My view of Paris Hilton just improved drastically

08/08/2008 02:08:53 PM · #101

Originally posted by theSaj:

What we really need is to elect someone other than a Democrat or Republican....

Yes, but unfortunately in the current system, they simply don't stand a chance. Voting for a third-party candidate means throwing away your vote (i.e., you're supporting the major candidate you like less).

This problem can only be fixed by a change in the voting process. Something along these lines, for example.

08/08/2008 02:10:43 PM · #102

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
All good in jest so long as Barack Hussein doesn't win and make this country an Obamanation.

This is totally uncalled for and a personal attack.

I don't know...I thought Obamanation is pretty funny. *lol*

What we really need is to elect someone other than a Democrat or Republican....

I don't know enough about politics in the US (I'm Canadian) to say that I'm an Obama supporter, but he does strike me as a breath of fresh air. However, as someone mentioned above, to use just his name and not include his FULL name (that means last name) is implying something insidious. I speak as an international observer only.

When I see stuff like that, it just strikes me as an immature acting out of xenophobic ignorance.

08/08/2008 02:15:56 PM · #103

Originally posted by kenskid:

I'm not going to recite again but I think you know my position on "taxing" "redistribution of wealth" etc...

What is your position on taxation? In the current system, profits are privatized and losses are socialized. That's not fair. I think it makes sense that rich people who can afford it pay more taxes and poor people pay less taxes. A thousand dollars comming from a millionaire hurt him less than a poor person... What I don't understand is why one would cut taxes for the rich in a time of huge deficits.

Originally posted by kenskid:

I do at times stumble upon an informed youngster on the web but for the most part they just say "change", "hope" and "change"...as you pointed out though, if they are only getting the 5 second sound bites then how could you blame them?

Yes, the web. Youtube comments make you lose all faith in humanity. However, people on both sides and of all ages are shockingly uninformed. The media are a big part of the problem.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 14:16:56.

08/08/2008 02:16:07 PM · #104

Isn't what you posted almost the same as an open primary? We have that in Louisiana. Says 8 people run for gov...we go to the polls and the top two "wash out". We then go back to the polls to vote on those two...winner takes all.

Or...does the article say...We vote and knock the lowest vote getter out and then revote and knock the next least vote getter out...etc etc??

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by theSaj:
What we really need is to elect someone other than a Democrat or Republican....

Yes, but unfortunately in the current system, they simply don't stand a chance. Voting for a third-party candidate means throwing away your vote (i.e., you're supporting the major candidate you like less).

This problem can only be fixed by a change in the voting process. Something along these lines, for example.

08/08/2008 02:21:04 PM · #105

Originally posted by kenskid:

In the system I proposed you only vote once and you rank candidates according to preference.

At the moment, if you vote for Nader, Barr or Paul you waste your vote. In an instant runoff style voting process, you would provide a list of preference:

1. Nader
2. Obama
3. [...]

for example. If Nader gets a majority, he wins. If he doesn't your vote counts for Obama. etc.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 14:21:48.

08/08/2008 02:25:37 PM · #106

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm not going to recite again but I think you know my position on "taxing" "redistribution of wealth" etc...

What is your position on taxation? In the current system, profits are privatized and losses are socialized. That's not fair. I think it makes sense that rich people who can afford it pay more taxes and poor people pay less taxes. A thousand dollars comming from a millionaire hurt him less than a poor person... What I don't understand is why one would cut taxes for the rich in a time of huge deficits.

Originally posted by kenskid:
I do at times stumble upon an informed youngster on the web but for the most part they just say "change", "hope" and "change"...as you pointed out though, if they are only getting the 5 second sound bites then how could you blame them?

Yes, the web. Youtube comments make you lose all faith in humanity. However, people on both sides and of all ages are shockingly uninformed. The media are a big part of the problem.

