The fun site I mentioned last night

Want to talk politics, religion, opinion, or Current events? go here.

Moderator: Officers

Postby Bilnick » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:39 am

Red pill? What does that mean?

Anyway.

Politicians hiring thier buddies for jobs etc. isn't limited to one party or another, I can almost guarantee you that. I have done no research at all on this.

The government is debating whether to raise madatory fuel economy averages for cars now. This is a big topic in Michigan for obvious reasons. Personally, I think there should be zero CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) regulations. Let the people decide what the fuel economy of cars will be with thier pocketbook. If people want big SUV's that only get 20mpg, but have 300hp, great. If they want little cars that get 40 mpg, but can't go uphill without a tailwind, great. But let the market decide. I will not buy a car that only gets 10 mpg, and I probably wouldn't buy one that gets 50 either. I do not need the government telling me that a car needs to get 35mpg on average by 2020...silly.

I am not an economist so I d not know all the ins and outs of the trickle down theory. But I do see this happen all the time. A big company like Toyota or GM announces they want to build a new plant that will employ x thousand people. States line up and start giving break after break to these companies. No taxes, free road improvements, worker training, etc. states that are willing to do that will get the jobs. My state (Michigan) has a governor that refuses to do anything like that. So we see a new Honda plant go to Indiana. A new Toyota plant go to Texas. Meanwhile our state is in a big budget deficit, double unemployment compared to the rest of the country etc. What is her solution???? Raise taxes! Tax services, entertainment, etc. Freaking brilliant. All I know is that before her, our state had lower unemployment compared to the rest of the country.

I guess that is what happens when your state elects a Canadian governor! :jester
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby lerchinc » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:48 am

Yeah the governor in your state is not all there.

I know that taking care of your friends in politics is nothing new. But in the Bush administration doing things like hiring a horse show administrator to head up FEMA is more the rule than the exception. Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court nominee? Its just an example of the 1% making sure the 1% stays where they are.
lerchinc
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:05 am

Postby Zyzzerzazz » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:20 am

The liberals want to better the quality of life directly.

Offering great students who cannot afford college is a REALLY good thing.

I will pay taxes for that.

Offering healthcare to a single mother and her 2 kids is a really good thing.

I would pay taxes for that.

In the end, those students and those families will have a better life. They will raise kids who dont want to steal my kids bikes or sell them drugs.. Thus life for me will be better.

For those reasons, I am ok with less fortunate people a bigger cut of my taxes.

but I will be damned, if people who are making 200k+/year should get a cut of me money. THEY DONT NEED IT....lol

Its insane to solve a problem with a solution that involves some fucked up long and confuseing economic theory like the trikkle down effect.

The simplest solution is usually the best.

Give the tax breakes tot he lower 20% --- Tax MORE the top 20% - and directly spend the money in programs and inicitives that will help those les fortunate.

Problem is....implementation is KEY here when you are basically givieng less fortunate people moeny for nothing. It has to be for SOMTHING....the people need to have some form of a vested interest.

The college students need to have great grades to get scolarships fromt eh govt.

The single parent familes need to rpove XYZ or whatever.

I am not for giveing ppl money for nothing.
Zyzzerzazz Guildkilla
Tribal Fury

"Satisfaction guaranteed or 96% of your experience back!"
User avatar
Zyzzerzazz
Member
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:53 am
Location: Boston

Postby Bilnick » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:42 am

Give the tax breakes tot he lower 20% --- Tax MORE the top 20% - and directly spend the money in programs and inicitives that will help those les fortunate


This is how it is already. Look at the link I posted a couple pages back.

The lowest 20% have an effective tax rate of 4.7%, vs 26% for the top 20%. The more you make the more you pay % wise of your income.

The bottom 20% get an income tax rebate (I think it is called Earned Income Credit...not sure tho) that is whay they have a negative % in the income tax column. The lowest 20% cannot pay any less. So any tax break will be for the top 80%.

As far as college? There are loans, grants, scholarships available. The Army will be happy to pay your college if you sign up for service. I like the system we have now personally. The student getting the benefit of an education should shoulder a significant burden of the costs
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Naiin » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:41 pm

Redeemed wrote:Well we all know the civil war was really about using slaves to profit from cheap labor.



I guess that what the public schools teach you......


1. Slavery is not morally correct IMO, never has been, never will be.
2.The Civil War was fought over the right of a State to create/enforce/litigate their own laws governing themselves. South Carolina wanted MANY other things than the right to possess another human.
3.The Civil War raged on for almost 3 years before the Emancipation Proclaimation was even penned to paper.... if you read it, it only Frees persons in United States territory and does not secure their rights as a citizen of the same country that was DEEPLY involved in the slave trade. (BTW if you were "Colored" you couldnt even be in the state of Illinois, nevermind use their restrooms or waterfountains until 1879 ish.. might be mistaken on date, but not far off)


Redeemed, the point you made was very valid, just the position you made it from seemed flawed, because the Civil War was not about exclusivly about slavery, even though it seems modern society desperately wants it to be....
Image
The Way of the soft and yielding overcomes the Way of the strong and hard,
yet few are the number of those who follow this Way. -Tao Te Ching
Image
User avatar
Naiin
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:42 pm

Postby Uilea » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:44 pm

/derail

As far as college? There are loans, grants, scholarships available. The Army will be happy to pay your college if you sign up for service. I like the system we have now personally. The student getting the benefit of an education should shoulder a significant burden of the costs


There are really less opportunities than you think, and the ones that are available are hard to snag unless you cure cancer or something. As far as the service, we already had a thread discussing that the service isn't for everyone.

I disagree and I don't think the government is doing enough to encourage post secondary education. The debt you accrue just from an undergrad education is phenomenal. I had to turn down my top choice because even with the $72k in aid I was offered I would have acquired about that much in debt. Even the package I have at my state school now isn't that phenomenal. Fun fact: Colorado is 50th/50 for state education funding. Right at the bottom of the barrel. Let's not even talk about the costs of med school or law school. My state med school costs $70k a year. It's a long time (5-10 years) after you graduate either of them that you start earning a decent salary, and that's only if you're pretty lucky.

I really think that it's in the nation's best interest for an overhaul of education funding. In the end more skilled workers means higher pay means more tax money going back anyway. It isn't like government paid education is a rarity, and I'm pretty disappointed the US hasn't made more of a move towards it.
User avatar
Uilea
Member
 
Posts: 2939
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:47 am
Location: Denver

Postby Naiin » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:47 pm

A stupid populace is more passive and easier to intimidate.... why educate them?
Image
The Way of the soft and yielding overcomes the Way of the strong and hard,
yet few are the number of those who follow this Way. -Tao Te Ching
Image
User avatar
Naiin
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:42 pm

Postby lerchinc » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:51 pm

And let the shammy jump on the bash Bush bandwagon...hell I drive the damn thing but this is also the guy that cut federal assistance last year for going to college. :finger

As far as the top percentile paying the most tax you know the funny thing about that. They are taking into account the 13-15% of the country that falls below the poverty line. They are taking into account the teenagers in this country that arent necessarily in that poverty figure. So you can spin anything you want if you know how to work the numbers.
lerchinc
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:05 am

Postby Areo » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:44 pm

Worff wrote:What if... 1% of Tribal Fury got 1000 DKP per hour, while the rest only got 1 DKP per hour? And then we made your 1 DKP asses pay taxes to us? And then we charged you 5 times what you bid for an item even tho its not worth that much. Then we'll outsource your raid seat to the best deal from another guild. Sound good? I bet it doesn't sound good to anyone.


Actually your example is flawed. Our current system of doing things is very similar to exactly what your arguing against. Currently alts dkp is of lesser value than a mains. He could have 60 dkp but it is only of a 20 dkp value.

Boxes get it even worse. Since there isn't a full time person playing, we assume that they do less for the raid. So not only are they limited to the 20 dkp cap, but they also do not even receive dkp at all unless they are deemed as the raid leader to be requested. Both are considered of lesser value to the raid.

To apply a liberal way of thinking to our dkp system, we should give dkp bonuses to those less fortunate toons. Give them a chance to catch up. Get them on par with the rest of the people at the raid, help them out so that they can make a difference. We as a guild should supply the needs of the less fortunate and it is our responsibility, nay, our duty to look out for those who can't look out for themselves!

Anybody else think I sound as stupid as I do...
Areo
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:14 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Postby Bilnick » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:54 pm

Uilea wrote:/derail

As far as college? There are loans, grants, scholarships available. The Army will be happy to pay your college if you sign up for service. I like the system we have now personally. The student getting the benefit of an education should shoulder a significant burden of the costs


There are really less opportunities than you think, and the ones that are available are hard to snag unless you cure cancer or something. As far as the service, we already had a thread discussing that the service isn't for everyone.

I disagree and I don't think the government is doing enough to encourage post secondary education. The debt you accrue just from an undergrad education is phenomenal. I had to turn down my top choice because even with the $72k in aid I was offered I would have acquired about that much in debt. Even the package I have at my state school now isn't that phenomenal. Fun fact: Colorado is 50th/50 for state education funding. Right at the bottom of the barrel. Let's not even talk about the costs of med school or law school. My state med school costs $70k a year. It's a long time (5-10 years) after you graduate either of them that you start earning a decent salary, and that's only if you're pretty lucky.

I really think that it's in the nation's best interest for an overhaul of education funding. In the end more skilled workers means higher pay means more tax money going back anyway. It isn't like government paid education is a rarity, and I'm pretty disappointed the US hasn't made more of a move towards it.


I paid for my own college education working a job. That was in the 90's but I wouldn't imagine things have changed too much. I am sure tuition rises every year just like it did when I went to school. I suppose I was lucky in that there are 7-8 state colleges in the Detroit area, and that my parents allowed me to live at home essentially rent free. But I worked full time in the summer, spring break, and xmas breaks, and put in 20+ hours per week during the school year. I had enough money for a decent downpayment on my house when I was in school actually. I guess I could have found an apartment near campus or something, but didn't. I probably should have went to a community college my first two years to save money also, but didn't.

State Universities already are heavily funded. Compare the tuition between a private college and a State college. College isn't for everyone. Let those who want a college education work for it. It isn't very hard really.

Med school? My sister, her husband, and my wife's brother all went to med school. They borrowed the money. They are doing fine. Two of my sister's friends went to the Army to pay for med school. They were Captains (or at least started as Captains) and were debt free when their service was done. $200-300k isn't alot to borrow when you will be making 200+ k (at least) a year a few years after getting out of med school.

People who don't go to college because they say the cost is too high are only making excuses. An intelligent, motivated, and resourceful person can make it happen. Someone who isn't those three doesn't belong in a University anyway.
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Areo » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:02 pm

zyzzerzazz wrote:The liberals want to better the quality of life directly.

Offering great students who cannot afford college is a REALLY good thing.

I will pay taxes for that.

Offering healthcare to a single mother and her 2 kids is a really good thing.

I would pay taxes for that.

In the end, those students and those families will have a better life. They will raise kids who dont want to steal my kids bikes or sell them drugs.. Thus life for me will be better.

For those reasons, I am ok with less fortunate people a bigger cut of my taxes.

but I will be damned, if people who are making 200k+/year should get a cut of me money. THEY DONT NEED IT....lol


Wooohooo, one supporter of my Alts and Boxes Freedom Initiative!! Ooh and the leader of our fair guild!! They really do want to help out, but with well geared toons like Jumjam and Drig to compete against, how can you expect them to survive, its just not fair. I really just want the little guys to get there fair share and I feel that we, as a guild, should really take the time to gear them up. It only makes sense.

Looks different when you're at the top looking down.
Areo
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:14 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Postby Meso » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:10 pm

MESO lub Joo long time! :jester

today's alt may be tomorrows main. :thumbup

our DKP policy is a republican based philosophy. Hmmm, hadn't thought about it that way.
Image
User avatar
Meso
Officer
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:35 am
Location: Virginia
Highscores: 3

Postby Adlewiese » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:13 pm

I just wish one of the parties would adopt:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer.

Most people do not understand the amount of taxes they pay everytime they buy something right now. The common cry is "tax the businesses" but all that means is the tax gets passed on to the consumer and is basically hidden from view.

I know the Democrats will not go for it. I hope the Republicans will because right now neither part has any decent ideal to earn my vote.
Adlewiese VonTrapp - TFshaman
Adlewiese
Member
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Virginia

Postby Bilnick » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:39 pm

Oerin wrote:our DKP policy is a republican based philosophy. Hmmm, hadn't thought about it that way.


Thankfully! Otherwise Clarr and Deg would have to pay more for thier drops because some poor single Zerker has 2 alts to gear!
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Postby Maelinmage » Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:52 pm

[quote="AreoWooohooo, one supporter of my Alts and Boxes Freedom Initiative!! Ooh and the leader of our fair guild!! They really do want to help out, but with well geared toons like Jumjam and Drig to compete against, how can you expect them to survive, its just not fair. I really just want the little guys to get there fair share and I feel that we, as a guild, should really take the time to gear them up. It only makes sense.

Looks different when you're at the top looking down.[/quote]

Areo, the box/alt issue is a different issue then helping gear up lesser geared members. I am pretty sure many end game guilds do you allow boxes, due to effeciency losses when boxing. Dont get me wrong, I am certain that boxes have saved many of our raids, and will continue to do so, but we need to encourage a raid of 54 well geared mains for progressing in the game, thus the dkp restriction makes sense, as you do not want boxes outbidding mains for gear that will be used on raids. It is even possible that 20 maybe too high, we should look at average dkp/upgrade but that may set off a firestrom lol. As far as alts go, thats bascially a perk of being in the guild, and provides an opportunity/incentive for those whose mains have gotten all the gear they need from the raids we are doing, and are waiting for progression, but again we certanily do not want alts outbidding mains too often as on our raids we need well geared mains.

Also, we do help out our less fortunate members on our farming raids. We have raids that the stuff that drops may only be an upgrade for maybe 1/4 of the guild, yet we still manage to have nearly full raids for these targets.

In any event, I would hardly consider alts/boxes to be less fortunate members of the guild, in the same way that I would not consider the 18 year old who is still living with his wealthy family to be "poor" even though on paper his federal tax filing may indicate that status.
Maelinmage
Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Real Life and Opinion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron