..

Greedy people are greedy no matter who the president is. They're gonna stick the money offshore anyway.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Funny thing is, the 5 comment on that page is a guy saying that, "what did you expect they are waiting for Obama to get voted out so they can bring the money back home"


I cant even really comment on how absurd that sounds.[/QUOTE]

Well what do you expect? Most teapartiers are thinking they'd do the exact same thing if they had > 1 million dollars.

There has been so much government bashing in the past 30 years, people no longer understand that taken on the whole the government benefits all of our lives but it does cost money.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well what do you expect? Most teapartiers are thinking they'd do the exact same thing if they had > 1 million dollars.

There has been so much government bashing in the past 30 years, people no longer understand that taken on the whole the government benefits all of our lives but it does cost money.[/QUOTE]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928

Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.

After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.

Matt Taibbi on the response to this article: "Rand's Medical Group: Obama Hypnotized Voters"

"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."

"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"

"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."

I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much." Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.
Click to expand...

I think you are 100 percent right. When you made that statement, this is what I immediately thought about.
 
It's no different than folks who complain about social programs, but are drawing social security benefits. It's ridiculous, I'm not even sure these people understand why that's so fucked up. It boils down to perception, they don't see most welfare recipients as anyone like themselves, they're the exception, not the rule. Most people on welfare are a bunch of lazy (often minority) people. That's their perception, that's what dingbats like Palin feed on.
 
100k people have from $10-16T in cash and assets in tax havens alone. HAHAHA...holy fuck. Is it any wonder why the world is going to shit?

I mean companies sitting on over $2T in the US is bad enough. This is some seriously dumbfounding stuff.
 
the 1% is not the problem? Actually, make that the 0.00004% maybe...

Then again, I have $600 in a Canadian savings account.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']280 billion dollars in taxes that are not collect seems a bit of a problem. Then you have to understand that this has probably been going on for decades......even if people moved it just when Obama came into office thats

one trillion one hundred twenty billion

Thats a good size of the national debt there......and thats without actually doing anything.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it's in regards to tax revenue all over the world and not just the US. Not that it makes it any better of course.

If the study isn't too long, I'll read later. Looks like they're in the process of uploading it.
 
granted some of that DOES get repatriated and subject to US tax, just not necessarily one lump sum in the year where the projections are made.
On one hand, we are in a global economy these days so some offshoring is to be expected and even encouraged. For instance, if some German company starts making affordable alternative energy solutions there's no reason to not get behind that as the technology can spread through licensing and such. So it can be a good thing. On the other hand, it's completely absurd to think that 100% of foreign investment is done with benevolent intention.
 
[quote name='Clak']This only happens because of unfair tax law! There, I pre-empted the usual suspects.[/QUOTE]

For those playing the home version, this comment is in reference to Clak's earlier, similar comment in a thread where not a single person ever said anything about "unfair tax law". But he brought it up like a trooper, because he thinks that's what he read.

Also, for those at home, $280 Billion is a lot of dough.

$3,729,000,000,000 was the base Federal Budget for FYE2012... so that's about 13% of the entire Federal Budget.

US National Debt is estimated to be about $15,880,000,000,000-ish... so, it's about 2% of the national debt.

Just think, if we repatriated all this money at once, immediately raised the amount of taxes we collected on it to twice the current amount, if the folks who the money belongs to managed to somehow keep it at the same level the entire time and we started budgeting within our income, *and* negotiated all of the debt so that we paid zero interest on it... we could pay off the national debt in only 25 years with this extra money. Should be pretty easy to do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For those playing the home version, this comment is in reference to Clak's earlier, similar comment in a thread where not a single person ever said anything about "unfair tax law". But he brought it up like a trooper, because he thinks that's what he read.

Also, for those at home, $280 Billion is a lot of dough.

$3,729,000,000,000 was the base Federal Budget for FYE2012... so that's about 13% of the entire Federal Budget.

US National Debt is estimated to be about $15,880,000,000,000-ish... so, it's about 2% of the national debt.

Just think, if we repatriated all this money at once, immediately raised the amount of taxes we collected on it to twice the current amount, if the folks who the money belongs to managed to somehow keep it at the same level the entire time and we started budgeting within our income, *and* negotiated all of the debt so that we paid zero interest on it... we could pay off the national debt in only 25 years with this extra money. Should be pretty easy to do.[/QUOTE]

I like how anytime any type of tax or program to reduce the deficit is brought up that you don't agree with, you play the 'It's really insignificant, drop in the bucket guys' (Obama care, this) card. Gotta start somewhere bruh :roll:
 
Pretty much. When they complain about money being spent on social programs, they don't mean the money being spent on them. No retiree is going to bitch about social security, because they're benefiting from it. Subsidized housing however, well that's for a bunch of lazy SOBs who need to get a job.
 
[quote name='camoor']There has been so much government bashing in the past 30 years, people no longer understand that taken on the whole the government benefits all of our lives but it does cost money.[/QUOTE]
Yep. They most certainly do. They allow road projects(here in PA anyway) to take YEARS to complete that would take months elsewhere, they send troops over to 'liberate' nations that before AND after liberation hate our fuckin' guts and they send billions(trillions) in aid to nations in bumblefuck rather than taking care of their own citizens here.

As for me, if I were one of the 1%, you damn well better believe I'd be trying to hide a good chunk of my cash from Ol' Uncle Greedy Pants(Sam).
 
[quote name='RealDeals']I like how anytime any type of tax or program to reduce the deficit is brought up that you don't agree with, you play the 'It's really insignificant, drop in the bucket guys' (Obama care, this) card. Gotta start somewhere bruh :roll:[/QUOTE]

It's [yet another] attempt by Bob to prod the dialogue in the direction he wants it to go. That's what turfers do. They can't tackle the issue head on or defend the line of bullshit so they attempt misdirection.

So basically the national debt has nothing to do with this. The real point here is that if the super rich are already stashing away that kind of cash with the tax situation as it is, then letting up on tax rates isn't going to prod them into putting more cash into the economy. They'll just hoard more away. Lowering taxes will merely hurt the poor/average.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']I like how anytime any type of tax or program to reduce the deficit is brought up that you don't agree with, you play the 'It's really insignificant, drop in the bucket guys' (Obama care, this) card. Gotta start somewhere bruh :roll:[/QUOTE]

Let's start by making significant and meaningful cuts in spending.

Show me you're responsible with money before you ask for more.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Yep. They most certainly do. They allow road projects(here in PA anyway) to take YEARS to complete that would take months elsewhere, they send troops over to 'liberate' nations that before AND after liberation hate our fuckin' guts and they send billions(trillions) in aid to nations in bumblefuck rather than taking care of their own citizens here.

As for me, if I were one of the 1%, you damn well better believe I'd be trying to hide a good chunk of my cash from Ol' Uncle Greedy Pants(Sam).[/QUOTE]

Care to explain what you mean about taking care of citizens here? Do you need the govt to take care of you?
 
[quote name='camoor']Care to explain what you mean about taking care of citizens here? Do you need the govt to take care of you?[/QUOTE]
Help the homeless, help the sick who can't afford to get treatment. Anything as long as it keeps the money here and not being spent on programs elsewhere in the world.

Actually I'd also prefer if they shored up the borders and deported any and all illegal immigrants AND repealed the law that gives immigrant children born here automatic citizenship.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']It's [yet another] attempt by Bob to prod the dialogue in the direction he wants it to go. That's what turfers do. They can't tackle the issue head on or defend the line of bullshit so they attempt misdirection.[/quote]

You say this as if the entire thread isn't an "attempt to prod the dialogue in the direction" some folks want it to go... :roll:

So basically the national debt has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

Really? Nothing at all? Because I clearly recall so many folks blaming the size of the debt/deficit on how the evil rich folks aren't paying enough in taxes.

Explain it to me - What is the point of getting the evil rich to pay more in taxes (either by bringing back offshore money and/or raising current tax rates) if not to help make up the deficit in the current fiscal year *or* to help the overall debt?

Is the point to collect more taxes so that our Federal government can justify more spending? "Oh, hey, look - we got this extra $280 Billion... now we can fund this new $560 billion project..."

Is the point to collect more taxes because the evil rich have too much money and it's unfair that they have so much? Should we be using the tax code as an "equalizer" instead of a method of funding the government?
 
Take care of our own!
Cut government spending!

Hmmm....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Help the homeless, help the sick who can't afford to get treatment. Anything as long as it keeps the money here and not being spent on programs elsewhere in the world.

