2008 News thread merged

[spare_change]

Republican Presidential Nomination

Giuliani 30.0%
McCain 19.8%
Thompson 13.0%
Romney 10.0%
Giuliani +10.2%


Democratic Presidential Nomination

Clinton 32.8%
Obama 25.8%
Edwards 16.4%
Gore 13.0%
Clinton +7.0%


President Bush Job Approval

Approve 35.7%
Disapprove 58.5%
Spread -22.8%


Congressional Job Approval

Approve 38.0%
Disapprove 52.3%
Spread -14.3%

[jman]

Where did you see Thompson in 3rd.thats a big suprise. He is not getting any press here in his home state.

[cherokeered]

Sigh....another loser will be elected to screw us over.....doesn't matter if it's a Dem or Rep....they all suck

[freestyle99]

come on now cherokee, need to be optimistic...

[p.J]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43005000/gif/_43005619_london_new_pink_203.gif

The new jagged emblem which took a year to research and cost £400,00 was unveiled on Monday.

Organisers said it would "live" for the next five years and chairman Lord Coe described it as "edgy".

But critics have called the brightly-coloured depiction of the date 2012 "ghastly" and an online petition is calling for it to be scrapped.



So come on guys what do you think of the New logo for the Lonon Olympics?? Honestly now... does it inspire you?

:sc I just see a crude representation of a couple having sex! Yep! when I first saw it I hadn't a clue what it was supposed to represent. Of course now I know it's a couple engaged in procreation... Symbolic of the taxpayer being shafted perhaps?

[Parkergrey]

That thing is hideous - are you sure some dang dirty american didn't design it?

[dartgirl]

Amazing how much money some people will pay for some people call art. Kinda reminds me of this stack of logs in front of the local courthouse. The artist says it is called tolerance, me, I just want to rip up some paper and light a match and have a bonfire.

[p.J]

That thing is hideous - are you sure some dang dirty american didn't design it?


:D something else too... Shouldn't london be spelt with a capital L !!! Ah of course, it to show how much education standards have declined so rapidly in this country?

[p.J]

Amazing how much money some people will pay for some people call art. Kinda reminds me of this stack of logs in front of the local courthouse. The artist says it is called tolerance, me, I just want to rip up some paper and light a match and have a bonfire.


Eventually, and believe me It took me a while, I realised that it said 2012! :whee:

[spare_change]

Eventually, and believe me It took me a while, I realised that it said 2012! :whee:

Absolutely amazing -- I wouldn't give you a penny for it. It's ugly, unreadable, and basically, nonsensical. Other than that, I really like it !

[Barkiss]

I didn't realize it read 2012 until I read your post. That is horrible...

[oldandnaked]

For all that money they should have given her bigger tits.

[Cotties]

Its really is a piece of shit....very bad taste really....I also hear they had to pull it from T.V commercials for giving people epilectic fitshttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43005000/gif/_43005619_london_new_pink_203.gif




So come on guys what do you think of the New logo for the Lonon Olympics?? Honestly now... does it inspire you?

:sc I just see a crude representation of a couple having sex! Yep! when I first saw it I hadn't a clue what it was supposed to represent. Of course now I know it's a couple engaged in procreation... Symbolic of the taxpayer being shafted perhaps?

[tiger50]

reminds me of the sort of fukked up crap we think up for our athletes uniforms here....

[Cotties]

booreminds me of the sort of fukked up crap we think up for our athletes uniforms here....

[dan1961]

hahaha

[sawflyman]

Sigh....another loser will be elected to screw us over.....doesn't matter if it's a Dem or Rep....they all suck

that was monica and he didn't have sex with that women....lmao

[Frenchie]

I'm surprised Hilary is still going strong

[Frenchie]

Will you all stay quiet I'm trying to figure out the puzzle!

Seriously

They would of been better off to take the cash, all go out to the strippers and get plastered then scribble out some retarded shapes on a paper napkin with there feet and it would of got 100 times the aproval ratings.

Look! It's Genious! Shapes that go all over! Genious! Now bow to my feet little pesants!

Slap's Lord Coe in the face

Walks away shaking head

[SexyCowgirl]

Well, I cannot say I like it all too much, it just isn't for me. And it does look like sopmeone getting fucked (oh wait, thats the public) and, ummm, yeah.........

Doesn't pink make peple angry or something? It makes me angry..........

[UltimateNaneki]

I would like to see that happen....the Maya calender has predicted the end of civilization has we know it, in 2012.... Maybe having the Olympics in London would be the end of something!:lmao

[PunkyBob]

Jeez that's awful. Woof!

SO the right side is a woman...with a head of big hair...she's bending down...the guy is up against the wall, his back arched because she's got his cock in her hands...it's right at the moment when...well...

So am I just reading too much into this?

Actually it reminds me of one of Mighty's posts on "How to Give a BJ"...

[PunkyBob]

Actually it reminds me of one of Mighty's posts on "How to Give a BJ"...

Which sounded like an Olympic event all in itself!!

[mile high]

It just oozes pretention ~ not the originality they were aiming for.

[sawflyman]

Hey I kind of like it..........................isn't this the lie thread..............lol

[p.J]

Well the bloody thing is here to stay, you know what, the more I look at it the more I think it looks like....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/06/05/logo/logo8.gif :D

[PunkyBob]

Well the bloody thing is here to stay, you know what, the more I look at it the more I think it looks like....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/06/05/logo/logo8.gif :D


OMG!! Beautiful!!! :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[mile high]

Well the bloody thing is here to stay, you know what, the more I look at it the more I think it looks like....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/06/05/logo/logo8.gif :D

Hee hee...that put a smile on my face

[johandevotie]

I like watching national politics.....like a bloodsport.


It will be very interesting in '08.

[Annie]

Democratic Presidential Nomination

Clinton 32.8%
Obama 25.8%
Edwards 16.4%
Gore 13.0%
Clinton +7.0%


Wow! Imagine what he would have if he was really running!

[roadie4us]

Sigh....another loser will be elected to screw us over.....doesn't matter if it's a Dem or Rep....they all suck

Its sad to say your right in many respects. At times it seems that neither party listens to the voter nowadays. However, they do enjoy not having to work for a living and want to keep their jobs. Because of this you can see politicians (at times) start to turn their backs to their party politics only because they have to in order to keep their jobs. So I have hope that its the volumn of the voters message that is what needs to change........it needs to get louder.

[Penny]

Romney is already preaching he will end internet porn and the evils of sex on TV and the movies. I wish these people would get a life and leave others alone :(

[Frenchie]

Romney is already preaching he will end internet porn and the evils of sex on TV and the movies. I wish these people would get a life and leave others alone :(

If thats true Penny

That dudes the Devil

[Frenchie]

I'm assuming most of you saw this by now

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/bridge.collapse/index.html

Hopefully no one from the site was hurt and Hopefully most of those people will make it.

Anyone here from that area?

[UltimateNaneki]

That is just awful to see....I would like to know what exactly happen that it fell!

[hoss]

i was stunned when i saw that ..i mean it didnt just fall down ,,,the supporting girders fell over in on piece ,and the other side was a twisted mess ....it makes me wonder if something made them collaspe ...

[My_Secrets_Kept]

They said that the bridge was closed yesterday for some construction and that it was opened back up this morning to traffic, but I didn't hear what the constuction was?? They are saying that they have no reason to believe that the collapse was linked to terrorism & the NTSB will be their tomorrow to begin determining the cause, but I'm sure they won't spell out all the facts until all their ducks are in a row.

[tt]

I can vivid memories of the 1989 Loma Preita Earthquake here in the Bay Area. It wasn't until several days later that I was able to watch the news, and saw the collapse of sections of Oakland Bay Bridge.

To see such events again brings the horror home to me. My most heart felt sympathy to those who have friends and loves of those who killed, missing or injured.

[Cotties]

not good to see

[scottd]

i heard something about the support on the banks may have started it

[Penny]

I would have thought there would have been a larger rescue effort :(

[mrh50]

why won't you meet me in the chat room I know your are afraide

I would have thought there would have been a larger rescue effort :(

[Penny]

Are you drinking? Why would I meet you in the chat room? You cant even follow a story. This thread is about people being killed yesterday. This is why we need mods :(



why won't you meet me in the chat room I know your are afraide

[MIGHTY]

Horrible, horrible story......my heart and prayers go out to those who were on that bridge.....alive or not......

[Big O]

just say a prayer for those still missing.......

[scoobertina]

This is why I don't return to MN... I came home for a visit yesterday.. we landed at 1:11 and less than 5 hours later the bridge collapsed.. Sorry fellow Minnesotans... I didn't mean to bring bad luck..


Things are going okay with the cleanup.. fortunately it appears that I knew noone involved however, we don't know yet.. unfortunately there were still lives lost.. there is a memorial service this evening for them...

I want to thank everyone who pm'd or im'd me last night and today.. thanks for caring.. and even though one of my cousins asked how heavy my rental car was... I promise that I had nothing to do with that collapse..

[Kissie]

I feel for all the families that have lost loved ones in this horrible disaster!!!!


I thought I heard today that this bridge has needed repair for a couple years now...if it was this bad...why were they still using it??? This is senseless!!!

[mile high]

Very tragic and upsetting for those affected. Not something you'd ever expect to happen in that part of the world. Hope a thorough investigation and a careful assessment of other bridges takes place.

[sawflyman]

I mourn the loss of life. and I pray for the families waiting for news so they may find closure and peace.........................

[sawflyman]

why won't you meet me in the chat room I know your are afraide

what a bad post. Your timing is in bad taste.

[RedVixen]

My heart goes out to all the families...what a tragedy. Life is so fragile, and it really hits home when something like this happens.

I'm very glad to hear that you are safe and sound Scoob :). Thank you for posting that you are ok.

[oldandnaked]

That settles it, I'm voting for Hillary, with Bubba back in the White House, at least I know porn will be safe.

[cherokeered]

Romney is already preaching he will end internet porn and the evils of sex on TV and the movies. I wish these people would get a life and leave others alone :(

well thats what they do...they tell ya how to live...go to church....and then beat their wives and fuk their mistresses....then go back to church on sunday...lol

[MCat]

That settles it, I'm voting for Hillary, with Bubba back in the White House, at least I know porn will be safe.

Holy shit....I think you've got something here :D

[UltimateNaneki]

Is there a poll that says; Canadians don't care. Cause whom ever wins, does what the last one did anyway!

[unctarheel_32]

really what the hell is that thing?............:lmao

[unctarheel_32]

That was a bad thing to happen and well my heart and prayers go out to all the families that were affected by this tragedy.

[OICurready4me]

This is why I don't return to MN... I came home for a visit yesterday.. we landed at 1:11 and less than 5 hours later the bridge collapsed.. Sorry fellow Minnesotans... I didn't mean to bring bad luck..


Things are going okay with the cleanup.. fortunately it appears that I knew noone involved however, we don't know yet.. unfortunately there were still lives lost.. there is a memorial service this evening for them...

I want to thank everyone who pm'd or im'd me last night and today.. thanks for caring.. and even though one of my cousins asked how heavy my rental car was... I promise that I had nothing to do with that collapse..

YOu didn't have any extra cases of that peach wine did you?

[Micwar]

I have been thinking and to me it all stems from the 2,000 year + technology that hasn't changed. To me to the value based system used is obselete and needs to be re vamped. It's time to look at the basis of sustaining and improving life then creating wealth.

It's been estimated that this spacehip can support around 8 billion and we are currently at 6.6 billion+. What good is creating wealth when it can not sustain you. When you here poeple say we have the technology and means to correct a lot of the major issues facing mankind, but we don't because it's not profitable.... then I ask WTF?

Do you think I'm way of base or what?

[Cotties]

huh???

I may be able to anwser the question about wealth though...its needed so women have something to play with besides my emotion...they say my emotions just don't cut it

[UltimateNaneki]

The real problem is you men think too much about nothing...Leave that up to us women and all will be great!:lmao

[spare_change]

I have been thinking and to me it all stems from the 2,000 year + technology that hasn't changed. To me to the value based system used is obselete and needs to be re vamped. It's time to look at the basis of sustaining and improving life then creating wealth.

It's been estimated that this spacehip can support around 8 billion and we are currently at 6.6 billion+. What good is creating wealth when it can not sustain you. When you here poeple say we have the technology and means to correct a lot of the major issues facing mankind, but we don't because it's not profitable.... then I ask WTF?

Do you think I'm way of base or what?

Way off base, I suspect.

Make it worth my while and I will solve the world's crises. Otherwise, I will just worry about me and mine.

[Micwar]

Way off base, I suspect.

Make it worth my while and I will solve the world's crises. Otherwise, I will just worry about me and mine.

Yea you're proably right, but I have seen how it's changed in the little time I've been here. Then I look at the grandbabies, and wonder what are we leaving for their grandkids.

I just feel humanity will save itself or destroy itself, and to me we are on the path of destruction. Everybody is up in arms about global warming, but this planet will continue on, the question is will mankind?

I'm not attacking you but that is the problem, just to worry about me and mine, in my humble opinion. I really believe mankind is getting to the point of no return from self destruction.

This thread proably doesn't even belong on this site and you may decide to keep it or not. Just sometimes I think to much....

[Micwar]

huh???

I may be able to anwser the question about wealth though...its needed so women have something to play with besides my emotion...they say my emotions just don't cut it

Damn that was to easy, why didn't I see that.....

[mile high]

Overpopulation, so we're told, is one of the greatest problems facing the human race but I'm kinda hopeful that a new generation of earthlings is doing its part to help solve the issue.

While we use drugs and 'miracle' surgery to preserve the lives of people who in days past would have been left outside the cave to starve, I get the feelin' other members of our mighty species are shouldering the task of ensuring a 'healthy' death rate.

Take the ipoders of the world, groovers soooo thirsty for musical escape they seal up their ear holes with dollops of decibels, muffling shouted warnings of "watch out for that bus"...

Now add obsessive texters to the list, people who thumb their phones at the price of staying alert to that big, shiny, one-tonne piece of metal hurtling at them while crossing the road, so they can tell their bestie that "had 2go2 pub 2C my bro."

The end result? SPLAT!!! Natural selection, 2007 style ...

Seriously though, every single squawkin' kid who appears in the devloped world - who will then go on to consume roughly seven times the amount of resources a child in Africa will - makes this runaway train a little harder to turn around.

All of us need to start questioning why developing nations display such astronomical rates of population growth and understand that, while kids are a pleasant option in this country, or a similar nation, they're a means of survival in about 60 per cent of the world.

And while you feel the need to buy three pairs of Reeboks a year and insist that a big-screen TV and a four-wheel-drive are absolute necessities, the rest of the world is gonna continue breeding to keep its head above water and provide the labour to keep us all fat and stupid and self-absorbed.

[spare_change]

Yea you're proably right, but I have seen how it's changed in the little time I've been here. Then I look at the grandbabies, and wonder what are we leaving for their grandkids.

I just feel humanity will save itself or destroy itself, and to me we are on the path of destruction. Everybody is up in arms about global warming, but this planet will continue on, the question is will mankind?

I'm not attacking you but that is the problem, just to worry about me and mine, in my humble opinion. I really believe mankind is getting to the point of no return from self destruction.

This thread proably doesn't even belong on this site and you may decide to keep it or not. Just sometimes I think to much....

No -- I wasn't being flippant (well, maybe a little). There is no such thing as the unsolvable problem. You just need to identify the goal -- it must be concrete (make the world a better place isn't a goal, it's a wish). Then, you survey the resources at hand to determine what you have available to work with. Then, and only then, can you develop an approach that will solve the problem.

In this case, you have mankind as a resource. You can not, and must not, deny basic human nature. It is what it is -- you need to work within it, to use it. To deny the fundamentals of it is to ensure failure.

Man, by nature, is selfish -- it's the survival gene. He worries about himself first, and his family second -- and doesn't much give a damn about the rest of mankind. We all talk about wanting a better world, and doing something to make it better, but, in reality, we will only do these things if our survival is assured, and we can "afford" to be magnanimous. Why else would people drive SUVs when they know the carbon byproducts are harming the planet? Why else would they build bombs capable of destroying the world in order to protect themselves from other humans, and THEN build even more -- like they could destroy the world many times over!


So -- make it worth his while to sacrifice his SUV - make it worth his while to study the problem, make it worth his while to find a solution. By the way, negative motivation doesn't work unless it threatens his very existence in an immediate way.

Aw hell -what do I know? I think I'll have some pie.

[MCat]

Aw hell -what do I know? I think I'll have some pie.



You do seem to have pie quite often lately Spare...

[spare_change]

You do seem to have pie quite often lately Spare...


Did I mention that I love pie?



All kinds?

[MCat]

Did I mention that I love pie?



All kinds?

One of these days I'll have to mail you a piece of pie....;)

[Andytyme]

One of these days I'll have to mail you a piece of pie....;)

Since when did the US Post Office start letting you mail yourself?

[MCat]

Since when did the US Post Office start letting you mail yourself?

Ya just have to have the right box....:D

[GeekMaster]

Ya just have to have the right box....:D

Is that inside or outside the package you are mailing???:lf

[MCat]

Is that inside or outside the package you are mailing???:lf

You pop in at just the most opportune times Geekster....:D

[GeekMaster]

One of these days I'll have to mail you a piece of pie....;)
You pop in at just the most opportune times Geekster....:D

I want on the mailing list...

[spare_change]

We have all seen the recent inquiries about the intelligence collection programs that have been published in newspapers such as the New York Times. Recent history has shown that the publication of our methodologies has adversely affected our ability to collect useful intelligence. Now, the ACLU has requested insight into another sensitive program.

Is there a limit to the citizens' right to know? Where do we draw the line? Is there a line? If the average citizen can't see it, how do we ensure that the powers aren't abused?

[UltimateNaneki]

Well if there is no line, there should be one. There is lots of information that is given to us each day that is useless.
"Paris Hilton is in jail! ". I know that the rich and famous are always part of the news but they are only people like the rest of us. The paper never wrote that I get a traffic ticket!
"You live longer if your right handed." I'm left handed....do I really need to know I will not life longer?? Will I suddenly become right handed?
"The price of gas is raising." The price of gas is what it is, you will fill your car at .10/gallon or $4./gallon. The car can't run on your good looks.
The information given to the people should be usefull at least.
"The war breaks out in India." I know war is not a great thing,but it is news worthy.

It's great to have all the useless facts somewhere,but the news paper is for "news"!

[UltimateNaneki]

Spare_change, MCat, Andytyme, and GeekMaster....You have all hi-jacked this thread...:nu . Shame on you all!!:nu :nu :nu

[MCat]

Spare_change, MCat, Andytyme, and GeekMaster....You have all hi-jacked this thread...:nu . Shame on you all!!:nu :nu :nu

Oh my gosh.....we did didn't we....:D

Sorry Mic....now back to business.....Ulti...get us back on track...:55

[spare_change]

Overpopulation, so we're told, is one of the greatest problems facing the human race but I'm kinda hopeful that a new generation of earthlings is doing its part to help solve the issue.

While we use drugs and 'miracle' surgery to preserve the lives of people who in days past would have been left outside the cave to starve, I get the feelin' other members of our mighty species are shouldering the task of ensuring a 'healthy' death rate.

Take the ipoders of the world, groovers soooo thirsty for musical escape they seal up their ear holes with dollops of decibels, muffling shouted warnings of "watch out for that bus"...

Now add obsessive texters to the list, people who thumb their phones at the price of staying alert to that big, shiny, one-tonne piece of metal hurtling at them while crossing the road, so they can tell their bestie that "had 2go2 pub 2C my bro."

The end result? SPLAT!!! Natural selection, 2007 style ...

Seriously though, every single squawkin' kid who appears in the devloped world - who will then go on to consume roughly seven times the amount of resources a child in Africa will - makes this runaway train a little harder to turn around.

All of us need to start questioning why developing nations display such astronomical rates of population growth and understand that, while kids are a pleasant option in this country, or a similar nation, they're a means of survival in about 60 per cent of the world.

And while you feel the need to buy three pairs of Reeboks a year and insist that a big-screen TV and a four-wheel-drive are absolute necessities, the rest of the world is gonna continue breeding to keep its head above water and provide the labour to keep us all fat and stupid and self-absorbed.

Fat, stupid, and self absorbed? Surely, you jest --

You're right, of course. Our consumerism fuels a lot of engines -- overpopulation may be affected, but I'm not sure it's the driving factor. In fact, maybe it is the other way around -- our consumerism generates income for the poorer part of the world, which means they need less people working in the house in order to survive, so they have less kids. I dunno -- just a thought.

I would maintain, though, the self absorbed people are our own fault -- hell, we raised them. We taught them. We coddled them. We babied them. No wonder they think it is too much to actually get a job -- we taught them that you just have to ask big daddy and he'll give it to you. Course, big daddy used to be you and me, and as they became adults, it's now the government. The ensuing lack of self-respect, and respect for others, is gutting our moral fiber.

[oldandnaked]

No -- I wasn't being flippant (well, maybe a little). There is no such thing as the unsolvable problem. You just need to identify the goal -- it must be concrete (make the world a better place isn't a goal, it's a wish). Then, you survey the resources at hand to determine what you have available to work with. Then, and only then, can you develop an approach that will solve the problem.

In this case, you have mankind as a resource. You can not, and must not, deny basic human nature. It is what it is -- you need to work within it, to use it. To deny the fundamentals of it is to ensure failure.

Man, by nature, is selfish -- it's the survival gene. He worries about himself first, and his family second -- and doesn't much give a damn about the rest of mankind. We all talk about wanting a better world, and doing something to make it better, but, in reality, we will only do these things if our survival is assured, and we can "afford" to be magnanimous. Why else would people drive SUVs when they know the carbon byproducts are harming the planet? Why else would they build bombs capable of destroying the world in order to protect themselves from other humans, and THEN build even more -- like they could destroy the world many times over!


So -- make it worth his while to sacrifice his SUV - make it worth his while to study the problem, make it worth his while to find a solution. By the way, negative motivation doesn't work unless it threatens his very existence in an immediate way.

Aw hell -what do I know? I think I'll have some pie.



So are you saying man is basically selfish? That he doesn't care about improving or protecting his and future generation's environment unless there is some immediate satisfaction in it for him? Hey, for once we agree.

It seems to me, alot of the studies are "in" and solutions are out there that could and should be implemented in a big way, but because that implementation would cause some hardships and discomfort to some, those in charge of making the needed changes, namely politicians, hesitate to do so in fear of losing their popularity among some voters and pretty much all financial backers. AKA Big Business.

I agree making it "worthwhile" would accellerate finding and using solutions to the problems that are not so slowly destroying the quality of life on this planet. After all,greed is the greatest motivator.

What kinda pie?

[hank69]

Did I mention that I love pie?



All kinds?



Only two kinds of pie ...that I like





Hot and cold.

[UltimateNaneki]

Only two kinds of pie ...that I like





Hot and cold.

Hank69:nu No hi-jacking this thread please....Will I have to call a moderator???

[cherokeered]

The real problems.....apathy, ignorance and self-indulgence.....now if ya can solve those, we might have a shot

[tiger50]

The real problems.....apathy, ignorance and self-indulgence.....now if ya can solve those, we might have a shot

gotcha, hey am just appy ta shoot.....:D

[UltimateNaneki]

The real problem is that people have stopped caring...Don't get me wrong, there are lots of people that care, it's just that there are so many more people on this planet now and it's always the same ones that care about what is going on! Lots of people are only looking for themselves and not caring for another...

[Micwar]

So the theme seems to be along the lines of selfish. Once again I pose the question will humanity get smart enough to save itself ? It's time for the mindset to change and that can only be done, if we truly understand that our basic philosophy need to change from wealth to life sustaining.

I don't know all the answers, but being simple, here is my understanding of the way it works. You get a job, to make money, to buy food and shelter and so forth. On that pretense than everybody needs a job. Now with technology, we can do more with less, quicker with less energy. If you agree that we have made strides in such that we can do more with less, etc than why does everything cosy more?

I truly believe alot of people don't understand science. We think of technology as being something new, when that caveman learned a peice of flint could cut, he was putting technology to work....But then having the MRI machine is how a lot people see technology, when it's been around ever since man has been.

Water make up 50% of all life if not more, we can not find water anywhere else so far in the universe but here on this planet and that the difference of water freezing or boiling is very narrow. With that being said and if we are really concern with our species surviving then why don't we pay more attention to the water supply?

My last thought for now, is that abunch of sceintist got together to see some pictures of the universe, I forgot the type of technology they used, but as the picture were being shown, the sceintist started looking around at each other. The picture looked famailiar to them, but how? The pictures they were looking at of the universe, is the same picture of an magnified brain cell.......makes me wonder at least?

[RedVixen]

Interesting thread, but I don't have the answers unfortunately:(

[Micwar]

Interesting thread, but I don't have the answers unfortunately:(

I don't either, but I've just always had these thoughts and us crazy folks like to run or mouths so everybody knows we're a few bricks short...:D

[RedVixen]

I don't either, but I've just always had these thoughts and us crazy folks like to run or mouths so everybody knows we're a few bricks short...:D

Don't sell yourself short hun:kk

[Micwar]

Don't sell yourself short hun:kk

I'm not short, it's vertically challenged....

[oldandnaked]

The real problems.....apathy, ignorance and self-indulgence.....now if ya can solve those, we might have a shot

Truer words were never spoken. You hit the nail on the head Ms. Red.

[Pebbles]

very interesting...why am I not surprised...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

[Operator Bob]

Pebbles - the CIA has been on this site altering our avatars to those that do not send alternate political messages...j/k

[Pebbles]

Pebbles - the CIA has been on this site altering our avatars to those that do not send alternate political messages...j/k

Guess I will have to be careful of what alternate political message...I send. :D :D

I like that these edits are coming up with the IP addresses named and shamed. There's a lot of embarassing facts coming through on all sides of various debates. Fox News editing Al Franken's entry. Democrats changing Rush Limbaugh's entry. Diebold (the electronic voting people) deleting huge sections of negative-sounding facts about their machines. It's been known for a while that staff from various congressmen and women will go through and change opponent's listings.

It all shows the failings and triumphs of community-edited, open-source design. Yes, anyone can change the 'facts' about their enemy, but anyone else can expose those changes, then who looks like the fool?

[Frenchie]

I just named the tread like that to make it more interesting but this struck me as pretty funny i'll round it up if you dont feel like reading the article,

So Bush, Harper "he's are P.M." and the Mexican president Felipe Calderon are up for a 2 day summit in Quebec and where greeted by protesters...

A couple of hundreds and thats a inflated number I actually saw like it was more like 50 -75...lol

What kind of world do we live in that now we wont even get out and make a nice big out of of control protest like the good ol day's. Hell even the P.M. was like mah.. just a couple of hundred's that's it...We got this...

We should be ashamed lol, Oh but they used tear gas but I assume it's cause there's an expire date and are sh*ts so old they had to use it for fear it would go bad before they could lol

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2078e4d7-3268-4097-8c41-4528f0c33e86&k=7201

[RedVixen]

Sorry Frenchie...politics just doesn't interest me.

[UltimateNaneki]

We care...we make sure that the Block Quebecois don't get the power. We love Canada just like she is...One whole peaceful and friendly country!

[Frenchie]

I know lol

I just tought that was funny , heck I didnt even know they had a meeting lol

The storm in mexico got twice the air time!

Damn Dean stole the show!

[spare_change]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8f67277c-2f27-4f35-85a9-8e824f223d0d&k=4718

[twoblues]

A couple of hundreds and thats a inflated number I actually saw like it was more like 50 -75...lol

Aw....you should have seen Vancouver then...streets closed. Cops getting into scuffles, stink bombs, pepper sprays...all in good fun.

Of course, for people not in the know, Vancouver protesters barely need a reason to protest. Each protest is actually made up of multiple protests.

They were saying that the protest yesterday was made up of people against the closed door meetings between the three leaders and....:

- Anti war protesters
- Anti Bush protesters
- Conspiracy theory protesters (9/11 stuff)
- Anti poverty protesters
- Anti Olympic protesters
- Anti Big Business protesters.

See...we do it right here. Thankfully, I only had to walk around the fringe of it on my way home. Of course, it barely makes the news because it happens every few days.

As a funny side note, talking to some cop buddies. The "Anti-Poverty" protesters are their favourites. They are truly "anti-poverty" because the cops make so much extra overtime from working their protests ;)

[Micwar]

The real problems.....apathy, ignorance and self-indulgence.....now if ya can solve those, we might have a shot

I was trying to draw out some thinking out of the box. But when you boil it right down, have to agree. Damns such a short lived thread.

[spare_change]

So the theme seems to be along the lines of selfish. Once again I pose the question will humanity get smart enough to save itself ? It's time for the mindset to change and that can only be done, if we truly understand that our basic philosophy need to change from wealth to life sustaining.

I don't know all the answers, but being simple, here is my understanding of the way it works. You get a job, to make money, to buy food and shelter and so forth. On that pretense than everybody needs a job. Now with technology, we can do more with less, quicker with less energy. If you agree that we have made strides in such that we can do more with less, etc than why does everything cosy more?

I truly believe alot of people don't understand science. We think of technology as being something new, when that caveman learned a peice of flint could cut, he was putting technology to work....But then having the MRI machine is how a lot people see technology, when it's been around ever since man has been.

Water make up 50% of all life if not more, we can not find water anywhere else so far in the universe but here on this planet and that the difference of water freezing or boiling is very narrow. With that being said and if we are really concern with our species surviving then why don't we pay more attention to the water supply?

My last thought for now, is that abunch of sceintist got together to see some pictures of the universe, I forgot the type of technology they used, but as the picture were being shown, the sceintist started looking around at each other. The picture looked famailiar to them, but how? The pictures they were looking at of the universe, is the same picture of an magnified brain cell.......makes me wonder at least?


There has long been a theory around that the sun is really nothing more than the nucleus of an atom within a much larger being, while the planets are the electrons circling the nucleus.

[tiger50]

There has long been a theory around that the sun is really nothing more than the nucleus of an atom within a much larger being, while the planets are the electrons circling the nucleus.


hey yeh, and here we are, a little proton sittin in the 3rd valency shell...woohoo....:D

[UltimateNaneki]

I have been hearing about this hurricane for a week now. I sure hope nobody here will be caught in his fury! Does anyone know at all for sure where this hurricane will touch?

[Pebbles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6955463.stm

A friend of mine and her family are in Cancun for three weeks. They got stuck in the basement of their hotel while Hurricane Dean did its path of destruction. According to news there was 4,000 to 5,000 Brits in Jamaica on holiday during the Hurricane. Wouldn't be a fun family holiday,but that is the chances one takes when travelling abroad.

[snowflake]

I have been hearing about this hurricane for a week now. I sure hope nobody here will be caught in his fury! Does anyone know at all for sure where this hurricane will touch?

It was a category 5 hurricane, then it went to a 2, and now it is a tropical storm. The high terrain of Mexico (it is getting into the high mountains) has taken its toll on Dean.
Satellite indicates that the cyclone is rapidly weakening. The tropical depression is moving westward across Mexico but still producing a lot of rains. Any remnant circulation of the system will likely dissipate in about 12 hours or so.

[hoss]

I can say with much confidence ...as a long time Canuck ....i could care less about politics ...45 years in this country and no matter whos in office they still manage to fuck us all over ....

[Frenchie]

I can say with much confidence ...as a long time Canuck ....i could care less about politics ...45 years in this country and no matter whos in office they still manage to fuck us all over ....

AHH ah lol

Here here!

I followed up while in Montreal, a bunch of people I talk to where like.....gimme another blue. That's when I figured how much they cared. They rather drink beer... typical lol

So I got a double Rhum and coke

I mean I know people care and stuff, I mean hell I read up on world wide politics lol but it's still funny.

I think the Westjet girls in my hotel got more publicity then that stuff! lol

Except for the one with the beard... he was just f*cking weird...

[hoss]

AHH ah lol

Here here!

I followed up while in Montreal, a bunch of people I talk to where like.....gimme another blue. That's when I figured how much they cared. They rather drink beer... typical lol

So I got a double Rhum and coke

I mean I know people care and stuff, I mean hell I read up on world wide politics lol but it's still funny.

I think the Westjet girls in my hotel got more publicity then that stuff! lol

Except for the one with the beard... he was just f*cking weird...

somebody mention beer ??

[mrdiscreet]

Pebbles,

As usual, I find that you are better informed than me. Always enjoy catching up with your posting :)

[twoblues]

I am always delighted when someone quotes an wikipedia link in support of whatever case they are making. I used to be guilty of it, of course, but then I learned that everything you read on the web isn't always the truth ;)

This just shows that those with time and an interest, can alter facts quite easily. Of course, the beauty of a wiki program is that it is quite easy to track who made the changes and then to revert back, etc....A beautiful social experiment :p

There's been a lot of other alterations, especially in the business world, of one business altering information about a competing business. This ip tracking has created quite a few embarassing (and deservedly so) moments for some big business'.

[mrdiscreet]

My favorite is the Whole Foods CEO trashing Wild Oats on stock tout boards while he was trying to buy it!

[spare_change]

Republican Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Giuliani +4.8%

* Giuliani 28.3%
* Thompson 23.5%
* Romney 10.4%
* McCain 15.4%

Democratic Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Clinton +19.3%

* Clinton 42.8%
* Obama 23.5%
* Edwards 15.4%
* Richardson 3.3%

President Bush Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -27.4%

* Approve 34.0%
* Disapprove 61.4%

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -42.3%

* Approve 23.5%
* Disapprove 65.8%

[spare_change]

The FairTax (H.R.25/S.1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax, to be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly tax rebate to households of citizens and legal resident aliens, to "untax" purchases up to the poverty level. The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total register price (23¢ of every $1—calculated the same way as income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional state sales tax (30¢ on top of every $1).

[learman3]

I can only see one thing happening if this actually passes. The countries economy will fall a part. I know that I would think twice before going out to buy something and I am sure most people would. Most retail business would fail and that would in turn cause industry to fall. I wonder how anyone could have thought of something like this. Maybe I am off base, but that is how I see it going.

[oldandnaked]

The FairTax (H.R.25/S.1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax, to be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly tax rebate to households of citizens and legal resident aliens, to "untax" purchases up to the poverty level. The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total register price (23¢ of every $1—calculated the same way as income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional state sales tax (30¢ on top of every $1).

Once again the ever shrinking middle class would be even further burdened with supporting the government.

If this wouldn't prove to be advantageous to the wealthy, they would undoubtedly find ways make it so though overseas purchases, etc.

Although my state of Florida has no "state income tax", there has been talk of replacing our real estate tax with a similar plan. So far the reception of this idea has been luke warm at best.

[mrdiscreet]

I get really tired of all these schemes so rich people don't have to pay the freight. The first clue is always that it says something like "fair".

VAT (value-added cnsumption taxes) are common in Europe, but not as an exclusive taxation device.

Bottom line: the wealthy consume relatively less as a proportion of their wealth; this is intended to allow capital gains/investment income to go untaxed.

It is a privilege to live here; those most privileged should recognize they do owe a debt to the society which has enabled their wealth.

[spare_change]

Have either of you studied the proposal in detail? I admit that I have only a cursory awareness of it -- I'm due for a briefing in November.

How does it unfairly burden the middle class? Will it really replace FICA? How is it advantageous to the wealthy? If it replaces the IRS, that's a $27 billion savings -- how can that be bad?

[mrdiscreet]

Have either of you studied the proposal in detail? I admit that I have only a cursory awareness of it -- I'm due for a briefing in November.

How does it unfairly burden the middle class? Will it really replace FICA? How is it advantageous to the wealthy? If it replaces the IRS, that's a $27 billion savings -- how can that be bad?

You crack me up. IRS budget must be less than half of that, and if memory serves, about half overall goes to enforcement actions against tax cheats, bringing in 10x or more the resources spent to collect.

[cherokeered]

I haven't really studied it...but if I understand this correctly it would eliminate the 6.2% Social security tax ( with cap), the medicare 1.45% tax ( with no cap) and the federal tax in favor of a flat sales tax....

I see that with everyone paying the same rate you will have the people who fall into the poverty category not having to pay....the highly compensated or rich paying most likely a lower tax rate then they do now....and the middle earners paying a higher rate then they do now....

Is this correct?

I can see this as viable but of course there would be no tax exempt status for anything anymore...with the elimination of the IRS you would be eliminating how many jobs???
With the elimination of needing to do a federal return you would eliminate how many cpa jobs and tax filing jobs?

You would no longer have a need for tax exempt 401K or medical benefits status......and would not receive any sort of benefit for having children or a penalty for being married and earning 2 incomes....

I guess it is something that needs to be debated and discussed and really scrutinized....I know it has been mentioned a few times over the last few years...
What happens to people and corporations who currently owe on the old system???
How will the money be distributed?
How will it affect the people currently collecting on the old system?
Will there be any effect?

Well Spare....take notes and let us know...because I have a lot of questions I could think of............lol

[spare_change]

You crack me up. IRS budget must be less than half of that, and if memory serves, about half overall goes to enforcement actions against tax cheats, bringing in 10x or more the resources spent to collect.


Well, I'm glad you find it humorous, but that really wasn't my goal. The $27B figure was something I pulled out of the cobwebs from a previous government briefing -- so I wasn't sure if it was accurate.

Money Magazine quoted the figure as $22.7B, for FY2005, as the operating budget of the IRS, to include enforcement of the taxcode. It also had the following statement,

"Compliance with the tax code is not only very difficult and complicated, consuming a total of 6 billion hours, but unreasonably expensive as well. It is estimated that it costs taxpayers $265.1 billion for tax filing, tax record keeping, and tax reduction advice. That's just shy of $900 for every man, woman, and child in America! "

Any way you look at it, releasing $300B back into productive use has to be a positive.

Again, I don't have any real info on the Fair Tax, but I did want to clarify the number I posted.

Rest assured, Cher-- I'll let you know what is said. Since the Fair Tax seems to be the underpinning of the campaigns of several seeking the Presidency, I guess we need to figure out what the hell it is.

[mrdiscreet]

Why do I bother. The number is $11.4B http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/budget-in-brief-2008.pdf

I was about right on enforcement.

Money mag = shill for investor class = taxes suck. True patriots pay their freight.

[spare_change]

Why do I bother. The number is $11.4B http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/budget-in-brief-2008.pdf

I was about right on enforcement.

Money mag = shill for investor class = taxes suck. True patriots pay their freight.


"True patriots pay their freight" is unquestionably the most ridiculous, and Marxist, statement it has been my displeasure to read in a long time. If you want to discuss governmental styles, then start another thread. This conversation is about the Fair Tax --- if you don't know anything about it, at least be man enough to admit it instead of hiding behind bullshit emotional rhetoric. Nobody questions paying their fair share of taxes --- that isn't the discussion. The question is about a proposal before Congress, and backed by several of our current Presidential candidates. Either get on the subject, or get off the bus.

[cherokeered]

I wonder if there will be any limit or will the highly compensated individuals lose the cap on Social Security???


There is so much unknown about this....I wonder too if it has been thought through or is it just a concept to banter about as election time draws near??? I recall it being mentioned before....

How does the refund work...if it is a sales tax on goods and you are eliminating the IRS...who is handling the monthly refunds for the below poverty people??
Now, if you are paying a single tax on everything...then refunding the below poverty level people...does that mean you eliminate the need for the social security number?? Also, if the social Security number is used to refund the money, then does this mean every time you buy something, you have to share that info with the world??

I'm getting a migraine thinking of all this......sigh

[mrdiscreet]

Red-baiting again, Spare? Why am I not surprised. Look out, the bus is about to smack you and your right wing wacko friends hard in the ass. :lmao

1. You conveniently ignore that your "facts" were poorly sourced and wildly inflated

2. You make no mention of how investment income/capital gains are to be taxed if at all.

3. I've seen enough of these proposals over the years that they are not worth my time to examine in detail.

4. All tax legislation is inherently about who gets the "fair share"; more properly, what interest groups can lobby Congres most effectively (junket to Hawaii anyone?) to shift "fair shares" to others. The worst part is that our kids (future generations) have no lobbyists, so we just roll up the bills for their account.

5. Man up, Spare: please educate us on how "fair" taxes would be on investment income/capital gains.

6. Emotional rhetoric? I'd say your response contained the only example of that.

[TheTurtle]

Red-baiting again, Spare? Why am I not surprised. Look out, the bus is about to smack you and your right wing wacko friends hard in the ass. :lmao

1. You conveniently ignore that your "facts" were poorly sourced and wildly inflated

2. You make no mention of how investment income/capital gains are to be taxed if at all.

3. I've seen enough of these proposals over the years that they are not worth my time to examine in detail.

4. All tax legislation is inherently about who gets the "fair share"; more properly, what interest groups can lobby Congres most effectively (junket to Hawaii anyone?) to shift "fair shares" to others. The worst part is that our kids (future generations) have no lobbyists, so we just roll up the bills for their account.

5. Man up, Spare: please educate us on how "fair" taxes would be on investment income/capital gains.

6. Emotional rhetoric? I'd say your response contained the only example of that.

MrD: As someone who is usually among that "mushy middle", and actually votes for individuals rather than along party lines, (NEVER votes a party ticket, and even leaves some spots blank if I don't know any of the candidates, rather than vote blindly) your rhetoric was inflammatory to start with. Whether Spare is right about the cost for the IRS (the only thing you have shown numbers or research on), he was asking an honest question. You have chosen to evade it while disparaging both the question and the questioner. That is not the way to have a civil and informative dialogue, which is what most people want.

It sounds like you don't want any tax whatsoever, so I wouldn't call you Marxist -- but you obviously don't believe in capitalism and market economics, either. Where is the happy medium for you?

I am googling "fair tax" now; and will be happy to report some of the articles I find on either side of the issue. I will say, though, that I tend to value well documented and logically thought out arguments better than "prophetic", inflammatory, or fear-inducing rhetoric -- so there will probably be a bias in the reports mentioned.

BTW, you do realize that the "graduated income tax" was something instituted by LBJ (IIRC)? And the social security tax by FDR? Prior to that, the only taxes were consumption taxes and flat taxes? I'm speaking off the top of my head for this statement, so I could be wrong -- but I am fairly certain that is the case.

[mrdiscreet]

MrD: As someone who is usually among that "mushy middle", and actually votes for individuals rather than along party lines, (NEVER votes a party ticket, and even leaves some spots blank if I don't know any of the candidates, rather than vote blindly) your rhetoric was inflammatory to start with. Whether Spare is right about the cost for the IRS (the only thing you have shown numbers or research on), he was asking an honest question. You have chosen to evade it while disparaging both the question and the questioner. That is not the way to have a civil and informative dialogue, which is what most people want.

It sounds like you don't want any tax whatsoever, so I wouldn't call you Marxist -- but you obviously don't believe in capitalism and market economics, either. Where is the happy medium for you?

I am googling "fair tax" now; and will be happy to report some of the articles I find on either side of the issue. I will say, though, that I tend to value well documented and logically thought out arguments better than "prophetic", inflammatory, or fear-inducing rhetoric -- so there will probably be a bias in the reports mentioned.

BTW, you do realize that the "graduated income tax" was something instituted by LBJ (IIRC)? And the social security tax by FDR? Prior to that, the only taxes were consumption taxes and flat taxes? I'm speaking off the top of my head for this statement, so I could be wrong -- but I am fairly certain that is the case.

While I respect your response, I disagree:

1. I responded on the merits of Spare's claims about IRS numbers; I was factual, he was not. (This was a major piece of his argument in support.)

2. I did not evade the topic, I responded directly to the core of what FAIR will be about: shifting the tax burden away from unearned income. I invite correction on this point if I am mistaken. Spare offers no detail on specifics, and avoids responding to this crucial point. "True patriots pay their freight" is inflammatory? I would think all would agree with this sentiment.

3. Red-baiting is not inflammatory?

4. I clearly have not expressed myself well: I happily pay large amounts of tax, and believe we are undertaxed as a society. I absolutely support progressive taxation, which is against my personal self-interest. I do not engage tax advisors to comb the Code for ways to pay less. As for free markets, I don't choose to disclose my occupation here, but those who work with me would die laughing on that front.

All that said, Turtle, thank you for giving me pause to consider my comments and how I express them.

[TheTurtle]

While I respect your response, I disagree:

1. I responded on the merits of Spare's claims about IRS numbers; I was factual, he was not. (This was a major piece of his argument in support.)

2. I did not evade the topic, I responded directly to the core of what FAIR will be about: shifting the tax burden away from unearned income. I invite correction on this point if I am mistaken. Spare offers no detail on specifics, and avoids responding to this crucial point. "True patriots pay their freight" is inflammatory? I would think all would agree with this sentiment.

3. Red-baiting is not inflammatory?

4. I clearly have not expressed myself well: I happily pay large amounts of tax, and believe we are undertaxed as a society. I absolutely support progressive taxation, which is against my personal self-interest. I do not engage tax advisors to comb the Code for ways to pay less. As for free markets, I don't choose to disclose my occupation here, but those who work with me would die laughing on that front.

All that said, Turtle, thank you for giving me pause to consider my comments and how I express them.

The "red-baiting" was inflammatory;, I agree. And I would modify the statement that "true patriots pay their freight" to something dealing with more personal responsibility. It has nothing to do with patriotism. You live here, you help pay for the things necessary (a key word that causes much debate ;) ) for a federal government to handle -- interstate commerce/roads, national defense and military, foreign affairs and relations.

I believe we pay way too much in taxes now, and that the more socialist society based govenrments over in Europe are proving that it won't help; but the question becomes how to both limit the government's intrusions into our lives, and yet pay for what we need.

Personally, I think a FLAT tax with "0" loopholes is the best way to go. No graduated stuff, no double taxing or income and assets. A flat tax on all income and investment/capital gains (treating it as income). period. No "death tax"; no "corporate tax" (which just gets passed on to us, IMHO. they don't really pay anything. The shareholders pay the tax when they make the dividend profits). But I don't have any numbers to back that up immediatey; it is only my own sense of "fairness" that supports this.

Oh, and the income tax was instituted in 1913, so I stand corrected on that one, the current progressive system was developed during LBJ's presidency. A short term income tax was instituted during the civil war to help pay for it, but was allowed to lapse.

[TheTurtle]

OK. Here's what I found in a quick search (~90 minutes)

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf

This document is a product of the organization "Americans for a Fair Tax". Obviously, they are in favor of it. Their article is well reasoned, and well documented, but I didn't like two things in particular -- a) I didn't understand totally the concepts being used of "average remainging lifetime lifetime tax rates" and "average remaining lifetime income" for determining actual tax rate percentages; and b) None of their documentation, while thorough, was dated any more recently than 2005. Whether this was a function of the peer review process, or numbers and scholarship have changed in the last three years, I don't know. I realize the law is dated from 2005, BTW, but I would think they could update their numbers to reflect current situations.

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

This article is an article, not a document. It is by an organization firmly against the "Fair Tax", and apparently very "right wing" (as MrDiscreet liked to say) -- or at least, very libertarian IMHO. While not as well documented numbers-wise, the article raises some verrry good questions that could give rise to doubting the fair tax as instituted under the current bills. He questions whether Congress would have the will to repeal the 16th amendment after the fact if the fair tax is implemented first -- leading to the possibility of an income tax and a consumption tax. And of course it also depends on at least 38 states ratifying the repeal, and thus losing their income tax laws as well... He also notes that the language of the law allows for fluctuation in the tax (it will change every year, based on three different indices), and that the "prebate" language still allows for the same kind of loophole seeking that currently exists under tax codes because it is based on what the government decides is proper "income" levels -- and many of the richest don't have incomes, per se.

Their seem to be two understandings of the "fair tax" law by those who are proponents of it. The most basic one, and the one marketed by most of the local support groups is that it is a consumption tax; the more new products you buy, the more you pay. Thus, those who buy luxery and and new will pay more, regardless of income. Homeowners, in particular will benefit when buying used houses; but even new houses will lower in cost because of the lowered costs to builders. It sounds wwonderful, and if that were all there was to it, I would probably decide in favor of it. However. the "graduated prebate" stuff is usually not mentioned, nor is the probable problems with getting the 16th amendment repealed -- and the possible effects of a double tax.

Interestingly, I could not find in 26 pages of google responses, a single "left wing" organization against the "fair tax". If someone can provide me with a link to one, I would be glad to look at its documentation.


My take -- the "fair tax" as currently decribed in its law has the best of intentions, but is a bomb just waiting to go off. Of course, I am a firm Calvinist, so I believe in the total depravity of humankind, and that we usually end up with the WORST possible results because people rarely aspire to the best.



Hope this helps, Spare.

[mrdiscreet]

The "red-baiting" was inflammatory;, I agree. And I would modify the statement that "true patriots pay their freight" to something dealing with more personal responsibility. It has nothing to do with patriotism. You live here, you help pay for the things necessary (a key word that causes much debate ;) ) for a federal government to handle -- interstate commerce/roads, national defense and military, foreign affairs and relations.

I believe we pay way too much in taxes now, and that the more socialist society based govenrments over in Europe are proving that it won't help; but the question becomes how to both limit the government's intrusions into our lives, and yet pay for what we need.

Personally, I think a FLAT tax with "0" loopholes is the best way to go. No graduated stuff, no double taxing or income and assets. A flat tax on all income and investment/capital gains (treating it as income). period. No "death tax"; no "corporate tax" (which just gets passed on to us, IMHO. they don't really pay anything. The shareholders pay the tax when they make the dividend profits). But I don't have any numbers to back that up immediatey; it is only my own sense of "fairness" that supports this.

Oh, and the income tax was instituted in 1913, so I stand corrected on that one, the current progressive system was developed during LBJ's presidency. A short term income tax was instituted during the civil war to help pay for it, but was allowed to lapse.

Thanks, Turtle.

You prompted me to review my posts, and I do see that I was egging Spare on a bit. (Although I would say it was Spare who brought out the flamethrowers.) This is because we have a bit of a personal debate history, but it doesn't make it right.

We live in a society where literally 0.5% of our population controls 25-30% of the wealth. Probably more given the run of the past 5 years. The great thing about free economies is they allow people to get rich; but if unearned income (investment gains) are not taxed as earned income is (our labor), then the wealthiest among us end getting largely a free pass. I find this destructive to a healthy society.

On paying too much, I agree: prefer small government. My comment on undertaxed goes mostly to not taxing enough to meet our spending. But I firmly believe we should pay as we go, not burden future generations with debt.

[mrdiscreet]

Many mainstream economists and tax experts believe consumption taxes, such as the FairTax, would have a positive impact on savings and investment (not taxed)

This is from Wikipedia, so only a rough source.

But watch the bouncing ball: the greedy element among the wealthy (not everyone who is wealthy) do not want to pay taxes on investment income. I find that morally reprehensible. FAIR is not fair if investment income gets a free pass. That is placing the tax burden on the middle class who mostly earn their income instead of getting investment returns.

[TheTurtle]

Thanks, Turtle.

You prompted me to review my posts, and I do see that I was egging Spare on a bit. (Although I would say it was Spare who brought out the flamethrowers.) This is because we have a bit of a personal debate history, but it doesn't make it right.

We live in a society where literally 0.5% of our population controls 25-30% of the wealth. Probably more given the run of the past 5 years. The great thing about free economies is they allow people to get rich; but if unearned income (investment gains) are not taxed as earned income is (our labor), then the wealthiest among us end getting largely a free pass. I find this destructive to a healthy society.

On paying too much, I agree: prefer small government. My comment on undertaxed goes mostly to not taxing enough to meet our spending. But I firmly believe we should pay as we go, not burden future generations with debt.

I'm with you on both of those points. investment gains are income. and we should pay as we go. The only time I support a (limited) unbalanced government budget is to pay for war needs; but this will never happen as long as preexisting programs all have a built in growth factor that exceeds inflation. It will always be spending more than it gets in, and when people call limiting growth of a program to inflation a "cut", it burns my buns! My pay raise doesn't even have to reflect inflation (it can be less, though hopefully not!) Why should the programming I (John Q. Public) pay for with my income and taxes not reflect the limitations on my (John Q. Public's) income growth? :spbx:

[mrdiscreet]

Glad we brought this back to the main point I was trying to make, thanks for helping me get rid of the distracting commentary.

[mrdiscreet]

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Dist_Net_Worth_2001.gif
Total Net Worth in U.S.: $42.3892 trillion ($42,389,200,000,000)

Source: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001," (http://www.levy.org/2/index.asp?interface=standard&screen=publications_preview&datasrc=f7e3bccf2f) Table 10. (Levy Economics Institute (http://www.levy.org/): November, 2003)




These are numbers from the Chicago Fed. The above actually under-reports because the Fed excludes the Forbes 400 richest individuals from its numbers since the numbers might be personally identifiable. And those are big numbers.


The point is that the Top 1% control 1/3 of US wealth; the top 5% more than 1/2 of US wealth. FairTax would take unearned income (investment income) off the tax rolls. That leaves quite a burden to be picked up by the middle class, who typically have to spend most their income on goods and services to get by.

It's the holy grail for the wealthy: a regressive tax model.


Doesn't seem fair to me.

[spare_change]

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Dist_Net_Worth_2001.gif
Total Net Worth in U.S.: $42.3892 trillion ($42,389,200,000,000)

Source: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001," (http://www.levy.org/2/index.asp?interface=standard&screen=publications_preview&datasrc=f7e3bccf2f) Table 10. (Levy Economics Institute (http://www.levy.org/): November, 2003)




These are numbers from the Chicago Fed. The above actually under-reports because the Fed excludes the Forbes 400 richest individuals from its numbers since the numbers might be personally identifiable. And those are big numbers.


The point is that the Top 1% control 1/3 of US wealth; the top 5% more than 1/2 of US wealth. FairTax would take unearned income (investment income) off the tax rolls. That leaves quite a burden to be picked up by the middle class, who typically have to spend most their income on goods and services to get by.

It's the holy grail for the wealthy: a regressive tax model.


Doesn't seem fair to me.














Let me make sure I understand --- you favor taxation as an income distribution technique?

[mrdiscreet]

Let me make sure I understand --- you favor taxation as an income distribution technique?

That's not a relevant question to this thread; that goes to what gov't spends and on what programs.

1. I am in favor of taxation sufficient to cover gov't spending; very happy to have less gov't spending and less overall taxation.

2. Put another way, I am against re-distribution of wealth from future generations to pay the freight for our excesses in this generation.

3. I am also for all sources of wealth (earned or unearned) stepping up to pay the freight. Why would we exempt 1/3 to 1/2 of the wealth from paying the freight?

4. I believe the FairTax operates to shelter unearned income from taxation (the rich have no need to spend large chunks of their wealth), leaving the middle class (which needs to spend most of its income to get by) shouldering the bill. So, boil it down and earned income gets wacked while large chunks of unearned wealth get a free pass.

5. If you want to call progressive taxation Marxist, have at it. I've promised Turtle not to trade bon mots with you. I think its fair that those who have benefitted the most, and can comfortably contribute more, should step up to the plate and do so. I call it good citizenship.

[spare_change]

So, again, just to make sure I understand ---

You make $100,000 and I make $1,000

If the tax were "equal" (let's assume 10%), you would pay $10,000 and I would pay $100.

Under your approach, I would pay $100, and you would pay $35,000 (because you were in the 35% graduated tax class).

Have I got that right?

[mrdiscreet]

So, again, just to make sure I understand ---

You make $100,000 and I make $1,000

If the tax were "equal" (let's assume 10%), you would pay $10,000 and I would pay $100.

Under your approach, I would pay $100, and you would pay $35,000 (because you were in the 35% graduated tax class).

Have I got that right?

Close, more like 20% effective tax rate since that is a marginal rate; you can get the figures more accurate if you use bigger numbers, but I think you've statd the basic idea correctly.

[spare_change]

First, I have not decided whether I like the Fair Tax or not --- I was going to wait until the Government briefing to study it, but my curiosity has been aroused. I am now in the data collecting mode.

The "non-progressive" argument seemed to have some merit -- until I went to one of the references Turtle gave. The Fair Tax is, in fact, a progressive tax. It is NOT a flat tax. The more you make, the higher percentage you pay.

Here is a chart from their website --- it would seem to mitigate that argument, though, I suppose, the percentages could be a bone of contention.

[mrdiscreet]

[deleted-posting error]

[mrdiscreet]

The assumption is simply wrong: it is a consumption tax, and the wealthy simply do not spend all their income. Hence, regressive.

[spare_change]

The assumption is simply wrong: it is a consumption tax, and the wealthy simply do not spend all their income. Hence, regressive.


What assumption is wrong? The one the chart is based on? Can you point out the error?

[mrdiscreet]

I find that chart pretty deceptive. If you are going to assume everyone spends their entire income, why even change the collection mode? Just argue about what tax rates should be.

The hidden agenda is that the wealthy don't spend huge chunks of their income (they invest it), which in turn completely escapes tax.

[mrdiscreet]

What assumption is wrong? The one the chart is based on? Can you point out the error?

The chart expressly assumes annual income = annual spending.

patently not true for the wealthy, and the crux of why FairTax is regressive.

[spare_change]

But, your approach smacks of INCOME tax rather than SALES tax -- you are claiming that if you make more, you should pay more, whereas the Fair Tax proposes that if you spend more, you should pay more. If the crux of the approach is to share the burden equally, I'm not sure your method works - in fact, we know it doesn't.
I'll concede that, percentage wise, the wealthier probably will spend a smaller percentage of his overall income in taxable events, but I think you must agree that he will spend MORE than the less wealthy, thus shouldering a larger percentage of the overall burden. In addition, the prebate function would seem to offset some of your concern.

I also think you have to consider the impact of increased capital on the economy .... more money available, more invested, more jobs. By your own definition, they aren't wasting it on a lavish lifestyle, because, if they were, they would be paying more sales tax. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[mrdiscreet]

The easiest rough test of this is what the hit would be on IRS receipts if capital gains taxes were removed.

Take that number, accept that this is a zero sum game, and ask what the lost capital gains revenue is going to be replaced by?

The rich pay MORE even under a flat tax; that doesn't answer the question.

I see that hole getting plugged by middle class spending. I have a huge smile on my face if I am wealthy and interested in reducing my tax bill.

I don't buy the "bigger pie" arguments.

Seems we've both examined in detail; not a tragedy if we disagree.

[mrdiscreet]

September 18, 2007



WASHINGTON (CNN) – Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) unveiled his tax cut plan Tuesday in Washington. Some would call it a Robin Hood approach, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. (Related: Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html)) (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index.html)

"At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the level that we're taxing gains for investors," said the Democratic presidential candidate.

This will make for interesting debates on what fair taxation is.

Spare, a further thought: FairTax essentially redmains an income tax for the middle class, since almost all income has to be spent on goods/services to get by.

All taxation ultimately has to come from wealth (must have wealth to spend), so the question is what pools of wealth get tapped to pay the freight. I really don't get why we would want to exempt unearned income (of all wealth categories!) from contributing.

[spare_change]

I AM NOT A PROPONENT OF THE FAIR TAX PROVISION, BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ONE ONCE I UNDERSTAND IT.

I found this information interesting --- from a 2004 government report:

Fact Sheet:

Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes?

The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.

* In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
* The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.
* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

[spare_change]

It would seem that the crux of the discussion hinges on who should pay.

On the one hand, we have those who feel that all of us benefit, and thus, we should each pay our fair share (the definition of "fair share" is, of course, up to interpretation).

On the other hand, we have those who feel that some of us have benefited more than others, and thus should pay more because we have a greater ability to pay.

[spare_change]

I really don't get why we would want to exempt unearned income (of all wealth categories!) from contributing.
[/b]

I AM NOT A PROPONENT OF THE FAIR TAX PROPOSAL, BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ONE ONCE I UNDERSTAND IT.

From an executive summary of testimony by Mark Bloomfield, accompanied by ACCF Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Dr. Margo Thorning, who testified as a committee-invited witness on March 19, 1997 before the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Bloomfield also testified on March 13, 1997, before the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate. :

" 4. Macroeconomic Impact of Capital Gains Tax Reductions.

* Increase Jobs and Economic Growth. New analyses by mainstream economic forecaster Allen Sinai, president and chief global economist of Primark Decision Economics, and by David Wyss, director of research of DRI/McGraw-Hill, show that a broad-based and carefully crafted capital gains tax cut for individuals and corporations reduces the cost of capital and increases investment, GDP, productivity growth, and employment. In addition, such a cut would essentially be revenue neutral, when unlocking and macroeconomic consequences are included.

* Benefit Middle-Class Taxpayers. A 1996 Congressional Budget Office draft report documents the widespread ownership of capital assets among middle-income taxpayers. According to the CBO report, in 1989, 31 percent of families with incomes under $20,000 held capital assets (not including personal residences) and 54 percent with income between $20,000 and $50,000 held capital assets.

* Encourage Entrepreneurship. Capital gains taxation has a particularly powerful impact on the nation's entrepreneurs, a major, driving force for technological breakthroughs, new start-up companies, and the creation of high-paying jobs. Starting new businesses involves not only entrepreneurs but also informal investors, venture capital pools, and a healthy public market.

* Promote U.S. Saving and Investment. The United States taxes capital gains more harshly that almost any other industrial nation, according to an OECD survey of twelve industrialized countries. Most of these countries also had higher rates of investment as a percent of GDP than the United States over the past two decades.

5. Conclusion. A soundly structured, broad-based cut in tax rates on capital gains would significantly benefit all Americans. By reducing the cost of capital, it would promote the type of productive business investment that fosters growth in output and high-paying jobs. By increasing the mobility of capital, it would help assure that scarce saving is used in the most productive manner. By raising capital values, it would help support values in capital asset markets in general and the stock market in particular. By increasing the availability and lowering the cost of capital, it would aid entrepreneurs in their vital efforts to keep the United States ahead in technological advances and translate those advances into products and services that people need and want. By reducing taxes on their savings, it would treat fairly those thrifty Americans who must bear a heavier tax burden than the profligate. And, because of the combined impacts of unlocking and macroeconomic feedback, a broad-based capital gains tax cut is likely to increase federal revenues. "

This would seem to provide a rationale for not taxing "unearned income". This also seems to be the prevailing opinion among economists regarding capital gains taxes - I chose this one because it was the most concise. Others available upon request.

[cherokeered]

Well....someone needs to come up with a decent plan but not sure it will ever happen....and how do you back a plan from one and not the other....how do you know what is best for everyone??

Well, maybe if everyone comes up with one we can compare them and take the best and most logical and fair from each....I somehow doubt one person or group can come up with it alone...this might be the time for party-lines to disappear and common sense to prevail....

[spare_change]

Well....someone needs to come up with a decent plan but not sure it will ever happen....and how do you back a plan from one and not the other....how do you know what is best for everyone??

Well, maybe if everyone comes up with one we can compare them and take the best and most logical and fair from each....I somehow doubt one person or group can come up with it alone...this might be the time for party-lines to disappear and common sense to prevail....




You dreamer, you!

[mrdiscreet]

This would seem to provide a rationale for not taxing "unearned income". This also seems to be the prevailing opinion among economists regarding capital gains taxes - I chose this one because it was the most concise. Others available upon request.

Prevailing opinion among economists? Economics is a land of many kingdoms; those expressing theories favored by the wealthy get lots of air time. Are investors really going to not invest because returns are taxed? No.

Approximately 85% of public equity is controlled by the Top 10%. The statement that 54% of taxpayers with $20K to $50K hold investment assets does not address how few those holdings are. The suggestion that the middle class benefits by exempting unearned income is handing out pennies to keep hold of dollars.

So the rationale is well stated; but recognize it as theory, not fact.

[mrdiscreet]

NEW YORK — A billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to. For the first time, it takes more than $1 billion to earn a spot on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans. The minimum net worth for inclusion in this year's rankings released Thursday was $1.3 billion, up $300 million from last year.

That's a lot of wealth taken off the tax rolls; that's ok, those of us laboring for our income can shoulder the burden.

Spare, on who shoulder what %, you may have fun researching how burdens correlate to wealth. Pretty rough parity on ability to pay if viewed through this lens.

[spare_change]

NEW YORK — A billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to. For the first time, it takes more than $1 billion to earn a spot on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans. The minimum net worth for inclusion in this year's rankings released Thursday was $1.3 billion, up $300 million from last year.

That's a lot of wealth taken off the tax rolls; that's ok, those of us laboring for our income can shoulder the burden.

Spare, on who shoulder what %, you may have fun researching how burdens correlate to wealth. Pretty rough parity on ability to pay if viewed through this lens.


That is a momentous leap of logic ---- how the list of 400 richest Americans correlates to wealth taken off the tax rolls escapes me. Your assumptions are: 1) all the wealth is in "unearned income" (I love that phrase -- makes it sound like the money is just given to them, with no effort or risk on their part), and 2) the 400 richest Americans pay no taxes (even though data indicates they pay much more than their "fair" share).

Sounds like somebody wants a free ride on the backs of others ......

If the Fair Tax becomes the law of the land, call your boss and tell him you don't want to be paid in money any more .... you'll take your salary in stock, which you can then sell, and the capital gains will be untaxed. Sounds simple to me .... LOL

(Of course, that doesn't work ..... capital gains is the DIFFERENCE between buy price and sell price, not the value of the stock)

[Shiane]

Fair Tax is an interesting concept. First of all there was a comment about being undertaxed, and then more explanation of the government spending more than is paid in. I don't recall the government asking me what I want my tax dollars spent on. Just send in the money and we'll decide where it goes. Well sorry but that burns my ass. I expect them to be bargain hunters and not just throw away my money afterall I work damn hard for it. I see our government as a irresponsible teenager with a never ending bank account. As long as momma and daddy keep replenishing it they will continue to spend it like it grows on trees.


I can see both sides of this, and to be honest I still haven't made up my mind. But, so far anything that increases what comes out of my pocket is a big hell no for me. I understand that poverty is a problem in our country, and while I can sympathize I simply can't make myself say oh sorry hunnie thats okay we dont need your money. You have to understand that I see sooooooo many people in this situation that well my give a damn is pretty much busted. I work with people who make a lot less than I do, and I am certainly not wealthy. But, my problem is giving people a break who won't use it to better their lives but they waste it. I work with a girl who spends 80 bucks a week on lottery tickets, feeds her kids Mc Donalds just about every night so she can get to the casino early. She gets public assistance because of her low income, her school is paid for, she gets food stamps, she gets help with her housing and free day care. Hells bells, and you expect me to say I'll pick up the slack and so she can have more money to spend on lottery tickets and the trips to the casino? Sorry but no! I realize everyone doesn't do this, but there a lot who stand there with their hand out and still expect more.

As far as the wealthy getting tax breaks, sorry I don't go for that either. I can't help but think there should be a flat tax for EVERYONE. You pay a certain tax percentage regardless of income. As far as taxing investment returns there should also be a flat tax, those who make more will pay more but atleast it will be fair. For people who are in business for themselves, well they can claim that they don't receive income because they reinvest it or they are paid in stock options. Well that is a loophole that needs to be closed. What they recieve in stock options, capital gains, and business growth should be considered income and they should be taxed just like everyone else.

Don't call it fair tax unless you are going to make it fair for everyone. Don't spend it just because you can, we as a public need to make our governement officals accountable for unneeded spending.

[troos2]

I hope the CI* is not monitoring this site. Just in case they are we should use an asterisk or alternate symbol to modify key scanner words. LOL

[mrdiscreet]

That is a momentous leap of logic ---- how the list of 400 richest Americans correlates to wealth taken off the tax rolls escapes me. Your assumptions are: 1) all the wealth is in "unearned income" (I love that phrase -- makes it sound like the money is just given to them, with no effort or risk on their part), and 2) the 400 richest Americans pay no taxes (even though data indicates they pay much more than their "fair" share).

Sounds like somebody wants a free ride on the backs of others ......

If the Fair Tax becomes the law of the land, call your boss and tell him you don't want to be paid in money any more .... you'll take your salary in stock, which you can then sell, and the capital gains will be untaxed. Sounds simple to me .... LOL

(Of course, that doesn't work ..... capital gains is the DIFFERENCE between buy price and sell price, not the value of the stock)

1. Please refrain from the snide remarks. My tax returns are anything but "free ride" and I argue against personal interest in pointing out that unearned income gets a partial free ride now (15% capital gains rate), and would get a complete free ride under FAIR.

2. My point was that the Top 50% controls 97.2% of wealth; with that correlation, it is not outrageous to me that the Top 50% pays 96% of the tax burden. There is only so much to be had from the bottom 50% once they have paid for a roof, groceries and gas. That said, Shiane I respect your point of view that no one should have free rides; tax the bottom 50% wahtever amount you like.

3. Spare, anticipating your commie comment to come, please review Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations on progressive taxation. Is he sufficiently capitalist for you?

4. I never argued to tax existing wealth; I argue to tax capital gains (unearned income on that wealth) in the same way that earned income is taxed. "Unearned income" is not my spin; this is the universal term used by economists to distinquish passive investment returns from labor income.

5. Your example of re-characterizing earned income as unearned income is, sadly, a common practice. The wealthy routinely arrange their compensation packages this way. Given your line of work, you are obviously intimately familiar with these practices.

6. The "momentous leap of logic" is simply this: if you have billions of dollars, the vast chunk of that is generating unearned income far beyond what will be spent. The FAIRTax would not capture any of that unearned income, leaving the burden to be picked up largely by middle class spending.

7. I don't particularly care where your sympathies lie, but we should be candid that FAIR would be a regressive tax structure.

[spare_change]

I think it is a fair assumption that those who have more money, spend more money. The more you spend, the more tax you pay --- that would seem to represent a progressive tax burden.

Your definition of regressive tax is any tax in which the lower income pays a greater percentage of their income to taxes than the higher income brackets. So, if a family made $100K, spent $80K, their tax burden would be $18,400 (assuming 23% tax rate). If a family made $1M, spent $800K, their tax burden would be $184,000 - a tax rate burden exactly equal to the lower income family.

However, according to http://www.investorwords.com/4909/tax_rate.html, a regressive tax rate is one in which the tax percentage decreases as the taxable amount rises. In fact, the FAIR tax is a "proportional" tax - one in which the tax rate stays the same, no matter the tax base (the best example is a sales tax -- which is basically what the FAIR tax proposal purports to be).

However, for purposes of discussion, we will assume that you are saying that the tax BURDEN is regressive (which, by the way, happens to be true of all income taxes - even our so-called current progressive tax plan).

Your argument would seem to be that the $1M family will spend less than $800K, so their effective tax burden will be less (when considered as a percentage of income) than the lower income family. For example, if we assume, the $1M family only spent $400K. their tax burden would be only $92K.

You conveniently forget the impact of the "unspent" $600K. This money isn't put into the bank ... it's spent ... not on taxable items, but on factories, and buildings, and equipment, and those things that make industry work. It is a popular axiom that for every dollar returned to the economy (in terms of tax cuts), the government retrieves $14 in newly generated taxes from the result of that money being invested or spent. So, it's easy to see how the "unspent" $600K actually will reduce future tax burdens.

I also note that the $100K family receives, generally, the same value of benefits from the government as does the $1M family --- in fact, probably more. They use the same highways, they use the same post office, they use the same military, etc. So, clearly, the $100K family got a better return on its $18K investment than did the $1M family.

All of this, of course, does not even take into consideration the "prebate" function, in which the people who make less than $27K get a check rebating their tax expenses - resulting in a net zero tax liability.

[PlayfulMale69]

There seems to be a lot of discussion on the collection fair or not, regressive or progressive.

It used to be illegal to collect taxes. I am not naive to think we will ever have those days again. But the spending that the government does with our money is a crime or ought to be. We all know of the stupid things they spend our money on from cows farting to overpriced toilet seats.

I just wish we had some say in the spending side. The rules that the congress operate in is part of the problem since they can add amendments and call a bill one thing but all the ammendments make it into something else.

As far as the taxation goes, I think that any tax structure is goign to have the wealthy paying more than the poor. Even in a flat tax they would pay more than the poor. I don't agree that they have to pay the same percentage of their money as a poor person though. I have heard the argument that the rich don't pay as much. That can only mean that they don't pay as much percentage of their available income.

Take a 10% flat tax. The $100k pays $10k. The $1M pays $100k. To me, the wealthy guy at $1M is paying more taxes. How do they figure less?

[mrdiscreet]

Amen on gov't spending.

You'd be surprised how little some wealthy taxpayers pay. The alternative minimum tax addressed a lot of that, but now AMT thresholds are digging into upper middle-class incomes because they were not indexed for inflation.

The wealthy will pay more in dollars even in a regressive tax structure. But if FAIR is implemented, you will definitely see the wealthy pay a lower effective rate (say 15-20%) than middle-class (23%).

If you like that, good for you.

[cmt21lem]

Ulti, very good topic

[cmt21lem]

turned out to be a mild hurricane year, texas was not hit hard

[TIGUY]

Man sues to regain cash in payola try
Perhaps only in New Jersey can a man file a lawsuit and recover money he paid for a bribe that never happened.

Gianni Scheeki, a rental property owner from Lodi, says he handed $31,000 to a guy who bragged he could land Scheeki's son a job with the state's biggest power company through "connections" in New Jersey politics. Scheeki believed the guy, once convicted in a mob gambling ring, was offering to buy the influence of a key state lawmaker who would pull strings at PSE&G. He said it seemed like a good deal.

"You've got to know somebody to get in wherever you go, and he told me he could do it," Scheeki said. "Look at this, if I put my kid through school at Lincoln Tech, it's going to cost me thirty grand. If somebody can do something for me in six months and get him a good-paying job, why pay that money for him to go to school?"

The son got a letter of recommendation and a job interview, but no job. So Scheeki sued -- and won most of his money back in a settlement three months ago.

"This is why New Jersey has a bad reputation," said an attorney who filed the lawsuit on Scheeki's behalf in state Superior Court. "You can't make it up."

The two named in the lawsuit claim Scheeki got it all wrong.

The guy said he never offered a bribe to anyone and was acting as a "headhunter."

The lawmaker said he doesn't know either man, immediately contacted authorities when informed of the lawsuit and insisted on an apology in the settlement. A County Prosecutor said there was no bribe, and it appears the guy merely used the lawmaker's name and pocketed the money. No charges were filed.

The scheme almost worked. The once convicted mobster managed to get the Mayor's office to send a letter to PSE&G in which the lawmaker recommends they hire Scheeki's son, who did land a job interview with the company.

"This should serve basically as a warning to all in public life about how people can take advantage of you," the Mayor said.

It all began when Scheeki met the once convicted mobster through a girlfriend. He said the guy, convicted of promoting gambling nearly ten years following an investigation into the Genovese crime family, portrayed himself as a guy who "can do anything."

When Scheeki mentioned his son was having a hard time getting a job, this fellow boasted that he was "politically connected" to the Mayor, then an assemblyman, according to the lawsuit. He told Scheeki that the Mayor had the "power and influence" to obtain a job for his son, the lawsuit claims.

In November 2004, Scheeki cut a cashier's check for $31,000 and gave it to his friend with all the contacts, with the understanding that $30,000 was to be paid to the contact, who is also a city mayor, for him to "assist Scheeki in procuring" the job, the suit alleged.

The once convicted man's attorney said Scheeki was never told he knew this Mayor or intended to give him $30,000 to buy his influence.

"That's a fabrication," said the attorney. "I look it as the role of a headhunter where he was being paid to utilize any contacts within the industry."

The attorney could not say what contacts his client had in the industry or PSE&G. He acknowledged his client asked a Department of Public Works employee to have the Mayor write a letter of recommendation for Scheeki.

In a sworn affidavit, the employee said he asked the mayoral aide to prepare a letter of recommendation for Scheeki. The attorney said he never spoke directly with the Mayor about the letter, but provided a résumé and he said he believed the aide "had to get the Mayor's permission to prepare the letter."

On Dec. 8, 2005, the Mayor's office sent a note -- on state General Assembly letterhead -- to PSE&G.

It said Mr. Scheeki is "an accomplished and well respected individual that has worked arduously through his employment history in his commitment to achieve professional success." It ended with the Mayor "firmly" recommending Mr. Scheeki and urging PSE&G to give his "application the strongest of consideration."

Soon after, PSE&G called in Scheeki for an interview, the lawsuit said. But Scheeki didn't get the job because his driver's license was suspended for drunken driving, attorneys said.

A PSE&G spokeswoman declined to comment.

The Mayor said the letter was written by a member of his staff, a common practice in his office because of the volume of requests he gets. "That's a form letter and it was done by my staff on the computer," he said. "That wasn't signed by me personally."

The case settled in December 2007 with the once accused guy agreeing to repay an undisclosed portion of the money to Scheeki.

As part of the settlement, Scheeki sent a letter of apology to the Mayor in which he wrote: "In hindsight, I sincerely believe that you, too, were a victim. Specifically, I now believe that your name was used in an unauthorized manner to exact money from me."

This case shows how ingrained the idea of paying for influence has become.

"The guy is just so comfortable in this culture ... he is willing to go to the court to get it back. It's just sort of indicative of the state of affairs in New Jersey.

[OICurready4me]

For a second, I thought I was reading about Rhode Island!

[Zarret]

Sounds like something from "you gotta be kidding me" news.:D

[OICurready4me]

Golfer says killing of bird was '1-in-a-million' accident


By TRAVIS REED


ORLANDO, Fla. — Pro golfer Tripp Isenhour said it was a "one-in-a-million" golf shot that killed a protected hawk and that he was only trying to scare the bird he now faces criminal charges for killing.

Isenhour spoke on the Golf Channel's PODS Championship post-round show Friday, his first public comments since news broke that he killed the protected bird Dec. 12.

Investigators say Isenhour got upset because the hawk's loud chirps interrupted the filming of his instructional video. He was charged Wednesday in Orange County Circuit Court with animal cruelty and killing a migratory bird, charges that carry a combined 14 months in jail and $1,500 in fines.

"What happened was, you know, the bird was making noise, but the fact that I was upset was inaccurate," Isenhour said. "There were several others trying to get the bird to simply fly away. That's all we were trying to do. The bird was high up in the tree and I was simply just tying to hit the tree to make the bird fly away."



Humane Society weighs in

Also Friday, the head of the Humane Society of the United States faxed PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem a letter urging "appropriate remedial action against Isenhour up to and including fines and suspension."

"By setting an example of compassion for the public, the PGA has the chance to make a difference for our communities and instill an ethic of animal protection," Humane Society president and CEO Wayne Pacelle wrote.

Isenhour is playing the Nationwide Tour this season after losing his PGA Tour card for the second time last year.

Because of the hawk's killing, Isenhour also lost his practice privileges at Grand Cypress Resort, where the crew was filming.

Isenhour, whose real name is John Henry Isenhour III, said it was foolish for people to believe he could have realistically hit the bird.

"That's obviously people who don't know very much about golf," he said. "To say it's a one-in-a-million shot for an accident like that to happen, you know, and when it did happen, I was very remorseful, very upset that it happened.

"The event did occur, but it didn't exactly occur that way, exactly as they described it. My reaction from the time it happened has been one of regret and remorse that it happened, because it was an unfortunate accident. We all have had unfortunate accidents happen."



Several shots taken

Prosecutors say the 39-year-old player took several shots at the hawk, first driving to it in a golf cart after the bird interrupted filming from 300 yards away. When the bird later landed within 75 yards, Isenhour's shots got closer until he eventually hit and killed the hawk. It fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils, witnesses told the Florida Fish and Wildlife.

PGA Tour players didn't seem too shaken.

"It's a bad break for the bird, but it sounds like there are a lot of other things people should be worried about," Mark Calcavecchia said.

"He probably just didn't think. He didn't think, 'If I actually hit the bird, what happens?'" Lee Janzen said. "A girl from North Carolina got murdered yesterday and there's no suspect. That's a lot more important. If it could have nicked him, scared him off, we'd never have heard of this. Unfortunately, the bird got hit."

[Annie]

'Miss Bimbo' Web Site Sparks Outrage in Britain
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

By Steve Bird
A Web site that encourages girls as young as 9 to embrace plastic surgery and extreme dieting in the search for the perfect figure was condemned as lethal by British parents' groups and health-care experts Monday.

The "Miss Bimbo" Internet game has attracted prepubescent girls who are told to buy their virtual characters breast-enlargement surgery and to keep them "waif thin" with diet pills.

Health-care professionals, a parents' group and an organization representing people suffering from anorexia and bulimia criticized the Web site for sending a dangerous message to impressionable children.

In the month since it opened the site, which is aimed at girls aged from 9 to 16, has attracted 200,000 members.

Players keep a constant watch on the weight, wardrobe, wealth and happiness of their character to create "the coolest, richest and most famous bimbo in the world.

Competing against other children, they earn "bimbo dollars" to buy plastic surgery, diet pills, facelifts, lingerie and fashionable nightclub outfits.

Dee Dawson, the medical director of the Rhodes Farm Clinic in north London, which treats girls aged from 8 to 18 who suffer from eating disorders, said: "This is as lethal as pro-anorexia Web sites. A lot of children will get caught up with the extremely damaging and appalling messages.

Susan Ringwood, the chief executive of Beat, a Norwich, England-based organization that supports those suffering from eating disorders, said that the Web site could make girls believe that weight and body size manipulation were acceptable.

The Miss Bimbo site was set up by Nicholas Jacquart, a French entrepreneur. He moved to Tooting, South London, recently and with a 30-year-old businessman called Chris Evans set up Ouza Ltd to promote the Web site in Britain.

Its introduction came as research showed that British children as young as 6 were developing acute eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. On Monday it emerged that increasing numbers of British teenagers were undergoing breast enlargement surgery.

Registration on the Miss Bimbo site is free but it makes money by charging £1.50 (about $3.00) per text message to buy "dollars" to spend on the characters.

On the rules section it states that despite contestants wanting "to keep your bimbo waif thin ... every girl needs to eat, every now and again.

It suggests feeding the character to prevent her dying of starvation.

Bill Hibberd, a spokesman for Parentkind, a parents' group based in Sheffield, England, said: "Children's innocence should be protected as far as possible. It depends on the mindset of the child but the danger is that after playing the game some will then aspire to have breast operations and take diet pills.

"The danger is that a nine-year-old girl fails to appreciate the irony and sees the bimbo as a cool role model," Hibberd added. "Then the game becomes a hazard and a menace.

Jacquart claims the game teaches children about the real world and is simply harmless fun.

"The game is structured in such a way that it simply mirrors real life in a tongue-in-cheek way," he said. "It is not a bad influence for young children. They learn to take care of their bimbos. The missions and goals for the bimbos are morally sound and teach children about the real world.

"If they eat too much chocolate in the game, it is bad for their bimbos' bodies and their happiness levels compared to if they eat fruit and vegetables, which reinforces positive healthy eating messages," Jacquart added. "The breast operations are just one part of the game and we are not encouraging young girls to have them.

Evans admitted that the story in the script had been created by "lads" and no professional advice was sought about how girls may interpret issues surrounding weight loss and gain.

Nick Williams, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, said that he was appalled when he saw his daughters Katie, 9, and Sarah, 14, on the site pondering whether to buy their character breast operations and facelifts.

"I noticed them looking at possible breast operations and facelifts at the game's plastic surgery clinic," said Williams, 42. "It is irresponsible of the site's creators to be leading young girls astray. They are easily influenced at that age as to what is cool and these are not things they should be encouraged to aspire to before they are old enough to be making up their own minds.

Users are set targets:

Level 7
After you broke up with your boyfriend you went on an eating binge! Now it's time to diet
... Your target weight is less than 132 lbs

Level 9
Have a nip-and-tuck operation for a brand new face. You've found work as a plus-size model.
To gain those vivacious curves, you need to weigh more than 154 lbs

Level 10
Summertime is coming up and bikini weather is upon us.
You want to turn heads on the beach don't you?

Level 11
Bigger is better! Have a breast operation

Level 17
There is a billionaire on vacation ... You must catch his eye and his love! Good luck!

[fever]

I think we're living in the decline of our civilization. What a sick world this has become!

[Lacey]

That's just idiotic!

[Krystal]

and we wonder why kids nowadays are all f*cked up, and getting pregnant at 15!! The makers of that game should be hung by their balls and shot in the town square.

[Cotties]

Yep..it is what the title suggests

just some house cleaning...bear with me please

[Cotties]

yep..just ignore me while I do the cleaning please

[Cotties]

do do do dada do

[Cotties]

its all here...well most of it