# This is why I can't stomach the Iraq War



## noodles (Mar 30, 2007)

Here is a picture of Marine Sgt Ty Ziegel and his fiance, before he left for his first tour of Iraq:







One suicide bomb, 19 surgeries, and nearly two years later, here is Ty and his fiance on their wedding day:






Most of his face was melted off by the heat of the blast. He is blind in one eye. His shattered skull had to be replaced with plastic.

I'm sure we're fighting the good fight. I'm sure our president would never lie to us. I'm just positive that our saftey, and not the profit of big oil and defense contractors, is what is on the president's mind when he sends our soldiers off to get horribly mangled like this.

If he is lying, then just letting him finish his last two years in office is probably the right thing to do. He doesn't deserve to stand trial for this. No, of course not.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Mar 30, 2007)

She certainly looks happy.


----------



## HighGain510 (Mar 30, 2007)

That picture just made my heart sink with absolute sadness. Just terrible to think that people have to deal with things like that on an everyday basis just because Bush says he thinks this is the "right thing to do." Jackass.


----------



## Battle-axe (Mar 30, 2007)

Wow, tht is just horrible.


----------



## eaeolian (Mar 30, 2007)

Heh. Since I'm on a .mil, I can't see the "after" picture. Somehow, I'm not surprised...


----------



## Drew (Mar 30, 2007)

...and since I'm on a large financial network, I can't see the before. 

I'm guessing he doesn't look like an alien in the before? 


"Heart sick" is the only word that comes to mind. You can't even hate the government for this. It just seems so pointless and so empty.


----------



## kmanick (Mar 30, 2007)

jesus that's tragic.
Poor guy, I think I saw something on this guy on TV a while ago.


----------



## Grom (Mar 30, 2007)

How to shatter 2 destinies (and many others hidden) ... I still don't understand how a majority of Americans thought that Bush was worth a second round.


----------



## Drew (Mar 30, 2007)

Neither do a majority of Americans, Grom. :/


----------



## noodles (Mar 30, 2007)

I just finished having lunch with my father, a Southern Baptist who voted Republican far more often that not. This is the man who still thinks Regan was a great president.

"Dave, the only thing that separates Bush from Hitler is that he is not loading people up on trains to haul off to concentration camps. He's a dictator, and I'll probably never vote for a Republican as long as I live. Damn their party for supporting him even now."

I'll never forget that as long as I live. That is what the GOP has sacrificed through all this: the trust of their closest supporters.



eaeolian said:


> Heh. Since I'm on a .mil, I can't see the "after" picture. Somehow, I'm not surprised...



I just e-mailed it to you.


----------



## eaeolian (Mar 30, 2007)

Yep, I got it. About what I expected - I've seen far too many of those...


----------



## XEN (Mar 30, 2007)

I'm with you Mike. Our shop reports casualty data to the G3 and the CG and I've seen my share of those too. And our brass complains that we don't have enough money in our budget for TDY.... Nothing more important to think about???


----------



## Drew (Mar 30, 2007)

eaeolian said:


> Yep, I got it. About what I expected - I've seen far too many of those...



All-American GI, buzz cut and a youthful grin, looking like a million bucks because he's going off to serve his country and defend freedom? 

There's one man who paid way too high a price for disillusionment...


----------



## noodles (Mar 30, 2007)

Sadly, Drew, you are right on the money. 






I've attached the pics for those who can't view them at work.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Mar 30, 2007)

Got to give that woman some respect, I bet a lot of women would have bolted when he came back, although she REALLY doesn't look like she's as happy on her wedding day as a woman should.


----------



## LilithXShred (Mar 30, 2007)

damn... this nearly makes me cry


----------



## Drew (Mar 30, 2007)

Oh god, that's even worse than I thought. They're about the most disgustingly happy All-American couple I've ever seen. 

Today, she looks like she wants to cry, and he looks like he wishes he was still physically capable of crying.


----------



## noodles (Mar 30, 2007)

I can't believe I forgot to link the article:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/03/10/berman_photo/index_np.html

It was passed to me by a coworker. The wedding day image is from somewhere else, which explains why you may be able to see one and not the other.


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 30, 2007)

They had an article about this in People in November, i think. it was a _really_ fucked up read. they showed a bunch of pics of him in the hospital and everything.


----------



## Leon (Mar 30, 2007)

:-\


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 30, 2007)

God, that is just sickening. Here's another reason, a guy from my town. IF you notice in the pic he's got less limbs than he went to Iraq with.


----------



## XEN (Mar 30, 2007)

Yeah, I wonder how long his VA benefits will take to kick in....

What's the rate now? 1 year if you're lucky?


----------



## noodles (Mar 30, 2007)

If I was that soldier, I would have kicked that bastard the fuck out of my hospital room.


----------



## HighGain510 (Mar 30, 2007)

noodles said:


> If I was that soldier, I would have kicked that bastard the fuck out of my hospital room.



I think his face in that picture says it all Dave.


----------



## Drew (Mar 30, 2007)

noodles said:


> If I was that soldier, I would have kicked that bastard the fuck out of my hospital room.



I'm sure he would, too...


...if he had legs. Bush isn't a moron.

:/


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 30, 2007)

Drew said:


> Bush isn't a moron.




 

Wanna bet?


----------



## Grom (Mar 30, 2007)

I don't want to create a new debate here, but today a lot of French men are really trying to find how to write a better Constitution (it will be the sixth one we would experience since 1793). Seeing how such a retard can become your President without you having the right to DIRECTLY vote for him or not ... Don't you think it's time for a change, too ? I really want to hear the truth from the people's mouth, not what is filtered when it comes across the pond.


----------



## telecaster90 (Mar 30, 2007)

Grom said:


> I don't want to create a new debate here, but today a lot of French men are really trying to find how to write a better Constitution (it will be the sixth one we would experience since 1793). Seeing how such a retard can become your President without you having the right to DIRECTLY vote for him or not ... Don't you think it's time for a change, too ? I really want to hear the truth from the people's mouth, not what is filtered when it comes across the pond.



As much as we need change, it's highly highly unrealistic at the scale you're talking about, unless DC ends up in flames. Let's hope we never reach that point, becuase it only means more lives would have been pointlessly taken to reach that point.


----------



## lordofthesewers (Mar 30, 2007)

Bush lied...People died. It is as simple as that! (not really, but that sums up the feelings of many families of the military)


----------



## Grom (Mar 31, 2007)

telecaster90 said:


> As much as we need change, it's highly highly unrealistic at the scale you're talking about, unless DC ends up in flames. Let's hope we never reach that point, becuase it only means more lives would have been pointlessly taken to reach that point.



I'm obviously not talking about a revolution,  only your view upon this. Your voting system may be as traditional as it is, it does not prevent you from having ideas. That's how we work here. When the people wants something, the Government has to take decisions accordingly.

But I know there's a HUGE gap between our way to see politics and the Americans' one ...


----------



## Hellbound (Mar 31, 2007)

Damn...this is some sick shit....makes me hate Bush more and more. I mean just look at her face in that second picture she looks to be in extreme shock and horror....so awesome to still stand by his side most women would just flee.


----------



## Mastodon (Mar 31, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> God, that is just sickening. Here's another reason, a guy from my town. IF you notice in the pic he's got less limbs than he went to Iraq with.



His face reads "Are you shitting me?" loud and clear.


----------



## Samer (Mar 31, 2007)

Man that is horrible, i hope the solider is able to get some kind of surgery to reconstruct his face (at the governments expense) poor guy.


----------



## 999dead666 (Apr 1, 2007)

Samer said:


> Man that is horrible, i hope the solider is able to get some kind of surgery to reconstruct his face (at the governments expense) poor guy.



even better, take bush's face, sell it as toilet paper, then use the money for beauty surgery. 
its soo fucked up. its just came to my mind the kids that are getting sucha things in iraq. i mean his story is sad and everything, but he got some one behind him plus he is soldier. imagine how fucked up it will be for a kid or teenager to be sitting with melted face and lost limbs and watching his friends playing in the streets and growing to be normal people.
i saw program 2 days ago about the new weopons the USA used and still using in iraq. the radiation is sooooo big that in city of basra the cancer cases were increased 300% !!!! the nuclear dust was found even in britain !!! i mean what the fuck these people are doing over there???? 
they dont give a shit about tens of generations that will be left there. even thier own soldiers are getting some seriouse sickness because of it , i really dont know what to say


----------



## ohio_eric (Nov 16, 2007)

Wounded warriors face home-front battle with VA - CNN.com



> Ty Ziegel peers from beneath his Marine Corps baseball cap, his once boyish face burned beyond recognition by a suicide bomber's attack in Iraq just three days before Christmas 2004.
> 
> He lost part of his skull in the blast and part of his brain was damaged. Half of his left arm was amputated and some of the fingers were blown off his right hand.
> 
> ...




  

How Bush and Cheney haven't commited suicide from the guilt any sane human would feel is beyond me. Well yeah he's a pompous ignorant arrogant assholes but still, this is far beyond shameful.


----------



## Lee (Nov 16, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> How Bush and Cheney haven't commited suicide from the guilt any sane human would feel is beyond me.



Neither of them are sane or human.


----------



## oompa (Nov 16, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> How Bush and Cheney haven't commited suicide from the guilt any sane human would feel is beyond me.



the guilty dont feel guilty, they learn not to.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 16, 2007)

noodles said:


> If he is lying, then just letting him finish his last two years in office is probably the right thing to do. He doesn't deserve to stand trial for this. No, of course not.


Misrepresenting facts isn't a crime in itself, if it was, there's be next to nobody in Congress or the Oval Office.

Also, don't forget, the report that GWB's summary was based on was freely available for ALL 500+ members of Congress to read and draw their own conclusions -- Only nine signed-out the document. The report clearly stated the uncertainties in the intelligence. You can blame GWB, but you can't deny that Congress shirked it's duties too and if you want to keep your political views consistent, then in 2008, make sure you vote against all of your Congress Critters that were in office at the time and voted for the war without reading the report.

Ray


----------



## ZeroSignal (Nov 16, 2007)




----------



## playstopause (Nov 16, 2007)

Horrible, horrible, horrible. Just sick. 
And sad. Poor man! God bless him. Hope he gets the strenght to lead a good life.




Bush, you go to hell, filthy pig.


----------



## noodles (Nov 16, 2007)

After turning him into a living monstrosity, they fuck him over like that? What a horrible country I live in.


----------



## techjsteele (Nov 16, 2007)

eaeolian said:


> Heh. Since I'm on a .mil, I can't see the "after" picture. Somehow, I'm not surprised...


 
I'm on a .mil too, and I can't see the after picture as well.... How wierd.


----------



## Ken (Nov 16, 2007)

noodles said:


> I'm sure we're fighting the good fight. I'm sure our president would never lie to us. I'm just positive that our saftey, and not the profit of big oil and defense contractors, is what is on the president's mind when he sends our soldiers off to get horribly mangled like this.
> 
> If he is lying, then just letting him finish his last two years in office is probably the right thing to do. He doesn't deserve to stand trial for this. No, of course not.



You know what? Typed a long response, but nevermind. Is there some way I can turn off the P&CE forum so I don't have to look at these threads anymore? Just to hide it from my view?


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 16, 2007)

Just awful.

I think I'd rather be dead, selfish yes, but it's amazing to me that he can go on. And even more so that she's staying with him. 

The soldiers know of the dangers before they go into war, and injuries are expected...but this is horrific...and he's having trouble getting care? Why is it a question? Get that man straight to a hospital, no questions asked, and paid for by the Government.

The worst, and longest lasting atrocity of this is the question "Why?" What are these men fighting and dying for, how much of a lie is this cause? And why the hell are we still there...

Why are nukes being used by America when we're policing the world to get rid of nukes?

...


----------



## Ken (Nov 16, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> The soldiers know of the dangers before they go into war, and injuries are expected...but this is horrific...and he's having trouble getting care? Why is it a question? Get that man straight to a hospital, no questions asked, and paid for by the Government.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the VA is a fucking joke, IMO. My dad was a veteran, but when he had a stroke they showed him the door. Many VA hospitals are owned by the private sector.

That young man shouldn't have to want for ANY medical care. The US Government owes him that much and more.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Nov 17, 2007)

At least we can cure all our soldiers with spinal cord injuries due to the government funded stem cell research we're conducting.

Oh wait...


----------



## JBroll (Nov 17, 2007)

You know, this is slightly off-topic... but am I the only one who's so thrown off by everyone being amazed that his wife hasn't left him because he's ugly?

I think that's horribly inappropriate. It's not like relationships hinge solely around appearances, and it's not like one can maintain a serious relationship without somehow caring about more than looking nice. Am I the only one who's posted here who wouldn't think about something other than 'Oh, wait, she's ugly now' if someone I cared about like that was horribly injured like that? Putting aside that whole being-of-pure-evil-who-laughed-when-Bambi-died chunk of my personality, if someone was patient and perceptive enough to stay with me and make me happy I'd probably need a fucking good reason to leave her. 

I get shit because I think socialized medicine is doomed and hopeless, but nobody else has thought that maybe this woman who obviously cared about him enough to promise him her hand in marriage is thinking more along the lines of 'I have to help him get through all of this shit - for fuck's sake, he was blown the hell up' than 'He's ugly, I'm on the next bus to the red lights' here?

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 17, 2007)

I understand what you're saying Jeff, I think we're not talking about just plain "hes ugly" but how horrific it must be for them. 

There are many many people who wouldn't be able to handle it, it's a real testament to the heart of that girl.


----------



## Jason (Nov 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> God, that is just sickening. Here's another reason, a guy from my town. IF you notice in the pic he's got less limbs than he went to Iraq with.



"Your fucking kidding me right?"


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 17, 2007)

People who join the army know what they are going in. They took the risk to get blown up, die or be turned into living monstrosities, now they suffer the consequences. I think it is wrong for veterans not to get the care they need, but I think that once you join the army you realize where the hell you are going, and if you don't want to the risks, then pursue another career. I don't feel sorry for those soldiers who complain Bush took them away their legs, lives, or etc. They did it themselves, there is always the alternative to study your ass off and go to college, or pursue any other damn career you want, but I'm perfectly fine if people love their country so much they are willing to sacrifice their lives even if they don't die. Those people should get the healthcare they need at home, but not ask you to be sorry for them, they should be proud of themselves and have the balls to look in a mirror and be proud of how they look due to the war. That is the army, it has great risks. 

The army is not boy scouts, it is where you go to war if your commanders feel it is necessary.


----------



## ohio_eric (Nov 18, 2007)

The problem is when most people join the military I'm not sold that they are totally aware of the risks, especially people who join the National Guard and reserves. 

Lots of people join for college money or job training. When you consider how expensive college is I can fully understand why some people would join the military when their options are limited because of circumstances. I really don't think that everyone joined the military thinking they could maimed or disfigured or killed. I've seen military recruiters in high schools and it's unsettling. They show movies that make the military look like some movie or even have video games for the kids to play. Somehow I don't think PTSD and missing limbs and death are brought up that much. 

Now in the aftermath of 9/11 many people signed up to defend us from terrorists and to avenge 9/11. What they didn't sign up to do was go fight in some illegal and immoral war in Iraq at the whim of those two incompotent and morally bankrupt sacks of monkey shit, Bush and Cheney. They signed up to defend this nation not serve as thugs for a bunch of power mad chicken hawks. 

If I was the guy in this story I'd would be irate. I would reign down on the VA and Bush with the wrath of a million angry gods. He should be pissed. He got sent to a war that never should have been fought and now he's not only scarred for life but the government doesn't even give a shit! This government has even cut veteran's benefits while constantly asking for billions more for this war from Congress. It's a disgrace that the people who actually fought this war suffer while greedy war profiteering scumbags, like Black Water and Haliburton, get fat off of this shameful war.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 18, 2007)

People didn't join the Guard to go get blown up. They didn't join to have the contract terms they agreed to be completely torn to shreds. They didn't ask to be completely underequipped and asked to face things they weren't prepared for. To some extent, I agree with you, but... not quite. 

The average person gets as good an impression about the military from what the military says as a child gets an impression about 'true love' from watching Disney movies.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The problem is when most people join the military I'm not sold that they are totally aware of the risks, especially people who join the National Guard and reserves.


their problem, they are ignorant ones.



ohio_eric said:


> Lots of people join for college money or job training. When you consider how expensive college is I can fully understand why some people would join the military when their options are limited because of circumstances. I really don't think that everyone joined the military thinking they could maimed or disfigured or killed. I've seen military recruiters in high schools and it's unsettling. They show movies that make the military look like some movie or even have video games for the kids to play. Somehow I don't think PTSD and missing limbs and death are brought up that much.


I've seen military recruitments in my school. However, people should double check the stories of the recruiters by simply watching the news and asking on the internet of friends how it is like to be in the military. Again, if they are ignorant enough to trust recruiters, it is their problem. 
There is always the option of delivering pizza all night long and going to college. In that context you sacrifice life for 4 years to get a diploma without risking getting blown up. The military in this case is the easier way out. I think it is good that the military has commercials and video games to get people _interested_ not force them into pursuing a military career. America needs more ground forces anyway.



ohio_eric said:


> Now in the aftermath of 9/11 many people signed up to defend us from terrorists and to avenge 9/11. What they didn't sign up to do was go fight in some illegal and immoral war in Iraq at the whim of those two incompotent and morally bankrupt sacks of monkey shit, Bush and Cheney. They signed up to defend this nation not serve as thugs for a bunch of power mad chicken hawks.


that is totally subjective and biased
The military gets its power from the discipline of its members. If you are a soldier you obey whatever order you get from the top or you get court martialed. That means if you are ordered to invade Iraq for WHATEVER reason it is your duty as a soldier to do it. Yes, the war is immoral, but once you join the army you join to fight ALL wars, not the moral ones. Then, who is the one to judge what is moral and what is not. Me? You? bush? mormons? liberals? gimme a break!



JBroll said:


> The average person gets as good an impression about the military from what the military says as a child gets an impression about 'true love' from watching Disney movies.
> Jeff



their ignorance is not my problem or the military's or bush's


----------



## JBroll (Nov 18, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> their problem, they are ignorant ones.
> ...
> their ignorance is not my problem or the military's or bush's



Right, because there are so many places where one can have one's face melted off, and so many situations where people find out firsthand how they get to go through several more tours than they signed on for because their bosses screwed up too much to replace them. I'll agree that they shouldn't have quite as rosy a picture as the recruiters would want them to have... but there's only so much screwing around at the top (like not equipping soldiers, or adhering to their end of the contract) that can be justified.

By the way, as an SS.org member, you are required to spend three years as a sex slave in JJ's basement. 

...

Oh, wait, did we say three years? Those are Saturnian years - have fun.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 18, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Right, because there are so many places where one can have one's face melted off, and so many situations where people find out firsthand how they get to go through several more tours than they signed on for because their bosses screwed up too much to replace them. I'll agree that they shouldn't have quite as rosy a picture as the recruiters would want them to have... but there's only so much screwing around at the top (like not equipping soldiers, or adhering to their end of the contract) that can be justified.


I agree that bush screwed up when he didn't equip them with the necessary equipment and the way too long tours of duty, that is not what I have been trying to get across. Also I think starting the war was a shitty idea, but now the war is started, and pulling out right now will be much worse than staying there. But this is a whole different discussion.


JBroll said:


> By the way, as an SS.org member, you are required to spend three years as a sex slave in JJ's basement.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



is it wrong if I enjoy my stay in JJ's basement?


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 18, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Right, because there are so many places where one can have one's face melted off, and so many situations where people find out firsthand how they get to go through several more tours than they signed on for because their bosses screwed up too much to replace them. I'll agree that they shouldn't have quite as rosy a picture as the recruiters would want them to have... but there's only so much screwing around at the top (like not equipping soldiers, or adhering to their end of the contract) that can be justified.
> 
> By the way, as an SS.org member, you are required to spend three years as a sex slave in JJ's basement.
> 
> ...




 A lot of your posts used to bug me...but I rather like you lately   Nice sense of rationale.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 18, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> Also I think starting the war was a shitty idea, but now the war is started, and pulling out right now will be much worse than staying there. But this is a whole different discussion.



I don't even want to know how that makes sense... it'll be a mess whenever we pull out, the only question is how many more people have to die before we see that there's no other way out.



lordofthesewers said:


> is it wrong if I enjoy my stay in JJ's basement?



Yes.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone whose statement of 'I like violent sex' means 'I like lots of violence, with a little sex thrown in just to make it not wholly domestic abuse'. Someone who was aroused more by North Korea's nuke test than by any porn he has seen recently. Someone whose idea of safe sex involves not condoms but fire extinguishers.

Yes, there is something wrong with enjoying anything involving being JJ's sex slave.



Zepp88 said:


> A lot of your posts used to bug me...but I rather like you lately   Nice sense of rationale.



I may be a misanthropic, cynical, market anarchist bastard, but I'm not insane enough to think Bush is doing a good job.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 18, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I don't even want to know how that makes sense... it'll be a mess whenever we pull out, the only question is how many more people have to die before we see that there's no other way out.
> 
> 
> Jeff


in my opinion, continuing on the current course of war seems to be working. Civilian deaths are down, troop casualties are down for 2 consecutive months. Some regions of Iraq are slowly returning to normal. Read the news. Patreus is not a retard, he has a phd and a degree from princeton if i'm not mistaken. Once you get the agitators to violence in iraq out and you provide the citizens with some sense of security, they will stop attacking themselves and won't create chaos if you leave.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 18, 2007)

The point is that the agitators aren't going anywhere with all of the anti-West sentiment going around... being involved over there in the first place was the mistake that caused all of this mess to fall in our lap, and continuing to stick our noses around and play world police is about as helpful as pissing on a bonfire.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Nov 18, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> Read the news.



Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq - washingtonpost.com



> "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."





> Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.


----------



## guitarplayerone (Nov 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> When you consider how expensive college is I can fully understand why some people would join the military when their options are limited because of circumstances.



But of course, if we had free college, how would the millitary recruit anyone?
It is also ironic that there are recruiters at my community college, which has a high dropout rating.


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 18, 2007)

guitarplayerone said:


> But of course, if we had free college, how would the millitary recruit anyone?
> It is also ironic that there are recruiters at my community college, which has a high dropout rating.



well, if those people that drop out don't want to end up blown up in iraq they can always study hard, and not have to go to the military


----------



## Aaron (Nov 19, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> well, if those people that drop out don't want to end up blown up in iraq they can always study hard, and not have to go to the military



Ive been active duty military for 4.5 years and never heard a gunshot. It doesent sound like youve served any time in any branch of the military, and here you are posting away like you no exactly what your talking about, you should go get some education before you run your mouth.


----------



## Desecrated (Nov 19, 2007)

Aaron said:


> Ive been active duty military for 4.5 years and never heard a gunshot. It doesent sound like youve served any time in any branch of the military, and here you are posting away like you no exactly what your talking about, you should go get some education before you run your mouth.



American Deaths 
Since war began (3/19/03):	3871	
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3732 
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):	3410	
Since Handover (6/29/04):	3012	
Since Election (1/31/05):	2434	

Total Wounded:	28489	

I would say that somebody have heard a gunshot.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2007)

guitarplayerone said:


> But of course, if we had free college, how would the millitary recruit anyone?



The problem is that when we have education become available to everyone for free, it's not enough. High school diplomas don't mean shit anymore. Hell, Bachelor's degrees don't even mean a whole hell of a lot anymore. Don't get me wrong - I'm about as pro-education as anyone can get - but if everyone can get their Bachelor's, people will need to get Master's degrees and up to get noticed even more than now.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 19, 2007)

I also like how i got neg repped for expressing my opinion, given that opinion is slightly different than most of people here.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2007)

Paul... get the fuck used to it. It happens. This is coming from the guy who has attacked Mother Teresa, defended the FAIR tax and Friedman's economic theories, argued socialized medicine... la la la... shit happens.

On top of the simple fact that this is the Internet and weird shit happens, you haven't really sourced all of your arguments well or stated them in a way that came across as being very productive. 

Back to the point.

Jeff


----------



## guitarplayerone (Nov 19, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> I also like how i got neg repped for expressing my opinion, given that opinion is slightly different than most of people here.



You get negative rep for being ignorant and not backing your opinion up in a logical way.



JBroll said:


> people will need to get Master's degrees and up to get noticed even more than now



High-school diplomas havent meant anything since we have switched our economy from producing to service-based. They only meant anything when you could make good money working an assembly line somewhere. This was during the 1950's, and before.

A system that relies on everyone having the opprotunity to recieve a higher education works very well in Scandinavia, for example, simply resulting in people actually needing to 'do shit' to get paid for it. This is why their educational system is better- because it needs to be, because most people are expected to become college students, which is the opposite of what we have in the US. This is why more scientists come from there, and most countries that have the highest percentage of scientists also have socialized college education. I am busting my ass right now to pay for school through a mixture of work and bills. If something were to happen where I drop out for seven months, and can no longer defer loan payments, you are telling me it is fair that I should be forced to live in at best low-middle class conditions for the rest of my life?

I do not see the overall impact on society as being negative, we just result in being less lazy. This might also close the huge gap between the upper-class and middle-class, because many more people would be getting paid decently.
Additionally, if the citizens of this country were doing better, then they would be much more competitive on the job market with immigrants from other countries. I myself am an immigrant, I was born in the USSR (while it was still the USSR), but when you look around at doctors and surgeons, you find that many of them come from other countries and take an equivelancy test. So this might affect their opprotunity to get jobs, but in the end would motivate society to get past the whole 'theyre takin ur jeebs' thing (as far as real jobs are concerned), and actually prepare our constituents to be genuinely competitive and earn their jobs, as opposed to recieving them because there is a 'lack of' whatever profession they need to go into. Case in point- huge influx of incompetant B-grade nurses who got their jobs a few years ago when the job market really needed them. In a society where everyone goes to college, they would have needed to actually study to recieve their positions.

Higher-paying jobs require more schooling, so this still wouldnt result in say, a doctor making the same amount or a negligible difference from a PA, or some other healthcare professional. I refer to healthcare a lot because I am studying it in college, and my parents are both veterans of the field.

I get where you are coming from, but your logic is based on essentially the continuation of a system where individuals with the means to afford a college education are favored over those who cannot. This specifically fucks up the low-middle class people, because we dont qualify for any federal aid. And even the people who do, cannot use it to pay in full the tuition from anything besides a community college. This is a very large skew favoring the upwards expansion of the middle class, and severely handicaps the lower middle- class from ever doing too much better than their parents. This creates a permanant underclassed group of people in our society, and can be compared to many historic occurences.

Further continuation of this rant, and an expansion into the origional topic.

Picture a United States with a socialized college education system. In this system, everyone can afford to go to college, so only individuals who are actually dedicated to the war effort sign up, as opposed to all my lower-middle class friends that had no other choice. There would have been no frivolous war in the first place, because there wouldnt have been enough of a millitary to even consider it. Moreover, the 'masses' would have been more educated in the first place, and whatever anyone else says, level of education has statistically been proven to affect voting decisions. My buddies wouldnt have been getting shot at while Cheney makes money off his Halliburton stock options.

As far as competition goes, consider this a metaphor to the 'cost- plus' pay, monopolized contracts that they are recieving from our government. In a society that was used to, and welcomed competition, we would immediately be skeptical of this on a national level, instead of continously being fucked in the ass like we are now (due mostly to uneducated people that continue to thrive in a society where an education, to at least some degree, is still optional)


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2007)

guitarplayerone said:


> A system that relies on everyone having the opprotunity to recieve a higher education works very well in Scandinavia, for example, simply resulting in people actually needing to 'do shit' to get paid for it. This is why their educational system is better- because it needs to be, because most people are expected to become college students, which is the opposite of what we have in the US. This is why more scientists come from there, and most countries that have the highest percentage of scientists also have socialized college education. I am busting my ass right now to pay for school through a mixture of work and bills. If something were to happen where I drop out for seven months, and can no longer defer loan payments, you are telling me it is fair that I should be forced to live in at best low-middle class conditions for the rest of my life?



I don't think I've said that anywhere. What I've said is that college degrees as investments are showing less gain. Try getting much of anything done with a Bachelor's in the sciences - your best bet for anything involving research will be as an assistant to a professor who spent the better part of a decade, if not more, on graduate and post-graduate studies alone. I've gotten a slightly different impression of what expectations are placed on students (between student teaching, tutoring, and looking into the subject) - everyone is expected to go to college... but people aren't always expected to be *useful*.



guitarplayerone said:


> Higher-paying jobs require more schooling, so this still wouldnt result in say, a doctor making the same amount or a negligible difference from a PA, or some other healthcare professional. I refer to healthcare a lot because I am studying it in college, and my parents are both veterans of the field.



True, but more schooling does not yield higher-paying jobs. Just talk to philosophy students.



guitarplayerone said:


> I get where you are coming from, but your logic is based on essentially the continuation of a system where individuals with the means to afford a college education are favored over those who cannot.



No, my logic is based on the fact that being available more yields lower demand. I think you've just misunderstood my point - I'm not going to say that people shouldn't be educated (I'd sooner say that there was a risk of starving to death from eating too much) but I've noticed a very distinct expectation that everyone is to go to college, and as a result people do get degrees but fail to actually get degrees that will serve any purpose other than to sit on walls and pretend to be relevant. I'm at a school that was chartered to serve lower and lower-middle class people who traditionally didn't go to college, and one that is seeing very clearly that when people are expected to go to college, regardless of ability or motivation or even knowing what they want to do with their lives and what they need to get there, they tend to get their degrees and proceed to do nothing with them. We wind up flooded with people studying things from business to ancient Chinese fatalist philosophy and finding that their market is already too flooded (if it even exists) - my school is also in the same city as a fairly prestigious medical center, so there are literally thousands studying biology to go to med school and finding that there are already so many people in biology that they stand very little chance of actually getting accepted. It comes down to supply-and-demand in the end - I'm not going to say that I wouldn't be much happier if everyone not only had but took the chance to get educated well, but if everyone has Bachelor's degrees they'll become the next high school diplomas - I don't think that will alleviate the need for some people to go into the military.

I also think that there are much better ways of preventing war - this army is underequipped and having trouble recruiting people, but that isn't stopping the guys in charge from continuing it.

Jeff


----------



## Stitch (Nov 19, 2007)

What a sad story. 

Paul, stop being a douche.


----------



## Jason (Nov 19, 2007)

Stitch said:


> What a sad story.
> 
> Paul, stop being a douche.



He is 17 you expect much more?


----------



## guitarplayerone (Nov 19, 2007)

JBroll said:


> but I've noticed a very distinct expectation that everyone is to go to college, and as a result people do get degrees but fail to actually get degrees that will serve any purpose other than to sit on walls and pretend to be relevant.



I did misunderstand.

I feel bad for my music major buddies (doing a minor)


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2007)

Yeah, I know a guy who's majoring in music comp so that he can make video game soundtracks.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 19, 2007)

ABC News: A Quiet Iraq? Attacks Down 55 Percent
discuss. 55% lower violence is progress.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> ABC News: A Quiet Iraq? Attacks Down 55 Percent
> discuss. 55% lower violence is progress.



Did you just not read the link to the Washington Post article above?

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 19, 2007)

also i would like to respond to the messages left in the neg rep

1. I didn't say you necessarily have to be an idiot to be in the military. You can do that out of patriotism too, but some people fail at any other path in life like doing good in school, so they end up with having no other choice than to go in the military for a living. Seems fair, there are ways to be successful and some people don't use them. THEIR fault.

2. Military recruiters target low income and lowly informed people. HA! My father was from a poor family and now is a very successful businessman. His mom was a janitor and his dad was a construction day job worker. He did well in school and got a scholarship to go to college, and is now running his successful business in Romania (that is where I'm from). Moral of the story: if you really want something in life, you can get it. People who are lowly informed can read the newspaper to get informed (50cents, is not that much, come on), and can also pay attention to classes in school and learn history. Again, I don't feel sorry for ignorant people. That is my opinion

3. Military recruiters target people who can't afford college. Socialized college education is a bad idea. As it was already pointed out (dunno if in this thread necessarily), socialized college it is a good idea in practice that sounds good in theory. When everyone starts getting BAs, the value diplomas will lose their values. Moreover, when you get to the point where the bus drivers know the organic chemistry, or are extremely educated people, you will end up with a BIG social problem. Educated people, should in fact deserve their education, and thus not everyone should be allowed to go to college and/or afford it, but with opportunity for the truly deserving poor, who have shown that their responsible, and have done well in school, etc. You need people to be construction workers, bus drivers, janitors, farmers, apple pickers, etc. You need a working class, that is what drives the economy. Now, I'm not advocating "fuck the poor", I am for increasing the minimum wage (if inflation allows it) and I'm a partial advocate for the neo liberal policy ideal of: "Create wealth, not redistribute". The rich should be taxed, their deal of money, but not have robin hood like taxation.

4. If I quoted Otep, it was unintentional, i have never heard one of their songs



JBroll said:


> Did you just not read the link to the Washington Post article above?
> 
> Jeff



I actually did. I question the 55% decrease figure, but I don't think that both are articles are correct. The media has a big tendency to blow things up more than necessary. I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that violence is down, but not to that exaggerated figure. I also, don't think violence of the army and its allies should be calculated in those figures. After all how are you going to fight a war without attacking, and thus causing violence. I think that a number that objectively describes the overall decrease in violence is around 20%.

Note: Abc News, and Washington Post are mostly the same and represent the same interests, or at the very least, the same business interests


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> neo liberal policy ideal of: "Create wealth, not redistribute"



Right, as opposed to the conservative policy of "Destroy wealth, so our cigars will be cheaper! Muhahahaha!" - sounds silly, right?

Jeff


----------



## ElRay (Nov 20, 2007)

JBroll said:


> They didn't join to have the contract terms they agreed to be completely torn to shreds.


Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it any more true. Please provide one shred of evidence that contracts are being violated. You couldn't the last time you spewed this FUD, and you can't now. Policies have changed since people signed contracts, but policies in effect at a particular point of time are not part of any contract.


JBroll said:


> They didn't ask to be completely underequipped and asked to face things they weren't prepared for.


No they didn't, but guess what? Things change. The style of combat we used to be involved in didn't require up-armored HMMWVs. As one example: Up armored HMMWVs are slower, tougher to drive, more expensive, have a shorter range, have a lower payload, are less mobile, break dow slightly more often, etc. You don't make only up-armored HMMWV's and equip everybody with them because it would negatively impact most missions. You know something else? War isn't pretty an often you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Yes the Oval office ignored parts of the pre-war intelligence report they didn't want to admit, but Congress shirked it's responsibilities and didn't even read the damn report and still sent US into Iraq. We wouldn't be there if Congress hadn't approved the war. Intellectual laziness and stupidity are not excuses. Congress and the Oval office are equally culpable. Regardless, the fact of the matter is we are there, and we need to clean-up the mess.

Tuesday morning, armchair quarterbacking by people with no concept of Military Operations, that are incapable of seeing the big picture, that make no attempt to understand what is actually going on, have a poor memory of history, blindly making the same mistakes we've made before and hypocritically ignoring inconvenient facts and spewing nonsense to support their views do nothing to help the situation.

I'm extremely hesitant to pass-out neg rep, but you earned, which is especially disappointing because you're easily the second most libertarian person on this board and you should know better. FUD is FUD, it doesn't matter if "they" are spewing it to support their position or you're spewing it in a hypocritical, misguided attempt to support yours.

Ray


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2007)

ElRay said:


> Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it any more true. Please provide one shred of evidence that contracts are being violated. You couldn't the last time you spewed this FUD, and you can't now. Policies have changed since people signed contracts, but policies in effect at a particular point of time are not part of any contract.No they didn't, but guess what? Things change. The style of combat we used to be involved in didn't require up-armored HMMWVs. As one example: Up armored HMMWVs are slower, tougher to drive, more expensive, have a shorter range, have a lower payload, are less mobile, break dow slightly more often, etc. You don't make only up-armored HMMWV's and equip everybody with them because it would negatively impact most missions. You know something else? War isn't pretty an often you have to choose the lesser of two evils.



I didn't actually see it getting challenged, I just thought the number of people getting shoved into more tours than they signed on for and the tendency of some recruiters to not make clear that what they're signing may not be what they're being held to was more than enough.

I don't think the Iraq war was the lesser of the possible evils, but that's a different thread. I'd rather just see the country not be involved with the Middle East at all.



ElRay said:


> Yes the Oval office ignored parts of the pre-war intelligence report they didn't want to admit, but Congress shirked it's responsibilities and didn't even read the damn report and still sent US into Iraq. We wouldn't be there if Congress hadn't approved the war. Intellectual laziness and stupidity are not excuses. Congress and the Oval office are equally culpable. Regardless, the fact of the matter is we are there, and we need to clean-up the mess.



Wow... seeing as how I think the Congress is doing a great fucking job, that argument totally makes perfect sense. I'm not going to say that Bush is the only one at fault here, and I don't think I ever did.



ElRay said:


> Tuesday morning, armchair quarterbacking by people with no concept of Military Operations, that are incapable of seeing the big picture, that make no attempt to understand what is actually going on, have a poor memory of history, blindly making the same mistakes we've made before and hypocritically ignoring inconvenient facts and spewing nonsense to support their views do nothing to help the situation.



Right, since I never actually try to inform myself, I don't have interest in war because of the technological advancements necessary, and I've never had any real interest in military history that works too. Yeah, nobody should be able to talk about anything if they have different opinions than the guys in charge. Right-o.



ElRay said:


> I'm extremely hesitant to pass-out neg rep, but you earned, which is especially disappointing because you're easily the second most libertarian person on this board and you should know better. FUD is FUD, it doesn't matter if "they" are spewing it to support their position or you're spewing it in a hypocritical, misguided attempt to support yours.
> 
> Ray



I don't really think there is much of a challenge to the dishonesty used by recruiters and the fact that it's keeping people in hell much longer than it should. I really don't care about the rep, have fucking fun with it.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Nov 20, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> 3. Military recruiters target people who can't afford college. Socialized college education is a bad idea. As it was already pointed out (dunno if in this thread necessarily), socialized college it is a good idea in practice that sounds good in theory. When everyone starts getting BAs, the value diplomas will lose their values. Moreover, when you get to the point where the bus drivers know the organic chemistry, or are extremely educated people, you will end up with a BIG social problem. Educated people, should in fact deserve their education, and thus not everyone should be allowed to go to college and/or afford it, but with opportunity for the truly deserving poor, who have shown that their responsible, and have done well in school, etc. You need people to be construction workers, bus drivers, janitors, farmers, apple pickers, etc. You need a working class, that is what drives the economy. Now, I'm not advocating "fuck the poor", I am for increasing the minimum wage (if inflation allows it) and I'm a partial advocate for the neo liberal policy ideal of: "Create wealth, not redistribute". The rich should be taxed, their deal of money, but not have robin hood like taxation.



People should deserve their education? Excuse me? Doesn't completing four or more years of college to earn a Bachelor's degree qualify as earning it? Just because someone is given the opportunity for a higher education does not mean they will take it. College takes comitment to long term goals, and most people just don't have it in them to finish. So, why does offering college to everyone seem like a bad thing? Because an educated populous doesn't put up with the same level of shit from their government, that's why. It's the same reasoning behind the feudal system that kept the peasents illiterate, or why it was illegal to teach a slave to read/write in pre-Civil War America.

I'm all for a return to the 50%+ taxation levels of the rich of the past. Income tax was designed to target them. In conjunction with the estate tax, our system was originally designed to redistribute large amounts of wealth back into the system. The rich were to pay for the bulk of the operation of the government, allowing the middle class to have more income to flow back into the economy. The poor were left alone. At one point in time, we realized that a small group of people sitting on large stores of wealth was the downfall of the European governments that proceeded us. Rich is fine, but wealth for the sake of wealth is bad.

How do you define "paying their fair share" when they have made their wealth by taking advantage of our economic system, and builing it on the backs of the working class? Do you realize that if you pull in $20 million annually (not unusual for a large corporate CEO), and I tax you at 70%, you still have $6 million left over? What will six million dollars buy you? Now take 10% away from the guy making $20,000 annually. How does this effect him? Does it seem fair to you? Two thousand dollars extra will go a long way towards helping the little guy out. An extra million bucks from a guy with a 15,000 sq/ft home and a Porsche will help fifty little guys make ends meet.

How do you define fair? As long as their are people in this country without health care, I don't give a damn about the "rights" of those who have more than they could ever need. The Waltons are worth billions, yet they can't afford to provide Wall Mart employees with health care? I think you need to look less at math and more at human issues. Our system was fair until Republicans got a hold of it.


----------



## garcia3441 (Nov 20, 2007)

+rep for that Dave.


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 20, 2007)

noodles said:


> People should deserve their education? Excuse me? Doesn't completing four or more years of college to earn a Bachelor's degree qualify as earning it? Just because someone is given the opportunity for a higher education does not mean they will take it. College takes comitment to long term goals, and most people just don't have it in them to finish. So, why does offering college to everyone seem like a bad thing? Because an educated populous doesn't put up with the same level of shit from their government, that's why. It's the same reasoning behind the feudal system that kept the peasents illiterate, or why it was illegal to teach a slave to read/write in pre-Civil War America.
> 
> I'm all for a return to the 50%+ taxation levels of the rich of the past. Income tax was designed to target them. In conjunction with the estate tax, our system was originally designed to redistribute large amounts of wealth back into the system. The rich were to pay for the bulk of the operation of the government, allowing the middle class to have more income to flow back into the economy. The poor were left alone. At one point in time, we realized that a small group of people sitting on large stores of wealth was the downfall of the European governments that proceeded us. Rich is fine, but wealth for the sake of wealth is bad.
> 
> ...


1. People get BAs with shitty undeserving GPAs from shit schools and they still have a diploma in their hands (although not as worthy as the others). SO no, completing 4 years of college is not earning it IMHO. THere are lots of irresponsible people in high school that are still irresponsible after that. I know lots of people who get high everyday and fail high school and waste the tax payer's money while in school. In order to go to college you need to be good enough to qualify for it or to afford it, or get merit scholarships. Furthermore, people can be qualified as educated straight out of high school if they actually pay attention in class and do the work. College is not necessary for having an educated populous.

2. I agree with the fact that wealth for the fuck of it is wrong, but that doesn't mean that those people haven't earned their wealth. I am for taxing them, but I think taxing people with half of what they make is wrong. More often than not, wealthy people run business and employ people and thus create wealth. There are other ways to redistribute wealth, like increasing the minimum wages and setting price caps or guaranteeing prices on products, or controlling interest rates or having businesses provide health care for their employees like in the case of Wallmart as you pointed it out. If it was after me, i would have not necessarily a high income tax, but having a progressive property/estate taxes and to balance it out by having lower taxes, there would be more taxes that drive progress like a carbon emission tax, vehicle weight tax (except for business) so idiots stop driving SUVs. You can redistribute wealth by decreasing gas prices and costs of living for example and making the dollar a stronger currency. You mentioned the poor guy. Well, if prices would go down, he wouldn't be that poor anymore without necessarily giving him that much more money or taking extreme amounts from the very rich. I would also pass an act that forces states to have the same sales tax in correlation to the interest rates, protective tariffs and inflation. This will protect the home industries and create more jobs.

ANother aspect is that the population is continually increasing, and the demand for workforce is decreasing. There have to be other ways to population control more than giving free condoms and pamphlets. There is financial pressure. One way to prevent unemployment in the future is to lower the natality rate and tax people having children or giving benefits for couples having only one child (2 parrents=>one child, population goes down).


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2007)

It sounds like a good chunk of what Paul is getting at is that we need higher standards in education. While everyone deserves a shot at education, it's hard not to say that we should expect a lot more from people given how miserably people tend to fail at basic comprehension.

I'm going to disagree completely with the 'or to afford it' clause: if that means what I think it means I don't think having money or not should impact educational quality.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 20, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'm going to disagree completely with the 'or to afford it' clause: if that means what I think it means I don't think having money or not should impact educational quality.
> 
> Jeff


what i meant was that average people or stupid people should not be helped with paying for college. The good ones who cannot afford it should be helped with paying for college. Having a 3.0 shouldn't earn anyone ever government money for higher education IMHO


----------



## jaxadam (Nov 20, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> what i meant was that average people or stupid people should not be helped with paying for college. The good ones who cannot afford it should be helped with paying for college. Having a 3.0 shouldn't earn anyone ever government money for higher education IMHO



A 3.0 is actually not that bad.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2007)

2.0 should be average on a 4.0 scale.

What's more, GPA isn't all that great an indicator of much of anything. The only reason my GPA was as high as it was happened to be most of the school wanting to keep their distance and not wanting to have to deal with me - I did homework when I bloody well felt like it, ignored most classes almost entirely, and generally behaved badly enough that I'd get good grades so the teachers wouldn't have to deal with me again the next semester. If I had been anywhere else, I'd have been lucky to pull out with a 2.0 because I just didn't give a fuck. I know I'm well above average in the stuff I'm studying, just based on competency tests and what I've pulled off in college - if my high school hadn't been scared of me I would have been in the bad category.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Nov 20, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> 1. People get BAs with shitty undeserving GPAs from shit schools and they still have a diploma in their hands (although not as worthy as the others). SO no, completing 4 years of college is not earning it IMHO. THere are lots of irresponsible people in high school that are still irresponsible after that. I know lots of people who get high everyday and fail high school and waste the tax payer's money while in school. In order to go to college you need to be good enough to qualify for it or to afford it, or get merit scholarships. Furthermore, people can be qualified as educated straight out of high school if they actually pay attention in class and do the work. College is not necessary for having an educated populous.



You mean people like the president, who coasted to a degree because Bush Senior was worth so much money? Discrediting people who work for their degree because some people abuse the system just goes to show that you are filled with idealistic notions not based on real world facts.

There are people who complete four years of college. There are fewer people who complete four years of college and graduate with a Bachelor's degree. Why not treat it the way employer's treat educational benefits: maintain a certain average, or you lose your funding. You know why we don't do it this way? It's not because it costs the taxpayers too much money, or we wouldn't fight silly little wars in countries that don't want us their with no definable mission objectives and a negative impact on national security. We don't spend taxpayer's money on education because large credit corporations that contribute to national campaigns make too much money off of student loans. That's why bankruptcy doesn't protect you from that specific creditor.

I happen to be a qualified employee with no college degree who makes a better than decent living. I also know that that piece of paper would make me worth $10,000 more a year. I also understand that the IT industry is a rare example in today's world, and that a college degree is required to do most things that are not blue collar.

Furthermore, who said anything about giving money to people that don't qualify for college? Did I mention anything about abolishing college entrance exams or the standard application process? I simply think that a college education should be available to you based upon your abilities and performance, and not how much money your family has. Show me the guy going to Harvard on student loans, and I'll show you 99 morons going there because they have connections. Hell, show me the guy going to a state university on student loans, and I'll show you the 99 morons going there for free because they can put a ball through a hoop or carry it over a white line.



> 2. I agree with the fact that wealth for the fuck of it is wrong, but that doesn't mean that those people haven't earned their wealth.



Show me what Samuel Robson Walton did to earn his $16.7 billion, other than spending nine months in Helen Walton's womb. This is the problem with our system. Imagine if just half of that got stripped away by an estate tax. Hell, just imagine taking a "unreasonable" 75% of it away as taxable income. That would leave him with $4,175,000,000. That is the combined average salary of 149,107 Americans. That is what he would be _left with_. What he actually inherited is the combined average salaries of 596,428 Americans.



> I am for taxing them, but I think taxing people with half of what they make is wrong. More often than not, wealthy people run business and employ people and thus create wealth. There are other ways to redistribute wealth, like increasing the minimum wages and setting price caps or guaranteeing prices on products, or controlling interest rates or having businesses provide health care for their employees like in the case of Wallmart as you pointed it out. If it was after me, i would have not necessarily a high income tax, but having a progressive property/estate taxes and to balance it out by having lower taxes, there would be more taxes that drive progress like a carbon emission tax, vehicle weight tax (except for business) so idiots stop driving SUVs. You can redistribute wealth by decreasing gas prices and costs of living for example and making the dollar a stronger currency. You mentioned the poor guy. Well, if prices would go down, he wouldn't be that poor anymore without necessarily giving him that much more money or taking extreme amounts from the very rich. I would also pass an act that forces states to have the same sales tax in correlation to the interest rates, protective tariffs and inflation. This will protect the home industries and create more jobs.



Spare me the Regan lecture, I lived through it already. You strengthen the dollar by strengthening the middle class and eliminating the deficit. Clinton already figured that one out. Strengthen the middle class by keeping jobs in this country, and eliminate the deficit by _not_ cutting taxes to the rich. The rich have enjoyed a steady stream of tax cuts since the beginning of the twentieth century, and our federal budget deficit steadily grew over the same period of time. Our tax system was actually originally designed to keep billionaires from occurring, since hoarding wealth was keeping money out of economy. Billionaires don't invest in America--they shelter their wealth out of the country where it cannot be touched. They are profiting from our economic system, and then using their wealth to benefit other nations.

You're buying into the same complicated tax discussion that Republicans have been trying to shove down our throats for years. We need a return to a simple system where the majority of Americans pay no income tax, with the top 5% shouldering 95% of the burden. Keep telling yourself this over and over: if you take 90% of what a billionaire has, he still has at least _one hundred million dollars_. What could you do with one hundred million dollars?



> ANother aspect is that the population is continually increasing, and the demand for workforce is decreasing. There have to be other ways to population control more than giving free condoms and pamphlets. There is financial pressure. One way to prevent unemployment in the future is to lower the natality rate and tax people having children or giving benefits for couples having only one child (2 parrents=>one child, population goes down).



An excellent point, and I agree whole heartedly. The answer to that conundrum is to silence the ridiculous platform of the religious right, and make education, birth control, and abortion something available to everyone, without harassment.

Honestly, while it is not a popular concept, we are rapidly approaching the point where we will need to start enforcing birth restrictions, similar to China. I don't mean this at a national level, but at a world level. We are displacing the ecosystems of countless other species at an alarming rate, and eventually our planet will lack the room for more people. They call the tropical rain forests the lungs of our planet, yet we cut them down to build more homes for more people. It doesn't take a scientist to see that less oxygen producers plus more oxygen consumers is an equation that eventually leads to disaster for everyone.


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 20, 2007)

noodles said:


> You mean people like the president, who coasted to a degree because Bush Senior was worth so much money? Discrediting people who work for their degree because some people abuse the system just goes to show that you are filled with idealistic notions not based on real world facts.
> 
> There are people who complete four years of college. There are fewer people who complete four years of college and graduate with a Bachelor's degree. Why not treat it the way employer's treat educational benefits: maintain a certain average, or you lose your funding. You know why we don't do it this way? It's not because it costs the taxpayers too much money, or we wouldn't fight silly little wars in countries that don't want us their with no definable mission objectives and a negative impact on national security. We don't spend taxpayer's money on education because large credit corporations that contribute to national campaigns make too much money off of student loans. That's why bankruptcy doesn't protect you from that specific creditor.
> 
> ...



show me where i discredited those who work for their degree. There are countless universities where you can get in with a 2.5. I think it is a waste to sponsor people to go to such colleges, so I don't think people who get in those should get any financial aid. If you want free college, close half the schools. That is my argument. There are always leaks in the system. W Bush is an example, and if you want universities to stop letting people in by social class you gotta make it illegal for them to accept donations and fund them more through the government. Moreover, you are the living proof that people don't need a college degree to do well in life and to be happy, then why argue to give lots of people free college education, and not let college education be for the scientists, or IT techs etc, you get the point.


That Walton guy is one guy, but there are tons of rich people who worked for their fortune. 

Reagan had a point. Consumption drives the economy (if what you consume is domestically made, or you export more than you import). As a historical fact, the economy improved during Reagan's first term. I'm not a conservative though, I'm a neo-liberal. Big difference. I didn't advocate cutting taxes to the rich. I think a 30-40% tax for the rich is good enough and create means for reinvestment. Oh, and remind when Reagan approved or even had the thought of approving a carbon tax, guaranteeing minimum prices, weight vehicle taxes, striving for energy independence (using electricity driven heating and producing electricity nuclearly, through wind powered plants, dams, solar power etc), and decreasing the price of oil? Such concepts didn't tickle his ass, and wouldn't tickle it today if he was a live.
answer me one question: In your opinion, would it make the poor guy less poor if you would decrease the cost of life?



I agree completely with the need of having population control. But I don't think education and condoms and shutting up the religious right will do it. Most humans, especially Americans, most likely don't care about something until they it affects them. But if we run out of oxygen, it will be too late. Thus, economic constraints work best, cause most people will feel it up their asses. I am pro a birth tax starting a couple's second child. Also, poor people should not give birth to more than one kid, as the more kids they have, the shittier conditions the kids will grow up in. Once you slap a 10.000$ tax for having a second child and no government provided benefits (medicaid, SCHIP), and then a 100 grand tax for having a third child and an extra zero at the end for each other child, people will start using birthcontrol which i think should be free and government provided. Or the government can give financial benefits to couples to pledge to have ONLY one child, and if they have more, they will reinburse the government 1 million dollars. I think finances are the best birth control for the masses, or better said, the way to force people to use birth control. Soon enough the religious right will either be so broke from having too many children, or will start using birth control and spawn less fanatics to the world. A win-win situation imho


----------



## guitarplayerone (Nov 21, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> show me where i discredited those who work for their degree. There are countless universities where you can get in with a 2.5. I think it is a waste to sponsor people to go to such colleges, so I don't think people who get in those should get any financial aid.



I think that we can quite simply have a policy where if the GPA drops below a 2.5 after someone is in college, they are expelled, or their aid is revoked.

That is a very simple solution, and motivates students to do better.
I completely agree that we shouldnt sponsor stupidity.

Dont tell me this system doesnt work. The USSR used it for A students, (well they didnt have to pay to go to school in the first place) but they recieved a STIPEND for academic excellence. Idk about yours, but the entire physics department in my college (no joke) is Russian.

I actually think need-based federal aid as it is is somewhat discriminatory, because you have to be dirt poor to qualify. I feel that if we had a merit-based system that had judicious oversight we would not only improve the quality of the schools, but we would also reward in the correct way.



lordofthesewers said:


> I am pro a birth tax starting a couple's second child.



I think 'poor' should be defined as 'being on welfare', because that is what drains tax money.

Just so you know, we aren't at carrying capacity for planet earth (as far as Oxygen goes anyway) quite yet. We need to maintain 2 children per child to prevent population shrinkage. If the human race collectively gave birth to 1 child per couple, we would eventually face a 'soft' extinction. Interestingly enough, all those 'tree-huggers' etc that society hates- they are into planting more trees. Meaning more CO2 is converted into O2. Meaning that if we let them all have their politically incorrect way, we might not ever need to worry about this issue.

The problem with exponential population grown occurs mostly in third-world countries. However, there are a lot of deaths to offest that balance, that is an example of a type of reproductive strategy also seen in bacterium, and fish, etc... give birth to many, so that one may live and reproduce...
The problem is occuring because we have modern healthcare coming to these countries nowadays (heh ironic isnt it).

Most theories about the earth reaching carrying capacity refer to a) endless reproduction without limiting factors b) the increase of availabe medical supplies and c) average age of death increasing

There ARE limiting factors- early death, war, disease
There isnt an increase of medical supplies- Hmm I wonder where the AIDS epidemic is most prevelant
The average age of death is increasing, but not by much for third-world countries. Medical advances in countries with the infrastructure to apply them raise this age- it is, after all, an average.

The fact of the matter is, that planet earth itself wouldnt die out if these countries continued their exponential population growth, simply certain regions would die out from famine and disease (assuming we werent stupid enough to let them come to the US). The average lifespan in these areas is increasing, but not so fast as you might think.

The point is limiting US births has absolutely no effect on the earth reaching carrying capacity, because we have, what an average of 1.7 kids per couple? That means we aren't even replacing those who die.


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 21, 2007)

It is not only oxygen that is the problem, but demand for workforce. As technology gets better, fewer people will be required to work, thus population shrinkage will be necessary in the near (50-100years) futere


----------



## JBroll (Nov 21, 2007)

Right-fucking-o, because increased populations never have increased demands and increased demands never bring about further development...

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 21, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Right-fucking-o, because increased populations never have increased demands and increased demands never bring about further development...
> 
> Jeff



but increased unemployment doesn't increase demand too.
there has to be the right population balance for satisfying the economy, development, the environment, and unemployment


----------



## JBroll (Nov 21, 2007)

The economy isn't something you build a population around. The population is what the economy is built around - as long as there is demand and progress (which can't be stimulated with population control) sufficient to keep the economy moving, the economy will support the population, and there's no fix for a slow market to be found in population control.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 21, 2007)

JBroll said:


> The economy isn't something you build a population around. The population is what the economy is built around - as long as there is demand and progress (which can't be stimulated with population control) sufficient to keep the economy moving, the economy will support the population, and there's no fix for a slow market to be found in population control.
> 
> Jeff


maybe, but as technology gets better, there will be less need for workforce and for more population, thus fewer people will be employed and have money to spend=> economic recession.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 21, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> maybe, but as technology gets better, there will be less need for workforce and for more population, thus fewer people will be employed and have money to spend=> economic recession.



My response to this is one word.

What's that word, you ask?

I'll tell you.

...

Get ready...

...

Wait for it...

...














Luddites





...





[This public service announcement has been brought to you by Epic Failure.]

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 21, 2007)

JBroll said:


> My response to this is one word.
> 
> What's that word, you ask?
> 
> ...


honestly, i think that won't work due to the big competition in the international market, especially with the EU and China.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Nov 21, 2007)

JBroll reminds me of the long-haired guy in 'Good Will Hunting.'





Hey Jeff... how do ya like them apples?


----------



## lordofthesewers (Nov 21, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> JBroll reminds me of the long-haired guy in 'Good Will Hunting.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ahaha, that wins grandly


----------



## oompa (Nov 21, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> JBroll reminds me of the long-haired guy in 'Good Will Hunting.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...





lmao! without taking any side in this duologue (i dont even know what you are discussing), that is a hilarious scene from a fantastic movie. awesome TDW


----------



## JBroll (Nov 22, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Hey Jeff... how do ya like them apples?



If I ever have to study history to get laid at bars... shoot me.

Jeff


----------



## FYP666 (Nov 22, 2007)

Wait a minute, I saw this in Oprah! No seriously, that is the most saddest thing that can happen to anybody. She must be soooo brave!


----------

