Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th July 2003, 06:01   #41
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
I did a spit take when I read this!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by mmontgomery

The only reason that the bottom 40% get even 4% (since they pay NOTHING in taxes), is that the child credit applies even if it would result in a refund exceeding the tax paid.

JESUS HORATIO CHRIST! The bottom 40 per cent pay nothing in taxes??? Whoa!!! Where did you get that little gem of information, the Limbaugh Letter? Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think you're tripping, just flat-out hallucinating-- and anybody who can prove me wrong by producing a link to some credible information on the web that says that the bottom 40 per cent pay nothing in taxes will certainly receive my humble apology. Bring it on, Motherfuckers!
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 07:00   #42
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Re: I did a spit take when I read this!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Motherfuckers!
First of all, might I congradulate you on your intelligent response...wow, I really must say, that is one class act. Second...might I also point out, I don't see many links in your arguments? This person is frustrated because of an unfair tax system.

Quote:
Originally posted by DracoVulpine
Paying more taxes because you're rich isn't a punishment...

Take the figures on how much America pays in taxes. Then try and get the same figures with each person having to pay the same percentage. Suddenly, you have people working low income jobs that cannot make ends meet just because the government is pulling too much out in taxes. Meanwhile, the rich get a break that lets them buy another car or house.

The rich pay more because they can AFFORD to (and because our country pays too much for common, everyday items, but that's an old issue).

So...a tax cut to the rich A) doesn't help the economy save for the stock market and 'maybe' the high end luxury items areas. B) takes money out of the goverment for needed programs (medicare, state aid, getting rid of the deficit, etc). C) does nothing for most of the nation.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/pf/...ealth/index.htm and http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/new....reut/index.htm

Please note that these were from 2000...and talk about what the tax cuts would have done then. Plus...read it...THIS WAS IN 2000...do you think things have gotten better since then? Read them. Scary stuff.
Paying more in taxes wouldn't be a punishment to the rich if they weren't charged a higher percentage and got less tax breaks just because they have more money. But as it stands right now, a rich person pays a higher percentage in taxes than does a person barely making it by...everyone should pay the same percentage. And the real bad part about it, is the majority of taxes come out of your paycheck (if you have job), and that really isn't a good measure of how rich you are as mmontgomery points out. Just because you happen to have more money, does not mean, in any way, that you should be charged more...thats not the American way. Now if the government wasn't such a wastefull institution, maybe, just maybe taxes could be significantly lowerd. Of course the only way to do that would be to "reboot" the government and start over.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 08:29   #43
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Hey, this link leads to... nothing! Really! Literally nothing. Impressive as always, Tiger.

http://discover.npr.org/features/fea...l?wfId=1321413

There's a link that leads to something.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 09:29   #44
Mr_007
Banned
 
Mr_007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,838
Very wonder!
bosch move america economy?
Mr_007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 12:53   #45
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Re: Re: I did a spit take when I read this!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by tiger84
Paying more in taxes wouldn't be a punishment to the rich if they weren't charged a higher percentage and got less tax breaks just because they have more money. But as it stands right now, a rich person pays a higher percentage in taxes than does a person barely making it by...everyone should pay the same percentage. And the real bad part about it, is the majority of taxes come out of your paycheck (if you have job), and that really isn't a good measure of how rich you are as mmontgomery points out. Just because you happen to have more money, does not mean, in any way, that you should be charged more...thats not the American way. Now if the government wasn't such a wastefull institution, maybe, just maybe taxes could be significantly lowerd. Of course the only way to do that would be to "reboot" the government and start over.
Okay...I have to agree with you on this one. If the government could function and survive on a straight percentage across the board for everyone, it would be fairer. BUT...as it cannot, this is the best way to have the system.

Did you read the links I posted? Seems one of them was pulled down...the one mentioning just how many people making over 200k a year actually avoided paying any taxes...legally...in 2000. Sorry...can't remember the number.

But next on the line...

"The first study shows that in 2000 the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in the United States accumulated nearly $70 billion in adjusted gross income. That marked 1.1 percent of total AGI versus 0.5 percent in 1992."

So...in 2000, 400 taxpayers...400...accounted for 1.1 percent of the total AGI (adjusted gross income) for the nation. Doesn't seem THAT bad until you figure in how many people there are in this nation.

"Though its share of total reported AGI more than doubled, the group's share of the total tax burden grew at a slower pace. The group's share of the tax burden grew to 1.6 percent from 1.04 percent in 1992. The average tax rate for the group, meanwhile, declined to 22.3 percent in 2000, from 26.4 percent in 1992 and a high of 29.9 percent in 1995.

Had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans would have dropped an additional 20 percent, according to analysis by the New York Times."

So...the people with lots of money have been paying steadily less taxes as time goes on...even without Bush's tax cuts. They made up 1.1% of the AGI and paid 1.6% of the taxes for the nation. Considering we're talking about only 400 indivuduals making more money than most people see the lottery jackpots reach EACH YEAR...

"Members of this elite group had AGI of at least $86.8 million, a big increase from $67.4 billion in 1999. The IRS did not say how much income the No. 1 filer had."

...I'm going to assume someone typoed as they cannot consider a million an 'increase' from a billion...so...they're earning BILLIONS in a year. They can afford to pay higher tax rates to support the nation...especially considering that with their incomes, they have politicians around that are interested in getting said money...through steering the nation the way the rich want it to go.

Another thing to consider...why hasn't the US government cracked down on the outrageous spending? Because guess who all that profit from those huge prices go to. The average man working the floor to make it? HA! It goes as a huge profit...which makes the stocks of that company worth more...and guess who owns the majority of the stocks.

So yes...a reset of the government would help tiger84...so long as they set limits on every financial area for politicians
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 18:14   #46
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Re: Re: Re: I did a spit take when I read this!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by DracoVulpine
Okay...I have to agree with you on this one. If the government could function and survive on a straight percentage across the board for everyone, it would be fairer. BUT...as it cannot, this is the best way to have the system.

Did you read the links I posted? Seems one of them was pulled down...the one mentioning just how many people making over 200k a year actually avoided paying any taxes...legally...in 2000. Sorry...can't remember the number.

But next on the line...

"The first study shows that in 2000 the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in the United States accumulated nearly $70 billion in adjusted gross income. That marked 1.1 percent of total AGI versus 0.5 percent in 1992."

So...in 2000, 400 taxpayers...400...accounted for 1.1 percent of the total AGI (adjusted gross income) for the nation. Doesn't seem THAT bad until you figure in how many people there are in this nation.

"Though its share of total reported AGI more than doubled, the group's share of the total tax burden grew at a slower pace. The group's share of the tax burden grew to 1.6 percent from 1.04 percent in 1992. The average tax rate for the group, meanwhile, declined to 22.3 percent in 2000, from 26.4 percent in 1992 and a high of 29.9 percent in 1995.

Had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans would have dropped an additional 20 percent, according to analysis by the New York Times."

So...the people with lots of money have been paying steadily less taxes as time goes on...even without Bush's tax cuts. They made up 1.1% of the AGI and paid 1.6% of the taxes for the nation. Considering we're talking about only 400 indivuduals making more money than most people see the lottery jackpots reach EACH YEAR...

"Members of this elite group had AGI of at least $86.8 million, a big increase from $67.4 billion in 1999. The IRS did not say how much income the No. 1 filer had."

...I'm going to assume someone typoed as they cannot consider a million an 'increase' from a billion...so...they're earning BILLIONS in a year. They can afford to pay higher tax rates to support the nation...especially considering that with their incomes, they have politicians around that are interested in getting said money...through steering the nation the way the rich want it to go.

Another thing to consider...why hasn't the US government cracked down on the outrageous spending? Because guess who all that profit from those huge prices go to. The average man working the floor to make it? HA! It goes as a huge profit...which makes the stocks of that company worth more...and guess who owns the majority of the stocks.

So yes...a reset of the government would help tiger84...so long as they set limits on every financial area for politicians
We can't punish the rich for the government's gross incompidence with money. What needs done is less govenment spending in unimportant areas. And yes, while that study is interesting, it still doesn't make it right. And since you say the richest 1% percent pays the least in taxes by far (as a group), then what is the harm...there money doesn't even make a dent.

Now it appears as you pointed out in the other thread, that we are arguing in circles, so I suggest we meet in a neutral country and sign a peace treaty...or just call it a truce...which ever is easier.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 18:19   #47
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
why in god's name would you put money in a market like this if you dont have enough money to begin with? also, what kind of stock is it?

my point is, rich people will continue to spend the same amount of money whether they get the extra money from a dividend or not. they dont need to spend the extra money they get, they already have plenty to spend. when you give the extra money to a poor person, that increases their spending power because they will spend more money that month/quarter/whatever than they usually would.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 18:20   #48
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
...and this was the forum I thought we were having meaningful discourse. Oh well.

*hands tiger84 a big foam hand and a party favor, then puts on the same herself*

Let's party with the peace, yo!
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 18:58   #49
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
why in god's name would you put money in a market like this if you dont have enough money to begin with? also, what kind of stock is it?

Quote:
my point is, rich people will continue to spend the same amount of money whether they get the extra money from a dividend or not. they dont need to spend the extra money they get, they already have plenty to spend. when you give the extra money to a poor person, that increases their spending power because they will spend more money that month/quarter/whatever than they usually would.
Couldn't agree more. We all know spending is what drives the economy. Saving is what destroys the economy. If you give the rich money that they don't need, they wont use it. If you give money to people who need it, they will spend it.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 19:57   #50
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by DracoVulpine
...and this was the forum I thought we were having meaningful discourse. Oh well.

*hands tiger84 a big foam hand and a party favor, then puts on the same herself*

Let's party with the peace, yo!
Well I must say, it was a little more civilized, but we were still going in circles. But if you wish to continue I will also go on, but I am enjoying the party favors.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 23:42   #51
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Fer chrissakes, Tiger, could you please stop reprinting entire posts? Your convoluted prose is painful enough to read without me having to read a whole page of someone else's writing to find the one or two lines you refer to.


Okay, let's recap. I start this thread with the arguement that the tax cuts are not going help the economy, and Bush is lying when he says they will.

Tiger rebuts. His premise, expressed here and in another thread seeems to be (please correct me if I err, Tiger) that no, this isn't going to help the economy, and yes, Bush lied... but that's okay, because it's what he had to do to pass the tax cut, and having the temerity to point it out means that I don't understand how the economy works.

Mmontgomery rebuts. He maintains that tax cuts will help the economy and Bush is not lying. He not only contradicts me, he also completely contradicts Tiger.

Tiger responds: "Another well-reasoned argument."

This is why I put this guy on my ignore list before. There is no central logic at work. Fickle is right. I am destined to lose any logical argument with someone who simply does not understand logic. It's like trying to land a helicopter on a cloud. There's no there there! Eventually, I will simply tire of pointing out his idiocy again and again, and he will proclaim his victory.

Last edited by spiderbaby1958; 11th July 2003 at 00:03.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 02:31   #52
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Fer chrissakes, Tiger, could you please stop reprinting entire posts? Your convoluted prose is painful enough to read without me having to read a whole page of someone else's writing to find the one or two lines you refer to.


Okay, let's recap. I start this thread with the arguement that the tax cuts are not going help the economy, and Bush is lying when he says they will.

Tiger rebuts. His premise, expressed here and in another thread seeems to be (please correct me if I err, Tiger) that no, this isn't going to help the economy, and yes, Bush lied... but that's okay, because it's what he had to do to pass the tax cut, and having the temerity to point it out means that I don't understand how the economy works.

Mmontgomery rebuts. He maintains that tax cuts will help the economy and Bush is not lying. He not only contradicts me, he also completely contradicts Tiger.

Tiger responds: "Another well-reasoned argument."

This is why I put this guy on my ignore list before. There is no central logic at work. Fickle is right. I am destined to lose any logical argument with someone who simply does not understand logic. It's like trying to land a helicopter on a cloud. There's no there there! Eventually, I will simply tire of pointing out his idiocy again and again, and he will proclaim his victory.
Allow me to continue annoying you.

I SAID that the tax cut's primary reason for being is the sake of the tax cut. I did not say it would not help the economy, I said that as well intentioned as Bush is, his efforts won't show much impact...that does not mean that it absolutely will not help the economy. Also Bush did not lie, he said that he was giving the tax cut to refund people for paying to much, in addition he said it would help the economy. However, try as you might, you cannot say with absolute certainty how something will effect the economy.

I once again applaud your inability to actually interpret the meaning of my posts. Oh and it's spelled Christ's sake (notice how I capitolized Christ, made it posesive, and made it two seperate words).

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 04:17   #53
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
why in god's name would you put money in a market like this if you dont have enough money to begin with? also, what kind of stock is it?
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I didn't have enough money, I said I was earning below the poverty line. If you make under something like 20 grand a year you are below the poverty line. Just because I don't make a lot of money doesn't mean I am broke, I do very well thank you very much.

Also, the money I put into the market was a nice big tax return that I got, it was huge because of some educational credit something or other, new last year (thank you Mr. Bush). I wasn't planning on having that money, I didn't need it for anything, I'm young and I can afford to lose it.

I put money into a market like this because it is a great time to put money in the market, the market is down, but it won't be down forever. Since the begining of the market until now, the market has increased on average 11% per year, this includes all the years of the great depression. Buying stock now is like buying stock 5 years ago, I am in the market for the long haul, not for some stupid short term gambling. I bought an S & P 500 Index fund, index funds are kind of like mutual funds but much more diverse, they buy lots of companies and generally do as well as the market as a whole. 11% interest is way better than a savings account.



Quote:
Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
my point is, rich people will continue to spend the same amount of money whether they get the extra money from a dividend or not. they dont need to spend the extra money they get, they already have plenty to spend. when you give the extra money to a poor person, that increases their spending power because they will spend more money that month/quarter/whatever than they usually would.
Rich people didn't get rich by spending money without thinking about it, sure they spend a lot but if you give them more they're going to spend more, the same with anyone, rich or poor. However, since the income tax system is unfairly biased towards rich people, as other people have argued in this thread, why shouldn't they get some of their money back as opposed to the poor people who didn't pay any taxes to begin with? What did the poor people do to deserve to get rich people's money?



Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
Couldn't agree more. We all know spending is what drives the economy. Saving is what destroys the economy. If you give the rich money that they don't need, they wont use it. If you give money to people who need it, they will spend it.
Saving does not destroy the economy, only if everyone just saved their money in old tin boxes buried in their back yards would it possibly hurt the economy. People save money in banks. Banks don't just keep all of the money in their vault, they invest a lot of it into the market, your and my savings money is in the market, how do you think the bank can pay you interest on your savings account if it's just sitting there taking up space in their vault? they should charge rent if that's all it did. You've probably been to a bank once or twice, and maybe you've seen that little sticker or plaque saying that the bank is **** insured. Do you know what that means? The **** insurance is a safe guard for your money that the bank has put in the market so that you won't lose your savings if the market crashes.

So in essense, saving money actually puts money into the economy. This helps the economy, it doesn't destroy it at all.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 04:19   #54
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
damn... i thought you guys called a truce or something...

for the sake of all those involved, could you guys (tiger84 and spiderbaby1958) stop with the ad hominem insults and just discuss calmly and logically the pros and cons of the situation? i find that i dont really want to read through all of the insults just to get to the knowlege that is conveyed in the post. thanks.

ps. please dont go back just to try to figure out who started with the insults instead of debate. just let it go.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 04:27   #55
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
damn... i thought you guys called a truce or something...

for the sake of all those involved, could you guys (tiger84 and spiderbaby1958) stop with the ad hominem insults and just discuss calmly and logically the pros and cons of the situation? i find that i dont really want to read through all of the insults just to get to the knowlege that is conveyed in the post. thanks.

ps. please dont go back just to try to figure out who started with the insults instead of debate. just let it go.
I agree. You both know the proverb about arguing on the internet right?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 04:34   #56
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
It's true. You didn't say it wasn't going to "help" the economy. You said it wasn't going to "effect" the economy. I guess I was jumping to conclusions when I assumed that "help" was an "effect". And I guess you're right that I can't interpret your posts. Of course, it's because your posts are drivel, but that's beside the point.

You're lying, Tiger. You're misrepresenting your previous arguments in order to not be pinned down. But hey, the president does it, and that's all right, because the end justifies the means, right? Lying is okay, because lying works. And it worked this time. Lying won the argument for you, and I concede.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 04:41   #57
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
matress- i'll try not to qoute too much because it would make this too long.

i congratlate you on being in for the long haul on the stock market, as it is the smartest and most sure way of getting a good return. also, i didnt mean to "put words in your mouth", i assumed that the poverty line actually meant that you were in a state of poverty, aka poor. as to your thanking Mr. bush, would you mind telling us your yearly salary, your occupation, marital status, and the amount of your tax cut? you dont really have to answer, i'm just trying to see how big it was relative to other tax cuts.

as to rich people spending their money, i believe that rich people would not see a tax return as a cause to splurge (i'm talking about the top 1% here) because they have the means to splurge every day. sure, a rich person might go out and buy something nice for themselves with the return, but as my original post stated, they are far more likely than poor people to just put it in a bank and have it sit there. in addition, i would argue that the reason poor people pay lower taxes and should (but did not) get a disproportionate amount money back from the government is because they need it most. i believe that the government should take every action it can to help the least among us.

ill edit this soon with a response to the third arguement, i cant seem to remember if somethign i want to say is true or not........

ok i found it. the reason banks can pay interest on your money is because they give loans, for which they charge a much higher rate of interest than they pay to their customers. that is how a bank makes money. if i am not mistaken, it has since the great depression been illegal for banks to speculate on the stock market with money in savings or checking accounts. you may be thinking of stock that is sold in a bank. this stock is enitrely separate from the money being saved in the bank. the **** insures money up to $100,000 if a bank fails. they do not, however, insure money invested in the stock market.
Quote:
Federal deposit insurance coverage is limited to deposits, and does not include securities, mutual funds or similar types of investments that may be offered for sale at ****-insured banks and savings and loan associations.
--the **** website
now that we've cleared that up (i hope ), the gist of your arguement was that saving helps the economy. this arguement can still be made considering that loans are given out with the money you have saved. unfortunately, the arguement is ineffective. simply because a bank gets more money saved, does not mean that it grants more loans. any bank will continue to be prudent with the money it has, no matter how much it has. in order to increase loans (and therefore spending) the Fed (you know, alan greenspan, ect..) must drop interest rates. this forces banks all across the country to drop their interest rates for loans, which translates to more people coming in to take out a loan, and from there, increased spending, which will help the economy.

*phew*

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House

Last edited by oNaMiSsIo; 11th July 2003 at 05:16.
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 05:37   #58
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
It's true. You didn't say it wasn't going to "help" the economy. You said it wasn't going to "effect" the economy. I guess I was jumping to conclusions when I assumed that "help" was an "effect". And I guess you're right that I can't interpret your posts. Of course, it's because your posts are drivel, but that's beside the point.

You're lying, Tiger. You're misrepresenting your previous arguments in order to not be pinned down. But hey, the president does it, and that's all right, because the end justifies the means, right? Lying is okay, because lying works. And it worked this time. Lying won the argument for you, and I concede.
Wow, you're an arrogant clod, aren't you?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 06:03   #59
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
fickle, thats a straight out flame. i beg you, leave each other alone. the worst part of conflict resolution is that you have to find the person man enough not to take the last word.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 08:08   #60
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
It's true. You didn't say it wasn't going to "help" the economy. You said it wasn't going to "effect" the economy. I guess I was jumping to conclusions when I assumed that "help" was an "effect". And I guess you're right that I can't interpret your posts. Of course, it's because your posts are drivel, but that's beside the point.

You're lying, Tiger. You're misrepresenting your previous arguments in order to not be pinned down. But hey, the president does it, and that's all right, because the end justifies the means, right? Lying is okay, because lying works. And it worked this time. Lying won the argument for you, and I concede.
Who the hell are you to tell me what I meant? I would really like to know, oh enlightened one. You seem to be a psychic with all your "knowledge" of how people think and what not. Every time I post an argument you simply dismiss it away as "drivel" or on occasion "weak shit". I think you'll find that is the argument of a weak minded individual. Now enough with the symantics you keep trying to win with, come up with something that has something to it. Stop twisting words like a ambulence chasing lawyer.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 12:32   #61
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
ok i found it. the reason banks can pay interest on your money is because they give loans, for which they charge a much higher rate of interest than they pay to their customers. that is how a bank makes money. if i am not mistaken, it has since the great depression been illegal for banks to speculate on the stock market with money in savings or checking accounts. you may be thinking of stock that is sold in a bank. this stock is enitrely separate from the money being saved in the bank. the **** insures money up to $100,000 if a bank fails. they do not, however, insure money invested in the stock market.


now that we've cleared that up (i hope ), the gist of your arguement was that saving helps the economy. this arguement can still be made considering that loans are given out with the money you have saved. unfortunately, the arguement is ineffective. simply because a bank gets more money saved, does not mean that it grants more loans. any bank will continue to be prudent with the money it has, no matter how much it has. in order to increase loans (and therefore spending) the Fed (you know, alan greenspan, ect..) must drop interest rates. this forces banks all across the country to drop their interest rates for loans, which translates to more people coming in to take out a loan, and from there, increased spending, which will help the economy.

*phew*
Ahh, my bad, I thought banks still invested in the market, ahh well. I still don't think saving money "destroys" the economy as Starbucks said.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 14:22   #62
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
originally posted by Fickle:

spiderbaby, quit being such a wuss and read some posts by a fairly intelligent human being. You're a spoiled brat who can't take an argument or actual debate without having to childishly ignore the other side. You are effectively sticking your fingers into your ears and singing while he tries to make a point. If you did that to me, to my face, You'd have a fist in your mouth after your second round of "la-la-la"s. I don't take a lot of petty baby bullshit anywhere, especially people who are trying to tell me that Bush is an asshole because he lies and then worship Clinton because he gets more action than they've seen in years in a couple of weekends with an ass munching dirty slut of an intern.
If you don't agree, amke a statement. Don't be such a fucking moron.
Thanks! And Come Again!


Yeah, Fickle, I'm an arrogant clod.

I suppose you wouldn't know it to read my posts here, but I am not an arrogant clod. In the real world, I seem to be regarded by just about everyone I know as courteous, generous, and helpful. What I am, however, is 45 years old-- and to be sniped at by an 18 year old kid really does seem to bring out the worst in me. Tiger is no dumber than I was at 18... but believe me, that's dumb enough to be really really fucking irritating. That doesn't mean his opinion is wrong and mine is right. But imagine a 12-year old telling you that you don't know anything. See how thoughtful and reasonable that makes you feel.

I can't believe I let you goad me into this. Next time someone puts someone else on their ignore list, please take a moment to consider the remote possibility that it might be none of your goddamn business.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 18:03   #63
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958

I suppose you wouldn't know it to read my posts here, but I am not an arrogant clod. In the real world, I seem to be regarded by just about everyone I know as courteous, generous, and helpful. What I am, however, is 45 years old-- and to be sniped at by an 18 year old kid really does seem to bring out the worst in me. Tiger is no dumber than I was at 18... but believe me, that's dumb enough to be really really fucking irritating. That doesn't mean his opinion is wrong and mine is right. But imagine a 12-year old telling you that you don't know anything. See how thoughtful and reasonable that makes you feel.
Except a 12 year old doesn't have the same reasoning an 18 year old has, or for that matter a 13 year old. Now I only snapped at you because you accused me of not reading and other apathetic habbits that simply are not true. I read every post and composed an argument accordingly. You, instead of countering just said my arguments were drivel and so on and so forth (I won't repead everything you said seeing as how some of it was vulgar). And even still you aren't showing me much respect. Now, I don't know about you, but my opinions on seniority are as follows. No one gets respect if they don't show it to others, I don't care if they're 125 years old. If they treat me poorly, I treat them with no respect. I have been on the loosing end and winning end of seniority. Seniority is an excuse, nothing more. Adults need to respect teenagers just as much as they would respect someone older than them.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 18:05   #64
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
is it just me, or is it a bit warm in here?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 18:29   #65
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
*sigh* this is getting old guys, why dont you just quit while you're both... well, just quit anyway.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 19:19   #66
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Really? You think it's getting old? What makes you say that?

I put both these guys back on my ignore list where they belong. Please don't tell me about how I am afraid to be confronted by other points of view, etc., unless you want more of the same, okay?`
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2003, 19:31   #67
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
i encourage you to put each other on ignore lists, at least until you can speak to each other without flaming again. thank you for doing that. maybe now we can get some enlightening discussion underway

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 04:54   #68
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Man, that was pathetic.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 05:06   #69
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
why shouldn't they get some of their money back as opposed to the poor people who didn't pay any taxes to begin with?
The poor people pay THEIR REQUIRED PERCENTAGE, and the rich pay THEIR REQUIRED PERCENTAGE. It's just that the Working/Middle Class makes less, so if you add up every middle and poor's taxes all together, the total wouldn't even be close to the very rich's PERCENTAGE.

Quote:
What did the poor people do to deserve to get rich people's money?
OMGWTF? Who in the hell said that the government is giving the rich's money to the poor? The government is giving the poor a PERCENTAGE of what they make BACK TO THEM. They are doing the same for the rich, exept that Bush's tax plan will give them back a higher percentage back when the plan comes into action.

Quote:
Saving does not destroy the economy, only if everyone just saved their money in old tin boxes buried in their back yards would it possibly hurt the economy. People save money in banks. Banks don't just keep all of the money in their vault, they invest a lot of it into the market, your and my savings money is in the market, how do you think the bank can pay you interest on your savings account if it's just sitting there taking up space in their vault? they should charge rent if that's all it did. You've probably been to a bank once or twice, and maybe you've seen that little sticker or plaque saying that the bank is **** insured. Do you know what that means? The **** insurance is a safe guard for your money that the bank has put in the market so that you won't lose your savings if the market crashes.

So in essense, saving money actually puts money into the economy. This helps the economy, it doesn't destroy it at all.
Saving money when the economy is not fucked is okay. Saving in times of a bear economy is VERY BAD since no money is circulating.

After the market crash in 1920, the government ENCOURAGED SPENDING and cracked down on people who saved. Go tell the government that saving is bad.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 05:24   #70
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
OMGWTF? Who in the hell said that the government is giving the rich's money to the poor? The government is giving the poor a PERCENTAGE of what they make BACK TO THEM. They are doing the same for the rich, exept that Bush's tax plan will give them back a higher percentage back when the plan comes into action.
okay, so why shouldn't the rich get a higher percentage back they pay a higher percentage in.

Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
After the market crash in 1920, the government ENCOURAGED SPENDING and cracked down on people who saved. Go tell the government that saving is bad.
The government cracked down on people who saved? I highly doubt that very much, it's not illegal to save money.

BTW the market crashed in 1929 not 1920.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 06:19   #71
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
originally posted by Fickle:

spiderbaby, quit being such a wuss and read some posts by a fairly intelligent human being. You're a spoiled brat who can't take an argument or actual debate without having to childishly ignore the other side. You are effectively sticking your fingers into your ears and singing while he tries to make a point. If you did that to me, to my face, You'd have a fist in your mouth after your second round of "la-la-la"s. I don't take a lot of petty baby bullshit anywhere, especially people who are trying to tell me that Bush is an asshole because he lies and then worship Clinton because he gets more action than they've seen in years in a couple of weekends with an ass munching dirty slut of an intern.
If you don't agree, amke a statement. Don't be such a fucking moron.
Thanks! And Come Again!


Yeah, Fickle, I'm an arrogant clod.

I suppose you wouldn't know it to read my posts here, but I am not an arrogant clod. In the real world, I seem to be regarded by just about everyone I know as courteous, generous, and helpful. What I am, however, is 45 years old-- and to be sniped at by an 18 year old kid really does seem to bring out the worst in me. Tiger is no dumber than I was at 18... but believe me, that's dumb enough to be really really fucking irritating. That doesn't mean his opinion is wrong and mine is right. But imagine a 12-year old telling you that you don't know anything. See how thoughtful and reasonable that makes you feel.

I can't believe I let you goad me into this. Next time someone puts someone else on their ignore list, please take a moment to consider the remote possibility that it might be none of your goddamn business.

You are an arrogant clod, assuming I'm 18, when there's no way for you to know how old I am.
I don't care how old you are. You're still acting like a crybaby and a wuss for ignoring people who speak fairly intelligently. I know you can't hear me, but what the fuck, who cares right? I don't have anything good to say cause I'm half your age. Is that why you ignore people? Cause they're not good enough to speak to you, you arrogant prick?
Let me ask you a question: When you're dead, who's taking care of the country? People like me. So back off, asshat, cause my generation won't fuck everything up like yours did.
I'm not 18, Spidermonkey, and I'll be damned I'll hear you say things on-line that you wouldn't dare say to my face, cause I'd kick yours right the fuck in.
I'm not your arrogant daughter, not your bitchy son, I'm a complete stranger to you and yet you talk to me like your teaching me a lesson in manners. You aren't anybody to me, and I can't believe that you're 45 and acting like a 12 year old.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 06:43   #72
nakami
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
What I am, however, is 45 years old-- and to be sniped at by an 18 year old kid really does seem to bring out the worst in me.
why in the hell are you surfing the net then ¬,¬
nakami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 06:57   #73
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
There's a saying I once heard which just popped into my head, perhaps it applies. It goes something like this:
Quote:
If you're young and not a democrat, you have no heart.
If you're old and not a republican, you have no brain.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 07:15   #74
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
okay, so why shouldn't the rich get a higher percentage back they pay a higher percentage in.
Keep reading down.

Quote:
The government cracked down on people who saved? I highly doubt that very much, it's not illegal to save money.
Crack down meaning they kept asking people not to save. You dont have to beleve me when I say that President Truman encouraged spending. It's already written in the history books.

A lot of people oppose a tax cut favoring the rich because:
Quote:
Causes

Uneven wealth distribution
The uneven distribution of wealth in the 1920s existed on many levels. Money was distributed unevenly among the the rich and poor, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the United States. and Europe. Labor Unions were week and were unable to demand fair salaries. Corporation and the wealthy were able to influence Goverment policies and decissions whch help to maintain the concentration of wealth in a few hands. A Brookings Institution study found that in 1929 the very wealthy (the top 0.1 percent of Americans) had a combined income equal to the bottom 42.0 percent. That same wealthy class in 1929 controlled 34 percent of all bank savings, while 80 percent of Americans had no savings at all, no cuchiom for emergencies. The uneven distributionof wealth also acted to reduce demand in the economy. inplybput, wokers that earned little, spent little.


A major reason for the large and growing gap between the rich and the working class in America was low wages. Here the ability of companies backed by Government to curtail the union movement was a major factor. Manufacturing output increased throughout the 1920s. From 1923-29 the average manufacturing output per worker in America increased 32 percent. At the same time average wages for workers, most without string unions, with manufacturing jobs increased only 8 percent. Thus, wages increased at a rate only as fourth as fast as productivity increased. Thus there were fewer consumers for the increasing supply of goods being produced. The benefits of the increasingly efficent production went into corporate profits. Stock ownership, however, was concentrated in the hands of the relatively small moneyed class. Corporate profits from 1923-29 rose 62 percent and dividends rose 65 percents.


The growing disparity of wealth between the wealthy and working class created instabilities in the economy. This made the economy function inefficently. For an economy to function smoothly, total demand must equal total supply. In an economy with such disparate incomes, demand usually does not equal supply. There was in the 1920s an increasing oversupply of goods. The surplus products of industrialized countries could not be purchased by poorly paid workers. The wealthy were satisfied by spending only a small portion of their income. The American economy came to rely on credit sales, luxury spending, and exports. Savings and investment were not being efficently used.

Credit: Buying on credit was a relatively new concept in post-World War I Amrica, but it proved immensly popular. Two of the most popular items in the 1920s were cars and radios. Henr Ford's mass production methods even before World war I had brought cars within the buying power of the average person. Commercial radio appeared in the 1920s. Early radiod were large pieces of furniture full of expensive tubes. They were expensive, but everyone wanted one. By the end of the 1920s, about 60 percent of cars and 80 percent of radios in America were purchased on installments credit. Between 1925 and 1929 the total amount of outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.4 billion to abpout $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to get the item that he wanted right awau and "telescope" payments into the future. This device created "artificial" demand for products which people could not normally afford. There was a hidden time bomb in the installment system. Workers had in effect less disposable income from their weekly pay packets as substantial amounts went tompay the installment loans. In an expanding economy this can be handled. But the real income of workers in the 1920s was not expanding rapidly and farm income was actually falling.

Luxury spending: The U.S. economy in the 1920s was increasingly dependant on luxury spending and investment by the wealthy. Workers have to spend much of their income on the necesities of life. Luxury spending and investment is much more affected by economic trends. Such spending and investment is fueled by economic expansion and rising stock markets. When the wealty begin to lose confidence in the narket they cut back on both purchases of luxury goods and investment. The stock market crash in October 1929 thus caused a very significan reduction in luxury spending which had been a major support of the 1920s boom
http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/war-dep.html

Unequal wealth distribution is a major factor for a bear market.
Still think the rich should get a tax cut?
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 07:36   #75
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Uneven distribution of wealth is inherent to a free market/democratic government. Hell, thats what it's all about. If you want a equal distribution of wealth, you need a communist country. And yes, I still think the rich should get a higher tax cut because they pay a higher percentage per person. You are trying to compare the per person refunds they recieved to the amount of taxes they paid as group...you can't do that. If you add up the refunds given to the lower and middle classes, you would find the total far surpassed that of the rich groups total.

As for spiderbaby, know this. He would be either an excellent lawyer, or an excellent replacement for Tom Daschall.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 09:37   #76
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by nakami
why in the hell are you surfing the net then ¬,¬
OH! I thought we were done with the flame wars! I guess I was misinformed.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 10:13   #77
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mattress
There's a saying I once heard which just popped into my head, perhaps it applies. It goes something like this:

really, are you trying to get me going again? Tsk tsk.

Fuck it. From now on, anybody who pisses me off goes into the ignore list, just like that. You got a problem with that? In you go too. What? You say I'm being immature? You gone. That way, I won't have to be pissed off anymore. Fickle was right about 1 thing. Get me mad enough and I do become an arrogant clod. Who needs that? There are already plenty of those in here.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 10:50   #78
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
You are trying to compare the per person refunds they recieved to the amount of taxes they paid as group...you can't do that. If you add up the refunds given to the lower and middle classes, you would find the total far surpassed that of the rich groups total.
False.

According to Bush's plan, that's false. Take a look at the final bill. Even if you add up the total refunds given back to 99% of the lower population, it's only $7,646. The top 1% gets $53,123 back.



And what about people who have no children and don't own any stock? They won't get much back at all if anything worth getting back.

Quote:
Uneven distribution of wealth is inherent to a free market/democratic government. Hell, thats what it's all about. If you want a equal distribution of wealth, you need a communist country.
I'm not for TOTAL EQUALITY as in communism. I'm for a free, mixed economy(The one we use today). The poor paying say X%, and the rich paying the same precentage according to income. In Bush's plan, the percentage fluxuates and favors the very rich. Why do people dissaprove of favoring the rich? Read a few posts back. We don't want a repeat of history now do we?

Last edited by Starbucks; 12th July 2003 at 11:24.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 12:33   #79
nakami
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
OH! I thought we were done with the flame wars! I guess I was misinformed.
i would imagine a 45-year old man would be able to tell the difference between a question and a flame, but i guess not.

Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958

Fuck it. From now on, anybody who pisses me off goes into the ignore list, just like that. You got a problem with that? In you go too. What? You say I'm being immature? You gone. That way, I won't have to be pissed off anymore. Fickle was right about 1 thing. Get me mad enough and I do become an arrogant clod. Who needs that? There are already plenty of those in here.
the way your going, the only posts you'll be reading on this forum are the ones you make.
nakami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2003, 14:01   #80
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
Why do people dissaprove of favoring the rich? Read a few posts back. We don't want a repeat of history now do we?
Thanks to New Deal institutions and rules there are many many safeguards aginst another market crash like the one in 1929.

I think the more logical reason that most people disapprove of favoring the rich is because they aren't rich.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump