doubleM23

It's nothing more than a minor, cosmetic change to the government. It's the Theory of the American Cycle in action; a period (usually a decade or so) of more liberal thinking, followed by a period of more conservative thinking. It's been happening for the last century or so and I fully expected the GOP to stay in power. A decade or so from now, all Democrats will be dancing a jig when they control Congress and the White House. Que sera sera. Politicans in general, regardless of party affliation, suck. They're all phonies worried about their own personal gain rather than the people they are sworn to serve.

Here, my friend just explained this to me during lunch (he's an accounting major or something... like 80 bajillion times smarter than me)... Wealth is much more active when its not being taken out by loans and s*** and when people actually have it as expendable income. Basically meaning, if a guy has $20,000 that money is a lot more worthwhile to him if he can go buy stuff with it right now, rather than taking out loans and buying things with that. Let's say you buy something, like a car, and it originally costs $15,000 and you pull a loan on something, I'm not 100% sure how it works, but you'll end up losing another thousand or so paying back your loan, which only hurts consumers; as that money which originally could have been spent is lost.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I don't think you read my post, 'cuz they're not really being punished since they end up with more expendable money, anyways.

OK, toasters were a nice example. Regardless, more equally spread wealth means that people are able to funnel that money into the economy anyways, meaning the top get the money, which get taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed, which goes to poor folk which allows them to buy things and funnel it into the economy, which goes to the heads, which gets taxed... EITHER WAYS... This system still allows the rich to become richer, as everytime money gets funneled into the economy, its just not as drastic growth and it allows the middle and lower classes to keep up. Allowing the rich's wealth to grow by 70% in a decade and at the same time allowing the poorest's wealth to decrease by 5% in the same time period is economically unhealthy. Eventually, the base (consumers) can't afford to consume any more and your economy falls into shambles.

Wait until you graduate and start making middle class money and paying middle class taxes and you'll know why. Right, I know the middle class is over-taxed... That's why I believe in taxing the rich the hardest because they have the most expendable income. Such a large disparity between the wealthy and the poor is not healthy for any economy (see America in the late 1920s). I don't quite understand your point. I know that I'll probably be middle class for my whole life and I understand that I will be taxed to death because of it. That's why I kick and scream for tax reform. The middle and lower class (AKA... the majority) need to take back the political power from the wealthy. Right now, you and I live in a dollar dictatorship... If you got money, you got power. Do unto others as you don't want done to you? In one post you say you understand incentive and then you talk about removing the incentive to be successful. You can't put aside the fact that punishing the most successful will weigh down the economy and hurt everyone. Even if you do, nobody who understands how politics and power work believe that it would ever stop at the wealthy. Power always seeks more power. Someone will always want to demonize someone else for their own gain. Once you're done with the wealthy I have no doubt who would be next. Actually, "punishing" the rich (hence, taxing them more) to keep the disparity between the very rich and the very poor low HELPS the economy more than it hurts it. When people have so much, they can no longer spend it, it goes to waste, sitting in a bank or somewhere else. When the poor get it, they use that money to purchase things, meaning it gets refunnelled back into the economy. One man alone (with an extreme amount of wealth) doesn't need 500 toasters, but spread that wealth out a little amonfst 500 people, and suddenly, you've gone from selling 1 toaster to selling 501. I'm not a master of economics, so I dumbed that down primarily for me, but the basic concepts work. But lets look at another quick hypothetical. Say someone is making $25,000 a year and because of that (and I'm making these numbers up for simplicity's sake), he winds up losing 20% of his income to taxes... 20% of 25,000 is 5,000 meaning he has 20,000 left after taxes. Now, someone else makes 80,000 a year, and since h'es in a higher bracket, he gets taxed more; say, 30%... 30% of 80,000 is 24,000... Meaning he still has $56,000 left after taxes. s***, let's make it higher... 40%? That'd be a $32,000 loss to taxes for a whopping final of $48,000. Granted, I just pulled these numbers out of my ass, but I fail to see how taxing the rich heavier causes people to not want to work harder. Yes, you lose more, but you also end up with more. I think the majority of people are still going to want the job that pays $80,000 a year (that yields $48,000-$56,000 a year) instead of the one that pays $25,000 a year and yields $20,000 despite the fact that you're losing anywhere from about 5-6 times as much on taxes. Obviously you don't tax the rich so much that they end up with less money than those in lower brackets else, that would begin to weigh on the economy; however, concentrating mass amounts of wealth in few hands is also an uhealthy economic practice.

http://www.theprospectreport.com/top10cws.html

Oh God, rye... The first (and last) time I had that stuff I nearly went blind.

Smirnoff was, but Smirnoff Ice has a TON OF ALCOHOL in it... Oh, and I like the Blues, but I'm not that big of a fan. I admit I'm a fair-weather Blues and Sonics fan, partially because I barely follow the NHL and the NBA. But I do recall saying that I was a Blues fan before the season started, not that I feel the need to prove it. You can check if you care THAT much. http://www.loosie.com/words/guide_to_beer.html "Corona -- This is a perfectly acceptable beer for 93-pound women. Perhaps there's some sort of frat-boy spring break element at play, but it's absolutely baffling that heterosexual males would willingly pay premium prices for a beverage with the consistency and taste of watery Tijuana urine. If it's the "exoticism" of a Mexican beer that you crave, Sol and Dos Equis are vastly superior. It's worth mentioning that any beer that performs best with an accessory slice of fruit is not meant for male consumption. The fact that they actually make Corona Light and sell it in 8oz bottles is mind-boggling. The drinkers of Corona are typically little girls, lightweight Asians and Smirnoff Icers slumming it south of the border." I just thought it was funny. That is actually a pretty fairly accurate account of the guys that I know who like Corona. Most of us are lightweights with very low alcohol tolerance. I have a friend who can drink like 30 Coronas before he even starts to buzz. Me, I can barely handle a sixth of what he can. That, and I don't drink to get absolutely bombed (unlike a bunch of people I know). Everything in moderation. I like Corona 'cuz I can't handle heavy alcohol. And actually, IIRC, anything you drink from Mexico you're supposed to put either a squirt of lime or lemon in it since its brewed with Mexican water (notorious for giving Americans a case of the s***s).

I do think that the media does pay attention to both this site and WSI. I've noticed a few times that things get thrown around on the board of either site and the "coincidentally" they are brought up by a major Chicago media source.

Smirnoff was, but Smirnoff Ice has a TON OF ALCOHOL in it... Oh, and I like the Blues, but I'm not that big of a fan. I admit I'm a fair-weather Blues and Sonics fan, partially because I barely follow the NHL and the NBA. But I do recall saying that I was a Blues fan before the season started, not that I feel the need to prove it. You can check if you care THAT much.

Well, I don't know... Isn't it a well-known psychological fact that if you tell people not to do something, human curiosity will intuitively do it? Maybe if the government didn't waste so much time telling people NOT to do drugs and turn them into a cash crop, people would stop buying the s***.

Miller is pretty good, except my damn friend bought the s*** for EVERY single party we had this summer, so I'm a little sick of it. And techinically, the BEER doesn't need the lime, its the water (brewed in Mexico). Either ways, Corona is unbelievably awesome. Too bad its so damn expensive.

Here's your solution: LEGALIZE DRUGS... First, a lot of people who only start to be "rebellious" don't 'cuz crack is no longer a "rebellious" drug. Then, you tax the hell out of the drugs, so the people who get hooked eat a huge hole out of taxes and eventually pay (at least in part), for their rehab and thirdly, you make drugs vastly less dangerous as they are put under government control instead of some other cokehead on the street. Also, as I've seen from most of the people I see who ended up being drug addicts, they either started A) because it was cool to "rebel" or B) because they used it as a means to escape their s***ty reality. Make reality a little more palpable for some people (i.e. ensure them a house, health, and education) and watch how fast a lot of people stop doing drugs. That, and drug money funds shady organizations, both in and out of the country... why not siphon that money to the federal government? As much as I mistrust the government at times, I'd rather give them the drug money instead of the gangbangers on the West Side. But you're most definitely right. I'm not saying hold people's hands through life. I'm saying offer them basic human rights and let them work with that.

Tecate is all right, and no, you just get one of those plastic limes and squirt a little juice in it and then enjoy your experience in Flavor Country.

Did you just diss CORONA? Wow, that's like the best stuff in the world (up there with Leinenkugels).... You do know your supposed to squirt some lemon or lime in it else it could give you a nasty case of the s***s, right? BEST BEERS 1) Corona, 2) Leinenkugels, 3) NewCastle, 4) Miller High Life, 5) Killigan's Red Ale (the red one, I forget the name)... WORST :puke 1) Milwaukee's Best, 2) Zima, 3) Miller Lite, 4) Bud Light... I'm sure there are more I'll think of... Smirnoff Ice is good, GOOD s***, too. Bastards don't sell it in Illinois.

Oh, please! Dry that myth about Young and you can fertilize the lawn. I know kids who went there who didn't live in the city and I also know kids who go/went there who are about as thick as a brick (but they're also worth quite a bit of money). And the problem isn't that New Trier is a better or worse school than like Morgan Park; the problem is that New Trier gets a ton more funding because its located in an area with higher property values. And everyone seems to still mis my point... I applaud people who work hard and try to better their lives. They should be rewarded with nicer things, bigger houses, etc. etc. HOWEVER, all people are entitled to proper shelter, adequate health care, and a decent education. No matter what, you should not be allowed to take these three basics away. It makes it SOOOOOO much easier to climb up and make something of your life when you have a place to go home to every night and a place to take a hot shower in the morning, and peace of mind knowing that if you get sick or injured, your finnacial life won't be catastrophically ruined.

Zima = :puke

It's a new pop from 7-Up.. I can't quite pinpoint the exact flavor.. They save "Fruit Flavor Blast" so I guess that means fruit punch. It's basically supposed to be 7-up "upside down" (fruit punch being the opposite of lemon-lime, I suppose).

Inlcuded in the poll are the ESPN/USA Today Preseason Top 25... Who will win it all at the end of March Madness (and if other, specify)? And no, Heather, ISU will not win it all.

However, did he suck as much as he showed? I don't know about that. If he sucks in his first few starts, though, he'd better get banished to the bullpen.

If they were serious, they'd put Josh Paul on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and cut their losses, they'd get a decent, veteran, Rent-A-Catcher, let him get the majority of the playing time and give some to MJ and allow Olivo to further his development in AAA.

He would be a nice addition and would be a nice way to say :**** you to the Indians.

Wow, that's a bad picture of him.

Wait until you graduate and start making middle class money and paying middle class taxes and you'll know why. Right, I know the middle class is over-taxed... That's why I believe in taxing the rich the hardest because they have the most expendable income. Such a large disparity between the wealthy and the poor is not healthy for any economy (see America in the late 1920s). I don't quite understand your point. I know that I'll probably be middle class for my whole life and I understand that I will be taxed to death because of it. That's why I kick and scream for tax reform. The middle and lower class (AKA... the majority) need to take back the political power from the wealthy. Right now, you and I live in a dollar dictatorship... If you got money, you got power.

I'm not saying give them a mansion with a Mercedes Benz and filet mingoin three times a day. All people are entitled to certain rights just because they're human... The right to decent shelter, health care, and education. Is anyone else disturbed that Bill Gates has enough money to feed the entire planet at McDonald's for like a day when over 10% of the population of the wealthiest nation on Earth lives in poverty? I don't mind economic disparity. Despite the fact I am a socialist, I agree that there needs to be some incentive for people (like, the ability to buy the Mercedeses, mansions, and send their kids to good schools and colleges), else they'll sit on their ass and do nothing (a la the USSR towards the end), but you can't expect people in the projects or on the street, who are born addicted to crack or otehr drugs, to pick themselves up and make something of their life. That's about as insane as having someone beat you to near death and then force you to run a marathon and then get pissed off when you don't finish in respectable time. And, yes, I do think a major reason people succeed and fail is based on luck. Hell, just getting BORN in the United States is beating the odds, let alone getting born into a family with a little money. And s***, why does everyone think I'm going after your (middle class) money? f***, the people at the top have more than enough to support the country, and probably the world... Problem is they pretty much run the government and won't let anything like that ever happen. Some democracy. And I think Malcolm X said it best in his autobiography (yes, I know it was written by Alex Haley), "If you want something in life, you had better make some noise."