13,971 Forum Posts by "gumOnShoe"
At 12/25/10 01:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/24/10 09:40 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Whereas when you tax the rich, you're taking their play money.BECAUSE STEALING IS OKAY IF THEY DON'T "NEED" THE MONEY RIGHT
Its not stealing if you don't recognize their right of ownership to the property in question.
Also, there are arguments that could be made about the rich executing acts of theft in the way they redistribute money through wages.
At 12/24/10 10:07 PM, Proteas wrote: Merry Christmas.
Happy Hannukah.
DADT was put on the books by conservatives in response to Clinton trying to get rid of it entirely. It was better than the policy before which was that the Military could pursue whoever it thought was gay and kick them out. But it was still ultimately bad policy. Which is why people have been moving against it ever since.
In 2007, at a $4,600-per-seat fund raiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet stood up and told the crowd, "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Apart from the seeming unfairness of this, he suggested that this tax policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
Buffet also noted that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax would widen the gap between rich and poor. The inheritance tax raises about $30 billion a year from about 12,000 wealthy families. Buffet believes (reasonably, I think) that taxes would have to be raised on those who are less prosperous in order to replace the lost revenue.
An inheritance is income, and the fact that it's treated differently than other income is based less on a principled argument and more on tradition and feelings that giving money to family members is different somehow. In a country that prides itself on self reliance and "self made" men and women, we could probably honor our country's founders' wish to keep stagnant wealth from accumulating in family dynasties. In any case, property rights are philosophically derived from the right to life, and the wealthy are free to do as they wish with the money while alive.
A) Flat Tax - The flat tax is highly regressive. The poor have to spend next to all of their money. So taxing it at the same rate as the rich means that you're taking money they need to survive. Whereas when you tax the rich, you're taking their play money. Its called a regressive tax. And while it "works" its not the "fair" tax that is implied.
B) Moreover, just because you are rich, doesn't mean you aren't making more with respect to those around you. The point is there needs to be a limit as to how rich an individual is allowed to get in order to keep the system balanced.
C) Rich people in America don't ever pay the taxes they are supposed to pay. Due to all of the loopholes, the average rich person pays about 15% of their income. Everyone is currently paying 25% - 35% depending on what their pay rate is and whether the bush tax cuts are in effect.
D) High tax rates don't hurt the economy. We know this because during the most prosperous period of time for the U.S. (Post WWII up to Reagan), tax rates were well above 50% for the wealthiest (almost 90% at times) and that was the time period when the middle class did the best, we expanded our infrastructure, and generally did better than we did today. Since Reagan cut taxes real income of the U.S. has gone down, not up. Your grandparents made more (inflation adjustment) than you ever will.
No loop holes or tax breaks. Use a progressive system where the more money you make the more you have taken away. Instead of having brackets, you'd use a mathematical formula to determine how much you owe. The point would be to make earning obscene amounts of money relatively useless on the part of the individual.
The theory being that the less incentive there is for being rich, the more people would invest their money or distribute it downward. You don't want money to become like points in a video game, where you get to a certain point and they only matter for top score and you stop caring about the game.
Additionally, speculative trades would be taxed to prevent unnecessary inflation.
There would be no loop holes. Corporations would be taxed as well. They'd also loose "personhood."
As far as taxing savings. I'd be completely for it, so long as it was negative taxation at the bottom and positive at the top. There would be a plane in the middle where it wouldn't be too steep in either direction. And it would be flexible to the age of the owner of the money as well. Less taxes if you are retired or if you are in between jobs. Savings taxes wouldn't kick in until you were saving over $1,000,000 most likely.
The point being that this would make sure there was a safety net no one fell through, while ensuring that the people at the top have to continue to be inventive and productive members of society. There would be no free rides for anyone. But the people who could afford to pay would pay more.
Additionally, complaints about this being a redistribution of wealth are spot on. All taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Suck it.
At 12/21/10 03:22 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: So according to the movie Jurassic Park, dinosaurs have been cloned, put on an island, and made into a theme park.
When are you getting your tickets to the park?
Silly goose, they shut the park down because the dinosaurs got loose. The only way to get on the island now is to go para sailing and unhook your shoot at the last minute.
At 12/21/10 03:15 PM, ChrisLovejoy wrote: Am I the only one who saw the fiction disclaimer in the credits?
I'm completely flabbergasted. I'd assume someone who read the credits would also read the topic they were replying to.
You saw the title. Skipped the emote. Skipped the second sentence. And pressed "reply to" in order to be a huge fucking hypocrite.
Congrats. :P
I'd spend a portion of my last two years insulting people like you. Somethings never change.
December 22st of the year after next is the end of the world. Since Hollywood is not the best predictor of such things, nor are ancient Mayans, lets just say that this is going to happen hypothetically while acknowledging it likely isn't.
As of today you have two years left to live. What do you hope to accomplish in that amount of time?
You've got at least 2 years before the world starts ending. You can build a bunker, a submarine whatever, but you are who you are with the resources you have.
Your plan? For the rest of your life?
Alternatively you have cancer and you have 2 years left. Same deal. For those of you who are 2012 impaired.
I think I'd probably stop caring about things like debt or education and move towards a life of minimalism. Find people who like being happy. Pick up a drinking habit. Play games the rest of my life. Probably get married, but no kids.
Obviously, that's not enough for a life that's going to be 60 years long, but its interesting thinking about how one's priorities change when your life expectancy changes.
At 12/20/10 07:22 PM, SteelChair wrote: Why the hell is it so cool to be a nerd now? The only two movies that were the greatest nerd movies besides revenge of the nerds are The Benchwarmers and Napoleon Dynamite.
Because nerds gave you the internet and invented video games. Suck it up.
6:58; you.punchInFace(you);
At 12/20/10 06:59 PM, DP36 wrote: Probably a motion controlled gaming system.
you.fork().acquireAndUse(new TimeMachine());
goto 6:58;
At 12/18/10 12:39 PM, JadeTheAssassin wrote: I was apprehensive about watching it at first.
I watched it, and I want to see it again.
Me too. But I'm saving up for this piece of loopy metal with a shiny stone. So I will buy it eventually and watch it, but I've already done by duty and seen it in theaters. So I have the moral superiority to tell "it was shitty"-poster up above that he's smelling his own.
But, as others have said, plz get rid of michael cera.
I don't know. It was nice to see him finally not be nice. Maybe this is first step towards dickdom.
At 12/20/10 06:29 PM, Jawdyn wrote: Just finished it, that was awesome. I wish real life was like, the world would be a much more happier and more enjoyable place to live in.
And Ramona Flowers is one bangtidy bitch, I'd give her a good seeing to.
Mission Successful.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Just got it open and spread it out.
I didn't specify the poster or the DVD, but I think I did well enough for random luck of the draw.
By the way, that dark spot in the first picture is a 42" plasma tv. Yay hannukah.
But here's the ng swag:
I've fiddled with the mail rapping, but this stuff is hard to break through. Its like a freaking fed ex envelope, with no easy way to open it.
I'm not sure I have the will power.
Should I open it?
At 12/19/10 05:20 PM, JoS wrote: If they were employed by the NYPD, NYFD, Ports Police or any other government agency, shouldn't it be their employer who pays, in this case the city of New York for many of them? Generally thats who would pay for your benifits package if you have one.
NYPD & the fire departments are laying the people off to cut costs instead of providing care.
And as this was an attack targeting three states NY, PA, & VA because of perceived u.s. aggression, it would make sense for those states (NY, PA, & VA) as well as the federal government to help. The point is that those were the places picked for attack, but it could have been any city. What is the point of unionizing if we can't help each other when faced with atrocity?
Turn life into an mmorpg: Netocracy.
Although, I have since learned there is already a movement that's taken the term Netocracy. So, a webocracy, or EmEmOhcracy might be a better term.
At 12/19/10 04:49 PM, Memorize wrote:At 12/19/10 04:45 PM, Ravariel wrote:Shouldn't it be New York that pays them?
People were mobilized from all over the entire country. So, it wasn't just citizens of New York that showed up there. Nor, does the argument hold much water in a united set of states. This is something the Federal government could do.
At 12/19/10 04:51 PM, Memorize wrote:At 12/19/10 11:32 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:You do realize it would be illegal in the US for them to be turned away from medical help, right?
Only emergency care where you are literally at the point of death, at the point at which it is most expensive and least effective.
You get diagnosed with cancer? Sucks to be you. Come back when you can barely breath, we'll hook you up to a machine until you pass and charge the state. Heart disease? When you have a heart attack, come see me.
Everyone in the US has ACCESS to care, but the cost is high.
That's a crock of shit. Not having enough money means not having access. Anything else is mincing words.
At 12/19/10 09:25 AM, poxpower wrote: Why does it matter if they were at Ground Zero?
Should the government put them in front of the line or something? Like, if you broke your leg fighting a fire in Arkansas, you're not cool enough to get benefits?
The point is that in the line of duty they've now contracted these awful diseases and we as a country aren't supporting them. Its not that people in Arkansas shouldn't get their benefits, its that these guys at ground zero are literally dying of cancer and we're just letting it happen.
Now of course, single payer could just take care of all of this. But in our broken american system, closing a tax loop hole for underpaying corporate america and giving these guys benefits is just the right thing to do.
And as far as reasons why we aren't doing it, Republicans have been avoiding the issue.
At 12/19/10 11:17 AM, Proteas wrote: Would you ask the one guy who worked part time at your workplace their opinion on a new policy if they only worked 1 weekend out of the whole month? No? Then why ask a reservist what they think of DADT being repealed if they aren't going to be directly effected by it on a daily basis? It makes about as much sense as asking a military spouse what they think of repealing the law.
Yeah, but reservists can still be called up for longer service. Say in Iraq or Afg. as they were time and time again.
... because you don't live in a vacuum where what you say goes everyone else be dammed, and you will have to deal with the ramifications of forcing progressive measures onto bigotted idiots in the here and now?
Sounds good. Justice upon bigotted idiots finally, instead of avoiding the problem. I can't wait till Jag gets their hands on a couple of ass wipes and we can finally get beyond all of this.
I mean, you know, maybe we should keep women locked away in towers and out of the army because there's a rapist out there somewhere. You see how bad that argument is?
One more reason to want a better government.
Summary of the video. John Stewart interviews men of service who were at ground zero and have been put out of jobs by NY and forgotten by congress.
Even if you don't want to point fingers at the people who are clearly responsible, you can agree this is a horrible failure of government.
At 12/18/10 10:10 PM, Twilight wrote: No. It wasn't THAT good. I saw the movie, it had a cool soundtrack, it had some funny bits but overall it was an alright movie. If you really wanted to educate these people you'd tell them to buy the books instead, because it's a much funnier read, and there's no Michael Cera.
Look, obviously the comic book is better. But comic fans already know that. The point is that if you want more movies in this vein, regardless of Michael Cera, you need to go vote with your money.
And if you don't want to vote for your money go see sentence number 2 and vacate the topic.
At 12/18/10 10:06 PM, Eltro2kneo wrote:At 12/18/10 12:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I only bring it up because too many of you didn't see it in theaters. And that's disapointing because you failed your culture. Stop being an ass wipe and go buy it.Fail the culture? You have it backwards, it's culture's fault we behave this way! We shouldn't defend our sick culture, and you're telling us to please it? THAT is pathetic.
No, you idiot.
You make up your culture by being who you are along with your peers. You like this movie because it suits you. And its so fucking awesome, you suit it. Its got nothing to do with being a sheep. You're cultural preferences have to do with who you are. And the fact is that if you want more of you in the world (I'm not sure I want more of you in the world), then you've got to go out and buy things that you like so that people have money to make more of the kinds of things you like. Ultimately, by serving your culture you're serving yourself.
Get it? No? You're an angry fuck nut teen?
Go watch the movie.
At 12/18/10 09:59 PM, DP36 wrote: All of my nerd friends said it was awesome and they are currently reading the comic. I just don't get caught up in things, though. That's why i didn't see it.
Do you play video games? Do you like boss fights? Do you like over the top gratuitous violence?
Then I don't understand why you haven't seen this movie.
At 12/18/10 03:19 PM, sumidiotdude wrote: It was not that good.
It was better than you.
At 12/18/10 12:41 PM, animehater wrote: Well this is a topic I've never considered before. Well I think it has been said before that we are way too different to actually pull a union off. But the U.S and Canada on the other hand.....
Again, what does Canada have to gain? Shitty health care?
Canada didn't not suffer the full crash the rest of the world did when the U.S. fucked up because they did it right. And somehow, we here in the U.S. are still trying to defend our actions and say we are the "best."
Canada is better off with out us until we can get our shit together.
At 12/18/10 12:41 PM, razorbladesigh wrote: Opinions, dude. Opinions. It is your opinion that the movie was good. It is mine that Cera destroyed everything about that movie that I could have ever loved. Without him, I probably would have enjoyed it.
You don't like Cera. You're a prick. Bottom line. He plays characters. He does it how the director tells him to do it. In this movie he plays an awkward asshole. It worked perfectly. It was like watching a puppy that deserved to get kicked over and over get kicked over and over.
Here's the thing about your opinion and you. You're wrong. You fail. I'm standing on a mound of facts and you're standing on a pile of Cera envy.
How's it feel to want to be Michael?? Feel good?
Us Americans are fucking nuts. Trust me. Keep to yourselves. You don't want our bible thumpers.
At 12/18/10 12:22 PM, logic wrote:At 12/18/10 12:19 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Then you're a fucking failure too. :DCalm down asshole it's just a movie, Unlike you i don't need to fap to nerd movies, I have a wife.
Go masturbate to pictures of your mom or something.
Congrats 18 year old married dude. How's the fam?
Why don't you love them enough to show them a good time?
Watch the fucking movie.
