America is ungovernable

[CougTek]

I ended up with 39% due to revenue increases and 61% for reduced expenses. The militaries took a heavy hit, as did the rich bastards.

 

[jtr1962]

The gov't doesn't create wealth or income. It doesn't hand it out to the well off. The gov't is a parasite on the economy, not the engine of the economy.

Not 100% true. Like you, I'm definitely cool to government programs which redistribute wealth directly, but I realize that certain types of government spending can have huge impacts on the economy. Mainly, I'm referring here to infrastructure spending. Many types of infrastructure which are essential are too costly, or with too long a return on investment, for private industry to take an interest in building. Indeed, most infrastructure projects don't directly make money on their own. Neverthless, taken as a whole, these projects generate many times the amount of economic activity which they cost to build. In effect, they do create wealth. Infrastructure in my opinion is what we need government to start spending a lot more on right now, even if it's deficit spending. In 5 or 10 years time, this new infrastructure will be generating more than enough economic activity and taxes to pay back the loans. Much of the boom economy in the 1960s, for example, was a direct result of the government investing in the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s. Unfortunately, after 40 years we've seen that putting all our eggs in one transportation mode is bad policy. A national high-speed rail system, combined with local transit, would fix this, and provide a transportation system suited for the 21st century economy. We also need to upgrade the electrical gird. Infrastructure spending isn't sexy, but it's really what the government should be doing now.

 

[ddrueding]

I ended up with 39% due to revenue increases and 61% for reduced expenses. The militaries took a heavy hit, as did the rich bastards.

I was able to manage it strictly by spending cuts, mainly to the military and entitlement programs. That doesn't mean that I don't think the wealthy should pay their share, or that tax loopholes and shelters should be plugged, just that that could lower everyone elses taxes considerably.

 

[BingBangBop]

My choices: 57% from tax increases, 43% from spending cuts.

Of course this implies that someone actually cares what I would choose.

 

[Stereodude]

Your original statement in this line was that taxing the rich more couldn't put a dent in the deficit.

My argument was that attempting to soak the rich wouldn't put a noticeable dent in the deficit.

 

[Stereodude]

I've got a better solution. Roll back spending to 2007 levels. Voila' the budget balances itself.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't see a difference in those two statements other than spin.

If 10% of Americans make 90% of the money, taxing them 10% more allows you to cut the taxes of everyone else by 90% and keep revenues roughly equal.

If that is the case, it is not possible that increasing taxes on the rich doesn't effect the outcome dramatically.

 

[Stereodude]

I don't see a difference in those two statements other than spin.

If 10% of Americans make 90% of the money, taxing them 10% more allows you to cut the taxes of everyone else by 90% and keep revenues roughly equal.

If that is the case, it is not possible that increasing taxes on the rich doesn't effect the outcome dramatically.

Sure it is. You don't understand the magnitude of the deficit vs. the amount of revenue taken in via income taxes and who pays it. The deficit is supposed to be about 1.5 trillion this year. The federal gov't only takes in about 1 trillion in income taxes. ~99% of that comes from the top 50% of wage earners. ~70% of that comes from the top 10% of wage earners.

 

[Clocker]

This is fun.

That is not fun. Boobs are fun.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm not sure how you get the impression that I don't understand it. Those numbers look about right to me. If your computer needs to be load-tested, you can check out the US National Debt Clock webpage.

Based on your numbers in post #168, doubling taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners would increase revenue by less than 1%. Doubling taxes on the top 10% would increase revenue by more than 50%. One of these would make a difference, the other would not.

I agree that significant cuts are the best way to eliminate the deficit, but I also believe that the tax system in this country is structured in such a way that the wealthy are not paying their fair share*. Most of the avoidance isn't even at the 10% mark, likely only in the top 2-3% are tax evasion and loopholes financially viable.

*Fair share can be debated, but again we need clean numbers. Get rid of the loopholes, exclusions, and shelters. Flat tax, graduated tax, whatever. Just make it a number (or series of numbers) and let us debate them.

 

[Stereodude]

I agree that significant cuts are the best way to eliminate the deficit, but I also believe that the tax system in this country is structured in such a way that the wealthy are not paying their fair share*.

How can you possibly say that? The top 10% pay ~70% of the federal income tax burden? Exactly how much would they need to pay for it to be "fair"?

 

[ddrueding]

The top 10% have 90% of the money and pay 70% of the taxes. That looks like a discrepancy to me.

 

[Stereodude]

The top 10% have 90% of the money and pay 70% of the taxes. That looks like a discrepancy to me.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a little class warfare.

Your comparison is flawed. You're using a widely reported wealth number, not an income number. The fact is the top 10% make 45.77% of the income and pay 69.94% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% make 12.75% of the income and pay 2.70% of the income taxes. So, I'll ask again. What would be "fair"?

 

[fb]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a little class warfare.

Your comparison is flawed. You're using a widely reported wealth number, not an income number. The fact is the top 10% make 45.77% of the income and pay 69.94% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% make 12.75% of the income and pay 2.70% of the income taxes. So, I'll ask again. What would be "fair"?

It depends, if you earn lots of money you probably have enough to pay the rent, buy shoes for your kids and so on. So it's probably fair that they pay a bit more.

But I also understand if you're against paying taxes if you feel that you don't get anything in return.

 

[Stereodude]

So it's probably fair that they pay a bit more.

They pay a lot more in dollars and more also in percentage. But lots of people say it's not fair. So, I want them to explain exactly what they think would be fair.

 

[Stereodude]

If 10% of Americans make 90% of the money, taxing them 10% more allows you to cut the taxes of everyone else by 90% and keep revenues roughly equal.

If that is the case, it is not possible that increasing taxes on the rich doesn't effect the outcome dramatically.

You think the top 10% are rich? What's your definition of "rich"?

• The top 10% is anyone with an AGI of more than $113,799 a year.
• The top 5% is anyone with an AGI of $159,619 or more.
• The top 1% is anyone with an AGI of more than $380,354 a year.

The people Warren Buffet is talking about taxing is a fraction of a fraction of the top 1% of the tax payers. It doesn't put a sizable dent in the deficit because you could only do it once and even in that one year it still doesn't even get you 25% of the way to closing the deficit. You're looking at less than 2,500 households that more than 10 million a year in taxable income. And less than 250,000 households that make more than 1 million a year in taxable income. If you take all the money of households making 10 million a year and 50% of the money of all households making 1-10 million a year you'd only get about an additional 300 billion in revenue and keep in mind you could only do it once. No one will make >10 million a year if the gov't is going take it all once you get to that level. Further, a lot of people (most?) will stop working & earning money once they get to $999,999.99 if once they hit 1 million the gov't takes half.

This is precisely why the idea is ludicrous. Taxes are dynamic. They are not static. If you punish (monetarily or otherwise) an activity you will get less of it. If you reward (monetarily or otherwise) an activity you will get more of it. Punishing those who are successful because gov't spending is completely and totally out of control is a recipe for disaster and it isn't in line with the ideals that America was founded on or what made America great. Look at all the innovations and inventions that were made in America. Were they made because some gov't committee sat around and signed their existence into law, or were they made because someone had an idea and decided to bet their livelihood on their idea while chasing success?

 

[fb]

I found this article a bit interesting. It explains why the tax debate is so intense even if most Americans share the same opinion.

 

[CougTek]

It's funny to watch the agitated kid arguing to defend a group he's almost certainly not and probably never will be part of.

 

[ddrueding]

I actually am in about the 6-7th percentile. I don't feel "rich", but that is mainly because many of my friends are in the 1%-0.1% range.

The concept of wealth redistribution as a whole seems to be what this conversation is boiling down to. Should everyone be allowed to keep their own hard-earned money? Or to spin it the other way, should the poor be allowed only what they can pry from the clenched fists of the wealthy and powerful?

I agree with Stereodude that this nation was made great by intelligent and capable people leveraging what and who they could to best effect. This accomplished amazing feats, like the trans-continental railroad and the first mega-factories that upped productivity and efficiency to levels never before seen.

Rewarding people based on their value to society works great, until you get to the bottom and realize that some aren't worth enough to society to be self sufficient.

On top of that, it is good for society, our economy, and our cities if the poorest have more than their fair share. The slums would be less so, the jails could be smaller, the emergency rooms less packed, and (my favorite) people with more money reproduce less.

Income redistribution is a political third rail that no-one is willing to talk about because it sounds like forced charity, but if we talk about it purely from the perspective of it's economic benefit, it becomes a viable debate point.

 

[Handruin]

I get SD's point that we need to control our spending a lot better otherwise no form/plan of tax/wealth redistribution will matter for the long-term.

I see a similarity of the US government's spending with the huge debt over its head is very similar to the hundreds and thousands of folks who lost or had a reduction in salary either filed bankruptcy or foreclosed on their home when they probably continued to pay for high-end cable service, cell phones, high speed internet, vacations, cars, toys, etc. Sure, not everyone was like that, but I know of a few who were.

 

[Stereodude]

I actually am in about the 6-7th percentile. I don't feel "rich", but that is mainly because many of my friends are in the 1%-0.1% range.

The concept of wealth redistribution as a whole seems to be what this conversation is boiling down to. Should everyone be allowed to keep their own hard-earned money? Or to spin it the other way, should the poor be allowed only what they can pry from the clenched fists of the wealthy and powerful?

I agree with Stereodude that this nation was made great by intelligent and capable people leveraging what and who they could to best effect. This accomplished amazing feats, like the trans-continental railroad and the first mega-factories that upped productivity and efficiency to levels never before seen.

Rewarding people based on their value to society works great, until you get to the bottom and realize that some aren't worth enough to society to be self sufficient.

On top of that, it is good for society, our economy, and our cities if the poorest have more than their fair share. The slums would be less so, the jails could be smaller, the emergency rooms less packed, and (my favorite) people with more money reproduce less.

Income redistribution is a political third rail that no-one is willing to talk about because it sounds like forced charity, but if we talk about it purely from the perspective of it's economic benefit, it becomes a viable debate point.

The problem is how do you reward / compensate people for not working without encouraging it? There are lots of people who would rather sit home and collect unemployment instead of going out and getting a job that pays slightly more. Extending unemployment to 99 weeks isn't helping those people. It's simply paying them to sit at home whereas they would otherwise go get a job.

If you make it financially advantageous to have kids out of wedlock, guess what, people will have more kids out of wedlock. You implement a minimum wage and minority unemployment goes up. We've had a war on poverty since the 20's and 30's and have transferred trillions of dollars to the poor. Yet we still have poverty. By any and every measure these programs are all abject failures. Everything the gov't touches with the intention of helping ends up destroyed. People used to help out their neighbors or friends personally, charity used to be predominantly a private entity run by churches or other private groups. Now the gov't has taken over the role of "charity" in society and people look to gov't to solve their problems. Frankly that's means we're failing to properly educate people. More gov't isn't the answer to all of societies problems.

I'm not saying that we should eliminate the safety net, but we're way past a safety net. A system where half of the country works and the other half mooches isn't going to last very long.

 

[Stereodude]

I get SD's point that we need to control our spending a lot better otherwise no form/plan of tax/wealth redistribution will matter for the long-term.

I see a similarity of the US government's spending with the huge debt over its head is very similar to the hundreds and thousands of folks who lost or had a reduction in salary either filed bankruptcy or foreclosed on their home when they probably continued to pay for high-end cable service, cell phones, high speed internet, vacations, cars, toys, etc. Sure, not everyone was like that, but I know of a few who were.

We're either going to have some small pain now or have a huge amount of pain later. Unfortunately politicians only kick the can down the road which = huge amount of pain later.

 

[ddrueding]

The problem is how do you reward / compensate people for not working without encouraging it? There are lots of people who would rather sit home and collect unemployment instead of going out and getting a job that pays slightly more. Extending unemployment to 99 weeks isn't helping those people. It's simply paying them to sit at home whereas they would otherwise go get a job.

If you make it financially advantageous to have kids out of wedlock, guess what, people will have more kids out of wedlock. You implement a minimum wage and minority unemployment goes up. We've had a war on poverty since the 20's and 30's and have transferred trillions of dollars to the poor. Yet we still have poverty. By any and every measure these programs are all abject failures. Everything the gov't touches with the intention of helping ends up destroyed. People used to help out their neighbors or friends personally, charity used to be predominantly a private entity run by churches or other private groups. Now the gov't has taken over the role of "charity" in society and people look to gov't to solve their problems. Frankly that's means we're failing to properly educate people. More gov't isn't the answer to all of societies problems.

I'm not saying that we should eliminate the safety net, but we're way past a safety net. A system where half of the country works and the other half mooches isn't going to last very long.

I completely agree with you on what the problem is. The solution, however, is more elusive. I heard an interesting analysis of our unemployment system compared to those used elsewhere. It seems that the only systems that actually worked were ones where more carrots and more sticks were involved. Sure, you can have unemployment as long as you like, and we'll even pay for your schooling so you can be re-trained. But the amount you receive will be small, and you will be personally visited daily by someone whose sole purpose is to kick you in the butt and even escort you to interviews. Oh, and if we find you a job, you are taking it.

This certainly sounds like a logistics and personnel intensive system; perhaps 50% of the total resources would end up in administration. But it seems to be the only system that has worked in the real world. (Here is the list, we are 108th). That there are stupid and lazy people out there sucks. I really do hate lazy people who leech off the system. But it is a problem that needs to be fixed as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

 

[jtr1962]

A big reason why some of the population aren't worth enough to society to be self-sufficient is lack of decent education, plus growing up in a culture where education isn't valued. Fix that and you've solved 90% of the problem on the people side. The other 10% are mostly people who, through no fault of their own, can't be productive. Either they were born that way, or became disabled. That's why you need some sort of safety net. I personally have carpal tunnel syndrome which prevents me from working full-time. For me self-employment has been the only viable solution. Sad to say, my condition likely wouldn't qualify me for any of the safety net programs. That said, I'm probably not doing all that badly. When I was able to work full-time, I managed to sock away quite a bit.

The other part of the equation is a bit harder to fix. You can have all the carrots and sticks you want, but if there just aren't enough jobs in the economy for people who are able and willing to work, you're going to need some sort of safety net. This can take many forms, both private and public. One of the best ways is to continually educate people so they are worth paying more. With higher salaries, people can sock away some of their pay for a rainy day. That takes some pressure off government to make up for lost income during periods of unemployment. Indeed, if we had a culture of saving, instead of spending, we probably never would have gotten into this mess to begin with.

Finally, we need to realize living costs have grown way faster than salaries. It might be unrealistic at this point to expect much more than 50% of the population to be self-sufficient without some sort of help. In NYC $200,000 is really a middle class salary. You literally can't live on your own, without roommates or family members, if you make much under about $75,000. A lot of jobs here just don't pay that much. Maybe the solution is more multi-generation households. Besides splitting expenses/chores, this would lower demand for housing, which in turn would lower costs. Maybe the problem is the American idea that you leave the house when you're 18 and make it on your own. That may have worked in the 19th century, but I think in the 21st we'll realize people are happy and healthier living with a safety net of relatives. And doing this will save tons of money on entitlement programs. The old saying is charity begins at home.

 

[ddrueding]

I think that is a very optimistic view, jtr. I believe most of the problems in that bottom 20% are cultural, with the biggest problem being massive family sizes. #1 cause there is religion, specifically Catholicism and Christianity. Studies have shown that people who are less in control of their lives become more superstitious, and religion is the most popular superstition of all. So people who are already at the bottom turn to religion, which discourages all forms of family planning beyond abstinence (yeah, right), and are then stuck at the bottom because it is nearly impossible to succeed if you are busy breeding like rabbits.

Of course education is a problem, but we need to get the numbers under control first through family planning and immigration control. Once we have a more fixed number of people we are having to deal with, we can worry about educating them and getting them jobs.

 

[Stereodude]

I don't think the jobs shortage problem is that hard to fix. Stop making it so difficult for companies to do business in the US. Lower corporate tax rates, dial back the insane bureaucracy of red tape companies have to deal with (OSHA, EPA, NLRB, EEOC, etc), and watch what happens. We've got to stop demonizing companies. Profit isn't a bad word. Lots of people end of working for people who are chasing profits. Henry Ford found a lot of people jobs in the process of becoming wealthy.

What we have now is an environment where some people with great ideas would rather just go about their daily life working for someone else instead of starting their own company and trying to strike out on their own in the pursuit of getting rich because they just don't want to deal with the potential pitfalls & headaches.

 

[jtr1962]

I agree with both of you. A lot of times when I've known poor people and talked about money, their idea to help their future was "play the lottery" or "pray". In short, they resorted to superstitious, magical thinking, instead of doing things more likely to actually work. And yes, we really need to do something about the sheer numbers here. It's fine if you want to do nothing with your life, but don't bring 10 more into the world who feel the same.

And yes, the government in some ways does make doing business more difficult. I saw part of this back when I was registered as a corporation. All of a sudden I started getting bills for "fees" I didn't even know existed. Granted, they were mostly small, but the point is I'm a small, one person operation. The city/state should be encouraging people like me, not nickel and diming us with fees and paperwork. And don't even get me started on the 15.3% self-employment tax on every dollar I make. Small, one person operations should have a more favorable set of rules. Every person who makes their way via self-employment, instead of working for someone else, frees up a job for a person who might need it. If the self-employed person does well, they may even create jobs. Small business creates more jobs than big business, but most of the nice tax breaks are given to big business.

 

[ddrueding]

What we have now is an environment where some people with great ideas would rather just go about their daily life working for someone else instead of starting their own company and trying to strike out on their own in the pursuit of getting rich because they just don't want to deal with the potential pitfalls & headaches.

I don't think so. I've started a few companies in my life, some of them grew considerably before being sold. At the moment I (mostly) work for someone else. I did stop working for myself because I didn't want to deal with stuff. Taxes, regulations, and government bureaucracy played no role, however. The stuff I didn't want to deal with was collecting payments, tracking bills, and dealing with employees. If you are an entrepreneur, you are. I know plenty, and you could make them walk on hot coals and they would still do it before they would sit at a desk for someone else. I also know a decent number of inventors, people with many patents to their name, and they do what they do because they love it.

And while my boss will argue that he would like to pay less taxes, having to pay another 10% on his 4th or 5th million in income this year will not discourage him from making it.

 

[Handruin]

Finally, we need to realize living costs have grown way faster than salaries. It might be unrealistic at this point to expect much more than 50% of the population to be self-sufficient without some sort of help. In NYC $200,000 is really a middle class salary. You literally can't live on your own, without roommates or family members, if you make much under about $75,000. A lot of jobs here just don't pay that much. Maybe the solution is more multi-generation households. Besides splitting expenses/chores, this would lower demand for housing, which in turn would lower costs. Maybe the problem is the American idea that you leave the house when you're 18 and make it on your own. That may have worked in the 19th century, but I think in the 21st we'll realize people are happy and healthier living with a safety net of relatives. And doing this will save tons of money on entitlement programs. The old saying is charity begins at home.

I realize the cost of living in NYC is very high, so wouldn't this begin to balance out as people leave due to the ridiculously high cost of living? If living in NYC is so important to a person, then I'm assuming that you or anyone else is willing to cope with whatever salary you make so that you can continue to live there, even if it means having 5 roommates. I can understand that if you have lived there most (if not all) of your life that you wouldn't want to be driven out of your home, but perhaps this means it's time to move to another location where $75K means a much better living. Assuming work could be found for similar money, a salary of $45K-$75K in Mass (not in Boston) would let an individual live comfortably. A NYC "middle class" $200K would let you live large...even close to Boston, if not in Boston. Now I'm not suggesting you or anyone else move to Mass, but rather consider other options.

This country has a lot of room. I don't think we are yet at the point where people need to pool up in living spaces or remove the idea that once a person is 18, to begin seeking their own individual life.

 

[Stereodude]

Most limits on people are put there by themselves. For example, the unwillingness to relocate to get ahead. That is 100% self imposed.

 

[jtr1962]

I realize the cost of living in NYC is very high, so wouldn't this begin to balance out as people leave due to the ridiculously high cost of living? If living in NYC is so important to a person, then I'm assuming that you or anyone else is willing to cope with whatever salary you make so that you can continue to live there, even if it means having 5 roommates. I can understand that if you have lived there most (if not all) of your life that you wouldn't want to be driven out of your home, but perhaps this means it's time to move to another location where $75K means a much better living. Assuming work could be found for similar money, a salary of $45K-$75K in Mass (not in Boston) would let an individual live comfortably. A NYC "middle class" $200K would let you live large...even close to Boston, if not in Boston. Now I'm not suggesting you or anyone else move to Mass, but rather consider other options.

This country has a lot of room. I don't think we are yet at the point where people need to pool up in living spaces or remove the idea that once a person is 18, to begin seeking their own individual life.

NYC and other urban areas have high costs of living simply because nationally there is a shortage of urban housing (and a glut of suburban/exurban housing). More people want to live in cities than there is housing, so that drives the cost up. Every person who might leave NYC of out disgust has 5 others willing to take their place and have 5 roommates, or do whatever it takes to live there. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. Living alone is unhealthy anyway, as well as being much more expensive. People generally manage here because they either bought housing before the price went insane, like my mom, or they live together as needed to bring the costs per person to something reasonable. Eventually, as more housing stock is built to coincide with demand, prices will drop. They've already leveled off and dropped a little. They still need to drop about another 50-60% to approach what they should be based on inflation. Long term, for many reasons, the trend is going to be a lot more people living in high-density areas, so I'm actually in a good location. We simply can't afford to subsidize the spread out infrastructure plus high energy costs needed for spread out living. Some companies are even relocating their main offices from suburban industrial parks to inner cities. They realize the talent they wish to attract simply are the type of people who also prefer living in cities.

I personally would never leave NYC, short of it becoming a disaster zone, simply because it's one of the few places in the country you can get by without a car. I have zero desire to be wedded to an automobile. When you factor in the cost of owning a car, suddenly "cheap" places don't seem so cheap any more. Also, with my CTS, there's no way I could drive, at least not daily or for more than a short time. And I really don't care for suburban or exurban places anyhow.

Usually in places where cost of living is low, so are salaries. I remember back in 1990 when I visited the main office in Virginia of the company I used to work for. The NYC office was slated to be closed, so I was there to train my replacement. When I remarked that I would only be getting $240 a week in UI, the person said that was more than their salary. At the time I was making $437.60. This wasn't a great amount of money by any standard. I thought to myself, the people in Virginia probably have as hard a time making it on what they earn as I would have trying to make it on my pay (assuming I didn't live with my parents). In fact, they probably had it harder because they had to factor in car ownership. Relocation usually isn't an answer unless jobs where you live are so scarce you literally can't get anything. Nowadays relocation makes even less sense since with many jobs you can literally work from home and do projects regardless of location. Most of the people I do work for now are a couple of states away. Being self-employed for so long, I have zero desire to ever work for someone else again, especially in this employer's market where people are largely underpaid and overworked. Last time I looked for jobs I might qualify for, the pay wasn't much more than I was making 20 years ago. One of my friends owns a taximeter shop. He can only afford to pay his employees $9 or $10 an hour. Most of his competitors only pay $2 or $3. That's the kind of work out there for most people. Adjusted for CPI, salaries have dropped enormously since the 1960s. You used to be able to support a family on one salary. Nowadays most people can't even get by with two.

 

[jtr1962]

Most limits on people are put there by themselves. For example, the unwillingness to relocate to get ahead. That is 100% self imposed.

It's often not an unwillingness but an inability. Back when I finished college relocation wasn't an option. I had no money to move, no money to buy the auto I would have needed just about anywhere I did move, and to top it off I couldn't deal emotionally with being thousands of miles from everything I knew. The kicker was most of the jobs in my field (electrical engineering) were in places like California or Texas. I hate hot weather with a passion, plus the lifestyle was way too different for me to adjust to. And I would have hated living alone. I might have considered some form of relocation (but not to CA or TX) if I had a significant other to go with me, but I didn't. In the end I took whatever I could get in NYC, figuring I'm way ahead of the game even making 1/3 of what I would make as an engineer, but living with my parents, as opposed to making good money but having every cent of it go out the window for living expenses. If living with parents or other family members is an option, then it's foolish not to take advantage of that, at least for a while. At the time, I personally planned to go on my own only if I got married. I'm still single, and still living at home (mom only since dad died in 2006). Now I'm investing to be able to buy out my brother and sister's share of the house. BTW, mom is still healthy and hopefully will be around a while. There's nothing wrong with extended families. Indeed, had I gotten married, if it was OK with my wife I would have have considered asking my parents if I could make the house into a 2-family (at my expense), or perhaps have done something similar with her parents. Lots of people here do stuff like that. It's good to be near relatives. Parents benefit from this also as they age, and need more help. Society could save a fortune on elder care if more people stayed near their parents, as is common in most of the world

 

[CougTek]

For a guy with carpal tunnet syndrome, you do write a lot. Do you use speach recognition software or you just enjoy the pain of using the keyboard?

 

[jtr1962]

For a guy with carpal tunnet syndrome, you do write a lot. Do you use speach recognition software or you just enjoy the pain of using the keyboard?

Keyboards aren't too bad. It's pressing and/or pushing motions which kill me. That being said, I couldn't deal with keyboards or mice on an occupational basis (i.e. 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year). Notice also that I occasionally take breaks from this place. Guess why?

Copy and paste works also. Sometimes if we've discussed a topic in the past, I copy and paste what I wrote earlier, but modified for the context of the discussion. That saves a lot of typing. I have a 2MB+ text file filled with my rants on various topics on several forums.

I haven't tried speech recognition yet (no mic on my PC).

Riding my bike on the drops starts to hurt after 30 minutes. After about 90 minutes, I need to stop riding.

 

[ddrueding]

Historical murder rates in the United States (pdf):

1980 23,040
1985 18,976
1990 23,438
1993 24,526
1994 23,326
1995 21,606
1996 19,645
1997 18,208
1998 16,974
1999 15,522
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,204
2003 16,582
2004 16,137
2005 16,692

Spot the world-changing catastrophe that has cost us more freedom, money, and soldiers lives than any single event since I don't know when? Me neither. 9/11 upped the death toll for the day by less than 50%.

That terrorists attacked us was inevitable but unfortunate. That we overreacted so fantastically is the catastrophe. I can't imagine Osama could have hoped for a result that would better have served his purpose.

 

[Stereodude]

I don't want to interrupt your copy and paste from some left wing lunatic fringe talking points memo with the truth and actual facts, but the attacks of 9/11/2001 aren't included in those murder statistics.

Regardless of the facts I totally know what you mean. We should have turned a blind eye like we did to all the other terrorist attacks on the US in the two decades earlier and just done nothing. Clearly that would have been the outcome Osama wouldn't have been happy with.

 

[time]

Do you even understand what the word terrorism means? If, by some miracle, the nation was capable of ignoring the attack, or at least ignoring those responsible, then of course the action becomes unsuccessful.

But we're human, not automatons, so we quite understandably become fearful and want revenge.

 

[Stereodude]

Do you even understand what the word terrorism means? If, by some miracle, the nation was capable of ignoring the attack, or at least ignoring those responsible, then of course the action becomes unsuccessful.

You know what. You're absolutely right. We should let unarmed civilians in tall buildings do battle with terrorists with trucks filled with explosives and planes loaded with fuel we must not give in to terror. And, we should apply the same rules to all crime and just ignore the criminals. We'll just ignore the offenders and make no attempt to stop them or catch them because doing so would let the criminals disrupt our way of life.

Wait what?!?!? :scratch:

 

[Handruin]

What the hell are you two passively arguing about?

 

[Stereodude]

What the hell are you two passively arguing about?

I responded to DD's nonsensical & factually baseless post and then got blindsided by time who apparently agrees with DD that we should have just ignored the attack and by not ignoring it we gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted.

In both cases I was illustrating the absurdity by being absurd.