Alienware at select EB Games locations - Page 3

I didnt read what you all wrote because there was just too much text, but you all need to shut up.

kinda interesting thoe how they got into this discussion from a thread entitled "Alienware at select EB Games locations"

Jazzy, d'ya know any easier way to get the time to pass while waiting for alienware computers to ship? =P As for you, Astu222, you really are the little troll running around here, aren't you? All you've posted so far that I've read is not just uninformative it's downright annoying.

DB, considering you've graduated w/ a business major should know the concept of the tragedy of the commons, and that government MUST intervene economically to preserve public interests. Our highways, healthcare, police, schools, etc. etc. are all covered by taxes, state and federal. It is very sad to see pork barrel projects, like you said, but if there's no pork barrel projects, there can't be new jobs made which the congressmen and representatives can point to say that they did on behalf of their constitutents. It's a political move, but that's not really where the majority of your taxes go. As for planning, many people planned extensively before the Great Depression, yet their "nest egg" were completely worthless irregardless. There are certain catastrophes and economic shifts that can destroy even the best-laid plan, DB. I'm not saying that people shouldn't plan, but one must also be considerate that there are events and actions that are devastating and beyond people's imagination to plan. Now, let's take a "what-if" look if there honestly was no taxes other than tarriffs and government provides only basic services such as defense, and oh, say common currency (Not sure what else you would deem "basic" services, so you'll need to probably clarify that later): You would have to insure your workers completely since HMOs are free to be monopolistic and charge sky high as well as larger pensions due to lack of Social Security, pay them higher wages due to lack of food subsidies from govt., pay additional for transportation due to badly kept roads since the government can't pay for it, and so on and so on. These are a few examples I can think of when I hear basic services; we live in a VERY high living standard society precisely because of how much we're paying for it. Socially, it also prevents from the gap of the haves and have-nots from reaching revolutionary levels (a little Marx here, but he's got a point about revolution if there's nothing to lose). The European countries and Canada pay high taxes too, but you wouldn't hear them wanting to cut taxes since they want both a high degree of standard of living and safety net (and yes, I understand the opposition charge of that being the reason why their economies are stagnant).

nope, don't really know any easier way to wait for an alien; but i do know this is not a very good way to pass time for me because i should be studying for a final that has nothing to do with econ or poli-sci...

Basic means roads, bridges, and other common instrastructure. A real "basic" safety net such as unemployment where you get short-term assistance. Welfare is utter bullshit as is public housing (generations of ghetto-dwellers). Social security is not a public entitlement system. It is an investment system (although I would prefer to invest the money myself as I don't trust the government to return any of the benefits to me by the time I retire).
All you have argued is abstract until you have to foot the bill. Once you make over $200,000/year (Kerry's tax target group), we can talk about this again.

Hrmm, I'll get back to you in about 4 years then, give or take. Grad school and finding a job takes that long. But just before we finish this conversation, a small note; the current matter about welfare is often about perception: If it was said that would you support a program for single mothers who have children but are fatherless due to the father being KIA'd due to the war in Iraq, not many people would vote against that. Yet when we give the picture of a poor black single mother of multiple children in the ghetto the perception immediately changes into "She deserved, she shouldn't have done such a thing in the first place, etc. etc." and the program would be dropped so fast it wouldn't be funny. Welfare doesn't pay sufficiently for people to live on indefinitely. It is in desperate need of reform just like Social Security, yes, but it doesn't mean that it's inconsequential. As for Public Housing, the cost of rent or purchase of housing is ridiculous in it's growth upwards; how can you honestly have poor or unemployed people getting back on their feet when they can't even pay rent to have a house on top of their heads? Ghettos aren't purposely formed by the tenants, it's done by the other residents that refuse to be associated with the poor and homeless in their neighborhood, the "not in my backyard" concept and not wanting to have their property worth go down. Remember white flight? Social Security is, like you said, not an entitlement system, I don't know who came up with that dumb idea and made it run like that for this long, but it is also coupled strongly with medicare which is super-important for seniors, since most can't work due to age or due to sickness. Take that away, and who would take care of these senior citizens? Their children? It would represent quite a financial burden if they had to cover all the costs of medication and hospitalization. Their former employees? More money siphoned off that can be used for salary or "progressive purchasing" that could benefit the company now. These programs I can argue serves as "necessary, basic things" because they impact millions of Americans but not often considered in it's full ramifications until it's gone. Quite a different view, eh? I may be young in comparison to you and just starting out, DB, but I'd like to think there's some merit in my words. Capitalism in it's true form counts EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE as a cost. I'd hate to be thought of as simply a cost than can be cut off rather than a person.

Hahahaha, sorry, Jazzy, my finals were last week, so I have nothing better to do atm.....and procrastinating about law school apps doesn't help.

Here is a thought: If you can feed 'em, don't breed 'em. Take away government sanctioning or supporting having kids under the following circumstances:

1. Means test: You MUST make enough to support you children in terms of PAYING for their education (well-funded so teaches make decent money), so you can feed them properly, and so you can pay for their college education or whatever training they need to be productive (apprenticeship or whatever).
2. Not have mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, arrests for violence including domestic violence.
3. Not have more than two children (based on income).

