Um well okay, deficit spending. Well in measuring deficit spending you have to first measure it as a percentage of gdp not as an overall dollar amount because growth and inflation make every fiscal year different from the proceeding so when you compare deficits in this administration to deficits in previous administrations you have to measure it as percent of gdp. Bush's deficit never surpassed 30 percent of gdp and that is a gdp during a recession a much lower gdp than a prosperous time. In the last century I believe that there have been 5 or so presidents that have had more than 30 percent of gdp deficits. Also you have to understand that the deficit was not caused by tax cuts or Bush spending. The deficit was caused because during the recession less money was coming in to fund government programs than before during good times. Spending didn't increase that much during the Bush years at all. Don't point to the war either because war spending was only a few hundred billion in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget. You see liberals don't understand the above and they also don't understand that if you lower taxes, more transactions occur which than send more money back to the government. They make statements like that the Bush tax cuts removed x amount of money from the government which they cannot claim. First of all those tax cuts mean more transactions. There is no way they can know that amount because national wealth is always changing at one month it could be x the next it could have change to be x plus or minus 20 percent, etc.

Eh wrong. Entitlements like social security and medicare are the biggest spenders in the government. These constitute something like 50 percent of the entire budget. The statistics you are quoting are under the assumption that entitlements pay for themselves and exclude at least social security from those statistics.

Let me tell you something I don't personally care who is the one pushing the economic policies in the Bush team, but I can tell you this they are listening exactly what Milton Friedman(the man who literally built the libertarian party/econ Einstein), is saying they should do. Health Care Savings Accounts exactly Friedmans suggestion. Private Accounts for social security same. Tax cuts same. If you don't want to believe me when it comes to what I tell you regarding deficit spending take a look at what he says about it. Keep in mind you liberals(come to realize that Trancer might not be one) that if you try to paint Friedman as anything that is the equivalent of calling Einstein stupid. I listen to the pros, seems like I am the only one around here.

Also you are pointing out only the federal government. Why don't you throw into the equation spending on state and local levels. Just find out how much you guys are spending on education in this country. I think you would be a little astonished considering I am currently attending one of the best public schools in wisconsin and I am surrounded by fucking retard teachers. I mean seriously they don't move there ass on anything and there literally is no motivation to do so. I actually had a teacher that was supposed to teach German and he spent his days talking about his experiences in the Vietnam war. I mean the class actually would just be forgetting the German they learned the year before while attending his class because he wouldn't advance the learning at all. I had a Middle East and Far East History teacher(ultra liberal) who based his class from the CIA world factbook LOL. I have an English teacher that seemed intent on spending an entire week looking at if the rest of the world wasted as much as we do how many Earths we would need. NYC has something like a 15 thousand dollar per child funding for their kids and they can't even fucking read, they than have the tenasity to go get a court not a legislature but a court to ask for an additional 14 thousand per child which includes building repairs as part. Just to let you know our school is one of the best in Wisconsin and operates on less than 8 grand per child. Sorry to get off track, but for the money you spend on education they don't teach you shit, and that should be included in a comprehensive budget analysis of the country.

By the way my suggestion, education vouchers. Students get basically a gift certificate that they can take to any school they want to. The schools than have to compete with eachother. Competition always helps the consumer--the student. Yet again sorry to get off subject if somebody wants to get into this shit start new thread, okay. I needed to blow off some steam.

Last edited by denny_shibby on Apr-18-2005 at 03:35

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Alright, Opus. I'm gonna show you what a evil, cold-hearted capitalist I can be...This was such a heartwarming response. Really great stuff. The rich are evil, blah blah blah. Pity the poor. Dammit, we need more of these programs. We need to dictate charity on society. We will get government to wield its mighty monopoly on force and force those evil rich to fork over a larger dollar amount than we ask the average man to fork over, to help out someone less fortunate than he. Charity is great, but it's not something you can govern.

Well I guess one could try to throw me into the extreme fire like you continue to do, Shakka, and unfortunately paint us all Lefties with one, broad Communist brush. I really thought you'd know better by now.

If you are for some reason attempting to call New Deal government programs a form of charity, then by all means please attempt to defend our government and it's policies prior to 1937.

