President Obama
-
Never_Scurred
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
Okay, i'm gonna take a stab in the dark and ask what would be the harm in fucking leaving Iran, Syria and whomever alone? You know, just letting them do them for awhile? I know the idea of minding our business is something beyond the scope of the US's comprehension but why not?
"It's a joke how the Xbox platform has caught shit for years for only having shooters, but now it's taken on an entirely different meaning."-somebody on NeoGAF
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Obama Tax increase=
200k single- Slight increase
250k joint/small bus. - a whopping (sarcasm) 2.9pt. increase
under 150k- Tax credit
35 to 37.9 thats sole propietorship change. Big deal, any good accountant can make that dissapear. Its the Exxon/Mobiles that will feel it and after reporting a huge quarterly profit i could care less since you wont see any discount at the pump.
If 40% percent of Americans are not paying all or none of taxes then we have been spreading the wealth for some time already, dont ya think?
How the fuck did McCain think he was gonna fund this nation and a war? No tax increase, and corporate breaks? We have been doing that and what do you know they cant even pay an American to pick up an answer the phone, instead you get redirected to India or Pakistan.
200k single- Slight increase
250k joint/small bus. - a whopping (sarcasm) 2.9pt. increase
under 150k- Tax credit
35 to 37.9 thats sole propietorship change. Big deal, any good accountant can make that dissapear. Its the Exxon/Mobiles that will feel it and after reporting a huge quarterly profit i could care less since you wont see any discount at the pump.
If 40% percent of Americans are not paying all or none of taxes then we have been spreading the wealth for some time already, dont ya think?
How the fuck did McCain think he was gonna fund this nation and a war? No tax increase, and corporate breaks? We have been doing that and what do you know they cant even pay an American to pick up an answer the phone, instead you get redirected to India or Pakistan.
Iron Maiden: "It was dead, but alive at the same time."
Is there a legit source to confirm whether this is gross or net? I came across this, but hardly find such a random post to be authoritative.lawnspic wrote:250k joint/small bus. - a whopping (sarcasm) 2.9pt. increase
-ud
Righteous Super Hero / Righteous Love
-
BulletMagnet
- Posts: 14160
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
- Location: Wherever.
- Contact:
This was the mindset behind Bush's "economic stimulus package" from a little ways back (not the corporate bailout, the "gas relief" measure) - remember what happened with that? As most anyone outside of the Greenspan-esque circle predicted, people, being in rather poor economic straits, held onto those few hundred dollars rather than spending it, and there was little to no "stimulus" at all. So what do they do the next time around? The exact same thing, except exclusively for corrupt businessmen...and wonder why we don't trust them.RackGaki wrote:Firstly, as before, it is patriotic to let individuals keep more of their money to spend on our economy.
I've always observed something of an apparent contradiction in free market/small government/etc. thought - on the one hand, it's all about "letting people keep their money," and "giving people freedom of choice", but on the other hand, as has been said many times in this thread and others, it's "people are morons and can't be trusted." Which more or less boils it down to what I see as the end goal of most any such movement - giving the vast majority of the population enough rope to hang themselves with (even when they don't necessarily want it), so not only can the rich and influential wield even more power over them, but the former can say "hey, this was YOUR decision, so stop complaining."
"Letting people keep their money" CAN be a good thing, but I would argue that it is not an automatic, constant good - after all, when "the people's money" is not in the government's hands, what gets cut? Social services, which are overwhelmingly used by the middle and lower classes, the private equivalents of which only the upper crust, in most cases, can afford to pay for. If you use the definition of "patriotism" which includes "working towards the good of one's country as a whole," then I wouldn't call cutting taxes a fail-safe way to do it. Sometimes, yes - in a knee-jerk, reactionary manner, no.
But what exactly qualifies as "their money?" As I said, under Clinton the tax structure was one way - under Bush, the rich saw more benefits than they had under Clinton, while the middle and lower classes shouldered a greater percentage of the burden and saw social services (Katrina-esque disaster relief included) cut. Was "their money" being taken from them? Now that Obama wants to bring things back, more or less, to Clinton levels, are the rich being robbed of "their money," or is everyone else getting "their money" back? It's incredibly variable, depending on whom you talk to, unless you're the type who believes that nobody should pay any taxes and we should replace the current system with laissez-faire pseudo-anarchy - I find that those who are the most eager about "letting people keep their money" are also the most willing to change the definition of "their money" for convenience's sake.Rich or poor; I've never heard the argument that letting poor or working class folk keep their money isn't patriotic.
First off, as you say, this was Obama's original plan - I believe that it's been changed since then, though I'd have to search for a link to be sure. Second, even if people aren't paying income taxes, they're still paying sales and several other types of taxes - they're still paying into the system, so it's not like they're getting free money here.Obama's original plan would have given rebate checks to everyone under makes under $2xx,xxx a year. Including the the 40% of people who pay no Federal Income Tax under the current tax structure.
This is true, but you forget to mention that only the "Bourgeoisie" are getting richer at a high enough rate to keep up with inflation - everyone else, despite having a slightly larger number on their paycheck, has seen their real purchasing power lessened.The income gap is widening because everyone is getting richer, but the Bourgeoisie are doing so at an even higher rate.
"Angry" isn't really the word, but I do see it as something of a double standard that's in desperate need of addressing. And I don't advocate for "social justice by any means necessary" - I'm not a Socialist or anything like that. I do, however, believe that we've swung a ways too far in the other direction, and are revering The Individual (or think we are) to such an "automatic" (for lack of a better term) extent that most individuals are ending up worse off for it, right under our noses. In short, I'd prefer a second look at what qualifies as "un-American" on these grounds - nowadays it seems that suggesting anything other than pure, unfiltered, short-term self-interest on the part of every citizen somehow makes you a traitor and a freeloader, and I am getting rather tired of it, as most of the rest of the civilized world has managed to survive (and in some ways surpass us) without it.I would like to know why you are so angry at the description of Obama's class wealth redistribution proposal, in all seriousness
correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the bush administration *double* your country's national debt for the last 200 years in just eight years...?
if McCain was elected you would still be wasting enormous amounts of money fighting in iraq for years to come, plummeting the country's finances into further crisis.
obama could have kept taxes in line with what they are now, but he is trying to restore the balance, and looking at the long-term
(can we swap you gordon brown for obama?
)
if McCain was elected you would still be wasting enormous amounts of money fighting in iraq for years to come, plummeting the country's finances into further crisis.
obama could have kept taxes in line with what they are now, but he is trying to restore the balance, and looking at the long-term
(can we swap you gordon brown for obama?

RegalSin wrote:Videogames took my life away like the Natives during colonial times.
right on !jpj wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the bush administration *double* your country's national debt for the last 200 years in just eight years...?
if McCain was elected you would still be wasting enormous amounts of money fighting in iraq for years to come, plummeting the country's finances into further crisis.
obama could have kept taxes in line with what they are now, but he is trying to restore the balance, and looking at the long-term
(can we swap you gordon brown for obama?)
You know i would never consider enlisting into the armed services under Bush or McCain, because i dont believe in their intent. Under Obama it would be my pleasure and if the shit hits the fan in the near future and president elect Obama is here i would die for this country hands down. I need to believe that what im doing is right.
The thought of getting cut down for for some rich corporate thug so is ivy league son can run around in tight white shorts at a private club getting tennis lessons make me sick. BTW im speaking from experience since i service the elite in my community.
Iron Maiden: "It was dead, but alive at the same time."
-
Mortificator
- Posts: 2858
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: A star occupied by the Bydo Empire
Pretty close.jpj wrote:correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the bush administration *double* your country's national debt for the last 200 years in just eight years...?
I doubt Obama's really Christian. It's more like he realized he'd never get elected to any office if he was an atheist...
That's why I think it'd be so fascinating to be friends with a high-level politician. You'd get past that public veneer and get to know the real person. I mean you just know they don't talk in that weird public voice they use when eating breakfast with family. And you could ask 'em who really shot Kennedy and suchlike.
I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats. Obama is more appealing to me, I'm college educated, creative, young, Obama demographic yada yada so on the one hand I'm glad, but McCain was ahead there for a couple of weeks. Barry O. and co. are lucky the economy fell on its ass, and that Steve Schmidt ran a campaign even more creepy and dishonest than John Kerry's. McCain probably was the best Republicans could get. Giuliani was too much of a compromise, and the campaign would have played out the same way. Democrats: "The Dow lost nine billion points today" Republicans: "But but but...William Ayers!"
That's why I think it'd be so fascinating to be friends with a high-level politician. You'd get past that public veneer and get to know the real person. I mean you just know they don't talk in that weird public voice they use when eating breakfast with family. And you could ask 'em who really shot Kennedy and suchlike.
I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats. Obama is more appealing to me, I'm college educated, creative, young, Obama demographic yada yada so on the one hand I'm glad, but McCain was ahead there for a couple of weeks. Barry O. and co. are lucky the economy fell on its ass, and that Steve Schmidt ran a campaign even more creepy and dishonest than John Kerry's. McCain probably was the best Republicans could get. Giuliani was too much of a compromise, and the campaign would have played out the same way. Democrats: "The Dow lost nine billion points today" Republicans: "But but but...William Ayers!"
As soon as they stop killing our soldiers and funding terrorism.Never_Scurred wrote:Okay, i'm gonna take a stab in the dark and ask what would be the harm in fucking leaving Iran, Syria and whomever alone? You know, just letting them do them for awhile? I know the idea of minding our business is something beyond the scope of the US's comprehension but why not?
I suppose this is a chicken-and-egg type question, but I think the evidence is quite clear that Iran and Syria like to start shit, and they have both tried to expand into their Middle Eastern neighbors with negative consequences. It's not at all immoral for us to help countries stand against that.
As an unknown politician, that's not really surprising. People like known quantities more than they like the unknown, but Sen. Obama did a pretty good job introducing himself to the nation - that was his challenge.Neon wrote:[...] but McCain was ahead there for a couple of weeks.
Agreed about the economy giving him an opportunity he might not have had otherwise.
-
Never_Scurred
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
So, you're an escort?lawnspic wrote: since i service the elite in my community.
Joking
"It's a joke how the Xbox platform has caught shit for years for only having shooters, but now it's taken on an entirely different meaning."-somebody on NeoGAF
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
-
Never_Scurred
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
lawnspic wrote:sure feels like it, i just wish they used lube first, ha ha!Never_Scurred wrote:So, you're an escort?lawnspic wrote: since i service the elite in my community.
Joking

"It's a joke how the Xbox platform has caught shit for years for only having shooters, but now it's taken on an entirely different meaning."-somebody on NeoGAF
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
Watch me make Ketsui my bitch.
-
BulletMagnet
- Posts: 14160
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
- Location: Wherever.
- Contact:
Hasn't he been going to churches and whatnot for quite some time (unless the RNC tried putting rumors out there that Jeremiah Wright was actually an imam in disguise or something)? Whether he actually believes every bit of it in his heart of hearts who knows, but either way he's definitely put in the time in the seats, for whatever that's worth. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, whatever he believes in terms of the supernatural is his business - so long as he can keep himself occupied with the material here and now while at work he's fine by me.Neon wrote:I doubt Obama's really Christian. It's more like he realized he'd never get elected to any office if he was an atheist...
Must...not...make another...tired...Cheney joke...And you could ask 'em who really shot Kennedy and suchlike.
Not a chance - she was torn to shreds by the press in the primaries, and it would have only gotten worse later on. And if Obama had made her veep he would have been dragged down with her - she's marked, people can say any fool thing about her they want, and nothing in heaven or earth will change that.I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats.
So you'd rather have Ms.-Regulation messing with game content: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/1 ... uld-c.htmlNeon wrote: I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats.
I'd sooner vote for Palin than I would for that hypocritical, conniving, and ugly mess.
-
dave4shmups
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:01 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
I personally could care less about what which candidate thinks about video game content; any more restrictions would run into constitutional issues and be struck down, as they have been in many states. And I'd rather have someone who is for more regulation in video games then someone who couldn't even tell, from a prank phone call, that she was NOT speaking to the French President. I refuse to vote on one issue, be it the regulation of video games, or abortion.Ganelon wrote:So you'd rather have Ms.-Regulation messing with game content: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/1 ... uld-c.htmlNeon wrote: I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats.
I'd sooner vote for Palin than I would for that hypocritical, conniving, and ugly mess.
At any rate, yes Obama has had a lot of speeches, but right now, I'd trust just about anyone more then Bush. He lied to us on Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. AFIK, the only terrorists in Iraq before we invaded were Iranians funded by their government to overthrow Sadam. It would be easy for Bush to provide some evidence of a connection between Bin Laden and Sadam, but he never has. And where are all the WMD; another lie that our soldiers continue to die for?!
Those troops should have been sent to Afghanistan, or perhaps the clock wouldn't be turned back 7 years on the progress we made.
And, just to put the cherry on top of the current administration, Bush has passed more pro-business, anti-environment legislation, as if he hasn't done enough damage to this country already.
Obama, I hope, will fix the damage done by the lies and the disgrace that Bush has brought to this country, and use our military more wisely, and that is why I support him.
As far as taxes go, IMO, the progressive income tax is fair; plain and simple. If I make more money, I should be taxed more; that's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth; and those who call it socialism need to read up on political ideology-both parties are for democratic capitalism; they always have been and they always will be.
"Farewell to false pretension
Farewell to hollow words
Farewell to fake affection
Farewell, tomorrow burns"
Farewell to hollow words
Farewell to fake affection
Farewell, tomorrow burns"
Handing everyone an indiscriminate check has nothing to do with supply-side economics; a large portion of the Obama plan was a mirror of this one. So does that mean we agree that this is a failed economic policy?BulletMagnet wrote:This was the mindset behind Bush's "economic stimulus package" from a little ways back...RackGaki wrote:Firstly, as before, it is patriotic to let individuals keep more of their money to spend on our economy.
You also just pointed out the primary fault in government entitlement programs. Instead of being dependent of family or self, one is now dependent on the government, and can't easily function without it's assistance. In most cases. That's why any transition to lower taxes must be done slowly.BulletMagnet wrote: "Letting people keep their money" CAN be a good thing, but I would argue that it is not an automatic, constant good - after all, when "the people's money" is not in the government's hands, what gets cut? Social services, which are overwhelmingly used by the middle and lower classes, the private equivalents of which only the upper crust, in most cases, can afford to pay for. If you use the definition of "patriotism" which includes "working towards the good of one's country as a whole," then I wouldn't call cutting taxes a fail-safe way to do it. Sometimes, yes - in a knee-jerk, reactionary manner, no.
For the fifth time, all of it. The People simply give them consent to spend any of it. Also - the business about the all or nothing tax rate - preposterous and needless to include.BulletMagnet wrote:But what exactly qualifies as "their money?" .Rich or poor; I've never heard the argument that letting poor or working class folk keep their money isn't patriotic.
I haven't changed my position, so this is irrelevant in our conversation.BulletMagnet wrote: I find that those who are the most eager about "letting people keep their money" are also the most willing to change the definition of "their money" for convenience's sake.
Paying state sales or income tax has no bearing on the money we pay - or don't pay - into the federal system.BulletMagnet wrote:They're still paying sales and several other types of taxes - they're still paying into the system, so it's not like they're getting free money here.
BulletMagnet wrote:This is true, but you forget to mention that only the "Bourgeoisie" are getting richer at a high enough rate to keep up with inflation - everyone else, despite having a slightly larger number on their paycheck, has seen their real purchasing power lessened.The income gap is widening because everyone is getting richer, but the Bourgeoisie are doing so at an even higher rate.
Notice how well off everything became after the Carter and early Reagan years? No, consumer spending power is through the fucking roof. If Bush didn't have his foolish war with Iraq, we would be in even better shape today.U.S. Retail Price Inflation (Annual Average)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
1977 = 6.5%
1978 = 7.6%
1979 = 11.3%
1980 = 13.5%
1981 = 10.3%
1982 = 6.2%
1983 = 3.2%
1984 = 4.3%
1985 = 3.60%
1986 = 1.9%
1987 = 3.60%
1988 = 4.1%
1989 = 4.8%
1991 = 4.2%
1992 = 3.0%
1992 = 3.0%
1993 = 3.0%
1994 = 2.6%
1995 = 2.8%
1996 = 3.0%
1997 = 2.3%
1998 = 1.6%
1999 = 2.2%
2000 = 3.40%
2001 = 2.8%
2002 = 1.6%
2003 = 2.3%
2004 = 2.7%
2005 = 3.40%
2006 = 3.2%
2007 = 2.8%
2008 = 2.2%
You can support your fellow man without the help of government. Just ask Europe - Sweden, Italy, France, Germany and Greece have all recently elected Center-right governments. Europe is looking to curb back some of it's dependence on government, at least in rhetoric.BulletMagnet wrote: I do, however, believe that we've swung a ways too far in the other direction, and are revering The Individual (or think we are) to such an "automatic" (for lack of a better term) extent that most individuals are ending up worse off for it, right under our noses. In short, I'd prefer a second look at what qualifies as "un-American" on these grounds - nowadays it seems that suggesting anything other than pure, unfiltered, short-term self-interest on the part of every citizen somehow makes you a traitor and a freeloader, and I am getting rather tired of it, as most of the rest of the civilized world has managed to survive (and in some ways surpass us) without it.
Much of your feelings in that closing paragraph I can't argue with, since I'm not in your shoes. I want economic and personal freedom. True freedom includes the freedom to fail. It also comes with personal responsibility - why ask government for help, when I can donate time and money myself?
But again, we're off track. The focus was the economy; read Friedman and you will comprehend where I am coming from.
Never_Scurred summed it up pretty well, too.

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
-
BulletMagnet
- Posts: 14160
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
- Location: Wherever.
- Contact:
Perhaps not in a "direct" sense, but as I said, Bush was using the same definition of "your money" as you are - all of it. And by sending everyone a check he was simply giving people back "their money" in a direct form, instead of via social services - just a different form of tax cut, all told. Yeah, under a more "by-the-book" set of rules he would have sent different people different amounts based on what they'd paid in, but the basic idea is the same (and the amount was far too small to make any difference anyway). And as I said, we all know what everyone did with Their Money, and what people will do with Their Money every time they're given complete "freedom of choice" as to what to do with it, which somehow gives Friedman's disciples reason to puff their chests out further and demand MORE "freedom."RackGaki wrote:Handing everyone an indiscriminate check has nothing to do with supply-side economics
This recalls Reagan's ridiculous "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" bogeyman - those who oppose any sort of social safety net act as if people will become total worthless layabouts a la "Wall-E" if they're thrown so much as a table scrap. Find the most liberal person you can, and he'll tell you that he wants to be able to earn a living for his family honestly - he will also tell you, however, that he wouldn't mind some assurance that his efforts won't suddenly vanish into thin air because some greedy SOB gambled away his 401k or his health care provider decides to deny him coverage he thought he'd paid for. Liberals in general aren't asking for the moon here - just some assurance of basic needs if you "play by the rules" as the saying goes. Are there some who would take advantage of this? There always are, but you have to be pretty cynical to think that there'd be so many that you could never weed them all out - especially if you lived in a social climate where people valued their communities and their country as much as their individual selves...but that's "un-American," apparently, unless you believe that private enterprise will always outperform public institutions. How're your stocks doing these days, by the way?You also just pointed out the primary fault in government entitlement programs. Instead of being dependent of family or self, one is now dependent on the government, and can't easily function without it's assistance. In most cases.
There's no way that prices for most products have only gone up that much - heck, the upswing in gas prices, which affect everything else since that's how we transport it all, is in itself far more than that. Food prices, if memory serves, have also gone up a good deal more than that. The statistics you cite are assuredly incomplete, though I'm sure you already knew that when you posted them - though I left myself open to it by using the limited term "inflation," I suppose. Yeah, ditching the war would be nice, but that's not the only reason people aren't spending.No, consumer spending power is through the fucking roof.
Some of it is, apparently - but again, to quote Jon Stewart, the "Conservative" party in Canada is the equivalent of the "Gay Nader Fans for Peace" party here. Time will tell how their efforts turn out, but I don't see anyone looking to dismantle the systems they've got to a very large extent, while there are plenty here who'd like to see for-profit healthcare and unrestricted business interests go the way of the dinosaur PDQ.Europe is looking to curb back some of it's dependence on government, at least in rhetoric.
Well, sure, everyone wants "freedom," and there's nothing wrong with that in itself. However, I think that more people need to sit down and ask themselves what, when they say they want freedom, exactly it is that they want freedom from. "Total" freedom, as you put it, leaves you completely unrestricted, but also completely open, to others who are as unrestricted as you are, but also likely not as "honorable," or whatever word you'd care to use - when you've constantly got to be looking over your shoulder to make sure that you're not being screwed over or outright mugged, how "free" are you, really? And what are the chances that, even if you did take all restrictions away from everybody, that a truly fair playing field would remain, so that "the best" could rise to the top as they deserve to? In short, just saying "freedom= good" "more freedom=more good" without any exceptions greatly oversimplifies the state of affairs we're faced with.I want economic and personal freedom. True freedom includes the freedom to fail. It also comes with personal responsibility
You know i have to give you guys credit. I have read this thread and realize that most members here "actually think". Even though all don't agree on everything, at least some form of mature thought was used to arrive at your opinions. I will tell you that nobody i know (except those closest) around here (in my town) can actually explain why they make the decisions they do in regards to politics. They believe they know, but know little. Thanks, i have a new found respect for the members that belong to this board. To a brighter future, and happy shmupping!
Iron Maiden: "It was dead, but alive at the same time."
I mean no insult here, but those percentages are so far from the truth, it would take the light from "truth" a thousand years to reach itRackGaki wrote:Notice how well off everything became after the Carter and early Reagan years? No, consumer spending power is through the fucking roof. If Bush didn't have his foolish war with Iraq, we would be in even better shape today.U.S. Retail Price Inflation (Annual Average)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
1977 = 6.5%
1978 = 7.6%
1979 = 11.3%
1980 = 13.5%
1981 = 10.3%
1982 = 6.2%
1983 = 3.2%
1984 = 4.3%
1985 = 3.60%
1986 = 1.9%
1987 = 3.60%
1988 = 4.1%
1989 = 4.8%
1991 = 4.2%
1992 = 3.0%
1992 = 3.0%
1993 = 3.0%
1994 = 2.6%
1995 = 2.8%
1996 = 3.0%
1997 = 2.3%
1998 = 1.6%
1999 = 2.2%
2000 = 3.40%
2001 = 2.8%
2002 = 1.6%
2003 = 2.3%
2004 = 2.7%
2005 = 3.40%
2006 = 3.2%
2007 = 2.8%
2008 = 2.2%

In all seriousness, the prices of food has gone up A LOT more than 2.2 % this year. A simple package of gravy has more than doubled, the price of a can of cat food jumped six cents just in the last week, bread has gone up quite a bit, as have fruits, vegetables, snacks... hell, pick a food, and it's at least thirty-five cents to a dollar more expensive than it was this time last year around here (God help you if you want potatoes or an apple). Gas has gone up (until the last month), heating oil has gone up, rents have gone up, fees have gone up... I can't think of one thing that has only risen 2.2% in the last 365 days, so I'd like to know how they came up with such a seemingly unrealistic percentage. Frankly, walking around my local grocery stores, it looks more like 30%-55% minimum.
As such, it looks more like consumer spending power for your average family is stuck to the floor, not going through the roof. Do I have statistics? No, but I do have first hand observations and experiences as someone who would get a nice tax break from Obama according to his plan.
Keep in mind, I'm not an economic expert, nor do I claim to know how people compile (a pun!) these statistics. But I know what I see, and I know how my wallet and paycheck are affected on an everyday level. And to be honest, those numbers contradict everything I, and everyone I know, is going through financially these days.
Edits: Typos and clean up. Parts seemed a bit antagonistic, which I didn't intend.
Last edited by The Coop on Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:58 am, edited 4 times in total.
Wow, first you agreed with me that Bush's plan was bad, but now you're throwing subtle ad hominem attacks instead. Nice.BulletMagnet wrote:Perhaps not in a "direct" sense, but as I said, Bush was using the same definition of "your money" as you are - all of it.
And by sending everyone a check he was simply giving people back "their money" in a direct form, instead of via social services - just a different form of tax cut, all told. Yeah, under a more "by-the-book" set of rules he would have sent different people different amounts based on what they'd paid in, but the basic idea is the same (and the amount was far too small to make any difference anyway).
Pay their bills?BulletMagnet wrote:And as I said, we all know what everyone did with Their Money, and what people will do with Their Money every time they're given complete "freedom of choice" as to what to do with it
Now we're getting into not-so-subtle ad hominem attacks. Classy.BulletMagnet wrote:which somehow gives Friedman's disciples reason to puff their chests out further and demand MORE "freedom."
Welfare queen was a myth that was thoroughly disproven, and I never brought it up. What compelled you to?BulletMagnet wrote:This recalls Reagan's ridiculous "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" bogeyman
Did you forget that I believe people can achieve without the aid of government? And of course I don't want to scrap everything - you've set up an "all-or-nothing" straw man that was never argued in the first place.BulletMagnet wrote:- those who oppose any sort of social safety net act as if people will become total worthless layabouts a la "Wall-E" if they're thrown so much as a table scrap.
I bought gold, thanks!BulletMagnet wrote:How're your stocks doing these days, by the way?
You're pulling out a red herring that doesn't even begin to describe the philosophy I suggested to you. Oh, and that last paragraph is so vague...BulletMagnet wrote: Well, sure, everyone wants "freedom," and there's nothing wrong with that in itself. However, I think that more people need to sit down and ask themselves what, when they say they want freedom, exactly it is that they want freedom from. "Total" freedom, as you put it, leaves you completely unrestricted, but also completely open, to others who are as unrestricted as you are, but also likely not as "honorable," or whatever word you'd care to use - when you've constantly got to be looking over your shoulder to make sure that you're not being screwed over or outright mugged, how "free" are you, really? And what are the chances that, even if you did take all restrictions away from everybody, that a truly fair playing field would remain, so that "the best" could rise to the top as they deserve to? In short, just saying "freedom= good" "more freedom=more good" without any exceptions greatly oversimplifies the state of affairs we're faced with.
George W. Bush wrote: Well, sure, everyone wants "freedom," and there's nothing wrong with that in itself. However, I think that more people need to sit down and ask themselves what, when they say they want freedom, exactly it is that they want freedom from. "Total" freedom, as you put it, leaves you completely unrestricted, but also completely open, to others who are as unrestricted as you are, but also likely not as "honorable," or whatever word you'd care to use...

I know you don't think like Bush, but extrapolating vague references I made into still vague, but longer references accomplishes nothing. I offered some footnotes to my side of the conversation, and you responded with personal attacks! As you don't understand my position, I don't understand your antagonism. Especially when I could agree with half of what you just said.
Last edited by RackGaki on Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
agreed!lawnspic wrote:You know i have to give you guys credit. I have read this thread and realize that most members here "actually think". Even though all don't agree on everything, at least some form of mature thought was used to arrive at your opinions. I will tell you that nobody i know (except those closest) around here (in my town) can actually explain why they make the decisions they do in regards to politics. They believe they know, but know little. Thanks, i have a new found respect for the members that belong to this board. To a brighter future, and happy shmupping!
Excellent! I mean to keep things peachy keen, too, and the written word can very easily be taken in a different manner than the writer intended.The Coop wrote:And let me tell ya, the fan was on highRackGaki wrote:The Coop, yes the 2008 stats will change. Those stats were complied earlier this year, before the fan and the shit met.
Oh, and hope you read my edit.
One other thing about that statistic that makes things odd, is it's potential to change, given the fall of oil prices. Compared to this time last year, oil is actually down. I still need to be more versed in the manner government takes these statistics, but they are certainly not within the range of the stock market crash.
And, at lawnspic and Koa Zo - I believe a fundamental precept every human should keep is to never believe that we know everything. There is always something we don't know, we just have the obligation to make the most informed decisions we can at the time.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Yeah, those percentages are assuredly focusing on how everything stacks up across the nation (which still seems awfully low even in that light), but I have a feeling that number is going to be considerably higher by year's end. Oil and gas prices have come down a lot in the last month, but of course, with production cuts, that trend won't likely continue unfortunately. And with everyday items in a steady upward climb, I honestly can't imagine that number staying at 2.2% (or in the single digits to be honest) for 2008.RackGaki wrote:Excellent! I mean to keep things peachy keen, too, and the written word can very easily be taken in a different manner than the writer intended.The Coop wrote:And let me tell ya, the fan was on highRackGaki wrote:The Coop, yes the 2008 stats will change. Those stats were complied earlier this year, before the fan and the shit met.
Oh, and hope you read my edit.
One other thing about that statistic that makes things odd, is it's potential to change, given the fall of oil prices. Compared to this time last year, oil is actually down. I still need to be more versed in the manner government takes these statistics, but they are certainly not within the range of the stock market crash.
I don't think a single inflation number can really capture what's been going on lately. I don't have specific numbers, but it seems like durable goods have been getting cheaper while non-durable goods have been getting more expensive. It seems like it's easy to get into a false sense of economic status by pointing to something like an HDTV, considering that its amortized cost is likely a tiny fraction of just the owner's rent/mortgage, let alone their full cost of living (food, gas, car insurance, medical insurance / fees / drugs, etc.).
-
GaijinPunch
- Posts: 15853
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:22 pm
- Location: San Fransicso