Lucky...

I guess, "make" was a general word. At the ame time, tax tables do make people into classes. As it is now, if you have a wage of 200k+ your taxes are so low as compared to other nations that you are enabled to enjoy class mobility. Whereas if your wage is 30k/yr with no benefits you spend all that income dealing with basics so you are unable to enjoy class mobility. These tables change over time of course and these are teh tables that, "make" people into certain classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Table at the bottom-left. This is why during the roaring 20's, they weren't roaring for poor / MC, they were roaring for the rich where the top 0.1% held as much worth as the entire lower 40% leading to the Great Depression. So teh tax system did, "make" these guys filthy rich versus after Hoover in 1932 and FDR in 33 and beyond virtually quadrupled the top tax rate from 24% to 94%. Of course swell guys like Reagan and GWB lowered that to, "make" people filthy wealthy again. That's what I meant, it was a bit vague. We do, but it varies. At times it's ridiculous (1925-28, 1986-88, 2002 onward). And at times it's too high, and others it's just right. I think 50-60% is just right. And we're ow enough to bring foreign investors over w/o choking ourselves.

You guys are funny I see nothing funny about gang rape. YMMV, of course. Neither do I teach. But the fact is you twist things to try and make points just as you have here with my polst (see, that is funny) Now why dont you go start a thread about Kenndy and Dodd and their waitress standwich teach...... Hey, Rush is here; how's your party doing? Looking fwd to the 1960's where the Dems held like 68 seats in the Senate? And then say: the Dems did it too.

Unless the employer doesn't conduct a background check and given the circumstances, trapped over there in hell, an employee who has like criminal conduct convictions in his past commits a like crime, well, it was forseeable. But if teh co agrees to all investigations and the alleged violator doesn't have a record and the co has no way of knowing the employee would behave likethat, I don't see negligence. Which is the right decision. I worked for Boeing and cut my finger badly on some exotic metal so I went to the local Boeing paramedic. Before I receieved care the paramedics wante dme to sign a waiver not to sue....corp America is so greedy and pathetic. Of course I refused and of course I didn't sue; what a fucking joke the gov has let the country get to. Just as with this girl's contract being unenforceable, mine would have been to, but ti should be illegal and sanctionable to even draw up a contract like that. On another note I've worked military contracts and I felt like a whore. Basically what I wrote. Or if a corporation draws up a contract with such unconscionability such as this that the judge/jury can declare the ultimate damges trebble in a seperate hearing after any monetary award.

This is onme of those cases where we're both right! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_arc A reflex arc is the neural pathway that mediates a reflex action. In higher animals, most sensory neurons do not pass directly into the brain, but synapse in the spinal cord. This characteristic allows reflex actions to occur relatively quickly by activating spinal motor neurons without the delay of routing signals through the brain, although the brain will receive sensory input while the reflex action occurs. The main source of the reflex action is through the bottom muscles. There are two types of reflex arc - autonomic reflex arc (affecting inner organs) and somatic reflex arc (affecting muscles).

So we should make the uber-rich even more rich? That's a great idea; why haven't you run for any office yet? With a progressive system it doesn't work that way; yours is a juvenile example of teh tax system. Would you like to address how when the top tax brkt drops below 30% we are in danger, below 20% we're dead? I didn't think so. I want those with money, those who have made/stolen. inherited, acquired their massive waelth via teh US system to pay the most to the system by a long stretch. I also want a baseline of very basic benefits for all, so if you want to bastardize what I'm saying and pretend there is a connection between the very rich and teh very poor then enjoy yourself, but it isn't realistic. You, like others, are still unable to draw a connection between taxation and spending, othe rthan very indirectly at the national debt and we know who owns most of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. You'll say that since the millionaires don't consent, this is theft. That is ridiculous, that's like saying I don't freely-give the authorities the right to control traffic at 65, yet when I accept a license and drive I agree to that. It's not a law I agree with and I'm constantly violating it, but it is a legally imposed law, even tho I don't freely consent to it. That's the same as what you're talking about. There are tax laws legally drafted and passed, yet you disagree with them so you want to call them theft to draw the ire, yet it would be the same for me to call speeding laws, oppression and call cops oppressors for enforcing them. See, it's a bit out of touch to refer to taxes as theft unless they are truely imposed against the law, that would be theft. And before the taxation without representation argument, you may not like your representatives and their policies, but they are the ones who are legally elected to make those decisions. Oooow, show me how those pesky Dems have stolen 54 trillion dollars. How do you get that? I agree that the Republicans who are responsibel for almost all of the debt are the vilians, I just don't agree with your numbers. It is bad, just not as bad as you say. That's why we have a safety net system, so when people are in trouble tehy don't starve, as in the Great Depression; a Republican's dream. Depending upon what you earn, you will be forking over as per tax schedlues.

You can't just make Dr's, Nurses, and supplies pop out of thin air. How would you handle a crisis with 300 people needing care and only the facilities/staff/supplies to handle 100? Declare it a right - that'll solve all the problems. Declare it a privilege, that'll make it exclusive....oh wait, we're doing that now....NM.

These are the death panels the right are teling us about. If teh right weren't so stubborn they wouldn't fight a solution that would fix many problems current and many future: - Take the rest of the stimulus and a) start building hospitals all over the US b) start sending many people to med school / RN school - This would put the construction trades back to work and start to fill up the hospitals in future years - Unemployment would drop and employee taxes would climb - Move to a massive public option and charge a reasonable fee, causing the HMO's to drop fees or drop outof sight: only the rich would use them and they would be better if you had teh money. But, you see, the right would complain about that citing it would be socialism, yet when the F-22 gets scrubbed they cry. So they would rather epidemics control the human race and overbuild the military so that bombs control the human race.

Ino01, I addressd your 7 deadly sins and the entire long post, love to hear a response to all of it. If I didn't say before, the graph you posted is not only from Heritage, a RW agenda site, it's a prognostication of what would have been. It's not empirical in the least. Love to hear your responses.

I'd speculate this is the only reliable system to decide who to help. What, a guess or personal opinion w/o any science or observation going into it? Are you saying that's the only reliable system to decide who to help?

Oh, so give it back to the highest 5% then? They pay almost all the taxes, not you or me. And about that, 12 trillion bucks is what has to go back the gov before we can give any more money back as if it was overpaid. So talk of overpaid is ridiculous.

Yes, it's called an autonomic reaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system

I'm not either way on the conspiracy, but what does the bolt action have to do with accuracy? And 80 yards isn't shit, even with flip up sites. I'm a poor shot and I coulda made it with a very little shooting range practice.

http://autos.aol.com/article/crash-1959-chevy Did the 59 have an engine? Is this a BS test to push so-called safety equP?

Probably, but for anyone that watches politics, it's a huge loss for the R's, I would think.

WRONG! The premise Captain operates under is that both Democratic and Republican leaders are all dysfunctional human civil servants that can't get a real job, so they picked politics.

WRONG! The premise Captain operates under is that both Democratic and Republican leaders are all dysfunctional human civil servants that can't get a real job, so they picked politics.

WOW, I thought these guys hit bottom already. Love to hear Rush's take on this. I think this thread will be vacant of any conservative posters. I'm a conservative (not Republican) and I think it's pretty bad that they are not supporting this, even of they don't like Al Franken. I'm also not surprised. Is that what you wanted? It's always the new guy to fuck things up. JK. The typical uber conservative is so ghey in love with corporatism that they don't want to regulate them in any way, so that was the typical response to which I was referring.

Personal feelings. I see. You used an objective approach. LOL. I wrote mine before I read yours - get offa my wavelenght.

Personal feelings. There are people who would use some help. And there are people who think they are entitled to help, and would abuse anything they got. Well at least you based it upon some empirical basis. For a second I thought it was purely a guess.

WOW, I thought these guys hit bottom already. Love to hear Rush's take on this. I think this thread will be vacant of any conservative posters.

If there really was a connection from Mob to Oswald to assassination, it would have been proven more or less conclusively by now. I've read a TON of Kennedy assassination literature in my lifetime. I know what the evidence is, and what it lacks. Things like that can only remain hidden for so long. Sorry, it just ain't there. Remember, Captain operates under the premise: - All Dems = bad - All Repubs = good So factor that in when you read his posts. Hey Captain, wasn't Reagan a real successful president?

Then the way to boost the economy would be to give $100K to a rich person instead of giving it to 100 poor persons - with a condition that everything which is not spent, should be paid back. It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway. A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax So you think supply side works then. Look at the tax brackets leading to the 1990 recession and this current mess; the top brkts were 28% and 35%. There were other attributes that contributeed as well, but these were the worst recessions since 1954 when Congress imposed a federal income tax on individuals. Not to mention that the 3 or 4 years leading to the Great Depression were also years with a 25% top brkt., then Hoover lowered it a % more thinking the market was too tightly bound. 12 million dead people later he realized he was wrong. I think your idea that supply side (trickle down) economics works is so antiquated that only stark regressives agree. In times like this they might just pocket it in fear that times will get worse, which will make..... times worse. Poor people will spend that $1000 so fast your head will spin and jobs created. I know, not "FAIR." Unless the poor person doesn't have it, then they live in a box. Or maybe they spend it on silly things like HC.

Ok, but if it were more comprehensive we would have the conservatives freaking out about Socialism. Most conservatives use unemp comp in their lives, so they justify it by saying they earned it thru their employer. Their employer doesn't have a choice as whether to pay into the unemp ins program, so this is Socialist redistribution. But it is limited and weak and really doesn't do much. At times I think it's warranted. Since unemp comp is so minimal and temporary and deed arises, these are also required programs. They're really different than unemployment, in that unemployment is terminal, other programs can run on forever. I think money is also needed for basics, but I would as well rather work toward the, 'show a man to fish' mentality as well. I think even some funding toward 4-year education 'can' also be in order. To move toward a society that places emphasis on health and education is a society that can compete in the global market. But you see all the resistance from the right and ultimately from the people, so we are really a dumb society that deserves our form of government. I think we all agree that terminal welfare leaches are not helpful for society, the difference is some would rather ignore them and others deal with the situation. I always laugh when I hear people saying how some would intentionally get arrested to get a free roof and free jail education. Well thx, but I don't think it's salesmanship, I mean it sincerely. And when people talk to me constructively, I answer constructively. If I get sarcastic it's due to people dodging issues; I spend a lot of time researching data and I like to get info that makes me research more, or better yet, others research some and make a good argument. Most well-researched responses elicit opposing views defending their ideologies rather than discussing a point, so they g nowhere. I'd like to see some quality opposing responses to my Great Depression thread.

Yea, it's Capitalism or Communism; true, they have a lot in common like distribution of wealth. At first I was skeptical of your assertion, now I realize you're right: - Capitalism = rich people stealing all the money via a (gag, puke, cough) free market - Communism = the government stealing all the money via no wage controls and general oppression People who draw a substantive contrast of the end result crack me up

A lot of, "it's" in there, but I guess you're saying that keeping unemployment low doesn't help poor people on an individual basis. I think that's ridiculous. I think welfare in general should play 2 roles: - Sustaining them at bare levels now - Educating them so they can get off the welfare roles. I think if the gov fails at either then they have failed at all levels and then some of these people can turn to crime or juts die. I don't think the ocnservtaive doctrine cares about the latter. Really? In some blue states, more likely there than red states, unemployment is high enough to pay your bills and if your career field is dying they have paid retraining to reinstitute you back into the workforce in a different area. In many red states it's unemp comp that doesn't meet the bills and then fuck you. Again, the conservative message heard loud and clear. So to address your point, I think a real comprehensive program that brings an unemployed worker back to the workforce is substantively helpful. Yes, a lot of partial programs designed to plug holes, but not to fix problems. Below a certain income, say 25k/yr, state education is free. How about that? Then these people have no reason to not succeed, so we'll who the lazy ones are vs the poor ones who want to excell. And that's a great approach, benefits for teh poor are feel-good measures taht plug holes as tehy become more obvious, but few states have comprehensive programs, that would be Socialism and we all know Socialism doesn't work