You can start by telling me how great it was to have over 40% of the elderly in poverty.

quote:

Yeah, you mean C-l-i-n-t-o-n, right? Shhhh, don't say it out loud three times. Clinton closed his eyes and rode the wreckless train that hit a wall in 2000. It didn't happen overnight.

Oh, this is a good one - so now the tech-bust is a result of Clinton? Fucking please, man. You're going to have a pretty difficult time defending that one.

I think the argument would be much more enhanced if you perhaps would target Greenspan, if you're going to target any one person in particular.

Otherwise I think it would be more prudent to simply state that the market folks were being completely idiotic buying tech and internet stocks that had no real value whatsoever, that technology had already caught up to the times and that supply went way too far ahead of demand, etc. etc.

Don't give me this shit about Clinton being fucking responsible for all problems that occurred now and then. This fucking gremlin tool of Republicans is getting old.

quote:

On the positive side, the 90's showed what kind of growth a smoothly running, competitive, capitalist economy can generate with the right inputs in place. The tech boom of the 90's was probably a generational event for those on this board that are over the age of 13. But on the downside, the 90's show what can go wrong when the cargo is carried on speculation, hype, excessive greed; all with an irreponsible driver holding the wheel.

Agree completely. So what the hell did Clinton have to do with this?

quote:

The recession that came afterwards has actually probably been weaker than it should have, given the excess of the 90's. It was brought on by a "perfect storm" and some big negative overtones. In all honesty, I do not for one believe that we have seen how bad things will get, as there are still large excesses and overcapacity, interest rates are going up, consumers are still tapped out in credit, there are no more tax cuts to go around, the dollar could very easily head sharply lower--this economy is skating on thin ice. But I digress. We were talking about taxes and I was busy being insensitive...

You're good at it.

I don't really disagree with you much here either. But I do think you're tending to overlook the economic problems we are facing at present as a result of a massive deficit that our president CHOSE to directly put us in (as well as gas prices, etc. etc.), rather than attempting to blame that on a tech boom/bust period. I'm really not seeing much of a correlation between today's and the near future's woes and the tech boom/bust.

quote:

Not that I hate poor people, but your opinion on me seems to be that I resent them, and that I don't care about them because I am not one of them myself. Therefore, government should use it's monopoly on force to make me hand over even more of my money to someone who didn't earn it. As if that will stop that person from pissing my money down the drain on crack cocaine and some new bling. As if money is what makes us equals. Typical liberal mind trick.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and again I think you're reaching at extremes here.

But I will say this - as a part of our society, we have an obligation TO that society, and to do our part as individuals to make this society great. What is that old line - you are only as good as your weakest link. Well what could be a society's weakest link? Obviously I believe the ones who are in poverty could be argued to be our weakest link in both on a moral AND economic
manner. Think about it a second - how great is a capitalistic society if the gap between the affluent and the poor is huge? How great is a capitalistic society, which we clearly are, if more people from the middle class continue to fall below the poverty line? Considering that analysts from any side of the aisle firmly agree that a strong middle class greatly enhances our economy, does it not follow that as a society we need to make sure that we KEEP our middle class as strong as possible?

Now does that entail bringing down the upper class into the middle class? Does it entail that this is a necessity, as you are seemingly painting my argument as here? God, of course not. But even more so, name me one time in our U.S. history in which we’ve succeeded in doing just that. I cannot think of any time, with either a Democratic president OR Democratic majority in House/Senate, can you?

The point being is that I’m not worried about the affluent getting their money. And even if they don’t get a fair share of their money due as a result of a progressive taxation, that is a part of our society, and rightly so. Or what’s more – suppose that they give a little bit more to help our economy out of a hole – am I suppose to cry about this? Suppose that a repeal of Bush’s tax cut for the top 1% occurs – something like $600 billion, right? Can you imagine what that extra money with interest could go towards – like our deficit? Our Medicare program? Or how about (gasp!) our Social Security program? Yes, with that $600 billion or so with interest, we could actually keep SS solvent for the next 75 years. What a concept, huh?

How on earth is this necessarily a bad thing? Keeping the safety net for EVERYONE solvent? Keeping the elderly, the disabled, and the widowed with their children out of poverty? I cannot think of a descent argument against such a thing, can you?

quote:

How am I fucking them over exactly? By not being generous enough? According to your standards? What these people need is better job training, not another unemployment check. You cannot manipulate the bell curve for a sustained period of time.

