(V): Fraud is fraud, it is against the law, and nobody is advocating someone who breaks the law be allowed to run a business.... the point is,we already do have laws and rules etc, yes sometimes they need to be updated, or rethought out, but just enforce the laws...

(V): Well, on the BK board you made it sound like you thought the free market would take care of companies like Paypal... now you sound like you are advocating for the government to step in?

..and I have never advocated for no government "oar" in the water....

I guess the point I would make to you is that the problem i see most is who gets to decide???

You obviously can see how the free market will weed out the bad companies from the good ones, without the need for the government to make extra regulations, right?

and I can agree that there are obviously regulations that the government can impose that will help...


But if we get too far in your direction, and you expect the government to fix things against the free market doing so, then I ask you, where is the line drawn anyway??? Who gets to decide when the free market weeds out the good from the bad, and when the government does it for us? Thats the slippery slope I dont want to get into personally..

(V): Anarchy is anarchy... but it all depends on what the majority believes before you can tell me how extreme is described.

Its possible that moderate is an extreme position, no?

(V): Your country was founded on the idea to protect it's citizens from all enemies.. Foreign and Domestic.


I agree with government that protects us, but I just dont think that printing money and borrowing money and taking over banks and cars etc is really protecting us right now, it may seem that way, and actually work for a short time, but in 10 20 years, we will be worse off for it... you cannot protect people from themselves, the free market is not an enemy, its meant to have cycles, and you cannot and should not protect us from those cycles, or you no longer have a free market...

(V): The UK is a mixed economy, part capitalist and part social.


Thats not a social democracy?

(V): I supported the Bush administration when they acted like a conservative, and I still support our taking out Saddam.... but there was a time when Bush was a liberal, and I did not support him much of those times

(V): moderation is extremism..... one word. No.

If 99% of the population wanted anarchy, then your 1% stance would have to be considered extreme...

(V): first, you will never see any uncontrolled collapse of the US economy

(V): It's the Government serve the people, and how best to do it.


Right... and some say the best way for the government to serve the people is to stay the hell out of our way.

...and others who want the government to do everything for us.

You may think it is somehow a "non party" or "moderate" position to be somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, but the reality is that a middle stance is still as much of a stance as one on either end.

BTW... if in a democracy we elect our representatives, who are supposed to represent the will of the people... what if the will of the people is for one of your so called "extreme views"? Then wouldnt the "middle ground" actually be an "extreme" view?

(V): What do you consider the UK then, if not a social democracy?

(V): My point and question is.... isnt moderation a form of its own extremism?

Point is.... we are most of us already running in the middle between these two points, arent we?

Czuch: Some people feel like they want the government to do as much as possible without becoming a dictatorship, and other believe they should do as little as possible without becoming anarchists...

Czuch: Let the government do as little as possible VS let the government do the most possible?

(V): I do that with my brother all the time....

Dont you see any real divide between free market capitalists and social democracies?

(V): The tea parties arent really supposed to be about bringing the republican party back together....as much as it is to bring the American people back together, and back to our roots and what this country was founded as.... but I guess that is what the republican party is supposed to stand for anyway (or at least conservatism)

(V): But again, I'm a proportional representation advocate

Couldnt one argue that is what a moderate is, and that is no different, really, from either left or right?

You are as firmly in the middle as others are on the left and also the right, see what I am getting at?

(V): you have to forget party allegiance and all join together. One nation as one!!!


LOL... that is not possible over here, since liberals are convinced that they are morally and intellectually superior to every other political point of view, free speech to them is anyone that agrees with their point of view

(V): And the way some are answering about their expenses.... they've made it so they won't get elected.


Thats one of the frustrating problems over here..... some are so influential, they dont get voted out no matter what, really.

Take a look at ted kennedy for example.... that guy has been through so many scandals over the years, even drove a woman off a bridge while drunk, and left her to drown, and because of his influence and power, he keeps getting voted back in anyway

...and many more like him too, there has got to be some way to keep them from becoming power hungry , look out for number one types, once they get in there?

(V): Do you all have term limits? What is the solution? They all go in saying they are different, they want to change the way politics works, but before long, they start to like the benefits (both monetary and power) and they all end up the same.

Problem is, once they are established, they carry a lot of clout and influence, and all they have to do is give their constituents a little gravy now and again, and they get voted right back in

TheCrazyPuppy: You Brits are doing something correctly.... seems what you have been bickering about in here lately has made our national nightly news on this side of the pond

Said one of your bloke MPs has gotten money to upkeep his moat

Some are paying money back and one woman on the street who was interviewed said they should all be sacked!!!

(V): I don't think the government is the problem.. It's the politics involved that are causing the problem. Too much bickering, worrying about getting re-elected, etc, etc....

I'm sorry, but your emergency response system seems to have too much red tape.




Government is politics, and the red tape intertwined into the emergency response system, that is also systemic of the government. The whole government has too much red tape and other pitfalls..... look at our IRS tax codes etc.... Thats exactly what you will get when the government runs our autos and our health and anything else they run

There is no reason for me to believe they will be any better at doing these things than they are at the FEMA (federal emergency management agency) or most anything else they currently run right now.

(V): unless you feel that they are wrong and their plans just won't work, or are ill thought out.


I think they are ill thought out really....

If you print me a million dollars, I am sure that I can manage to work things out for a few years


Sure we can pump trillions of dollars into the economy and sure that will make things better, at least in the short term (several years maybe) But then what? You might say it is just a shot in the arm, to keep us going until things turn around? All good, except that things will turn around on their own anyway, and without putting us in debt and turning the autos and the banks and the health etc, all over for the government to run.


I love to listen to the people who always complained about the lack of federal response to Katrina and other complaints about the federal government. Yet those are the same people who would willingly put so much more responsibility into the hands of the very same federal government?

Reagan said it best.... the government cant solve our problems, they are the problem!

I think that in 50 years it will be the same argument about this recession, and how it was handled, as the great depression is today.

Nobody today can agree if it was the government stimulus, or if that really made it actually take longer to recover than doing nothing?

(V): But Rome was not built over night!!

You expect perfection, you expect things to fixed in 5 seconds flat.

Unrealistic.



My how your opinions seem to vary based on the circumstances....

Those are some of the exact same messages I have tried to use in regards to Iraq.... where you and many others have consistently over the years have complained how the US has made Iraq worse, and "where is this so called wonderful democracy" in Iraq etc etc.... I have always maintained that some things take time, even decades to change, and sometimes they get worse before they get better, and that the Iraqi people will not see, feel or appreciate (many of them) their new democracy (or democratic ways) for a generation or two.

But for you and your like minded buddies, its always been naysaying naysaying naysaying..... just try to remember..... Rome was not built overnight

(V): Yeah, I would find it difficult to believe too many bad private schools.... some public could be better than private ones, but unlikely private ones are very bad

(V): And as for Catholic schools.. referring back to some events not that long ago.. It could be a change from one nightmare to another.


that's a bit of stereotyping isn't it!!

Jim Dandy:

Snoopy: Any word on the police, that brutally attacked a man walking home from work to watch the football match with his hands in his pockets and his back to them, yet?

Artful Dodger: The really big story here is the news media lack of coverage and outrage over this event


If this was Bush..... you wouldnt even know what a swine flu was, this story would be headlined in every news paper and on every news show on tv, they would be talking about how stupid he is and how corrupt and insensitive and how much money it cost and how much fuel was used and how unnecessary it was and how stupid he is and how dumb he is and how incompetent he is, and how dumb he is, and did I say how stupid he is yet...... But this is the chosen one.....

GTCharlie: funny though in past elections, dems would demonize him,thats why both sides make me sick




Thats the part of politics that no average person likes.... nothing is genuine, at the core its all really just politics....

Maybe instead of more political parties we should just have NO political parties???? Just individuals with ideas and ideals of their own.... sometimes it seems like the political parties themselves are the biggest problems with politics

GTCharlie:

Thanks for the bit of help!

(V): less per head... Ive never been one to believe cheaper is better, you get what you pay for dont you know

I think in the long run, most things that are more expensive actually save you money just because of their durability... for example, you can end up buying 100 cheap pieces of hardware or just buy the good, more expensive ones in the first place


Point is, you get too hung up on cheap health care and education, you may end up with crappy health care and a second rate education.... you can keep your socialism, I havent seen any compelling argument that is the way for the US

(V): yeah, so the manager gets his 10% cut or 1 million and he gives 500k to the government, funny how free health care and education costs so much

Now I see why guys like your Bekham come play soccer over here..... you make 10 million over there and 5 million goes to the government......

(V): all you had to say is that anything over 150k gets taxed at thr 50% level.... make yourself clear mate.

because how the news words it, it is for anyone who earns more than 150k....


okay, so the first 6k or so is tax free, and then the next 36k or so is taxed at 20%, then up to 150k is taxed at 40%, and then anything over 150k is taxed at 50%... is that it?, I think I got it now......

Bernice: Thanks Bernice.....

Jules knows I am right, and he is trying to cloud this fact by being as non committal as possible right now....


but he knows that in my example, with two identical situations, one person makes 148k, and the other make 151k, the guy who made 148k will take home more after taxes than the guy who made 151k..... its simple really, he just doesnt want to admit it works out like that

(V): I know there are many variables in a tax situation... and I know that savings, for example, are taxed differently than wages....


my guess is that your version of the IRS doesnt consider income from a savings or from other dividend investments as part of the total when calculating if you earned more than 150k?

I know you like to keep things as complicated and convoluted as possible.... but lets keep it simple, just for me please....

lets say someone makes 150K in earnings, he is single with no kids, he has no other income or any types of deductions... just plain simple 150k a year salary, okay????

Now is he or is he not going to pay 50% of that in taxes???? and if he is going to, doesnt that leave him with 75K net, after tax income????

so it looks like you guys get your first 6k without any income taxes.... then up to 35k or so after the first 6k at 20%.... then anyone who makes up to 150k get 40% and anyone over 150k will now get 50% tax rate?


But you still havent answered how much I will have left after taxes on income if I made 150k????

(V): Okay Jules.... so 50% tax rate does not take 50% of your pay in taxes???

...and sorry, i dont remember it.... say again.... your tax rate on the wealthy 1% has gone down in good economic times?

(V): Well, I already asked you if taxes on the most wealthy in your country ever go down when the economy is good for example? You never answered that one....

So also explain to me? When you say someone who makes 150k per year gets taxed at 50%, then how much taxes will the government take from them???

heavenlyemma: That was his quote, asking me, not mine asking him....

BTW.... only 1% of your population makes more than 150k per year????

(V): not sure where I said anything to lead you to a different conclusion????

My point is, who takes home more money, you make 151k and I make 149k, me or you?

As for 100-200 years ahead.. are you that much of a pessimist?

No I am a realist.... you dont seem to mind when it comes to global warming, how what we do today will effect us in 200 years.... so why dont you care how raising taxes year after year now will effect your country in 200 years?

(V): Question... do your wealthy ever get tax cuts??? I mean, when the economy is bad they get hit with a higher rate, do their rates come down when the economy is going along good?

My guess is the answer to that one is a big fat NO!

If thats true, then their taxes can only continue to be raised, maybe slowly, but over 100 years, or 200 years, where will they be then? Point is, that somewhere along the line you have taxed everyone to the max, you simply cannot tax someone more than they earn..... what happens then?

How do you grow an economy that relies on wealth redistribution, after the point where it costs more to sustain than there is money available to redistribute?

(V): The Most important 1%!!! Really..



Well, for a society that relies on wealth redistribution, take from the rich to give to the poor, the rich are the most important people, your socialism falls flat without the top 1% wage earners



You just get too literal sometimes.... I was just trying to make a point.... lets say this painting company is a self employed business and you are the only employee, or forget the painter.... but isnt it better to make 140k at a lower tax rate than to make 150k and get taxed down to 75k?

Snoopy: were broke yet we keep borrowing with the goverment claiming they will buy our way out of the mess theyve gotten into


thats what we are trying to do over here right now....

Probably will feel good for a couple of years as well.... if somebody printed a million dollars for me right now, I could sure spend my way out of my problems for awhile too

(V): Which affects about 1% of the population.

The most important 1%

How much of the gross income comes from that top 1%? I bet it is way more than 1% of the gross wages?

Do you think if I have a painting company that has made 140k this year and it is november, will I just take the month of December off for holiday, or will I continue to work and make more than the 150k that puts me in the 50% bracket?

.... UK might not be quite to the 70% tax level like some other socialist countries, but it seems it is soon to be 50%

What happens after it eventually hits 100%

You can t take more than that, so you have to cut spending, and when that happens, then people earn less money, meaning less in the coffers, so cut more spending....

I just dont see how socialism can sustain itself over a long period of time

so he was going home or he is a homeless alcoholic?