quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You still have told me why it bothers you so much how other people spend their money? Why it bothers you so much that others have bigger houses? Why you think you have the right to tell other people how to spend the money they have earned? You're only 21, maybe after you have worked for a while and had to pay for the house you live in, you might think differently. Then again you might hit 40 and still think the world owes you something. Only time will tell.

In order, the answers to your questions are:

-Because more often than not it's wasted (and not in ways that will at least benefit society
-Because it's a waste (of space AND money)
-I don't, but I have the right to tell them that they're wasting their money, and to write to my congress-people to say 'yo, if they're going to waste all this money, at least lets have some of it go to good?' Part of the point of HAVING a society is that everyone has a safety net and will help their fellow man when they can. Just because some people who want to be part of a society don't think that this should apply to them doesn't mean that they shouldn't still be required to give back to that same society that gave to them.

I also don't think the world owes me anything. I think that every individual in our society owes the society (including me) to better it, including (and especially) those that can afford to give back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

[Well I hate to burst your bubble, but I really doubt your going to get many checks in the mail. If you want nice things, go out and earn the money yourself. No one owes you anything.

Boi is right, Avian....if you want nice things, you should go out and run a $50,000,000 ponzi scheme, create investment products that drive the economy into the toilet or work with the vice president so that when we we go to war you're given billions with no questions asked.

And yes, I know that I might, not without justification, be accused in this post of conservative poking, but it's just sooooo much fun sometimes.

quote:

I *don't* want bigger toys. I don't want those things at all... I think that they're an incredible waste (especially because you can't possibly hope to use it all) and I hate waste. That's the point. I'm not bitching because they have what I want, if anything I'm bitching (if even that) because they're wasting what they have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

Feel better after the bit of a rant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

we should be building nuclear plants, drilling for oil and natural gas...

I couldn't agree more on the first, and disagree more on the last two. Perpetrating the gross over-need for oil and natural gas for even just a bit longer (while effectively removing HUGE tracts of land that could otherwise be used to stimulate the economy more effectively) would be a silly thing to do. It makes sense to have nuclear power, it's cheap, effective, and the benefits really *do* outweigh the costs... but we need to be focusing the land that we'd otherwise drill on for development, and other things that actually stimulate the economy and will ensure our future. You know, that place where our children, and grandchildren, will live?

quote:


And we have a President who is measured by his last speech and not his deeds.

How is this different... from *any* other president while they were in office, ever? People like to be comforted, and hearing someone speak will make them forget about what they're doing. The same was true of Bush, the same was true of Clinton. I don't exactly remember the Bush Sr. years to note on those, but that's 16 years right there where what you suggested... is the norm :P

quote:


We have politicans making economic choices based on agenda's.

Again, how is this different from *any* other time in the past 16 or more years? *ALL* politicians have an agenda, FYI, otherwise they wouldn't BE politicians.

quote:

The malls are pretty much empty five days a week these days, and retail is in poor shape with stores going out of business,

If you say so... I've seen the opposite. The malls around here are pretty crowded almost all the time. Granted, I don't think it's because people are buying things left and right, but they're social places as much as anything. The food court's probably making good. Most of the stores around here are doing well, too... of course they're not really 'small business' places.

Everything else has pretty much be beaten to death... but these points were interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

You're pointlessly simplifying what I'm saying to a point where it's ridiculous.

I'm not *terribly* surprised, but I figured I should point out that I noticed.

The only people I get presents from on any occasion is my parents and brother (and extended family, if I decide to go into the holiday gift-exchange) and I make it expressly known that I only want things... you guessed it, made and sold in America.

I'm not saying that people should live below their needs (especially because certain types of spending stimulates the economy). Quite the opposite, I'm saying people should stop wasting money and use it to stimulate and better society, and stop bitching that they have higher taxes than Mary Jane, who makes 25k a year when they make 250k a year. The fact that it bothers me that they spend their money on wastes that don't benefit society are is created by two reasons:

I hate waste. It's an entirely personal reason. When I see an untaxed acquisition of a yacht or some estate, or the creation of a huge mansion on land that could otherwise be used for practical purposes (like, y'know, housing for *other* people too) it's a waste.

More often than not these people are complaining that they can't keep all their money in the first place. THAT is what sticks in my political craw, in that they're *GETTING* this money thanks to the people paying for a service, or a good, or whatever... it makes sense that there should be a GIVE and take, not just a take, relationship.

That was my point, which you've completely disregarded. It benefits the economy *more* to spend the money within the economy than it does to give to charity... which is what I do with a majority of my income... in the form of medical bills and university costs! When I no longer have the latter, I'll probably spend on services that directly benefit American workers, and I'll also have debts for American goods through American lenders (cars are awfully required to work most jobs that you don't live a five minute walk from, the internet is often a necessity as well, now, as is heating, cooling, water and gas), as well as paying for rent (or on whatever loan used to buy a place if I go that route, though I doubt it).

quote:


It benefits the economy *more* to spend the money within the economy than it does to give to charity...

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

The point was that they stimulate OUR economy *because* I pay them. 

To quote myself (you know, the important part of the entire post):

quote:


It benefits the economy *more* to spend the money within the economy than it does to give to charity...

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

Feel better after the bit of a rant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

we should be building nuclear plants, drilling for oil and natural gas...

I couldn't agree more on the first, and disagree more on the last two. Perpetrating the gross over-need for oil and natural gas for even just a bit longer (while effectively removing HUGE tracts of land that could otherwise be used to stimulate the economy more effectively) would be a silly thing to do. It makes sense to have nuclear power, it's cheap, effective, and the benefits really *do* outweigh the costs... but we need to be focusing the land that we'd otherwise drill on for development, and other things that actually stimulate the economy and will ensure our future. You know, that place where our children, and grandchildren, will live?

Thank you for agreeing on nuclear, the cleanest fuel available today as an alternative fuel to fossil fuels. We probably could be totally free of oil imports and the hundreds of millions we send every year to the Mideast, Venezueala and Africa if we started a crash program to build plants, cut the burercratic red tape that has held back development a nuclear capacity while countries like France. In total, 16 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity. Countries generating the largest percentage of their electricity in 2007 from nuclear energy ranged from Rance with almost 80%.to Lithuania 65%, Belgium, 54%, Ukraine 48%, Sweden 46% and een Bulgaria with 32%.  Our "green" politicians have stopped all building of nuclear plants in this country, and the United States generates about 8% of its power requirement with nuclear.  Imagine if our politicans had done their job and did not bend over and hold their ankles for the Sierra Club..etc.  It's not as if we wanted to set off an atomic device to stimulate tight gas reserves as one done in the 1960's in Colorado!....

With respect to fossil fuels, I have been reading about 10-14 year lives of oil fields for decades...the problem for the doom and gloomers being we either discover more producing zones, significantly improved or technology for seismic and drilling to achieve a higher net from a well, and in finding new prolific fields.
The gigantic Chevron discovery in the Gulf being the most recent example, a discovery that could add significant reserves, some estimate as large as the North Slope, to the US account.  Unthinkable not too many years ago, the discovery well was drilled in about 6,000 feet of "water" to a depth of almost 30,000 feet!..that's a feat!!!    Other major new fields have been found in the country on land...and in areas I don't really think your kids or mine, would want to live..and certainly my wife would ever want to visit. We are not talking about Offshore Santa Barbara...which, by the way, hasn't seemed to change the lifestyle out that way....and still a great place to live.


http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/

http://www.chevron.com/News/Press/release/?id=2009-02-05

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/renewableenergy.html 

quote:


And we have a President who is measured by his last speech and not his deeds.

How is this different... from *any* other president while they were in office, ever? People like to be comforted, and hearing someone speak will make them forget about what they're doing. The same was true of Bush, the same was true of Clinton. I don't exactly remember the Bush Sr. years to note on those, but that's 16 years right there where what you suggested... is the norm :P

I only wish you were right...George Bush was not a communicator and probably will be more highly regarded by historians than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews do at present.  Unfortunately, GW didn't have a face or speaking voice for TV...would have been great in the 1930's..:)  Clinton was a smooth talker...he "felt your pain"...had that southern charm that wet panties, and didn't do a damn thing except enjoy the high tide of the birth of the internet and rapid advances in technology. Clinton had nothing to do with thhe stock market rising to fantastic heights, put big money into everyone's pocket, and had a republican Congress that hadn't forgotten it's "contract with the country" as the idiots did since 2002.  They deserved to be thrown out two years ago...only problem being their replacements were even worse..not man for man, as much as the leadership.  You mention your kids...can you believe Nancy Pelosi, voted in office by 135,000 votes...is responsible for the financial health of the country and our futures???  Unreal!..
 
Barack Obama is a wordsmith of the highest order  the Mickey Mantle, the Tiger Woods, the Warren Bufet, the Bill Gates, of wordsmithing..if that's a word..  They don't get any better than this charismatic guy in politics.  The problem now, however, is that Obama has no clue and is ..."threading where angels fear to thread",   is over his head on the world political stage, has no experience managing anything bigger than his family budget and his campaign, and , is dependent upon people who made it through the IRS but other than Hillary, Gates, and Mitchell, arent' worth the price of the suits they wear. 
 
Do you think Hillary would have given Pelosi and Reid carte blanche to write the "Spending Bill" that was just past with only democrat votes, one senile egotistical Senator from Pennsylvania, and the two Senators from Maine who gave some payback for I think it was "Lobster Research"!  No one read the Bill that now is destroying the balance sheet of our country and lengthening any hope of an economic recovery. It had to be passed in a hurry...not because of the urgency, and their is, but because people were starting to read it and saw the waste, agenda driven projects, and the possiblity for corruption beyond anything seen in this countries history.

quote:


We have politicans making economic choices based on agenda's.

Again, how is this different from *any* other time in the past 16 or more years? *ALL* politicians have an agenda, FYI, otherwise they wouldn't BE politicians.

The problem is that the problems we face today could be terminal.  We need experienced people like Bernake, Paulson, Rubin, and the heads of the biggest banks in the country who have learned lessons that cost their institutions a trillion dollars .. or more.  These guys may be greedy but they DO know something about banking, about risk taking..more than they knew five years ago, and instead we have Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and the ever popular Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Reid...writing laws to supposedly to stimulate our economy that are really making up for 30 years of a democrat wish list...and more is coming.  Government spending on infrastructure is not what creates jobs...business creates jobs.  We need politicians to be politicians and give smooth talks and inspiring speeches at rubber chicken luncheons, and businessmen to be incented to build, and hire, and grow so that our economy has a lasting change for the better.
 
 
Within a months time, the Obama administration and the democrat Congress have put the dollar on the road towards a "sub-prime" currency, initiated laws that will change healthcare in this country forever, to benefit 15% of the people and badly screw the 85% of the hard working people who have healthcare.  We will soon have a "healthcare czar"..was supposed to be Daschle...who will dictate how your doctor will prescribe tests and meds..on a cost/benefit basis.  If you die because you were not allowed a test and you have what doctors call "an event"...heck, think of the savings to the taxpayer! 

quote:

The malls are pretty much empty five days a week these days, and retail is in poor shape with stores going out of business,

If you say so... I've seen the opposite. The malls around here are pretty crowded almost all the time. Granted, I don't think it's because people are buying things left and right, but they're social places as much as anything. The food court's probably making good. Most of the stores around here are doing well, too... of course they're not really 'small business' places.

Honestly, can I tell you..other than on Friday and Saturday nights, the malls I am working in are probably seeing 20-50%, being generous, of what might be normal winter traffic.Ok..these are outdoor lifestyle malls, and,I grant you that the insdoor malls are seeing "browsers" who buy a pizza, coffee, soda or ice cream...but don't byy in the retail stores.  Very few people are walking around with "shopping bags" of goodies.

Everything else has pretty much be beaten to death... but these points were interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

From the Gov.
the TOP 1 % of tax payers pay 30 % of the tax, yet they earn only 18 % of the total income.
its wrong to have a sliding tax scale.
EVERY one over 18 that has a job  or income should pay 10 of their income.
the gov should learn to live with in its means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

From the Gov.
the TOP 1 % of tax payers pay 30 % of the tax, yet they earn only 18 % of the total income.
its wrong to have a sliding tax scale.
EVERY one over 18 that has a job  or income should pay 10 of their income.
the gov should learn to live with in its means.

Got a link for that lie?

quote:

the TOP 1 % of tax payers pay 30 % of the tax, yet they earn only 18 % of the total income.
its wrong to have a sliding tax scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

I'm not saying no one should ever buy luxury items ever, I'm saying that they should only purchase what they will use (often), and give as much back to society as possible (preferably through purchasing things that benefit American citizens and taxes).