My view of Paris Hilton just improved drastically

08/08/2008 07:06:35 PM · #126

Don't forget all the other regressive taxes such as sales tax and the like. Those taxes affect the poor to a much greater extent.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/08/2008 07:10:22 PM · #127

We did not even start to discuss the "other" taxes ! I don't want to answer for Sam but I think he may favor "lowering" or eliminating those taxes on the poor...or raising them for the rich.

He'll chime in in a bit !

I once calculated all my taxes...income, property, sales, brake tag, gasoline (part of sales), phone bill tax, etc...I forgot the exact number but depending on how I spent it, more than 50% went to some form of tax.

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Don't forget all the other regressive taxes such as sales tax and the like. Those taxes affect the poor to a much greater extent.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/08/2008 07:15:37 PM · #128

Originally posted by Sam94720:

See this guy for example: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM (The reporter was probably trying to show that young Obama supporters know nothing about the issues. Well, he picked the wrong victim. ;-) )

LOL- that guy really knew his stuff! Kinda makes you wonder if it might have been staged as a sort of viral marketing campaign (not for the eloquent answers, but that he seemed so well prepared for the questions).

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 19:17:58.

08/08/2008 07:21:43 PM · #129

I'm glad you said it. I thought the same thing but decided not to say it !

The world will never know.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Sam94720:
See this guy for example: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM (The reporter was probably trying to show that young Obama supporters know nothing about the issues. Well, he picked the wrong victim. ;-) )

LOL- that guy really knew his stuff! Kinda makes you wonder if it might have been staged as a sort of viral marketing campaign (not for the eloquent answers, but that he seemed so well prepared for the questions).

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 19:25:39.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

08/08/2008 07:50:21 PM · #130

Originally posted by scalvert:

There's a response from the same guy "Derek"...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2zO5d-XZWA&NR=1

Seems on the up and up to me.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 19:51:33.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/08/2008 07:56:51 PM · #131

Probably real...man they found one ! ;-)

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Sam94720:
See this guy for example: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM (The reporter was probably trying to show that young Obama supporters know nothing about the issues. Well, he picked the wrong victim. ;-) )

LOL- that guy really knew his stuff! Kinda makes you wonder if it might have been staged as a sort of viral marketing campaign (not for the eloquent answers, but that he seemed so well prepared for the questions).

There's a response from the same guy "Derek"...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2zO5d-XZWA&NR=1

Seems on the up and up to me.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 22:08:10.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/08/2008 08:01:58 PM · #132

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Seems on the up and up to me.

Yep, Im sold. :-)

08/08/2008 08:20:28 PM · #133

Originally posted by kenskid:

Well we're just far apart on this issue ! I feel that a person that earns a million a year would miss $200,000 in the same way I would miss $200.

Well, I think we agree that what you are left with is more important than what you pay in taxes, right? So having $80 after paying $20 is worse than having $8,000 after paying $2,000, right?

It may "feel" equally bad to pay 20%, no matter if they are $200,000 or $200. But living with $800,000 is probably easier than living with $800, agree? My point is that whether you have $1,000 or $800 available will significantly change the way you live. It may change where you live, how well you eat, if you can afford to see a doctor, etc. However, whether you have $1,000,000 or $800,000 won't really affect the way you live. You'll probably live in the same place, eat the same food, have the same cars, etc. Many rich people simply have millions in the bank just to have them...

What often happens here in Europe is that some tax is abolished or lowered - for everyone. And some services are cut at the same time. The effect on the rich is that they have significantly more money in their pockets. The effect on the poor is that they get poorer or are otherwise worse of. I'll explain why: Let's say some tax is lowered and state medical services are cut. The rich don't use the medical services provided by the state, they go to expensive private clinics. So they pay less taxes and nothing else changes for them. The poor, however, depend on those services. With the lowered taxes, they pay a little bit less, maybe $20 per year or something like that. But when they need medical care, they either have to buy it themselves (which on average costs more than the $20 per year) or they have to do without.

Also interesting is the other side, the spending of taxes. Just imagine what could have been achieved with the trillions wasted for the war in Iraq if they had been used for education or healthcare...

08/08/2008 08:26:16 PM · #134

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Here's more about the story and Derrick: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFX5HEZpK9o

It's funny, whenever something special turns up on the Internet, there are always people who yell "Fake!", "Staged!", "Photoshopped!" or something similar within seconds (this happend here, too: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNF_P281Uu4&fmt=18)*. I'm all for skepticism, but sometimes fascinating things happen without foul play...

* P.S.: If you haven't heard of Matt yet, watch this one, too: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=18 (Totally random, but I consider it worth sharing.)

08/08/2008 10:07:48 PM · #135

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Well we're just far apart on this issue ! I feel that a person that earns a million a year would miss $200,000 in the same way I would miss $200.

Well, I think we agree that what you are left with is more important than what you pay in taxes, right? So having $80 after paying $20 is worse than having $8,000 after paying $2,000, right?

It may "feel" equally bad to pay 20%, no matter if they are $200,000 or $200. But living with $800,000 is probably easier than living with $800, agree? My point is that whether you have $1,000 or $800 available will significantly change the way you live. It may change where you live, how well you eat, if you can afford to see a doctor, etc. However, whether you have $1,000,000 or $800,000 won't really affect the way you live. You'll probably live in the same place, eat the same food, have the same cars, etc. Many rich people simply have millions in the bank just to have them...

What often happens here in Europe is that some tax is abolished or lowered - for everyone. And some services are cut at the same time. The effect on the rich is that they have significantly more money in their pockets. The effect on the poor is that they get poorer or are otherwise worse of. I'll explain why: Let's say some tax is lowered and state medical services are cut. The rich don't use the medical services provided by the state, they go to expensive private clinics. So they pay less taxes and nothing else changes for them. The poor, however, depend on those services. With the lowered taxes, they pay a little bit less, maybe $20 per year or something like that. But when they need medical care, they either have to buy it themselves (which on average costs more than the $20 per year) or they have to do without.

Also interesting is the other side, the spending of taxes. Just imagine what could have been achieved with the trillions wasted for the war in Iraq if they had been used for education or healthcare...

08/08/2008 10:29:09 PM · #136

Originally posted by kenskid:

We'll never agree on the tax issue.

Ok, then let's end the tax discussion. I think we understand each other's point of view.

Originally posted by kenskid:

We haven't spent "trillions" there. And like you say...we could have spent it here if there was not war but...we would have still have had to borrow it!

Well, renowned economists extimate the overall cost of the war (including indirect costs) to be in the trillions. You're right about the borrowing part, though...

Originally posted by kenskid:

What do you think about this:

Iraq showed a 79 billion surplus this year. This was made primarly from oil sales. Saddam made this money many times over and never "shared" with is people. Now the people and country are free. What do you think the Iraqi government should do with the surplus?

I'm not familiar with the Iraqi state budget and therefore won't make any recommendations. However, the statement that the people are now "free" is a tricky one. An estimated million civilians have been killed and many of the survivors now live in ethnic ghettos surrounded by walls. For many the economic situation is dire. Saddam was a horrible dictator, but many Iraqis look back to the old days with nostalgia. At least there was stability and you knew what to expect.

If you're losing a popularity contest against a brutal dictator, you know you did something terribly wrong...

Well, I think we are straying off topic...

Back to the policies of McCain, Obama and Hilton. I asked people warning against an Obama presidency what they were afraid of. I'd still be interested in hearing their opinions.

08/08/2008 10:33:41 PM · #137

If you're losing a popularity contest against a brutal dictator, you know you did something terribly wrong

What do you base this on? I'd like to examine that poll if you could point me to it.

Edit: I searched around and found polls taken in 2006 showed most Iraqi's want the forces out of the country. I can't find anything more recent. But I must say...it must be a pain in the ass to have a foreign country "in" your country.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
We'll never agree on the tax issue.

Ok, then let's end the tax discussion. I think we understand each other's point of view.

Originally posted by kenskid:
We haven't spent "trillions" there. And like you say...we could have spent it here if there was not war but...we would have still have had to borrow it!

Well, renowned economists extimate the overall cost of the war (including indirect costs) to be in the trillions. You're right about the borrowing part, though...

Originally posted by kenskid:
What do you think about this:

Iraq showed a 79 billion surplus this year. This was made primarly from oil sales. Saddam made this money many times over and never "shared" with is people. Now the people and country are free. What do you think the Iraqi government should do with the surplus?

I'm not familiar with the Iraqi state budget and therefore won't make any recommendations. However, the statement that the people are now "free" is a tricky one. An estimated million civilians have been killed and many of the survivors now live in ethnic ghettos surrounded by walls. For many the economic situation is dire. Saddam was a horrible dictator, but many Iraqis look back to the old days with nostalgia. At least there was stability and you knew what to expect.

If you're losing a popularity contest against a brutal dictator, you know you did something terribly wrong
What do you base this on? I'd like to examine that poll if you could point me to it.

Well, I think we are straying off topic...

Back to the policies of McCain, Obama and Hilton. I asked people warning against an Obama presidency what they were afraid of. I'd still be interested in hearing their opinions.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 22:47:04.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/08/2008 10:42:22 PM · #138

Since this seems to now be a discussion about taxes, let me just say that I'm all for lowering taxes on money earned and increasing taxes on money unearned. In other words, lower income taxes across the board and raise capital gains, estate tax, etc to compensate.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/08/2008 10:51:51 PM · #139

Then maybe you would see some of the BIG rich people like Babs Strisand (sp?), Buffet,and even the Clintons change their tunes a little.

Many people ask me why would rich people like Clinton and other big wigs seem to always be ok with raising income taxes on the rich. At times they even mention themselves in their speeches. The say "even though I will be in a high tax bracket and my taxes will go up, I still will push for higher taxes on the rich.

This is because these people have already earned their money. The make very very little today that is "income".

If you put a tax on gains like you say...I wonder if they will be so gung-ho?

Originally posted by yanko:

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 22:52:37.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/08/2008 10:51:55 PM · #140

Originally posted by kenskid:

We'll never agree on the tax issue. On your last statement about Iraq I must say...

We haven't spent "trillions" there. And like you say...we could have spent it here if there was not war but...we would have still have had to borrow it!

What do you think about this:

Iraq showed a 79 billion surplus this year. This was made primarly from oil sales. Saddam made this money many times over and never "shared" with is people. Now the people and country are free. What do you think the Iraqi government should do with the surplus?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Well we're just far apart on this issue ! I feel that a person that earns a million a year would miss $200,000 in the same way I would miss $200.

Well, I think we agree that what you are left with is more important than what you pay in taxes, right? So having $80 after paying $20 is worse than having $8,000 after paying $2,000, right?

It may "feel" equally bad to pay 20%, no matter if they are $200,000 or $200. But living with $800,000 is probably easier than living with $800, agree? My point is that whether you have $1,000 or $800 available will significantly change the way you live. It may change where you live, how well you eat, if you can afford to see a doctor, etc. However, whether you have $1,000,000 or $800,000 won't really affect the way you live. You'll probably live in the same place, eat the same food, have the same cars, etc. Many rich people simply have millions in the bank just to have them...

What often happens here in Europe is that some tax is abolished or lowered - for everyone. And some services are cut at the same time. The effect on the rich is that they have significantly more money in their pockets. The effect on the poor is that they get poorer or are otherwise worse of. I'll explain why: Let's say some tax is lowered and state medical services are cut. The rich don't use the medical services provided by the state, they go to expensive private clinics. So they pay less taxes and nothing else changes for them. The poor, however, depend on those services. With the lowered taxes, they pay a little bit less, maybe $20 per year or something like that. But when they need medical care, they either have to buy it themselves (which on average costs more than the $20 per year) or they have to do without.

Also interesting is the other side, the spending of taxes. Just imagine what could have been achieved with the trillions wasted for the war in Iraq if they had been used for education or healthcare...

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 22:52:18.

08/08/2008 10:54:02 PM · #141

Originally posted by kenskid:

If you're losing a popularity contest against a brutal dictator, you know you did something terribly wrong

What do you base this on? I'd like to examine that poll if you could point me to it.

I read a lot, both online and offline. The fact that many Iraqis think they were better off under Saddam has been a recurring theme.

I don't remember any specific links or articles, but a quick Google search gave the following first results:

//newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1816
//ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml
//www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=vn20061026063400559C925359
//www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46856/
//www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/12/rockefeller-iraq-not-better-off-without-saddam/
//www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/25/iraq-failure.html
//www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

08/08/2008 10:59:50 PM · #142

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

So far, the Iraq war has already cost $600 Billion dollars. Those are just the current out-of-pocket expenses.

Additional expenditures will be necessary due to the increased need for equipment to replace or upgrade that used up in Iraq that will happen even if the war stopped right now and every soldier was home tomorrow. Also, that $565 Billion doesn't account for the cost to care for injured troops or paying the death benefit to the family of those killed. The expense of those disabilities will go on for a long time. If that weren't enough, the interest on those expenses when all is said and done, will jack the cost of the war up as high as $3-4 Trillion.

That's a pretty huge increase over what the administration sold as a $50-60 Billion dollar conflict. That was supposed to be before the US partners kicked in their share and before the Iraqi oil money came rolling in to help defray the cost. Of course, this same administration estimated a paltry $1.7 Billion for post-war reconstruction in the entire country of Iraq.

Originally posted by kenskid:
We'll never agree on the tax issue. On your last statement about Iraq I must say...

We haven't spent "trillions" there. And like you say...we could have spent it here if there was not war but...we would have still have had to borrow it!

What do you think about this:

Iraq showed a 79 billion surplus this year. This was made primarly from oil sales. Saddam made this money many times over and never "shared" with is people. Now the people and country are free. What do you think the Iraqi government should do with the surplus?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Well we're just far apart on this issue ! I feel that a person that earns a million a year would miss $200,000 in the same way I would miss $200.

Well, I think we agree that what you are left with is more important than what you pay in taxes, right? So having $80 after paying $20 is worse than having $8,000 after paying $2,000, right?

It may "feel" equally bad to pay 20%, no matter if they are $200,000 or $200. But living with $800,000 is probably easier than living with $800, agree? My point is that whether you have $1,000 or $800 available will significantly change the way you live. It may change where you live, how well you eat, if you can afford to see a doctor, etc. However, whether you have $1,000,000 or $800,000 won't really affect the way you live. You'll probably live in the same place, eat the same food, have the same cars, etc. Many rich people simply have millions in the bank just to have them...

What often happens here in Europe is that some tax is abolished or lowered - for everyone. And some services are cut at the same time. The effect on the rich is that they have significantly more money in their pockets. The effect on the poor is that they get poorer or are otherwise worse of. I'll explain why: Let's say some tax is lowered and state medical services are cut. The rich don't use the medical services provided by the state, they go to expensive private clinics. So they pay less taxes and nothing else changes for them. The poor, however, depend on those services. With the lowered taxes, they pay a little bit less, maybe $20 per year or something like that. But when they need medical care, they either have to buy it themselves (which on average costs more than the $20 per year) or they have to do without.

Also interesting is the other side, the spending of taxes. Just imagine what could have been achieved with the trillions wasted for the war in Iraq if they had been used for education or healthcare...

08/08/2008 11:01:12 PM · #143

I read some of those links already. I'll look over more later.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
If you're losing a popularity contest against a brutal dictator, you know you did something terribly wrong

What do you base this on? I'd like to examine that poll if you could point me to it.

I read a lot, both online and offline. The fact that many Iraqis think they were better off under Saddam has been a recurring theme.

I don't remember any specific links or articles, but a quick Google search gave the following first results:

//newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1816
//ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml
//www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=vn20061026063400559C925359
//www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46856/
//www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/12/rockefeller-iraq-not-better-off-without-saddam/
//www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/25/iraq-failure.html
//www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/08/2008 11:14:21 PM · #144

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I read a lot, both online and offline. The fact that many Iraqis think they were better off under Saddam has been a recurring theme.

Well at least now you can conduct a poll in Iraq. Seriously though this is the weakest part to argue in regards to the war. The conditions can always improve and probably will but the reasons for going to war in the first place won't get any better.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/08/2008 11:21:20 PM · #145

I agree on the reasons. Throughout this thread the Obama voters have brought up Bush many many times. I said that this is not about Bush. They said no but McCain pretty much is Bush...

Even if it is proven 100% the Bush lied or even falsified documents the fact still remains that McCain voted for the war the same as Hillery voted for the war.

Now Obama says he would have voted against but we will never truly know what he would or would not have done.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Sam94720:
I read a lot, both online and offline. The fact that many Iraqis think they were better off under Saddam has been a recurring theme.

Well at least now you can conduct a poll in Iraq. Seriously though this is the weakest part to argue in regards to the war. The conditions can always improve and probably will but the reasons for going to war in the first place won't get any better.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/09/2008 12:58:02 AM · #146

The Congress was sold a bill of goods that didn't exist.

The problem is that wars are easier to start than to get out of. They'll never cut war funding because that means cutting funding for the troops and no one is stupid enough to do that because despite the opposition to the war itself, support for the troops is almost universal and unfortunately funding for the war and funding for the troops are inextricably linked. To vote against it and actually have it defeated would be career suicide.

Originally posted by kenskid:

I wonder why more senators and reps didn't vote against the war and why they keep funding it. I remeber a few years back when the democrats took the senate and congress back. I heard that they would end the war soon. Since then I haven't heard anything about this.

If I'm not mistaken, only congress can approve funds for this war. Bush can plead and beg but he can't pass the bill for funds. Is being labeled "unpatriotic" such a bad thing if you feel you are doing the right thing to stop funding and bringing the troops home?

Obama is saying the same thing the others were saying two years ago. He says he will stop the war and bring them home. If he wins, the demos with have the house, senate and the Prez...they should be able to get them home as fast as the can safely be removed.

I wonder if this will happen?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So far, the Iraq war has already cost $600 Billion dollars. Those are just the current out-of-pocket expenses.

Additional expenditures will be necessary due to the increased need for equipment to replace or upgrade that used up in Iraq that will happen even if the war stopped right now and every soldier was home tomorrow. Also, that $565 Billion doesn't account for the cost to care for injured troops or paying the death benefit to the family of those killed. The expense of those disabilities will go on for a long time. If that weren't enough, the interest on those expenses when all is said and done, will jack the cost of the war up as high as $3-4 Trillion.

That's a pretty huge increase over what the administration sold as a $50-60 Billion dollar conflict. That was supposed to be before the US partners kicked in their share and before the Iraqi oil money came rolling in to help defray the cost. Of course, this same administration estimated a paltry $1.7 Billion for post-war reconstruction in the entire country of Iraq.

Originally posted by kenskid:
We'll never agree on the tax issue. On your last statement about Iraq I must say...

We haven't spent "trillions" there. And like you say...we could have spent it here if there was not war but...we would have still have had to borrow it!

What do you think about this:

Iraq showed a 79 billion surplus this year. This was made primarly from oil sales. Saddam made this money many times over and never "shared" with is people. Now the people and country are free. What do you think the Iraqi government should do with the surplus?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Well we're just far apart on this issue ! I feel that a person that earns a million a year would miss $200,000 in the same way I would miss $200.

Well, I think we agree that what you are left with is more important than what you pay in taxes, right? So having $80 after paying $20 is worse than having $8,000 after paying $2,000, right?

It may "feel" equally bad to pay 20%, no matter if they are $200,000 or $200. But living with $800,000 is probably easier than living with $800, agree? My point is that whether you have $1,000 or $800 available will significantly change the way you live. It may change where you live, how well you eat, if you can afford to see a doctor, etc. However, whether you have $1,000,000 or $800,000 won't really affect the way you live. You'll probably live in the same place, eat the same food, have the same cars, etc. Many rich people simply have millions in the bank just to have them...

What often happens here in Europe is that some tax is abolished or lowered - for everyone. And some services are cut at the same time. The effect on the rich is that they have significantly more money in their pockets. The effect on the poor is that they get poorer or are otherwise worse of. I'll explain why: Let's say some tax is lowered and state medical services are cut. The rich don't use the medical services provided by the state, they go to expensive private clinics. So they pay less taxes and nothing else changes for them. The poor, however, depend on those services. With the lowered taxes, they pay a little bit less, maybe $20 per year or something like that. But when they need medical care, they either have to buy it themselves (which on average costs more than the $20 per year) or they have to do without.

Also interesting is the other side, the spending of taxes. Just imagine what could have been achieved with the trillions wasted for the war in Iraq if they had been used for education or healthcare...

08/09/2008 09:45:10 AM · #147

Originally posted by kenskid:

Now Obama says he would have voted against but we will never truly know what he would or would not have done.

Obama voiced his opinion clearly in the speech he gave in 2002.

In the speech, he outlined with prophetical accuracy what would happen:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Bush, McCain and friends made different predictions:

citymars

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/09/2008 10:21:07 AM · #148

Thanks for posting that comic -- I love Tom Tomorrow's work.
That Chris Matthews quote is hilarious.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

08/09/2008 11:33:27 AM · #149

on the tax issue... I agree that the rich should be taxed more however what happens to the people in the middle?

People that are right on the line of one of the tax brackets get a small raise or a new job that pays a little more, and actually end up making LESS money than before because they are in that new bracket. I can't say that's a very good feeling no matter what economic level you are at. I actually know someone that had that happen to him and he had to turn down the new job.