If you are arrested for domestic violence, part of you sentence is getting fixed on the first conviction. Do the same for drugs after second conviction.

We have too many people that are leeches. This plan would reduce those numbers. I do not say everyone needs to be college educated. I am saying there would be no lose to eliminate (through attrition) the riff-raff of society. Government enforcement would only be involved in distrubution of benefits. If you want government assistance, you MUST play by the rules set forth above. If you want benefits, you volunteer to get fixed. That way we make sure your sorry ass won't suffer too bad but we make sure you don't bring another life into your misery.

Man, you should come to my part of canada and ask if we need lower taxes...there is a huge cry here for lower taxes since despite our federal governments best efforts at a social safety net, they end up pissing money away on useless things....but maybe that is just our government....at least our provincial government is good with its money (relatively so) and besides we have lots of oil and with the high prices that have already been brought up this province is swimming in money....

Now is only they would put some more of that money into funding post-secondary education, i could use a lower tuition....but i guess you can't have everything.

(and by the way, im doing Poli-Sci as a pre-law degree as well)

can you say thread hijack?

thread hijack

hijack.... what....this is fun....

This thread hijacked by Al-queda

another POTD worthy post for bevis.....

Okie dokie, probably time to stop. But what you were writing about, DB, was actually done pre-WWII as an eugenics/social experiment with a lot of social darwinist influence in it...it was ruled unconstitutional because it discriminated against minority groups. You might want to do some reading on the matter on WHY it was deemed unconstitutional....there's a large body of text on the matter, just as reading material to expand your horions. Now I promise to be quiet on the matter now, this probably has gone on too long as it is. I wouldn't mind having a chat with you on the matter just for the heck out of it privately or something though.

A few things I want to say....

The richest 1% of the American population owns 80% of the stock market. That means they collect 80% of the dividends and recover 80% of the wealth from stock market returns. Bush wants to eliminate taxes on dividends. These are tax giveaways that do not provide any stimulus to the country. Also, the money saved by corporations on their income taxes is either reinvested in the company or attributed to stockholder's equity --- either way the elite win.

Bush wants to eliminate the estate tax. This is a tax that is applied to the top 2% of the American population, another giveaway that provides no stimulus.

The list of giveaways doesn't end their --- nearly every tax cut bill he passes are full of giveaways which provide no stimulus. Not to mention every economist says that the only way tax cuts provide stimulus is when they are applied for short periods of time. Extended tax cuts create recessions --- historically proven.

He has wanted to do these things since he came in office, and he still wants to even while fighting a war (invasion) and running record deficits.

Why are we doing this? The top 1% don't need an additional million + dollar check at the end of the year from the government. Think about this, we are currently borrowing at a rate of two billion dolllars per day from China to pay for these tax breaks. A nation in which the average citizens makes aproximately 3,000 annually. Is that good domestic/international policy?

It is clear what the conservatives are doing. Paul Krugman calls it starve the beast. They want to bankrupt the government and with it all the social programs the conservatives have been oposed to since the 'New Deal.' They will succeed, the American people will suffer, and maybe that is what they need. It is obvious that the American people need a wakeup call.

DB, the fact that you only care about your own bottom line is your own right, but I think you know somewhere in your heart of hearts that is not the right attitude. Greed always catches up with you in the end.

By the way, Social Security is fine. It is a myth put out by the right that it is in need of total reform. Only two fixes are needed. It should not be indexed against real wages, it should only be indexed against inflation, and measures should be taken to reduce payments to those who are not in need of them.

If you want to read about financial burdens facing this country over the coming decade read this book ---- Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson. Awesome book, the man is a fiscal conservative and a Republican, but his book critiques both sides of the aisle and talks about how to solve the problems. It is also very frightening to read the deficts that we are running --- actually make that tragic.

ZB,
When my father died, the government took 300k of his million dollar estate ON TOP of the tax we paid when we cashed out stocks and bonds...and for what? He earned that money to give to his family when he was gone.

The estate tax is absolute thievery and should be done away with.

There's my hijack for the day

I voted for the last two tax increase measures in my state because I don't mind paying a more local tax to support local interests. I vote for EVERY school levy and every library and fire levy. There is a place for taxes. I don't think that place is the Federal level (other than what I have outlined). The upper crust you have described also pay the majority of taxes. That is why they get more tax cuts. Liberals think people on welfare should also get tax cuts. They are tax consumers, not contributors.

BOTTOM LINE: MORE TAX CUTS = MORE ALIENWARE FOR THE MASSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DEMAND AN ALX SLI RIG ON EVERY WORKING PERSON'S DESK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ZHubbard, you know that Social Security uses today's workers holding to pay for Senior citizens, right? ^^;; It's not a bad thing when the worker-to-Senior Citizen is disproportionate in favor of the system (i.e. more workers vs. Senior citizens), but considering the current population demographics we're seeing the majority of the baby boom of the 50's retiring all at once, and there isn't enough workers to pay for all of them resulting in a shortfall ^^;; They're going to need to revamp it or Social Security's going to crash miserably...my two cents, and since this wasn't linked to DB's response, it's legit =P