Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (31497)	2/25/2004 8:57:13 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Yes, I am. Why am I? Because they've had high kill numbers for a long time, and we haven't, for many reasons. I generally ignore famines in other countries too- at least as a priority for the US. Many diseases are endemic in other countries, but I don't make them a priority unless they affect the US. If and when the casualty numbers really affect us I'll move the whole issue higher- but only as high as the mortality rate warrants. I will focus on what makes logical sense in terms of real threats to America, as opposed to perceived threats- which can, recent experience teaches us, be rather chimeric in nature. There isn't much more to be said on this. We disagree. It seems pointless to take this further. Have a good evening.

To: unclewest who wrote (31497)	2/26/2004 8:16:55 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793670

uw, Here's another good tax related story............ Five people are in a group. The demographic of this group is broad and one person would be considered a part of the "real rich". This group as been given a task that will cost $1,000 and they are to pay for the task out of their own pockets. At first there is an argument about how much each person is going to pay out of their own pockets for this task. This is because a couple of the liberal members feel that the "real rich" person should completely pay for the task. But after some heated debate the liberals and conservatives reach a compromise. The task will be paid for as follows: Person #1 has a yearly income of $0 so he pays 0% of the task which is $0. Person #2 has a yearly income of $10,000 so he pays 3% of the $1,000 task which is $30. Person #3 has a yearly income of $20,000 so he pays 10% of the $1,000 task which is $100. Person #4 has a yearly income of $40,000 so he pays 25% of the $1,000 task which is $250. Person #5 has a yearly income of $100,000 so he pays 62% of the $1,000 task which is $620 Now the $1,000 task is paid for and the task can now be completed. But after completion the group finds out that the task did not cost the budgeted $1,000 but instead only cost $500. This is fantastic and calls for a task rebate! Now the arguments start all over. The conservatives want to distribute the task rebate in the only fair and just method and that is to rebate the surplus in an equal proportion to what each person paid. That is since the task cost 50% less the "taskpayers" should receive a rebate of 50% of what each "taskpayer" paid. The conservative task rebate plan is as follows: Person #1 paid $0 or 0% of the $1,000 task and receives 0% of the $500 rebate, which is $0. Person #2 paid $30 or 3% of the $1,000 task and receives 3% of the $500 rebate, which is $15. Person #3 paid $100 or 10% of the $1,000 task and receives 10% of the $500 rebate, which is $50. Person #4 paid $250 or 25% of the $1,000 task and receives 25% of the $500 rebate, which is $125. Person #5 paid $620 or 62% of the $1,000 task and receives 62% of the $500 rebate, which is $310. But the liberals will not stand for this. They scream that this is just a task cut for the "real rich" and that they want a more "fair and balanced" task rebate. Their task rebate is as follows: Person #1 paid 0% of the $1,000 task and receives a rebate of $100. Person #2 paid 3% of the $1,000 task and receives a rebate of $100. Person #3 paid 10% of the $1,000 task and receives a rebate of $100. Person #4 paid 25% of the $1,000 task and receives a rebate of $100. Person #5 paid 62% of the $1,000 task and receives a rebate of $100. The conservatives scream that this is called redistribution of wealth. But this falls on deaf ears because 80% of the women and 20% of the men are guided by emotion instead of logic. The emotion steers them to rob from the rich and give to the poor. But they justify this in their own mind by saying that those mean and nasty "real rich" people have to much money and should give it to the liberals for distribution to people that will vote for them in the next election.