What the frick?!

Arizona Telephone Directory - Illegal Business Operations

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:44 am

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Seriously, tho, are you implying that no other countries get as drunk as Americans?
And no, other countries can't say that they get drunk less. But few countries can say that they waste more money then the USA. Compare oil and energy consumption per person in USA to those of other countries. Most countries simply cannot afford to be that spoiled.
And... what does that have to do with alcohol, again? Very interesting way to segue into energy consumption.

But it's not something that bothers me, seeing as I don't believe in this whole Global Warming scare. And yet I understand your point about excess. So I'll ignore this one and change the subject.

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:The reason GDP per capita for Norway is higher than the US is because of the relative difference between population and GDP. It doesn't mean that the average Norwegian is richer, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they have a higher standard of living. It's a ratio between the population and GDP. Find me a graph that shows the percentage of Norway's population that meets your alleged standards of wealth and compare it to a similar graph of the US's population and I'll consider your argument.

That's exactly what it means, lol. The average Norwegian is richer than the average American. You take the wealth of the whole nation, divide it by the number of people, and you get the average wealth of a person. Sure there are richer and poorer, like everywhere. but in terms of average Norway is richer. Get over it. And yes, it's because they have fewer people. But think about it this way, an average Norwegian produces and generates more GDP for his country than an average American does for his, doesn't he?
Except that many industries in Norway are owned by the government. GDP includes all services, public and private. About three quarters of all Norwegian savings are controlled by the State; the State's holdings amount to about 40 percent of the total values of the companies listed in the Oslo Stock Exchange. And so, GDP BY ITSELF does not indicate how much the average citizen of a country earns and gets to keep, "after taxes". That's what I'm trying to tell you. Norway is essentially a welfare state, where it assumes ownership of certain highly-profitable industries (such as oil) and uses those profits to augment its taxes and fund their expenditures. So, because of the lower population, GDP per capita seems high. That's what I'm saying.

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:But suppose that the 60% that could donated a proportional amount relative to their economic standing towards education of those that could not? We've already seen Americans helping other Americans less fortunate than themselves. Let's say everyone donated an extra of 10% of their income to those (private) schools so that the poorer population could either attend free or attend at a reduced cost, relative to their economic standing. Base it off the amount of taxes that we got in 2009 and cut it in half (assume the average amount in taxes paid equates to about 20-25%), and calculate how much it would cost for those 40% you mentioned to go to these same private schools. Then, based on a steep curve, figure out how much it would take for those 40% to afford reduced tuition.

My plan is fairly sound, wouldn't you say? It just needs to be able to be put to practice without government intervention.

You know, once you rip money off of tax payers and pump them into a school to allow enrolment free of charge, then that's pretty much what a public school is. So you kinda shot yourself in the leg with this one.
Absolutely not. A non-profit, non-government organization that receives most (if not all) of their funding from individual people is still a private-sector charity; getting funding from the general public does not make it a public-sector organization. And a non-profit organization that uses its funds for a specific purpose (as in the one above) and donates its money to a private school so they can take on more students does not make the school a public school.

And the expression is "shot yourself in the foot."

Q.U. wrote:Really, I strongly believe that it doesn't matter who runs the schools, private investors or government selected bodies, if you pump enough money into them they will become more efficient.
Well then you obviously don't know the story of New York and Utah.

Of all states, New York spends the most money per student on education, at roughly $16,000 (as of 2007). Utah spends the least money per student on education, at just over $5800. And yet their scores are nearly identicial, despite a more than $10K difference.

Part of the problem is the teacher's unions and Tenure, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Also, I find it hard to believe that oil companies would simply double gas prices out of spite and expect to make double--or even the same--profits. If Americans could hold out an extra month or two, gas prices would go back down.

They couldn't. You seem to forget that oil is one of them most sought natural resources around. Americans want to increase the taxes for selling oil in their country? It becomes more profitable to sell to China who is willing to pay a tiny bit less, but still more than the taxes would take. Oil companies go sell elsewhere. They are profit oriented, it's simple really.
From what I can tell, China used to subsidize consumer costs for gasoline (meaning gas prices were artificially lower). As of February, they no longer did that, and gas prices went up to roughly 33% above the average price in the US. And seeing as they import more than 5 million barrels per month, I seriously doubt that it would be less expensive for China and more profitable for the American oil companies. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise?

Q.U. wrote:It's one of the reasons why your country went all berserk on Iraq, simply to get their hands on more secured oil production sites. If their troops control the oil fields in Iraq then those who produce oil there are kinda forced to sell it to USA regardless of the taxes and profits.
...sigh... that tired old rumor. The left loves it as a talking point. If only it were true.

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Once again, I feel like I'm being tag-teamed. Isn't there anyone on here who thinks I'm at least making sense?

All you spout in your last 2 comments is nonsense, so no. I would agree with you in many things, as I did, but not when you make no sense or show off plain disregard to the realities of our world.
As I explained above, you misunderstood what I was saying. But I'm not judging; I probably should have made myself clearer.

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:@BR: Fine, Norway is a hell of a lot better than the United States right now. But seeing as that's true, why was it not your first choice when you decided you wanted to get out of the US? Was the plane ticket too expensive? (lol)

I think mostly because Norway doesn't allow you to stay in for more than 6 months unless you get enrolled into a school, or get a job for which you first need a permission as a foreigner. It's why Norway never joined EU, cause then people could go in there and work freely, and they don't really want to give away all their social care money and jobs to lazy foreigners.
::blink:: First I've heard that. What is your citation?

Q.U. wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:I suppose the two weeks I spent in Norway in 2008 didn't let me see much of the whole country... but I did notice their insane taxes; nearly 20% in sales tax for one.

And that's how they can afford public school that are better than your private schools, etc. Last time I heard, the richest people in Norway pay 90% income tax.
Which means they aren't very rich at all, are they? How in the world does one get rich if the practice of getting wealth is punished in this manner?

Also, it's not 90%. While I don't fully understand it, what I gather from my research, cumulatively it would probably be about 60-70%; as of 2010 there was a 28% flat tax for Income (ordinary and corporate, although they seem like separate taxes), and they have VATs of 25% general, 14% for foodstuffs, and 8% for transportation.

@BR: Persuade =/= coerce. Also, persuading someone to do something is not the same as informing them of a problem and offering a solution that relies on public support. It's like saying "your local Public Broadcast Station is hosting a telethon to raise money for the United Cancer Foundion. All proceeds will go directly towards getting cancer patients the treatment they need at no cost to them." And if no one watched PBS, they wouldn't know this was going on. And along the same lines, if I had never met you, I wouldn't even know what Crohn's was, and I wouldn't be helping anyone with their medical costs or offering them a place to stay.

And as for "How can you count on charity," that question seems at odds with your character; you, who consistently says people can work together indefinitely for a common goal, are asking me how you can count on people to be charitable. I mean, it just seems odd that you question human charity with the ideologies you advocate.

Wasn't there a case in Canada of someone posing as a Cancer patient for two years to get attention, and by the time it was revealed that she did not have cancer, she had received thousands of dollars from the public? This is proof of both human greed and human charity.

And I made no claim that insinuated that the rich suffer more than anyone else by being forced to part with a higher percentage of their income proportional to their financial standing; it seems like we're simply punishing those with more money for having more money--which, no matter how you look at it, it is simply not fair. Imagine if you brought 10 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made you give one to her, and another kid brought 100 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made him give her 30. One or both of you is going to feel confused and/or gypped.

Still working on my missing chunk of text to Valhallen. Kinda going back and forth between personal interests, work, friends, and my cat. Personal life at its best.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Q.U. » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:50 am

And... what does that have to do with alcohol, again? Very interesting way to segue into energy consumption.

But it's not something that bothers me, seeing as I don't believe in this whole Global Warming scare. And yet I understand your point about excess. So I'll ignore this one and change the subject.

Well, we could play around quoting alcohol consumption, daily intake of calories, percentage of overweight population, and so on. But frankly, energy consumption kinda sums it all up (in a way) and it's easier to find, as far as data sources go. You consume energy for product production, heating, shipping/delivering food and goods, and also running electric household appliances. So yeah, the more alcohol you drink, it will in the end have an impact on energy and oil consumption, same with food, goods and electronics.

Except that many industries in Norway are owned by the government. GDP includes all services, public and private. About three quarters of all Norwegian savings are controlled by the State; the State's holdings amount to about 40 percent of the total values of the companies listed in the Oslo Stock Exchange. And so, GDP BY ITSELF does not indicate how much the average citizen of a country earns and gets to keep, "after taxes". That's what I'm trying to tell you. Norway is essentially a welfare state, where it assumes ownership of certain highly-profitable industries (such as oil) and uses those profits to augment its taxes and fund their expenditures. So, because of the lower population, GDP per capita seems high. That's what I'm saying.

That's not really how it works, but okay. In fact, I could just quote that Norway has a PPP over $5000 higher than USA (as according to IMF, but don't worry, World Bank and CIA factbook also all agree that Norway>USA in this case), so yeah GDP per capita may be somewhat misleading, Purchasing Power Parity per capita is pretty much wealth of an average person. And it's still higher. Stop trying to argue established facts.
About PPP wrote:Comparisons of national wealth are also frequently made on the basis of nominal GDP, which does not reflect differences in the cost of living in different countries (See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita). Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. Other figures include savings (not just income), such as national wealth.

Check and mate.

Absolutely not. A non-profit, non-government organization that receives most (if not all) of their funding from individual people is still a private-sector charity; getting funding from the general public does not make it a public-sector organization. And a non-profit organization that uses its funds for a specific purpose (as in the one above) and donates its money to a private school so they can take on more students does not make the school a public school.

And the expression is "shot yourself in the foot."

I said leg cause shooting your foot would be an understatement here.

And I'm not saying that your idea would be equal to that of public schools. I'm saying that although working differently, the issue at hand, which is, may I remind you, the EFFECTIVENESS of teaching does NOT depend on whether the school is run by A or B, but on how it spends its resources.

Of all states, New York spends the most money per student on education, at roughly $16,000 (as of 2007). Utah spends the least money per student on education, at just over $5800. And yet their scores are nearly identicial, despite a more than $10K difference.

Part of the problem is the teacher's unions and Tenure, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Not arguing my point here. I said the efficiency of teaching is the same regardless if McCain or Obama owns the school provided they have the same starting fund and they spend the money exactly the same way. If your private school idea was to be getting more funding than public schools then yeah, it would boost up teaching standards, but if they made just as much money from charity as public schools get from government, then the efficiency only depends on how the money is spent (as in "spent well" or "wasted/stolen").

From what I can tell, China used to subsidize consumer costs for gasoline (meaning gas prices were artificially lower). As of February, they no longer did that, and gas prices went up to roughly 33% above the average price in the US. And seeing as they import more than 5 million barrels per month, I seriously doubt that it would be less expensive for China and more profitable for the American oil companies. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise?

What are you trying to say here? USA does subsidise oil to artificially lower prices. Cause people can't afford them to be real. So does most wealthy countries of the world. China doesn't give a crap no more, so people have to pay more for oil. But those subsidies are change of costs from between gas station and the consumer. Not between oil tycoon and country's oil corporations. Whether they subsidise or not they still buy at the same price from those who sell, such subsidies don't make a difference there. Look here:
This is the second year the administration has sought to end the subsidies. The move has been strongly condemned by oil and gas companies, which argue that abolishing the tax breaks would reduce domestic drilling, cost jobs and increase U.S. reliance on foreign energy suppliers.

Foreign energy and oil suppliers... they will sell to the highest bidder unless influenced otherwise. Subsidies are for your "domestic drilling", which is completely not what I was talking about.

...sigh... that tired old rumor. The left loves it as a talking point. If only it were true.

It's as old and tired and as lame as the bullshit about weapons of mass destruction that we were all sold in order to allow that war in the first place. Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, then clearly you didn't invade Iraq for those. So we have to guess it was something else, best guess would naturally occur to be oil. If it's true, I don't know, but beats believing in bullshit.

::blink:: First I've heard that. What is your citation?

Oh sorry. Citation: My sister who lives there.
Your turn.

Which means they aren't very rich at all, are they? How in the world does one get rich if the practice of getting wealth is punished in this manner?

It's called tax refunds through social services. All people get ripped off money down to a similar flat amount, then the country divides all the money "stolen" down onto all people in various forms of benefits, cuts and payments, thus evening out the social classes down to "average wealthy".
Good or bad? I don't know, but seems it worked for them.

And I made no claim that insinuated that the rich suffer more than anyone else by being forced to part with a higher percentage of their income proportional to their financial standing; it seems like we're simply punishing those with more money for having more money--which, no matter how you look at it, it is simply not fair. Imagine if you brought 10 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made you give one to her, and another kid brought 100 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made him give her 30. One or both of you is going to feel confused and/or gypped.

You'd puke your ass out your mouth after 5 bags of skittles anyway, so it doesn't matter how many she takes as long as she leaves you with 5. Rich people get taxed more, but they still end up having more than others. It's not all that unfair really. You can live a very wealthy and decent life from like, what? $100 000 a year? If you had $200 000 a year would you be buying more food and clothes? No, you'd be spending it on luxuries or simply wasting on frivolous life. And all is fine with it, it's your money, but why would you spend more than you can while others starve. That's what the government feels is bad, and thus they enforce such taxation.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:48 pm

RuffDraft:

not FAIR?

and I'M the idealist?

NOT FAIR? no, when you're saying that rich people losing more of their money which is by the definition of their being rich excessive, than the poor people losing more of their money which is by the definition of their being poor the opposite of excessive (not enough), you're saying that poor people are getting a better deal than rich people.

You are equating the lack of money (that causes problems with the poor) is not valid enough that excess money should be used in response. I mean, this is what your argument becomes: Rich People's Money Matters More Than The Suffering Of Poor People.

That is what is happening here. And I know you don't believe that. What the fuck, man? FAIR? REALLY? really? fair? man.

How many poor people have to abuse the system in order to validate that not fair aspect, then? Is there a specific number for which we should be shooting?

And persuasion is different from coercion? What, by suggesting negative outcomes rather than positive ones? That's just a matter of perspective and priorities. It's just a more realistic cost-benefit analysis. Don't tell me that somehow someone focusing on the negatives in an argument is the only thing that makes an argument valid or not.

If you're saying that coercion is more than that, the illegal forcing using actual threat of violence by the person doing the coercion, I guess that's totally valid: but the rich don't have to respond to those threats either, legally, do they?

And if you are going to further the point that law is not enough at this point, do you really think that the rich are hugely disadvantaged in every way against coercion? with whatever power from the resources they have accumulated, they can't do anything against coercion?

And really, do those with power have a choice but to at least present the appearance of cooperation? Are we going to discuss how FAIR a corporation or individual is by how much they donate to different charities? No, man, it's all moot in a large variety of directions.

including some of my points! just extending the metaphor, feel free to ignore most of this as it relates practically to our discussion at large. But really, the point of my post is: really? FAIR? seriously? you are really going to claim this is the basis of your argument? that somehow it is not FAIR? I just can't get over that.

i mean, if we're going to be idealists, why start so cynically? why not do what I do and be REALLY idealistic? if it's about lofty things like JUSTICE, then why hold yourself to a standard of realism? Because wow, that's a detour from JUSTICE.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:23 pm

eeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:25 pm

The Mirak wrote:eeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


mirak is why communism fails >8[
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:01 am

lol
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:57 pm

Q.U. wrote:
About PPP wrote:Comparisons of national wealth are also frequently made on the basis of nominal GDP, which does not reflect differences in the cost of living in different countries (See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita). Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. Other figures include savings (not just income), such as national wealth.

Check and mate.
Except that this is about standard of living. The discussion was wealth of the average population. And as I said, the only way you're going to be able to prove that to me is by showing me with hard data how much the average person makes and gets to keep after taxes.

Q.U. wrote:
Absolutely not. A non-profit, non-government organization that receives most (if not all) of their funding from individual people is still a private-sector charity; getting funding from the general public does not make it a public-sector organization. And a non-profit organization that uses its funds for a specific purpose (as in the one above) and donates its money to a private school so they can take on more students does not make the school a public school.
I'm not saying that your idea would be equal to that of public schools. I'm saying that although working differently, the issue at hand, which is, may I remind you, the EFFECTIVENESS of teaching does NOT depend on whether the school is run by A or B, but on how it spends its resources.
No, it's whether or not teachers care enough to do their jobs. And part of the reason schools in America are so ineffective is that there is little incentive for teachers to cover the whole curriculum in a single year because no matter how poorly their students meet their standards, they keep their jobs.

I saw an article somewhere that explained how a bad teacher will cover between 50% and 75% of a year's curriculum, while a good teacher will cover at least 100% of the curriculum, and a very good teacher can cover 125% of the year's curriculum. Currently, in America, teachers that would be considered "bad" by this scale are protected by Tenure; to all appearances, they are doing their job, and so they cannot be fired, despite being unable to bring up the standards of today's society. The difference between Public schools and Private schools probably boils down to the quality of the teachers, not the amount of money spent in a single year.

Q.U. wrote:
Of all states, New York spends the most money per student on education, at roughly $16,000 (as of 2007). Utah spends the least money per student on education, at just over $5800. And yet their scores are nearly identicial, despite a more than $10K difference.

Part of the problem is the teacher's unions and Tenure, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Not arguing my point here. I said the efficiency of teaching is the same regardless if McCain or Obama owns the school provided they have the same starting fund and they spend the money exactly the same way.
But that's wrong. Not all teachers are good teachers. Not all teachers teach the same way. Some teachers are just bad. Thus, the efficiency of teaching is largely dependent on the quality of the teacher and the receptiveness of the student.

Q.U. wrote:If your private school idea was to be getting more funding than public schools then yeah, it would boost up teaching standards, but if they made just as much money from charity as public schools get from government, then the efficiency only depends on how the money is spent (as in "spent well" or "wasted/stolen").
That is the point I'm arguing. If one school is spending $5,000 per student and another school spends $15,000 per student, and their scores are nearly identical, then one school is more efficient than the other based on how much they spend to reach the same score. It would be the same if you have a machine that is cheaper to use and can complete a job faster than another machine, then that cheaper, faster machine is more efficient. But in the case of New York and Utah, we have two machines that produce roughly the same output, but one costs nearly three times as much. The amount invested should be proportional to the outcome, which is what "efficiency" means in the first place.

Q.U. wrote:
From what I can tell, China used to subsidize consumer costs for gasoline (meaning gas prices were artificially lower). As of February, they no longer did that, and gas prices went up to roughly 33% above the average price in the US. And seeing as they import more than 5 million barrels per month, I seriously doubt that it would be less expensive for China and more profitable for the American oil companies. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise?

What are you trying to say here? USA does subsidise oil to artificially lower prices. Cause people can't afford them to be real. So does most wealthy countries of the world. China doesn't give a crap no more, so people have to pay more for oil. But those subsidies are change of costs from between gas station and the consumer. Not between oil tycoon and country's oil corporations. Whether they subsidise or not they still buy at the same price from those who sell, such subsidies don't make a difference there. Look here:
This is the second year the administration has sought to end the subsidies. The move has been strongly condemned by oil and gas companies, which argue that abolishing the tax breaks would reduce domestic drilling, cost jobs and increase U.S. reliance on foreign energy suppliers.

Foreign energy and oil suppliers... they will sell to the highest bidder unless influenced otherwise. Subsidies are for your "domestic drilling", which is completely not what I was talking about.
Then maybe you should clarify what you were talking about; what you said was that it would be cheaper for oil companies to sell to China. I was saying this was not the case, and asked you for evidence.

In any case, there's a difference between what China does and what the US does. China directly subsidized gas prices to the consumer according to the rise and fall of oil per gallon. The US gives a tax break to an oil company, which is based on how much they profit off of the oil in the first place. All that does is increase their profit margin. The effect it has on reducing the price of gas is comparatively negligible when you consider China's subsidizing dropped the price of gas by about two dollars. Add to that that we drill about 40% of our overall oil supply and import the rest.

Q.U. wrote:
...sigh... that tired old rumor. The left loves it as a talking point. If only it were true.

It's as old and tired and as lame as the bullshit about weapons of mass destruction that we were all sold in order to allow that war in the first place.
An idea which, I might add, many prominent Democrats were behind right after 9/11 (including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), based on the evidence from the CIA. Senator Graham said in 2003, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Of course, making the claims that you are, you probably don't know know that we did find weapons of mass destruction though; maybe not nukes, but mustard and sarin, which are classified weapons of mass destruction.

Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, then clearly you didn't invade Iraq for those. So we have to guess it was something else, best guess would naturally occur to be oil. If it's true, I don't know, but beats believing in bullshit.
And I just proved that the idea that it was a war for oil is bullshit. What does that say about what you believe?

The fact is that if there were no weapons of mass destruction and the "war for oil" accusation is a crapshoot, then this was a purely humanitarian aid. Period.

Q.U. wrote:
::blink:: First I've heard that. What is your citation?

Oh sorry. Citation: My sister who lives there.
Your turn.
The credibility of your sister notwithstanding, please provide me with a source I can actually see or read. Would you accept a citation from one of my family members at face value?

I'm not saying your sister is wrong, I would just like something more concrete to look at.

Q.U. wrote:
Which means they aren't very rich at all, are they? How in the world does one get rich if the practice of getting wealth is punished in this manner?

It's called tax refunds through social services.
Yeah, I can totally see someone getting rich off a tax refund. Especially if a tax refund is less than half what they paid. And if that many people got a FULL tax refund, the country would go bankrupt in no time flat, or else have to stop paying for all those fancy social programs like health care and public transportation.

Q.U. wrote:All people get ripped off money down to a similar flat amount, then the country divides all the money "stolen" down onto all people in various forms of benefits, cuts and payments, thus evening out the social classes down to "average wealthy".
Good or bad? I don't know, but seems it worked for them.
You don't know if it's good or bad? Then why are we having this discussion?

Q.U. wrote:
And I made no claim that insinuated that the rich suffer more than anyone else by being forced to part with a higher percentage of their income proportional to their financial standing; it seems like we're simply punishing those with more money for having more money--which, no matter how you look at it, it is simply not fair. Imagine if you brought 10 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made you give one to her, and another kid brought 100 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made him give her 30. One or both of you is going to feel confused and/or gypped.

You'd puke your ass out your mouth after 5 bags of skittles anyway, so it doesn't matter how many she takes as long as she leaves you with 5.
Who said they were eating them all at once? But still, let's go with that. The kid who brough 10 bags ends up with five and the kid who brought 100 ends up with 5 as well. The Teacher now has 100 bags of Skittles. What the hell is she going to do with that many Skittles, and why is she just allowed to take them in the first place?

You're focusing on the allegory rather than the argument. What if I weren't talking about Skittles? What if I was talking about apples? In this scenario, the more apples you have, according to the logic you provided above, it doesn't matter how many apples she took as long as you have five left at the end. Do you think that the teacher is going to eat 100 apples in one sitting? If the kids in the class know that the teacher is going to take things from them if they bring "too much," they'll stop bringing them.

This example is akin to taxation; how do you not understand that?

Q.U. wrote:Rich people get taxed more, but they still end up having more than others. It's not all that unfair really. You can live a very wealthy and decent life from like, what? $100 000 a year? If you had $200 000 a year would you be buying more food and clothes? No, you'd be spending it on luxuries or simply wasting on frivolous life. And all is fine with it, it's your money, but why would you spend more than you can while others starve. That's what the government feels is bad, and thus they enforce such taxation.
Your argument is all over the place. I can survive off of 100K but if I had 200K I'd be wasting it on recreation or whatever, and that's fine because it's my money, but it's bad because I should be more worried about others that are starving and so it's a good thing for the government to take away money because they're going to use it to help the poor?

I thought taxation was for "services rendered," not "because they feel bad." And since when do they consistently use taxes to help the poor? If that were true, the $800B stimulus package would have gone to give the homeless a place to stay and food to eat, instead of helping the environment and putting solar panels on top of Area 51 or what-the-fuck ever. The fact is that at any time, they don't really care about the poor, they just want to look good so they can get reelected.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:06 pm

problem with your first point: personal financial wealth is not the only indicator to standard of living. you also would want to know how much of their tax dollars' use in their environment positively impacts their life.

that's why Q.U. took the previous measurements as a more finely aligned scope to that idea.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:11 pm

Moo
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:14 pm

The Mirak wrote:Moo


this is some kind of statement against cruelty to animals obviously

fuck that i want my goddamn steak
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:10 am

I want some unicorn meat. Assuming it's real unicorn.

BeeAre wrote:problem with your first point: personal financial wealth is not the only indicator to standard of living.
I wasn't saying it was. I was trying to differentiate between the two.

BeeAre wrote:you also would want to know how much of their tax dollars' use in their environment positively impacts their life.
I want to know what their revenues in taxes are and compare it to GDP, which, even if not the full picture, is closer than saying "GDP per capita = average wealth."
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:35 am

why is it closer?
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Q.U. » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:46 am

Except that this is about standard of living. The discussion was wealth of the average population. And as I said, the only way you're going to be able to prove that to me is by showing me with hard data how much the average person makes and gets to keep after taxes.

So when I give you PPP per capita you say it's no good and want more raw and contextual data such as wages after taxation? What do you want it in? USD? At current exchange rates? And what, no consideration due to different costs of living, where $5 in Norway may be able to buy you as much as $8 in USA?
Whatever man, go ahead and look up exactly what you want me to quote, I'm rather sure Norwegians still get more USD into their hands for an hour's work than US citizens. I just can't be bothered to look up something that is less significant than what I already quoted.

No, it's whether or not teachers care enough to do their jobs. And part of the reason schools in America are so ineffective is that there is little incentive for teachers to cover the whole curriculum in a single year because no matter how poorly their students meet their standards, they keep their jobs.

I saw an article somewhere that explained how a bad teacher will cover between 50% and 75% of a year's curriculum, while a good teacher will cover at least 100% of the curriculum, and a very good teacher can cover 125% of the year's curriculum. Currently, in America, teachers that would be considered "bad" by this scale are protected by Tenure; to all appearances, they are doing their job, and so they cannot be fired, despite being unable to bring up the standards of today's society. The difference between Public schools and Private schools probably boils down to the quality of the teachers, not the amount of money spent in a single year.

How is that problem sourced in whether private sector or government runs the school though? The problem are the needless laws that restrict schools from firing underachieving teachers. Should more strict bills be passed on private schools they'd be in the same situation. Public education needs reforms, not privatisation.

But that's wrong. Not all teachers are good teachers. Not all teachers teach the same way. Some teachers are just bad. Thus, the efficiency of teaching is largely dependent on the quality of the teacher and the receptiveness of the student.

True. Which is why richer schools can afford better teachers, and paying for schools makes kids more willing to learn. Those are 2 ways in which private schools get ahead. But notice that it all boils down to money, so public schools with proper funds could get there too.

That is the point I'm arguing. If one school is spending $5,000 per student and another school spends $15,000 per student, and their scores are nearly identical, then one school is more efficient than the other based on how much they spend to reach the same score. It would be the same if you have a machine that is cheaper to use and can complete a job faster than another machine, then that cheaper, faster machine is more efficient. But in the case of New York and Utah, we have two machines that produce roughly the same output, but one costs nearly three times as much. The amount invested should be proportional to the outcome, which is what "efficiency" means in the first place.

Yes. But as you noticed you never had a chance to distinguish between public and private in that statement. All I'm saying is, with same funds and students the efficiency of public and private only depend on management, which means public schools with good management could outdo private schools with poor management.

Then maybe you should clarify what you were talking about; what you said was that it would be cheaper for oil companies to sell to China. I was saying this was not the case, and asked you for evidence.

I meant for oil companies. Not for USA's drilling companies. The international ones firstly sell where it profits the most, then to those who are "friendly" to them. Sharpening laws and taxes on foreign oil sources drilled by independent international oil companies would shorten your oil supply.

Of course, making the claims that you are, you probably don't know know that we did find weapons of mass destruction though; maybe not nukes, but mustard and sarin, which are classified weapons of mass destruction.

First of all, I probably should have said Nuclear Weapons. Seeing as now you have an open gate due to the loosely defined term of WMD. Your own country's military stated that those 500 munitions you quoted were old and damaged, with local thread possibility, and do not classify as WMD.
In 2006 Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq,[48] based upon unclassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. Quoting from the report Senator Rick Santorum said "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent". According to David Kay, who appeared before the US House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis.[49] Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR's Talk of the Nation: "When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."[50]

So no, to and for my standards of what a weapon of mass destruction is, they didn't find any. If you want to call an expired can of mustard a weapon of mass destruction, then I cannot say you are wrong because there's no clear line.

And I just proved that the idea that it was a war for oil is bullshit. What does that say about what you believe?

The fact is that if there were no weapons of mass destruction and the "war for oil" accusation is a crapshoot, then this was a purely humanitarian aid. Period.

Whatever it was, it had costed your country billions, and Iraq 100 000 civilians. Your definition of humanitarian aid is awesome.

The credibility of your sister notwithstanding, please provide me with a source I can actually see or read. Would you accept a citation from one of my family members at face value?

Visas for Norway and other Schengen member states have a maximum period of 90 days or 3 months.

Foreign nationals planning to study in Norway should apply for a residence permit issued to students by the Norwegian government.

Foreign nationals must apply for a work permit at the Norwegian embassy of their home country before entering Norway to become a Norwegian Au Pair. The Au Pair visa is only granted to holders of a valid work permit. Foreigners must also have a job offer in Norway before applying for an Au Pair visa. The work permit must have been granted prior to their entry to Norway. This means the Au Pair visa needs a tender of employment contract signed by the Norwegian officer as evidence of the work offer to be issued a work permit.

The Au Pair visa is valid for six months. No extensions are allowed for Au Pair visa holders.

All in all, only EEA citizens are allowed to work without permit, But they can only stay for longer than 3 months if they have a job and can prove they can support themselves.
http://www.expatforum.com/articles/visa ... ation.html

Yeah, I can totally see someone getting rich off a tax refund. Especially if a tax refund is less than half what they paid. And if that many people got a FULL tax refund, the country would go bankrupt in no time flat, or else have to stop paying for all those fancy social programs like health care and public transportation.

Wat? What's that supposed to mean? You don't get rich by tax refunds, they help you not lose your wealth too fast though. Also the wealth you do lose goes into your own healthcare and education, same as it would go should they all be private sectors. So where are you at loss there?

You don't know if it's good or bad? Then why are we having this discussion?

Because you make outrageous claims about Norwegians being poor, etc. And there is no good or bad, there's what works and what doesn't work, and for who. It did work for them. It could work for the USA. Yet you say Obama is a socialist and it won't work. So I give you a case study where it did work fine.
Your short attention span makes it hard to discuss things with you, since you lose your point halfway through, and you even seem to forget where the whole discussion started.

Who said they were eating them all at once? But still, let's go with that. The kid who brough 10 bags ends up with five and the kid who brought 100 ends up with 5 as well. The Teacher now has 100 bags of Skittles. What the hell is she going to do with that many Skittles, and why is she just allowed to take them in the first place?

A) What will she do, she might give 5 packs to every kid in class. That would seem fair.
B) Why is she allowed to, that's more of a moral question. I think she shouldn't take another person's property. Then again, as BR mentioned, it seems fair to take what you don't need and give it to someone who does need.

If the kids in the class know that the teacher is going to take things from them if they bring "too much," they'll stop bringing them.

The arbitrary example sucks. First of all, what kid would bring 100 apples to school? Secondly, what kind of a teacher would confiscate apples from students? To translate it on economic plane, when your orchard makes 2000 apples a month, and you can eat as much as 1000 apples a month having fed your whole family, from the remaining 1000 some may be taken by the government as tax and for instance given to those who have none.

I thought taxation was for "services rendered," not "because they feel bad." And since when do they consistently use taxes to help the poor? If that were true, the $800B stimulus package would have gone to give the homeless a place to stay and food to eat, instead of helping the environment and putting solar panels on top of Area 51 or what-the-fuck ever. The fact is that at any time, they don't really care about the poor, they just want to look good so they can get reelected.

Nope. The $800B went into healthcare, schools, military, Intelligence, police and fire departments, infrastructure, small companies stimulus, etc. But hey, look, a poor family who cannot afford a private school can still send their kids to a public one. Oh, look, the poor guy is able to get an operation that will save his life. That lower-middle class guy can afford to start up his small business thanks to stimulus packages. Oh look, the holes in roads get fixed, which benefits everyone with a car, and the police can afford new cars, which makes life safer for everyone.
THAT is the purpose of taxation. Luckily for you, your country doesn't think it should only help the poorest, which you gave examples of. No, they think that all classes who pay taxes should be getting something out of what they pay in benefits and services. The less you need benefits and services the wealthier it means you are, and the less you benefit from them.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:52 pm

Here, debate this.

A friend put up a status, ignore the poor grammar:
"ok, just saw somthing on NBC10 about a Brest feeding doll for young girls. I think its disgusting, just because of the target age ranges of this doll. I hope stores boycott it...thoughts??"
Image
And that's my tidbit from the conversation about it.
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:56 pm

LET'S DISCUSS SOME MOTHERFUCKING POLITICS GUYS! :D
WHOS WITH ME??

I'M ALREADY SWEATING! WITH EXCITEMENT!
BIG BONER IN MY PA-
wait what the fuck, the third-to-last comment from your friend: "i see what u r saying, but what if parents r not around and some lil girl exposes her self and some perv is out there" <- What the fuck does this have to do with selling, having or possessing a breast feeding doll?
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:56 pm

Her getting desperate and trying to make me seem wrong for my opinion hahahaha.
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:02 pm

I want to slap your friend silly.
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:03 pm

Go ahead, I'm only friends with them due to a mutual friend.

Seriously though, every comment I see against the doll.. is because they're saying kids are becoming too sexually advanced at young ages. Why is everyone saying breast feeding is sexual?

"Oh yeah man, look at that baby drinking milk. Unf."

:|
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mathias » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:05 pm

Bucuz yer boobies get exposed in pubic
i mean public herpy
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11856
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Fire up chips.
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Whatis6times9 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:05 pm

Because at this point we've regressed to the puritans as far as our views on any sort of "nudity". I'm waiting for ankles to be outlawed again.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:06 pm

@stuff: You must totally reply to her with that.
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:06 pm

Wait, what's this with a breast feeding doll?



*goes back to writing a reply to previous discussion*
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:08 pm

Hahaha, I'm staying clear from the status now because there's people commenting "yo i saw dat, shit ridic"
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Mirak's Mod Ghost » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:09 pm

I hate your country. :<
Image
Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 23541
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Your cerebellum.
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Princess » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:10 pm

I do, too.
Image
Tuor: Stuff is our resident, hot mess, alcoholic.
Tuor: You foolish fools, no one can tame the stuffaluffagus!
All Men Must Die
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 am
Location: My throne.
Gender: Female

PreviousNext

Return to The Extrovert Booty Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exodis and 4 guests