Tax

[Darwin]

For your consideration:

http://oiukm32.blogspot.com/2010/03/...ing-sound.html

[chainsnuser]

What the hell happened?

A lot.

- The population on earth exploded
- Technological concepts that once promised a "paradise on earth" turned out to be dead ends in the long run (like the use of oil or atomic energy)
- Political concepts that sound logical on paper, like liberalism/libertarism or communism turned out to be disastrous in reality.
- Many ethical values lost their meaning

If we all would be willing to live like our grand parents or great grand parents did back in 1910, as farm labourers, miners, factory workers for 6 Dollars a week or 0.34 Euros per hour, with no electricity in the house, no car, no TV etc., always struggling to get enough food for the family to survive, then maybe, but only MAYBE we could go back to the political system of that time.

That's not to defend the political system of today in it's totality, but I really prefer a government of greedy assholes, who only work for their own account, while trying to get reelected, to some daydreamers who try to push political ideas that seemingly worked back in 1910, but have been proven as unusable many times since then.

Cheers!

[Darwin]

I generally agree with the above points made by chainsnuser with the exception of the comment that the use of oil and atomic energy have been "dead ends". The energy created by oil and, to a lesser extent, nuclear energy have essentially made possible the supreme comfort of our lives as compared to our forbears. In equal measure that comfort has been abetted by the vast array of synthetic materials derived from hydrocarbons. Every consequential advance in chemistry, medicine, transportation, etc. etc. etc. would have been far more problematic without the synthetic materials that so many sneer at. Carp and grumble about "sustainability" as we may our lives of relative comfort are owed to the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources.

It is true that many such advances have brought unintended consequences but few of us would really want to go back to the rampant disease and backbreaking labors of centuries past. And no we cannot ever really "run out of oil". We are entering an age where necessary hydrocarbon feedstocks can be synthesized from many different sources using genetically modified organisms, as well as a variety of other methods. This will certainly not be cheap but it will be at least possible and it will be economically viable at some future level of crude oil prices. It's anybody's guess what that price will be though and artificial efforts to rush the development of alternative hydrocarbon feedstocks below that level with subsidies are not likely to succeed. As only one example European fuel prices, through taxation, have been at multiples of U.S. levels for decades without stimulating wide-scale adoption of alternative fuels.

Real commercial demand is what will drive those developments and not government fiat or the huffing and foot-stamping of the scientifically and economically clueless political class. When you think about it every government mandate to reduce the use of oil only keeps more of it in the ground thereby delaying the day that the real price of crude begins to seriously stimulate adaptation of "alternatives". Economics 101. Reduce demand for a product or resource and its price will go down. That is one ironclad fact of life against which the indignant wrath of activists and politicians contend in vain.

[truthwolf1]

A lot.

If we all would be willing to live like our grand parents or great grand parents did back in 1910, as farm labourers, miners, factory workers for 6 Dollars a week or 0.34 Euros per hour, with no electricity in the house, no car, no TV etc., always struggling to get enough food for the family to survive, then maybe, but only MAYBE we could go back to the political system of that time.

That's not to defend the political system of today in it's totality, but I really prefer a government of greedy assholes, who only work for their own account, while trying to get reelected, to some daydreamers who try to push political ideas that seemingly worked back in 1910, but have been proven as unusable many times since then.

Cheers!

I would be more then willing to go back to 50's-60's Leave it to Beaver life then to live in this current reality of greedy asshole politicians. Those daydreamers of 1910 have warned us that if we continue on this path we will implode and their predictions are slowly coming true.

[RobsanX]

I don't want to bring up greed... Well actually I do. It's all about profits, and paying people reduces profits...

[sgreger1]

What in that statement is not true?
Rather than making candidate decisions by selecting names recognized from the cover of People or determining what bills to support based on what talk-show hosts have to say about them, the sheeple could cause change if they made some effort to get involved.

On any level.

Take the time to just try and understand what they are voting on.

I bridled when I first heard the term sheeple but I've since come to believe it's an all too apt description of the American electorate.

No, we have the government we have chosen, the one we have allowed to develop.

I would have to disagree. That's the way it used to work, but nowadays it works like this: Politician says "I will stop the wars" so you vote for him. but nothing is holding him to that, so once he gets in and gets introduced to the lobbyists, suddenly he doesn't want to stop the wars. Same with any issue, look at the governator in my statem he always says he is going to do x,y,z but then does something else. No matter who you vote for, they are going to do what they want. Look at Barbera Boxer here in CA, this state has been ruined for a decade, yet she gets re-elected every year. And even if I voted for the republican candidates, they come in and do that same thing.

No matter who I vote for, they never do what they said they would, so voting "by the issues" is innefective since you don't know what they will ACTUALLY do once they get in. This is why I urge people to vote for a third party this year. Any third party. Something to break the existing 2 party power structure. It's an absence of choices that leads to this behavior in our politicians.

[tom502]

Yeah, the 1950's was the best era.

[sgreger1]

A lot.

- The population on earth exploded
- Technological concepts that once promised a "paradise on earth" turned out to be dead ends in the long run (like the use of oil or atomic energy)
- Political concepts that sound logical on paper, like liberalism/libertarism or communism turned out to be disastrous in reality.
- Many ethical values lost their meaning

If we all would be willing to live like our grand parents or great grand parents did back in 1910, as farm labourers, miners, factory workers for 6 Dollars a week or 0.34 Euros per hour, with no electricity in the house, no car, no TV etc., always struggling to get enough food for the family to survive, then maybe, but only MAYBE we could go back to the political system of that time.

That's not to defend the political system of today in it's totality, but I really prefer a government of greedy assholes, who only work for their own account, while trying to get reelected, to some daydreamers who try to push political ideas that seemingly worked back in 1910, but have been proven as unusable many times since then.

Cheers!

While I agree with all of that, I want to make ym point clear. I'm not saying I would rather be a farm laborer (well, it would be cool for a minute), I don't mean actually make thigns like 1910, I am talking about how at some point the people with the money and power decided they needed more, and decided to start using fractional reserve banking (I know this is older than 1910) and create a massive amount of cheap credit etc. This artificially brought us to where we are. WIthout all these wacky banking schemes and cheap credit, everyone wouldn't be getting a new car every 3 years etc. Remember when they used to make cars to last? Out of actual metal and chrome? They don't do that anymore because people can afford to borrow another 30k every 3 years.

They got everyone in houses with cheap credit. They emphasize spending on 12$ latte's instead of saving etc etc.


A lot has changed like war, and most notably population, but while the "simple" life surely was tiresome and annoying at times, it was sustainable. No farmer would have 20k$ in credit card debt just to have a big screen TV and a coach bag for the wife. The mindset was different back then. I think America used cheap credit to live a lifestyle we couldn't actually afford and now look, things have kind of stagnated. Costs keep going up, inflation keeps going up, yet wages remain the same as they were years ago. We lose nearly 4% just to inflation each year, yet most people don't even get a 4% raise every year. Then gas keeps going up, which means food and everything else inflates along with it, and yet your paycheck is the same.

Now to live in a 2 bedroom apartment in san francisco and drive a car, you have to make 90k a year.


And Darwin is right, hydrocarbons are possibly the most revolutionary thing we've exploited yet. Plastics and rubber play a huge role in everything from medicine, to the space program, to your kids lunch bag.

I just think we don't think in sustainable terms anymore. We spend more than we have, then spend some more. Buy things we don't need. Everyone runs up credit. What happens when the people who let us borrow money stop doing that, how will we continue without the system collapsing? I think at some point another depression is going to happen, they can stave off the next bubble for a few more years but things can't stay this inflated forever.

[sgreger1]

Yeah, the 1950's was the best era.

I kinda liked the 30', though the 50's was probably the coolest generation to be young in. I like how the women dressed back in the 30's all dolled up and classy. Then again, I do love a miniskirt to, so who am I to complain? lol



The period inbetween seems like it would have sucked though: During 1944 and 1945, the top tax rate was at its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

If I made 200g's and came home with like 12k I would be so pissed.

[olderthandirt]

I would have to disagree. That's the way it used to work, but nowadays it works like this: Politician says "I will stop the wars" so you vote for him. but nothing is holding him to that, so once he gets in and gets introduced to the lobbyists, suddenly he doesn't want to stop the wars. Same with any issue, look at the governator in my statem he always says he is going to do x,y,z but then does something else. No matter who you vote for, they are going to do what they want. Look at Barbera Boxer here in CA, this state has been ruined for a decade, yet she gets re-elected every year. And even if I voted for the republican candidates, they come in and do that same thing.

No matter who I vote for, they never do what they said they would, so voting "by the issues" is innefective since you don't know what they will ACTUALLY do once they get in. This is why I urge people to vote for a third party this year. Any third party. Something to break the existing 2 party power structure. It's an absence of choices that leads to this behavior in our politicians.

lol
I have no clue as to what it is you disagree with greger. Your saying the same thing I am using a different set of words

[sgreger1]

lol
I have no clue as to what it is you disagree with greger. Your saying the same thing I am using a different set of words

Lol, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that if you just vote for someone based on the issues they and you both agree on, that it will fix things. I was saying that no matter what they say they always do something different so voting is almost useless. Vote for PP for president in 2012! Snuson should be able to pull off a last minute viral campaign to get PP elected, then he can strut around in his old man leather bondage suit and whip things into shape .

[olderthandirt]

Too a degree that is my stance. You also have a valid point in that most pols do the exact opposite of what they campaigned on once in office.

The fix to that can still be the vote though. This is where the involvement of the electorate comes into play.

Vote based on your best understanding of the issue or the candidate.
Understand their track record and vote em' right the hell out if they don't do as promised.

That's not what is taking place. Entirely too many folks are ambivilant in their duties to the country that they vote uninformed. We end up with what we have now. Multi-term pols with nothing to show their constituents but lies and large bank accounts. Said sheeple constituents smile and give em' another term!

Hence the government we have chosen.

Well that was just depressing. Time for a cup of coffee, I'm thinking Roda for the lip and a pinch of snuff. Add some rose colored glasses and I'm set....

[sgreger1]

Yah I don't know who I will be voting for in 2010 or 2012, but I can guarantee you not a SINGLE incumbant will be getting my vote. We need to clean house, the people in there right now, from Pelosi to Gingritch, have been there for way too long and are tainted.

We need to kick em down a notch, they get too used to living like royalty and become complacent in their duties.

[Darwin]

Actually Newt Gingrich resigned his House seat in 1998 but I definitely sympathize with the sentiment. A bit of cheering news is that there are more "unsafe" seats in the House this election cycle than in many a year. Not a clean sweep certainly but quite possibly a bloodbath for the Dems. A bunch of the boys/gals will be falling on their swords, intentionally or not, for participating in the recent skulduggery during the health care bill "passage".

[danielan]

Yeah, the 1950's was the best era.

Sure, if you like bobby socks and poodle skirts...