[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nice post Randman.
My ADD prohibits me from sitting still long enough to reply to drivel of that length.[/quote]
Your ADD must make you to stupid to read and comprehend then, too. I thought that was YOU talking, I had to go back up and see who wrote it.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice post Randman.
My ADD prohibits me from sitting still long enough to reply to drivel of that length.[/quote]
Your ADD must make you too stupid to read and comprehend then, too. I thought that was YOU talking, I had to go back up and see who wrote it. Except I guess it was missing all of the usual Rainman hate and venom, in hindsight that should have been a tipoff.
Dcrosswell,
You bring up the laffer curve however not all things can be evaluated by their extremes.
You mention that revenues have increased this year. On paper that sounds good, however you have to realize that we have been steadily rising out of a recession. From the drop in 2001 every year has essentially been an increase. Also, inflation has been steadily increasing also increasing the relative strength of the revenue numbers.
It is also argued by economists that increase in spending by most business (which is what in essense fuels supply-side economics) is directly related to the interest rates as dictated by the federal reserve, not because of personal tax cuts. Keep in mind that over the last few years the country has been enjoying the lowest federal interst rates in ages.
Also, i looked on the OMB website, (the budgetting department of the govt) and the projected 2005 deficit is 333 billion, which is the highest single year defecit ever. When you look at only the tax cuts that Bush put into effect since he has been in office they account for $267 billion in 2005 alone.
Essentially what is happening is that that the U.S. has fake wealth. Basically like when you give someone a credit card and they go crazy with it. They spend alot and because of what they have it seems like they are rich, but in actuality they have gotten themselves into a financial disaster.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Well let’s think about it. If you’re above the middle class, you are earning enough money to live quite comfortably. This is true even in the middle class. Lower middle class to Lower class experiences much less breathing room. They need the extra money more than the billionaires do. And I do believe that it all the layoffs and corporate restructuring that has happened, the guys at the top do not take a hit to their paychecks. How is that fair?[/quote]
If someone works very hard and rises to the level of President of the company is he not entitled to more than the assembly line worker? Would it be “fair” if it was any other way?
And that is exactly what the Bush tax cuts did! It gave back proportionate to what one makes.
If someone made 100-K per year should he get less back than the guy who makes 40-K per year? Of course not, he should get more back and he did!
[quote]mark57 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice post Randman.
My ADD prohibits me from sitting still long enough to reply to drivel of that length.
Your ADD must make you to stupid to read and comprehend then, too. I thought that was YOU talking, I had to go back up and see who wrote it.
[/quote]
It must have been really important for you to post this twice, but for the life of me I have no idea what your inabilty to identify posters has to do with my comprehension skills.
Would you care to explain? Or would you rather just call me stupid?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mark57 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice post Randman.
My ADD prohibits me from sitting still long enough to reply to drivel of that length.
Your ADD must make you to stupid to read and comprehend then, too. I thought that was YOU talking, I had to go back up and see who wrote it.
It must have been really important for you to post this twice, but for the life of me I have no idea what your inabilty to identify posters has to do with my comprehension skills.
Would you care to explain? Or would you rather just call me stupid?
[/quote]
No, I tried to edit my original post and the update went up as a new post instead. And you’re still stupid.
[quote]randman wrote:
The struggle for more wealth than one needs is NOT the root of all evil. Putting money above everything and everyone else in your life (including your GOD) IS the root of all evil
[/quote]
I’m an atheist. God has nothing to do with my beleifs rather it is the observation of the obsurd behavior of men that has led me to my beliefs.
And yes it is inherently evil to want more than you need becuase if you don’t need it then why do you want it? There is a point where a person becomes so rich that making one million more dollars/yr is essentially the same thing as you or I making one dollar more/yr. These are people who make on the four and five sig figs more than the average person. I guess the best thing about the “American Dream” is that it will only be a dream for the majority of idividuals.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
60% was an example figure–my attempt to use exaggeration to make a point.
[/quote]
The wealthy pay close to that precent.
You should read cash flow quadrant.
I have to ask what makes them evil? Are all corporations evil? Are you the one that defines what makes them evil? They seem to be a neccessary evil otherwise most people I know would be with out jobs. Maybe you should boycott all companies that advertise. I am sure you will have fun supplying your own groceries, gas, and common neccesities.
Ok, Andrew Carnagie would work too. There are plenty of people out there who give millions too the needy.
Those 20% pay for 80% percent of of the taxes! The problem with taxes is your are forced to give up something you earned. Most of the wealthy population was not born into wealth they earned it. They have the same advantages that everyone else did. They lived in the US. if they choose to not make something of themselves then they should not complain saying “well the rich should pay more because I have less”. If you can’t make something of yourself in this country it is because you chose to. If people would just be responsible for their own actions we wouldn’t be wanting the governement to sock it to the rich. Reform starts at home.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
No, I tried to edit my original post and the update went up as a new post instead. And you’re still stupid.
[/quote]
Really. Stupid, huh? And you know this how? You know me how?
I’m sure you can do better than “stupid”, kiddo. In fact, you’re going to have to. You see - I don’t even know who you are, nor do I really care, either.
So if you want to stand out and really make a mark, “stupid” is really not the way to go. Especially when you call me stupid for saying something that wasn’t even me talking. It kinda makes you look like the “stupid” one.
[quote]haney wrote:
Those 20% pay for 80% percent of of the taxes! The problem with taxes is your are forced to give up something you earned. Most of the wealthy population was not born into wealth they earned it. They have the same advantages that everyone else did. They lived in the US. if they choose to not make something of themselves then they should not complain saying “well the rich should pay more because I have less”. If you can’t make something of yourself in this country it is because you chose to. If people would just be responsible for their own actions we wouldn’t be wanting the governement to sock it to the rich. Reform starts at home.
[/quote]
Actually mathematically it can be shown they pay more. If you make 80% more than me you by virtue of the fact also pay 80% more than me in taxes; this assumes a flat tax rate.
So what does this have to do the fact that the rich owe someting to the people who make them rich? I will say once so people don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe all business are evil. I don’t believe all people are evil. I do believe there is a point where people forget what is right and good and become overzealous concerning their own success. As we use to jest about the non team players in the corps, "semper I, fuck the other guy. This is the attitude I have seen. It cannot be exscaped.
Everywhere one looks he or she is plagued by commericalism and and consumerism. These two things are not intended to be bad but when the people who run them only think about profit margins and how to save productivity and at the same time lay-off 5000 workers it has the tendency to swing on the side of “evil”–intended or not. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Not that I beleive in hell but the point is valid nontheless.
I wasn’t going to post anymore on this subject. I really wasn’t. But the more you post, the more ridiculous your logic and reasoning sounds.
First, things first. This absolutely doesn’t surprise me. I could have figured by the sheer bitterness in your posts that you didn’t believe in a higher power. But I’ll leave this out of the discussion because I’m much more interested in what you say next.
First, it’s hard to take someone seriously that continues to post with spelling mistakes. Poking holes in your logic is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.
This last paragraph is the area I would love for you to expand upon because you seem to be digging yourself a big logic hole here. So you are saying that it is inherently evil to want more than you need. So are you saying that everyone is evil then? Don’t you want more than you need? I know I do. Am I evil for wanting this? Or do you become evil for wanting more when you make a certain income? So who is evil? Those who make over a six figure salary?
What is the income level that one becomes evil for wanting more? Or is it all relative to you? Is everyone that makes more money than you evil? Or those who make 10 times as much as you evil? Please be very specific with who is evil in your mind. And I mean specific. What do they need to make before they are categorized evil in your mind? This should be an enlightening response.
[quote]randman wrote:
First, it’s hard to take someone seriously that continues to post with spelling mistakes. Poking holes in your logic is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.
[/quote]
I’ll try not to make so many ‘typos’ in the future; as for my logic, you poking holes in it still remain to be seen.
I will say this once more…I believe it is the struggle that makes it evil. Do you pay attention to the actions that people go through in their pursuit for wealth at all…or do you live on another planet? Obviously it is not everyone involved in capitalism…but I was hoping you were one to understand where I was coming from.
I know you have a pidly engineering degree so I’ll try to be more concise and break it down by the “specs” that I know you guys need to understand anything. Just by the fact that you try and ascribe a value to what makes a person evil shows that you lack any understanding of human nature. The money is irrelevant to these people; its the pursuit of it that entices them.
Merely by the fact that I have more than I need does not make me evil, however, wanting more can lead to evil acts in those pursuits. To paraphrase Luke 12:22-34, leading a life of pursuing riches will lead you astray from virtue. And therefore I believe the pursuit of wealth merely for the sake of having it is nonsensical.
And if you need to read it just to feel better, no making more money than someone does not make one evil; it is how they obtained it and what they use it for that makes it evil. You will never make enough to be considered evil in my book so quit worrying about it.
I hope this meets your specifications for spelling errors.
The struggle for more wealth is evil. Interesting concept. Very few people that I know of ever attained wealth without a struggle. Therefore, with your logic, everyone who is wealthy is in fact evil. So, I struggled to obtain my lot in life. Does this make me evil? How much “wealth” do I need to attain until my further struggle for wealth is considered evil? Again, just basing conclusions based on your logic. And then if you’re born into wealth your not evil since you didn’t have to struggle for it?
I pay pretty close attention to people that are in the pursuit of wealth. I know some personally, have read many autobiographies of successful wealthy people, and I also pay attention to the people who are not wealthy and the types of thoughts and behaviors they are governed by. To be honest, I would much rather model the people who are in the pursuit of wealth than poor people who have lots of excuses why their poor and why they believe the rich are “evil”.
And by the way, the last time I checked I’m still a resident of the planet earth. However, some of the people I converse with on the Internet I’m not so sure.
Actually, you have confirmed my point I was making in my previous post. According to you, the struggle for wealth makes you evil. Since a majority of the people who ever attained wealth struggled to get it, they are all evil. We still haven’t defined what wealth means in your interestingly creative brain of yours.
I appreciate you trying to break it down for me. Even the masters of science degree can get in the way of understanding the truly enlightened of the world sometimes. And by the way, it’s piddly (2 d’s), not pidly.
I know I have very little understanding with how anything in the world works my all-knowing one, but I’m just taking the logic that you’re bestowing upon us in this thread and drawing conclusions from it. The pursuit of wealth entices evil behavior? OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, in certain cases the pursuit of wealth can lead to evil. And your point is what? Based on your first line in this post your giving us a blanket statement that the pursuit of wealth automatically leads to evil in all cases. Or do you mean some cases? Most cases? “People who are wealthier than you” cases?
OK, so wanting more CAN lead to evil acts. Fine. Agreed. But they way you’ve been posting on this thread it seems like you have a chip on your shoulder for anyone who is “wealthy”. And basically my message to you is “get over it”. If you don’t like it, become wealthy yourself. Every thing in your life is governed by choices. You have the power to choose. The government, military, or any other outside entity isn’t going to make you wealthy. You yourself will make you wealthy by the power of choice. No one owes you anything. No one owes me anything. But being bitter about other’s accomplishments in life comes across as petty and small-minded.
Well, how much do I have to make for you to consider me “evil”? Because I’d really like to try and become a part of that elite category 
Yes, much better.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
haney wrote:
Actually mathematically it can be shown they pay more. If you make 80% more than me you by virtue of the fact also pay 80% more than me in taxes; this assumes a flat tax rate.
So what does this have to do the fact that the rich owe someting to the people who make them rich?
[/quote]
Well we don’t have a flat tax. The rich pay 57% or more for what they make. That is just robbery, it goes well beyond paying your fair share.
I have to ask who made these people rich? The people that work for them? If so they are paid they should not be forced to pay more because they chose to take the risk and become more ecinomically successful. The logic you have is that of Robin Hood. “You have alot this. This guy over here chose to not do anything so you should give to him”.
To be honest with you most people sell themselves to the corporations they work for. It is their fault if they don’t stand up and refuse to take it. My fiance is in a job where she is paid below average for her being a LA at a law firm. She knows it. The law firm is known for paying below average. Rather than look for a job, she enjoys the security of knowing she will have that job. I tell her time and time again she has no right to complain about it since she won’t look for another job. Bottom line is in this country you are oppressed because you allow yourself to be. The law firm may not offer her what she is worth in hourly value, but they make up for it in her feeling secure( which that is not real either). I don’t blame the law firm, I think it is her own fault, and until she is willing to do something about it she deserves to be under paid.
The problem is you come across as everyone who makes money is that way. Not everyone is. Most millionaires got that way from hard work, not from being born into it. So why should they have more because they worked harder. The more OT I have the less money per hour I make. That isn’t cool. I am gettign hosed by the company for making me work more, and then the government comes in and says they want their share too. Luckily I have a side business so I write plenty of things off. I end up counter acting what the governement is trying to take from me to pay for some usless government program that doesn’t work because the people running it are corrupt.
Layoffs suck I agree. I would rather have 5k layoffs and keep 15k people employed than to have the entire company go bankrupt. Which would cost 15k jobs, investors, suppliers that sell to that company, delivery companies that deliver for that company, commercials space that was once used by that company go away. You see if you save 5k you may loose much more than 15k in the long run. You impact several corporate fields. As for the people at the top still getting paid that is not always the case. Many of them get fired during these corporate restructering deals.
In the corporate world salvation comes at a high price. Just ask the contract IT guy who is fixes a netork crash that is costing the company millions of dollars. He is paid because he is that good. If any one could do it then you wouldn’t need to pay him so much. That is how it goes with big CEO’s too.
[quote]
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Not that I beleive in hell but the point is valid nontheless.[/quote]
You are right we call that road socialism.
This is getting ridiculous.
Big corporations provide jobs for the menial serfs who just want a 9-5 and to live hand-to-mouth from the moment they’re born till they die. They have no concept of saving for retirement. They don’t know the value of a dollar. If you asked them what the rule of 72 was they’d look at you like you were insane. There’s some big differences from a personal finace point between the rich and the poor. You can work hard and one day become financially independent.
In America you’re guranteed the PURSUIT of happiness. Go out there and term down big business, if that’ll make you happy. Or maybe get a job so you don’t live below the poverty line.
There’s a lot of guys who goto community college 1 semster at a time, taking a spring and summer working construction to pay for it. Maybe you should consider that? And there is always night class.
So what’s the rule of 72?
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
If you asked them what the rule of 72 was they’d look at you like you were insane.[/quote]
e-hater wrote:
“It’s very hard for them to balance partying five nights a week and driving their BMW to class every day and then pass with a C- minus average. All while having to make that party in the Hamptons over the weekend.”
If this is a direct/oblique reference to W., then you have to concede that he did “better” than kerry. Remember, kerry was the “smart” candidate.
You clowns are consistently wrong.
God, I love it!!!
JeffR
marmadogg wrote:
“I love it when non-Americans speak about Americans rights.”
Most of us would trade you for JPBear in a New York Second.
You’d be gone so fast, you’re head would spin.
JeffR
ZEB wrote:
“And some people were born with a “mesomorphic” body. They do one arm curl and get muscles all over their body. Is that “fair?” No, but it is part of life. You play with the hand that you are dealt. No one owes you anything in this life!”
STOP IT ZEB!!!
Everyone is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!
Signed,
The 1990’s.
JeffR
New forum rule:
Dear Mark,
You are no longer allowed to call someone else “stupid” unless you can use proper grammar and punctuation.
It’s like the npr reporters calling W. “dumb” and then stumbling over pre-written words.
My favorite: npr reporter making fun of W. saying nuclear. As he said it, he pronounced it exactly as W. does!!! Then he went on to say it differently three more times!!!
Thanks,
JeffR