No need to do that, just be willing to elaborate without so many insults.sugarbushrider1 said:
Sweet. Welcome back.sugarbushrider1 said:
So why do you oppose high bracket taxes and how long and to what degree have you been paying them?
George Bush doesn't care about black people...
- Thread starter Sherpa
- Start date
So why do you oppose high bracket taxes and how long and to what degree have you been paying them?
I just don't think taxes should deend on income, that's all. I've been working for 4 years now, but only having to pay taxes for 2, which I know hurts my credibility, but I just don't see why someone who went to college and worked hard should have to pay more taxes than someone who doesn't necessarily work as hard (not that all cases apply)
Hows that?
Hows that?
That's most of it, yes. But the easiest way to do that is to point out the inherent contradictions in someone else's statements.sugarbushrider1 said:
I'll be more civil:
Good for you for going to school on scholarship. My apologies for thinking you were wealthy (didn't realize that was an insult). I would like to know how you reconcile your opinions about the wealth being the result of hard work, with the pride you have for your father, who is not wealthy?
I also disagree that there is no criticism of the gansta rapper image, and I think that you would find a tremendous amount of material, from sources both inside and outside the black community, containing such criticisms. You certainly won't find me defending the lifestyle or the messages found in gangsta rap.
Lastly, the "WET" as you describe it exists in the form of TNN, but I don't think that's the point you were trying to make. If you had made it through to the second half of my first reply to you, you would have found an explanation of why there isn't an overtly labelled "White" channel, and why an overtly labelled "Black" channel exists and is okay. My mistake for getting you so riled up in the first half that you probably didn't read the second half...
EDITTED for, punctuation.
ohio said:
Ohio, thanks for the post. I guess I am young, maybe thats why I get so riled up on this stuff. My apologies.
With my father, no he isn't wealthy, but He did raise 3 kids fairly comfortably. I think his ability to do that is a direct result from his hard work. Its all relative. I'm saying it sucks he has to pay more taxes than say some other electrician that works 1/2 as hard in a larger company.
I also want no one to come away from this thinking I am at all racist. I despise those who are, it really is one of the biggest common forms of ignorance in this country, along with the rest of the world. I just can't help being pissed off by those "gangsters" shouting how they want to kill people, rape their girlfriends, steal and caryy illegal firearms, and then go after Bush and the rest of the government for doing a bad job, much like Kanye West did, although I realize his rap isn't as violent as others. And it doesn't even just apply to blacks- look at Eminem.
I think its time we moved on, and get back to talking about the stuff that brought us here in the first place. Take care,
Grant
How do you propose funding the largest military in the world without income taxes?sugarbushrider1 said:
(Keep in mind, a revenue neutral consumption tax would be at least 30%, and with politcial pressure end up much higher than that after credits/exemptions are tossed in. That 30% is tax-inclusive, by the way, which is the way you'd think about income tax. Tax exclusive, which is the way you'd normally compute sales tax, and you're looking at a 43% tax rate on everything. In the best of all worlds. The real world rate would be much higher to be revenue neutral.)
One more thing: I went to college so I wouldn't have to work as hard as a construction worker
Fvcking liberal college elite.Silver said:One more thing: I went to college so I wouldn't have to work as hard as a construction worker
You think you're so fvcking smart. Fvcking fvck fvck hate fvck freedom fvcker media fvck state and local gvck ferc bias jesus fvck.
Hopefully someone with more patience than me (I'm in the gunfight in another thread and it's interfering with my drinking) can explain trickle-down economics and it's failure in the 80s here.
Listen sugar, there was a man called "dutch" who liked to mouth off about welfare moms driving cadillacs, and 20 taxes on a loaf of bread and a bunch of other things that just did not exist but were taken as some sort of common call to eliminate taxes. People had to listen because he was the president. Unfortunately some believed him.....made sense if your name was Monsanto but didn't make so much sense if you were just starting out in the world (like you) or didn't make your living off of the fluctuations in the stock market.
Our current leader (sic) and the media that follows him likes to say some of these same things. I beilieve you may have heard them yourself. Right now that's all you sound like.......a rehash. It's not as simple as you are making it. It's not like the government is trying to punish you for working hard......but rich whiners who are never satisfied like to make you think so.........and I see you typing but it's their voice that's coming out.....not yours. Trust me....they don't want you, they just want your vote.
Listen sugar, there was a man called "dutch" who liked to mouth off about welfare moms driving cadillacs, and 20 taxes on a loaf of bread and a bunch of other things that just did not exist but were taken as some sort of common call to eliminate taxes. People had to listen because he was the president. Unfortunately some believed him.....made sense if your name was Monsanto but didn't make so much sense if you were just starting out in the world (like you) or didn't make your living off of the fluctuations in the stock market.
Our current leader (sic) and the media that follows him likes to say some of these same things. I beilieve you may have heard them yourself. Right now that's all you sound like.......a rehash. It's not as simple as you are making it. It's not like the government is trying to punish you for working hard......but rich whiners who are never satisfied like to make you think so.........and I see you typing but it's their voice that's coming out.....not yours. Trust me....they don't want you, they just want your vote.
Well, I respect your opinion but I can't change my train of thought. I'm not completely new to this, I took a few courses in American politics and government in HS and am enrolled in Poli-sci 101 up here-not thats its a lot but im not pulling this stuff out of my a$$. You make good points, however.
Think of it this way. It takes money to make money. You have two paths being successful, being born rich or starting with nothing and busting your ass. Imagine trying to pay for college all by yourself, no family to go home to for meals and laundry, no one to help you get loans and although smart your grades weren't the best in school because you were working third shift at a gas station to keep food and a roof over your head. If the gov taxed the crap out of you like they did a lawyer pulling in 250K it would be much much harder for you to be successful no matter how hard you work. Just think about higher tax brackets getting taxed extra for having the opportunity to become wealthy, or the opportunity for their parents making them wealthy.sugarbushrider1 said:
It seems to me that there is an illusion of "lazy" people living the good life in this country. Pretty much anyone who is lazy has already had their jobs shipped to China. The poor in this country aren't exactly starving but it is still a really really ****ty life.
Also bear in mind that the rich benefit more from the taxes that make the USA a country where you can drive around in your $100k merc without constant fear of being killed for it*
*These things are relative...
*These things are relative...
Have you had a look at corporate law in this country? The rich have it very very good. They (we) owe their (our) wealth to this country and our legal structure which is responsible for our economic growth and their prosperity. Think of taxes as an investment, and 30%-40% starts to seem less painful. Also keep in mind that once you're no longer living paycheck to paycheck, there are numerous numerous tax shelters that make the effective tax rate on the wealthy far lower than the gross rate.fluff said:
All these wealthy could very easily leave if they wanted to (far more easily than a poor person could). I don't see any mass migration to other countries when there's a top-bracket tax hike, do you?
I remember reading a quote from some Harvard professor (I'll try and find it when I have time) that suggested that a tax rate that accurately reflected the benefits to the very affluent of living in the US would be around 90%. It was to do with the very fact that the US had the power and stability to allow people to become so rich. Of course the same logic applies to all nations, but I'd rather be rich in the West than anywhere else.ohio said:
Uh, isn't the 7pm tv lineup Friends And Seinfeld reruns. Followed by the 11pm Cheers and Everyone Loves Raymond hour?sugarbushrider1 said:YES! Finally someone sees it my way over here.
On the same page, but off topic slightly, is the whole BET channel sherade. What would happen if the white population made a White-only channel? RACISM!!
Most TV shows have entirely white casts. There are a few exceptions, like The George Lopez Show or the whole lineup from UPN, but even the shows with a minority they are usually a token character (like The King of Queens).
I don't think there is anyone wrong with a white only tv show, since the rise of black tv is not equality, but because the recognition of the black purchasing power (typically higher than whites in commercial goods).
However, anytime someone says "whites-only" it does sound pretty ridiculous, particularily in places like Vermont, which are whites only anyway.
yeah, but its mroe of the fact that they can get away with naming the channel Black entertainment television. I realize a lot of tv is geared at whites, but channels like mtv and vh1 are more geared twoards blacks, yet dont come out and say it, which is fine.
What makes you think that? They target the suburban youth market, which seems to be all about the hiphop these days. Do you think 50 Cent makes sells millions of CD's because every black person buys one and no one else? There isn't a lot of money to be made targeting a minority population.sugarbushrider1 said:
Ever wonder why there's no BET II, III, and IV? Why you were able to point out THREE competitors that serve up similar types of programming but targetted at suburban (white) youths. Maybe it's because there's three times the money to be had made in white suburban alone than in black audiences...sugarbushrider1 said:
Yay!!!!!sugarbushrider1 said:
Good to have you back.
Ha... I really don't want to sound like I'm just jumping on the bandwagon here, but i can be completely honest in saying that what you guys said about basically chilling out and realizing other views completely sunk in, and I'm putting that to good use in my everyday life as well as on here. I'll always be republican, but maybe liberals aren't too too bad. haha
Income taxes with a variable fee schedule are based on at least two different princples.
1. The cost of living isn't directly related to the income you make. If you're a executive making 200k a year, it doesn't cost you 10 times as much to eat as a Janitor earning 20k a year. Maybe you spend 2 or three times as much, but not 10x. Assuming you work at the same company, your medical insurance and drug/Dr. copays are the same, even though you make ten times as much. In the end you have a much larger disposable income than the janitor. To charge you and the janitor the same tax rate would hurt him many times more than you. The bottom line is that most "flat tax" schemes are actually regressive, because it costs more of your income to cover the bare necisities when you're poor.
2. People earning more money generally got more benefit from society or are reaping more of a benefit from society. The government pays for about 75% of the cost of running most universities and colleges. This is true for both private and state schools. This is in large part because it's beneficial for the country and society as a whole to have a base of educated people/workers, especially in the information age. I paid taxes to put you through school and I want a return on my investment. Their are many other examples, but I'm not going to bore everyone.
1. The cost of living isn't directly related to the income you make. If you're a executive making 200k a year, it doesn't cost you 10 times as much to eat as a Janitor earning 20k a year. Maybe you spend 2 or three times as much, but not 10x. Assuming you work at the same company, your medical insurance and drug/Dr. copays are the same, even though you make ten times as much. In the end you have a much larger disposable income than the janitor. To charge you and the janitor the same tax rate would hurt him many times more than you. The bottom line is that most "flat tax" schemes are actually regressive, because it costs more of your income to cover the bare necisities when you're poor.
2. People earning more money generally got more benefit from society or are reaping more of a benefit from society. The government pays for about 75% of the cost of running most universities and colleges. This is true for both private and state schools. This is in large part because it's beneficial for the country and society as a whole to have a base of educated people/workers, especially in the information age. I paid taxes to put you through school and I want a return on my investment. Their are many other examples, but I'm not going to bore everyone.
Dems Mum on Nagin-Farrakhan Summit
Sept. 28, 2005 11:09 p.m. EDT
Top Democrats who blasted President Bush for bungling the Hurricane Katrina crisis declined to comment on Wednesday on Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan's claim that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin gave him key evidence suggesting his city's levees may have been blown up.
NewsMax called the offices of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Barack Obama and Rep. Charlie Rangel, as well as ex-President Clinton's Harlem office, and followed up with emails detailing Farrakhan's claims about his Nagin sit-down.
Not a single Democrat was willing to say whether it was appropriate for Nagin to huddle with the racially polarizing black leader, let alone feed him info that stoked Farrakhan's levee conspiracy theory.
On Friday, Farrakhan told a rally for his upcoming Millions More March:
"We flew to Dallas, Texas - members of the Millions More Movement - where we met with Mayor Nagin . . . Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee."
Farrakhan cautioned: "He didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater," then added: "I say they blew it [up]."
A full five days after Farrakhan cited Nagin as his source for news that not all the levee damage looked natural, Nagin himself has had nothing to say about the levee plot theory - a silence that some see as a tacit endorsement.
Two weeks ago Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said that Farrakhan's theory was gaining currency in Nagin's city.
"I was stunned in New Orleans at how many black New Orleanians would tell me with real conviction that somehow the levee breaks had been engineered," Robinson told NBC's "Meet the Press." "These are not wild-eyed people," Robinson insisted. "These are reasonable, sober people who really believe that."
Mayor Nagin's office was not answering his phones Wednesday morning, with no answering machine available to leave messages.
Sept. 28, 2005 11:09 p.m. EDT
Top Democrats who blasted President Bush for bungling the Hurricane Katrina crisis declined to comment on Wednesday on Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan's claim that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin gave him key evidence suggesting his city's levees may have been blown up.
NewsMax called the offices of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Barack Obama and Rep. Charlie Rangel, as well as ex-President Clinton's Harlem office, and followed up with emails detailing Farrakhan's claims about his Nagin sit-down.
Not a single Democrat was willing to say whether it was appropriate for Nagin to huddle with the racially polarizing black leader, let alone feed him info that stoked Farrakhan's levee conspiracy theory.
On Friday, Farrakhan told a rally for his upcoming Millions More March:
"We flew to Dallas, Texas - members of the Millions More Movement - where we met with Mayor Nagin . . . Mayor Nagin told us there was a 25-foot crater under the levee."
Farrakhan cautioned: "He didn't say there was a bomb. He just said there was a crater," then added: "I say they blew it [up]."
A full five days after Farrakhan cited Nagin as his source for news that not all the levee damage looked natural, Nagin himself has had nothing to say about the levee plot theory - a silence that some see as a tacit endorsement.
Two weeks ago Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said that Farrakhan's theory was gaining currency in Nagin's city.
"I was stunned in New Orleans at how many black New Orleanians would tell me with real conviction that somehow the levee breaks had been engineered," Robinson told NBC's "Meet the Press." "These are not wild-eyed people," Robinson insisted. "These are reasonable, sober people who really believe that."
Mayor Nagin's office was not answering his phones Wednesday morning, with no answering machine available to leave messages.
No one comments on Farrakhan because no one cares what he said. This is like posting an article that democrats remained silent in the face of claims by Anna Nicole Smith that she had been told by John Kerry that Dick Cheney himself caused the hurricane with his giant Halliburton weather machine.N8 said:
I had to resurrect this one. On the plane yesterday, someone left a copy of Ebony in the seatback in front of me... so I picked it up and leafed through.
Having never read any "black" magazine, I was curious about the content. Honestly, it was all pretty inspiring stuff, and seeing the specifics it seems absolutely ridiculous for there to be anything similar for white folks. Most of it was uplifting stories about black people succeeding (economically, socially, academically, etc.). Nothing about supremacy, about how blacks are different from whites, about "rising up against the oppression." It was all internal messaging about lifting up oneself and role models as examples of what is possible. On an individual level it was about taking responsibility for ones own future, and not accepting a position as "underprivileged" even though it is more diffiicult to succeed. On a group level it was about seeking equality, so that it's no longer so exceptional to see a black female surgeon that they have to publish it in the front section of the magazine.
If you were to switch the people to white folks, the magazine would be laughable. No one wants or needs to read about some white person becoming a respected politician. We don't need these role models sought out and highlighted. They're everywhere. It would make for a very unremarkable, and frankly boring publication.
Hopefully that makes it a little clearer why, almost by definition, a magazine celebrating the the achievements of whites would be a magazine of achievements OVER other races, while a magazine celebrating the achievements of blacks can be a magazine of achievements towards EQUALITY with, not SUPREMACY over, other races.
Having never read any "black" magazine, I was curious about the content. Honestly, it was all pretty inspiring stuff, and seeing the specifics it seems absolutely ridiculous for there to be anything similar for white folks. Most of it was uplifting stories about black people succeeding (economically, socially, academically, etc.). Nothing about supremacy, about how blacks are different from whites, about "rising up against the oppression." It was all internal messaging about lifting up oneself and role models as examples of what is possible. On an individual level it was about taking responsibility for ones own future, and not accepting a position as "underprivileged" even though it is more diffiicult to succeed. On a group level it was about seeking equality, so that it's no longer so exceptional to see a black female surgeon that they have to publish it in the front section of the magazine.
If you were to switch the people to white folks, the magazine would be laughable. No one wants or needs to read about some white person becoming a respected politician. We don't need these role models sought out and highlighted. They're everywhere. It would make for a very unremarkable, and frankly boring publication.
Hopefully that makes it a little clearer why, almost by definition, a magazine celebrating the the achievements of whites would be a magazine of achievements OVER other races, while a magazine celebrating the achievements of blacks can be a magazine of achievements towards EQUALITY with, not SUPREMACY over, other races.
Yeah well said mate. THe white man is still being opressed however. Look at me.....they reckon I'm a weirdo here. How can they think that? Damn jackers.
George Bush doesn't care about Government Employees!
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131738&page=5
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131738&page=5