Actually I'd also prefer if they shored up the borders and deported any and all illegal immigrants AND repealed the law that gives immigrant children born here automatic citizenship.[/QUOTE]

So essentially you're calling for a return to isolationism. In the 21st century. :roll:
 
[quote name='camoor']So essentially you're calling for a return to isolationism. In the 21st century. :roll:[/QUOTE]
No. I'm calling for the country to stop wasting billions(trillions) on countries trying to buy their friendship. fuck em.
 
Not handing out money like candy = isolationism.

Anyone care to venture a guess how much we (via Federal Tax Dollars) have given/spent in Saudi Arabia keeping such an oppressive and brutal government in power so we can have cheap oil?

I'm betting it also makes this $280 Billion look like a drop in the bucket.

But it's okay - it's not like our continued support and financing of what should be considered an illegitimate government has caused any blowback or anything.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Help the homeless, help the sick who can't afford to get treatment. Anything as long as it keeps the money here and not being spent on programs elsewhere in the world.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you bitching about lazy people on welfare in another thread? Obviously you haven't really thought your statement through very well beyond "it's ok when I'm cool with it or to score a rhetorical point, but fuck'em because MAH TAXEZ!!!" I know you were bitching about the PPACA ruling.

Actually I'd also prefer if they shored up the borders and deported any and all illegal immigrants AND repealed the law that gives immigrant children born here automatic citizenship.
Click to expand...
You mean like having something similar to the Berlin Wall? Yeah, that's a GREAT idea. And I'd agree with your statement if we could apply this retroactively starting with you. I'd stop it there though.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No. I'm calling for the country to stop wasting billions(trillions) on countries trying to buy their friendship. fuck em.[/QUOTE]
You've said trillions more than once. Source your number.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Weren't you bitching about lazy people on welfare in another thread? Obviously you haven't really thought your statement through very well beyond "it's ok when I'm cool with it or to score a rhetorical point, but fuck'em because MAH TAXEZ!!!" I know you were bitching about the PPACA ruling.[/quote]
You mean Obamacare, where I'm gonna be REQUIRED to get health insurance in 2014 or else Big Brother is gonna fine me? :lol: I'm not paying for shit. If they wanna force me to get health insurance, then they're gonna foot the bill since I'm perfectly fine with the free clinic from the local university when I need it.
You mean like having something similar to the Berlin Wall? Yeah, that's a GREAT idea. And I'd agree with your statement if we could apply this retroactively starting with you. I'd stop it there though.
Click to expand...
Such hostility in this portion of your response. I take it you genuinely don't like me? Oh well. No big loss there.:razz:
You've said trillions more than once. Source your number.
Click to expand...
Because accuracy on an internet forum that I come to to unwind and have fun on is so important, right?:roll: I don't know how much the gov't gives away in a year to foreign countries, but if I had it my way that number would be reduced to $0 as fast as possible.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']You mean Obamacare, where I'm gonna be REQUIRED to get health insurance in 2014 or else Big Brother is gonna fine me? :lol: I'm not paying for shit. If they wanna force me to get health insurance, then they're gonna foot the bill since I'm perfectly fine with the free clinic from the local university when I need it.[/quote]
So you want the benefit, but don't want to pay for it...it's almost as if you hit upon a certain theme that has popped up in this very thread.

And considering that you are able to pay for it, but refuse to, you should realize that every time you visit, you're taking away resources from people that can't. hth

Such hostility in this portion of your response. I take it you genuinely don't like me? Oh well. No big loss there.:razz:
Click to expand...
The only things I know about you are your politics and penchant for getting the best deals on games. The latter is fine, but the former is reprehensible.

The only hostility you're perceiving is a merely reflection of what you're projecting yourself. I'm merely the mirror; not the image in it.

Because accuracy on an internet forum that I come to to unwind and have fun on is so important, right?:roll: I don't know how much the gov't gives away in a year to foreign countries, but if I had it my way that number would be reduced to $0 as fast as possible.
Click to expand...
This isn't gamefaqs or ign. Your answer is a cop out because you know how we flow in vs. If you're going to say something outlandish with a serious face, you better back it up. No one is asking for MLA format citations. It's obvious that you're more interested in showing us your mental vomit rather than engaging in ideas to deepen your understanding of those issues, but I'm the eternal optimist and can't help but want to elevate people's games. You not knowing illustrates my point exactly.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No. I'm calling for the country to stop wasting billions(trillions) on countries trying to buy their friendship. fuck em.[/QUOTE]

"fuck em"? Grow up
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You say this as if the entire thread isn't an "attempt to prod the dialogue in the direction" some folks want it to go... :roll:



Really? Nothing at all? Because I clearly recall so many folks blaming the size of the debt/deficit on how the evil rich folks aren't paying enough in taxes.

Explain it to me - What is the point of getting the evil rich to pay more in taxes (either by bringing back offshore money and/or raising current tax rates) if not to help make up the deficit in the current fiscal year *or* to help the overall debt?

Is the point to collect more taxes so that our Federal government can justify more spending? "Oh, hey, look - we got this extra $280 Billion... now we can fund this new $560 billion project..."

Is the point to collect more taxes because the evil rich have too much money and it's unfair that they have so much? Should we be using the tax code as an "equalizer" instead of a method of funding the government?[/QUOTE]

No, it's the tenet that those evil rich should pay their due for the country that helped put them in the spot they're in. Your BS rhetorical of 'You're saying there's a thing as having TOO MUCH money? COMMEEZ' In an ideal world, maybe not, but when the richest 400 Americans are worth more than the bottom 150,000,000, AND much of this taxable moolah is being childishly smuggled under a hooker's snatch somewhere in Havana, AND we're still cutting programs for the less fortunate or the average joe I'm saying some tweaking may be needed. :roll: And give me actual examples of where the Gov is being a splurger in your mind. (Cue TEH WARZ)
,
 
The problem is that the people who write these laws are also the ones who benefit from them. While you may focus your attention on the richest Americans, realize that the people in Congress, the ones in control, create these loopholes for themselves. I doubt you'll be able to close such loopholes easily, if at all.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So you want the benefit, but don't want to pay for it...it's almost as if you hit upon a certain theme that has popped up in this very thread.

And considering that you are able to pay for it, but refuse to, you should realize that every time you visit, you're taking away resources from people that can't. hth[/quote]
I paid for my own health insurance for a long time, only to see the rates keep going up and keep receiving notices that they were going up because people(i.e. NOT me though) were overusing their plans and citing new tech and drugs they had to pay for.

Again, something that I wasn't using and didn't need, but my premiums that were increasing went to pay for the people who did need them. All of this was happening while the local BC/BS companies were holding onto 500-600 MILLION dollars in reserves.:roll:

So excuse me for not wanting to pay a corporation that's holding onto so many millions in reserves higher and higher premiums while getting the least amount of benefit back for the money spent. I started out paying $80 a month for a single, low end plan and by the time I essentially told them to fuck off I was paying double that or HIGHER. This was a basic insurance plan with no drug coverage whatsoever and limited doctor visits that were partially covered.
The only things I know about you are your politics and penchant for getting the best deals on games. The latter is fine, but the former is reprehensible.

The only hostility you're perceiving is a merely reflection of what you're projecting yourself. I'm merely the mirror; not the image in it.
Click to expand...
What part of my political beliefs is reprehensible? The stance on illegal immigration? The stance on the whole George Zimmerman vs. the ACLU/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/et. al thing? Or just in general?
This isn't gamefaqs or ign.
Click to expand...
It sure seems like GF at times on here when people preach their point till they're blue in the face and get mad when someone isn't completely super serious when they respond.

Your answer is a cop out because you know how we flow in vs. If you're going to say something outlandish with a serious face, you better back it up. No one is asking for MLA format citations. It's obvious that you're more interested in showing us your mental vomit rather than engaging in ideas to deepen your understanding of those issues, but I'm the eternal optimist and can't help but want to elevate people's games. You not knowing illustrates my point exactly.
Click to expand...
Serious? Me?:lol: Not in the least. But I'm sure you get that just from my responses on the topics I have decided to comment on on this portion of the forum.
[quote name='camoor']"fuck em"? Grow up[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I say fuck em. What have any of these nations we've sent money or troops to done for us in return? Life is about give and take and some of these countries seem happy enough to just take(and take and take).
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I paid for my own health insurance for a long time, only to see the rates keep going up and keep receiving notices that they were going up because people(i.e. NOT me though) were overusing their plans and citing new tech and drugs they had to pay for.

Again, something that I wasn't using and didn't need, but my premiums that were increasing went to pay for the people who did need them. All of this was happening while the local BC/BS companies were holding onto 500-600 MILLION dollars in reserves.:roll:

So excuse me for not wanting to pay a corporation that's holding onto so many millions in reserves higher and higher premiums while getting the least amount of benefit back for the money spent. I started out paying $80 a month for a single, low end plan and by the time I essentially told them to fuck off I was paying double that or HIGHER. This was a basic insurance plan with no drug coverage whatsoever and limited doctor visits that were partially covered.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you familiarize yourself with the concept of the "risk pool" and how insurance works. There seems to be some(lolz) cognitive dissonance going on with your bitching about paying premiums and how it relates to coverage. Insurance might cover low cost procedures, but that's not what it's really there for; it's to save your ass from getting completely financially fucked and there's no true way to predict when and where it will happen. You can get away with paying for physicals, drugs out of pocket, and even an ER visit or two, but you're not going to be able to pay for chemo or surgery. Using marketing-speak doesn't help your argument either.

And what's the real alternative here? Obviously UHC, but if you're bitching about premiums, you'll probably bitch about any taxes you'll have to pay to fund that too. You can't have it both ways and how do you think that clinic you use is being funded?

What part of my political beliefs is reprehensible? The stance on illegal immigration? The stance on the whole George Zimmerman vs. the ACLU/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/et. al thing? Or just in general?
Click to expand...
From your examples, you seem to have an issue with people having civil rights and being treated equitably. Nice dogwhistles though, albeit unoriginal. And LOLZ@ACLU.

It sure seems like GF at times on here when people preach their point till they're blue in the face and get mad when someone isn't completely super serious when they respond.

Serious? Me?:lol: Not in the least. But I'm sure you get that just from my responses on the topics I have decided to comment on on this portion of the forum.
Click to expand...
No. What I "get" is that you like shitting out opinions and treating them like they're diamonds when it's just another piece of shit while skipping away with a proud smile on your face. Then when called on it, you say that you were just pretending it was a diamond while describing it's similarities to it.

Yeah. I say fuck em. What have any of these nations we've sent money or troops to done for us in return? Life is about give and take and some of these countries seem happy enough to just take(and take and take).
Click to expand...
I'd say that slave labor, natural resources, and regional control by proxy are pretty big things.
 
BC/BS, depending on your state, has mandated reserves for reasons that aren't difficult to suss out.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd say that slave labor, natural resources, and regional control by proxy are pretty big things.[/QUOTE]

If we limit foreign policy talk to the middle east wars, then a very good arguement could be made that cheapestgamer's life hasn't improved much as a result.

Oil companies got rich. Halliburton and Xe got rich. Dick Cheney got rich. But you, me and cheapestgamer got jack shit.

Cheapestgamer is an ignorant boob for sure, but the one thing he does well is keep a laser-sighted watch on how he is personally affected with each and every transaction.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Perhaps you familiarize yourself with the concept of the "risk pool" and how insurance works. There seems to be some(lolz) cognitive dissonance going on with your bitching about paying premiums and how it relates to coverage. Insurance might cover low cost procedures, but that's not what it's really there for; it's to save your ass from getting completely financially fucked and there's no true way to predict when and where it will happen. You can get away with paying for physicals, drugs out of pocket, and even an ER visit or two, but you're not going to be able to pay for chemo or surgery. Using marketing-speak doesn't help your argument either.[/quote]
I'll admit that I have no clue how insurance really works. Just that I was paying $15-20 to see a doctor when I would go to the family doc for an issue. Our old family doc charged $40 a visit and accepted ZERO health plans.
And what's the real alternative here? Obviously UHC, but if you're bitching about premiums, you'll probably bitch about any taxes you'll have to pay to fund that too. You can't have it both ways and how do you think that clinic you use is being funded?
Click to expand...
I'm currently unemployed, so paying into UHC wouldn't really affect me. But at least then everyone would be on a level playing field for healthcare at least. Albeit maybe not as far as contributions through taxes are concerned though.
From your examples, you seem to have an issue with people having civil rights and being treated equitably. Nice dogwhistles though, albeit unoriginal. And LOLZ@ACLU.
Click to expand...
If you're an illegal immigrant, you may have rights under various treaties, but you're not a legal resident of the US, so to me we should just chuck yer ass back over the fence without even thinking twice.
No. What I "get" is that you like shitting out opinions and treating them like they're diamonds when it's just another piece of shit while skipping away with a proud smile on your face. Then when called on it, you say that you were just pretending it was a diamond while describing it's similarities to it.
Click to expand...
Differing opinions. You think mine are shit. I think you're are shit. At least we agree on something.;)
I'd say that slave labor, natural resources, and regional control by proxy are pretty big things.
Click to expand...
There's enough companies in this country that treat their workers like slave labor just about that we should worry about protecting here FIRST.
[quote name='nasum']BC/BS, depending on your state, has mandated reserves for reasons that aren't difficult to suss out.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing though. They had 2-3x the reserves required of them yet they were still jacking up the rates by ridiculous amounts every time I turned around.
 
[quote name='camoor']Cheapestgamer is an ignorant boob for sure, but the one thing he does well is keep a laser-sighted watch on how he is personally affected with each and every transaction.[/QUOTE]
:lol:Damn right. Wait....what?:D
 
In the early 1990s, Congress passed a law that, among other things, limited the water flow of new shower heads sold in the United States. If you have purchased a shower head since then, the maximum amount of water that it can shoot out is 2.5 gallons per minute. This move was obviously designed to help the nation save water. Estimates of the amount of water to be saved by this law were no doubt made and those estimates would be inaccurate because they do not take into account the penchant for individuals to circumvent regulations.

In order to reach the 2.5 gpm requirement, manufacturers of shower heads simply inserted a water flow regulator into their current designs. This water flow regulator, even today, is easily removable and/or modified. You can rip it out or drill right through it, and reclaim the water flow rates of yesteryear. When my apartment complex went into all the apartments and installed new water saving fixtures, I immediately removed the shower head and ripped out that water flow regulator. Some men who travel a lot make this a personal quest, and always carry with them the tools necessary to remove the water flow regulators from hotel shower heads. They don't always put them back and no one is the wiser.

The point is that if a regulation, tax or requirement to do something exists, people will always think about ways to circumvent it. They aren't always successful. They don't always go through with it if the penalty is too high. You won't go to jail or be fined for modifying shower heads for example. Hiding your money off shore, which this New York Times author says is "easy," is like taking out the water flow limiter. The only caveat is that it can be expensive to manage offshore accounts. Of course, if someone is in need of an offshore account, they probably have the money to manage one.

So when thinking of new laws and new taxes and regulations, you always have to try to think two steps ahead to the ways individuals and corporations will circumvent them. However, it's much easier not to impose onerous taxes and regulations on society. It is my opinion that, right now, it is not the level of taxation we should be worrying about, but the complexity of the tax code.

But if you want taxes and regulations, you have to take the bad with the good.

As for the water thing, they should simply charge more the more water you use. You start at a low rate we are used to for the first 100 gallons or whatever, and then the rate goes up as you use more. This would cut down on a lot of lawn watering in my opinion and would result in less grass and more of those cool desert looking lawns with native plants and shit.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I'll admit that I have no clue how insurance really works. Just that I was paying $15-20 to see a doctor when I would go to the family doc for an issue. Our old family doc charged $40 a visit and accepted ZERO health plans.[/QUOTE]
Then why the fuck are you blabbering about things you clearly don't understand and getting them completely wrong? Your opinions on the matter are worthless if you can't even get a basic concept like insurance down. Do you just like listening to the sound of your own voice or something?

I'm currently unemployed, so paying into UHC wouldn't really affect me. But at least then everyone would be on a level playing field for healthcare at least. Albeit maybe not as far as contributions through taxes are concerned though.
Click to expand...
Well I hope you're getting unemployment benefits then. Don't turn this into a discussion about the "(un)Fair Tax."

If you're an illegal immigrant, you may have rights under various treaties, but you're not a legal resident of the US, so to me we should just chuck yer ass back over the fence without even thinking twice.
Click to expand...
Most "illegals" are visa overstays, which is more an administrative offense than a criminal one. A more apt analogy would be staying at a parking meter longer than the allowed limit. Not to mention that a vast majority of those "illegals" fly over. Unless you're advocating for something like the Berlin Wall and even if you aren't, stop being so dramatic about it as if they're a scourge of unwashed masses spreading throughout our country like a damned virus. They use far less resources than what they take out of the system.

Differing opinions. You think mine are shit. I think you're are shit. At least we agree on something.;)
Click to expand...
I don't know if that's a typo or not, but that's a false equivalence. You think mine are shit because you don't understand them. I think yours are shit because you don't understand yours and I understand yours better than you do.

There's enough companies in this country that treat their workers like slave labor just about that we should worry about protecting here FIRST.
Click to expand...
You mean like have more domestic slave labor? You're 20 years behind buddy. Foreign slaves are cheaper than domestic ones and you don't have to deal with organized labor. But don't worry, there's a solution for that: prison labor. The only problem with that is creating a criminal-class of people to exploit.
That problem's been solved too
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Oh look. A strawman.[/QUOTE]

I guess in Liberal America, asking someone to define their point is a "strawman". Okay then.

[quote name='RealDeals']No, it's the tenet that those evil rich should pay their due for the country that helped put them in the spot they're in. [/quote]

So... quantify that statement for me. How much is one individual's due?

:roll: And give me actual examples of where the Gov is being a splurger in your mind. (Cue TEH WARZ)
,
Click to expand...

You are (somewhat) correct with your own answer - defense spending is a huge issue with me w/r/t the Federal Budget.

Some other fun things in recent history are things like TARP and the auto bailouts. Those wouldn't have been so terribly bad if they had used the money that was repaid into paying off the debts created by borrowing it in the first place - instead, Congress passed bills that were "paid for" by the repayment of TARP funds.

Then there's this. Always a good one.

Crap like paying Secret Service protection for Herman Cain when he was "running".

The fat benefits - for life - that some of our high end Federal employees get. 413 former Congressmen receive a yearly pension (in addition to other benefits) averaging $53,520 (those numbers are a few years old though...). That's checks being cut for *nothing*. I wonder how many of these folks are doubling for "consultants" and "advisers" by large corporations, unions, etc. Paying former presidents nearly $200,000/year for the remainder of their life? Sorry - you run to serve your country - not to be served by your country.

Quick - anyone have the amount handy that our Federal government gives to China every year as "aid"?

Oh, and Farm Subsidies. Guh. We seriously pay farmers *not* to grow crops... yeah...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I guess in Liberal America, asking someone to define their point is a "strawman". Okay then.



So... quantify that statement for me. How much is one individual's due?



You are (somewhat) correct with your own answer - defense spending is a huge issue with me w/r/t the Federal Budget.

Some other fun things in recent history are things like TARP and the auto bailouts. Those wouldn't have been so terribly bad if they had used the money that was repaid into paying off the debts created by borrowing it in the first place - instead, Congress passed bills that were "paid for" by the repayment of TARP funds.

Then there's this. Always a good one.

Crap like paying Secret Service protection for Herman Cain when he was "running".

The fat benefits - for life - that some of our high end Federal employees get. 413 former Congressmen receive a yearly pension (in addition to other benefits) averaging $53,520 (those numbers are a few years old though...). That's checks being cut for *nothing*. I wonder how many of these folks are doubling for "consultants" and "advisers" by large corporations, unions, etc. Paying former presidents nearly $200,000/year for the remainder of their life? Sorry - you run to serve your country - not to be served by your country.

Quick - anyone have the amount handy that our Federal government gives to China every year as "aid"?

Oh, and Farm Subsidies. Guh. We seriously pay farmers *not* to grow crops... yeah...[/QUOTE]

Where to begin... First, to 'quantify' that statement, I mean pay whatever you would at the current tax rate if you weren't hiding funds in fucking offshore accounts. Just your legal, accountable due, nothing more, nothing less. And EVERYONE here acknowledges our federal defense budget is probably a couple dozen times higher than it should be. Thank conservatives for that. I agree that 'aid' to other countries like China is stupid, but when we owe them what we do, we might have to take the cough medicine on that one. As someone also from Illinois, you know as well as I do the rust belt states would be completely fucked without the auto-bailout right now. Ford and GM are back and kicking thanks to that, regardless of your problems of how it was handled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top