If our government was truely interested in generating income,the simplest way would be to tax the profits of stock transactions to start,and tarrifs for all these imported goods we no longer generate to make sending manufacturing overseas less attractive. Taxing the rich at a comparable rate to the working class will help tremendously as well. Taxes are on PROFITS-that's what is left over once the expenses of creating that profit are paid-so no whining how the poor billionaire is getting robbed. The difference can be made up in volume...more people capeable of spending money because they have jobs means more profits in any case...China may have super cheap labour,but they pay their taxes to China,not America. Eroding the middle class tax base seems as clever to me as Wile E Cyote sawing away at the cliff holding him up,and pointing this out to him makes him saw defiantly faster. Until he falls.

Capitalism could work if our government's corporate masters realize they have a vested interest in providing livings for their workforces. A worker who appreciates a good job will go that extra mile to promote that company willingly,to the benifit of all. This short term nonsense of using bailout money to reward the top tier of executives with incentive money is rank madness,high treachery and ultimately self destructive. A pity whatever puppet we elect will just continue the sad dance whomever gets in.

Its why I'm voting for Goldman Sachs in November. They are already running the place,and they may value me as an exploitable resource even after I cast my vote. They can't be worse than these clowns running about now.

>> ^lantern53:

Name the system you will start over with.
Also, capitalism and socialism are incompatible with each other. Capitalism means I work for myself, for my own self-interest.
Socialism means you work for the next guy. Why should I work for the next guy? When I've made my nest, and there is some left over, I choose to whom it goes....not the gov't.


Well, a mix of many is better than to choose any extreme.

Capitalism and socialism are incompatible? Where did you learn that? Fox News?
If that was the case countries like Germany wouldnt have existed the way they are. And funnily, Germany right now is the backbone of Europe in this crisis. I ask you again, how can a small country like that using so many parts of socialism be financially that strong? Because capitalism and socialism dont work together, huh?

Name the system you will start over with.

Also, capitalism and socialism are incompatible with each other. Capitalism means I work for myself, for my own self-interest.

Socialism means you work for the next guy. Why should I work for the next guy? When I've made my nest, and there is some left over, I choose to whom it goes....not the gov't.

@jmzero

Thanks for the question.

It's still too soon to tell anything, but of those you mentioned:

Perry - still has a shot, but probably won't get it together in time. Tied with Romney for title of 'King of Mediocrity' but not as good as Cain.

Bachmann - no chance niche candidate

Romney - a stiff and foolish to boot (re: disaster nicknamed Romneycare). Uninspiring but with great hair. Will spend slightly less than Obama but at this point, who cares, we're underwater. Would be tepid improvement over Obama, if only because businesses could breathe a sign relief from endless communist assaults.

Cain - not an insider, doesn't need the money, knows there's a Constitution to be obeyed (even if in theory), has real world business experience. All the shit thrown at him by the left for 'lack of experience' was mysteriously absent when the voting "Present" senator Kenyawaiian was running. All the shit thrown at him by the left over a few meritless sexual harassment complaints mysteriously absent when Filth "suck this or lose your job" Clinton was running. Would be MASSIVE improvement over Obama, if only because businesses could breathe a sign relief from endless communist assaults, plus conservative minorities make the left apoplectic.

As an alternative to all of these, I would make a damned fine Emperor. Have a pleasant evening!


>> ^jmzero:

The only flaw in Cain is he doesn't seem to know the reach of this corrupt regime's media shills.

@quantumushroom
Is Cain your favorite among the current Republican candidates? If not, who? (And possibly why, if you're up for it)?
For myself, I'm not a real fan of Cain (and I think he'd have problems in a full campaign) - but I'd definitely pick him over, say, Bachmann or Perry. If I were voting in the Republican race (which I will not be - I'm Canadian), I'd probably go for Romney. I don't agree with him on everything (I'm less of a social conservative) and he's a little bit prone to triangulation rather than true leadership, but the political waters are so thoroughly poisoned right now that I think perhaps a lukewarm, compromise President might be the best option (among either party). He's not perfect, but he's who I'd pick if you asked me right now.
Anyways, you represent a viewpoint that isn't terribly well represented on VS and I think there's lots of people that would be interesting in hearing where you stand (which you may have written elsewhere, but which I and possibly many others haven't seen because we may not be reading in those other places).

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Obama is the one bailing everybody out.


Bush is the person who bailed out Wall Street. Or were you not watching the news that day? Obama just continued the bailouts. It's not really fair to blame a problem that was snowballing for so long on the person who became president right after it happened. Bush had eight years. Not only did he not do anything about the housing bubble, but he set us up to spend six-billion-dollars-a-month on the fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only to have Obama catch Bin Laden.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Democrats are responsible for our predicament as well. But focusing on the left-right controversies is exactly what the people in power want us to do. Because it prevents us from discussing the real issues. We can just sit around blaming each-other forever as far as they're concerned.

When my father graduated high-school, he learned the floor-covering trade. (carpet,vinyl,etc...) His first job paid him three dollars an hour and it was enough to support a family of four. Back in the sixties, three dollars would get you a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes with a dollar left over. Now, three dollars won't even cover the gas I spend to get to work, not even one way.

And people can spin the numbers and facts any way that they want. Just as I've done here. But no matter how you spin it, the fact that there is a problem is glaringly obvious to most people. Even if we don't see it the same way. You obviously think there's a problem as well, but I just can't buy that we live in a society where working hard brings success, not anymore.

And you know what? If people keep protesting in numbers like this, they're going to make a change for better or worse. You don't need to be organized or even "right" to have an effect. The power lies in the numbers, not the message. It's the same for the Tea Party. Wouldn't it be great if we could come together and use those numbers for something positive?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Special cleaning crews are being brought in to clean up after the trash messes left all over by the "99%" costing the city $$$.


And one last thing: Who do you think was responsible for cleaning up Boston Harbor in 1773?

@NetRunner

I never said banks create money from nothing. They are allowed to grant someone money based on their promise to pay it back.

You're making it sound like I'm saying banks can just literally add money to their balance sheets. That is not what I'm saying.

I never said interest collected reduces the money supply. Collecting principle does. When you finish paying back a debt, the bank zeroes out the debt associated with that loan, which removes the money from the system. The interest is left over and that is what increases the money supply.

Banks bother with loans because the promise someone makes when they sign on the dotted line is the only thing of actual value in the entire system: The lender's trust and the borrower's promise. You must have that promise in order to create the money. You don't just add numbers to your balance sheet because you feel like it unless you're trying to commit fraud.

There's a difference between central bank money and commercial bank money. It's the fact that money lent out by one bank can be deposited at another bank, and that bank can make loans based on that deposit, which has not been repaid to the original bank yet. It's called re-lending. So, while each bank is not literally creating money on their balance sheets, the total aggregate interest repaid to the system is constantly increasing the money supply because that interest never existed when the process began.

I haven't been explaining it very well. Look, it's not the individual bank that's creating the $900 from $100 in deposits, it's the system overall...when you add up all the loans created by the initial $100 in Fed deposits. The ratio of publicly held money vs. Fed deposit reserves is what's important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier

specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fractional_reserve_lending_varyingrates_100base.jpg

The graph shows it well. The $900 number is an approximation of the actual number, which can be obtained from the geometric series.

You can also read this document produced by the Chicago Fed branch:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Bank_Deposits%E2%80%94How_They_Expand_or_Contract

Specifically, the part where it says "...Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000..."

I'm sorry you lost your papa so early. That is fucked up, too.

I think it is great that it never occurred to you that someone would set out to make their child cry. That speaks well of your parents and your happy childhood.

My feelings weren't hurt by this video -- sorry if I gave that impression. My father was ignorant and unthinking. He would never consciously hurt me -- nor is the guy with stretched lobes consciously hurting his child.

All I am trying to do is make conscious to unreflecting minds that you don't do this to a baby or a small child. It needs to be said. Not everyone needs to be told this. My dad needed to hear it. This guy needs to be told. Neither of them thought/think they are doing anything untoward -- this guy posted the vid on Youtube! Someone up above makes a comment about what a great face the baby makes. It needs to be said, clearly. So I am saying it.

My delivery may be overwrought. The message is simple.

I'm staring at a half empty bottle of wine left over from last night's weekly So You Think You Can Dance tv party. It is looking more tempting all the time...

There's a great vid of women failing rather spectacularly at motocross that is pretty amusing. Have you seen it yet? http://videosift.com/video/X-Games-17-Women-can-t-dunk-but-have-good-fundamentals

>> ^mintbbb:

Is OK.. Like I said, I didn't mean to post this to hurt anybodys feelings. Maybe I am naive to think that nobody would make a baby cry on purpose. One thing that ticks me off here is people saying that the dad must be a mean because he has stretched earlobes. I do not like extreme body modifications like that myself, but having them doesn't make you a bad or mean person.
I know my parents didn't scare me as a kid, and my dad was the most wonderful person ever, and he died when I was 18. I had a happy childhood, my parents were great, and still I ended up being pretty much totally fucked up: I am insecure, I keep my distance, I am grumpy, scared of way too many things, and I get easily obsessed with things like VS, or WOW. And that's just the top of the iceberg! I am lucky to have found my DH NetRunner who puts up with my weirdness and loves me no matter what.
I do not know why I ended up this way. Maybe if I had been scared with a 'muhahaha' as a baby I would have grown up to be less afraid of silly things. Who knows. I think I was being kept too safe as a kid and the real life scared the crap out of me.
Every kid grows up different. I still think this dad didn't mean to make his kid cry. Unfortunaterly he did, but I am sure the kid will be OK. This dad is not going to torture his kid even if he has stretched lobes!
OK, probably time for another drink now.. I was not going to comment on this.. I just want to sift silly, mindless videos that make people happy. Most of the time.

1259068'>^bareboards2:

> the sift does manage to pay for itself through advertising - but not with much fat left over.

Did you guys work out the issue with spotty Internet access on the jet?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Even though we have a server bill in the thousands, the sift does manage to pay for itself through advertising - but not with much fat left over.>> ^UsesProzac:

I love the Sift. If I had a regular income, I'd totally go charter. I'd support the Sift a lot more if I could. I often wonder how you and Lucky keep the Sift up. Does it cost you two a lot of money? I know it takes a lot of your personal time and it can be quite thankless; we Sifters can be a fickle lot and often bicker amongst ourselves.
I come here for the community more than the videos, honestly. At first it was the videos, but when I saw the quality of the comments and discussions, it was very plain to me that the Sift is a place peopled with intelligent people who are artists, creators, musicians, photographers, philosophers, etc. I love this place. If I can do anything to help you, dag, I will certainly try.

^Chile has begun to bounce back, thanks to return to democracy, which prompted the dismantling of many of Friedman's edicts. However, there are still many scars left over from the Pinochet/Friedman days, such as income inequality.

sweet... going to have to look into this some more. I have a bunch to chop up left over from the other year's ice storm.

The thing is people belive in this dumb fuck mith that people with lots of money worked for that money.

they allso belive that fincail succsess is a skilled or something that good people achive , they are totaly ignorent to the fact that the biggest fincail rewards are for people that work out how to best Game the system not people that best contribute to socity.

the perpouse of money in our modern system is to allow for the ruling few to remain in absalut comfort and power , Not as a covenant bartering tool as it was intended.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.
2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage)
>> ^bobknight33:
So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

1. the lower income brackets DO pay something. sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes. and disproportionately so. the lower/middle income families spend a greater portion of their monthly incomes on taxable goods and services, where the higher income brackets have a higher rate of savings... they're saving a greater portion of their income, therefore not spending it on taxable goods and services.
states that have no state income tax (like texas) and rely solely on sales, excise and property taxes typically have a regressive taxation system... meaning the bulk of the burden of the state and municipal operating budgets are placed disproportionately on lower/middle income families.

2. i'm a working single mom with 2 kids. i work my ass off. i don't live beyond my means. i take care of my things. if a 15% flat tax rate were implemented guess who'd be (back) on government assistance??? i don't have 15% of my income left over at the end of the month. i typically can put 10-12% of my income back, split between a retirement account and a rainy day fund. and for 2 years i couldnt even dream of doing that. (i got laid off in 09 and JUST NOW got back to full time work that also pays a living wage) a flat tax rate would create more problems than it would solve for the working poor with families to care for.

>> ^bobknight33:

So is you issue with large corporations ( like GE ) not paying any tax due to loopholes or that their tax bracket is or is not high enough?
Would it not make since to cut all loopholes and give a relativity flat tax based on quarterly statements?
I agree with Qm The rich are pitching way more then anyone else. Still they stay filthy rich. But should they pay more? Should not the lower income bracket also pay something? If they would at least pay some tax they would have a better understanding of what is going on with respect to taxes.
Personally I would like a flat tax. I would even say ok to a excessive rate of 23% just to keep politicians from bitching and moaning that the children/ elderly will starve if we go to a flat tax.
Every thing I'm getting at is really for a smaller Government with a Keep it simple stupid mentality.
There is no reason for a person to spend 40 hours in figuring out their federal taxes each year.
And there is no reason for GE to post 14 Billion in profits (would wide) and not pay any taxes in the USA.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The "evil rich" pay 38% of all taxes already. The 'bottom' 50% pay less than 2% of taxes yet slurp up plenty of government "services".
Dismissing the moral component for a moment, you could tax the rich at 99% and it wouldn't matter. There isn't enough money to cover a perpetually expanding government and the endless wants of the wish-to-haves.

You didn't define "evil rich", but the bottom 80% only control 15% of the wealth in this country, while the top 1% alone controls over 40% of the wealth.
I'd also disagree on who gets more out of government services. The rich mostly get their payoffs in the form of tax loopholes so they don't show up on lists of "government spending". For example, see how GE got $3.2 billion from the government for filing their taxes this year. That's a hell of a tax credit, and it doesn't show up in anyone's federal budget proposal!

>> ^vaporlock:

I can't imagine, even with the overt racism of the south, that they would go back to slavery (even rhetorically). However, I think that serfdom and open racism would definitely be part of their Southern moral "philosophy".

Well, that's what I was thinking when I wondered how close they'd get. I think they'd be perfectly cool with creating a legally defined serf class that on paper would be assigned to people for reasons that are purely economic (e.g. a replacement for bankruptcy, or a possible criminal punishment for defaulting on debt), but in practice would overwhelmingly be applied to non-whites due to discrimination and existing wealth and income disparity left over from the (First?) Civil War.

TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.