How to combat terrorism better

**sabang** · 07-05-2008, 09:30 PM

Combat Terrorism with champagne!

**Marmite the Dog** · 07-05-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

you think Syria or Pakistan is turning over it's list of suspected terrorists to the target states

Did the settlers in North America turn over George Washington?

**Spin** · 08-05-2008, 06:04 PM

How to combat terrorism better?

You gotta start somewhere, lets start by imprisoning war criminals, George Bush and Tony Blair should be the first two fcukers jailed.

Anybody else have any suggestions?

**raycarey** · 08-05-2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Spin

Anybody else have any suggestions?

Ariel Sharon.

**chinthee** · 08-05-2008, 07:07 PM

Dick Morris predicted today that Netanyahu would be PM by mid year in Israel again, and that he would indeed bomb Iran very soon thereafter preemptively, unilaterally, and without informing the US.

Guess you'll have to put that list of 'war criminals' into an excel spreadsheet. Gonna be a long one.

**Butterfly** · 08-05-2008, 07:37 PM

^ oh god, with oil at 200 USD by then, and then subprime reaching the real sector, I think the world should start containing Israel as they are really not being helpful,

btw, Neta is also a signatory of the PNC, that is a NeoCon working for the count of Israel,

awesome,

**raycarey** · 08-05-2008, 07:53 PM

and honestly, why would anyone really care what dick morris has 'predicted' about anything.....particularly the internal politics of israel and its foreign policy decisions?

christ.

**Marmite the Dog** · 08-05-2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Spin

How to combat terrorism better?

Get some sensible people (the Norwegians?) to run the US and the UK.

**Boon Mee** · 09-05-2008, 02:59 AM

^
Yeah, right...

Give us more taxes, eh?

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 08:39 AM

obama has proposed returning tax levels to the clinton and reagan levels......that said, i hope the uber rich get hit with a much higher rate.

**Boon Mee** · 09-05-2008, 06:28 PM

^
What's your definition of an 'uber'- rich there, teach?
Someone that makes >200K per yr?

**chinthee** · 09-05-2008, 06:30 PM

^I think anyone who makes more than 26k Baht/month is uber rich!

I can understand the deep seated resentment.

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

What's your definition of an 'uber'- rich there, teach? Someone that makes >200K per yr?

obama has pledged not to raise the income tax rate on those who declare less than $250,000.....which seems fair to me. he has also stated that he will return the dividend and cap gains rates to no higher than what they were when reagan was president....surely that's good enough for you right boon mee?

does the 250K in and of itself qualify someone as uber-rich?...not in my book. but, if someone can't write off enough to get below 250K through deductions and loop holes, then it's an indicator that they need to contribute more to society.

**chinthee** · 09-05-2008, 07:14 PM

Jesus and for fuks sake loser crap. I know families who make 250k/yr, and they're barely keeping their heads above water.

Crap, when you're living in a cold water walk-up at 2500 Baht/mo. it's easy to call someone "uber-rich" who makes 250,000 in a first world society.

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Jesus and for fuks sake loser crap.

oh my.

Originally Posted by chinthee

I know families who make 250k/yr, and they're barely keeping their heads above water.

too much debt i assume.
i hope for their sake the current dem plan in congress to help people get out from under isn't vetoed by bush. btw, chinthee did you support (or as you like to put it "endorse") bush in 2000 and 2004? you've been strangely silent on this issue.
boy, i hope you consider that question on topic.

Originally Posted by chinthee

it's easy to call someone "uber-rich" who makes 250,000 in a first world society.

take a deep breath and read my post again....i said 250K of income doesn't qualify as uber rich.

**sabang** · 09-05-2008, 07:28 PM

Well lets use some common sense economic rationality here.
The US government needs to raise more revenue, or cut spending. This is a legacy of the Bush administration.
The USA also has about the lowest minimum wage structure in the western world. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and the poor can't afford to be taxed more.
That leaves the Middle classes and wealthy. The Middle classes however on average are paying a higher real tax rate than the wealthy.
The biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts were the wealthy, specifically the more wealthy the bigger the beneficiary.

So, go figure- what would a rational politician do? Of course the rich need to pay more tax, and that is not the same as taxing them punitively.

**chinthee** · 09-05-2008, 07:34 PM

^Yes, Sabang, I agree with you. But this is a horseshit idea that the "uber-rich" are those who make more than $250k/yr. Those are upper middle class.

The Über-Rich are truly in a different earnings class, and net worth class. I object strongly with the simplistic classification of upper-middle class as being
"Über-Rich." Yes, I agree the true ubers should be taxed at a higher level, but upper middle class hard working folks should not be lumped in with them.

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

The biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts were the wealthy, specifically the more wealthy the bigger the beneficiary.

without question.

Originally Posted by chinthee

this is a horseshit idea that the "uber-rich" are those who make more than $250k/yr

just out of curiosity....who do you think is disagreeing with you on this point? i have to tell you that i'm confident no one here is. feel free to keep arguing, but... you're only arguing with yourself.

Originally Posted by chinthee

the true ubers should be taxed at a higher level, but upper middle class hard working folks should not be lumped in with them.

well we disagree. if someone can't write off or deduct enough to get under 250K, it's clear to me that they're in a position where they should be obligated to contribute more to society. as pointed out by sabang, bush and his tax cuts have run the country into the ground, and this irresponsible behavior can't go on forever.

btw, you're strangely silent on whether or not you 'endorsed' bush in 2000 and 2004.

**Norton** · 09-05-2008, 08:08 PM

Much debate on labels for various income levels has been going on for years. From what I have read, I don't think $250k per year would be classed as anything more than upper middle class but a lot depends on ones perspective. I always figured anyone making 10 times more than I was was filthy rich.

"Households with net worths of $1 million or more may be identified as members of the upper-most socio-economic demographics, depending on class model used. While most contemporary sociologists estimate that only 1% of households are members of the upper class, sociologist Leonard Beeghley states all households with a net worth of $1 million or more to be "rich." He divides "the rich" into two sub-groups: the rich and the super-rich. The simply rich constitute roughly 5% of U.S. households and their wealth is largely in the form of home equity. (oops

) Other contemporary sociologists, such as Dennis Gilbert, argue that this group is largely part of the upper middle class, as its standard of living is largely derived from occupation-generated income and its affluence falls far short of that attained by the top percentile. Beeghley does acknowledge that most households with a net worth of $1 million, a group that incudes many middle class professionals, would largely identify as "upper middle class." The super-rich, according to Beeghley, are those able to live off their wealth. This demographic constitutes roughly 0.9% of American households. Beeghley's definition of the super-rich is congruent with the definition of upper class employed by most other sociologists. The top .01 percent of the population, with an annual income of $9.5 million or more, received 5% of the income of the United States in 2007. These 15,000 families have been characterized as the "richest of the rich"

American upper class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

I don't think $250k per year would be classed as anything more than upper middle class

nor me.

**Norton** · 09-05-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

nor me.

Seems we all agree?

**raycarey** · 09-05-2008, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

we all agree?

on this point it seems so.

**chinthee** · 09-05-2008, 08:49 PM

A rather tortured arrival. I think the level is somewhere around $400,00 joint income, and then I would buy in.

**Sir Burr** · 09-05-2008, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by chinthee

But this is a horseshit idea that the "uber-rich" are those who make more than $250k/yr. Those are upper middle class.

Dear me. You Merkins have no idea about class.
Class is not tied to income, it's who's pussy you happened to pop out of.

**Norton** · 09-05-2008, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Class is not tied to income, it's who's pussy you happened to pop out of.

Spoken like a true Brit me lord!

Thread: How to combat terrorism better

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions