backtop


Print 184 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Feb 19 at 10:31 AM

European turmoil threatens to increase the cost of each F-35 for all partner nations

The F-35 Lightning II program continues to be over budget and behind schedule from what was originally intended. To keep the costs for the development and production of the F-35 down, the aircraft were sold to multiple countries around the world. The problem for many partner countries is that the aircraft have become much more expensive than originally planned resulting in some countries reconsidering the number of aircraft ordered.
 
Another issue for the F-35 program in United States and abroad is that each time the number of ordered aircraft are reduced, the price goes up for everyone. The Department of Defense has stated that it is relying on international sales of the F-35 over the next five years in order to keep the cost of the program stable. Frank Kendall, acquisition executive for the Pentagon, has said that if those international sales don't materialize the price of the jet will go up for the U.S. and partner nations.
 
“There are some foreign sales that we do assume take place in the future years defense plan (FYDP) and that does affect what we think we can get for the money in our budget in our FYDP,” Kendall said after a speech at a defense industry conference in Arlington, Va. “So if it changes, that would change that result.”
 
Earlier in the week, there were rumors that Italy was considering a reduction in the number of fighters it had planned purchase. There've been other concerns about reductions in purchases across Europe as the European economy slumps. Other partners in Europe include Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. 
 
Today, Italy confirmed its reduction in planned F-35 purchases official with the announcement that it was cutting back on the purchase of the F-35 from 131 units to 90 units. The reduction was required according to Italy due to a 28% cut mandated in its Defense Ministry spending for 2012. The reduced defense spending in Italy will impact other military purchases the country had planned as well.
 
The rising cost of the program isn't entirely due to changes from European nations. The United States has also reduced the number of aircraft it plans to purchase during certain points of the cycle. The 2013 Pentagon budget that went to Congress this week had $9.2 billion allotted to purchase 29 F-35 aircraft. The budget saw 13 aircraft slashed from the original purchase plan in 2013.
 
The Department of Defense also removed 179 aircraft from purchase plans between 2013 and 2017. The reasoning for the removal of those 179 aircraft from the budget is to allow the repair of issues discovered during flight-testing. Problems discovered in flight-testing with the F-35 are expected since the Pentagon is buying the aircraft under a concurrency plan. Under the concurrency plan, aircraft are built and purchased, as they are flight-tested. That means that any problems discovered during flight-testing have to be applied to aircraft already purchased.
 
“There is some money in the budget for concurrency,” Kendall said. “If we exceed that amount, then it will probably have to come out of production.”

Sources: Defense News, (2)



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Update
By TSS on 2/15/2012 7:26:17 PM , Rating: 4
Thought i'd give an update on how things are looking here in the netherlands, since we are one of the partner nations.

We've bought the 2nd test jet but there is a *huge* public dislike for the project. Purchasing power has been falling, wages haven't risen decently in years, the housing market is completly shut down and the government refuses to do anything about it.

I can tell you, after another 300 million was cut on healthcare but then 200 million was spent on buying a 2nd test plane.... that did not sit well with the population.

It's becoming increasingly likely that the entire order will be canceled in the future. I'm not convinced the next government is willing to use the axe but downsizing is almost inevitable. It'll be one of the biggest expenditures in the next decade of my country while we have to cut back on everything so we can send more money to greece.

The population simply won't have it.....




RE: Update
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 8:51:51 PM , Rating: 3
One has to admit, 200m for a single plane is a little amazing.. One small mishap, and its all down the drain.


RE: Update
By Strunf on 2/16/2012 5:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Nice to read, I find these whole military spending a slap in the face of all those that barely make any or no money at the end of the month, I would go as far as to say Europe as a whole should cut it's military spending in half...


RE: Update
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's already so low, so far below its NATO agreements, that it might as well go to zero. Expect significant reductions though to make a generation in America that already has weak attachment to Europe and resentment of having to see tax dollars go to protecting it even further inflamed.

Also don't see how military spending in general is a slap in the face to the poor; they're poor, but at least not currently plagued by the security threats of earlier times. Tbh, you sound complacent and forgetful of history.


RE: Update
By Strunf on 2/16/2012 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
So low? Greece spends 3.7% of its GDP on the military, for a country in such a huge debt that's way too much, France 2.7% while they have a huge unemployment and people living on the street, Portugal 2.1% etc etc etc Europe as a whole shouldn't spend more than 1%, with 1% and a few nukes you can be pretty sure no other country will mess around and 1% is still a lot if you want to just keep "peace" missions.

I'm not forgetful of history, countries needed to protect themselves cause their neighbors could always attack them TODAY France for instance is surrounded by allies, and by allies I mean 0 chance of being attacked by any. France could reduce it's military spending to 1% or less and still be safe from any attack, and the same can be said about many other European countries.


RE: Update
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
Us dutch have recently sold ALL our tanks.

We only have F16's, a insignificant navy and a small land force now.

We might as well have no militairy at all. To be fair, the only nations that are a threat to us are brittain, germany and france and they can roflstomp us anytime they'd like. Germany actually did once. We flooded half the country, which was much more effective then our puny army really.

So we might just give it up entirely in the future.


RE: Update
By Mint on 2/19/2012 9:25:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if you're saying that you or your country are against sending money to Greece, but that's a huge difference between the EU and the US.

In the EU, redistribution amounts to a paltry 23B euros for a 500M population:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/bild-7... In the US, states like NY and CA only got back $0.79 in transfers/services for each dollar they paid in taxes to the federal gov't:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
That amounts to at least 10x the redistribution. Ironically, the conservative states are the ones benefiting most from the "socialist" redistribution, but in any case, it's what kept the US together and made it the most powerful nation on the planet, as it allows the free flow of people and capital. As soon as you start turning your back on the weaker states, you go down a slippery slope and everything falls apart.

If you want to see what a collection of states with a single currency, free trade within, and minimal federal gov't looks like, then look no further than the EU.


So Anyway, about that F35....
By fourdegrees11 on 2/15/2012 3:26:01 PM , Rating: 5
How do we yet again have another defense program that isn't meeting any of the original promises on any level (capabilities, cost, time to service) and yet we end up paying for it? How are these companies (lockheed) not eating the cost of failing to deliver?




I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
By dasgetier on 2/16/2012 4:46:40 AM , Rating: 3
This .. must be a trolling contest, right? ;)


By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2012 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, China now has all of the West's money. Maybe we should sell them over there.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By niaaa on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
By Omega215D on 2/15/2012 11:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's funny because I know plenty of europeans who are fans of guns and shooting ranges. There are also fatties everywhere, even in Europe.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 11:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
Hahahaha that's the spirit! You represent Europe well. :) I know several things and I beseech you to rebut them in both wit and facts. Oh, and before I begin, yes, I did eat a cheeseburger for dinner last night and I packed heat when I went into a store to buy a valentine's day card for my wife last night. So, on to the fun:

1. The Euro--not the Union, but the currency. I have a fundamental problem with it and this concern is shared by both the British _and_ the Swiss. Actually, I believe it is a major reason why they didn't join your silly little "Union."

a. So you tout the mighty shared currency yet you refuse to share financial laws? Wait, what? You have the ECB--that should do it all, right? WRONG. It doesn't. How can you possibly share a currency yet have different banking laws in every member nation?

Wait, what? Yes, that's right. European countries still maintain their own individual banking requirements yet share a common currency and likewise expect other member nations to pick up their slack when needed.

That can't work--ever. Face it, that idea alone is responsible for half the problems. You can't share a currency and not expect to share in the responsibility of unifying banking laws. Sure, Europe is trying to do something about it now--sorta, but, face it, it is far too late. The EU and the Euro are destined to fall apart for this one reason alone.

2. Pride. National pride. Pride is the thing that is preventing national co-operation between countries. I understand that national pride is important, as all countries should have a unique culture. However, when you form a UNION, some sacrifice is expected to "unify" these countries, much like how the United States unified under our flag. You see, our "States" are not much different from your "countries" in that our States are granted more power under the constitution which unfortunately, a tyrant called Lincoln tried to change--thus leading to our more powerful Federal system. However, under the framework of our Constitution, a weaker Federal system would be more than sufficient.

In Europe, you don't even have a Federal system to speak of governing between these nations. It can't work. Your countries have to suck up some of that pride and properly "Unionize."

3. Spending. This I have a big issue with this and it effects us here in the states as well. How? I'll give one example. Your government run healthcare programs, while pragmatic from a philosophical standpoint run up costs in our own country. The main area that we see this is our prescription drug pricing. Our drug companies sell many drugs to Europe, however, the European countries demand low costs and thus are forced to sell them at one tenth the price we pay for the drugs here in America. One Tenth. Wait, that's not right? No, it isn't but it happens. We in America pick up the slack for Europe not pulling their fair load.

We, in America, are helping to subsidize your supposedly "fluid" system of Healthcare. This is just one example, though. There are many more I could list off but the bottom line is you have several countries who are running out of money and unable to meet obligations purely because of the glut of services the people demand that you are unable to afford--even with ultra high rates of taxation.

Those are three simple points and I'm sure I can come up with more. My country isn't perfect by far. We have a Federal Government that needs to be challenged and beat back with a stick to bring back strict adherence to our Constitution. We've got a long road ahead of us here. Don't deny that you have a long one as well to follow. Things are looking pretty bleak over there.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Amiga500 on 2/15/2012 12:15:12 PM , Rating: 4
I think your on the right track... but off it at the same time.

The biggest problem with the euro is that it tries to force Agrarian and Manufacturing national economies to somehow live under the one financial model.

Additional issues with the people of certain countries milking the system, basically not paying taxes and claiming all sorts of benefits (cough - the greeks) also are major factors in it all going belly up.

The aim of social spending is not the issue; stopping people taking advantage of it is. Furthermore, politicans have realised by swelling the national civil services under your party, you mostly guarantee yourself more votes at the next election, basically self-serving f**king around with the size of government.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 1:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Additional issues with the people of certain countries milking the system


Substitute "people" for "countries" and you'll represent what we in America have learned from our own social programs. Any time the Government hands something out, certain people find a way to abuse it thus ruining it for everyone else. The more programs you have, the more abusers you have to deal with.

I believe the only solution to a destruction riddled trail is not benefit based social programs but instead output based social programs if you're going to have them. What do I mean by this? Well, a benefit based program is one that hands out money or goods. They essentially drain the economy of resources. An output based program, on the other hand, doesn't give out money or goods but instead, gives out resources such as education on how to be productive in society, thus enabling the individual to generate their own money and goods.

While this makes in my eyes the most sense, we see very little of it.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
So, unemployment and disability insurance (for some cases) tied to job-training programs? IE, don't attend job training and the food stamps get yanked after X number of weeks?

I approve!

There are similar things in some parts of Europe, some times gets abused by people learning how to be truck drivers and whatnot with no intention of ever doing the job, but its an improvement.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By lagomorpha on 2/15/2012 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 3
How about unemployment that works like student loans - has to be paid back but doesnt start accumulating interest immediately. That way people can use it to smooth the transition of finding the next job but dont take it if they dont need it because it isnt just free money?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
Even better. Maybe upping IRA contribution limits, creating forced contributions of some low rate and allowing small withdrawals during unemployment could bolster that.

We've come closer to figuring out how to fix our national woes in a few posts then OWS has in its millions of hours of ... whatever it is exactly they do.


By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
Canada uses a two tiered unemployment system. The top tier is Employment Insurance and the bottom tier is welfare. I pay an employee premium of 1.78% of my insurable earnings (after tax income) and my employer contributes 2.5% employer premium as well.

Should I lose my job without being fired "with cause" I can file to receive unemployment. Payment for parental or compassionate care, or serious illness leaves also come out of EI. The program also pays for retraining programs for qualifying lines of work. The amount one receives is based entirely on your insurable income, length of employment and rate of unemployment in the area. EI is a non-taxable benefit. Any severance you receive from your employer is wholly separate, but is considered taxable income.

After EI runs out, one has the option to file for social assistance (welfare). The social assistance program is complicated because it includes people with physical/mental disabilities that prevent them from working, but do not require them to be institutionalized. An employable person receives drastically less than a disabled person. It also fluxes from province to province based on the cost of living. For able-bodied people, SA contingent upon you actively looking for work via Service Canada offices, they give you access to things like Monster.ca and other job sites.

Then again it is going to come down to the individual, when my sister went on SA it was the single most embarrassing moment of her life and lit a fire under her butt to find a new job. Lesser people just content themselves with a subsistence living in buttfck, nowhere.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Mint on 2/19/2012 10:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
You act like laziness of the unemployed is the primary problem with the country today. It unequivocally is not.

There simply aren't enough jobs provided by the free market, and in the long term it will get worse. We keep getting more productive, but we don't have a truly insatiable appetite for consumption. It has limits, especially with a growing wealth gap. The middle and lower classes can generate demand (and thus jobs), but investment by the upper class no longer creates jobs like it used to. They don't need as many people as before to build assets for them.

Sure, you can eliminate minimum wage to encourage employers to hire labor instead of building machines, but that's one f***ed up view of societal progress, and destroys the standard of living much more than welfare does.

The real problem today and going forward is that there's a lack of need for general labor. We've actually had this problem for over a decade, but cheap credit from the housing bubble fueled unsustainable consumption to hide that. Now we're recovering with unsustainable consumption from gov't spending, but unless we drastically raise taxes (we won't -the most that will happen is Bush-cut expiry), that will also have to collapse.

In steady state without these temporary spending bubbles, the people with money no longer buy enough stuff to employ those without it.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 5
It's not just Greece; you have countries like Ireland, Poland, Italy, Portugal and Estonia that were committed to spending, but not to raising the necessary funds through taxation to support that spending.

Until 2011, none of these countries even had property tax and cheating on your income/business taxes is practically the national pastime. In Greece, there is a luxury tax on owning a pool, yet 98% of all pools went unreported for a total loss of $2 billion/year over the past 10 years. The estimated amount of total tax evasion is estimated to be $30 billion per year. That is not only enough to service the entire $400 billion cumulative debt, but to expand social spending or decrease individual income taxes by 22% afterwards. Even with their nation on the verge of economic collapse, Greeks are proudly coming up with schemes for skirting the new systems.

Countries like France, Germany and Denmark aren't at issue as these countries have been able to sock away money to handle contingencies both within their borders and across the euro-zone at large. The problem is that they shouldn't have had to use this money to help bail out Greece or to buy Italian debt bonds. However, if they don't those fiscally irresponsible nations will drag down the common currency and everyone will suffer for it.

This all comes back to what Blastman had to say about financial laws and a unification of fiscal responsibility. There are still no standards for reserve capital in the Euro-zone despite the ECB requiring member states to share liability equally for each transaction. As Greek reserve outflows and German reserve inflows both increase, you wind up in a situation where a disproportionate amount of risk is now being thrust upon Germany. Once Greek outside debt growth surpasses reserve inflow you wind up in a situation where all Greek expenditures are completely financed by outside debt and default is inevitable as soon as the outside investors catch on.

It cannot work that way, if the Greek government wants to make a purchase from Germany, the Greek government should not only be the only liable party, but should be required to have sufficient reserves to complete all transactions. If the Greek bank cannot maintain sufficient reserves after such an outflow, then they should not be allowed to make such a transaction, period. At this point, the Greek government would have to either restrict itself to the essentials, or raise funds to increase it's reserve position.

If the US derivatives markets have taught us anything it's that any system that can be abused via externalization will be abused to maximum effect.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 2:32:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If the US derivatives markets have taught us anything it's that any system that can be abused via externalization will be abused to maximum effect.


This is so true and why I am totally in favor of the Volcker rule coming into effect but would favor more importantly a reinstatement of the Glass-Stegal act.


By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 3:30:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
reinstatement of the Glass-Stegal act


This would be one of the best things that either party could do as the demolishing of Glass-Stegal was a major part of what made the 2008 financial crisis possible.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 2:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
Mm, I'll only defend Ireland. Structurally, Ireland has NONE of the problems of the others, basically has all the policies in place that they need. Ireland's dual mistakes was having outsized banks for its relatively small size and then deciding to assume their liabilities. They fell on their own sword, showing more balls then Greece and the others combined, IMO.

Likewise, Ireland will probably come roaring back once things settle. Very unlikely in Greece.


By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 3:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They fell on their own sword


Not just this, but the people of Ireland stood in solidarity with the government as they did so. If you look to history you will find that South Korea went through almost the exact same situation during the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

The country was burdened by outsized banks loaded to the brim with non-performing foreign investment loans as large conglomerates expanded to compete on the world stage and builders constructed houses and condos that nobody wanted. The government assumed the liabilities and people rallied behind the government to help pay off the debt and look where they are now.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens...


By Gondor on 2/15/2012 5:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps if gasoline was poured over Greece and lit up it would cause some roar ?

Jokes aside, Greece should be cast out of the EU. It is a backwards country full of lazy bums who have enough time to protest and loot and burn property but aren't interested in working. It was only given a place in the EU because of Iron Curtain division of Europe up until USSR feel apart (as it was in West's best interest to have as many options open in the vicinity of Warsaw pact countries).

Now there is absolutely no need to keep inepts in the EU and EMU; they should either play by the book or GTFO.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 2:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and wouldn't put France in that same category with Germany. French public is extremely attached to their welfare state; polls suggest the Socialists will win the coming election, and that candidates pretty much promised a set of Greek-sounding policies, like rolling retirement back down to 60, hiring tens of thousands of teachers and other government employees, etc. The end wont come immediately, but they're on a fundamentally unsustainable track.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 3:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that line of thinking is that it doesn't account for the fact that just like the new government can do all of that, any subsequent government can undo it. The political system of France has been one of the most mutable in the world.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, and France may have the time to do that if the Euro-zone doesn't get any more brittle.


By lagomorpha on 2/16/2012 10:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The political system of France has been one of the most mutable in the world.


Not to mention the French population is currently 10% Islamic and rising rapidly especially in the least assimilated areas. As soon as it hits 50% in the 2030s France will be what Egypt is now and the native French will be treated as the Copts are in Egypt.


By lagomorpha on 2/16/2012 10:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The political system of France has been one of the most mutable in the world.


Not to mention the French population is currently 10% Islamic and rising rapidly especially in the least assimilated areas. As soon as it hits 50% in the 2030s France will be what Egypt is now and the native French will be treated as the Copts are in Egypt.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By lagomorpha on 2/16/2012 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The political system of France has been one of the most mutable in the world.


Not to mention the French population is currently 10% Islamic and rising rapidly especially in the least assimilated areas. As soon as it hits 50% in the 2030s France will be what Egypt is now and the native French will be treated as the Copts are in Egypt.


By lagomorpha on 2/16/2012 10:30:29 AM , Rating: 3
If this site wont implement an edit function can we at least have the ability to delete duplicates?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 4:59:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ah no surprise that your assessment is that they didn't tax enough. I love how that's the leftist solution for everything.


That implication is exclusively yours and it's definitely one of the saddest attempts to pick a fight that I have ever seen from you.

It's basically a universal fact that you cannot keep spending without an income; this is as true for governments as it is for individuals. Your options are to either raise funds (taxation, tariffs, investment spending, training programs, whatever) or cut spending. It's up to the people of a given nation to decide what is most acceptable to them, but the Greek tragedy is that they cheated their way into this mess.


By Iaiken on 2/15/2012 5:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
On the topic of property tax, it's basically that the Greek welfare system doesn't differentiate between homeowners. This actually incentivizes homeowners to live off welfare because they can do so quite comfortably.

Welfare payments to an individual in Greece are around $550 per month. This naturally restricts your quality of life as you lose around $450/month to rent, utilities, etc. That leaves around $100 for food, clothes, etc. It's basically a life of poverty. Even a crappy job that pays minimum wage there ($11,500 a year) would be a massive increase in their quality of life and would bump after expense income to $500/month.

The landowner however gets to keep the whole $550 as there is no property tax or rent cutting into what they get to spend. They get to live an equivalent lifestyle to the sucker that is slaving away for minimum wage to pay for his rent controlled flat. Instead of getting a job, he can just get married and bump his household income to $950, each kid adds $200 and after 4 kids you're looking at $21,000 tax free with practically no expenses beyond food, clothes and utilities.

The interesting thing about property taxes is that at worse it gives impetus to better your income like the rental guy. In some cases it will even leave you spiralling towards entropy so you either get a job or sell the property. You will either work to keep it, or sell it to someone who can afford to.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Strunf on 2/16/2012 6:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's just bull...

1. The USD is used all over the US yet do you honestly you all have the same salary or the same local taxes, don't try to fool the rest of the world, if a company decides to install in x-region it's cause there's something there money related better than in any other region, this is valid within the US but also in Europe.
Banking laws? what baking laws it makes no sense...

2. Shut up we have the European parliament along with other governing bodies that manage things on a "federal" level!

3. Give me a break do you think the US drug companies are selling drugs at a loss in Europe, don't blame us for the price you pay blame your companies for ripping you off, also many drug companies are European. Don't cry for your pharmaceutical companies they make BILLIONS in profit!

The problem with the Euro is that the ECB has little to no power on a European level, it's still the politicians that tell it what to do, the Federal Reserve by contrast is almost independent of your governing body. The ECB can not print money as pleased the Fed can.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 11:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Shut up we have the European parliament along with other governing bodies that manage things on a "federal" level!


The EP is a joke even among Europeans, a democratic institution that receives more apathy from voters then perhaps any legitimate democratic institution in history. Even calling the EU democratic is a little bit of a joke; voters are only occasionally asked to approve treaties, and when they say no, they are asked again and again until they relent and say yes.

quote:
The problem with the Euro is that the ECB has little to no power on a European level, it's still the politicians that tell it what to do, the Federal Reserve by contrast is almost independent of your governing body. The ECB can not print money as pleased the Fed can.


All false, the ECB simply can not select an individual country and prop it up exclusively, it has to appear to be more broad based. It's recent 3-year swap deal shows it has all the power it needs. Neither the ECB or the Fed has the power to fix the problems, which are structural and political.

Further, the ECB could end the Euro crisis tomorrow by saying it'd provide an unlimited wall of liquidity for any and all sovereign Euro-zone debt, but the moral hazard in that course is too unpalatable. Politicians feet have to be held to the fire, and thats not the ECB's job.


By Strunf on 2/16/2012 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EP is a joke even among Europeans, a democratic institution that receives more apathy from voters then perhaps any legitimate democratic institution in history. Even calling the EU democratic is a little bit of a joke; voters are only occasionally asked to approve treaties, and when they say no, they are asked again and again until they relent and say yes.

People voted their governments, if they fail them then there's only one to blame... yourself! I don't think I gave you my permission to say what I has European think or not of the EP...

quote:
the ECB simply can not select an individual country and prop it up exclusively, it has to appear to be more broad based

Where did I say they could???

quote:
It's recent 3-year swap deal shows it has all the power it needs.

One thing is buying bonds or lending money when the economy is doing fine and it's role is just to cut the corners another is to take action during a crisis.

quote:
the ECB could end the Euro crisis tomorrow by saying it'd provide an unlimited wall of liquidity for any and all sovereign Euro-zone debt

That's where you are wrong, the ECB can't print money as they see fit, there main goal is to fight inflation, you probably would understand that if they printed money to no end the inflation would sky rocket, not to mention the Euro would be worthless.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Amiga500 on 2/15/2012 11:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh look, is that Europe on the verge of a gigantic collapse? Oh yes, yes it is! They are teetering on the pinnacle of disaster.


I wouldn't be getting too comfortable up on that saddle there. You do realise that in a few years the USA is going to be in shit of a similar shade?

The current US debt is approx $14 trillion. (Which is over 100% of GDP - indeed, in all Europe, only Italy and Greece are worse! Even Portugal and Ireland have better debt:GDP ratios than the USA.)

The interest on the debt is ~$380 billion. (That is ~2.7% interest.)

The annual budget is $3600 billion and annual tax takings $ 2300 billion (2011). A hole of 1300 billion. Note that already, 16.5% of all US tax takings are being spent on just servicing interest.

At the current rates... by 2016 25% of all US govt tax takings will be spent on simply paying interest on the national debt.

How is that high horse looking now?


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the current rates


Of course, rates will probably double by 2016 from their artificially low level now.

If there's a difference worth pointing out it's that even though you can't tell it by Obama's suggested budget just released or his disregard for his own budget deficit reduction committee a couple years back, a large part of America at least sees the problem and is dedicated to fixing it. And, as a nation, we have a history of pulling our butts out of the fire, albeit at the last minute at times.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By rpsgc on 2/15/2012 11:33:45 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah because the US is doing so well... How much is your debt again? Oh that's right, 15 TRILLION USD.

Now STFU.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By TSS on 2/15/2012 7:14:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hah. You'd wish you copied europian socialism. Maybe you'd still spend way to much like you do now but atleast you'd get something in return. Don't forget we actually get healthcare for the amount we spend on it.

What you have now is extreme capitalism. A government basically run by corperations. Public Bribery. You're so capitalist, the Ferengi would be very proud.

What astonishes me is the wisdom of the founding fathers. Somehow they knew that no threat from without would bring america to it's knees, only threats from within. And they where right. You've got nobody to blame for your downfall but yourselves.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 1
I think you need to look up what "Capitalism" actually is.

And our Government is ran by hundreds of people. Thousands depending on how wide you go. People who took an OATH to the country. Not corporations.

And please, don't pretend Cronyism isn't large and in charge in Europe as well.

Our issues with lobbying is simply another terrible side effect of a large centralized Government. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to lobby a Congressman instead of 50 state legislatures.

Bigger government and more spending is NEVER the answer. That is our problems. Not "corporations". Only a Europeans would say that. Or an American liberal idiot.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
No it isn't. It's not in charge - yet. But their working hard to get us that far. Thing is though - i still have faith in our politics. Because we still have a party left who has never ruled, but has been in politics over 30 years: The Socialists.

Ironic, isn't it?

Anyway, we voted PVV last election. A right wing extremist party. Just to spite everybody in control already. We had voted socialist before that, but they where kept out of the ruling government by all the other parties. The PVV has failed, so now it's one more go at the socialists. And they aren't like other parties, locally their the only ones who actually help out.

If they fail, we WILL revolt.

Oh by the way, all those people taking an oath to the country? They've failed , they know that, and still this charade is persisted. So trust me, your in alot worse shape then we are. Atleast we don't get put into FEMA camps when we protest.


By dasgetier on 2/16/2012 4:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's fascinating to see how Europe keeps being blasted for its debt crisis and its "socialism" by Americans, while the USA amass a tremendous debt as well.

While I don't dare to say that the European financial systems did not have any problems before 2007, nobody seems to care to remember how all of this started.

It seems that on this forum the European economy and the EU are gleefully being wished to collapse, while it is not seen as an economic partner (or at least as a consumer for export trade).


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 5
Germany, Finland, Sweden and Norway have plenty of social programs and it's working out fine for them. They have better credit than the USA as well...


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Mint on 2/19/2012 10:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
It works in the US:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
The conservative states are mooching way more money than Greece, Spain, etc. are taking from the EU. US inter-state socialism is much greater than that between EU member nations, hence not having any state as screwed up as Greece.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Germany's labor market more resembles America's then Frances or Greeces, and their fiscal prudence is several cuts above the rest of the continent.

Sweden and Norway are poor examples. Tiny, culturally homogenous populations (albeit with recent immigration), and backed by envious energy reserves. They've also in recent years been electing relatively conservative governments -- compare that to the ascendant Socialist's in France. I think a monkey could avoid screwing up an economy when backed by a giant like Statoil.

So, nice try, got close with Germany but looking at Germany only highlights further the failure of the majority of Europe.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By gamerk2 on 2/15/2012 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh look, is that Europe on the verge of a gigantic collapse? Oh yes, yes it is! They are teetering on the pinnacle of disaster.


Europe made the same mistake conservatives want to make: They tackled a deficit problem while still in recession, and made both problems worse as a result.

Greece especially was in dire strights as far back as the 90's, but investors gave the country a break after joining the EU, figuring the EU's strict budget limits [which were never enforced] would help the deficit problem. Comgine that with the majority of Greeces debt in investors hands, and you had the recipe for a disaster the first time a recession hit.

The US is in much better shape. For one, only about 25% of its debt is in forign/investor hands. Secondly, the US also has a lot more ways to quickly raise revenue the European countries. Heck, simply letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire would, according to the CBO, reduce the deficit to about $500 Billion or so in just 6 years...(oh wait, we WANT those; thats right, how could I forget?)


By Just Tom on 2/15/2012 12:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Credit where credit is due, the tax cuts are now the Obama tax cuts since his signature is on the law.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heck, simply letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire would, according to the CBO, reduce the deficit to about $500 Billion or so in just 6 years..


AHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Please just stop. I'm dying. I cannot believe you quoted the most fraudulent exposed CBO study to come out in years.

Obama's newest budget puts our debt at 107% of our GDP! How in the hell are some tax increases going to make up 15 TRILLION dollars when the budget keeps getting increased? Where's the offsets? You can't snap your fingers and magically make up that kind of deficit with taxes and no offsets.

quote:
oh wait, we WANT those; thats right, how could I forget?


Obama obviously did. He renewed them himself. I think most Americans don't even get that, seeing as how much he publicly rails against a tax policy HE personally advanced. Nobody could have stopped him from ending the tax cuts either. It was 100% his decision.

So why did he? Simple. He, like every President, want's to get reelected. He knew years ago that raising taxes would have further weakened employment and the economy, so he didn't do it. No possible explanation exists. The man is not an idiot.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 12:26:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obama obviously did. He renewed them himself.

Only because the republicans threatened him with expiring the payroll tax cuts which affected millions of regular Americans and not the super rich. Obama has no problems taxing the millionaires, but the current makeup of the senate prevents him from doing anything without conceding to those bible-thumping rednecks.

Can't wait until the democrats get 60 seats and can do whatever they wish without this BS of bipartisanship, which doesn't exist. I'll take some fradulent loans to energy companies over a much costlier invasion of a foreign country.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 12:45:28 PM , Rating: 1
Well the payroll tax cut went through recently, except no offsetting budget cuts. Meaning another 100+billion added to our debt.

Seems like the Democrats just want to play class warfare, pitting one class against the other, while not caring if the ENTIRE country goes down in the process.

quote:
Can't wait until the democrats get 60 seats and can do whatever they wish


They already HAD that. Remember? They didn't do anything good with it. Except ushering in unprecedented historic debt and spending levels.

quote:
I'll take some fradulent loans to energy companies over a much costlier invasion of a foreign country.


Huh? What Administration invaded Libya again? WITHOUT Congressional approval I might add.

Do you anything factual or even sensible besides rhetoric?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 12:58:52 PM , Rating: 3
No it did not go through just yet, the republicans still want their cuts for their millionaires.

Class warfare is real, and it's not a bad thing. The millionaires and billionaires have enough money to grow America stronger, yet they pay less percentage taxes than the working class, and the repigs just want to continue this unsustainable path.

The 60-seat senate was during the worst recession in the US in the last 20 years. People attributed this to the democrats and voted the braindead tea party in. Now that it's apparent that the tea party are idiots, I am hopeful for this time.

Third, you're seriously comparing sending a few planes over Libya to a full blown invasion that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives? There is NOTHING that the republicans do that can be better than what the democrats will do, that's a fact. Both do a crappy job, have no doubt, but the republican party is far FAR worse.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By lightfoot on 2/15/2012 1:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
Do you even realize that you, as a hyper-partisian, are the problem? Going to a one party system is not the solution.

We need more moderates in our government. We NEED compromise. Compromise is NOT a bad word.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that we need compromise, it just should not be with ANY the republican party's current ideologies, which are war-mongering, letting poor people die, having everything in the favor of the rich, and religious indoctrination.

Arguing for compromising with the republican party is like arguing for compromise with the Nazi party. There are some things that should just not be compromised on, such as equality, right to be free from religion, slavery, etc.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which are war-mongering, letting poor people die, having everything in the favor of the rich, and religious indoctrination.


If the "Republican" party stood for these things, there wouldn't BE a Republican party in this country.

I love how you call for bi-partisanship, while lobbing a nuclear bomb of hate and stereotypical nonsense at the other side. You just condensed every Liberal anti-Republican talking point down into two miserable paragraphs. Bravo.

quote:
Arguing for compromising with the republican party is like arguing for compromise with the Nazi party.


WOW!


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree that we need compromise, it just should not be with ANY the republican party's current ideologies


Two points.

1) You're displaying a mentality that, once festers in large parts of a population, has in the past led to some of the nastiest civil conflicts in history. It's blind hate. You don't really know those you're opposing, just know what you hear in the liberal echo-chamber, and you don't care to know.

Also somewhat retarded. Conservatives are the ones with all the guns. Hell, I got a spare Mosin Nagant for a buddy in case it ever hits the fan and a bud happens to be unarmed.

2) http://sieleben.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hippie...

Saw a better one a few days back, but you get the jist, and it sounds like you. Compromise is good! Except with people that have different opinions!


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 9:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also somewhat retarded. Conservatives are the ones with all the guns. Hell, I got a spare Mosin Nagant for a buddy in case it ever hits the fan and a bud happens to be unarmed.

Thanks for illustrating the very compassionate conservative mindset of "we have guns and we'll shoot you!" What a peace loving bunch you are!

Thanks for bringing out the real conservative inside you for all to see. When that time comes, don't forget that the will of the people is far stronger than any weapon.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When that time comes, don't forget that the will of the people is far stronger than any weapon.


I don't know why you're so self-assured it'll come to all that. You're part of the 15 or 20% hard-core Marxist left. There's a 15 to 20% hard-core right. Then more moderate groups of both, and a small chunk of people in the middle that dont give two hoots as long as the supply of beer isn't interrupted. OWS has already fizzled. You're not going to get your Marxist over-throw of the government.

As for guns, we're not a hate-filled troll like you, no. I'm armed purely for defense of self, property, and of others if necessary. And they're fun to take the range. Hurricane Katrina resulted in numerous stories of roaming gangs finding innocent people sheltering in their homes, killing them, and looting their properties. IMHO, those roaming gangs should've been met by rifle fire. In your world, that was all perfectly acceptable, if tragic.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you even realize that you, as a hyper-partisian, are the problem? Going to a one party system is not the solution. We need more moderates in our government. We NEED compromise. Compromise is NOT a bad word.


Exactly! Not even I go around saying everything would be great if the Government was 100% Republican ran.

The problem is "compromise" to Democrats is always the Republicans laying down and dying, and never giving up anything themselves. This isn't compromise.

I would like it much better if BOTH sides of our Government would acknowledge the larger-than-life looming disaster, and work on making the cuts needed for us to survive.

But time and time again, whenever a cut on something is discussed (besides the military of course) it's always the Democrats grandstanding and making a huge political show out of it.

When Democrats are submitting a budget that's projected national debt is 107% of our GDP, how in the hell can you tell me they're trying to compromise?


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
argh debt=defict


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 2:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Class warfare is real, and it's not a bad thing.


Of course it's a bad thing. Nothing good comes out of hate and envy. What positive do you see coming out of demonizing people based solely on how much money they have?

quote:
yet they pay less percentage taxes than the working class


Some do, some do not, but there are reasons behind it all:

1. The payroll tax, ie Social Security and Medicare.

The thought behind these programs was that you would pay into the pot and when you retired, get compensated proportional to what you put in. On the face of it, it appears to be a regressive tax. The lower and middle classes pay much more into this system than the rich do. On the other hand, they get much more in return. Of course, thanks to poor planning and management, we need someone to bail out these programs and it happens to be politically expedient to blame the rich for our problems...

2. Capital gains. I'm unsure of anybody that really is pushing for a huge jump in capital gains, and with good reason. When I go to work, I know that much like clockwork, I'll have a paycheck every couple of weeks. If I'm investing large sums of money into a reasonably risky investment, I don't have that same benefit. I could double my money or I could lose it all. If you significantly decrease the possible reward, you also significantly decrease the amount of risk investors are willing to take. This is not good for an economy; we absolutely need entrepreneurial risk takers for the country to thrive.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:46:43 PM , Rating: 3
Income is income, you slave away your hours for that paycheck, no one just hands it to you. It should be taxed at the same rate as you earn from an investment. I don't even THINK about how much I'm going to be taxed when playing the stock market. I have no problem paying a percent to the government when I make $100K with a couple of clicks.

Low capital gains taxes is absurd, and it's anti equality and anti-American. It favors the ultra rich through and through.

Income is income regardless of where it comes from. It should all be treated the same and taxed the same.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 3:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Income is income


Except that its not. We want people making investments because it drives our economy forward in a way that someone who only labors as janitor never could. And of course, as mentioned, there's the risk factor.

quote:
You slave away your hours for that paycheck, no one just hands it to you...


Nobody is just handing out money to make investments either. People have to earn money first (which gets taxed), and then after they've saved enough, then can they can risk the fruits of their labor via investment.

quote:
I don't even THINK about how much I'm going to be taxed when playing the stock market.


What if the capital gains rate jumped to 50% or worse, how would that impact your investment strategy? How would that impact how riskier start-ups get funded?

quote:
Low capital gains taxes ...favors the ultra rich through and through.


Ultimately it favors everybody. I have the same opportunity to save and invest as Warren Buffet did. Moreover, I have a job because someone saw fit to invest in a business. Does it mean the rich get richer? Sure, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing when I've got the opportunity to get richer as well.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post Steve.

But he's a Liberal. Everything you said might as well have been written in Latin. They just cannot understand these concepts. Or outright refuse to.

This is why Liberal economic policies don't work and never have in America. They clash directly with Capitalism and opportunity every single time.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is just handing out money to make investments either. People have to earn money first (which gets taxed), and then after they've saved enough, then can they can risk the fruits of their labor via investment.

Just like Romney "earned" it from his parents? I am a small investor but a big one you might know called Warren Buffett said that it would not affect his or his buddies investment strategies at all. I think he knows better than you or me.

quote:
Ultimately it favors everybody.

Trickle down economics do not work, it's been proven, so you're wrong. You have your job because someone invented something or figured out a way to do something better. Once you have that flash of brilliance, there are plenty of investors to help out. More investors do not increase the rate of breakthroughs.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just like Romney "earned" it from his parents?


He earned most of it at Bain.

Further, feel free to look up the % of millionaires in the US that are self-made vs the % that inherited it.

quote:
Trickle down economics do not work


That's a vast characterization of his argument, probably intentional on your part.

quote:
You have your job because someone invented something or figured out a way to do something better.


Incorrect, or at least a vast oversimplification. Most jobs arent the direct result of an immediate flash of brilliance.. those are rare. Most jobs are expanding an existing idea in to new markets; opening more branches, exporting to more states or more countries, expanding capacity to serve more customers, grinding away making slow improvements to processes and products, etc.

All of that takes capital, and incredible sums of it, often over many years. There's no flash of brilliance that has found mineral resources in Africa, for example, but it takes billions of dollars over a decade to develop the mines.

And if you tax something, or more broadly punish something, you get less of it. That's pretty basic logic.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 4:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to Ringold's post I'd like to add:

quote:
I am a small investor but a big one you might know called Warren Buffett said that it would not affect his or his buddies investment strategies at all.


No, it won't affect his investment strategies; his strategy to evaluate risk versus reward remains the same. The reward is what changes, and thus the evaluation itself changes. IOW, the strategy doesn't change, but what gets invested in may well change. What makes this a bigger problem is that investors aren't beholden to invest here in the US...

quote:
Once you have that flash of brilliance, there are plenty of investors to help out. More investors do not increase the rate of breakthroughs.


It's not about the number of investors, its about whether the investors are willing to take the risk. After all, while hindsight is 20/20, not everyone recognizes a flash of brilliance for what it is at first, and many have invested in failures thinking they were brilliant ideas.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 5:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Less investors wiling to take risk will be balanced out by more actual chances of brilliance because regular people don't have to worry about their healthcare and other things and can focus on bettering themselves...Some of them will surely come up with ideas that even reluctant investors will chip in.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 6:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less investors wiling to take risk will be balanced out by more actual chances of brilliance because regular people don't have to worry about their healthcare and other things


How do you figure this? If you increase capital gains significantly (say from the current 15% to 35%, the top income tax bracket), you're risking further crippling the American economy. That means fewer jobs and less tax revenue.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
It'll be mostly crippling the bonuses on Wall St, don't kid yourself. Most "investments" don't really create jobs, they let people afford stuff that they really can't afford in the first place like houses, so if anything, it'd fix the high variability of the markets.
Warren Buffet would still invest in IBM no matter what the capital gains tax rate is...


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 7:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It'll be mostly crippling the bonuses on Wall St, don't kid yourself.


Actually if you've followed my line of reasoning, Wall St will be less impacted than Main Street. Wall St can shift their investments to foreign markets where capital gains taxes are lower. People here that lose their jobs because the US economy goes further in the tank won't be so lucky.

quote:
Most "investments" don't really create jobs


What's this? While the market collapse is a fine example of what happens when people fail to properly evaluate the risk (among other things), giving credit to demonstrably responsible individuals to buy things like a new home or car certainly does create jobs by stimulating the demand side of the equation.

quote:
Warren Buffet would still invest in IBM no matter what the capital gains tax rate is...


Are you reading what you write before you post it? Is there any doubt in your mind that if the US market wasn't worth investing in due to unfavorable tax rates, Buffet would take his money elsewhere?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 8:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wall St can shift their investments to foreign markets where capital gains taxes are lower.

That's why you tax money that enters/leaves the country and you'd be fine. Want to invest somewhere else? Either pay the same amount of tax as if you invested in the USA, or go live there and renounce your US citizenship. Most people won't want to leave, you don't see the rich in Europe leaving their countries for someplace that's cheaper to invest despite the high taxes there.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Most of your last few posts had no economic argument, just assertions that you can't back up.

But..

quote:
Most people won't want to leave, you don't see the rich in Europe leaving their countries for someplace that's cheaper to invest despite the high taxes there.


Don't tell that to the globe-trotting business management elite, from various industries, that now reside in Singapore, Hong Kong and the like...

quote:
Either pay the same amount of tax as if you invested in the USA, or go live there and renounce your US citizenship.


The US is one of few countries in the world that forces citizens to pay taxes on income no matter where they earn it. There's citizens born to US citizens in foreign countries that have hardly, if ever, set foot on US soil that must file taxes with the IRS.

Anyway, I like how your solution to every problem is taxes. As Reagan said.. If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't tell that to the globe-trotting business management elite, from various industries, that now reside in Singapore, Hong Kong and the like...

Really, like who and what's their net worth?
I guarantee you that most of the wealthy elite people do not leave the US or Europe because of taxes.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 11:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, like who and what's their net worth?


Like most of the people outlets like FT, Bloomberg, CNBC, The Economist interviews in the aforementioned countries that run various sorts of funds, work for various banks or insurance companies, etc? And their net worth? Certainly in the multi-millions. I don't have a direct link, it just comes from knowing wtf I'm talking about, unlike you, thanks to many years of keeping up with the industry.

Some of those people are there because that's where the action is, but a good portion could do what they do just as easily from the states -- just much less profitably. Again, the relentless logic of if you punish something, you get less of it.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't have a direct link, it just comes from knowing wtf I'm talking about, unlike you, thanks to many years of keeping up with the industry.

So you're just talking out of your ass, just like I suspected.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 11:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're just talking out of your ass, just like I suspected.


From years of experience. Also,you have stones to say that, after providing no links to supporting evidence and theory for anything you've said.


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 11:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
I have years of experience that says otherwise. The proof is in the Europe's rich elite who don't move to Hong Kong in mass numbers.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/15/2012 10:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people won't want to leave


Demonize people enough with your class warfare spiel and tax them heavily enough, and there's no telling as to what they'd do. It isn't as if there are no other nice places to call home, and it's not like a wealthy elite can't pop in and out of the country at his leisure, citizen or no.

In any case, have a good evening. It seems Reclaimer was right: there doesn't seem much point in trying to convince someone who doesn't want to listen that giving disincentive to invest in the US economy is a bad idea.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 11:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't as if there are no other nice places to call home

Pretty much all nice places have higher taxes than what the US currently has. Unless you want to be ruled according to sharia law in Abu Dhabi.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 11:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty much all nice places have higher taxes than what the US currently has. Unless you want to be ruled according to sharia law in Abu Dhabi.


That's actually not the case. Rules tightened on citizens and paying on foreign taxes a few years ago, and if you were correct there wouldn't of been lines around US embassies around the world on the night of the deadline to renounce citizenship...

Ireland comes to mind, though, as a nice place to go. Ranked some years back as the best place to live on Earth by The Economist; business-friendly environment, a more stream-lined government, lower taxes, an interesting local culture and no need to learn a second language.

But if learning a second language is no problem, then there's tons of places that pay well and have extremely low taxes, from certain spots in Eastern Europe to all over East Asia, with full amenities available, like Hong Kong. Do you like being pretty much totally wrong on every assertion you try to make?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 8:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty much all nice places have higher taxes than what the US currently has.


Except we're not discussing what the US currently has, we're talking about a situation where the US significantly raises its capital gains tax rate, ie from the current 15% to say 50.3% (equivalent to the top income tax bracket of 35% plus an additional 12.4% for social security (6.2% from your paycheck and 6.2% from your employer) and 2.9% for Medicare (1.45% from you, 1.45% from your employer). If you refuse to believe that kind of shift would have any negative implications for the economy, then IMO you're out of your mind.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 8:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
I support taxing capital gains/losses the same as any other income such as rental or business income, etc. You don't pay social security or medicare on your business income.

It would not be as bad as what you made out to be, since you presumably would also be able to take tax credits based on losses in the stock market etc. It would make America stronger in the end.

If it helps your argument, I believe that corporations are NOT PEOPLE, should NOT be treated as one (so no right to free speech like a person), and should not be taxed either. We want more companies in the US with no tax, but when the top investors earn money from it, they'd have to pay regular income tax on their earnings. It's a simpler system that would work better.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 10:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I support taxing capital gains/losses the same as any other income such as rental or business income, etc. You don't pay social security or medicare on your business income....I believe that corporations...should not be taxed either.


Well that changes your argument considerably, doesn't it? These statements don't jive at all with other statements you've made in your little conversation, such as:

quote:
Income is income, you slave away your hours for that paycheck, no one just hands it to you. It should be taxed at the same rate as you earn from an investment.


nor have you mentioned eliminating corporate taxes previously that I see in our conversation.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 10:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
You don't pay any more SSI after the first $106K of your salary either. I simply want capital gains to be taxed as any other income you have that arise from doing business and not to be treated specially.

Anyway, since we've established that I honestly don't want to tax us into oblivion, but only to make the system more fair, can we get along now?


By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't pay any more SSI after the first $106K of your salary either.


Today, yes, but who knows what tomorrow will bring. By all accounts Social Security will eventually need to cut benefits or raise taxes. There is not a bit of doubt in my mind which is the more politically expedient choice between cutting benefits to millions of elderly people or taxing the rich more to make up the shortfall. IMO, it's a sad but predictable choice we face given the government's apparent (in)ability to plan and manage Social Security over the years.

quote:
can we get along now?

Sure. FWIW, I do my best not to take this stuff personally, and I can live with the fact that people don't always agree with my point of view. Besides, it's been a reasonably civil conversation, so that's always a plus on these boards.


By Ringold on 2/16/2012 11:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
can we get along now?


Aaaahahaha, people that disagree with him are bigots, racists, capitalist whores, of inferior intelligence -- essentially wicked, corrupt sub-humans whom he wishes to see crushed beneath the heel of government, and then he says "can we get along now?" In other words, "I hate you, but I can't effectively refute any of your points, so will you politely surrender?"


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 11:56:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In any case, have a good evening. It seems Reclaimer was right: there doesn't seem much point in trying to convince someone who doesn't want to listen that giving disincentive to invest in the US economy is a bad idea.


He's a Liberal. You can't convince him.

Liberals have something I call "coddling mother syndrome". Your mother will tell you that you're special, that life is fair, that when you fail it's never your fault etc etc. Liberals have this ridiculous child-like outlook on life based on these naive beliefs. And they try to apply this to financial and political policy, which is disastrous. Leads to a nanny-state, welfare state, and economic disparities.

They hate Conservatives because we're like a typical father, which after your mother has filled your head with this crap, needs to pull you to the side and tell you the unfortunate truth about the world. And nobody likes that. Nobody likes being told how it is and that life isn't fair, they aren't a unique snowflake, and that if you want to be something you have to earn it and work hard.

Why would you want to punish a rich person? Again, because it's not "fair" that someone is so rich while others aren't. He should give more of his money, so that others can live better. Wealth redistribution, another classic Liberal belief, has rarely if ever improved anyone's life. Since Obama has taken office, 47 million people have applied for food stamps/welfare. I guess that's an improvement? A number to be proud of? We're helping the poor by creating MORE poor.

The ultimate conclusion to Liberal social and economic policies is mediocrity and poverty. The exact opposite of what they claim to be against. They fail to understand that you cannot engineer prosperity, fairness, and the elimination of poverty through over-handed Government control.

Liberalism is a mental condition in my opinion. An emotional disorder. It doesn't stem from any rational thought or reasonable logic. That's why trying to talk to a Liberal is all but impossible and why no facts or evidence that you provide matters.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
If liberalism is a "mental disorder" but conservatism isn't, how come most conservatives defend religion, something which "does not stem from any rational thought or reasonable logic" per your words? How come more than half of them believe that humans were created 10000 years ago in their present form by God?

Liberalism is actual compassion and caring for others. Republicans are just about helping people who can help themselves.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 12:32:09 AM , Rating: 1
First off you've lumped all "religion" in with the creationists. Nice! I'm sure they love that. Secondly we "defend" religion because it's a pretty big right in America. The Freedom of Religion.

And third, you've talked about religion ALL day, usually in horrifyingly bigoted ways. Got anything else?

quote:
Liberalism is actual compassion and caring for others.


Way to prove everything I just said. Compassion and caring for others comes from communities, helping others, and charity. Those are NOT things the Government were designed to dispense.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off you've lumped all "religion" in with the creationists. Nice! I'm sure they love that. Secondly we "defend" religion because it's a pretty big right in America. The Freedom of Religion.

Yes it's a big right, just like it's also within your rights to be a Neo-Nazi in America. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

The likes of you "defend" religion to the point of banning gay people from marrying which is unconstitutional, outlawing business and/or liquor sales on Sundays, calling fetuses babies, banning stem cell research, trying to teach non-scientific creationist crap in schools, etc.

The reason I talk about religion all day is because they're the number one reason I would NEVER support the republicans, as it's far more bothersome than any of their economic policies to me. Religion is a cancer beset on humanity and it should be killed with extreme prejudice wherever and whenever possible. Religious people are mentally underdeveloped by definition.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 12:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberalism is actual compassion and caring for others.


quote:
Religion is a cancer beset on humanity and it should be killed with extreme prejudice wherever and whenever possible. Religious people are mentally underdeveloped by definition.


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Conservatives would just let mentally undeveloped/retarded people die. We would at least house them in institutions paid by the tax dollars of the rich.


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:53:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
People have to earn money first (which gets taxed)


People earn money, and it gets taxed. People buy things, while paying sales tax, which transfers money to a company -- which pays corporate income tax. Then the company invests some of that money and disperses the rest either directly in the form of higher stock price over the long term or as a dividend -- which again gets taxed.

tl;dr: Tax has already been paid on money made in the stock market in a sense, *especially* interest and dividends. Not that he cares, heh


By Ringold on 2/15/2012 3:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Low capital gains taxes is absurd, and it's anti equality and anti-American.


Only if you totally rewrite history, as the founding fathers were well acquainted and in broad agreement with Hume, Smith, and other free-market thinkers. Jefferson especially comes to mind as espousing polar opposite views of your own. There's not a hint of Marxism in the countries founding documents, unlike your posts.

Speaking of an economist, it'd help to respond to an economic argument as made by the previous poster with an economic argument in turn, instead of opinion like "absurd" or personal value judgements, envy, etc.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By roboray on 2/15/2012 4:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Huh? What Administration invaded Libya again? WITHOUT Congressional approval I might add.


Thomas Jefferson.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
I see. When the other party does something, we invoke Hitler. When you do it, it's Thomas Jefferson time.

Pretty sure our Founders wouldn't have approved of either. But Thomas Jefferson damn sure wouldn't have smiled on Obama bypassing the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and making it an executive order.

I think that's maybe the biggest problem I have with Obama. It's not necessarily the things he does, but HOW he gets them done. He abuses executive privilege. Thus bypassing the checks and balances of Federal power mandated by the Constitution.

When you take Congress, our representatives, out of having their say; you've essentially silenced US as well. The people.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Because Bush never abused his executive powers and vetoed bills such as stem cell research because he was a religious bigot, right?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how stupid what you just said is? The slightest clue?

Article 1, Section 7. Please, for the love of humanity, learn something.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
So CNN is lying?

quote:
The issue has split the Republican Party, with Bush siding with the Catholic Church and social conservatives against the GOP's more moderate voices.


http://articles.cnn.com/2006-07-19/politics/stemce...

Another evil of having a religious president. At least Obama isn't one.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Again, MISSING THE POINT. Veto power is a Constitutional right. Not executive privilege abuse. Your example was just stupid. Why are you talking about religion when I'm talking about the Constitution?

You seriously need...I don't know. You need something bad.

quote:
Another evil of having a religious president. At least Obama isn't one.


He attended the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years where he regularly went with his family. When he was elected President he chose to worship, yes he said WORSHIP, at Evergreen Chapel in Camp David. The same church President Bush attended. When asked why, he said he wanted to worship in private without a spectacle. Kinda weird that something who isn't religious would want to "worship" at a church...

Hey kid, did your head just explode? If that's not a "religious person", I don't know what is.

I'm not religious. You know why? Because I haven't picked up a bible or gone to a house of worship in 20+ years. THAT'S what a non-religious person does.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 6:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
When the general US electorate is dumb as rocks to such a level that 40% believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago (those people shouldn't have the right to vote btw), you keep up with appearances to not freak them out. Admitting that you're not religious is political suicide.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because 20 years ago he knew he was going to run for President and he needed to start going to church to cultivate the electorate.

Good one. More stupid bigotry by you.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 8:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
He knew he was going into politics, and going to a church helps tremendously in that case, whatever your religious thoughts are. You meet people in a church for starters...

If I wanted to get into local politics, I'd start by attending a church.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only because the republicans threatened him with expiring the payroll tax cuts which affected millions of regular Americans and not the super rich


That's a ridiculously lame defense. The payroll taxcut would be a tiny percentage of all the supposed harm the Bush Tax Cuts did for the middle class and lower class. Ending them, going by everything Obama has said, would still be a huge win.

Again, why didn't he end them?

I think you're just too blinded by your bias and rhetoric to admit Obama and this Administration deserve ANY responsibility for where we are. 3 years in, and it's still ALL Bush's fault. Amazing.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 4:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a ridiculously lame defense. The payroll taxcut would be a tiny percentage of all the supposed harm the Bush Tax Cuts did for the middle class and lower class. Ending them, going by everything Obama has said, would still be a huge win.

He was more concerned in helping those people who helped him elect (Americans working for a paycheck) than the national deficit, because he had to think about re-election. The Bush tax cuts will definitely be terminated on Obama's second term.

Obama administration definitely has its faults, but it's better than any Republican administration that could ever exist, maybe except for some parts of Ron Paul. Definitely better than those baby-killing bible-thumping warmongering religious corporatist evil bigots known as the Bush administration


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
That's the third different explanation, well excuse, you've come up with today. What's next, green men from Mars forced his hand?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 4:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Definitely better than those baby-killing bible-thumping warmongering religious corporatist evil bigots


From Wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Look in the mirror, troll.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that you only got hung up on the last word, and not the other accurate descriptors of most of the Republican party and most of their supporters today :)


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Because I'm bored..

quote:
Definitely better than those baby-killing


Find a case where Bush ordered the execution of babies.

quote:
bible-thumping


So you're an atheist, but a liberal. Diversity is good, except Christianity?

quote:
warmongering


Bush didn't start the conflict with al Qaeda, and gave Afghanistan the option, multiple times, to hand over al Qaeda before invading. The UN also backed sanctions on Iraq and Europeans believed various intelligence reports as well that he was up to no good.

quote:
religious


Couldn't come up with anything new, so trolled him on the same thing twice.

quote:
corporatist


A student of Adam Smith, like the founding fathers. Yeah, terrible.

quote:
evil


Only because you disagree with him.

quote:
bigots


Careful calling others what you yourself fit the description of so well.

quote:
known as the Bush administration


At least he had balls and followed his convictions, right or wrong, unlike the current one.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 9:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Find a case where Bush ordered the execution of babies.

Invasion of Iraq:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/01/us-iraq-...

quote:
So you're an atheist, but a liberal. Diversity is good, except Christianity?

Belief in religion means a weak mind, as demonstrated in various studies. They are by definition an inferior people and should not be allowed to control the fate of the country. Religious people are inferior people. They're free to be that way of course, it's a free country.

quote:
The UN also backed sanctions on Iraq and Europeans believed various intelligence reports as well that he was up to no good.

Iraqi war is 100% Bush's fault and his administration knowingly presented falsified information to start it. He is an evil a-hole and I will celebrate the day he croaks just like I did with Jerry Fallwell.

quote:
Only because you disagree with him.

Slavery, racism, murder and cruelty are universally evil concepts. I am proud to disagree with idiots supporting them.

quote:
At least he had balls and followed his convictions, right or wrong, unlike the current one.

So did Hitler.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 11:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Invasion of Iraq:


By that definition, it's quite likely that Obama killed babies in Libya and he's certainly killed scores of them with drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan since being president.

quote:
They are by definition an inferior people and should not be allowed to control the fate of the country.


What are you, 18? That level of extremism tends to fade once you leave your mothers basement.

quote:
knowingly presented falsified information to start it.


If you could prove it, you better bet Pelosi and others would've long since had him in prison. But, you can't, and that's a fact.


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
Obama did not start the war against terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are no reports of babies dying in Libya specifically due to the planes sent there by Obama. In any case, the scale of these wars pales compared to the atrocities of Bush and his evil cronies.

quote:
What are you, 18? That level of extremism tends to fade once you leave your mothers basement.

You're the one resorting to playground insults not me. Non-religion beats religion in every observable metric, and I got Dawkins and Fry to slap you silly with any argument you can EVER bring on why religion could ever be any good. A religious person is a mentally underdeveloped person, simple as that. They're also factually shown to have lower IQ.

quote:
If you could prove it, you better bet Pelosi and others would've long since had him in prison. But, you can't, and that's a fact.

O.J. didn't kill his wife either, right? Doesn't change the fact that the Bush name will be absolutely hated by 99% of the people in the world for a very long time, similar to Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Belief in religion means a weak mind, as demonstrated in various studies. They are by definition an inferior people and should not be allowed to control the fate of the country. Religious people are inferior people. They're free to be that way of course, it's a free country.


WHOA! You really believe this? Seriously?

So, you're telling me the father of classical Physics, Sir Isaac Newton was a feeble-minded idiot? Really? Don't try and defend your statement because that is exactly what you insinuated. Newton was a Christian, by the way.

This makes me very sad. :(


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 11:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
1. During the time when Sir Isaac Newton lived, denouncing God meant suicide, either career-wise or literally.

2. If Isaac Newton lived today and he had access to the wealth of information on the internet and not just the books in the Churches around him, he would not be a Christian.

3. Even given the limited and biased sources and environment around him, he was a heretic in his own time, rejecting the worship of Christ as God, and the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons. He was on his way to regular theism, which only leads to agnosticism and atheism. Given the time period and the influence of the Church at the time, it's a pretty good record. As I said today, he'd be an atheist/agnostic like 93% of all scientists.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, you're telling me the father of classical Physics, Sir Isaac Newton was a feeble-minded idiot? Really? Don't try and defend your statement because that is exactly what you insinuated.


Yes, that's precisely what he said and precisely what he meant. All the founding fathers that were deists, the vast majority of luminaries throughout recorded history, from pagans to Muslims to Buddhists, all are intellectually inferior to his keen Marxist mind. The true left occasionally shows its colors, but he's dumb enough to wave them in the open.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, that's precisely what he said and precisely what he meant. All the founding fathers that were deists, the vast majority of luminaries throughout recorded history, from pagans to Muslims to Buddhists, all are intellectually inferior to his keen Marxist mind.

Very few, if any, of these would be religious if they lived today since science is much more advanced now and can explain many things that were unexplained hundreds of years ago. Not to mention publicly denouncing god meant death in many cases back then, still does in Indonesia LOL.

Anyone who's still religious today despite having access to a wealth of information not available for those people who lived in the past, is an inferior minded person, that's a fact.

You can't win a debate against atheism, so don't bother.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't win a debate against atheism, so don't bother.


Sure you can. Atheists can't scientifically disprove the potential existence of a deity/supreme force/whatever any more than a Hindu could scientifically prove the existence of Shiva.

At best, the cynical mind would be agnostic, recognizing that we simply do not know.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 1:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
You also can't scientifically disprove the dragon in my garage so that's a failed argument.

The cynical mind observes, and observes that the probability of the existence of god is the smallest positive rational number.

You'd technically say that he's an agnostic since that probability > 0, but in practice it's 0 and that person is an atheist.

Similar to how Dawkins called himself 6.9 on the atheist scale where 1 is agnostic and 7 is atheist.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not really sure the point of your post since you come right out and say

quote:
You'd technically say that he's an agnostic since that probability > 0


but moving on...

quote:
so that's a failed argument.


Except that it's not a failed argument. If you can't prove something one way or the other, than you have to accept that it is unknown. IOW, you would be as you alluded to above, and what I wrote in my original post on the subject, agnostic.

quote:
The cynical mind observes, and observes that the probability of the existence of god is the smallest positive rational number.


That depends on the cynical mind and how one conceives of "god". I'll borrow some words from someone who spent a great deal of effort observing the universe:

quote:
We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books . It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranges and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.


and

quote:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd argue with you if I really thought you were an agnostic like the wikipedia quotes you're parroting. Every atheist is an agnostic on a scale. So before I reply to you, I have to ask, are you defending Agnosticism against me because that's what you believe, or are you a Christian/Muslim/Whatever?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 2:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd argue with you...Every atheist is an agnostic on a scale.


What is there to argue if you're confirming what I say?

quote:
So before I reply to you, I have to ask, are you defending Agnosticism against me because that's what you believe, or are you a Christian/Muslim/Whatever?


Depends on how you want to define it I guess. I was born and was baptized and confirmed in a Christian church, but in terms of actual personal "religious" beliefs, I firmly am an agnostic. I don't attend church, but if asked, I may identify myself as Christian, not because I think Christ was the "Son of God", but because his teachings (which are mostly ignored by many people who call themselves Christian) are worthwhile IMO.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I like Jesus too. I know for certain that he wasn't connected to any kind of supernatural being, but still he was a great guy and many of his philosophies would benefit humankind as a whole. I'm sure if he lived today, he'd lament the distorted and inaccurate accounts of his life being taught as dogma.

So what's your agnostic number (between 0 and 1 of course) on the probability of the existence of a god? I told you mine already...


By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 2:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what's your agnostic number (between 0 and 1 of course) on the probability of the existence of a god? I told you mine already...


Assuming you're talking about this scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_...

Honestly, I'm not sure where to put myself for the simple fact that I don't believe in the same kind of god as a Christians/Muslims/Ancient Greek, etc do.

The god I could believe in is something akin to what I quoted from Einstein. I believe the universe itself has meaning to it, albeit one we don't understand. I don't believe that if I pray really hard, good things will happen to me. Make sense?


By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 1:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
PS:

quote:
Similar to how Dawkins called himself 6.9 on the atheist scale where 1 is agnostic and 7 is atheist.


One on the scale is not agnostic. One equates to "I know there is a God".


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't win a debate against atheism, so don't bother.


Thank you for stating this. Prepare to get trounced with a single concept as quoted from Carl Sagan:

quote:
An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.


I realize I've used this quote in other posts elsewhere but it sums up my point precisely as to why atheism is lunacy. To be an atheist means you know everything--which is impossible.

Carl Sagan, by the way if you don't know, was considered by Isaac Asimov, once vice president of Mensa as one of the only two people he had ever met smarter than him. Carl was far from an idiot and considered himself an agnostic.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 1:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I should have clarified my stance on Atheism as the likeliness of the existence of a God is equal to the likeliness of the existence of a dragon in my garage. Therefore it's not zero but an extremely improbable value.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 1:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I should have clarified my stance on Atheism as the likeliness of the existence of a God is equal to the likeliness of the existence of a dragon in my garage. Therefore it's not zero but an extremely improbable value.


Fortunately you have the right to believe that. Others, based on their observations of the world, believe differently.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fortunately you have the right to believe that. Others, based on their observations of the world, believe differently.

Yes, and unless they're agnostics or atheists in this day and age, they're inferior and weak minded.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 2:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, and unless they're agnostics or atheists in this day and age, they're inferior and weak minded.


What in and up to this day and age has proved definitively that there is no deity whatsoever when we don't even grasp the scientific concept of "nothing," including being able to understand what it is?

If you know the answer, please, tell me, as it is the most important answer that the whole scientific community could receive right now.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What in and up to this day and age has proved definitively that there is no deity

What has proved that there is a deity? There is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports the existence of god. A reasonable person would interpret it as: "It's highly unlikely that god exists", not as "it's 100% absolutely certain that god does not exist." It's 100% certain that there has been no evidence of god's existence found so far though and it's looking highly improbable that there will ever be any.

If you choose to believe that a god exists despite all this evidence, you're no more intellectually developed than a little kid who believes in Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole...


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing has proved nor disproved it. Thus, it is impossible to say one way or the other. Thus, if you consider someone an idiot because they believe in something that hasn't been proved, the burden shifts to YOU to prove it.

I'm waiting. Go ahead, prove it one way or another. If you can't, then go look in a mirror before you call someone an idiot.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
A fully mentally developed person does not believe in things that are not proven and extremely unlikely to be ever proven.

Such people are inferior and mentally underdeveloped people. They are the ones that believe that sending $1000 to someone in Nigeria will bring them millions of dollars in blocked funds from toppled dictators' bank accounts. They should have no business voting on grounds of mental issues.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 3:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A fully mentally developed person does not believe in things that are not proven and extremely unlikely to be ever proven.


Soooooo... All those early string theorists are idiots?

How about Peter Higgs? If you know your scientific history you'll recall how he was laughed at when he wrote his paper describing the Higgs mechanism. Look at him now... they built a huge supercollider just to help prove one of his thoeries he came up with in the 1960's... He's an Atheist too... (but you insist he's not fully mentally developed believing in something not proven)

John Stewart Bell and his theorem? None of the results from it have been completely conclusive yet...

Or Erwin Schrodinger?

Or Neils Bohr who based Quantum Mechanics off of probability. Probability! Uncertainty! He used statistics to model something he can't prove! What about him?

Do you need a bandage for your foot? I think you shot it...


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
You have reading comprehension issues when you ignore the "extremely unlikely to be ever proven" at the end of my post, so the rest of your drivel is just that, drivel.

The likeliness of Higgs, et. al theories of being proven someday has always been infinitely higher than the likeliness of the existence of God being proven.

Your "arguments" bail down to semantics or deliberate misinterpretation. Typical of a god fearing moron.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 3:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't ignore it, I purposely fail to acknowledge it as it would lead me to another line of questioning that you can't answer...

But, since you insist, I'll ask away.

What is extremely unlikely to be proven? Do you have a number? An equation? Something concrete to back up this hypothesis?

You don't. I'm calling you out right now.

Can you tell me what "nothing" is? You have no choice but to answer this question completely before you can give me definitive odds beyond the obvious answer that I already possess regarding your little probability.

My arguments are based on rational, extrapolative thought via deduction. I can assure you of this. I allow nobody to dictate my mind.

I just moved my pawn, do you move your bishop, knight or bring out your queen now?


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 4:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't ignore it, I purposely fail to acknowledge it as it would lead me to another line of questioning that you can't answer...

Dishonest religious idiot at work again...I am purposely ignoring to respond to your trolling. You'll have to just ask the scientists at CERN about the probability of being able to prove God exists and they'll say "extremely unlikely" just like I do.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take a Queen in exchange of my Pawn that has just crossed the board. Hmm, that means I have two Queens in play to your one and your King. I accept your conceded defeat. ;)


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 9:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know who you're playing imaginary chess with, but they don't exist, just like your imaginary deity.


By Steve1981 on 2/16/2012 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they're inferior and weak minded.


Just a friendly suggestion: you might want to back off the hubris just a tad. While you might not fear God striking you down with a lightning bolt, it does have an ugly tendency to come back and bite you in the rear.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 2:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Don't make excuses and instead take a stand.

You are either Religious, Atheist or Agnostic. Not part one or part other.

Religious = believe in a deity of some form
Atheist = There is no deity whatsoever beyond any doubt
Agnostic = believe there might not be a deity but given evidence that there is one--will consider it

The definition of an Agnostic is as follows:

quote:
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.


Those are the only three choices. Pick one. Don't devise numbers/percentages/ratios to justify one of your stances. Just take a stand.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Please look up the meaning of Agnostic before making a fool out of yourself. If there was scientific evidence of the existence of a god, atheists would accept it along with agnostics.

My stance is that the possibility of the existence of a god is the smallest non-negative real number. It's so small (actually infinitely small) that it's not worth contemplating about. Put that in one of your three buckets however you may.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 2:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
I quoted the definition above your post. Is that not good enough? I thought it was clear...

There are three buckets. There no percentage this, percentage that. They are three distinct classifications with distinct definitions.

Atheists, by definition, would _not_ accept it as they have their minds made up. The only people that would accept it are Agnostics. Why can't you just admit that? You're climbing up a mountain that has already tossed you off repeatedly. Are you going to continue to climb it when it is clear it is impossible?

Definition of an Atheist:

quote:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Agnostic:

quote:
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.


You can't be an Atheist if you'd consider evidence. You are an Agnostic at that point.

The most hard-headed people I've ever run into are Atheists, not people who are Religious. I've actually run into far more reasonable Religious people--and many of them are willing to consider alternatives given evidence. While the number isn't extremely high, it is far higher than Atheists.

You can't be an Atheist with great conviction and consider everyone else dumb unless you know everything. Do you know everything? I know I don't.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 3:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Some reading would benefit you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_...

I am 6.999.... on that scale. Got it? No one has to use your crappy definitions when there are better ones available.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 3:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
You just cited Wikipedia and to top things off, Richard Dawkins of all people. He thinks for people who can't think for themselves...

He runs a church, didn't you know? The Church of Atheism.

I didn't make my definitions up, I cited them from reputable sources.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/17/2012 10:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He runs a church, didn't you know? The Church of Atheism.

And we're done here...you've proven yourself to be the small minded idiotroll that I've suspected.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/17/2012 11:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
I've proven nothing other than YOU not being able to think for yourself when it comes to religion. ;)

People use Dawkins as a crutch and quote him because they are incapable of formulating their own ideas and, more importantly, their own arguments.

I'm still waiting on that queen for my pawn.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/17/2012 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was an atheist (probability of god's existence = probability of me spontaneously combusting) long before I knew who Dawkins was...

Atheist cite Dawkins because he has already dismissed pretty much all the arguments the religious bigots have thrown against him and his beliefs. He's pwned every religious person who went up against him. Just like programming, if someone has written code before, you reuse it instead of inventing the wheel, and that's what I do.

So go play your invisible chess with your invisible god, religious people will ALWAYS be wrong.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/17/2012 8:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know? Have you died?

You don't know what is right and what is wrong if you can't solve the scientific problem of what is "nothing."

So, ultimately, we have different philosophies instead of answers. Some of these philosophies overlap while other parts do not--i.e. religion and non-religion. Neither can be proved true.

However, whatever we believe in, we can all share a common ground and this ground is science. I'm sure we can both agree on that. :)


By corduroygt on 2/18/2012 1:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you know? Have you died?

quote:
So, ultimately, we have different philosophies instead of answers. Some of these philosophies overlap while other parts do not--i.e. religion and non-religion. Neither can be proved true.

B.S. to the nth degree. It's easily proven that all religions are NOTHING more than fairy tales. The existence of God is the only issue here.

There is zero evidence for the existence of God just like there is zero evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Believing god exists without believing that the flying spaghetti monster exists is completely illogical. Believing that something exists when there is absolutely zero evidence is an indicator of a weak, inferior mind.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heck, simply letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire would, according to the CBO, reduce the deficit to about $500 Billion or so in just 6 years...(oh wait, we WANT those; thats right, how could I forget?)


Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt? Deficit is cash flow that is insufficient to cover the outflows--i.e. negative cash flow.

Debt is the sum total of all the accumulated annual deficits over time.

If we reduce the deficit to 500 billion, that still means we are incurring half a trillion in debt to the total pile per annum. In other words, in six years, that would add an additional six trillion to the total debt. It doesn't come close to solving the problem.

The only way to solve the problem here is not by raising taxes, it is by cutting spending in non-essential programs. Per our Constitution and spirit of our Country, the only true roles the Federal Government should serve are:

1. Provide for defense of our borders.

2. Provide for an support the rule of law.

So, that means that instead of cutting defense which is popular, the cuts should come everywhere else instead--i.e. mostly social programs.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're OK with Romney paying 15% tax whereas the average american with a job pays close to 30%? If you do, you're either a millionaire or evil.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that anywhere. :) I actually have huge reservations against the Flat Tax and also had issues with Cain's 999 plan (despite the 999 plan I would have voted for him if he had made it to my state in the primaries).

I think the IRS serves a purpose and should be trimmed way down but never completely abolished. Why? Americans should always have the right to file their own taxes. It is far better to file your own than to just be told by the powers that be to cough up money with absolutely no way to contest it.

I do still believe in a tiered tax system. The reason being is that the disparagement in income between the lower class and the upper class does not balance out with neccesities to live versus income. Someone taking in 60k/year might spend every dime to keep their family afloat while someone making 500k probably doesn't. Because of this reason alone you can't possibly tax someone making far less at an equal rate to someone making far more. Raising taxes equally across the board always hurts the lower income brackets more than the higher.

The higher income brackets might argue it hurts them because they earned it but in reality if they're crazy enough to spend money on things they don't need to begin with like big houses and a tax increase puts them underwater... They should be managing their money better, period.

No, I have issues with Romney paying only 15% but he does this through capital gains taxes--which to your average retiree is a huge benefit if they have to live off of investments. To an ultra-wealthy retiree, however, it doesn't matter that much. Thus, we have the AMT (alternative minimum tax) which in my eyes should override the capital gains taxes and force those high income people to realize less of a benefit.

This view of mine isn't very popular among the conservative community but--I'm not really a true conservative to begin with. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social moderate.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
Tax all income the same, give older people a benefit. Now that we're all living longer, 65 is too low to be the retirement age, it should be 70 at least as well. Low capital gains taxes is a slap on the face of regular americans from the ultra-wealthy. It's government approved robbery.

All income should be taxed the same. 0% for under 50K, 15% for 50-100K, 25% for 100-250K, and 40% for 250K+. Simple as that.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By MrBlastman on 2/15/2012 3:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
We aren't all living longer in America. All the obesity here is killing us. :( I wouldn't raise the retirement age to 70 because most businesses begin writing people off as less useful by the time they reach their early 60's. If someone this age loses their job they have an extremely hard, if not impossible time getting hired again in a similar position.

As for income taxes, you can't just give the people under 50k a free ride. If you do this, they have little to no appreciation for their government. In order to appreciate something that you buy or own--you first have to pay for it. If you pay nothing for it, you could care less if you lose it.

The people making less than 50k would have to be taxed somewhere between 10 - 15%. About the only spot I would drop taxes is at the poverty line of around 10 - 20k. They ultimately end up paying taxes anyways through another program called the lottery.


By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We aren't all living longer in America. All the obesity here is killing us.

That's only an incentive to exercise and eat healthy if you want to live longer! Besides that we have to increase the retirement age since that's a big reason why Social Security is bankrupt.

I agree with you on cracking down on age discrimination with much tougher laws so older people can find jobs besides greeters at Walmart.

I am flexible on tax brackets, so I'm sure I could COMPROMISE with you on that..


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're OK with Romney paying 15% tax whereas the average american with a job pays close to 30%?


He paid millions in taxes. Hello? Please tell me the dollar amount, not percentage, do you think successful people should have to pay in this country?

He also donated massive amounts of money to charities. Which I'm sure get spent far more efficiently than the Government simply redistributing his wealth as they see fit. But yeah I know, what an evil guy!

And his return was already analyzed by third party experts. He didn't use any dirty tricks or false deductions. He paid every cent of taxes legally owed by him. What more do you want?

This is just more class warfare. "Average" Americans don't pay millions in taxes, or create growth which causes millions more in taxes to be generated. Your average American WORKS for people like Romney. They have a job because of people like Romney. This is basic economics. Stop being deliberately divisive.

The top 10% earners in this country pay roughly 71% of all taxes in America. How's that for a percentage? I guess you would be happy if that number was 100%. What should it be? You tell me.

Next you'll roll out this absurd Warren Buffet and his secretary rhetoric. Look here Warren Buffet, Obama, and any other rich person drinking the Kool Aid. If you don't think you're paying enough in taxes, you CAN write the IRS a check for more. What's stopping them?

And if you don't think your secretary is making enough, Buffet, give her a damn raise!

This is just more political rhetoric and divisive class warfare coming from Liberals. The same people who then call for bi-partisanship. Meanwhile they're splitting the country apart.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He paid millions in taxes. Hello? Please tell me the dollar amount, not percentage, do you think successful people should have to pay in this country?

They should pay the same percentage as the "less successful" people, because we all know that if you're rich in America, that's because you're a superior person to everyone else and deserve it. No one inherits it, or strikes it lucky with the lottery or the stock market, or they just happen to be in the right place at the same time. Typical repig drivel.

quote:
He also donated massive amounts of money to charities. Which I'm sure get spent far more efficiently than the Government simply redistributing his wealth as they see fit. But yeah I know, what an evil guy!

He's spending his money to influence the spread of his religion, that's not charity, it's free speech. He's free to give away his money, after he gets the correct percentage taken out of it by the government.

quote:
This is just more class warfare. "Average" Americans don't pay millions in taxes, or create growth which causes millions more in taxes to be generated. Your average American WORKS for people like Romney. They have a job because of people like Romney. This is basic economics. Stop being deliberately divisive.

Stop the BS, someone else would have created those "jobs" if it weren't for Romney. There are only very few truly exceptional people who truly create jobs, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, etc. They generously donate to charities by the way.

quote:
The top 10% earners in this country pay roughly 71% of all taxes in America. How's that for a percentage?

Yet they own 95% of everything, so if anything, the tax collection should match that at the very least. More successful people need to pay more taxes so that more of the "less successful" people can have the opportunity to be successful. They're the ones who need the help, not Romney.

quote:
This is just more political rhetoric and divisive class warfare coming from Liberals. The same people who then call for bi-partisanship. Meanwhile they're splitting the country apart.

Can't wait until your side gets thoroughly defeated this November. Hopefully then we can have some real change that's not blocked by 1950's thinking that the current republican party has.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
There is just so much stupid I don't even know where to start.

quote:
He's spending his money to influence the spread of his religion, that's not charity, it's free speech.


More bigotry and hate from the Left. Giving to your church IS charity. It doesn't "spread" religion. Church's do so much for the poor and needy that you claim to care so much about. They run soup kitchens and shelters for battered women and homeless and so much more, ALL paid for by donations. You're hate is just so blinding you.

quote:
Stop the BS, someone else would have created those "jobs" if it weren't for Romney.


Of course, that's not even the point. Romney isn't the issue! Those jobs would have been created by just another "rich" person you hate. How was that BS again?

quote:
Yet they own 95% of everything


Rich people own 95% of everything. Okay...ummmm. Wow kid, that's brilliant. Do you even think before you post?

quote:
There are only very few truly exceptional people who truly create jobs, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, etc. They generously donate to charities by the way.


What? How in the hell can you even claim such a thing? All these jobs we have, all these corporations, are only due to celebrities like Jobs and Gates? So you're either mega rich, or middle class and poor. Small businesses, what's that?

By the way, Jobs has NEVER generously donated to charities. And certainly not even close to the level that Gates has.

quote:
Hopefully then we can have some real change


You had three years without Republican interference to bring in all that "change". The only thing that changed was a deficit 4 times larger and national debt that makes ones head spin. Not even the tax policy changed, which by the way, was 100% doable and they didn't. Now you're saying you need another second term. When, exactly, is all this awesome "change" supposed to take place anyway.

Sorry but America gave your side every opportunity to prove how right you were. You failed. If you believe there will be a landslide in your favor, you must think all Americans are as dumb as you.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 4:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one inherits it, or strikes it lucky with the lottery or the stock market, or they just happen to be in the right place at the same time. Typical repig drivel.


Since it wont be found on a Marxist blog and you're too intellectually lazy to inform yourself, I'll set it up so to learn the truth you only have to click a link: (WARNING: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AHEAD)

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline...

For further study, Google is full of supporting research.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 4:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
If I inherited 1 million and gave it to Wall Street which made it 15 million in 10-20 years, I only inherited ~7% of my money...That's such a failed blog post and it's all you can come with. Money buys you opportunity...something that should be equalized but is definitely not at the moment.

Sorry, you are universally wrong if you support:

-Inequality
-Racism
-Slavery
-Religion over reason
-Killing except to save your own or someone else's life
-War profiteering
-Theft
-Injustice

etc. Therefore the republican party is never going to be in the right.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because we all know nobody EVER loses in the stock market...

I think you would be a great case study for how long-term exposure to media and other Liberal delivery methods can turn a human being into a hateful moron. To claim those are things we "support", or ever have, is propaganda.

I'm actually glad you're posted all this crap today. Usually I have to explain to people what's wrong with the Left. You're illustrating it for me with your extreme bigotry and illogical hatred.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 4:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
In 22 years, DJIA moved from 2000 to 14000, so you don't even know how to play the stock market and just play index funds, you'll have 7x your money. If you inherited $1000, you'd have $7000, which isn't much. If you inherited $1M, you'd have 7M, and all kinds of different doors would be open for you despite only inheriting 14% of your money.

Like it or not, my kind will triumph over your kind in elections from now on...better get used to it.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like it or not, my kind will triumph over your kind in elections from now on...better get used to it.


Yes because your kind figured out how to get a massive percentage of the population dependent on government spending. So they will always vote for the party who pledges to keep the gravy train rolling.

How proud you must be.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's because America is less religious. We don't vote republican for the most part...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148274/religious-americ...


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
If America isn't religious, and unreligious folk don't vote Republican, then how did the people put the Republicans in control of the House? Somewhere your logic fails. Maybe it was the arrogance of Pelosi et al, the same sort you display?

Nah, couldn't be.


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 2:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
The democrats squandered their advantage through this B.S. of bipartisanship. They needed to go for the throat of the republican party.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's such a failed blog post and it's all you can come with.


And what'd you offer to refute the studies that the blog referenced? There's other sources, as I said, by a quick google; it's well known that regardless of how you set your parameters, the vast majority of American millionaires came from a non-wealthy background. If you can prove otherwise, that most millionaires have become so by way of inheritance than by way of the fruit of their own labor, I'll never post at DT again.

As for those universally wrong things, the rest only a troll would accuse the Republicans of. How many Louisiana and Illinois Democrats are in jail for "theft" and "injustice" and bribes? Answer= lots. But to inequality, a founding principle of the nation is that people can choose to succeed or not to succeed of their own accord, so inequality is part of the nations fabric. We're not a Marxist state. Never will be -- unless we change the constitution. Which, I know, is your agenda.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 9:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
You guys didn't want to change the Constitution in 1860 and defended states rights to slavery, we all know what happened next.


RE: I'd say the only strike fighter...
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 11:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Is that how University of Marx taught the Civil War and the conflicts of the preceding 50 years? The founding fathers still alive in the early 1800s saw the Civil War coming half a century away, not specifically due to slavery, but a wide range of cultural divisions. Some of the hottest debates were, in fact, trade disputes; the North favored protectionism, while the South favored free trade. Slavery was one of many issues, but one seized upon by the intellectually lazy.

Glad you didn't even try to refute the millionaire thing. Probably didn't bother trying; the google results might've caused you fatal cognitive dissonance.


By corduroygt on 2/16/2012 12:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't bother refuting inaccurate blog posts from Bible-thumpers, sorry. Slavery was the biggest reason, since that's where extreme capitalism gets you, ultimate cheap labor, which the south wanted to preserve and rightfully got destroyed.


By MrBlastman on 2/16/2012 10:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's well known that regardless of how you set your parameters, the vast majority of American millionaires came from a non-wealthy background.


I happen to personally know a LOT of these people (far more than the average person) you mention--and can completely back up your statement. Most of them came from poor families with very little opportunity. They had to make their own opportunity and through their own hard work, they created their fortunes. I can assure you that for most of them, it was not easy at all.


WTF is FYDP?
By lightfoot on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki