Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:There are many people in this world who are far smarter than Bill Gates, Bill just knew how to use his.

There have been many studies into Bill Gates' intelligence. Most of them using correlative results to produce an IQ score, as Bill Gates has never taken a legitimate IQ test. The highest number ever offered was 178, which would be absurd, if true, as a genius level IQ is considered to be anything above 140.

That being said, IQ scores are better considered in term of phyla. It isn't like anyone will notice the difference between a 90 and a 100, or a 130 and a 140 in general parlance.

The highest IQ ever recorded was 210, owned by Kim Ung-Yong.

To quote, you just do this, but while removing the #:

[qu#ote]What you want to be quoted.[/qu#ote] or [qu#ote=Name of Person]What you want to be quoted.[/qu#ote]


I'll just chime in to say that most taxes are shiftable; just because billionaire Billy needs to write a check to the government doesn't mean it's all his money going into it. An employer is going to want to respond to a tax increase by lowering the wages of his employees. Those employees may look for work elsewhere, but if every employer is being taxed they'll all be doing the same thing anyhow. The actual amount of taxes payed by the employer will depend on how much leverage he has in contrast to his employees. Thus, much of the 52% who don't pay any taxes directly probably do foot some of the bill, but likewise it's not a good idea to assume that just because a tax increase is being levied on the rich it will leave everyone else unaffected (which is not to say the tax increase may not still be of net benefit to the poor, as this obviously depends on what the money is spent on).

Poor people don't pay as much tax because they don't reap the benefits of the system they would be paying to support. Rich people like Bill Gates have a more real interest in maintaining things the way they are. So they pay the taxes for that maintenance.

On a brighter note: Teabaggers smell funny. No, seriously...I met one today. It reminded me of the last time that I was caught in a Waffle House in southern West Virginia at 2 am. Not only did it lead me to question the bathing habits of the person that I was talking to, but I was also unswervingly sure that they had been making $8 an hour for the past 15 years.

On a realistic note: The Tea Party is quickly becoming the socially acceptable form of joining the KKK

On another brighter note: Ron Paul for President!

On a final note: take all of the above into consideration with several grains of morphine and sarcasm.

No they're just underground racists who hate everything Obama does and bring guns to presidential speeches, is that it? I think it must go deeper than that culturally.

I'm SURE there's no racist animosity existant there. For a bunch of gun owning crap talking angry patriots, at least they could show some balls and say what's really on their minds... but that wouldn't be politically savvy now would it? They want to yell like they have the big nads, but it still just looks like angry dumb mob to me puffing its chest but getting nothing done. But that's all of politics I guess. What is more disturbing is some of the reasons behind some of these people's actions.

They never said anything OVERTLY KKKish. Just the disguised hint and knowing nods and smiles that other cowards just like them can nod and smile back at as they finger the safety on their M-16. So the KKK evolved... into this? Guns at political speeches? Angry mob violence against gay marriage laws passing or failing? accusations of Obama being a 'white-hater'? or mexican immigrants taking the job that you just didn't want to work anyways that's why it was available? AND THEN having people to listen to Palin babble about how her kids love their guns, as icing on the cake... I wouldn't be surprised if the roots are, if not directly related, at least intertwined. It takes the finest of people to make a revolution, dunnit?

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

efarrer wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

This is the most nuanced and complicated position I have ever heard.

Fateweaver wrote:I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.

While I may not find it fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire 59 times over (his net worth last year) because my IQ is probably as great as his and I'm probably as educated with computers as he is does not mean that I should make as much as he does answering the phone as a tech support guy when he built M$ from the ground up and I'm just a peon who answers questions asked by idiots who can't turn the power on.

If I felt my hourly wage was too low I'd ask for a raise but I sure as hell don't believe, and I know I don't speak for everyone, that I'm worth as much as Bill Gates.

People with entitlement issues feel that way and from what I've seen most of the entitlement mongers are liberals.

As you are someone who benefits personally from a social program, you amuse me endless with your rants against socialism.

efarrer wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.

Guitardian wrote:

efarrer wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.

I'm fairly certain social programs didn't arise due to fear of revolt but are rather simply the macro effect of standard practices in human societies throughout history. Humans have always engaged in socialized communal wellfare it's part of forming societies.

Then why this "I've got mine..." sort of attitude towards Health Care? (as evident in the recent senatorial seat turnover in a state where they already have state funded health care, not wanting it going federal....)

Guitardian wrote:Then why this "I've got mine..." sort of attitude towards Health Care? (as evident in the recent senatorial seat turnover in a state where they already have state funded health care, not wanting it going federal....)

Disinformation, the general ignorance of the american people, local political issues, a purveying sense of entitlement and the greed of other states, etc. You want me to give you a one word synopsis summing the psychology of probably millions of unnamed people in nebulous groups that you haven't really strongly outlined?

No. I'm not going to do that.

A very good point sir. Really the whole Tea Party thing just seems to me like a lot of people who really don't own guns for their protection, so much as just because they can, and want everyone to know it. I simply don't think the feds take their little threat very seriously though. Sorry Oklahoma, feds:1 nra:0 in this case.

Guitardian wrote:A very good point sir. Really the whole Tea Party thing just seems to me like a lot of people who really don't own guns for their protection, so much as just because they can, and want everyone to know it. I simply don't think the feds take their little threat very seriously though. Sorry Oklahoma, feds:1 nra:0 in this case.

The tea parties aren't really a gun focused group, I think your lumping them in with the forming militias. The tea parties are largely either A. racist, B. virulently anti socialist, or C. Small government conservatives. Unfortunately like with most protests the well reasoned individuals are outnumbered greatly by the fringes with no jobs and way too much time on their hands. The tea parties are largely populated by idiots but then so is code pink and the g20 protests. Protests in general are reactionary and reactionary people are generally morons.

Guitardian wrote:

efarrer wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.

Which is not exactly what I meant.

It's not exactly true though an much greater nuance can be used, but what it works out to is simple.

By a minor redistribution you can prevent popular uprising, by preventing the masses from becoming too disenfranchised. The bribe is not the bone but the prospect that meat may someday be obtained, by being good and obeying the social order. It's about keeping the dream alive.

But ultimately when you really examine the first social programs you tend to discover that their writers were strong Christians who really believed God wanted the Socail betterment of the underclass. Ironic in today's context.

efarrer wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

efarrer wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:
You could tax the poor but you'd be pulling a bone from a starving dog.

Ultimately, that's the point to first world social programs. To make sure the dogs keep the bones while their betters keep the meat.

No you give a dog a bone so it doesn't rip your throat out and eat your meat. Dog thinks your are benevolent for giving it something, you think dog is dumb enough to dupe it like that. Similar analogy but yeah same concept.

Which is not exactly what I meant.

It's not exactly true though an much greater nuance can be used, but what it works out to is simple.

By a minor redistribution you can prevent popular uprising, by preventing the masses from becoming too disenfranchised. The bribe is not the bone but the prospect that meat may someday be obtained, by being good and obeying the social order. It's about keeping the dream alive.

But ultimately when you really examine the first social programs you tend to discover that their writers were strong Christians who really believed God wanted the Socail betterment of the underclass. Ironic in today's context.

That sounds less like a reasoned and nuanced position and more like a pessimistic view of current economic and social underpinnings.

Personally, I don't care if it was self-proclaimed 'Christians' or not. WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners. Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.

Guitardian wrote:Personally, I don't care if it was self-proclaimed 'Christians' or not. WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners. Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.

Was this rant directed at anything?

and they require abortion concessions in order to pass the bill too... talk about facepalm when I found that out. GO CHRIST GO! CHRISTIAN INFERNO......

Guitardian wrote:and they require abortion concessions in order to pass the bill too... talk about facepalm when I found that out. GO CHRIST GO! CHRISTIAN INFERNO......

I'll take that as a no.

(um I believe it's fairly obvious what it was directed towards. The fact that our imaginary friend still dictates the common sense of these delusional mobs...)

Guitardian wrote:(um I believe it's fairly obvious what it was directed towards. The fact that our imaginary friend still dictates the common sense of these delusional mobs...)

Ahh. Classy.

Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.

This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.

Guitardian wrote:
Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.

Sure it can. Its something which easily disposes itself to moral reasoning. That's generally what motivates social movements.

I don't know why you would ever think that religion is incapable of motivating social change; especially given that its done it many times before.

Oh. sorry Shuma. yeah it was directed at the above post to mine that made a point of how the origional laws were written by good christians with good intentions. Well times change and that's just another political party as far as I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.

This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.

Guitardian wrote:
Funny how nobody who WORKS for those small business OWNERS shows up at these things, just the good 'christian' OWNERS who are scared they might actually have to take care of the employees they rely on to make them money. I got dissilusioned with religion right around the time I learned to read. It cannot be used as a justification for ANY social movement as far as I can tell.

Sure it can. Its something which easily disposes itself to moral reasoning. That's generally what motivates social movements.

I don't know why you would ever think that religion is incapable of motivating social change; especially given that its done it many times before.

yeah for better or for worse?

Beware the god ban my friend : /

dogma wrote:

Guitardian wrote:WE all know the track record of Christianity and human rights. When will the Atheist movement, or the Agnostic movement, or the 'you are all delusional' movement have its uprising and its voice in government? oh yeah.... we just don't care enough to do that. We're all just godless slackers, not good christian small business owners.

This has nothing to do with anythign in this thread.

neither did my high school status but nobody seemed to object to that derailment. Oh yeah wait someone did, and got threatened to be banned for it.

Guitardian wrote:
yeah for better or for worse?

Oh, you were making a qualitative judgment. You should refrain from referencing possibility when you really mean to indicate desirability. It makes it look as if you don't understand the language you're using.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That sounds less like a reasoned and nuanced position and more like a pessimistic view of current economic and social underpinnings.

In what way Shuma? It's what happened. All the major Western country's including the United States adopted some social programs in the years that followed the Russian Revolution, in the same way that democracy spread in the wake of both the American and French Revolutions. Social order is maintained by watching the trends and hijacking them when required to insure the continuity of social order. When you see a good example of a failure to act beside you you make the changes required to ensure survival.

It's not pessimism, it's realism. Social programs are a tool, in the same way that the police or military are too ensure that the social order which most people are comfortable with survives and grows. When something happens that disturbs that order things that are not to anyone's advantage can occur.

Remember talking about the dog in the earlier post. What happens when you take a starving dog's bone? Even a tiny dog might try to bite. Now you can alleviate that behavior in a dog by training and that will work even in the context of the great unwashed masses. They can be trained to accept that they don't deserve the bone. It's why you have a percentage of tea partiers who are opposed to a program that would obviously benefit them. Here's the thing though the more dogs whose bones you try to take the more chance there is of them biting you, and the more dogs there are biting the better chance that they might not stop (even Frazz's wiener dogs)... Thus it is that social programs bring a net positive benefit to society, as they act as a stabilizing factor. They ensure that the people have the basic requirements, though just enough to ensure that they remain a little hungry. This is good though from the perspective of social order, as it gives them hopes and dreams, within the established system... because if they start looking outside that system they may just decide to try something different.

Thus it is that social programs bring a net positive benefit to society, as they act as a stabilizing factor. They ensure that the people have the basic requirements, though just enough to ensure that they remain a little hungry. This is good though from the perspective of social order, as it gives them hopes and dreams, within the established system... because if they start looking outside that system they may just decide to try something different.

This is the part. The part that makes it sound like there's some sort of dynastic power system intentionally toeing the line between anarchy and actual achieveable social utopia in order to maintain power and avoid the outward looking populace. We don't really have any vampire overlord monoliths keeping us just above the poverty line in order to keep us occupied with something other than summoning fourth dimensional beings from beyond the walls with our collective malaise. You take a rather simple issue, that being the difficulty in maintaining order and prosperity in a nation state and go all glen beck on us by connecting some weird dots and coming to the conclusion that we could be doing better but our shadowmasters don't want that because we might develop psychic powers or something if we were to have a lot of free time.

ShumaGorath wrote:
This is the part. The part that makes it sound like there's some sort of dynastic power system intentionally toeing the line between anarchy and actual achieveable social utopia in order to maintain power and avoid the outward looking populace. We don't really have any vampire overlord monoliths keeping us just above the poverty line in order to keep us occupied with something other than summoning fourth dimensional beings from beyond the walls with our collective malaise. You take a rather simple issue, that being the difficulty in maintaining order and prosperity in a nation state and go all glen beck on us by connecting some weird dots and coming to the conclusion that we could be doing better but our shadowmasters don't want that because we might develop psychic powers or something if we were to have a lot of free time.

No. That's what you're perspective (and desires) does to you. It's not a dynastic system, it's a chaotic system. But any system will work with balance and counterbalance to try and survive. Think of it as a top if you'd rather then use the dog analogy. Too much weight on the bottom, the top stops spinning. Too much weight on the top the top stops spinning. Societies constantly struggle to maintain that balance. No evil overlords or anything complicated (indeed evil overlords tend shift stuff to the bottom to such an extent that the system stops working).

There are no shadowmasters (though I'm sure there are people trying to be so). Just people mostly with good intentions trying to maintain that balance.

The majority of the people at the top like their comforts and don't want to lose them. Social disorder will cause that to happen, so there are efforts to ensure that the social order is maintained. Social programs are one of the tools deployed to help maintain that order, and is no different then the police in the effort to ensure that the system continues to survive.

Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.