts loaning that money out to other people. You can go take out all your money any time you want, but if everyone tried that at once it'd be like that scene in It's A Wonderful Life. No bank has enough hard currency to close everyone's accounts. Most money on this planet now exists only on a computer hard drive somewhere.

So sure, tax the rich more and spend it on the poor through government programs that don't generate as much economic growth (through paychecks to employees and such) as the money staying in the rich guy's bank account.

Same thing with stocks. Investment through the buying of stock strengthens a company, gives it more capital, more confidence to take risks and grow.

And a person living on their own without anyone listing them as a dependent who makes $10,000 a year pays exactly zero in taxes. There is a tax bracket, the lowest one, where the government doesn't take anything. That's why we kiddies at our minimum wage - $15/hr jobs working 25 hours a week still have our income taxes taken out - our parents are listing us as dependents.

[Kingscrab]

I'm not thrilled with Bush's inability to admit he has made an error. This is the big one. I agree. My biggest complaint about Bush is the make of his character and his stubborness. Personally, i simply think he is a liar, and I don't trust him.

Yay! Nuts has returned! The cavalry is here! Conservatives rally to his banner! :_owned: So taxes are punishment? Does that mean the wealthy are being punished for being successful? What about the middle class, what are they being punished for? I think the point is that they are so ridiculously wealthy that they can afford to pay high taxes and still have an outrageously awesome standard of living. Sure they earned it, but at what point do rich people stop whining about getting taxed on their immense wealth? Wealthy people can contribute more for the betterment of society and they should. How do you expect a society to flourish when the majority of resources are being hoarded by a few. The US government needs a shit ton of money to run. Wars cost money. Roads cost money. Are you gonna get it from the guy who doesn't have any money or the guy who has billions? A multi-millionare could lose half of his fortune and still eat like a pig for the rest of his life. The poor in this country don't pay a dime in taxes. Didn't you know that? Check out your tax return and find where it says "head of household" deduction and "personal deduction." If you income is less than the total of your deductions, guess what? No TAXATION. And don't forget the free money for having kids; them suckers are worth about two thousand dollars a pop. They don't pay because they don't have the money. I mean seriously, how much money does it cost per year to raise a kid? 10k? 15? 25K? They are ceratinly not making a profit off or raising a kid. Sure they get a tax break, but I don't think someone making 15K a year is gonna have a kid to get two thousand bucks when they will be spending another 10K a year. It's like getting a coupon in the mail that will save you 10 bucks an a nice shirt, but you still end up spending another 75 bucks on it. Sure you save 10 bucks but you still spent 75 you wouldn't normally have spent. You think someone who has 3 kids (ie: deductions) already is gonna have another one simply so they can pay less taxes when they already pay zero? And another thing; if Bush had not invaded Iraq, his approval ratings would likely be relatively high. If, if, if. If Clinton didn't get that blowjob... Blah blah blah. The fact is, Bush did invade Iraq, so now his approval ratings suck. You reap what you sow.

[Nuts]

Yay! Nuts has returned! The cavalry is here! Conservatives rally to his banner! :_owned:
I couldn't resist the conversation. ;)

I think the point is that they are so ridiculously wealthy that they can afford to pay high taxes and still have an outrageously awesome standard of living. Sure they earned it, but at what point do rich people stop whining about getting taxed on their immense wealth?
I'm not privy to the complaints of millionaires, but that's not really my point. The point is, when the top 1% of wage earners get a 3% tax break, everyone cries foul, even though they pay an astounding one third of the personal tax revenue.

Imagine getting birthday card from your grandma, only to find out that she gave you $18 instead of the usual $20. Are you going to complain to grandma because she kept $2, even though you never earned the $18?

Wealthy people can contribute more for the betterment of society and they should. How do you expect a society to flourish when the majority of resources are being hoarded by a few.
I don't understand that line of thought. I don't know any millionaire (with the exception of a few trust fund children) that horde their money. Most people who have money are investing it to make more money, thus perpetuating the economic machine of this country as I described above.

The US government needs a shit ton of money to run. Wars cost money. Roads cost money. Are you gonna get it from the guy who doesn't have any money or the guy who has billions?
According to the current tax laws, we acquire over 96% of our personal tax revenue from the top 50% of earners. The top 1% of earners pay almost 35% of the total personal tax revenue in this country. I don't know about you, but that seems incredibly fortunate for the bottom 50% of wage earners.

I mean seriously, how much money does it cost per year to raise a kid? 10k? 15? 25K? They are ceratinly not making a profit off or raising a kid. Sure they get a tax break, but I don't think someone making 15K a year is gonna have a kid to get two thousand bucks when they will be spending another 10K a year. It's like getting a coupon in the mail that will save you 10 bucks an a nice shirt, but you still end up spending another 75 bucks on it.
The problem with tax credits for children is multifold. Firstly, you have people that do indeed abuse the system by having children, collecting welfare and tax refunds and then neglecting their children to the point of abuse. I guarantee a welfare mother doesn't pay anywhere near 15K yearly on their children. Instead, the government pays to raise that child, while momma gets a clean $2K every year for our aggravation.

Secondly, when did having a child become a prerequisite? Why do we ask the tax payers to assume the burden for a "choice" made by a low income parent? This is where I get out my personal responsibility stick and start whacking people on the knuckles. It's one thing to have a child, it's quite another when you expect the tax payers to help you pay for it.

If, if, if. If Clinton didn't get that blowjob... Blah blah blah. The fact is, Bush did invade Iraq, so now his approval ratings suck. You reap what you sow.
It was simply an observation, nothing more. Aside from Iraq, Bush has been a pretty good president in my opinion. And I'm not entirely convinced that another president would have made a different choice.

[GenocideAlive]

Economics 101

That crazy old rich guy, he's not saving his money under a mattress. No, he's investing and buying things...things that are built by people of median and low income. People that make helicopters and yachts and people that work for companies traded on the NYSE and NASDAQ. Every employee of a publicly traded company owes his or her job to the investors, those crazy white rich folk that carelessly toss their money around as if it were some sort of game. A game of....economics, maybe?
Is there any chance I could get an on-topic reply?

I don't know how you suddenly came to the conclusion that everybody that has money made their money by buying yachts and helicopters, or that investors exploiting the lower class makes the world go round. I'm not trying to make anybody out to be the devil (which you seem desperate to polarize this discussion), but I think the investors owe as much to the people that work for them as the people that work owe the investors.

[Nuts]

I don't know how you suddenly came to the conclusion that everybody that has money made their money by buying yachts and helicopters, or that investors exploiting the lower class makes the world go round. I'm not trying to make anybody out to be the devil (which you seem desperate to polarize this discussion), but I think the investors owe as much to the people that work for them as the people that work owe the investors.

Indeed, I am polarizing the issue because I've witnessed these same people (or people like them) make these same arguments every time, only to be shot down by common sense and factual data. "The rich got tax breaks, George Bush hates poor people, the rich don't pay taxes...yada yada yada. It gets tiresome having to defend a class of people which I do not belong. I'm one of the middle-of-the-roaders and I doubt I will ever be rich in the classic sense. But I'll be damned if I'm going to condemn someone based on their wealth.

Surprisingly, I agree with your last assessment, investors (i.e. the employers) owe a great deal to their people. My apologies if I misunderstood your earlier quote. It appeared as though you were advocating wealth redistribution, or at least the general concept.

[U-238]

Surprisingly, I agree with your last assessment, investors (i.e. the employers) owe a great deal to their people. My apologies if I misunderstood your earlier quote. It appeared as though you were advocating wealth redistribution, or at least the general concept.

I agree to with that. They do own pleanty to their people.



Bah I can't find that paper. Basicly though it described how tax cuts for the rich trickle down and help everyone. It gave an example of people at a restrant. There were 3 people one was wealthy one was middle class the other was poor. The bill came to $100, The party aggreed that thewealthy man pay $75 of the tab and the middle man pay $15 and the poor man pay $10. However the wealthy man recieved a discount of $15. No this doesn't seem fare but the way it trickles down in the real world is that since the wealthy don't have to pay as much they can take on some of the taxes from the middle class (about $10 in the example) and then the middle class can take on some of the burden from the poor class. ($5 in the example). So everyone wins you see.


Does that help any of you doubters? Or did it just make things more complicated? :P

[ChaosZon]

I don't know how you suddenly came to the conclusion that everybody that has money made their money by buying yachts and helicopters, or that investors exploiting the lower class makes the world go round. I'm not trying to make anybody out to be the devil (which you seem desperate to polarize this discussion), but I think the investors owe as much to the people that work for them as the people that work owe the investors.

Socialism. Does. Not. Work.

You do not owe a single cent to anyone of the money you have earned.

Private property is private. Private property means belonging to a single legal entity which possesses sole authority over that property, not a collective, undefined public entity.

I don't understand why you're even trying to educate him, Nuts. He's beyond help.

Investors buying Wal-Mart stock or making trades for Wal-Mart stock are exploiting the lower class? What about McDonald's? Or "affordable" family restaurants like Denny's? Electronics companies? Car companies? Computer companies? A market exists for low-cost products, but the market for the product in general always exists first for the affluent. Without rich people buying Dell stock and buying expensive Dell computers, you wouldn't have other Dell computers sitting on the shelves for 300 bucks, or even less these days. Without rich people buying GM stock, you wouldn't have brand new cars coming off the assembly line at a price the lower-middle class and lower class could afford.

Why is it that people (GA) who have only a limited understanding of something insist on talking like GA?

Not understanding the basic tenets of economics, namely that a working economy is dependent on a continuous cash flow between consumers and producers and that producers are also consumers, is unfortunately prevalent in today's world.

[Kingscrab]

I couldn't resist the conversation. ;) So now we know how to lure you back to WB when you're on hiatus! Eeeeeeexcellent. :_poke: According to the current tax laws, we acquire over 96% of our personal tax revenue from the top 50% of earners. The top 1% of earners pay almost 35% of the total personal tax revenue in this country. I don't know about you, but that seems incredibly fortunate for the bottom 50% of wage earners. Yeah it is fortunate. Do you know what's more fortunate? Being so rich you don't have to worry about how high your taxes are since you will still be rich after you pay them. I'll switch spots any day of the week for THAT deal. Firstly, you have people that do indeed abuse the system by having children, collecting welfare and tax refunds and then neglecting their children to the point of abuse. I guarantee a welfare mother doesn't pay anywhere near 15K yearly on their children. Instead, the government pays to raise that child, while momma gets a clean $2K every year for our aggravation. I agree that there are certainly shitty people out there that milk the system and don't give a fuck about the kids. I think those people should be punished. Severely. The system is in place to be a safety net and help people get back on their feet during time of need, and I also resent those who abuse it. Just because some people abuse it though, does not mean it should be gotten rid of. I think you might change your tune if you were suddenly thrust into a situation that made the tax break essential for your own financial survival.

Personally, I know people will abuse the system, but I'll take my chances and pay my taxes for now, hoping that if I ever need it, it will be there to help me out as well.

[ChaosZon]

Yeah it is fortunate. Do you know what's more fortunate? Being so rich you don't have to worry about how high your taxes are since you will still be rich after you pay them. I'll switch spots any day of the week for THAT deal.

Do you know how many people actually have the money to live like that?

Not a whole lot. Whenever someone says "the rich" we all think of people worth tens of millions of dollars living on the beach in Southern California or Miami or Cape Cod - that isn't how it is.

Most of those people in the top tax bracket are small and medium-sized business owners, or people in upper management in corporations, things like that, who are one bad performance report or one bad year of business away from being back like "the rest of us" or actually worse off than the rest of us.

[GenocideAlive]

Surprisingly, I agree with your last assessment, investors (i.e. the employers) owe a great deal to their people. My apologies if I misunderstood your earlier quote. It appeared as though you were advocating wealth redistribution, or at least the general concept.

Well, I'm trying pretty hard to avoid exactly what you are describing for obvious reasons. If I ever manage to work my way into an 80,000 a year job (probably not) I wouldn't be too keen on someone having a "right" to my money via taxation and subsequently welfare.

Simultaneously, if I ever get a $250,000 a year job (ha ha) I'd have to consider something very important: that's way more money than I'll ever need for necessities, and obviously some people are contributing to my success that I don't see or interact with on a day-to-day basis. It would be a little arrogant for me to assume that I "deserve" such a ridiculous sum of money and that others have no party to it.

[ChaosZon]

It would be a little arrogant for me to assume that I "deserve" such a ridiculous sum of money and that others have no party to it.

Do whatever you want with your money.

Money that isn't yours is not open to being controlled by your personal opinion.

What kind of education do people like GA get? Nothing past "it's right to share" in kindergarten?

Simultaneously, if I ever get a $250,000 a year job (ha ha) I'd have to consider something very important: that's way more money than I'll ever need for necessities

You don't have the authority to declare what is and what is not a necessity.

Why do people insist on making arguments built on terrible premises so much these days? It's all well and good that you feel that $250K a year is more than enough and no one really needs that much, but since when did your feelings constitute a valid premise for an argument?

As far as I knew, arguments are supposed to be based on something a bit more durable than that.

[hammocksleeper]

Simultaneously, if I ever get a $250,000 a year job (ha ha) I'd have to consider something very important: that's way more money than I'll ever need for necessities, and obviously some people are contributing to my success that I don't see or interact with on a day-to-day basis. It would be a little arrogant for me to assume that I "deserve" such a ridiculous sum of money and that others have no party to it.

People don't give you a quarter-million-dollar job for nothing. Believe me, if there are people contributing to your success you will know it, and acknowledge it, otherwise there's no way you would have ever moved up that high in the money ladder. It's foolish to assume that once you get a job in the top 1% of the country you will have the opportunity to keep that money (and that job!) for yourself, and not contribute to carefully selected charities or maintain your political game.

[GenocideAlive]

People don't give you a quarter-million-dollar job for nothing. Believe me, if there are people contributing to your success you will know it, and acknowledge it, otherwise there's no way you would have ever moved up that high in the money ladder.
Nothing earns trust like ordering someone to "believe" you. Additionally, you don't have a $250,000 a year job, so what exactly qualifies you to speak as a source on the subject? I can agree at least tentatively with the need to contribute to charity, though I seriously doubt you have to be into philanthropy in order to keep a job.

[ChaosZon]

Additionally, you don't have a $250,000 a year job, so what exactly qualifies you to speak as a source on the subject?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

[Dark_Soul74]

I'm sorry, I didn't know strawmen were acceptable. I don't recall saying anywhere that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
This driver worked when the embassy man told him to work, called off when he told him to call off, drove two of the 9/11 hijackers to a hotel for a two-day planning session regarding the attacks (and stayed with themOh, what's this? A fault in logic, or simply an attempt to twist your words around?

You don't have the authority to declare what is and what is not a necessity.If I recall correctly, it's a DEBATE. Declaring that all of his arguments are invalid because he isn't in the power to enact his personal policies is simply retarded.

Also, since you seem to be big on having people prove that they are college-educated and experienced economists before they debate economy, or high-ranking government politicians to debate legislation: Where is your experience? While demanding it from us, you seem to have neglected that you have nothing of your own that validates your own stance. Everyone loves a hypocrite. ;)

Most of those people in the top tax bracket are small and medium-sized business owners, or people in upper management in corporations, things like that, who are one bad performance report or one bad year of business away from being back like "the rest of us" or actually worse off than the rest of us.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupidity

Using Nuts handy statistics and easily linked IRS reports, I've calculated that the top 1% makes about 200k a year on average. I'm sure they could part with 50k/year to fund their government. Additionally, I think pretty much anyone, regardless of current economic status, has the ability to lose their job. However, why would this mean that the richer classes should not be taxed to a greater extent? A man making $10k/year could lose his job just as, if not more, easily, but not only do the people making that $200k/year have more financial stability due to excess disposable income, but they have the ability to gain a new job far more easily than the man making $10k/year.

The supreme executive official of a country has nothing to do with that country's foreign relations?
By the way, your first post clearly states that Bush was directly involved with the various positive standings we have with other nations. If logic is something you have trouble grasping, I'll explain it: You said that Bush was responsible for lots of countries liking us, and he said that he barely did anything to affect that. At that point, you acted as though he said that Bush never ever ever ever did anything ever in terms of diplomacy, and that he was incompetent and poorly educated for believing so.

[Nuts]

A man making $10k/year could lose his job just as, if not more, easily, but not only do the people making that $200k/year have more financial stability due to excess disposable income, but they have the ability to gain a new job far more easily than the man making $10k/year.
I can drive down to Mcdonalds and get a job making $10,000/yr by the end of the evening. Can you say the same about a job making $200,000?

I sincerely doubt it.

[Dark_Soul74]

That statement implies that every McDonald's everywhere is hiring, and is hiring positions that have enough weekly time to pay that much. However, I'm sure if you actually investigated this, rather than relying on your own local McDonald's(which is most likely in a middle class area, assuming you don't purposefully go into crowded poverty centers for your McGriddles.), you would likely find that the areas with higher poverty rates have less available positions, since, logically, a low paying job would be sufficient only for a lower class area where housing is easier to afford.

Edit: Also, I said it would be easier to find a higher paying job, not a sure thing, since experience with a major corporation would look a lot better on an application for something like a supermarket manager than having a good track record at the local shoe store.

[Nuts]

McDonald's is always hiring, be it today, tomorrow or next week. McDonald's has between 90-100% turnover, this means that it's almost a certainty that at any given time, McDonald's is looking to hire new help, be it preemptive or reactive. Can you say this about your average fortune 500 company in the executive ranks?

No.

However, I'm sure if you actually investigated this, rather than relying on your own local McDonald's(which is most likely in a middle class area, assuming you don't purposefully go into crowded poverty centers for your McGriddles.), you would likely find that the areas with higher poverty rates have less available positions, since, logically, a low paying job would be sufficient only for a lower class area where housing is easier to afford.
How many high paying jobs would you imagine are available in impoverished areas of the country? Which leads us to the next question, how is this relevant?

[Dark_Soul74]

It's relevant because you said that you would be able to easily find a job at McDonald's for 10k a year. I stated that you'd be able to find the job more easily because you were most likely in an area that had less demand for that type of job, because the poorer classes of citizen that did work at McDonald's wouldn't be able to afford housing in a better area. I then went on to say that people that were business owners and high-ranking managers would be able to get jobs of a higher quality than a fry-cook more easily that the aforementioned fry-cook, which would mean a much less drastic drop in quality of life if they lost their extremely well paying job. If the McDonald's worker lost his job, then it would be much more difficult to find a job, since they are far more likely to live in an area with large amounts of poverty, and thus large amounts of demand for the low paying jobs such as those at McDonald's.

[Protosschick99]

For what's been getting thrown at him--I'd say he's doing a great job :D
If he was here right now I'd shake his hand, give him a hug, and tell him I'm praying for him :)

[Nuts]

It's relevant because you said that you would be able to easily find a job at McDonald's for 10k a year. I stated that you'd be able to find the job more easily because you were most likely in an area that had less demand for that type of job, because the poorer classes of citizen that did work at McDonald's wouldn't be able to afford housing in a better area.
So high demand influences available employment, right? Do you not think that a high paying job paying $200k+ would not be high in demand?

As for the housing, low income areas are not walled off from the rest of the city. These people have vehicles and are perfectly capable of driving to work in more affluent areas of the city.

If the McDonald's worker lost his job, then it would be much more difficult to find a job, since they are far more likely to live in an area with large amounts of poverty, and thus large amounts of demand for the low paying jobs such as those at McDonald's.
Since when are McDonald's restaurants located only in low income areas of the country?

This thread has gone seriously off-topic, and it's a sad day when I am the one to mention this.

[kongurous]

FYI... to work at McDonalds, you must be in high school, or have graduated high school.

Let's let this thread either die or go back on-topic.

[Dark_Soul74]

Stop twisting my words around, you're not even making sense anymore. I referred to jobs such as McDonald's because they're common, and at no point have I implied that the jobs easily obtained were of that level; in fact I explained it in my last post.

[pronogo]

WOW! every1 who thinks bush the jackass is actually doing a good job is soooooooooooo stupid! It's obvious that Kerry shoulda won the election. (NOTE: Kerry isn't the right person for the job but he's better than bush!!) I VOTE NOOOOOOOOOO

[AresOfOlympus]

So did you come up with that conclusion by yourself or just going with the Media on that one too? And It can't be too obvious as Kerry lost, period. Oh well guess Gore shoulda won too and the tooth fairy should be the secretary of state as well.:cry:

[Ubergopher]

WOW! every1 who thinks bush the jackass is actually doing a good job is soooooooooooo stupid!
Yet we are able to spell words, who is stupid?
Anyway, yes the tooth fairy should be secratary of state. Also, I think the Secretary of Defense should be Santa. Then prehaps we'd get more funding...

It's obvious that Kerry shoulda won the election.
By the electoral vote or the popular vote?

[kongurous]

It's obvious that Kerry shoulda won the election.

Ok... I ask you one question, and one question only. If he was so obvious to win, why did he lose both the popular vote and electoral vote?

[Neo]

Ok... I ask you one question, and one question only. If he was so obvious to win, why did he lose both the popular vote and electoral vote?
Uhm, didn't bush lose the popular vote?

Or am I thinking of the first election? Because if your talking about the second election, then thats pretty worthless. I'm pretty sure bush lost the popular vote did he not?

-Neo

[Dark_Soul74]

I may just be talking from my experience in MMO politics(<3 EVE), but I really do love it when people assume that they know everything when they haven't learned a thing<in reference to some of the past posts; just wanted to vent a bit>. :D

(Recently my alliance ingame fought a war against people who broadly declared they were going to take over our space, and half the members were saying we shot at them for no reason, among other related events. :P)

Edit: BTW, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/ . He won popular vote in '04, but not in 2000.