....

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 8th, 2005 at 5:00 pm

LOL

Its ok, as long as it doesn't look like this:

Image
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
spudboy
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 8:00 pm

...

Postby spudboy » Apr 8th, 2005 at 11:19 pm

Image
"Don't shit in my mouth and call it a Sundae..."

User avatar
Phoenix
Elite Member
Posts: 1980
Joined: Nov 24th, 2004 at 3:13 pm

Postby Phoenix » Apr 8th, 2005 at 11:29 pm

Good lord look what my little post started. Bottom line is most of those who come here are good hard working people who provide services we need. Should they get here legaly, yeah but at the same time its not like most of these people are comming to be bums and leach off our social services, people go to Canada to do that.
Former HF clan member, server admin, all around troll

"You don't do things right once-in-a-while. You do them right all the time."- Vince Lombardi

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Apr 8th, 2005 at 11:47 pm

Dude... is that gif file real? omg that is fuckin horrific...

User avatar
b0ba
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 10:17 am

Postby b0ba » Apr 9th, 2005 at 4:09 pm

its not that bad, im sure he didnt even burn himself...

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Apr 9th, 2005 at 4:17 pm

2) Cut back on ad valorem taxation where it is overtaxed (in Texas, for example) and expand the sales and franchise taxes. This will allow current budgets to function and expand the tax burden across a much wider segment of the population.


PLEASE tell me you are not for increasing taxes. How about decreasing unnecessary expenditures, glutenous services and benefits, and reducing taxes in all forms for everyone?

I agree with pretty much everything else camps.

I say let the free market set the labor rates - and if Mexicans want to come to USA to farm for $3 a day, fine, but the employer who sponsors them is responsible for health care and education burdens they create. So suddenly all the farming goes overseas, much like the production of trinkets, clothing and electronics. So What? Do you know that one of the biggest welfare programs is the American Farm? I have inlaws who are actually PAID to not grow crops. Again, big government steps in where it has no business (pun intended) and screws up free market forces.
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 9th, 2005 at 4:55 pm

If govt. stays out, the market will adapt. Any economist will tell you that. Only in the event of total collapse should the govt. interfere.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 9th, 2005 at 6:34 pm

Catalyst22 wrote:If govt. stays out, the market will adapt. Any economist will tell you that. Only in the event of total collapse should the govt. interfere.

:roll: You don't have a clue how our economy works.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 9th, 2005 at 8:39 pm

Nice try Suck... I actually do... Show me a subsidy or bail-out that has done more good than harm in the long run. If you intend to disagree back it up... I did my part earlier, your turn now.

LOL, I bet you are pro energy deregulation also....

*edit*

Rather than categorize myself I choose who I respect and what ideas of those I respect that I accept. I don't buy into everything Nader has to say, but he is one sharp guy none the less.

Ralph Nader
The savings and loan debacle
Perhaps still the largest corporate welfare expenditure of all time-ultimately set to cost taxpayers $500 billion in principal and interest-the S&L bailout is in large part a story of political corruption, the handiwork of the industry's legion of lobbyists and political payoffs to campaign contributors. The well-connected S&L industry successfully lobbied Congress for a deregulatory bill in the early 1980s, which freed the industry from historic constraints and paved the way for the speculative and corrupt failures that came soon after. Then more industry campaign contributions and lobbying led the Congress to delay addressing the problem - resulting in more S&L failures and skyrocketing costs for corrective measures. When Congress finally did address the problem, it put the bailout burden-totaling hundreds of billions of dollars-on the backs of taxpayers, rather than on the financial industry.


Subsidizeing electric co-ops to then subsidize farmers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy ... /wm436.cfm

Airline bailouts, the truth.
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Ter ... ailout.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/116288/

Nah, but we should bail out our corporations because otherwise some corporation from another country might come in and do it. Bullshit. Nah, we have to bail out corporations or the cost of the goods and services will cause a collapse of our economy... This could be true in some cases, but in the vast majority of the cases a nonbailout would = bankrupcy private sector(bank note) mandatory restructuring. Remember if your corporation is directly tied into the economy on a grand scale, then the banks that hold your note do not wish to see you fail any more than you do. The banks want the govt. bailout as much or more than the actual corporation. The share holders want the bailout also. The employees.. sure... they want the bailout... but have you seen one of these bailouts that didn't imediately after have massive layoffs?

Farm subsidies are awesome.... Most farms that are actually produceing the goods that you and I buy are large corporations. The average farm size in the U.S. in 1999 is 434 acres. http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/report.htm

"Growth in owner-operators ins a major structural change in U.S. farming since 1940. Nearly 90 percent of all operators now own part or all of the land they farm, whereas only 65 percent were owners 5 decades earlier. This reflects both an increase in part-owner and a decrease in tenant (non-owner) farmers."

Sounds like these farm welfare programs are paying off... The people who always owned the land and reap the bennefit of subsidies have booted the tennants off their land in order to reap the rewards.... Yeah, subsidies helped the lower class farmers that were scratching out a small existence... BS.

A few landlords Own Over half the rented farmland
http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_10.pdf
Over half the landlords report rent receipts that are less than 6 percent of the value of their rented land and buildings. They own over 30 percent of the value of assets used in farming, pay 42 percent of the real estate taxes on farmland, and hold only 8 percent of all farm debt.


You can argue that bailouts are good for the economy all you want, but they only bennefit the wealthy. I have not seen them bennefit anyone outside the wealthy in any way ever.

Show me your proof and I'll show you your wrong... Lets get this thing going :P

You are buying into what your govt wants you to believe. When it comes to spending tax payer money, they make it sound like common sense. "A corporation begins to fail (like the airlines) and they tell us that the "US infrastructure is completely dependent on the AirLine industry" Well of course it is... Doesn't mean the only option is to throw money into a bottomless pitt. It means REREGULATE until the crisis is over. The failure of the California energy market doesn't mean we bailout the state of California, it means we recognize the inherent flaws in the poor implimentation of deregulation and REREGULATE until they fix the flaws... No corporation is going to allow this to happen, they want free $ and they want untethered access to run their crumbling companies as they see fit. I have actually heard it said that "It would be unfair to the power brokers who invested in California if we reregulated the market to fix it" LOL.

A bit about my background:
Spent 5 years Tradeing and Dispatching Alamitoes Bay, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach power stations for AES under contract thru Williams Energy. I do have a pretty good understanding of free market, deregulation, and general economics.

Nice try tho :P

*edit*
I also feel I need to make this statement as a disclaimer of sorts. I can be wrong, have been wrong, and will be wrong again. I am not an economist, I have just studied those things that interest me. There is always going to be something I miss. Nothing I say should be taken as factual evidence. Everyone should make up his/her own mind by research of their own. I do enjoy a good debate, as long as it stays on good terms.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 9th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

LOL, btw I just noticed in that little video that the guy that was trying to help poured a beer on his back as he ran out of the room.... That is hilarious.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 9th, 2005 at 10:39 pm

Catalyst22 wrote:LOL, btw I just noticed in that little video that the guy that was trying to help poured a beer on his back as he ran out of the room.... That is hilarious.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Apr 9th, 2005 at 11:10 pm

Dude man... that video is insane, i can see how they couldve faked it but i dont think it is faked. Looks too real... everytime i look at it... my mouth just drops man... phew.... insane...

User avatar
Mouser
Elite Member
Posts: 1633
Joined: Dec 12th, 2004 at 8:34 pm

Postby Mouser » Apr 9th, 2005 at 11:29 pm

lollerz. Cat's the only one trying to continue the debate and even he fell victim to the goofy imagery.......ooh...shiny thing....

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Apr 9th, 2005 at 11:49 pm

EatMoreLead wrote:PLEASE tell me you are not for increasing taxes. How about decreasing unnecessary expenditures, glutenous services and benefits, and reducing taxes in all forms for everyone?


Yeah, EML, I am definitely NOT for increasing any taxes. I also know that in reality, unfortunately, we will never get the government accept any change that would decrease their current influx of tax capital. Heck, we're trying to lower the ad valorem increase cap from 10% to 5% here and it doesn't even look like that's going to pass (we'll know more on Tuesday when the vote is put to the Texas House). And that's only lowering the amount of INCREASE they will receive, not taking money away from them. The only real way that we'll ever get anything accomplished is to spread the tax burden over a larger base so as to decrease the individual burden.

Camps

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 10th, 2005 at 3:20 am

Move to Oklahoma where the general populace is big on "temporary" sales tax increases... The beauty about the "temporary" sales tax increases is that they can keep them going indefinately without putting them to a vote of the people again.

We pay more in taxes than most states, and have fewer services.

Something you guys might find interesting, surprising, or just down right irritateing.

I work for a 501c3 organization. We run Head Start, Housing, Senior Nutrition and several other programs. We have an anual budget of $15Mil. We employ 180+ people. We are the very model of inefficency. Rather than hire people who are competent we hire those that we are trying to help. So our staff is filled with ignorance. How do you run a company effeciently when your staff doesn't even know how to turn their computer on, let alone comunicate on any electronic device outside of a fax machine.

The gross amounts of waste our agency produces and the money we spend on archaic technology would gag most people. The sad truth is that we are far more advanced than most agencies. When Bush was on his big push to move the nonprofit focus over to the Churches I thought to myself "This is great, lets let our ideology handle it, because god knows they are good with money" yeah right.... The simple truth is that all these programs that have been enacted are wasteing tax payer money hand over fist. They need to be restructured. Our agency is running off of the same framework that was set down 50 years ago. There is no intermingling of Community Action Agencies in the U.S. and the Community Action Association is 3 fucking people in washington. We spend more money on lobying for more money than we do on training.

I have seen first hand how these programs help people. They are terrific. First time home buyers can get help with closing costs. Someone off the street needs a meal and we help them out. Can't afford day care? We take care of that also. Great programs, great ideas. Poor implimentation.

My healthcare at my current company costs me $375 a month for me and my two kids. Why can't we get good employees? A) We pay jack shit, so we make up for it by having 3* the staff we would need. I'd rather pay $40k a year to a competent janitor than pay $20k a year for a janitor and $20k for the person who holds the bucket.

The nonprofit agencies that absorb a huge chunk of your tax money need to be organized. They need to be structured in such a way that they can barter for healthcare and other assorted cost savings such as IT infrastructure and server hosting.

From what I have seen, we waste on average half of our grant money and donations on trivial bs... We just upgraded our fucking copier from an 85ppm to a 115ppm. Why? Because we print everything! Document Management System would rule... But nobody wants something "confusing" and our staff "would not be able to learn it". Fire your fucking staff and hire people who can do the job so that those people can help the ones you fired and then some.

Not that I'm bitter about this or anything...
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 10th, 2005 at 3:53 am

I'm still cracking up over that guy pouring the beer on his friends back... or maybe it wasn't his friend and he saw an opportunity to pour beer on this jackass drinking a burning shot.

WTF was that guy thinking? OH SHIT! I'M ON FIRE! I MUST RUN INTO THE OTHER ROOM AND WRITE THIS DATE DOWN ON MY CALENDAR! He just bolts into the other room. Maybe he wanted to hurry up and spit fire on his exwife. God knows I've wanted to do that on many an occasion.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Timmy
Moderator
Posts: 1324
Joined: Mar 18th, 2003 at 6:45 pm

Postby Timmy » Apr 10th, 2005 at 12:02 pm

Catalyst22 wrote:I'm still cracking up over that guy pouring the beer on his friends back... or maybe it wasn't his friend and he saw an opportunity to pour beer on this jackass drinking a burning shot.

WTF was that guy thinking? OH SHIT! I'M ON FIRE! I MUST RUN INTO THE OTHER ROOM AND WRITE THIS DATE DOWN ON MY CALENDAR! He just bolts into the other room. Maybe he wanted to hurry up and spit fire on his exwife. God knows I've wanted to do that on many an occasion.



I think he was running for the bathroom if I remember from when I saw the full clip, he was obviously too drunk and or stupid to simply smother the flames....


Tim~

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Apr 10th, 2005 at 3:15 pm

lol what an idiot

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Apr 10th, 2005 at 8:06 pm

Well done Suck, well done.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Apr 10th, 2005 at 10:13 pm

I'm backing Suck up on this one ...

-PUPPY

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 10th, 2005 at 10:56 pm

Our recessions have gotten shorter and our expansions have gotten longer. Social welfare programs also eximplify our government interfering in our economy. Come back and talk to me once you've taken a few econ courses and a business course or two. Bitch.


-Grant

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 11th, 2005 at 12:53 am

Suck... I don't guess you read what I wrote because what I wrote agrees with what you just said...
*edit* it agrees with what you just said about interference not the other stuff you pulled out of your ass*/edit*
But your valid point is... nonexistent...

Come on you can do better than that. Come up with some evidence.

If you want to "get an education" on our economy and the history of recessions you may want to go directly to the source next time :P

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 11th, 2005 at 2:28 am

Quite honestly, I don't care enough to get engaged in an economic discussion since I've got enough of those every day in the classroom. I'm not gonna' waste my time looking up a bunch of shit to make a huge-ass post that nobody will read anyway on a subject that I'm already well versed enough in to be secure in not caring that someone else may have a less than correct opinion. I'm not trying to be snide, but that's how I feel about the issue. I only got into this because your comment that I quoted was way off base. If someone else wants to take this arguement up, be my guest. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


-Grant

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Apr 11th, 2005 at 9:46 am

Suck. wrote:
Catalyst22 wrote:If govt. stays out, the market will adapt. Any economist will tell you that. Only in the event of total collapse should the govt. interfere.

:roll: You don't have a clue how our economy works.



If you do not wishe to get embroiled in debates, and discussing your oppinion is a waste of time... Then do not make statements like the above. You baite me, and if I bite you run... shame.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Suck.
Benefactor
Posts: 3146
Joined: Nov 13th, 2004 at 8:36 pm

Postby Suck. » Apr 11th, 2005 at 11:01 am

:lol:


-Grant


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests