after sitting down for a quick break and reading what i originally posted i do admit i made an error. posting on the fly and working with two pregnant women doesnt help things. i do understand you are only taxed on the amount you make after crossing each bracket.

i will say we figured that my wife (ICU nurse), who is offered overtime weekly, is better off not working the overtime than she is working the overtime. any system that discourages work, in order to make more for ones family, is a bad system.

Quote:after sitting down for a quick break and reading what i originally posted i do admit i made an error. posting on the fly and working with two pregnant women doesnt help things. i do understand you are only taxed on the amount you make after crossing each bracket.

That's easily worth a +2, thanks for having that gumption. For what it's worth, I've heard more people claim the same thing than I care to admit. It's a wide-spread belief that many have a stake in not correcting, along with them not mentioning that after ~$110k, there is no ~15% payroll tax.

Quote:i will say we figured that my wife (ICU nurse), who is offered overtime weekly, is better off not working the overtime than she is working the overtime. any system that discourages work, in order to make more for ones family, is a bad system.

I'll take your word on this, and I'm honestly curious as to how that happens because I fully and completely agree that should never occur. It's absolutely idiotic to discourage work, period.

(07-07-2012 12:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Still waiting for a response with an actual legitimate argument that simply isn't 'lol ur dumb'. If I'm really that dumb, it shouldn't be that hard to prove it.

It hasn't been. I've done it repeatedly since you showed up. You are misinformed about CAGW, and you understand neither the physics nor the methods of measurement that they use.

You know little about actual economics, and make repeated errors in your descriptions.

You know nothing about history, and make repeated errors in what can only be called assumptions, b/c you obviously have no basis for your statements.

Then you try to twist linguistics to make some sort of point, in which you try to redefine words to meet your objectives. This is not any sort of logical victory, rather it muddles the discussion, which is typical of your efforts since you can't offer clean, elegant, coherent thoughts on subjects.

Um, please point out where I've ever debated you on CAGW?

I've never once claimed to be an expert of economics, nor have I ever really gotten into a serious discussion on this board over a purely economic subject as far as I can remember. Feel free to quote it if I have.

As for history, please point out where I've been wrong there.

As for my argument style, that's not really my style at all, and I think the above points pretty conclusively show that you're confusing me with another poster to such an extent that I seriously doubt you can even remember my posting style at all.

(07-07-2012 10:16 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 12:34 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  By the way, if socialism in it's purest form ruled the land, we would no longer have competitive sports because every single game would end in a tie, lest someone be better than someone else, then the other team should simply just be rewarded enough points to tie things up so everyone is equal.

Even at it's very core socialism is a stupid, stupid idea that doesn't work in the real world. The execution by its corrupt tenants is usually even worse than the "theory".

No, that's what you believe socialism is at it's core, because it makes it easier for you to summarily dismiss anything that can be viewed as 'socialist' without having to come up with any legitimate arguments based on actual facts.

I don't know of a single person who doesn't want those who are successful to earn more money and have more things than those who don't. They might differ on how great that divide should ideally be, but there is not a single person I know who has ever once even implied that those who are successful should have the exact same as those who aren't. Never. Are there those people out there? I'm sure there are, somewhere, but to ascribe that belief to the overarching socialist movement, especially how it has historically been represented in the US, is laughable and intellectually lazy on your part. If you want to attack specific policies, then attack those policies and provide data to support your complaints. But sitting here, convincing each other that you know what socialists think and their ultimate desires while spewing nonsense isn't productive nor is it anything but a way in which you can further convince yourselves that you know better without actually searching for the truth. It summarizes the major problem with our absurdly partisan system and the cheerleaders behind it; you all would rather be 'right' than truly correct.

Not that I suspect this will stop any of this though.

I feel like I'm not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed here am I?

How many years out of undergrad are you? Or have you even made it that far yet? I feel like I am talking with someone who has yet to really experience and attempt to be successful in the real world.

Instead of asking me to "attack specific policies and provide data" how about you give me the actual examples of socialism that have WORKED in the real world and then we can all have a good laugh as you attempt to explain how that is a good idea for the future of America.

(07-07-2012 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Um, please point out where I've ever debated you on CAGW?

I've never once claimed to be an expert of economics, nor have I ever really gotten into a serious discussion on this board over a purely economic subject as far as I can remember. Feel free to quote it if I have.

As for history, please point out where I've been wrong there.

As for my argument style, that's not really my style at all, and I think the above points pretty conclusively show that you're confusing me with another poster to such an extent that I seriously doubt you can even remember my posting style at all.

A guy who thinks socialism might be a good idea isn't an economics expert????? Get right out of town!

You just claimed that you've "never really gotten into a serious discussion on this message board over an economic subject" while attempting to have a debate about socialism......uhhhhh, wow man.

The economics behind socialism are quite literally the most important aspect of it and can continually be broken down again and again to prove that this country cannot afford socialist policies like Obamacare.

That is what this entire discussion was about. Then you ask us to prove what we are talking about when you have not only provided nothing in terms of how we are going to afford these policies, but why they are even a good idea in the first place, completely taking the economic side out of it completely.

Then you admit that you don't understand economics and you expect us to have a serious conversation with you? Get real kid.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man

(07-10-2012 01:40 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 06:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Um, please point out where I've ever debated you on CAGW?

I've never once claimed to be an expert of economics, nor have I ever really gotten into a serious discussion on this board over a purely economic subject as far as I can remember. Feel free to quote it if I have.

As for history, please point out where I've been wrong there.

As for my argument style, that's not really my style at all, and I think the above points pretty conclusively show that you're confusing me with another poster to such an extent that I seriously doubt you can even remember my posting style at all.

A guy who thinks socialism might be a good idea isn't an economics expert????? Get right out of town!

You just claimed that you've "never really gotten into a serious discussion on this message board over an economic subject" while attempting to have a debate about socialism......uhhhhh, wow man.

The economics behind socialism are quite literally the most important aspect of it and can continually be broken down again and again to prove that this country cannot afford socialist policies like Obamacare.

That is what this entire discussion was about. Then you ask us to prove what we are talking about when you have not only provided nothing in terms of how we are going to afford these policies, but why they are even a good idea in the first place, completely taking the economic side out of it completely.

Then you admit that you don't understand economics and you expect us to have a serious conversation with you? Get real kid.

08 is a girl, you know, emotional type.

Quote:A guy who thinks socialism might be a good idea isn't an economics expert????? Get right out of town!

You just claimed that you've "never really gotten into a serious discussion on this message board over an economic subject" while attempting to have a debate about socialism......uhhhhh, wow man.

Please, point out anywhere on this thread or any other, where I stated that blanketed socialism is a good idea? You won't find it, because I've never claimed it was, and if you'd read the thread instead of just pounding nonsense and hitting 'Post Reply' you'd know that. But I guess that's expecting too much?

As for me 'not understanding economics', again, not what I said. I said I'm not an expert on economics, and guess what, neither are you. I probably understand more of the concepts and causal links than you do, but that doesn't make me an expert by a long shot. The more knowledgeable a person is, the more they realize what they don't know, and from the sounds of it, you think you know a lot.

(07-07-2012 03:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:after sitting down for a quick break and reading what i originally posted i do admit i made an error. posting on the fly and working with two pregnant women doesnt help things. i do understand you are only taxed on the amount you make after crossing each bracket.

That's easily worth a +2, thanks for having that gumption. For what it's worth, I've heard more people claim the same thing than I care to admit. It's a wide-spread belief that many have a stake in not correcting, along with them not mentioning that after ~$110k, there is no ~15% payroll tax.

Quote:i will say we figured that my wife (ICU nurse), who is offered overtime weekly, is better off not working the overtime than she is working the overtime. any system that discourages work, in order to make more for ones family, is a bad system.

I'll take your word on this, and I'm honestly curious as to how that happens because I fully and completely agree that should never occur. It's absolutely idiotic to discourage work, period.

this is an old article but pretty much sums it up


http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-you-think

(07-10-2012 11:42 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 03:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:after sitting down for a quick break and reading what i originally posted i do admit i made an error. posting on the fly and working with two pregnant women doesnt help things. i do understand you are only taxed on the amount you make after crossing each bracket.

That's easily worth a +2, thanks for having that gumption. For what it's worth, I've heard more people claim the same thing than I care to admit. It's a wide-spread belief that many have a stake in not correcting, along with them not mentioning that after ~$110k, there is no ~15% payroll tax.

Quote:i will say we figured that my wife (ICU nurse), who is offered overtime weekly, is better off not working the overtime than she is working the overtime. any system that discourages work, in order to make more for ones family, is a bad system.

I'll take your word on this, and I'm honestly curious as to how that happens because I fully and completely agree that should never occur. It's absolutely idiotic to discourage work, period.

this is an old article but pretty much sums it up


http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-you-think

I'm going to be honest, I haven't ever really dealt with overtime wage taxation (worked as a 1099 professionally, and served tables so I never really looked at my paycheck from that since it's like ~10% of my total earnings after taxes), but is overtime taxed at a higher rate at the federal level? If so, I don't know if I agree with that, especially in the cases of those who earn what amounts to the bottom 3 quartile of all earners.

In short, time and a half isn't a significant enough bump for someone earning what your wife likely earns (guessing $25-35 dollars an hours?) to justify a major increase in taxes, though I'd have to see more about the tax structure itself, as the article is a little unclear on that (and it's the Cato institute, so that might be on purpose). But again I'll definitely agree with you that no one should ever be numerically penalized for working more hours and more overtime. I have no problem with a progressive taxing structure, but any tax that can result in more hours = less money should be absolutely thrown out.

(07-07-2012 11:04 AM)maximus Wrote:  so saying, if you make more money we will simply take more, encourages people to make more money or discourages it?

Youre speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

That is his strength and he was taught to always go to your strengths.

(07-10-2012 01:40 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  A guy who thinks socialism might be a good idea isn't an economics expert????? Get right out of town!

Thanks, dude. Post of the day!

I always laugh when youngsters try to explain the wonderful benefits and the joys of socialism.

(07-10-2012 03:30 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 01:40 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  A guy who thinks socialism might be a good idea isn't an economics expert????? Get right out of town!

Thanks, dude. Post of the day!

I always laugh when youngsters try to explain the wonderful benefits and the joys of socialism.

And I always cringe when older people act is if age is a valid defense against claims made by those younger than them. Here's a hint, it isn't.

(07-05-2012 08:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's so cute how you guys just rally the wagons like you know something I don't

First of all 08...Historically the socialist philosophy has always failed. I guess it just has not been done correctly yet? When you find a system that creates and distributes wealth as effectively as capitalism...please let us know.

Yes, let us all marvel at how "effective" capitalism is at distributing wealth.






The bottom 60% controlling less than 5% of our wealth = "effective"

I don't think anyone on here is advocating or has ever advocated socialism (read: common ownership of the means of production). What most progressives want is just a level of wealth redistribution so that our poor aren't eating cat food and dying in the streets, and that means tens of millions of people gaining health insurance is a good thing.

UFC: Age doesn't always = wisdom

I'll grant you that.

There are many ignorant and/or stupid old people out there. There are just as many if not more stupid young people who think they are the sh!t because they went to college. They don't realize the mis-education they were given, don't know what has been done to them. Eventually, they will realize it if they live long enough.

But there is a difference between ignorant and stupid. Ignorant implies not educated. Stupidity can be willful.

You are trying to tell us fables about what you "know" when many of us have been living those very same issues for longer than you have been alive. Maybe we "know" some things, too.

Some here have tried in a civil manner to tell you that you are wrong, saying to you, wait until you are out in the real world and see how it actually works but you tell them they are wrong, that your several years in the real world trump all their decades of experiences.

Max - we DON'T want any more wealth redistribution or the entitlement mentality your side pushes. A safety net, yes. Those of you that DO want wealth redistribution - redistribute your own d@mn $$. Easy to tell others that they don't own what they worked for, isn't it? We know you won't redistribute your own because that's how you cats roll.

Wealth redistribution is NOT what this country was founded on. The democrat party, as late as the 1960s still had dedicated anti-communists in its' ranks - the party was still sane and on board with the founders' ideals. Then the radicals took over and the party in now socialist central.

I'll type this slowly so that you might possibly understand. The American Dream is not a handout. Americans will weigh in on this issue in November.

So you support a safety net but oppose wealth redistribution. How does that work?

The same way it has worked for years. Quit trying to start a semantic game. I realize that taxpayer money provides the safety net. We oppose even more redistribution.

Whatever happened to the idea of 'CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED?'

Your side wants to greatly expand the redistribution through all kinds of programs. You commies know that you are in a distinct minority in this land. You call it redistribution, I call it theft. You also know that your ideology must obscure your goals with deceptive language or your ideology would never win a fair election. That's also why we will see massive vote fraud on a scale in November never seen before. When the polls show essentially a dead heat with a usual D sampling of +6, 7, 8 or 9, your idols know that they are in big trouble.

If Obama had a competent opponent who could run a good campaign, Obama would be down 10 at least. Luckily for him, the GOP doesn't know how to run one of those, so the dems believe that if they can cheat enough, they can win. If enough people in the U.S. are awake now, this might be the biggest landslide win (for Romney) that we've seen since Carter got routed by Reagan. Don't believe the poll numbers because they are cooked - remember how shocked the media was at the 2010 midterm rout? Their polls didn't indicate what was coming. That was just a warm-up for what is coming in 2012. Plus, people who usually vote dem that are not going to this time will likely lie to exit polls as to avoid being hassled by other leftists.

(07-10-2012 04:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So you support a safety net but oppose wealth redistribution. How does that work?

So you support wealth re-distribution but oppose socialism. How does that work?

Oh, and socialism is more than government owning the means of production. And what we have isn't far from totalitarianism, which is a blend of all the worst ideas in the history of the world. People can be for a BASIC safety net and against socialism/redistribution of wealth. Most reasonable people don't mind offering a helping hand but what we have now goes WAY beyond that. I wouldn't even mind paying more in taxes if more than 5 cents to the dollar actually went to helping people. It doesn't, it goes to wars, food stamps for plasma TV's, and now a second or third generation of welfare queens. Phuck you.