And how the hell do you plan on giving them better job training, especially when your President continues to cut those programs while giving them lipservice during his SOTU addresses? I don’t disagree with you on that, again, but honestly there’s a great deal more on what the poverty-stricken need than merely better job training.

People are going into debt and falling below the poverty line, as well as staying there for a variety of reasons – job training is merely one of them. You must address the other issues at hand in order for this problem to become any better.

quote:

Call me selfish, but I live for me first, and then worry about my charity afterwards, and I'm sure there will be some because it's tax deductible, as it should be. If you want to incentivize people to be more generous, then let them deduct the generosity from their taxes, however you want to calculate the number. What's good for this goose is good for the gander. Yeah, fuck the poor. Make sure you pull the knife out of my back on your way out. Wanna kick my dog while you're here?

Okay, you’re selfish, but at least you’re honest.

And it’s not that I don’t share at least a part of your sentiments. I sure don’t want my money to go to someone else’s crack habit. But I do want the gap between the rich and poor to be shrunk, and I do want a stronger middle class. As a capitalist, surely you would want the same, considering a strong middle class does bolster our economy the best.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. You don't get it wages don't mean shit unless you compare prices to wages. Okay first before you can even compare the wages between Europe and U.S. you have to use AFTER TAX INCOME. Then I want you to add up how much you guys spend on gas , a flat, food, a piece of shit car, etc. then see how much you guys got. Keeping that all in mind there is one way to best figure out what country has better standards of living. Whos middle class spends the most on luxurys after that spending.

Jesus fucking Christ, what's with all the fucking ad hominem attacks? Do you not think that a descent level of discourse could be achieved here without all your bullshit labelling?

Fucking get over yourself buddy.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Opus,

If I paint the extremes, it makes it easier to have a black/white argument with you, even if you and I do not argue from diametrically opposing positions!


I will concede that Greenspan is probably more to blame than Clinton, though I guess my bigger point was that the attitude of our culture as a whole during that time period was pretty reflective of the attitude in the Oval Office. Sort of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, which ignored the fact that there were major underlying flaws with the explosive growth that we witnessed. Hey, as long as people were making money hand-over-fist, why ask questions? Greenspan called it irrational exuberance in 1996, and he was right, though he did not take proactive measures to prevent the pop. Instead, a confluence of events ended up providing even easier access to capital, lower borrowing rates, etc. Now, here we are 5 years later and there are still industries that are plagued with overcapacity. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for that fact, but the facts are still what they are. I blame our culture for crossing the thin line and letting greed take control, leaving rational decision making in the back seat.

Believe it or not, I honsetly believe that the President is a role model who must strive to hold himself to a higher standard than most. People tend to emulate the behavior that they see from their leaders. If years from now, we have droves of people acting on what proves to be "flawed intelligence", I'll join hands with you and say it's probably somewhat of a legacy of the Bush administration.

quote:

I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.

Well it seems you continue to do so regardless. Typical conservative – always a lying fuck, aren’t you?

I had forgotten how fun it is to label!

quote:

Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation.

And rightfully so. I welcome this turf war as do many liberals because it is long overdue. I’ll explain more below.

quote:

You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.

Why are they a “kook” base? They raised a shitload more money and have proven to be highly affective.

In contrast, what has clearly proven to be a detriment to the Democratic Party is the DLC and the same-old Washington consultants that they continue to hire over and over again, only to lose over and over again. They point to the days of Clinton as their success, yet they refuse to acknowledge that Clinton never received a majority vote. Aside of Clinton, they have helped the Democrats fall by the wayside in both Presidential, Congressional, AND Senatorial races.

The only gains that have occurred with the Democrats are on the state level – which we gained a good number of State Congressional seats. These were all performed on the grassroot levels with no assistance from the Washington good-ol’ boy losers and the DLC.
And this is why there is an uprising in the party. The grassroots demand reform, and they want to take it back to the local level. This is something they have reasonably learned from the Conservatives – the local level is what matters. And this is Dean’s central message as chair of the DNC.

And this is what gets you Conservatives panties all in bunches – the fact that Dean does have it right, and the fact that we are going to take it to the local level.

quote:

Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.

Interesting stuff – you have a reference for this so I could examine it further?

quote:

Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side.

How many is “many”? A few? More than 100? Who are these people, and why did they not examine the actual reasons why the Dems. were firmly against Condi Rice and Gonzalez getting their promotions? Why would such prominent black and latino democratic politicians not see past that ridiculous race argument?

Furthermore, if you agree with such a notion, why have you not seen past such a ridiculous argument either?

quote:

My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.

Well surely I would hope you think African-Americans are a little smarter than to merely vote for someone based on their color.
Surely you don’t think African-Americans are that stupid, do you?

quote:

Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you.

If Rush was honestly sincere in any way, he would know that most liberals consider the media pretty fucking lame and even with a conservative bend as it is. But I can’t imagine Rush being doped up all the time would know anything about reality really.

quote:

Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all.

You’re right – it didn’t help that NONE of the media addressed the beginning part of Rathergate, which has not been answered in any fucking way, shape, or form by this President, and instead focused on Rather and CBS’s sloppiness in double-checking their sources.
But who says that darn liberal media is good at investigating anything nowadays?

quote:

Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.

If Rush really believes such bullshit, why are a number of Republicans sweating about losing House seats in the ’06 midterms, especially with Delay as a fucking anchor?

quote:

Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time.

Boy I’m sure glad you say so. It must therefore be true, right?

quote:

The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party.

Anti-war because we were ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY right about no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda?

Anti-protectionists? Who wanted to keep the fucking steel tariffs? Go ahead, sir – you can say it.

quote:

harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc.

OK, do you have any fucking concept of YOUR Republican party, sir? Everything you mentioned here describes the modern day Republican party with the Social Conservatives in charge.

Who the fuck was harsh on Janet Jackson? Who puts in over 90% of complaints to the FCC about TV sex and violence? I’ll give you a small hint – it’s NOT a democratic group. And who exactly is continuing to cozy up to such extremist conservative groups like this? Another hint for you – NOT the fucking Democrats.
And who’s going after porn?:

quote:

Gonzales: I'll Prosecute Obscenity Cases The Associated Press Monday 28 February 2005 Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday he would move aggressively to prosecute obscenity cases, and he laid out a broader agenda much like that of his predecessor, John Ashcroft. In his first lengthy address since becoming attorney general in early February, Gonzales said people who distribute obscene materials do not enjoy constitutional guarantees of free speech. "I am committed to prosecuting these crimes aggressively," he said to a Washington meeting of the California-based Hoover Institution. The Justice Department is appealing the dismissal of an obscenity case in Pittsburgh in which a federal judge said prosecutors went too far in trying to block the sale of pornographic movies over the Internet and through the mail. The case initially was prosecuted under Ashcroft. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nat...P-Gonzales.html

quote:

This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.

What Hillary said about abortion is that the Democratic party has a wide net, and that pro-life folks can come in under that net. She is firmly for abortion rights, however, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

Your assessment is not only a bit wild, but pretty fucking unsupported so far. Again, why am I not surprised?

quote:

Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.

Well there certainly is a fight between Dean and the Clintons, but the Clintons have done their fair share too. They endorsed a Dean rival for DNC chair, only to see that their endorsement was getting his ASS handed to him by Dean as more and more states voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Dean.

And then the tables turned – the Clintons are now looking to Dean for favors and answers, because they saw how much of an overwhelming winner he was. They also are beginning to understand Dean’s grassroots message more, and realize that Hillary is likely going to have to rely on more than the DLC and the typical Washington loser consultants to win any primaries.

Personally I’d rather not see her run – I don’t think our country is going to vote in a woman as President, not that I personally care really. I just don’t see our country going that way, at least not just yet.

quote:

This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.

Yea for Faux News. This doesn’t excuse their extreme Right bend, nor does it excuse their consistent ½ truths, distortions, and flat-out lying either.

quote:

So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.

With all due respect – actually fuck that. You have neither earned nor deserved any respect here yet. So kindly take your suggestion and shove it up your fucking pompous ass, sir.

I will do whatever I can as a U.S. Citizen to make my country better. It is both my right and my moral obligation to do so. The fact that you do not want people like me to try this, and would rather have us move out is extremely telling about your own character and will. Any dissenters just move out, right? Go fuck a duck, pal. Dissent and disagreement is part of our society. It’s extremist, self-righteous fucks like you that do not appreciate or even slightly comprehend dissent.

Again, why am I not fucking surprised?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-18-2005 at 21:28

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Opus, If I paint the extremes, it makes it easier to have a black/white argument with you, even if you and I do not argue from diametrically opposing positions!

Yeah I know, it’s more fun that way, but I personally do try to avoid arguing in extremes, as well as paint everyone on one particular side with one brush.

quote:

I will concede that Greenspan is probably more to blame than Clinton, though I guess my bigger point was that the attitude of our culture as a whole during that time period was pretty reflective of the attitude in the Oval Office. Sort of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, which ignored the fact that there were major underlying flaws with the explosive growth that we witnessed. Hey, as long as people were making money hand-over-fist, why ask questions? Greenspan called it irrational exuberance in 1996, and he was right, though he did not take proactive measures to prevent the pop. Instead, a confluence of events ended up providing even easier access to capital, lower borrowing rates, etc. Now, here we are 5 years later and there are still industries that are plagued with overcapacity. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for that fact, but the facts are still what they are. I blame our culture for crossing the thin line and letting greed take control, leaving rational decision making in the back seat. Believe it or not, I honsetly believe that the President is a role model who must strive to hold himself to a higher standard than most. People tend to emulate the behavior that they see from their leaders. If years from now, we have droves of people acting on what proves to be "flawed intelligence", I'll join hands with you and say it's probably somewhat of a legacy of the Bush administration.

Okay, you have two points here which seemingly point towards the fault of Clinton:

1. The irrational exuberance care-free attitude of folks and stock buyers then point towards the Clinton Administration

2. Because of Clinton’s blowjob and infidelity, our society was hurt somehow (i.e. deteriorated) because he wasn’t a good role-model


Now here’s what I would like to see – please verify these two assertions somehow. Where are the statistics? How on earth can we claim either of these sociological attitudes are the result of Clinton’s public or PRIVATE actions? I certainly share the sentiment that what Clinton did was wrong, and that he of all fucking people should have used better judgement. And I also freely admit that I myself was a bit ashamed of my President for doing what he did.

But to make the leap from that sentiment to saying that he was the social AND economic downfall to our society at that time isn’t just a mere leap, that’s a cliff.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This doesn’t excuse their extreme Right bend, nor does it excuse their consistent ½ truths, distortions, and flat-out lying either.

Hey--when did you get a "½" button on your keyboard? But seriously though...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. You don't get it wages don't mean shit unless you compare prices to wages... This whole argument is given for one reason, wages don't mean shit if you don't give a comprehensive analysis of living costs. Yeah you can have an average wages of $200,000 but if a loaf of bread is $100 that don't mean shit.

So then back to the U.S., do you see why the "liberals" might be concerned when healthcare, education and housing cost rise faster than people's incomes at the lower end? For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up. The reality is that there are different causes of poverty, hence there are different circumstances for those at the lower end. Rural, urban and mixed neighborhood poverty are quite different in themselves, let alone the personal reasons such as job loss, lack of education, drug/alcohol abuse, illness, injury/disability, family death, divorce, lack of neighborhood economic development, etc. If you think all those people will do better because of implementing a flat tax, you're very wrong. I get Shakka's ideology that he feels it's fundamentally wrong to tax progressively regardless of its effects, but I don't understand this view, where supposedly all poor people have a great apartment, car and several TVs and seemingly no worries and they'll all do much better by simply providing as much capital as possible to those with higher incomes. I work at a foreclosure & bankruptcy law firm and the neighborhoods where most people lose are in the worst ones in the state and based on the answers they file to our complaints, I don't think most of these thousands of people fit your stereotypes at all.

If you want to keep claiming your numbers are used incorrectly, well you should keep in mind that it goes both ways, because you seem to not consider that money for food stamps, for example, helps adults & their children eat AND provides payment to local businesses for that food, so that money is reinvested and helps provide jobs as well.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey--when did you get a "½" button on your keyboard? But seriously though...

Hey how did you get it?? Lemme try:

1/2

___________________
Retro ...