OT: does obama bring change?

[1bad65]

Which is it? All people or everyone of working age...Can't be both. So one way or the other you lied about it.

I'll answer this in a way EVEN YOU might be able to understand.

Fine, tax the kids under 15. Hell, tax them double the rate too. Since they earn NO INCOME, they dont pay INCOME taxes anyway. Idiot.

[SharkyT]

Seeing the President crack jokes about the Special Olympics was a disgrace.

Cmon , Dude. Bush ****ed us over, lied about WMDS, which led to more than 4000 americans being killed. While his cronies got rich ( Blackwater, Haliburton). That is not disgrace?.Yet joke about Special olympics is national disgrace. Either you got a ****up gauge of morality or there is something about Obama that effects you personally. I read alot of your posts. Something about Obama really **** you off? I am sure it is color of his skin. Just say it, the guy is black and you know? Stop hiding it, saying " I voted for Alan Keyes" . That is like saying I am not racist, because I got a black friend.
You need a stuart smalley moment ...to let your inner klansman out.Where were you the last eight years? I made some good money, did you

[Reality_Check]

You want to bring that up, YOU find the stats.

Once again you are stating that 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Let's stipulate that. However, I've already shown that:

"Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

So, the implication that these people do not pay into the system is suspect.

I'm talking about income tax, which is the biggest tax those who pay it pay.

Ah...but for low to middle income Americans the payroll tax is "the biggest tax those who pay it pay."

[BoulderDawg]

The problem is she had a child she could not afford to care for. It YOU have a proplem with it, give to charity. Or go to a shelter and pass out YOUR money. Leave MY money alone.

Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illiteracy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

Don't worry. Your money is not wanted here.

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

[1bad65]

I am sure it is color of his skin. Just say it, the guy is black and you know? Stop hiding it, saying " I voted for Alan Keyes" . That is like saying I am not racist, because I got a black friend.
You need a stuart smalley moment ...to let your inner klansman out.Where were you the last eight years? I made some good money, did you

Gee, another one plays the race card.

Look I've jumped all over individuals like Castro, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Marx to name a few.

Are they all black guys too?

I have a problem with socialists, and those advocating big government. Obama is both. Keyes is the direct opposite of that.

[1bad65]

Don't worry. Your money is not wanted here.

Then go give yours. Actually it is wanted, I give regularly to the Austin Food Bank, and they don't send the checks back.

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

What were they before?

[1bad65]

By the way, I can't wait to see the stats on the black Illiteracy rates.....Another credit to that great Bush admin.

Looks like the total literacy went down:

2000: 6.9%
2005: 6.0%

http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/s...gional2002.xls

[SimonM]

I have a problem with socialists, and those advocating big government. Obama is both. Keyes is the direct opposite of that.

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!

Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illiteracy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

[1bad65]

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!

Well, he is by me. And by alot of others. When you say your goal is to "Spread the wealth around", you are a socialist. Period.

[1bad65]

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

Birth rates and illegitamacy rates are two different things.

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.

If the solution to education is more money, every child in the US should be a genius.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

Well it won't. The teacher's union is determined to stamp out as much potential competition as possible. I wonder why?

[SimonM]

Well a gross generalization, even one repeated by many, is no more true just because of it's repetition.

Socialism is a very specific set of economic, sociological and philosophical principles which is much more involved than just "spreading around wealth".

As you have claimed that the distribution of wealth is the primary function of capitalism that would make, by your definition, every capitalist a socialist.

As this is clearly false, and not a position you would be any more likely to subscribe to than I it becomes evident that your definintion of "Socialist" needs refinement.

I have endeavored to give you a working definition in the last few days.

[1bad65]

I indeed mistyped.

I meant to say the illegitimacy rates have shot through the roof.

I apologize for the error. And I admit I made the error.

[BoulderDawg]

Looks like the total literacy went down:

2000: 6.9%
2005: 6.0%

http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/s...gional2002.xls

Which is it? Did they go down or did they "Go through the roof"?......can't be both.

I think you have this lying thing down to an art......much better than Obama.

[BoulderDawg]

Then go give yours. Actually it is wanted, I give regularly to the Austin Food Bank, and they don't send the checks back.

Why would you give money to charity you don't believe in?

[1bad65]

Socialism is a very specific set of economic, sociological and philosophical principles which is much more involved than just "spreading around wealth".

But that is their main goal. You can admit that, right?

As you have claimed that the distribution of wealth is the primary function of capitalism that would make, by your definition, every capitalist a socialist.

We don't think that way. Capitalists let the markets and consumers dictate where the wealth/capital go. A goos Analogy is: Capitalists believe it should be as free-flowing as possible. Socialist believe in large dams.

As this is clearly false, and not a position you would be any more likely to subscribe to than I it becomes evident that your definintion of "Socialist" needs refinement.

And as I posted above, I do not velieve that about capitalism.

I have endeavored to give you a working definition in the last few days.

I understand.

One thing I need confirmation on: There are different types of socialism/socialists, right?