justnzane

ooh, i smell a newbie death match

nice

Well, I am glad I cut him from the Phelons on TSW sim league

No, you STFU man. You can't come up with constructive criticism for what I am saying. If you don't agree with what I am saying, then give a reason, instead of shitting in my cornflakes. As far as Simon's posts, you know on the surface I would think that equal is fair. However, the more I see, the more I believe equal isn't always fair. While you dismiss $20/ week, I believe it can make a considerable difference to the poor guy, much more so than the $200 to the wealthy guy. As far as the kids backgrounds go, on the surface they have the same access, to public education, and as much as I love public education, it is hard to ignore the disparity in quality of education between an urban school and a suburban school. This disparity shows a lack of opportunity among urban youths. At least we both agree that the gov't needs reform, even if we disagree on how it should be reformed.

Deep Voice Bungee Jumper JiS Not a Hamster

nah my job is corrupting the youth of america by sending them pro-brussels cows propaganda

Actually, my uncle has helped my parents out, and my parents are the example of how to foolishly budget and waste money. As a result, my parents burned bridges with a great amount of my family. I see that I fundamentally different views from some here. I don't see equal as being fair in the case of taxation. However, you can talk about everyone having opportunity, but the poor have less opportunity than the wealthy do. To parallel your example of the 10,000/yr guy living off of muscatel to a real example of a poor urban black kid whose family is living off of Little Debbies. This poor kid has a much higher chance of ending up in jail and a much lower chance of ending up with a college degree. You can still say that there is an opportunity for this black kid, but it is hardly equal to the opportunities wealthier counterparts. I do agree that the government doesn't have the greatest track record as far as efficiency. However, a lot of the programs in place were implemented to save the poor and disadvantaged from starving, from being homeless, and from being taken advantage of and exploited by corporations/ the wealthy. Unfortunately, people take advantage of these programs like some take advantage of the tax code. When either of these things happen, we must hope that our gov't has some reform.

I agree with the sentiment, but he shouldn't be locked up. We need some crazy guys like this running around society for our entertainment.

True, but that person still needs that extra thousand just to eat. Whereas the $million/yr guy isn't going to be starving by losing 100 grand. To me, the opportunity of having food on the table is a huge lifestyle difference. I hate to say it, but we haven't been too democratic in recent years with the lobbyists having more influence on what happens in D.C. than your average American citizen. Besides, what you are talking about is the concept of Reaganomics, which basically allows the wealthy to exploit the poor. The wealthy don't share the wealth by choice, so the government must intervene. Quite honestly, I have lived in deep poverty most of my childhood and throughout my college years. However, for a part of my childhood, I was granted custody to an uncle who had/has a decent amount of wealth. He actually taught me the lessons of not going overboard with spending $ and to conserve and save. Most of where I am at this point is because of that experience. True, but rightfully so. That is the problem of having a crappy economy: everyone suffers. Our local, state, federal gov'ts need to do their jobs. FWIW, I don't hate anyone more successful than me. I am just grounded down by the reality that someone has to flip the bill for our gov't expenditures, and you can't ask for much out of the lower class (as that would be milking a dried up cow). Ok, so you don't believe in sharing the wealth and keeping it for yourself. That's fine with me, I understand that you work hard for what you have, as do I. I just see the need to be benevolent to mankind, so I share when I can.

I knew that you were going to post in this thread Olivier, that sounded delicious

...and since all NFL QB's suck so bad, the Bills should never draft another DB in the first round Signed, Bill from NYC

I'm in.

Ok just for simple example, lets say that you have a person making $10,000/yr and another making $1,000,000/yr. Now the gov't makes everyone pay 10% of their yearly income. So, this means that the $10,000/yr guy is paying $1,000 and is left with $9,000. This also means that the $1,000,000/yr guy is paying $100,000 and has $900,000 leftover. That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy. Chances are that the gov't will be assisting the $10,000/yr guy as it is. Now if the $10,000/yr guy has a lower tax rate, then it means that he will require less assistance and cuts out some of the money being traded back and forth between the citizen and gov't. Since the gov't needs to get back to the average 10% of everyone's income and the $1,000,000/yr guy has more income to take from, the gov't should and will tax this man at a higher rate than 10%. With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society.

Honestly, those that have more should pay a higher %. A flat tax rate would favor the wealthy and be unfair to the poor and lower class. Now, a million dollar swing between McCain's plan and Obama's is drastic, let alone the fact that Obama wants to raise the taxes for that tax bracket that much. But, I do agree that the wealthy are not doing their share compared to what percentage they had paid in previous decades. Therefore, they should pay a bit higher. $700,000 higher is a bit too much, some raise of taxes on that bracket would be fair. KD, yes our country is bankrupt. We owe tons of money overseas and to social security. Something to the tune of $9 trillion in debt, which equates to roughly $30,000 per citizen. Assuming that our gov't keeps outspending its budget as grossly as it has been, it is safe to say that my generation is going to suffer due to the inefficient and irresponsible behavior of our government.

I know that this post was supposed to be sarcastic, but it just came out sounding cold

HFBD Sketchy. Have fun with Pinky today too

Funny that they neglected to mention the Giants instead of Dallas or Philly. ESPN has no credibility anymore, and it shows when you do a division preview and neglect to show the defending Super Bowl Champs

Wow, I really got you going Darin. FWIW, the middle class has been rubbed out not by a "socialist" president, but as a result of NAFTA (and other trade agreements) which was H.W. Bush's agreement originally. Now, all of this exporting of jobs is largely because of a Republican congress not doing their job. Also, the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown largely in part due to W. Bush's tax cuts, which have also bankrupted the country. Now, if the "socialist" Obama has a tax plan that slams the wealthy, I am all for it. However, it looks like the upper middle class will benefit from his plan. +1 to pBills post. It is all about budget and living within your means.

funny response back, and I agree with the bolded part.

Now, you guys are taking me for being uniformed. However, that is not the case. Yes, having food in you belly, roof over your head, transportation to your job, and a little extra is still better than most have it around the world. Is 100k going to buy you everything in the world? Of course not, but it will buy enough to afford the bare necessities. Some of you guys think that we are entitled buy the little extras here and there, but having the little extras is the difference between being really poor to middle class to being rich. 100k/yr can afford few of these extras, but not superfluous excess like a yacht, a plane, and a 10 bedroom home with 5 bathrooms and a pool. The difference between living comfortably or barely making it is, as EinI mention, living within your means. You will find more people that make 100k/year living comfortably than people making 30k/year. This brings me to my definition of rich. I see richness as a term of fulfillment. So by my definition, a man that makes $30k/yr, but provides enough for his kids can be rich. Most making $30k/year aren't rich. I see it more as a state of mind. By the same token, you can have Bill Gates not being rich enough. Just my $.02

God I miss the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smiley hail Jack, I like that link as well. Watching paparazzi get their asses beat down makes me giggle with joy.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=117523 Paparazzi tried to get "highly valuable" pictures of Mathew McConaughy surfing. Instead of getting the money shot, the paparazzi got their asses kicked by territorial Malibu surfers that do not like cameras on their turf. In the video, you get to see one of the scumbag photographers getting his ass kicked and literally thrown around by two surfers. I like it that normal people are beating the sh-- out of these scumbag photographers. Now, I wish we could do the dame to Jerry Sullivan

I'm still for shooting South Park Movie style

+1 Winehouse is worthless to me. Crackheads with sh------- music don't get sympathy from me. Carlin is the man that really introduced laughter back into my life during the rough times I've had. Without him, I don't know who or what I'd be. The world is a worse place w/o him. Hopefully, he is making the afterlife much better for the departed.

just read my sig... this years SB thread was great, but unfortunately lost in the crash.