StrangeSox

Eh, no. Maybe you should stop assUMIng things!

No one's defending her getting death threats, but you guys sure are being dismissive of it.

The wealthy pay the highest dollar amounts but the superwealthy pay lower percentages of total earnings than lower/upper middle class and the somewhat-wealthy. At least that's my understanding of it. The aside about how much the poor pay came up because someone erroneously b****ed that they pay no taxes.

How dare you rush to conclusions, Balta!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) Nice try guys. You don't understand the tax system at all except the propaganda you're fed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) I wish you all had felt this way from 2001 to 2009. I think I am going to start calling this thread Lies the Democrats told me, because all it is anymore is a complete revision of history. hahahahahahahaha. No, it's revisionist to say that any party at any other point has been as obstructionist as the current Republican party.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) That is garbage propaganda. No, it is true. When most of your earnings come from capital gains, you pay significantly less taxes than you would if your earnings were from wages. When you have the ability to structure investments and holdings to minimize tax burdens around the world, you pay less. When you make more than $106k or so (definitely not "superwealthy" range) and you stop being taxed for SS, your percentage goes down. On the whole, the tax percentage for the superwealthy is lower than for at least mid-america and the somewhat-wealthy. I'd assume it's true for the poor as well since just about every cent they earn and spend is taxed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) You don't see how this is 100% contradictory? Stopping and preventing problems isn't a part of fixing them? And if you don't see them under the same vein, that explains A LOT about why our government gets away with being so incredibly wasteful. What are you even talking about? The EPA was not in charge of regulating drilling, contrary to your point. The EPA is not a disaster response agency responsible for stopping unprecedented oil leaks, contrary to your point. What should the EPA have done? Regulated oil drilling, outside of their jurisdiction? Taken over the efforts to cap/ plug the well, outside of their expertise, knowledge and experience? How is the Gulf situation at all comparable to the Great Lakes situation, where the oil leak was stopped quickly and easily and the biggest issue was containment and collection of what has already leaked? The EPA hasn't been perfect here and I hope they step up efforts in containment and cleanup in the Gulf, but you're not making any sense at all.

I really don't get how anyone can support Republicans right now. Even if you absolutely hate Obama's policies and what the Democrats want to do, the Republicans are intentionally sabotaging any effort at governance. The role of the opposition party isn't to break government.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 09:49 AM) And SS, I agree, but i'm still paying more for my "share" of those services than the person that doesn't pay anything towards them. And that doesn't account for services that i'll never benefit from, including things like public health, public housing, food stamps, etc. But you do benefit from those things, just not directly. And the business owners benefit greatly from a healthy, well-fed, educated populace that can get to and from work and purchase goods shipped on public roads. You can't just say "I don't get a check for $xxx, therefore I do not benefit from this program". 47% pays for a lot, as others have indicated. Gas tax. Food tax. Sales tax. State income tax. Property tax. Medicare. Social Security. Car registrations/ licensing. Utility taxes. Etc. etc. etc. You're focusing only on Federal income taxes.

The superwealthy have a lower percentage tax burden than just about everyone else.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 10:20 AM) From the Kip "We're screwed" file...damn, we're really really screwed. (Nature abstract). I think this is about the appropriate reaction. Here's the BBC summary version for those who don't have Nature access. Fun related fact: The ocean is a large carbon sink in part because of these types of organisms. Hooray for positive feedback cycles!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) then why are they involved in the michigan spill? They're involved in the clean-up efforts. That's different from regulating the drilling/ piping or being in charge of stopping the leaks. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) And involved in it before it was contained... Source? The leak was reported on Monday at 8:45 AM in the pipeline. Presumably, they were able to close the pipe line and stop the leak quickly. The EPA took over clean-up operations Wednesday. edit: Maybe you're confusing contained with stopped-leaking. You'll need to explain how the efforts to clean up and contain a relatively small oil leak in a pipeline is comparable to what happened in the Gulf, where the main focus has been getting the damned thing to stop leaking for 100 days. The EPA should be and, AFAIK, is involved with the efforts to clean up the spill in the ocean and on the shorelines, rivers and lakes. What would you like them to have done here?

Right, and that's why FEMA is criticized over incidents like Katrina -- it's their job to respond to emergency situations that need rapid action. The EPA's job is to regulate and enforce regulations. While you can say a superfund site is an "environmental emergency", you cannot compare it to FEMA's role in actual emergencies without equivocating definitions. They are not comparable organizations. And, again, it was the MMS's job to regulate the drilling, not the EPA's. I don't think I'd want the EPA in charge of such a large operation, anyway. What sort of operating experience do they have with something like capping massively-damaged oil wells and deploying boom across hundreds of miles? Seems like more of a job for the Coast Guard. The EPA should be stepping up for the environmental protection now that the flow of oil is slowed/ stopped.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Here's my gripe - 40% of the country get's paid by the government and recieves more of the "benefits" those taxes go towards than anyone else, 10% pays a ton (and i'm fine with that), but the majority of the remaining 50% are average joes who don't make a lot but still have to spend a decent amount of their income on taxes. People like me and my soon-to-be-fiance. I look at someone who's making slightly less than us, who's about 400k less in debt than we are, who doesn't have to pay s***, and it pisses me off. But I know, it's my "responsibility" to support half the country. Who benefits more from a lawful, controlled society and national and international infrastructure? The Walmart worker or the Walmart owners? Without roads, airports, waterways, police, fire, medical care (for workers), education (for workers), military protection, corporate limited liability, etc. etc. the wealthy would not be able to be as wealthy. They benefit hugely from government services.

What does FEMA stand for? What's their mission statement? Are they a regulatory agency like the EPA?

MMS was in charge of regulating this, not the EPA. The EPA doesn't exist to regulate oil drilling in the Gulf, sorry. eta lulz at "fail as usual" 'cause without the EPA, surely the private sector would have protected our environment!

They are handling an emergency. They do handle superfund sites. So, they are capable of handling most emergencies, just not one that's pretty much unprecedented because another agency completely dropped the ball and the private sector cut corners.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) For the environment it is. What do you think a superfund sight is? Me dribbling some gas out of my tank? All though seemingly they would be more responsive to that than a 100 days of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. superfund sites aren't emergency response situations. EPA is not FEMA.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 08:57 PM) That is comforting. We have these emergency agencies that can't handle emergencies. EPA is an emergency agency?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 07:58 PM) Global warming? Sure. MAN MADE global warming. Go warm yourself. Climate change? Sure. MAN MADE climate change? Go warm yourself. Yup. Uh huh. It's Bush's fault. kapkomet: alternative reality enthusiast!

Stop being such an alarmist!

This is true. Hey, have the other oil companies in the Gulf revised their emergency response plans so that they're no longer calling a dead guy? edit: or are they too busy making fake environmental advocacy groups?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2010 -> 10:31 AM) My point exactly. You would think that they would be more likely to step in when things are bigger and worse, and affecting more people. I'm sure the millions of people on the gulf coast are happy they are paying to clean up Kalamazoo while they suffer. The EPA (or really anyone for that matter, DRILL BABY DRILL!) doesn't have the capabilities to deal with spills on such a large scale.

Huh, scale matters, imagine that.