[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.[/quote]
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon.
[quote]orion wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon. [/quote]
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I don’t see how my concept was hard to understand. The “market” drives prices up for whatever reasons. The current one is the fed causing inflation, and devaluing the dollar. So the heads of major corporations, have to increase thier prices to continue to make the same amount of wealth (i.e. not money, but actual buying power) they had previously. If the government taxes another say for round figures, 1000 from every rich person, and then another 500 from every middle class person. They ten give all the poor people 500 dollars in direct money reimbursements, and they spread the 1000 up amongst the various plans, healthcare for instance. [/quote]
Dude - this is senseless. I asked to to back up these claims you made, and you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. I know you are a smart guy, so this is quite disappointing to say the least.
[quote]Anyways, weather the money they just spent goes straight to the pockets of the CEO and Board of walmart, or it takes 10 transactions for it to get to thier pockets, it has no other place to go. Unless people hold and save the money, it will find it’s way to the wealthiest people, where they can save it and invest it and make it “work” for them. The people who control the money, control the markets, and therefore control where the money goes. By nature it is going to collect where it is not needed. The rich don’t need 10 billion dollars. They may use it on occasion, buying thier 5th mansion, hiring some goons to do thier daily living tasks, like cooking and cleaning. But the vast majority of that money or wealth, is isolated and untouchable, you can’t go get it.
V[/quote]
You have no idea about how an economy works, do you? Using your logic, all wages earned and all profits made should just be handed over to “the rich”.
Think about it. Think real hard, figure out where you went wrong, and then get back to me.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.[/quote]
It was a tongue in cheek reply and was more likely implying your beloved NASA could work for the central economy.
But we all know economics is not subject to observable forces and therefore outside the realm of NASA’s capabilities.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon.
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.[/quote]
NASA is just as fucked up as the rest. The nerds are not the problem though.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon.
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.
NASA is just as fucked up as the rest. The nerds are not the problem though.[/quote]
Hence my beloved nerd at NASA, and not my beloved NASA <_<
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon.
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.
NASA is just as fucked up as the rest. The nerds are not the problem though.
Hence my beloved nerd at NASA, and not my beloved NASA <_<
[/quote]
Nasa needs to be scrapped, and the nerds need to start a company where they can let their nerdiness flourish. We’d have a colony on Mars right now if the nerds weren’t government employees. ALl they have learned there in the last 30 years is how lean on a shovel and waste time.
Thought it would be appropriate
2 words:
Virgin Galactic
Most people seem to agree that Science Fiction has often been a fairly good predictor of things to come.
My feeling is that the most aggressive and far reaching advances in Space Travel and Exploration will only come when there is a profit motive involved.
In other words, WAY before we reach the utopian aims of “Star Trek”, we will have to go through the down and dirty profit driven times of “Alien” and “Bladerunner”.
Mufasa
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
orion wrote:
GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I just don’t understand how people can think more government control is the answer when they can’t even balance their own checkbooks.
Hey, government´s got wicked skills and technology!
Like basic math and calculators!
I know that because they did land on the moon.
Please stop associating my beloved nerds at NASA with the retards currently running capitol hill. Thank you.
NASA is just as fucked up as the rest. The nerds are not the problem though.
Hence my beloved nerd at NASA, and not my beloved NASA <_<
Nasa needs to be scrapped, and the nerds need to start a company where they can let their nerdiness flourish. We’d have a colony on Mars right now if the nerds weren’t government employees. ALl they have learned there in the last 30 years is how lean on a shovel and waste time.
[/quote]
Already happening. Not the NASA scrapping but the private comapny thing.
Crazy dude who owns Virgin started it all. Remember the X-prize? That was a great idea. I say do it again, only with a sustainable moon colony that can stay up their for at least 6 months. Let the government make the incentives.
There will be no profit in space until its easy to get up there, but I doubt NASA’s gonna be the one to do that. Hence, the whole “X prize” concept is the best way to go, IMO.
After the thrashing the current administation has handed the country, to talk of an Income Rredistribution/Economic Plan by either candidate is pure nonsense. Driving the country into massive debt over the first trillion dolars spent in Iraq (it is obviously more important to build schools over there while we close them here)and now watching the Republican administration push Socialism on the country through the BS bailout and another trillion dollars, there will be nothing left. The AIG bailout protected more money overseas than it did here.
China doesn’t need nuclear war to topple the USA, they only have to foreclose on the debt our current adminstration has financed with them. Thanks to Wall Street and our fine boys in DC. The USA is now United Socialist America.
Wait now, RoadWarrior!
Electing Barack is the only way we can be driven into becoming a Socialist State!
Mufasa
[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
UB07 wrote:
53%? WOW, McCain is running a hell of a campaign. too bad he won’t govern worth shit. As has been stated many times, Obama plans a tax cut for about 95% of the population.
Americans “understand”? This presupposes that taxes WILL hurt the economy. The economy is a dynamic system, so with many variables we cannot conclude this necessarily. If the poll was worded this way then it is inherently bias.
This line about most credible economists is the same crap that FOX uses when they say “some people”.
i.e. “some people feel that Obama is a muslim”. That way they have no accountability (or integrity). For every economist you can name that is against Obama’s plan, there is one that is for it, so this is really a moot point.
Hows that trickle down bullshit working out for us? Take a look around. Our fundamentals are not strong. Where is our housing market? Stock market? Banking industry? Plenty of rich people aren’t even paying taxes, so dont just point the finger at the poor bastard that doesnt earn enough to owe the gov’t money.
I don’t understand how people can spout that it’s good to cut taxes for 95% of the people yet raise taxes for 5%.
Why not just go all the way and say lower taxes for 100%.
This is why I can’t stand either candidate personally. They are both reluctant to lower taxes significantly for EVERYONE to make a difference because it will raise the deficit. This is because they are too chicken shit to cut any of the real spending issues (social security and medicare being numbers 1 and 2).
McCain is just afraid of losing his health care and income at such an advanced age. (Note this was a joke)[/quote]
You know what happens to a Republican when they even mention slowing the rate of increase of any entitlement - the dems and willing media pummel them with the old line -
They are cutting your social security and you will be forced to choose between food and medicine. And perhaps that food will be Alpo.
You are villified like some common criminal for wanting to slow the rate of growth.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
UB07 wrote:
53%? WOW, McCain is running a hell of a campaign. too bad he won’t govern worth shit. As has been stated many times, Obama plans a tax cut for about 95% of the population.
Americans “understand”? This presupposes that taxes WILL hurt the economy. The economy is a dynamic system, so with many variables we cannot conclude this necessarily. If the poll was worded this way then it is inherently bias.
This line about most credible economists is the same crap that FOX uses when they say “some people”.
i.e. “some people feel that Obama is a muslim”. That way they have no accountability (or integrity). For every economist you can name that is against Obama’s plan, there is one that is for it, so this is really a moot point.
Hows that trickle down bullshit working out for us? Take a look around. Our fundamentals are not strong. Where is our housing market? Stock market? Banking industry? Plenty of rich people aren’t even paying taxes, so dont just point the finger at the poor bastard that doesnt earn enough to owe the gov’t money.
I don’t understand how people can spout that it’s good to cut taxes for 95% of the people yet raise taxes for 5%.
Why not just go all the way and say lower taxes for 100%.
This is why I can’t stand either candidate personally. They are both reluctant to lower taxes significantly for EVERYONE to make a difference because it will raise the deficit. This is because they are too chicken shit to cut any of the real spending issues (social security and medicare being numbers 1 and 2).
McCain is just afraid of losing his health care and income at such an advanced age. (Note this was a joke)
You know what happens to a Republican when they even mention slowing the rate of increase of any entitlement - the dems and willing media pummel them with the old line -
They are cutting your social security and you will be forced to choose between food and medicine. And perhaps that food will be Alpo.
You are villified like some common criminal for wanting to slow the rate of growth.
[/quote]
WAH! WAH! WAH! It’s liberal media’s fault the GOP sucks now. They’re trying but the dems wont let them!
Get real, the GOP is doing exactly what it wants to do. No one is forcing them to become “Democrat Lites”
Why did the GOP marginalize Paul? Because they were afraid of the dems and the liberal media? I think not.
Look at the crap Giulliani and Fox news was spitting at Paul because he went out of the new bigger government philosophy the GOP has adopted.
The GOP has strayed far from their old ideals. It’s horse shit on both sides of the fence.
[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
UB07 wrote:
53%? WOW, McCain is running a hell of a campaign. too bad he won’t govern worth shit. As has been stated many times, Obama plans a tax cut for about 95% of the population.
Americans “understand”? This presupposes that taxes WILL hurt the economy. The economy is a dynamic system, so with many variables we cannot conclude this necessarily. If the poll was worded this way then it is inherently bias.
This line about most credible economists is the same crap that FOX uses when they say “some people”.
i.e. “some people feel that Obama is a muslim”. That way they have no accountability (or integrity). For every economist you can name that is against Obama’s plan, there is one that is for it, so this is really a moot point.
Hows that trickle down bullshit working out for us? Take a look around. Our fundamentals are not strong. Where is our housing market? Stock market? Banking industry? Plenty of rich people aren’t even paying taxes, so dont just point the finger at the poor bastard that doesnt earn enough to owe the gov’t money.
I don’t understand how people can spout that it’s good to cut taxes for 95% of the people yet raise taxes for 5%.
Why not just go all the way and say lower taxes for 100%.
This is why I can’t stand either candidate personally. They are both reluctant to lower taxes significantly for EVERYONE to make a difference because it will raise the deficit. This is because they are too chicken shit to cut any of the real spending issues (social security and medicare being numbers 1 and 2).
McCain is just afraid of losing his health care and income at such an advanced age. (Note this was a joke)
You know what happens to a Republican when they even mention slowing the rate of increase of any entitlement - the dems and willing media pummel them with the old line -
They are cutting your social security and you will be forced to choose between food and medicine. And perhaps that food will be Alpo.
You are villified like some common criminal for wanting to slow the rate of growth.
WAH! WAH! WAH! It’s liberal media’s fault the GOP sucks now. They’re trying but the dems wont let them!
Get real, the GOP is doing exactly what it wants to do. No one is forcing them to become “Democrat Lites”
Why did the GOP marginalize Paul? Because they were afraid of the dems and the liberal media? I think not.
Look at the crap Giulliani and Fox news was spitting at Paul because he went out of the new bigger government philosophy the GOP has adopted.
The GOP has strayed far from their old ideals. It’s horse shit on both sides of the fence.[/quote]
No, that is not what I am saying. I don’t disagree that the Republicans have become in some respect Democrat Lites.
However, there have been more republicans willing to limit the growth of entitlements. But they get shot down and villified as cutting the benefits of the elderly. That is a fact. They convince the elderly that the evil republicans want to cut their checks. Just look at the reaction of partial privatization of social security.
As if the money I earn is theirs.
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
After the thrashing the current administation has handed the country, to talk of an Income Rredistribution/Economic Plan by either candidate is pure nonsense. Driving the country into massive debt over the first trillion dolars spent in Iraq (it is obviously more important to build schools over there while we close them here)and now watching the Republican administration push Socialism on the country through the BS bailout and another trillion dollars, there will be nothing left. The AIG bailout protected more money overseas than it did here.
China doesn’t need nuclear war to topple the USA, they only have to foreclose on the debt our current adminstration has financed with them. Thanks to Wall Street and our fine boys in DC. The USA is now United Socialist America.[/quote]
Please elaborate on the “thrashing”. Maybe do it with some facts instead of dem talking points.
You sound like Pelosi.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I don’t see how my concept was hard to understand. The “market” drives prices up for whatever reasons. The current one is the fed causing inflation, and devaluing the dollar. So the heads of major corporations, have to increase thier prices to continue to make the same amount of wealth (i.e. not money, but actual buying power) they had previously. If the government taxes another say for round figures, 1000 from every rich person, and then another 500 from every middle class person. They ten give all the poor people 500 dollars in direct money reimbursements, and they spread the 1000 up amongst the various plans, healthcare for instance.
Dude - this is senseless. I asked to to back up these claims you made, and you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. I know you are a smart guy, so this is quite disappointing to say the least.
Anyways, weather the money they just spent goes straight to the pockets of the CEO and Board of walmart, or it takes 10 transactions for it to get to thier pockets, it has no other place to go. Unless people hold and save the money, it will find it’s way to the wealthiest people, where they can save it and invest it and make it “work” for them. The people who control the money, control the markets, and therefore control where the money goes. By nature it is going to collect where it is not needed. The rich don’t need 10 billion dollars. They may use it on occasion, buying thier 5th mansion, hiring some goons to do thier daily living tasks, like cooking and cleaning. But the vast majority of that money or wealth, is isolated and untouchable, you can’t go get it.
V
You have no idea about how an economy works, do you? Using your logic, all wages earned and all profits made should just be handed over to “the rich”.
Think about it. Think real hard, figure out where you went wrong, and then get back to me.
[/quote]
Look, People write thousand page books to explain the inner workings of the economy, and most of those books only get some things right. Forgive me for trying to back up a very complex system with a simple idea and a simple example. Of course I used generalities, do you really want me to write a college thesis like post about the economy?
The fact remains, you have money and you have wealth. Money you use to buy things, everyone has money in varying amounts. Wealth is what you get when you have more money than you owe to other people. A LOT of people never have wealth. Wealth generally stays in one place, the very top of the food chain. I also don’t even like to think of retirement funds as wealth, that is simply money for when you aren’t making it anymore, it’s not like it’s disposable income that you can literally do anything with. It’s locked up, or should be, untill you have to siphon it out when you retire.
No matter how much MONEY you give to poor people, you will never give them wealth. wealth always will stay at the top. You could create wealth in america for the majority of the people, by stopping the devaluation of the dollar. If My dollar could buy the same as it did 15 years ago, I could buy a lot more, because I make more money now. I could also save money, I could afford a bigger house, and a nicer car, and I could pay for them without going into debt. That is wealth, the ability to buy things without going into debt, that are not basic necessities. I will also call a POS car a necessity these days, unless you live in a city.
V
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
However, there have been more republicans willing to limit the growth of entitlements. But they get shot down and villified as cutting the benefits of the elderly. That is a fact. They convince the elderly that the evil republicans want to cut their checks. Just look at the reaction of partial privatization of social security.
As if the money I earn is theirs.
[/quote]
Hell yeah, fuck old people, it’s not like they paid into the system or anything. And obviously privatization of SS is a great idea with no drawbacks whatsoever, it’s not like the current crisis might…nevermind.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Wait now, RoadWarrior!
Electing Barack is the only way we can be driven into becoming a Socialist State!
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL