PDA

View Full Version : Is USA ready for a serious terrorist attack like...



ewdfs
18th September 04, 12:13 PM
Terrorists mass voting for Bush? I doubt you could survive that

Deadpan Scientist
18th September 04, 12:17 PM
we'll survive it, but will you?

MaverickZ
18th September 04, 12:42 PM
Make Your Time!

LOVED2BLOVED
18th September 04, 02:55 PM
you have no chance for survival....

cyrijl
18th September 04, 02:58 PM
let it go....take a breath and just let it all go

LLL
18th September 04, 02:59 PM
I can't understand why someone'd vote for Bush. I'm sure Kerry is 100% ass too (so what's new with US presidents)...

But GWB's set whole new standards for it. 100% seriously, this idiot could never become the president of Finland, for example... Because no-one would vote for him.

Yet, he's the ruler of the most powerful country in the world... Probably mostly because of the adherence to the 2 party system.

Xango
18th September 04, 04:09 PM
Odd though it might seem, Americans are neither Finnish nor European, and cannot, in general, be expected to behave like either.

Thanks for Linux, though, it's pretty cool. I think Finland should import a bunch of penguins in honor of Linux, and to give the Sami another food source.

Deadpan Scientist
18th September 04, 04:15 PM
LLL: here's a reason

Imagine you're in the top 5 % of wage earners.

LLL
18th September 04, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Xango
Odd though it might seem, Americans are neither Finnish nor European, and cannot, in general, be expected to behave like either.

Thanks for Linux, though, it's pretty cool. I think Finland should import a bunch of penguins in honor of Linux, and to give the Sami another food source.

Hahaha... Btw Xango, where'd you take that Finnish insult: :"Tulee puukosta vitun alykääpiö" tms; I loved it.

-> We have different opinions, I guess... ( I don't use Linux though...), but you seem like a really cool guy otherwise.

LLL
18th September 04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by brandeissansoo
LLL: here's a reason

Imagine you're in the top 5 % of wage earners.

My imagination doesn't stretch that far, as I barely can pay my rent & food, & have failed even that on a couple of months...

Deadpan Scientist
18th September 04, 04:28 PM
likewise, but I am still capable of rational thought

LLL
18th September 04, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by brandeissansoo
likewise, but I am still capable of rational thought

And I'm not? Because I don't support GWB? Or what was your idea?

Deadpan Scientist
18th September 04, 04:39 PM
because you can't imagine why someone would vote for bush.

That's what you call close mindedness

LLL
18th September 04, 04:48 PM
Hmm. I understand, though I'm not sure what you mean by 'you'; I'm just me.

But I really will think about this.

Xango
18th September 04, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Hahaha... Btw Xango, where'd you take that Finnish insult: :"Tulee puukosta vitun alykääpiö" tms; I loved it.

I have my sources. :D Buddy of mine is going to be getting a Puuko from me if he ever manages to finish that master's thesis...

Thanks, LLL; you're pretty cool too.

Xango
18th September 04, 05:26 PM
Reasons someone might vote for Bush (not me, FWIW):

-- Possess wealth in great abundance and wish to keep it.

-- Work in a professional class that supports tort reform.

-- Religious Christian.

-- War hawk as primary voter issue.

-- Anti-immigrant (mostly poor whites living in areas with a lot of illegal Mexican laborers).

-- To piss off Balloonknot...

Colin
18th September 04, 05:29 PM
Brande.. You going to tell me that you're in the top 5% of wage earners? If not, why the hell would YOU vote for Bush?

LLL: I hear you.. I wish that I could say that in Australia we wouldn't vote for such a conservative.. But I'd be lying. Our Prime-minister is one of Bush's biggest brown-nosers. Why do you think that Australian Troops are always being asked to do America's dirty work in this region? Indonesia, Timor, etc..

Colin
18th September 04, 05:30 PM
I'll also add that Americans didn't vote Bush in, either.
Gore won the vote, but Bush got the Seat.. THAT wouldn't happen in Australia.

ewdfs
18th September 04, 05:34 PM
So, I dont know much about US, but I believe that the majority of the people supporting the republicans are the people from the central south area right?

Colin
18th September 04, 05:36 PM
Probably.. Certainly not the voters of California.. AMERICA'S LARGEST STATE.

ewdfs
19th September 04, 06:38 AM
Arent people from the south the racists and conservative guys?

Deadpan Scientist
19th September 04, 10:38 AM
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/nbc.gif

Elections in the US are not decided by the popular vote.

Deadpan Scientist
19th September 04, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by KungFuColin
Brande.. You going to tell me that you're in the top 5% of wage earners? If not, why the hell would YOU vote for Bush?


I'm not, but the rest of my family is.

Do you even know how much a top 5% wage earner makes per year in america?

Dejavu
19th September 04, 01:48 PM
Somewhere around the area of 90,000 a year? I dunno, just a guess.

brandeissansoo, is that picture that you posted recent?

Alaska is the US's largest state. California is only third largest.

Leodom
19th September 04, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by KungFuColin
I'll also add that Americans didn't vote Bush in, either.
Gore won the vote, but Bush got the Seat.. THAT wouldn't happen in Australia.

Bush got a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton did in '92 or '96. Clinton never got a majority.

Leodom
19th September 04, 01:54 PM
In response to the original question. If terrorists could vote in the US, you could bet that they'd vote for Kerry. Kerry will treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and kowtow to the UN. Bush will not. In this way, the terrorists are smarter than the average Kerry supporter.

Deadpan Scientist
19th September 04, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Dejavu
Somewhere around the area of 90,000 a year? I dunno, just a guess.

brandeissansoo, is that picture that you posted recent?

Alaska is the US's largest state. California is only third largest.

You're about right.

The picture is from the 2000 election, which apparently KungFucolin thinks Gore should have won

ewdfs
19th September 04, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
In response to the original question. If terrorists could vote in the US, you could bet that they'd vote for Kerry. Kerry will treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue and kowtow to the UN. Bush will not. In this way, the terrorists are smarter than the average Kerry supporter.

it was just a joke dude

ICY
19th September 04, 05:17 PM
If you're rich, or poor but still want lower taxes, or like aggressive foreign policy, or conservative values, or gun rights, or less domestic spending...then you might vote for Bush, there are other reasons obviously, but there are a few.

This is not to say there aren't lots of reasons to vote for Kerry, but if I had to choose, I pick Bush.

Phrost
19th September 04, 05:26 PM
The poor aren't paying anything in taxes as it is, something the Democrits love to lie about, while the top 3% pay over 50% of the tax burden.

If that's not income redistribution, I don't know what is.

ICY
19th September 04, 05:29 PM
Everyone pays sales taxes, but that's a state thing in the US, right?

Leodom
19th September 04, 07:26 PM
Sales Tax is a state and municipality thing in the states. As of right now, we don't have a national sales tax.

I would support replacing the current income tax with a national retail sales tax. My only concern would be that in the future, the income tax would be added back and we would then have both.

ICY
19th September 04, 07:56 PM
Here, the Conservatives added a national sales tax (7%) and the Liberals won the next election, partially by promising to get rid of that tax...but they never did. Sales taxes are probably the hardest type of tax to evade, so I don't mind them, however, to REPLACE income tax, you realize sales tax would have to be something like 30-50%, right?

Leodom
19th September 04, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
however, to REPLACE income tax, you realize sales tax would have to be something like 30-50%, right?

I don't believe they would. The studies I've seen in the US point to about a 15% sales tax being enough to replace all income and payroll taxes.

EuropIan
19th September 04, 09:24 PM
you have no right to complain about taxes I live in Denmark. Where everything is heavily taxed

ICY
19th September 04, 09:45 PM
I don't believe they would. The studies I've seen in the US point to about a 15% sales tax being enough to replace all income and payroll taxes.

Er...how does that work? If right now the federal government takes almost 30% of the income of people who make over $100k then if you cut that number in half, and probably more, since money put into investments wouldn't be affected, then how do you make up the loss? Or is it because poorer people will spend more on things that have sales tax attached? Does the tax apply to second-hand items as well as new? I just don't understand how you can cut the percentage in half and not loose money.

Leodom
20th September 04, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
Er...how does that work? If right now the federal government takes almost 30% of the income of people who make over $100k then if you cut that number in half, and probably more, since money put into investments wouldn't be affected, then how do you make up the loss? Or is it because poorer people will spend more on things that have sales tax attached? Does the tax apply to second-hand items as well as new? I just don't understand how you can cut the percentage in half and not loose money.

You're making a false comparison. You can't compare income tax rates with sales tax rates. You have to compare the amount of money each would bring in. The rates are percentages of different funds (income versus expenditures) With a sales tax, you effectively tax at least part of the current underground economy. Many people get paid "under the table" and don't pay income taxes. (tips, cash payments for services, etc...) This money that is currently not taxed, would then be taxed when the recipient of the income purchases something.

A quick calculation would be to calculate what percentage of the Gross Domestic Product it would take to match the current government revenues from income tax. That would give you a rough estimate of what the sales tax rate would need to be to match the current Federal revenue from income taxes.

2003 US GDP was approximately $44 billion. National Income to employees was reportd as approximately $39 billion. The average tax rate is currently about 14% for a Federal Revenue of about $5.5 billion. This would equate to a 12.5% sales tax rate to obtain the same revenue.

Peter H.
20th September 04, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Xango

-- Anti-immigrant (mostly poor whites living in areas with a lot of illegal Mexican laborers).


Bush pissed them off with his general amnesty for illiegal immigrants and expansion of labor visa's from Mexico.

BTW: The poor don't pay income tax in the US, and infact usually get a good sized check from the government every year for being poor.

This will be the first year since 2000 I will have to pay taxes. Last year, my adjusted tax rate was -27% (yes, negative). Not only did I pay no taxes, but I recieved almost a $4k check from the government under Earned Income Credit.

This year, I will be paying income tax only because my ex-wife can now claim one of my children while I claim the other one. Otherwise, I wouldn't be getting extra money back, but I wouldn't be paying anything.

For the record, last year I made $12k. This year I will be making $35k.

And for all you kids, here's a PSA: That's the difference between a High School education and an Associates Degree in this part of Texas.

Balloonknot
21st September 04, 08:47 AM
Oh Brother!!!

jubei33
21st September 04, 09:52 AM
The poor aren't paying anything in taxes as it is, something the Democrits love to lie about, while the top 3% pay over 50% of the tax burden.


source please?

Leodom
21st September 04, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by jubei33
The poor aren't paying anything in taxes as it is, something the Democrits love to lie about, while the top 3% pay over 50% of the tax burden.


source please?

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

It's actuallly the top 5% of income earners pays 53.25% of the tax burden.

ICY
21st September 04, 05:50 PM
2003 US GDP was approximately $44 billion. National Income to employees was reportd as approximately $39 billion. The average tax rate is currently about 14% for a Federal Revenue of about $5.5 billion. This would equate to a 12.5% sales tax rate to obtain the same revenue.

So you expect that you can directly tax the GDP? What about money taken out of the country or invested?

Dochter
21st September 04, 05:59 PM
That top five percent also controls a comprable amount of the wealth. Why shouldn't they pay an equivalent amount of the taxes?

Isn't that the basis of the beloved flat tax as well?

Leodom
22nd September 04, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Dochter
That top five percent also controls a comprable amount of the wealth. Why shouldn't they pay an equivalent amount of the taxes?

Isn't that the basis of the beloved flat tax as well?

That's not true, they only earn about 32% of the wealth.
The following link is to the IRS numbers. It's a bit detailed but the figures are there.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Leodom
22nd September 04, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
So you expect that you can directly tax the GDP? What about money taken out of the country or invested?

No, but it's the closest I could come to a parallel for what consumers buy in the United States.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Leodom
That's not true, they only earn about 32% of the wealth.
The following link is to the IRS numbers. It's a bit detailed but the figures are there.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls Boofucking hoo for them. I bet they all pay less than they would if it weren't for cheesedick loopholes.

Leodom
22nd September 04, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Dochter
Boofucking hoo for them. I bet they all pay less than they would if it weren't for cheesedick loopholes.

Come on Doc, you're smarter than that. The IRSs own numbers state what was ACTUALLY paid. If you think they SHOULD have paid more, take it up with the IRS. They audit for that you know.

Define some of the "loopholes" you're thinking about. Many loopholes were closed during the Reagan administration as part of the tax cuts at the time. The only way the tax cuts were passed was through a compromise which closed many loopholes and (I believe) also ended the tax deduction for interest paid on consumer credit.

The numbers in the link I provided are based on actual payments, not a calculation of what was "supposed" to be paid.

Concede the point Doc. --this statement: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dochter
That top five percent also controls a comprable amount of the wealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is false.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 10:51 AM
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14663&perpage=20&highlight=tax[^\s]*&pagenumber=2
Like I said, I'm not particularly worried about it.

The statement is inaccurate, though. I was thinking about the numbers I was looking at before , the ~40 or whatever percent group where it is comprable.

Leodom
22nd September 04, 10:58 AM
I thought this conversation sounded awfully familiar. :)

Dochter
22nd September 04, 11:03 AM
Whenever I hear arguments about the wealthy being unfairly taxed (like the 40% paying 90 % of taxes while controling 70% of the wealth) I remeber a Chris Rock stand up bit. It went along the lines of this: "The rich don't need prenup agreements. Even if you lose half your shit you still have three houses and a jet. If you're only making 20,000 a year and someone takes half your shit you're fucked though."

Wounded Ronin
22nd September 04, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by LLL
I can't understand why someone'd vote for Bush. I'm sure Kerry is 100% ass too (so what's new with US presidents)...

But GWB's set whole new standards for it. 100% seriously, this idiot could never become the president of Finland, for example... Because no-one would vote for him.

Yet, he's the ruler of the most powerful country in the world... Probably mostly because of the adherence to the 2 party system.


I agree. Bush needs to go because of his outrageous incompetence. I can only conclude that anyone who wants to vote for Bush is too stupid to understand that Bush really contributed to some very bad things happening.

ewdfs
22nd September 04, 03:52 PM
Or (like I was told) people who vote for him dont know what is going on, since they are mostly rural folks who cant look anywhere else than their own belly

Wounded Ronin
22nd September 04, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by ewdfs
Or (like I was told) people who vote for him dont know what is going on, since they are mostly rural folks who cant look anywhere else than their own belly

Eh heh heh.

Mohawk
22nd September 04, 07:55 PM
YOU DOWN WITH GOP?!