08/08/2008 02:27:15 PM · #107

So if Nader has 48% and Obama 40% and all others 12% does Nader become prez? Or do we run Nader against Obama?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Isn't what you posted almost the same as an open primary? We have that in Louisiana. Says 8 people run for gov...we go to the polls and the top two "wash out". We then go back to the polls to vote on those two...winner takes all.

In the system I proposed you only vote once and you rank candidates according to preference.

At the moment, if you vote for Nader, Barr or Paul you waste your vote. In an instant runoff style voting process, you would provide a list of preference:

1. Nader
2. Obama
3. [...]

for example. If Nader gets a majority, he wins. If he doesn't your vote counts for Obama. etc.

08/08/2008 02:38:31 PM · #108

Originally posted by kenskid:

So if Nader has 48% and Obama 40% and all others 12% does Nader become prez? Or do we run Nader against Obama?

Nader does not become president at this point. The candidate with the least votes (first preference) would be eliminated and the second choice of the affected voters would be considered. If a candidate reaches more than 50%, they win. Otherwise, the remaining candidate with the least votes is eliminated and we continue in the same fashion. The Wikipedia page explains it better and in more detail.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/08/2008 02:50:13 PM · #109

Originally posted by kenskid:

Now reverse the above and raise the tax on gas. It stands to reason, if you raise the tax, less will be sold and tax revenue will decrease.

Yes, if you increase taxes on a particular good, less people will buy it. If you decrease them, more people will buy it. If you know how people behave, you can find the optimum tax that will maximize revenue.

However, there are other considerations beside revenue. You want to put a heavy tax on cigarettes, for example, to discourage people from smoking.

Income tax is another issue because this is not about a good people can choose to buy or not buy. However, there is competition between states and/or countries. Here an optimum can be found, too.

Do you agree with the general statement that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people? Some people claim that this is unfair because people are punished for success. I don't see it that way, they still have plenty of money. And their success is often also based on the work of others, poor factory workers, for example. Further, I would like to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are met. I consider it a failure of the society as a whole if we don't manage to do this. And as a rich person, I would rather want to pay taxes for welfare programs than have people break into my house and steal my stuff.

In American cities you have thousands of people living in the streets. I've never seen a single person sleep in the streets in Switzerland. Which situation do you prefer? And why is there this difference?

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/08/2008 03:06:36 PM · #110

This needs to be moved to rant pronto. If the rest of the argument is going to be worth the popcorn, I think the two sides need some common platform on which to play their pingpong.

08/08/2008 03:07:52 PM · #111

Originally posted by kenskid:

I know you may not like what I'm about to say but history has shown that cutting taxes increases revenue.

Let's take your side for example:

When Hillery and McCain wanted to put a hold on the gasoline tax in order to help people with their hardships...many on the left mocked Hillery saying that this is the time WE DON'T WANT TO DECREASE tax on gasoline. We want the price high in order that we may curb our usage...and find other sources.

So in short it says if we "lower" the tax on gas...more people will buy it...if more people buy it then we will never become gas "independant".

Now reverse the above and raise the tax on gas. It stands to reason, if you raise the tax, less will be sold and tax revenue will decrease.

I know I didn't answer your "why cut the tax on the rich question" but hope I made sense overall.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm not going to recite again but I think you know my position on "taxing" "redistribution of wealth" etc...

What is your position on taxation? In the current system, profits are privatized and losses are socialized. That's not fair. I think it makes sense that rich people who can afford it pay more taxes and poor people pay less taxes. A thousand dollars comming from a millionaire hurt him less than a poor person... What I don't understand is why one would cut taxes for the rich in a time of huge deficits.

Originally posted by kenskid:
I do at times stumble upon an informed youngster on the web but for the most part they just say "change", "hope" and "change"...as you pointed out though, if they are only getting the 5 second sound bites then how could you blame them?

Yes, the web. Youtube comments make you lose all faith in humanity. However, people on both sides and of all ages are shockingly uninformed. The media are a big part of the problem.

As unpalatable as it may be, gas at $10/gallon might be the best energy policy this country could hope for.

08/08/2008 03:08:39 PM · #112

Originally posted by raish:

This needs to be moved to rant pronto. If the rest of the argument is going to be worth the popcorn, I think the two sides need some common platform on which to play their pingpong.

Why? As soon as people don't agree anymore and a discussion starts, threads are moved to rant. However, having a good discussion has nothing to do with a rant, right?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/08/2008 03:12:33 PM · #113

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As unpalatable as it may be, gas at $10/gallon might be the best energy policy this country could hope for.

I agree with you. Due to the cheap availabilty of gas, we never really had to think about our energy policy and alternatives were not considered properly. We could have decreased our dependency on oil and switched to other (more environmentally friendly, sustainable and maybe even cheaper) energy sources a long time ago. We didn't and now the change becomes sudden and painful.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/08/2008 03:15:51 PM · #114

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by raish:
This needs to be moved to rant pronto. If the rest of the argument is going to be worth the popcorn, I think the two sides need some common platform on which to play their pingpong.

Why? As soon as people don't agree anymore and a discussion starts, threads are moved to rant. However, having a good discussion has nothing to do with a rant, right?

08/08/2008 03:17:39 PM · #115

I'd like a flat tax if possible of say to make it easy.... 10%.

If someone makes a million they pay 100,000. If someone makes $10,000 they pay $1000.00. However, I'd be open to having some less fortunate pay zero tax...but where do we set that? At $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 etc?

I make NOWHERE near $100,000/year and it is still hard for me to understand taxing say...$25,000 at 17% and $250,000 at 35%. Like I said, I don't make a lot and will never make $250,000 and still think it's unfair.

On this: I would like to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are met. What are basic needs? Your idea may be a lot different than mine or others. I say every american should have 3 healthy meals a day, hot and cold running water, shelter with heat in winter and air conditioning in summer.

On the other hand you may add "cradle to grave healthcare" and still others will say "cradle to grave healthcare" AND college tuition...etc..

Also on smoking...(My mother died of smoking)...why not increase the tax to be so high that it is impossible to purchase?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Now reverse the above and raise the tax on gas. It stands to reason, if you raise the tax, less will be sold and tax revenue will decrease.

Yes, if you increase taxes on a particular good, less people will buy it. If you decrease them, more people will buy it. If you know how people behave, you can find the optimum tax that will maximize revenue.

However, there are other considerations beside revenue. You want to put a heavy tax on cigarettes, for example, to discourage people from smoking.

Income tax is another issue because this is not about a good people can choose to buy or not buy. However, there is competition between states and/or countries. Here an optimum can be found, too.

Do you agree with the general statement that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people? Some people claim that this is unfair because people are punished for success. I don't see it that way, they still have plenty of money. And their success is often also based on the work of others, poor factory workers, for example. Further, I would like to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are met. I consider it a failure of the society as a whole if we don't manage to do this. And as a rich person, I would rather want to pay taxes for welfare programs than have people break into my house and steal my stuff.

In American cities you have thousands of people living in the streets. I've never seen a single person sleep in the streets in Switzerland. Which situation do you prefer? And why is there this difference?

08/08/2008 03:20:02 PM · #116

This is not ranting...

A few jump in with strange comments and prod with name calling but for the most part this thread is doing fine.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

08/08/2008 03:22:08 PM · #117

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As unpalatable as it may be, gas at $10/gallon might be the best energy policy this country could hope for.

I agree with you. Due to the cheap availabilty of gas, we never really had to think about our energy policy and alternatives were not considered properly. We could have decreased our dependency on oil and switched to other (more environmentally friendly, sustainable and maybe even cheaper) energy sources a long time ago. We didn't and now the change becomes sudden and painful.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/08/2008 03:38:48 PM · #118

I think that's the "begin to change" point. The point that drives the necessary and significant changes (infrastructure, real policy changes) may be quite a bit higher.

Originally posted by kenskid:

I think we may have found just about when people will change their "gasoline" habits. That price seems to be about $4 - $4.50 a gallon.

When prices reached that point, oil was about $135. Stats show we stopped using as much and price is about $118 today. Traffic stats also have shown this.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As unpalatable as it may be, gas at $10/gallon might be the best energy policy this country could hope for.

I agree with you. Due to the cheap availabilty of gas, we never really had to think about our energy policy and alternatives were not considered properly. We could have decreased our dependency on oil and switched to other (more environmentally friendly, sustainable and maybe even cheaper) energy sources a long time ago. We didn't and now the change becomes sudden and painful.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/08/2008 03:40:53 PM · #119

Ah what the wossname - as I understand it the USA is running on the world's oldest living constitution, one that was put together by some good people with seriously good insight into the problems with which they dealt.

That constitution has been subjected to serious abuse, I suspect. The present election of a president would not have been possible if the spirit of the constitutional methods were upheld. Political parties are a no no and instead of voting for a president you should be voting for someone who knows better than you how to vote for a president. A lot of people outside of the Gates of Eden feel that the US constitution is past its sell-by date and that it is pursued and and interpreted and misinterpreted and administrated by privileged groups in a manner which, when applied to other old documents, goes by the name of fundamentalism.

The incumbent pres. got into office by some pretty dodgy tactics, probably. He did so after running a campaign that cost a lot of money. All presidents do that. Within a fortnight of taking office, he decided on the amount of money available for the state to prosecute a couple of people who had sworn on the bible etc to the highest legal authority of the US, the high court that they knew nothing of any addictive qualities to nicotine. This was important because these people made there considerable wealths by growing, selling, etc tobacco. It was very shortly afterwards revealed that these people sere, in fact, lieing in their teeth. Perjury before the highest legal instance of the land is pretty serious stuff. However, they had sponsored mr pres's expensive campaign, so the least he could do was to alot a silly amount of money that guaranteed the state would lose the case.

Given all the damage it causes, there's some highly compelling arguments for making tobacco illegal. Heroin's illegal, but it isn't cultivated in the US.

...

08/08/2008 03:42:33 PM · #120

Originally posted by kenskid:

I'd like a flat tax if possible of say to make it easy.... 10%.

Ok, let's say you have a flat tax of 10%. This will probably not suffice to cover the budget. So you either have to cut the budget or increase the taxes. Let's say we increase the taxes to 12%. A person earning $20,000 a year would then have to pay $400 more. This will affect their budget significantly and lower their standard of living. A rich person earning a million would have to pay $20,000 more, which does not really affect them that much. If we increased the tax of the rich person to let's say 14% instead, they'd pay $40,000 more. This wouldn't hurt them much, but it would cover the taxes of 100 poor people. So if we raise the taxes by the same amount for everyone, we have 100 people in trouble. If we only raise the taxes of the richest few percent, everyone's fine. And the rich person has $20,000 less on their bank account, which doesn't affect their life in the slightest. Do you understand the general principle I'm hinting at?

There's an interesting phenomenon in America that people care for the rich because they hope to be rich themselves one day. I heard there are statistics that 40% of Americans think they will soon belong to the richest 1%... Many Americans still have a sense of "Anyone can make it." and "One day I'll succeed!", which is actively promoted by the media. So many people see their current situation as merely temporary and care more about their future life as rich people. And vote accordingly...

Originally posted by kenskid:

On this: I would like to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are met. What are basic needs? Your idea may be a lot different than mine or others. I say every american should have 3 healthy meals a day, hot and cold running water, shelter with heat in winter and air conditioning in summer.

Yes, for example.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Also on smoking...(My mother died of smoking)...why not increase the tax to be so high that it is impossible to purchase?

Then only rich people would be allowed to kill themselves! We would discriminate against the poor people. They also deserve the right to inhale toxic smoke, pay a lot of money for it, get sick and die young.

No, seriously: I think everyone should have the personal freedom to decide for themselves if they want to smoke or not. But please do it at home and don't let others suffer (I'm also thinking of your kids here). And don't make me pay for your medical bills.

08/08/2008 04:18:18 PM · #121

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'd like a flat tax if possible of say to make it easy.... 10%.

Ok, let's say you have a flat tax of 10%. This will probably not suffice to cover the budget. So you either have to cut the budget or increase the taxes. Let's say we increase the taxes to 12%. A person earning $20,000 a year would then have to pay $400 more. This will affect their budget significantly and lower their standard of living. A rich person earning a million would have to pay $20,000 more, which does not really affect them that much. If we increased the tax of the rich person to let's say 14% instead, they'd pay $40,000 more. This wouldn't hurt them much, but it would cover the taxes of 100 poor people. So if we raise the taxes by the same amount for everyone, we have 100 people in trouble. If we only raise the taxes of the richest few percent, everyone's fine. And the rich person has $20,000 less on their bank account, which doesn't affect their life in the slightest. Do you understand the general principle I'm hinting at?

I understand perfectly at what you're getting at but still don't agree. For you to say a rich person to pretty much "lose" $40,000 wouldn't hurt them much doesn't fly with me. Without telling you my weekly income, I have to say that at times I lose a few bucks $20, $30 on the street. I have to tell ya...I feel it ! And it wouldn't make me feel better knowing that a poor person found it!

There's an interesting phenomenon in America that people care for the rich because they hope to be rich themselves one day. I heard there are statistics that 40% of Americans think they will soon belong to the richest 1%... Many Americans still have a sense of "Anyone can make it." and "One day I'll succeed!", which is actively promoted by the media. So many people see their current situation as merely temporary and care more about their future life as rich people. And vote accordingly...

Originally posted by kenskid:
On this: I would like to live in a society where everyone's basic needs are met. What are basic needs? Your idea may be a lot different than mine or others. I say every american should have 3 healthy meals a day, hot and cold running water, shelter with heat in winter and air conditioning in summer.

Yes, for example.

Originally posted by kenskid:
Also on smoking...(My mother died of smoking)...why not increase the tax to be so high that it is impossible to purchase?

Then only rich people would be allowed to kill themselves! We would discriminate against the poor people. They also deserve the right to inhale toxic smoke, pay a lot of money for it, get sick and die young.

No, seriously: I think everyone should have the personal freedom to decide for themselves if they want to smoke or not. But please do it at home and don't let others suffer (I'm also thinking of your kids here). And don't make me pay for your medical bills.

08/08/2008 04:32:45 PM · #122

Originally posted by kenskid:

I understand perfectly at what you're getting at but still don't agree. For you to say a rich person to pretty much "lose" $40,000 wouldn't hurt them much doesn't fly with me. Without telling you my weekly income, I have to say that at times I lose a few bucks $20, $30 on the street. I have to tell ya...I feel it ! And it wouldn't make me feel better knowing that a poor person found it!

Well, the money you spend on taxes is not lost. It is used for many things that benefit you, too. And some that don't...

You see, you feel 20 missing bucks. I doubt that a millionaire would.

The money has to come from somewhere and the burden should be distributed in a fair way. A person earning $20,000 has to adjust their way of life significantly if they have to pay $4,000 in taxes. However, someone making a million will still be able to live very comfortably if they're left with "only" $800,000.

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 16:33:36.

08/08/2008 04:36:08 PM · #123

Originally posted by raish:

Given all the damage it causes, there's some highly compelling arguments for making tobacco illegal.

Given all the damage ________ causes ther's some highly compelling arguments for making ________ illegal.

Other words that could go in the blank: alcohol, cars, motorcycles, fast food, pate, etc.

The little experiment with alcohol back in the 1920's didn't go so well. In fact, one could argue we're still suffering the after-effects with organized crime and NASCAR. Especially NASCAR...

yanko

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

08/08/2008 06:43:00 PM · #124

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. ;-) )

Hopefully the reporter learned something like maybe don't judge people before you even meet them?

Message edited by author 2008-08-08 18:43:40.