Author Topic: Taxcut  (Read 11960 times)

efficiency vs. humanity.
who's side are you on?
oh wait, one collapses the entire system while the other propels us into the modern age.

If he has an informed opinion, which I believe he does, there's no problem with it. You should really try harder if you want to call anyone out for anything.
I'm not calling anyone out on anything, I'm just pointing out that people with more money happen to be economically conservative. And economical conservatism is bad for people that don't have very much money, like me.

Well, think how much money that would cost. Would it cost more money to test hundreds of thousands of people, or let two thousand people just get away with it?
Well it's simple, after short-term preliminary testing, if negative, will let up.  However if at any point, it is found positive, they lose their aid, and if they wish to argue, to drug court with them.

Though many people might say "WASTED MONEY OMGRAOMANAAIHBCSLH," a great many people would also feel more safe knowing that their money is far less-likely being sent to drug addicts to fund their addictions.

Well it's simple, after short-term preliminary testing, if negative, will let up.  However if at any point, it is found positive, they lose their aid, and if they wish to argue, to drug court with them.

Though many people might say "WASTED MONEY OMGRAOMANAAIHBCSLH," a great many people would also feel more safe knowing that their money is far less-likely being sent to drug addicts to fund their addictions.
The problem still is, what is the cost of this "short-term preliminary testing"? Besides, if people knew what their tax money went to, (killing poor Muslim children, by the way) then they would be unhappy. A significantly smaller portion will go to people that may or may not use drugs.

And if drugs were legal, then it wouldn't be a loving problem.

obama has been an objectively good president, he just set the bar too high
besides, romney was a joke
we need to bring back clinton tax levels and tax the top 2 percent 30% again. that would raise more than 1.5 trillion dollars in a decade.
considering average people like you and I pay about 35 percent in taxes currently, that's more than reasonable.

a great many people would also feel more safe knowing that their money is far less-likely being sent to drug addicts to fund their addictions.
I don't know if you know how much a welfare check is each month, but I'll tell you this: it's below minimum wage. A minimum wage worker working full time would make 15 grand a year, so let's say welfare is 10 grand. Getting my prices from Silk Road, which, mind you, is very very cheap, that's approximately 37.7 grams of heroin. A high tolerance heroin user can get high off of maybe 1/3 of a dose, so that'd be 113 doses over an entire year. Street price for this heroin is actually more than double, but you can already see from those figures that someone addicted to heroin would not be able to support their addiction on welfare money alone.

obama has been an objectively good president, he just set the bar too high
besides, romney was a joke
we need to bring back clinton tax levels and tax the top 2 percent 30% again. that would raise more than 1.5 trillion dollars in a decade.
considering average people like you and I pay about 35 percent in taxes currently, that's more than reasonable.
Considering we live in the same area and are about the same age, I can agree with this. Although, as Trinick said, the top 2 percent are already being taxed 30%, so do we go higher?

In reality, we need to stop spending on stuff we don't need, *ahem* military *ahem* and start paying off the debt.

I don't know if you know how much a welfare check is each month, but I'll tell you this: it's below minimum wage. A minimum wage worker working full time would make 15 grand a year, so let's say minimum wage is 10 grand. Getting my prices from Silk Road, which, mind you, is very very cheap, that's approximately 37.7 grams of heroin. A high tolerance heroin user can get high off of maybe 1/3 of a dose, so that'd be 113 doses over an entire year. Street price for this heroin is actually more than double, but you can already see from those figures that someone addicted to heroin would not be able to support their addiction on welfare money alone.
This as well. If the government owned and sold the drugs however, then this money would be returned to the government quite quickly. So, two great arguments at once.

psst, hey guys, we could just stop fighting random ass wars over oil and start looking over alternative energy.

psst, hey guys, we could just stop fighting random ass wars over oil and start looking over alternative energy.
I heard the government funded a pottery museam on a John Stossel video.

psst, hey guys, we could just stop fighting random ass wars over oil and start looking over alternative energy.
That's some Green Party stuff right there, I love it.

Uh oh. It seems like we are starting to agree with each other. Quick, someone say something incredibly conservative that I can disagree with.

psst, hey guys, we could just stop fighting random ass wars over oil and start looking over alternative energy.
Actually this I kind of disagree with. I believe the war needs to end, yada yada, but by "alternative energy" you're more than likely talking about solar energy or some other kind of "clean" energy. At this current point in time, it's completely worthless. I don't mean to offend anyone with solar panels on their house, but they don't earn their keep. Converting a nation this dependent on oil to "alternative energy" would take a WHOLE LOT of money and we wouldn't be able to maintain the efficiency of oil until many developments have been made in these alternative energy fields.

Also; there's a buttload of oil under Alaska. Environmental protection groups are keeping it in the ground, but it would make oil a whole lot cheaper to get. To be honest I'm sick so I'm trying to avoid intense fighting, so I'm just gonna leave that fact there without really saying anything about it.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 11:35:40 PM by !Trinick »

Actually this I kind of disagree with. I believe the war needs to end, yada yada, but by "alternative energy" you're more than likely talking about solar energy or some other kind of "clean" energy. At this current point in time, it's completely worthless. I don't mean to offend anyone with solar panels on their house, but they don't earn their keep. Converting a nation this dependent on oil to "alternative energy" would take a WHOLE LOT of money and we wouldn't be able to maintain the efficiency of oil until many developments have been made in these alternative energy fields.
This is true, but we wouldn't convert all at once, of course. It would be a gradual change. If we used all of the loving oil we already have in America, then spent the military money on Solar, Wind, Biodiesel and all different types of alternative energy, we could make America alternative by 2030, at the most.

Actually this I kind of disagree with. I believe the war needs to end, yada yada, but by "alternative energy" you're more than likely talking about solar energy or some other kind of "clean" energy. At this current point in time, it's completely worthless. I don't mean to offend anyone with solar panels on their house, but they don't earn their keep. Converting a nation this dependent on oil to "alternative energy" would take a WHOLE LOT of money and we wouldn't be able to maintain the efficiency of oil until many developments have been made in these alternative energy fields.
I mean to gradually get off of oil and into something cleaner/more renewable. I don't care what it is, fighting wars over energy just shouldn't happen

It just doesn't seem like a hot issue to me. It seems more important to do things like, I don't know, repair our economy than worry about what type of energy we're using. Yes, it's a problem, and it shouldn't be ignored, but we clearly don't have enough money to go around as it is so it seems like what we do have should go to the more important interests of America.

Also; I understand that the war is largely based on energy, but it's possible to end the war without completely severing our ties to foreign energy.

Considering we live in the same area and are about the same age, I can agree with this. Although, as Trinick said, the top 2 percent are already being taxed 30%, so do we go higher?
Maybe just income, but you have to consider capital gains, property tax, and payroll.
psst, hey guys, we could just stop fighting random ass wars over oil and start looking over alternative energy.
this so this much yes pls this
In reality, we need to stop spending on stuff we don't need, *ahem* military *ahem* and start paying off the debt.
yup. 57 percent of our money goes to military and we outspend the next 13 nations combined, including some of our allies.
for instance, 1.5 million dollars was taken out of a weapons program to fund the development of a roll-up beef jerky. if we cut useless spending and tax the wealthy higher in more aspects, we can easily alleviate the debt.
anyone wanna take a guess at why we're not 16 times worse than Greece even though our debt is 16 trillion and theirs is 1 trillion? debt-to-GDP ratio. lowering our GDP (including privatization and other stuff like that) is the WORST thing we can do.
so I think spending cuts are generally pretty harmful. let me rephrase my earlier statement by saying that we shouldn't CUT useless spending but spend that money on less useless things like public services and education.
a globally competitive, educated workforce is the best way to strengthen an economy. conservatives currently have it ass-backwards
Actually this I kind of disagree with. I believe the war needs to end, yada yada, but by "alternative energy" you're more than likely talking about solar energy or some other kind of "clean" energy. At this current point in time, it's completely worthless. I don't mean to offend anyone with solar panels on their house, but they don't earn their keep. Converting a nation this dependent on oil to "alternative energy" would take a WHOLE LOT of money and we wouldn't be able to maintain the efficiency of oil until many developments have been made in these alternative energy fields.

Also; there's a buttload of oil under Alaska. Environmental protection groups are keeping it in the ground, but it would make oil a whole lot cheaper to get. To be honest I'm sick so I'm trying to avoid intense fighting, so I'm just gonna leave that fact there without really saying anything about it.
frankly, that's not true.
first of all, we're currently developing flexible and paper-thin solar panels that generate electricity for 40 cents a watt. stuffty fossil fuels are being challenged more and more every day.
biofuels made from synthesized algae are another great option.
It just doesn't seem like a hot issue to me. It seems more important to do things like, I don't know, repair our economy than worry about what type of energy we're using. Yes, it's a problem, and it shouldn't be ignored, but we clearly don't have enough money to go around as it is so it seems like what we do have should go to the more important interests of America.

Also; I understand that the war is largely based on energy, but it's possible to end the war without completely severing our ties to foreign energy.
dude fixing our energy crCIA will eliminate foreign oil dependencies. no more wars to spend money and lives on, and no more foreign oil to buy.
better economy.