Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX

coke wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Former sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe says members of the New Year honours committee made a "big mistake" in not recognising more Paralympic athletes.

He said Paralympians were not put on an equal footing with Olympic medallists and that was a "missed opportunity".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20870506
Oh dear lord....
Our local newspaper had a front page story about Lee Pearson (paralympic equestrian) he's won 10 golds over the past few games, and has an OBE. The headline was "Why wasn't I knighted?", he answered the question himself by asking it, the fucking tool.
I bolded the bit I thought was facepalmworthy.
Fuck Israel
13rin
Member
+977|6839
happy news years!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7050|Tampa Bay Florida

Jay wrote:

Can anyone explain the psychology behind being so adamant about raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more per year? Why that cutoff? And to what purpose if it isn't even going to raise more than maybe 30-50 billion dollars a year when we have an annual deficit more than 20 times as large? Why has this become the big Democrat policy for the fiscal cliff discussions? It's not rational at all.
To make the tax system more progressive.  The Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the rich and now they're trying to reverse it.

Pretty big concession on the democrats part when you think about it.  They're basically making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of people.  You know deep down inside many dems would not only go back to the Clinton tax rates but make it even more progressive.  It's not a matter of paying off the deficit, it's about making the system work as it's intended to.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Can anyone explain the psychology behind being so adamant about raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more per year? Why that cutoff? And to what purpose if it isn't even going to raise more than maybe 30-50 billion dollars a year when we have an annual deficit more than 20 times as large? Why has this become the big Democrat policy for the fiscal cliff discussions? It's not rational at all.
To make the tax system more progressive.  The Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the rich and now they're trying to reverse it.

Pretty big concession on the democrats part when you think about it.  They're basically making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of people.  You know deep down inside many dems would not only go back to the Clinton tax rates but make it even more progressive.  It's not a matter of paying off the deficit, it's about making the system work as it's intended to.
The tax system was progressive under Bush too. It's never been a flat tax. Make the system work as it's intended to? Enjoy your tax hike today. I know I am loving it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12-2/Tax%20Hike%20In%20Perspective.jpg
2011 budget compared to the tax increases voted on this morning at 2 am by the Senate/
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The tax system was progressive under Bush too. It's never been a flat tax. Make the system work as it's intended to? Enjoy your tax hike today. I know I am loving it.

Jay wrote:


2011 budget compared to the tax increases voted on this morning at 2 am by the Senate/
So which do you want, unfeasibly low taxes or a balanced budget?
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England
I want a balanced budget. Neither party has any intention of doing so, however, I just take umbrage with the notion that we should target only the rich for tax increases. I know it makes the spearheads of the world feel better about themselves, but it's terrible policy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7050|Tampa Bay Florida
So you favor raising taxes on everyone, not only the rich?  I agree, it's pretty stupid to raise taxes on only one segment of the population.  However, you know damn well that the Bush tax cuts made the scales "less progressive".  You asked a question and I gave you the answer.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I want a balanced budget. Neither party has any intention of doing so, however, I just take umbrage with the notion that we should target only the rich for tax increases. I know it makes the spearheads of the world feel better about themselves, but it's terrible policy.
Why should the rich get tax breaks the poor don't get?

CGT benefits are huge.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

So you favor raising taxes on everyone, not only the rich?  I agree, it's pretty stupid to raise taxes on only one segment of the population.  However, you know damn well that the Bush tax cuts made the scales "less progressive".  You asked a question and I gave you the answer.
No it didn't. Every tax bracket went down by 5%. How does that make it less progressive? Seriously, stop believing whatever it is your news media of choice tells you. They're clearly lying to you for political reasons.

Why having a progressive tax system is desirable in the first place is beyond me, but that's another discussion.

Last edited by Jay (2013-01-01 15:10:43)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

I want a balanced budget. Neither party has any intention of doing so, however, I just take umbrage with the notion that we should target only the rich for tax increases. I know it makes the spearheads of the world feel better about themselves, but it's terrible policy.
Why should the rich get tax breaks the poor don't get?

CGT benefits are huge.
Capital gains rates exist for three reasons. One, the money was already taxed before it was invested, two, it's designed to entice people to invest their money instead of sitting on it or simply collecting dividends, and three, the lower tax rates help to offset the riskiness that is inherent in all investments. It is not free money by any means. The only real flaw in the system is that people who derive their income from investing other peoples money get taxed at the capital gains rate i.e. hedge fund managers end up paying the capital gains rate because the salary they earn is pulled from the investment portfolio they manage.

Last edited by Jay (2013-01-01 15:15:25)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12-2/CBO%20Future%20Debt_0.jpg

Sigh.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX
What these unbalanced publications don't mention is the GDP contraction which would be an inevitable consequence of an end to borrow-to-spend.

You want 20-30% unemployment and straight-line GDP contraction for the next 20-30 years?

There's no easy answer for an addict whose blood is more heroin than haemoglobin, the Tea-Party simpletons who say otherwise are stupid and delusional.
Fuck Israel
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7132|PNW

Balancing the budget is an act that the cornballs on capital hill will never get around to doing. Maybe we should just go ahead and raise taxes on money that isn't there.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5946

Our budget/debt crisis debate is a little misleading. We, like most developed nations, ran a deficit before the recession started. There really isn't a problem with it as long as you have GDP growth that outpaces your debt accumulation. Our current budget crisis is for the most part a result of the economic collapse rather than some long festering liberal budgeting mess or handouts for the needy like the poor and military personal. As the economy has improved our deficits have gone done.

U.S. budget deficits. 2006: -2.2    2007: -2.9    2008: -6.6    2009: -11. 2010: -10.7 2011:-10    2012:-9.3    2013: -8.3
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-datab … z2GnWLhc4A
Prior to the recession we had budgets deficits of 2ish percents. The economy first entered recession during '07 at this time we had a deficit of 2.9%. 2008 the year when the banks blew and we had the bailouts and Bush's stimulus we had a 6.6% deficit. And during the worst of the recession in the spring of '09 we peaked out at 11%. Has been going down steadily ever since. So we aren't spiraling into deeper budgetary mess/spending ourselves to death/etc. The worst thing we can do is something like not raising our debt ceiling or going over the fiscal cliff.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Balancing the budget is an act that the cornballs on capital hill will never get around to doing. Maybe we should just go ahead and raise taxes on money that isn't there.
You might as well, you're already spending the money that isn't there and it has to come from somewhere.

I think I'm going to start stockpiling lentils.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Our budget/debt crisis debate is a little misleading. We, like most developed nations, ran a deficit before the recession started. There really isn't a problem with it as long as you have GDP growth that outpaces your debt accumulation. Our current budget crisis is for the most part a result of the economic collapse rather than some long festering liberal budgeting mess or handouts for the needy like the poor and military personal. As the economy has improved our deficits have gone done.

U.S. budget deficits. 2006: -2.2    2007: -2.9    2008: -6.6    2009: -11. 2010: -10.7 2011:-10    2012:-9.3    2013: -8.3
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-datab … z2GnWLhc4A
Prior to the recession we had budgets deficits of 2ish percents. The economy first entered recession during '07 at this time we had a deficit of 2.9%. 2008 the year when the banks blew and we had the bailouts and Bush's stimulus we had a 6.6% deficit. And during the worst of the recession in the spring of '09 we peaked out at 11%. Has been going down steadily ever since. So we aren't spiraling into deeper budgetary mess/spending ourselves to death/etc. The worst thing we can do is something like not raising our debt ceiling or going over the fiscal cliff.
No, debt is always an issue. It was an issue under Bush and it's been a bigger issue under Obama. Servicing the governments debt draws money directly out of the economy and hands it out overseas or to whoever is holding our bonds. You honestly think it's cool for the government to spend 4% of its revenue on interest payments? By that logic, people are better off owing money to a bank than being free and clear on a home loan. Whoever your source is (Krugman or one of his acolytes no doubt), he is an idiot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4614

Jay wrote:

I enlisted in September, 2000, two days less than one year prior to 9/11 occurring. I joined for many reasons, I was aimless and without a trade and had a girlfriend that I had dated for four years that I thought I might marry one day. I was depressed because I was stuck at home commuting to college via bus while my friends were all away at four year colleges. If any job had presented an offer to pay for four years of college I would've taken it. It just so happened that the military was offering such a deal. I'd really like to know how working a low paying job with the threat of danger constantly hanging over your head is somehow akin to being on the welfare gravytrain. Actually, no I don't. I'll leave you with this quote instead:

"Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson

I remind myself of that quote every time one of the cowards on this forum that never served likens military service to welfare.
haha. jay quoting samuel johnson, that's funny. i can't think of a personality who you should by right despise more on character trait and principle: dr. johnson embodies just about everything you claim to despise. but of course you'll quote his 'wisdom' because it suits you. are you going to move to london soon, too, then?

"Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson

here's another quote for you, from someone a little more modern and down to earth:

"when one doesn't have the courage needed to be a pacifist, one's a warrior. the pacifist is always alone. the warrior is sure of being in agreement with most people. if it's a majority he wants, he can set his mind at ease, he's in it... if, like everyone, he needs greatness,  it's in the mess that a 'greatness of his own size' is found for him. everything is prepared for him in advance. if a man trembles at the idea of one day surpassing Man, let him tremble no longer but become a warrior; or, simpler still, just surrender and let himself go - he'll be set among the warriors as a matter of course... the whole game of war is played out on the warrior's weakness... the simple soldier: neither good nor bad, recruited into it because he's not against it. he'll suffer the warrior's lot there without causing trouble, until the day when, like Faulkner's hero, he discovers that anyone can stumble blindly into heroism by mistake, as easily as he can fall down a manhole left open in the middle of the sidewalk. it's absurd to claim that an army made up of millions of men is the personification of courage: that's the conclusion of a facile mind".
-Jean Giono, preface to Carnets de moleskine.

sure sounds like a lot of the jobless chavs who go into the rote military as a 'career' and 'direction' in life over here. standard infantry/army fodder. sure sounds a lot like your life as you laid it out in that last post, too. 'aimless'. oh and that quote was from a guy who fought in the trenches of world war one, not someone who took a desk job whilst some farmers threw rocks at his fortified position.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-02 10:52:01)

Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5946

In the age of free phone calls and Skype, one group of people is still paying exorbitant rates for talk time: prisoners. The bill for a typical 15 minute state-to-state call tops $16 in some areas.

That's because most prisons offer exclusive deals to phone service providers in exchange for astronomical commissions. The Federal Communications Commission labeled interstate inmate calling services (ICS) a government-sponsored "monopoly."

The FCC wants it broken up. On Friday, the agency opened for public comment its proposed rules to lower interstate prison phone call rates. Its plans include the establishment of an interstate rate benchmark, caps on rates and the end of exclusivity agreements.


The fees providers pay to prisons add 43% on average to the cost of a call, the FCC estimated. As a result, prisoners pay far less for interstate calls in the small handful of states that do not charge commissions. New York, for instance, has banned commissions, and its average per-minute rates are as low as 5 cents per minute -- the lowest of all states' rates. Colorado's ICS, which does charge commissions to its payphone vendors, is the nation's most expensive, at 89 cents per minute.

On top of per-minute rates, most ICS operators charge prisoners call-initiation fees, which vary from 50 cents to $3.95 per call.
More government regulation taking away the profits people can make on inmates. WORST PRESIDENT EVER
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

No, debt is always an issue. It was an issue under Bush and it's been a bigger issue under Obama. Servicing the governments debt draws money directly out of the economy and hands it out overseas or to whoever is holding our bonds. You honestly think it's cool for the government to spend 4% of its revenue on interest payments? By that logic, people are better off owing money to a bank than being free and clear on a home loan. Whoever your source is (Krugman or one of his acolytes no doubt), he is an idiot.
I thought you were crowing about the low level of external debt relative to other countries recently.

If you think you're smarter than everyone else then it makes sense to leverage.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5718|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

In the age of free phone calls and Skype, one group of people is still paying exorbitant rates for talk time: prisoners. The bill for a typical 15 minute state-to-state call tops $16 in some areas.

That's because most prisons offer exclusive deals to phone service providers in exchange for astronomical commissions. The Federal Communications Commission labeled interstate inmate calling services (ICS) a government-sponsored "monopoly."

The FCC wants it broken up. On Friday, the agency opened for public comment its proposed rules to lower interstate prison phone call rates. Its plans include the establishment of an interstate rate benchmark, caps on rates and the end of exclusivity agreements.


The fees providers pay to prisons add 43% on average to the cost of a call, the FCC estimated. As a result, prisoners pay far less for interstate calls in the small handful of states that do not charge commissions. New York, for instance, has banned commissions, and its average per-minute rates are as low as 5 cents per minute -- the lowest of all states' rates. Colorado's ICS, which does charge commissions to its payphone vendors, is the nation's most expensive, at 89 cents per minute.

On top of per-minute rates, most ICS operators charge prisoners call-initiation fees, which vary from 50 cents to $3.95 per call.
More government regulation taking away the profits people can make on inmates. WORST PRESIDENT EVER
Government regulation created the monopolies in the first place.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6466|eXtreme to the maX
Yeah we shouldn't have prisons, let the free market deal with crime
Fuck Israel
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7050|Tampa Bay Florida
The sad thing is -- we kind of already do
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7132|PNW

Talk about first world problems, Iceland:
Icelandic girl fights for right to her own name

REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — Call her the girl with no name.

A 15-year-old is suing the Icelandic state for the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother. The problem? Blaer, which means "light breeze" in Icelandic, is not on a list approved by the government.

Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don't question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.

In Blaer's case, her mother said she learned the name wasn't on the register only after the priest who baptized the child later informed her he had mistakenly allowed it.

"I had no idea that the name wasn't on the list, the famous list of names that you can choose from," said Bjork Eidsdottir, adding she knew a Blaer whose name was accepted in 1973. This time, the panel turned it down on the grounds that the word Blaer takes a masculine article, despite the fact that it was used for a female character in a novel by Iceland's revered Nobel Prize-winning author Halldor Laxness.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard