Posts made by DeviantScripter

Yea, seems that way to me Jazz… :D

Tu-she’ :D

Reagan wasn’t that bad of a president. He actually did a lot to help this country.

Realistically, I can’t see a draft coming about anytime soon. Unless we have some major country or nation beating down our door, I’m not so sure that a President would call on the draftees. (In case you’re wondering why, I’m pretty sure the draft isn’t such a popular thing around here… :wink:)

Most of the “battles” we fight nowadays are dealt with by special forces and precision guided munitions. They do this job successfully. It’s going to be a long time before we ever see the massive amounts of troops that we did in WW2. (I say this with hope…)

Perfectly said. :wink:

@F_alk:

Psychologically … lol

Ummm, I’m not quite sure what’s so funny here. Watching your friend’s die right in front of you has quite a LOT to do with your psychlogic stability.

@F_alk:

Women can stand physical pain much better than men.

According to who? If a woman was in a torture camp and a man was also, I’d bet that the man would hold out longer than the woman does.

This is quite a stupid argument to be making. Yanni, I’m sure when you have wife and daughter one day, you’re not going to want to face the possibility of them being drafted. You’re a liar if you say to do.

Is it just me or does anyone else have a sinking feeling that Saddam won’t even be in Baghdad when we attack! I have a feeling we’ll be going on a man-hunt remiscent of Osama Bin Laden.

Haha! Lindows?!

That takes the best features of both operating systems, melds them together, and fails miserably in the entire process. :lol:

Oh man, IE 6 definetely has my vote on this one.

Netscape is slower than dirt, and it’s incompatibility problems make me want to scream!

There’s really no reason that women should have to be drafted.

Psychologically and Physically, women aren’t as strong as men. That’s a fact. I mean, if it ever came down to the point where all the men were dead, then sure women should have to fight :wink:. There’s really no reason otherwise.

Then why the hell are we attacking him?

It’s called a “pre-emptive” strike. :-?

We did it before, we can do it again. You can’t just make Mustard gas on the back of a truck. Nuclear weapons plants will be easy to detect.

Of course we can do it again. That’s a given. I would argue, however, that the UN weapons inspectors didn’t do much to dissuade Saddam. It’ll be harder to find the factories, becuase they’re build underneath schools and churches. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a lot more than some weapons inspectors can handle. We need to use brute force if we want to really find out what Saddam’s hiding. Besides, even if Saddam does let inspectors in (very unlikely), he’d be the one to dictate where they could and couldn’t go. It’s not as if they have free reign to explore. :-?

Sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by this either.

What I mean is, that if Saddam provoked us in some direct way (eg. launching missiles at Israel) then it would make our case all the much stronger.

@Yanny:

Saddam is not worth attacking. There are far worse places to be afraid of. North Korea, some Canadians, China.

Yes, actually I do think Saddam is worth attacking. Granted, there may be worse situations out there. Saddam, however, is the easiest of these targets to begin with.

@Yanni:

And there WILL be a very large number of casualties this time. We’re not going to see open tank clashes in the desert. Saddam has dug in outside and inside of Bagdad. Its going to be a war of Street fighting. Imagine the battle of Stalingrad. He’s going to use civilians as shields, and make a damn good show of doing it. And when the time is ripe, he’ll unleash those weapons. He’s gonna do every damn thing he can do to survive.

This is true.

@Yanni:

However, if he provokes us, he has less time to prepare. Less ammunition to stockpile, less time to build trenches. Less time to train his troops in streetfighting. However, that time may never come, if we’re smart.

He won’t provoke us…that’s the worse thing he can do.

@Yanni:

How about letting those weapons inspectors in, completely free to explore where they want. Saddam could embarress the US by not letting US inspectors in, but letting the UN ones in. Hell, he could not even consult the US in the deal, and gain national support in doing it.

Weapons inspectors can’t do SHIT against Iraq now. It’s too late. Saddam has completely mobilized his weapons platforms and weapons labs. I small container of chemical weapons can wipe out millions…good luck trying to find something like that in a country the size of Iraq.

@Yanni:

71% of the British population is against their involvement in our attack of Iraq. Only 12% are for it, the rest undecided. There goes our biggest Ally.

Saudi Arabia will only let us use their Air Bases for enforcing the current No Fly Zones, and nothing else. Russia will lend us no help here, mainly their help would be in information gathering and diplomacy. No help is coming from Germany or France obviously. Kuwait won’t let us use their air bases, and only use their territory for defensive action. Turkey is gone until being admitted to the EU, they want their German and French support.

The only country with us today, all out like in 1991, is Bahrain. I don’t think we’re gonna get much done out of there.

Not that they’re much of a strategic advantage, but Israel has pledged it’s full support in a campaign against Iraq. Furthermore, this is the same situation that Bush Sr. faced during his Desert Storm campaign. When the time came, however, and he laid out the facts and started mobilizing troops, our usual allies stood behind us. I’m confident they’ll do so again.

In my opinion, I think it’s long overdue that America stops being so passive against these attacks on our freedom. Our political leadership needs to wake up and recognize that MANY people do not like us, or our way of life. They are willing to kill civialians to get their point across, as they’ve already proved.

America needs to take the offensive against threats to our freedom! There is absolutely no reason to sit and wait until we get attacked again, to take action. Saddam is an IRRESPONSIBLE DICTATOR who possesses VERY POWERFUL and DEADLY weaponry. Such a person IS a threat to our safety (both directly and indirectly), regardless of what the liberals care to argue.

Does anyone really want Saddam to stay in power, honestly? (Besides the terrorist regimes) Please, I think the bigger question is why he SHOULD stay in power…

Well, 'gee golly XI…I’d say you’re a conservative! :wink:

Well, in case anyone was wondering what the problem with our current Social Security program is, here is something interesting:

Right now, American taxpayers face a nearly $20 trillion unfunded Social Security liability. Although today we have a large Social Security surplus, when baby booms start retiring, the government is going to start paying out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. Around 2020, the Social Security deficit alone will be around $100 billion, and it will approach $300 billion a year by 2037.

We can’t continue on the path we’re on. Although short-sighted people might think it’s wonderful that we’re providing for our old-people, longterm views dictate that we’re making a mistake.

woooo…that sounds pretty harsh. :o

No, I’m simply saying that becuase the taxpayers all contribute, you shouldn’t be weighing one person more then another.

I guess my biggest problem is the fact that some people don’t contribute AT ALL. We have MANY people in this country who simply don’t pay ANY taxes whatsoever, and that pisses me off. They use the system, they enjoy the system, yet they don’t contribute to the system. Seems pretty unfair to me…

@Soon_U_Die:

Starting with the McDonalds example given by someone else. Should Bill Gates pay more for his burger? The question you should be asking is should the guy who wants Ketchup on his fries pay more than the guy who doesn’t? Perhaps you might want to ask how much does it cost for health inspectors to examine restaurants? Who funds these inspectors? Should people who eat out more frequently than others fund a higher percentage than others? How is this cost going to be captured and appropriated?

Back to Bill. Is it fair to say that he likely travels by air much more frequently than most? Does he therefore use publicly funded airports and terminals much more than others? Does he use these facilities much more frequently than the poor, who perhaps never fly anywhere? Can we establish a user fee for access to an airport? Do we really know whether or not the airport fees paid by a carrier accurately reflect usage rates by specific persons? Is this cost therefore truly recoverable from Bill? Since 100’s of millions of public money was spent on building the airport, is there not also a lost opportunity cost for those who don’t use the airport? Could not the money have been spent on something else of more value to them?

Does Bill live in a large house in a suburb? Are the infrastructure costs for mainline plumbing, electricity, access roads etc much higher there than in a densly populated urban area? Does the increase in property taxes that Bill pays adequately cover the differential? Is their not another lost opportunity cost for those who don’t live in the suburbs? Can they not make a claim that any public funds expended would be better off spent on infrastructure in an urban area? Enough of Bill for the moment. You get the idea that connecting usage and fair share is quite complex.

So, we decide to eliminate certain programs and certain taxes. What is the true net effect on the economy? Cystic Crypt made an excellent point on how the rich use their money. Much of it is invested outside of the country. How does that help the countries economy? More is invested in high value, high margin toys. How much of that really trickles down? Is $1M spent on a yacht at a 50% margin the same as $1M spent on food at the local grocery store at a 10% margin? All of the evidence published in economic circles would suggest not. It would appear that very little of the windfall of the rich in a tax reduction change actually makes it way into the base economic drivers of a country.

What about the poor? Let’s assume for a moment that the solution would tradeoff Social Security for increased present day cashflow. What do we want them to do? Do we want them to save it for retirement? Perhaps we want to be like the Japanese and have a huge proportion of savings, but a stagnant economy? What would be the net effect on actual money supply and consequently, infaltion? Assume we can make the solution work in combination with tax cuts, so the net effect on the poor is zero and on the supply of money is zero, so inflation does not rise. Instead of investing in SS with a potential 2% return, we can now save however we wish, with potential higher returns. Of course, money and wealth are not actually created in a stock market, just redistributed. For every buyer, there is a seller. Now what % of the poor are educated enough to participate in this market on their own, with at least a reasonable chance of success? I would suggest few. Indeed, I would suggest that informed buyers generally have the advantage over the uninformed. Indeed, even a capital loss is of some value to a rich man, whereas for the poor, a loss is a loss. So perhaps the poor can buy the services of others to aid them. Have you not just redistributed a portion of the poor’s wealth to someone above them?

Perhaps we actually want the poor to use their increased disposable income to consume now, have a better life now. Perhaps we believe that this consumption will actually be good for the economy in the short term. But what happens in the longer term? What happens when the poor consume their disposable income in the short term, perhaps aiding the economy, but then the economy tanks because of global forces well beyond the poor’s ability to influence? We would seem to have traded off short term increased consumption for decreased long term security. What are the long term ramifications of doing so? Perhaps the answer lies not in eliminating SS, but in restructuring it, so that a higher return is offered. Maybe SS should buy gov’t bonds, but then again, this would increase the money supply and create infationary pressures.

I am not suggesting that I have all the answers to these questions. I am suggesting that the questions are actually extremely complex and the solutions proposed above are far too superficial and rely upon a set of assumptions which history has demonstrated as at least partially false. One of the base fundamental problems with an income tax system, as opposed to a consumption tax system is that the link between usage of service/product and actual cost is very unclear. On the other hand, without income tax, a 100% consumption tax system would be extremely vulnerable in recession & stagnation.

This isn’t a very good reason for overtaxing the rich. First of all, there are many public services that I pay for, yet I don’t use. If you want to go to a “pay more as you use more” basis, then I don’t want to have to pay for public schools, social security, managed healthcare, light rail, public transit, car insurance, health insurance, or any other such services that I don’t use. Making an individual pay more just becuase he uses a public service more is rediculous. I’d like to see someone actually try to implement something like this. It’d be a disaster.

@cystic:

he’s also consumed more - more education, and likely made use of other gov’t programs etc.

How do you figure? Why would you say that Bill Gates uses more gov’t programs than anyone else?

@Wild2000:

@Yanny:

The Average American pays about 15% of their income to Social Security per year.

Incorrect. The average American only pays 7.5%. Since most Americans are employees of a company, the employer picks up the other 7.5%.

@Yanny:

If the Average American works for 40 years, they put a lot of money into Social Security. However, the amount of money they get back is an incredible low number. Someone like 1/30th of what you payed.

So, would you rather put away your own money or let the Government do it and waste 29/30 of the money?

Social Security is a failing system. The longer it stays around, the harder it will be to eliminate.

I agree something needs to be done to the current system. However, scrapping it is not the correct answer. Also, I am not sure if you only receive 1/30th back of what you pay in. Numbers seem off.

@Yanny:

Wild, explain to me why A) Social Security should stay how it is and B) Why the rich should pay a larger percentage of their money to the Government than everyone else.

As I stated above, I think the system needs an overhaul. However, getting rid of it is not the answer.

I already answered why the rich should pay a larger percentage. They have much more to lose. Who has more to lose? Bill Gates or you?

Maybe a better way to think about what money is getting taxed is to think about discretionary income. If a flat tax percentage were used, who would have a larger percentage of discretionary income left? The rich would have a larger percentage and the poor would have a much smaller percentage. The flat tax magnifies this difference even more than the current system.

Something to recognize about our current tax structure is that each level of money is taxed in groups. I am not sure what the exact brackets are off hand, but the first $20,000 of income for a lower income tax bracket individual is taxed at the SAME rate as an individual in a higher bracket. It is only the additional income that is taxed at a higher rate.

Yanny, you have still not addressed what would happen to individuals who receive SS relating to disabilities, etc. You also have not addressed how the lower class individuals are going to be able to save for retirement since they are now being taxed at a higher rate. In addition, you have also not stated how new education on investing will be funded now that everyone has to know how to invest. To many, investing is scary, complex, and time consuming. Since the government will no longer paying out SS, it has to somehow prevent people from not saving. People not investing themselves is a huge issue.

First of all, it plainfully obvious to see that a person can make a LOT more money if they used their social security money to invest. Social Security only gives a person a paltry 2% return on their money. Bah, what a waste.

Next, you still haven’t convinced me why a person with more money should pay higher taxes. Look at it this way. If Bill Gates walked into McDonalds to buy a hamburger, would you expect him to pay an enormously higher price for that burger, becuase McDonalds has to be able to give away free burgers to those who can’t afford them? It’s completely unfair. Whereas, if everyone payed the same amount for that hamburger, then the prices are cheaper and those who still can’t afford them don’t get the burger. (Figureatively, of course. :wink:)

For the disabled, that’s a touchy subject. I don’t neccessarily agree with funding the disabled. Of course I’m not referring to the handicapped or the mentally challenged, but rather the rediculous people that are considered disabled. There are fat people that are legally disabled, and a host of other rediculous qualities. I don’t agree with spending my hard earned money to fund their over-eating habits.

For the physically and mentally handicapped, however, I suggest something similar to the welfare system. Only A LOT MORE STRICT. I don’t want to see it abused the way today’s welfare system is battered.

Lastly, I think it’s within everyone’s ability to invest their money. Even putting it in the bank is considered investment. Of course it won’t yield that much in return, but everyone should be able to wisely invest their money. If you’re scared of investing, then don’t do it. I could care less if you didn’t invest. :wink: