Lucky...

You were doing really well and then you had to go off on one of your normal political tantrums. I'll try again in another week or two. I'll keep hope up blues outta gas too?

I would not be a hypocrite, but I understand most are, just as most right wing Nazis cry the blues when in need of help. Good point, but I am not a hypocrite.

deterrence is a joke - it treats people like cookie cutter objects - very socialistic view of humans you can only deter a criminal by taking away his opportunity to repeat offend - any other concept is just more impotent social theory to make BA grads feel good about wasting their college major choices >>>>>>>deterrence is a joke - it treats people like cookie cutter objects - very socialistic view of humans 100% agree, other than the socialistic view of people. It acts as if people can be changed and are not genetically prone to certain types of behavior. >>.>>>>you can only deter a criminal by taking away his opportunity to repeat offend - any other concept is just more impotent social theory to make BA grads feel good about wasting their college major choices Actually no, if you understood deterrence theory, you would understand that deterrence must come with the element of choice. An incapacitated criminal isn't choosing to do so, he is unable. When released he has choice.

As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Just not any of the SC regulars. Oh, non, no, no.....of course not, no.

As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done. MIKE: Mods, help, I'm outta gas.....HELP

actually, that's a good example - society wants to encourage heterosexual marriage in order to keep birthrates up in order to have a future tax base and population big enough to keep the country running so why was the marriage penalty structured to charge more for a married couple than for taxing each separately? Because PR is more important than real societal benefits..... any of these social influence taxes are either impotent or so poorly thought out that they typically turn out counterproductive - great example I don't think the legislators give a shit about birth rates, hence taxes. That's too far in the future. Remember, the same group of moral under-the-stall-tapping freaks in denial also wanted to pass the 28th Amendment to be the Homophobe Amendment. SO this is about spreading their venemous ideology. As for taxes, the sin tax and and luxury taxes are the most compelling. The marriage penalty was more moral crap from the side that brings us that daily.

nonsense, that's just the PR - the only reason is to get more money and that's where the money is, and it's focused on a subgroup so that enough people aren't affected by it to be perturbed. If it's such an effective mechanism, why isn't there a 'murder' tax? There is a murder tax, it's called a defense team ....just ax OJ. More along the line of civil measures, criminal measures have their own deterrence as in prison, death. BTW, criminal deterrence is just lip service, but taht is the rationale.

Oh I realize that's sometimes how the taxes are "sold" to the voters and I also realize that people could change their behaviors as a result of certain taxes being "too high", but they usually don't. Usually they just pony up the dough and keep doing what they've been doing. Same could be said of criminal deterrence, it's supposed to work but with a 70%+ recitivism rate it really doesn't. Still that doesn't change the motive to write taxes.

Well, depends what Lucky meant. Taxes DO influence behaviours. Its not their main purpose (as you pointed out) but its important to keep it in mind nonetheless. It's not generally the absolute purpose of all taxes, but some taxes that applies. For instance this moral turd of a president went against the, "marriage penalty" meaning we now have a single penalty. The best example is that of sin taxes and luxury taxes, but with a little thought we could include others.

As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others.

Uh, no. Not even vaguely. Taxes are to pay for things that we as individuals can't. Things like; " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . " In more modern (and not quite so poetic) language that would be things like; police, military, interstate infrastructure (roads, water projects), medical care for those unable to provide for themselves that would otherwise pose a medical threat to society. How do you define sin taxes and luxury taxes? You can talk disposition all day, but to talk resons for collection can include things like deterrence.

I didn't read it here, is that a problem? Not at all. I was just curious why you started a thread about stuff that was news back in June of 2006. Because I weatched an interview this morning. Thx for helping the substance.

And you keep voting in those who perpetuate the screwing of the middle class? Nice. He's donating after he dies, is that a problem over donating it now? BTW, that would be criterion. I never thought I'd be invoking the ol' "CDIT," but it's to make a point -- the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under Clinton. So where do you get this "last ten years" from? Like someone said above, the middle class has been getting screwed for much longer than ten years...if you think electing democrats as opposed to republicans is the solution to this problem, you have a lot of homework to do. CDIT? >>>>>the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under Clinton. It's a trend under this lovely country, but the poor had a chance under Clinton. Are you saying things are fiscally better now than under Clinton? >>>>>>>>So where do you get this "last ten years" from? From an interview of Buffet I watched this morning. >>>>>>>Like someone said above, the middle class has been getting screwed for much longer than ten years...if you think electing democrats as opposed to republicans is the solution to this problem, you have a lot of homework to do. Sure they have been, but it's exponentially wayyyyyy worse now. As for home work, I've done it. 1) 1993 1USD = 1.29 CD 2001 1USD = 1.55 CD NOW 1USD = 0.96 CD 2) 1980 US debt = 1Trillion Now = >9Trillion (Clinton leveled out the debt) How's that? We can go into unemployment rates, costs of living, etc.. and we will find the same trend. Mke your point.

And what are you saying? Taxes are supposed to influence and deter behavior. Actually, no.... taxes are to raise revenue. They end up being USED to influence and deter behavior ($200 BATF tax stamp, anyone?), but your being confused over functions of government really doesn't surprise, anymore. Taxes collected are used to support programs, now you can look at it either way, but the truth is that taxes are used to deter / penaalize cetrtain behavior and to upport progrmams as well. Maybe that's why they call them sin taxes. Not all taxes are about detering behavior, but I think we can easily see the ones that are.

Perhaps we can save paper for next Nov election and if you want to vote Repub you can just tap your foot under the ballot booth.

And what are you saying? Taxes are supposed to influence and deter behavior.

I didn't read it here, is that a problem?

And you keep voting in those who perpetuate the screwing of the middle class? Nice. He's donating after he dies, is that a problem over donating it now? BTW, that would be criterion.

How about not taking the money from the people in the first place. They cut spending all the time on programs but they spend it again and never give any back. They can cut all the programs they want. They will find some other way to hand over tax dollars to people who didnt work for it. And then an average guy like you becomes disabled and cry's, "WHERE'S ALL THE HELP?" .... understand? All the answers to the questions that plague today's society AND you're telepathic (given the above) - why aren't you running for President again? The statement I made was, "And then an average guy like you becomes disabled and cry's, "WHERE'S ALL THE HELP?" .... understand?" Point is, we can all find ourselves in a position of need, so to hink we can't is idiotic.

>>>>>>>I'm saying that by giving every one on the planet a degree, the ones that aren't up to the gold standard will be worthless because the competition for that graduate job *will* have a gold standard degree. You are being extreme and claiming everyone would want to go to college. There are some people I could pay $1000 per semester and they couldn't drag their dumb asses there. Others beg, borrow and scrape to get the $$ to go. My point was that simple need by the country shouldn't be a factor; if you want to go you should be able to go. BTW, there are other reasons to go other than to move on to a vocation. >>>>>>>>>Someone somewhere will have paid a lot of money for that piece of worthless paper. Education is great, even if not used in a vocation. >>>>>>>>Education is a good thing and everyone should have access to as much education as they want. But simply sending everyone to college wont necessarily mean everyone gets to score the game winning touchdown and fuck the prom queen. Would you quit using absilutes to make your weak point? It's not about everyone, it's about everyone who wants to go. >>>>>>>>>You can see it happening in the UK already. 'A' levels have been dumbed down so much now that unless you have A* passes in five subjects, you don't have anything at all. Yea, grade inflation - here too. Remember, grades are as much political as they are accademic. >>>>>>>>>In fact that for the best universities, 'A' levels alone are not even enough to get you a place. Entrance exams are now becoming the norm. So what do the government do? Bring out a replacement for 'A' levels because the corporate world have recognised that an 'A' level is worthless, every school kid has a fist full of them. Somewhere in your life you lost the understanding that school is a place to learn and you apparently think it's a place to get grades.

Ah, there's that old lie again.... *chuckles* Mike are ya out of gas? Why not tell us why it is supposedly a lie? I've already answered it above and it's been rebutted over and over again over the last several years - the search button is up there ^^^ and Google *is* your friend. Of course, you may not recognize the sites since it's not information you'll find on daily kos, think progress or their ilk... AKA.....out of gas...

Some people are able to see connections that others miss. Of course, some of us see those connections AND realize they are little more than petty, irrelevant distractions. But enough about your post that has zero to do with the subject matter.

Some people are able to see connections that others miss. If you can't see a connection between government spending and this thread, it's not my fault. Maybe include pictures next time.

The war on poverty and programs like Headstart have given us two generations of fat slobs who can't put a proper sentence together. What's next? Since your party is all about initiating war on things, how about: - The war on fat slobs - The war on those who can't put a proper sentence together

>>>>>>>>Most likely fire protection is included in the toll you pay to use the highway. And then the whining would be: "My car didn't catch fire, why do I have to pay?"