Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And Mr X is right you come off as a whiner. > Mr. X called skinnerbox a whiner? Where? I do see this, however: (Mr. X): "HUGE appreciation to Skinner as well for his excellent dissection of the right wing mindset in post 146. You should be a surgeon, dude!" That was a dissection of your post, I'm afraid. And more recently, he directed this straight to you: "CG, while my post about "everybody has money worries" was sincere and I believe it to be true, if you continue down this "woe is us!" path regarding your parents and their quarter of a million bucks a year income, the regulars in WE will continue to tear you a new one as they already have here, and RIGHTLY SO." So while he also patted you on the back for some other things you posted... methinks you might want to focus a tad more on reading comprehension in your classes.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Alright well I might as well go off with a bang since I can't stand this liberal ish. And Dabob2 your right I read it wrong but I didn't know what CG meant because I suck at understanding word shortening. However I think my minor in business writing speaks for itself as far as my reading comprehension. No more dancing around the subject I'm just gonna tell it like it is. BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA AND ITS MY OPINION! The SF suicide net is a waste of tax payer money and would be better spent on programs helping on suicide prevention and mental illness. And if you are worried about paying for someone's medical bills who unsuccessfully jumps from the bridge then obviously you don't want to give your tax money to people who need it! At least in that scenerio. And yes maybe all the rich people won't leave but have you ever heard of off shore bank accounts? The Swedish banks? Their PURPOSE is to help their clients avoid taxes. So if they are already in use now why would't they be used more if taxes increased. Think guys think.....you complain about how the rich complain about having to give up their money and yet you don't realize how well the "woe is me argument" fits your class so well! Saying that people in the $250000 tax bracket should pay enough taxes to cover the poor and the mega rich(who both won't pay anything) is insane because your basically wanting to eliminate any free income that we have. Why not just jump right to communism? If it bums you out that someone has more then you and you think everything should be even then that's exactly communism. Tell me how that goes by the way. What you don't realize is the people who make $250000 a year are mostly made up of people who just broke into that bracket. They don't immediantly go out on a spending spree they are actually very prudent. They put their money away in savings because they know how hard it was to get to that point. So yes you are "punishing" those who are trying to stay at that level. Never make a generalization until you walk a mile in someone's shoes. I try to be fair but its hard when people on the boards aren't. But I will concede that there were some polite posters. My first posts were calm and merely a statement of my opinion which I tried to back up with evidence so that as a first poster I wouldn't be seen as a troller but someone who actually wanted to contribute to a discussion. And yet apparently that type of discussion is not fostered here. So this is my breaking point post and I'm tired of trying to please some posters. I never say that my opinion is law but apparently some people think when they say no to soemthing it is law. I wouldn't worry so much about terrorism. I think if american's continue to speak to americans in this way we will all end up killing each other. Instead of respecting my opinion as I did for other posters some have said it is just wrong. Any other posts of mine were used to solidfy my point or try to understand yours. If you want someone to think about and consider your postion in earnest you shouldn't attack them for their views. That's why my generation is having trouble moving from a moderate position in either direction. We are attacked from either side if we don't immediantly agree. Wise up and follow the golden rule as I have tried to with these postes but I suppose I failed because this is my little rant post. I think I need to respect the note on this board about emotions running high. If no one will respect my opinion merely because I'm a moderate member of the GOP party then there is really no use for me walking up to this threads firing range everyday. It was engaging and fun in the beginning though! So long! I think I'll stick to the cutsy Disney threads.
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 Woops forgot my concluding sentence! We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And yes maybe all the rich people won't leave but have you ever heard of off shore bank accounts? The Swedish banks? > Sweden has banks. But I think you're grasping for SWISS banks. Heard of them? <you complain about how the rich complain about having to give up their money and yet you don't realize how well the "woe is me argument" fits your class so well!> What "class" is that? And who here besides you has gone all "woe is me" on us? I'm decidedly not as wealthy as your family, but I realize that even the middle-middle class is going to have to pay more taxes pretty soon, because the rates as they are now are bankrupting us. I got along okay in the 90's, and so did wealthier Americans. <Why not just jump right to communism?> The way you made that leap of logic? <If it bums you out that someone has more then you and you think everything should be even then that's exactly communism. > Once again, you are arguing against things that no one here proposed. NO ONE here said "everything should be even," only that people making over 250K a year should pay what they did in the 90's, which was not onerous. I went a step further and said that everyone will ultimately have to go back to the 90's rates. <So yes you are "punishing" those who are trying to stay at that level. Never make a generalization until you walk a mile in someone's shoes. > I'm going to take a quick guess here that you've never had to worry about HAVING shoes. And it is NOT "punishing" people to ask them to pay what (in the 90's) they already demonstrated they could afford. The middle class AND upper middle class did rather better in the 90's than more recently. And the country did decidedly better. <And yet apparently that type of discussion is not fostered here.> Sure it is. But you do have to grow a somewhat thicker skin. <So this is my breaking point post and I'm tired of trying to please some posters. I never say that my opinion is law but apparently some people think when they say no to soemthing it is law. > Both you and the more vociferous people disagreeing with you have stated and restated your points. That's not saying something is "law." You shouldn't get so upset when someone disagrees with a point, even when you make it 2 or 3 times. They can still disagree just as many times! And from what I can see, those disagreeing are doing a bit better job at backing up their arguments with examples and data from outside their own families, whereas yours is rather narrowly focused there. Look, I get that you're a college student, and to be frank, that's how you're coming off. Earnest, interested in debate, but a little less immersed in the "real world" than some of us old farts, a little too prone to extrapolate your own situation to the world at large, and a little too sure of your own position and uncomfortable when others disagree (and ironically, accusing others of exactly that).
Originally Posted By fkurucz "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Someone has to pay for that military and corporate welfare you right wingers seem to love so much. You don't want to pay taxes yet you want the benefit of living in a 1st world nation. I have news for you. We can't continue to borrow almost 2 trillion a year to pay for it. And even if we abolished foodstamps, section 8 housing and other antipoverty programs there would still be a trillion plus deficit. And allow to remind you that if you are so eager to abolish all those antipoverty programs be prepared to live in a failed state where the rule of law no longer applies. Yes, offshoring made the rich even richer. but there is a price to pay when you end up with a situation where there are 6 applicants for every open job and where the median wage is under $500 a week. 30 years of misguided policies have brought to this situation We were told that trade and budget deficits didn't matter and that offshoring didn't matter. And we were told that if we cut the taxes on the wealthy it would be all good. What we got instead was a lost decade which was propelled by one of the biggest bubbles in history, a bubble that has popped and won't be coming back. We have a nation where half the populace lives in either in or just above poverty.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Look, I get that you're a college student, and to be frank, that's how you're coming off. Earnest, interested in debate, but a little less immersed in the "real world" than some of us old farts, a little too prone to extrapolate your own situation to the world at large, and a little too sure of your own position and uncomfortable when others disagree (and ironically, accusing others of exactly that)." We have this saying in my line of work that goes something like "high school, college, law school, here I am I know everything!" These types of people, generally young overachievers not used to even getting a B or C on a test, come into our arena and have their heads handed to them until they wake up and realize life isn't always what it seems to be in school. It helps to have a bit of real life experience, and that doesn't mean working at a food bank or handing out pumpkin pie at the homeless shelter during the holidays. It means having your nose bloodied a few times, getting knocked down and not getting up right away, and losing several times in a row. Once that happens enough, then maybe they start to actually do some listening and then some lawyering. Also, the only time you use the word never is when you say "never say you've seen it all."
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 ^^ I went back to school to get my business degree and I am doing it mostly online. Without seeing the people in the class, it is still very easy in most cases to tell the people who just graduated from high school from those of us who are older and have "real world" experience. The very young ones are very passionate, but don't really see some of the nuances...it is all or nothing. Something is either right or wrong, and they don't seem to get that once you get out of school and are no longer being taken care of by Mom and Dad, and are expected to make real life decisions instead of discussing something in class, there are very very few black and white scenarios.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Dabob, fkurucz, SPP, and Jenn have basically said all that needs to be said to you, missy. There's very little for me to add. You're ranting like a know-it-all teen who does need her nose bloodied up a few times, as SPP put it. As for the "never make a generalization until you walk a mile in someone's shoes" crack... what makes you so certain that I cannot relate to what your father has gone through professionally to achieve his financial success? You know nothing about me. And you obviously weren't savvy enough to pick up on my "I live in downtown SF" comment to realize that I didn't mean the Tenderloin. You have no idea who I am, or what I believe in fully. For example, I never said suicide prevention services, and mental health services in general are not needed. Of course they are. Nobody said they weren't. But you immediately jumped to that conclusion because I was in favor of the anti-suicide net. (Which, btw, is not a waste of money, given how attractive the GG Bridge has been for decades by those in severe emotional pain and also those "hey watch this!" Darwin Award winners who take stupid dares to heart.) Everything is black-and-white, all-or-nothing to you, which is not the way the world works. Shades of grey permeate the landscape everywhere, in everything. And the sooner you learn this, the easier life becomes. Personally, you come off like a spoiled brat who's been taken care of by rich daddy and hasn't clue one about how the real world actually operates. And given the blinders you've placed on your mind's eye, I'm guessing it will be a long time before you finally get it.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill< Just fyi you're using that quote wrong
Originally Posted By Mr X ***However I think my minor in business writing speaks for itself as far as my reading comprehension*** Actually no CG (yeah, short for CalGrl...your name), what speaks for itself is your many comprehension errors here in a short period of time. I hope that minor in business writing does you some good, you need it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And yes maybe all the rich people won't leave but have you ever heard of off shore bank accounts? The Swedish banks? Their PURPOSE is to help their clients avoid taxes. So if they are already in use now why would't they be used more if taxes increased*** You do realize that doing so is a crime, right? I hope even more filthy rich people use them, so the IRS can catch them and throw them in jail.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >You do realize that doing so is a crime, right?< She must! Remember business minor!
Originally Posted By fkurucz I did a quick calculation that puts the concentration of the wealth into the hands of the few into perspective: I started with the 50,000,000 lowest paid American workers, who earn less than $500 a week, to simplify things I'll assume they all make $500 a week, even though most make less than that amount. Their combined annual income is ... drumroll... $1.248 trillion dollars. Now its more than obvious that the wealthy want to balance the budget on the backs of the working poor. But even if the working poor had their entire collective income seized. it wouldn't be enough to cover the budget deficit. The rich whooped it up as offshoring fattened their bottom lines, but it also eroded the tax base as millions who lost their middle class jobs wound up becoming the new working poor. Something is going to have to give. We can't keep borrowing nearly 2 trillion a year. Our creditors are beginning to grumble, as they are seeing the handwriting on the wall: they aren't going to be paid back. What will most likely happen is that the Federal Reserve will wind up financing the entire deficit by creating 2 trillion out of thin air each year. They are already financing part of the deficit as it is (via Quantitative Easing) and we are already seeing the consequences: the dollar is sinking fast and non trivial inflation is showing up in our shopping carts. The ensuing hyper inflation won't hurt the super rich who will shield themselves by investing in assets that will rise will inflastion, but it will hurt the 250K per year crowd, who will see their small businesses hurt by lack of customer buying power. Also, high inflation means high credit card interest rates, which will mean even less consumer spending. And as I have said elsewhere, there is no way to eliminate the deficit by cuts alone. We would have to eliminate all antipoverty programs, the military and social security (while keeping the payroll tax in place). It ain't gonna happen by our own free will.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Someone has to pay for that military and corporate welfare you right wingers seem to love so much.>> After this weekend I have no problem paying for the military welfare.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>After this weekend I have no problem paying for the military welfare.<< So how many half billion dollar fighter jets did that require?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 For this mission, none. But so what they're going to be used again and I'm fine with that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You shouldn't be. The world has changed, but the Pentagon tends to change glacially. And sometimes even when they WANT to change they can't - there have been a couple of weapons systems that Gates has said flat out are unnecessary and cold war relics, but are still going forward because they're made in key congressional districts. And the thing is, defense contractors have very craftily split up production of any given system into MANY districts, ensuring that they're difficult to cancel. Something like 90-95% of the 435 congressional districts (and obviously, all 50 states, i.e. Senatorial "districts") have defense manufacturing (one of the only things we manufacture any more), and that's not an accident. Trouble is, we can't afford it, and any number of these systems could easily be discontinued with no loss of national security. We're spending TWICE as much on defense as we did 10 years ago, and we spent plenty then. This is nuts. To say "This operation went well; therefore we should continue military spending levels as they are" is a non-sequitur. And it's nuts.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well said, Dabob. DD, you get that, right? And of course, beyond the excellent breakdown Dabob has offered here (which should be published, frankly, because it is so on the money), there is no doubt as to the necessity for NECESSARY defense spending. Nobody is calling for the dismantling of the military or anything of the sort (if anything, I'd be VERY happy if they somehow eliminated the relics, and took SOME of that money to form a significant pay increase across the board for all of our soldiers and operatives who really ARE the backbone of American safety rather than the billion dollar toys that never get used).
