ralphwiggum

This is thread about guns members own, not about gun related politics/social issues. temporarily locking to clean up edit: Opened again. DO NOT get into gun related politics/social commentary.

send him an email. No need to revive an old thread. Please read forum rules.

If there is something about conpiracy theorists, they love to think they are right and drive topic off and keep going at it. ***LeGeNDK1LLER***, enjoy your vacation. And I'm closing this topic too.

Would you like to know what happens to people who try to derail the thread and try to talk about what they want on a thread not made for it?

The first amendment says that government shall not make laws prohibiting them. It doesn't say that private entities(such as this forum) are restricted from taking actions on 'speech' Even with that amendment, court have ruled that there are several situations where freedom of speech is not guranteed.

If there is one thing that is constant, it's conspiracy theorist who think they can go anywhere and spew their idiocy while others are trying to pay respect. I've had it with idiots like you and enjoy your vacation.

Let's not go off topic here.

let's not get off topic here, shall we?

ok, do I really have to ban some people here? edit: locking the thread for now. If you have relevant info to post, send me a PM.

Let's not go off topic here.

Given that you talk a lot about how Republicans are out to screw a lot of things up and your general disdain for them, I think it goes without saying that you probably consider it sinister. As I previously mentioned, housing crisis is not just by GOP or Dems, but a combination of both. If you want to critique a theory, you do it by logic, not by some unrelated items like where it was written. Laffer Curve has plenty of criticisms, but trying to refute it by using the instrument it was written upon is even more illogical And this has very little to do with what I pointed out, which is that your argument that China's been selling US Treasury holdings, to which I replied with data from US Treasury itself. YOU did not read what the article says since it has Treasury HOLDINGS in their own report. I don't know if you are aware it of not, but the graph that you linked is about US home mortgage debt, which is not equal to US national debt. If you are going to make a case, at least put some relevant information.

It doesn't take a sinister mind to pull that off. There was a housing boom that triggered massive influx of investment in housing market, and there were buyers who took the risk(whether they understood it ornot) of buying a home. It wasn't just conservatives who pushed for it either. The downgrade, if it happens, is not some conspiracy. If you can't pay bills, your credit suffers. As for China selling bonds, your link from theglobalrealm is from 2010. It is grossly outdated, and you are not being totally honest here. Here's link to Treasury.gov http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt It shows that as of May 2011, China holds 1.159 trillion USD worth of bonds. It went slightly under in March, but it increased its share since then. The interest rate will not go through roof even if 8/2 deadline is not met. Remember that back in 70s, the inflation was in double digits and currently we are in low single digits. It will be awhile before US goes to that level. The ones calling for taxes is Democrats not Republicans. Neither side is entirely correct on their solution, as it probably would require raising the limit and increase in tax as well as cutting government expenditures. While there has been numerous doomsday scenarios floating around since 2007 or so, none of it has happened, and even if it does, it is not going to be as drastic as some think. For example, knocking 5% off US GDP will definitely hurt, but the impact will soften out due to global economy being so interconnected.

I don't think I claimed 12.5%, but 3% is at 3 times higher than what you argued for. On top of that it also depends on when the debt was mostly incurred. Had most of it been incurred in the second term, the actual debt would have been higher as the rate was higher in the second term than the first. The dollar amount of top earners paying in tax is definitely higher than the bottom earners. But the ratio/percentage of tax paid may not be so http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/ The upper part of social-economic groups pay less proportional to their income. So the idea of flat rate tax might seem logical, but at the same time it is not to those in lower incomes. For example, if there was a 10% flat rate income tax, then someone making $20,000 a year would pay $2,000 in tax. Someone with $200,000 would pay $20,000. Considering that the price of foods and other goods/merchandises is not proportional to income, the impact of that $2000 is more detrimental to those who make $20,000 than to those who make $200,000. For example, if someone spends $200 per shopping trip for groceries. Then $2000 would mean 10 shoppings. IIRC, currently, income of $20,000 don't pay as much as income of $200,000 in taxes. That means flat rate tax would take away 10 grocery shoppings away from $20,000 earners. For those who earn $200,000, even assuming they end up losing more money(which most likely will not happen as their effective tax rate is higher), the impact of increase would be not as dramatic as one that affects $20,000 earners. So if we remove the current system and go with flat rate tax, lower income earners will be more affected (negatively) compared to higher wage earners. One of the perspective is that lower taxes will trickle down to creating more jobs. That has been quite easily shattered this time as companies are saving cash waiting for signs of recovery rather than hiring people right now. If anything, this recession showed that social programs like unemployment can cushion the fall a bit. IIRC, almost all the money given out via unemployment gets spent in market since those who receive unemployment benefits more or less spend it all. Not entirely true. The housing crash was not just because the rich were buying up properties, but more because the credit was available to a lot more people. Many people bought houses using more credits, and that drove the price up in many places. When it went bust, a lot of middle class got stung by it. The financial industry did not do a good job either since they used derivatives too. The idea that the money was shipped out to off shore tax havens is just as incorrect. The riches have suffered in this recession just as others did, but because they had better system, they were able to take less impact. I think you are using a very wide brush.

Mostly not true http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-LongTerm-Rate-Data-Visualization.aspx Here are two graphs. The T-bill yield rate for 10 yr normal and 30 year real http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3228/ustbillyields.jpg http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6630/ustbillyields2.jpg Notice that most of the time during Bush administration, the yields on both 10 and 30 year bonds were above 1%, and more close to 3% on average.

ok this has gone off topic too much. If you want to post news regarding the tragedy then contact me to open this thread.

I don't know whether it is malice or ignorance, but I've repeatedly said not to go offtopic. don't try to push the limit.

and with that comment, you decided to engage in political bickering, which leads to 1 week ban.

Please use either of the two threads mentioned above.

It wasn't me, but I can answer that question. There is no need for link to the manifesto/rambling with instructions on how to commit crime on this forum. If you want to find one, there are plenty of links outside of this forum to do so.

I am reopening this thread. Some were banned since they think this is a place to spew their bigotry or engage in offtopic discussion not related to the topic. Others are warned not to engage in similar behaviors.

some people just can't help but to get into some screwed up argument. I am temporarily locking this thread to sort out and decide how to deal with those people.

every choice has consequences. I took one way, you are free to take another, but you will have to deal with consequence of your choice.

Suck it up and work then. Some of my former employers were monumental jerks or idiots, but I sucked it up and worked. Notice that I did my best to make myself more valuable. That wasn't easy, but I sucked it up and did it. You want a job? How about working like an immigrant? You have less dignity if you are not willing to work like them and complain about job situation not fitting your choice. Yeah it sucks but you need to build up your resume/experience/skill.

I'm going to make this personal this one time since you called me out on this one.(I'm guessing you are refering to me when you said Ralph) You don't know me. You don't know how I lived. You don't know what I did to better myself and live a middle class life. I lived with about that much money, sometimes less when I was younger. When I was 18 I had just enough clothes to wear for 1 week, and some of them had holes in it. Economically, my family was very close to being qualified for foodstamp. I bit my tongue and studied hard and when I graduated from college I graduated right into a recession. I kept on going, got my masters degree and now I can afford a few things in my life. So don't act like you are holier than me because you live with that income. I was there and I perservered.

Disussing motive is permitted, but as soon as it starts wandering into political bickering I will put a stop to it. If you can't figure out the difference between stating a fact and using it for political bickering, it probably should not be discussed in this thread. So, for example, it is ok to state that it was politically motivated, but it is not ok to argue about Norweigian politics here.