QM is a troll. I'm not sure if he can make that any more clear folks.

You prove my point, no-star. Dissent will not be tolerated among the ranks of the "open-minded."

Like anyone needs a reason to vote for Obama after the last 8 catastrophic years under the reign of the gigantic moron called George W. Bush and his "fuck the people" crowd ala Cheney and co...

^ This kind of "logic" is like sticking your hand in a roaring fire because it was stung by a bee. You have to blame Bush, because liberals

1) don't believe it's a dangerous world
2) don't believe it when their social engineering projects fail.

The only time Bush "f--ked the people" is when he acted like a liberal, which was, unfortunately, 95% of the time.

I agree with Schwamy on this, that was a social engineered plot to get a star point. (However Clever it was it was still a dick move)

Its like contagious shooting!

Who is next! Who is next... It was Lucky and Dag in the Conservatory with the revolver!

Why exactly is this in engineering? Unless you mean some sort of social engineering.

YT link's messed up.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
agreed-but there is that guy that built the on in Cali, that, regardless of the MPC and the price tag, blows doors off everything and had Indy drivers wanting more, more, more.....
Here's my prediction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76CwvvahhXs ">(I am Criswell, I see all)

The planet will reach a point of widespread destabilization orchestrated by the brokers of currency and commerce, oil will be at the center of the worst of it, and government's coffers will be drained on more conflicts and wars in the middle east being used chessboard-styley by the most powerful....in the mean time, as has been for more than 3 decades, individuals, mavericks, will continue to invent in their garages and workshops, simple tweaks for cars already in production, and as always, will be made offers they can't refuse by the same people who want power concentrated in a small number of empire-minded cabals.

We will only see an end to the bullshit, that is fossil fuel for vehicles,(I say see, and "we", in the context of, it is already here, hidden,a "for your eyes only" scenario) when the economic manipulation, social engineering, and ever-increasing control over individuals with money as the fulcrum is taken down once again, as it has over and over and over again on planet earth-

Free energy would cripple the dealer, because his cards would be unnecessary.
Free energy is here and kept locked down tight-just as the planet's peoples are.

agreed-but there is that guy that built the on in Cali, that, regardless of the MPC and the price tag, blows doors off everything and had Indy drivers wanting more, more, more.....
Here's my prediction-
The planet will reach a point of widespread destabilization orchestrated by the brokers of currency and commerce, oil will be at the center of the worst of it, and government's coffers will be drained on more conflicts and wars in the middle east being used chessboard-styley by the most powerful....in the mean time, as has been for more than 3 decades, individuals, mavericks, will continue to invent in their garages and workshops, simple tweaks for cars already in production, and as always, will be made offers they can't refuse by the same people who want power concentrated in a small number of empire-minded cabals.

We will only see an end to the bullshit, that is fossil fuel for vehicles,(I say see, and "we", in the context of, it is already here, hidden,a "for your eyes only" scenario) when the economic manipulation, social engineering, and ever-increasing control over individuals with money as the fulcrum is taken down once again, as it has over and over and over again on planet earth-

Free energy would cripple the dealer, because his cards would be unnecessary.
Free energy is here and kept locked down tight-just as the planet's peoples are.

respectfully, most of the folks here that have a problem with choggie comments who don't care for the tone, the timbre, pitch, etc., are the ones that use the place to grandstand on certain subjects-politics, atheism, racism, here of late, the fringes of the homosexual community-all I have done, by paying attention to them, is make them uncomfortable and frustrated- Like me, they are also a minority-Divine juxtaposition-opposite poles in conflict affords equilibrium, such is the nature of all things-
Too bad, this will not change, or is constantly changing, however you wish to perceive it- Traveling with prevailing dogma has always been dangerous, considering the opinions are usually not one's own, but have been shaped by years of mental manipulation, that only natural disaster or deprogramming could correct-

Think what would happen if the world had to absorb the entire population of North Korea, the anguish and conflict that would never end, as these poor folks, tainted since birth, their minds putty in the hands of one man's regime, struggling to adapt to something other than Il Il Il-Imagine those in that place, the very few who stand up to the bullshit in their minds, and work as they can within their personal circles, to save at least one or two minds/souls-If you can picture this, you can begin to imagine my indignation, regarding a few inert minds, who beat a drum continually, contrary to healthier sensibilities, and are just as damaged, as the aforementioned NK goods.

And kronos??? Dare i pick apart your diatribe above, or simply the preface that sets the tone?...That communism remark, being a label referring to some association to dupes, who, in the same manner in which the dupes of the 00's, are being manipulated to think a certain way for the sake of an agenda, then bemoan the abrupt end when they were wholly complicit in heir own demise....and then the outro, placing me in a convenient box, assuming much -You are a smart fella, figure it out-Maybe I should have used an example more directly associated with social engineering, alla, B.F. Skinner-I do agree wholeheartedly, that comment blocking, will do little to quiet the bitching, as feathers are ruffled, and life will go on-
In reality, my constant harranging of certain users who use the place as a pulpit like the very preachers the same usually call idiots and ignoramouses, is nothing more than someone pointing out the futility of the endeavor, as it relates to what is real-
never play nice
never play favorites
never give in to passive-agression
and be damned, never honor a request for respect, when none is offered in kind-These new folks, as long as I am here, will take the good with the bad-

Perception, again I say, is the crux of the biscuit-
I am only going off on his post, because I am assuming as well-assuming that the reason for the damn thing has to do with a few people who can't process information, and take shit too goddamn personally-that shit being mine-because I read a lot of other folks stuff, and none is as raw and as personal, w/o actually pointing a finger-sorry, I get project-oriented-Post some fucking music fer crissakes...or lolcats-sorry folks, ignore is not part of some monkey's vocab-

I would name names and apologize, but it would only digress into indignation, as the comments to follow said apology, would probably be like reading shit on bathroom walls, reading a newspaper, or watching the nightly news-maybe we could send you a pm....-why bother, with the new feature, one can simply light a book, relax and enjoy...

(*maybe he'll get tired and go away)

Done-still say the idea blows-

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

If people feel very strongly that this is something that we don't want to lose- the best practice would be to discard this video and post it from someone else.

I know it seems bureaucratic- but by keeping any precedents for self-links out of the system we're aiding the Sift.

Have a random browse of the self-promoted content on *any* other site and you will have to agree that our byzantine little system of social engineering is effective.

In my opinion, this sounds like some "social engineering" of some sort.

No one would argue that workplace safety is not important. However, these gory ads are an elaborate social marketing campaign orchestrated to manipulate the public into talking about accidents, safety and prevention rather than talking about the failure of workers compensation boards to compensate the victims. WCBs in each Canadian province (and in the US) have come under a lot of scrutiny for their avoidance of paying fair compensation to disabled workers. The fact that people are talking about the ads rather than the dysfunctionality of the WCB system shows that this orchestrated social manipulation campaign is working.

WCBs in Canada and the US represent employers (the only ones paying into the fund). Therefore WCBs will do whatever they can to lower fees for corporations. One way is by denying compensation payments to disabled workers. But this would be socially unacceptable unless the public can also be manipulated into believing that the worker is somehow negligent or at fault for causing the accident. In this social marketing campaign, WCBs are subtly adopting the language of the anti-drunk-driver campaign - " zero tolerance" "negligence", etc. to manipulate public attitudes towards injured workers. They also use the term "accidents" rather than "injuries" to take the focus away from the person and onto the event. These ads, and other orchestrated 'social engineering' techniques lay the foundation for WCBs to justify a reduction in injury compensation payments to disabled workers by manipulating public attitudes toward disabled workers.

Those injured workers in the videos would realistically spend the rest of their lives in poverty fighting the WCB for compensation.

The way to reduce injuries is to make companies accountable for workplace safety violations through realistic fees, not protect unsafe companies from these higher fees by denying disabled workers' claims.

If you think the WSIB's ads are scary, check out the Canadian Injured Workers Society at http://www.ciws.ca for a real eye-opener!

Rugar, I can't read such large unparagraphed blocks of text without straining my eyes. I've just quickly skimmed your post.

***

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."

—Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

***


You're being silly with your insinuation that I'm potentially not aware of underground transactions because I don't live in the United States--unless you think that's the same as not living on planet earth.

You wanted to see if the money could - hypothetically - be located for the US to have universal health care. I pointed you in what I think is the right direction. You're opposed to my suggestions on ideological grounds. Are there any suggestions you'd have been willing to consider? You've given me the impression that the answer is no and that therefore you'd already arrived at your conclusion before you asked the question. This is what is meant by "trolling". I didn't call you a troll.

The argument around wealth vis a vis labour and productive property collapses into the chicken/egg paradox--except, unlike with chickens, wealth always scales back to labour. There's no getting around it; it's turtles the whole way down.

Returning to the original question; the United States could still possibly see every single citizen covered under some form of public health insurance. But to do so a great deal of money needs to be located. This money can be raised by returning corporate tax rates to prior levels and fairly taxing the very rich.

I've read your complaints about "social engineering" or coercion or whatever, but I don't think they're that significant. I suggest that your protests arise from an absolutist abstraction. As I've already stated my concern for social justice is not at all in the abstract. People die every day for lack of health care.

Ultimately society as a whole must be the final arbiter of the public good--and to that end it can always draft and pass legislation after weighing respective consequential harms and benefits.

"It may or may not make you feel better to know that I had already read or heard about both of those."

What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.

"No one is above the law. Everyone should be prosecuted for breaking it. That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken. Again notice that I have previously stated that this is true."

First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip. That's not kosher. Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.

"Were you in power in the US government, I believe you would attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to improve the lives of the middle class as best you saw how."

I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.

"I on the other hand think there is a fundamental entitlement to the fruits of ones labor."

The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.

"You want to continue to talk tax / budget, go start posting on my video about that."

I've never been one to follow orders, bub; I'll have to decline your attempt to socially engineer me.

So what you call social engineering I call social justice and what I call social justice you call social engineering. But your position is an abstraction; it's diffuse, widespread and intangible. It derives entirely from your perverse ideology where the property rights of a few hundred multi-billionaires and the under-taxed mega-corporations take precedence over the needs of the citizenry to have access to universal health care.

And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust; for although goods are taxed at the same rate whether rich or poor the poor pay a much greater percentage of their wealth in tax than the wealthy can ever spend. You can argue that the wealthy consume more on goods and therefore pay more tax but this merely obfuscates the point which bears repeating: With regressive consumption-based tax schemes the poor pay a much greater percentage of their wealth in tax, therefore it is punative and unjust.

"Social engineering, no matter if its intended for justice or injustice, is still social engineering."

In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I'm not buying any of that today.

And by the way, everything I've posted is germane to the topic. You were wondering about possibilities for funding universal health care for the United States. I've pointed out huge untapped areas of potential tax revenue that wouldn't at all strain the debt-ridden middle-class. (But you were just trolling here, right?)

Well, I feel better about my long posts now anyway. It may or may not make you feel better to know that I had already read or heard about both of those. I'm not going to attempt to respond to every point in those since they are still not germane to the original topic. Let me pick out just two:

1) "...but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically." Effective tax rates is exactly what I was talking about earlier. That's a fancy way of saying, "not just income but capital gains taxes and dividends as well". I've already stipulated that to be true in my earlier post and I have also pointed out the original social engineering behind the concept. Nothing in either of your posts has remotely touched on my point or my question to you.

2) "Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed." No one is above the law. Everyone should be prosecuted for breaking it. That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken. Again notice that I have previously stated that this is true.

This is not a tax or budget video and it's about to expire anyway. You want to continue to talk tax / budget, go start posting on my video about that. To conclude this particular thread, let me just point out that what you call social justice remains an attempt at social engineering. Were you in power in the US government, I believe you would attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to improve the lives of the middle class as best you saw how. Given that, it is still an attempt to control people through the tax code. I on the other hand think there is a fundamental entitlement to the fruits of ones labor. Were I in office, I would attempt to completely eliminate the income tax system and replace it with a consumer tax system. Social engineering, no matter if its intended for justice or injustice, is still social engineering.

test

What you call social engineering, when viewed from the other side of the wealth-equation, many would call social justice.

Here's an interesting read from Forbes on the subject of taxation which presents a picture quite different from that which you've offered.

http://www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript.html

CEO Network Chat
Q&A: David Cay Johnston
02.12.04, 4:11 PM ET

"What follows is the transcript of a Feb. 11 online chat on the Forbes.com CEO Network with New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, author of Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else (Portfolio, $25.95). The chat was moderated by Mark Lewis of Forbes.com.

Mark Lewis: Welcome, everyone. Let's get started. David, you begin your book with the statement, "I believe that taxes are at the core of our democracy." What do you mean?

David Cay Johnston: All governments have taxes. And governments that lose their tax systems cease to exist. Taxes are the means by which we decide how we're going to finance maintaining our democracy--who pays how much, how the burdens are distributed.

What's wrong with our current tax system?

Most Americans believe what turns out to be a myth--that we heavily tax the highest-income Americans to subsidize the poor. What the government's data show is that the middle class and upper middle class--people making $30,000 to $500,000 per year--are subsidizing the highest-income taxpayers. Tax rates on the middle and upper middle classes are rising, the government's data show, but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically.

Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed. I name two billionaires who've testified under oath that for 30 years they never filed a tax return while running a business in New York. Nothing has happened to them, or to most of the many other people I name in my book who admit or even brag about not paying taxes.

How did things get this way?

Most Americans, if they ever meet a senator or congressman, shake their hand in the mall at election time. Important donors, about one in 850 Americans, get to sit down with their congressman and explain in detail their grievances. Every politician will tell you, you cannot buy their vote. All you can buy is access. Well, access has bought the attention of Congress, so that members are focused on the needs and welfare of their donors, not their typical constituents.

Proof? Two days after 9/11, the first tax bill introduced in Congress was estate tax relief for the victims, which did absolutely nothing for the firefighters, police officers, secretaries and volunteers who died. It wasn't a guaranteed college education for the orphans of 9/11. It was tax relief for the very narrow group, probably less than 2% of those who died, who would owe estate taxes.

How would you change the tax system?

I don't know, but you do. By "you" I mean that all of us, if we understand the reality of how our current tax system works and the principles of taxation, can come up with a better system, one that encourages strivers and rewards those who play by the rules instead of focusing its benefits on those who are already stunningly rich.

You direct numerous barbs at the "super-rich," whom we at Forbes like to celebrate as wealth-creators. Do you think the tax system should be designed to prevent the amassing of great fortunes?

The tax system should be encouraging prosperity and wealth, and making sure those are as widespread as possible. But what the government's data show is that we are taxing away the ability of the middle class to save, and damaging their prosperity. And by radically lowering the effective tax rates of the highest-income Americans, we are concentrating wealth and income very, very, very narrowly.

In 1970, the top 1/100th of 1% of Americans had about 1% of the income. And the bottom third of Americans had more than 10% of the income. Now, they're equal. Just 27,000 people have as much income as the bottom 96 million Americans, who in real terms have less income today than in 1970. And the number of people it takes today to account for 1% of all income? In 1970 it was more than 20,000 people. Today it's less than 400.

How high would the top rate be in your tax system?

Again, I don't know. What we do know is that relatively lower marginal rates reduce tax cheating, but for them to work, we have to broaden the tax base. We only tax about half of income each year. So if we tax all income, clearly we could significantly lower rates on everyone.

What do you think Congress should do about the Alternative Minimum Tax?

The taxpayer advocate at the IRS recommends repeal. The problem is, some really good tax lawyers say that would create new loopholes. Some other ways to address this are to set a high-income threshold for the tax to apply, say $500,000 per year and up, and eliminate, in the AMT calculations, the ordinary deductions and exemptions people take for themselves, their spouses, their children, their state and local income and property taxes, and the standard deductions. Otherwise, in 2013 about 43 million households will be on the AMT.

In this morning's New York Times you write about a gentleman named Irwin Schiff, who asserts that the federal income tax is illegal and does not have to be paid. Schiff clearly is an extreme case, but how deeply do Americans in general resent the current tax system? Can that resentment be harnessed to support the reforms you advocate?

The number of people who believe that the United States government is a criminal organization that illegally extracts income taxes and imprisons those who challenge it with no legal cause is a lot bigger than I ever imagined. There are at least 7,500 business owners who don't withhold taxes and turn them over, according to the General Accounting Office--and those are just the ones the government knows about. There are people all over the country who grit their teeth and pay their taxes but subscribe to this dangerous and nutty idea that the federal government is a criminal organization. That's a sign of how oppressive the tax system has become on the bottom third of Americans whose incomes in real terms have been falling for years, while they're being squeezed by rising taxes at all levels of government.

Every thoughtful American should be concerned when a man whose own psychiatrist says he's crazy--Irwin Schiff--has among his supporters business owners and others who are not on the economic fringe.

Any final thoughts?

The promise of our Constitution is that we together can work out the solutions to our problems. But doing that requires that, one, people understand what's actually happening in our tax system rather than the blather of politicians, and two, that people participate as voters and as citizens who discuss public issues with their friends and neighbors. The reason our tax system is out of whack is that the narrow segment of very high-income people who don't want to pay taxes has been actively engaged in exercising their citizenship. And too many of the rest of us have been watching Jennifer Lopez.

That's all we have time for today. Thanks for participating."

I'll accept that the US isn't a big concern to you and I'll try to adjust my comments accordingly. The current US tax code is extremely broken, but it does tax income in a "progressive" (I hate that word, it implies something it isn't but it is the correct term) manner whereby the income of the higher tax brackets is taxed at a greater percentage than the income of the lower brackets. Therefore, those in the highest bracket end up paying proportionately more than do those in the lower brackets. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2005 the top 1% of income earners in the US paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of 21.2%. If there is anyone reading who didn't understand that, the top 1% of households earned 21.2% of the income in the US and paid 39.4% of the income taxes. The "rich" are already paying more than their "fair share" in the US.

Where the system is broken is that we are attempting to use the tax code in order to push social engineering changes on the nation. Sure, it sounds great, and we can all agree with some things (like tax credits for hybrid and alternative energy vehicles) but the problem is that as administrations come and go they all try social engineering towards different ends. What you end up with is a mess of rediculous, outdated programs that no one wants to cut and anger a part of the electorate. I assume by the tone of your posts that you are against the concept of a lower tax rate on capital gains because it "favors" the wealthy. I ask that you understand the social engineering that was originally behind the concept. Lower capital gains taxes encourage investment in the markets. This in turn spurs the economy. Does it favor the rich? Hard to say. Certainly people with disposable income to invest get the direct benefit, but how about the people who have their pension plans invested in the stock market? A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?

In the end, I believe that the US government should not be using an income tax to try to control the behavior of its citizens anyway. Personally, I believe in a consumer tax system that completely abolishes the income tax and replaces it with a sales tax. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with health care and this video, so I'll leave it for another time.

This doesn't show how the keylogger was installed?

A much more subtle social engineering attack was this... leaving USB drives filled with spyware in the parking lot of the target. Folks brought them in and plugged them into the network. Boom.. pwned.