The Goat Pen

Owlman wrote:Question Conservatives won't answer: When should taxes increase? If the answer is never, then that means taxes should be at zero.

Well, we did have a balanced budget with taxes lower than what we have now. How about we start at those levels.

Conversely, ask a liberal how much taxes is too much?

Which side should we be on?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/b ... index.html

We should try to keep either from getting the upper hand so they will continue killing each other for as long as possible.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:UK Parliament votes against acting in Syria. Nothing will happen before the UN gives its report at this point.

I think it is a good sign that the Brits aren't signing on for the upcoming strike against Syria. I also think that it's a good sign that the American people are getting skeptical about the upcoming strike against Syria.

I hope we get back to the caution and reticence about using military force that we used to have as a country - ESPECIALLY in cases like this where US security is not involved at all. We can't keep flinging cruise missiles every time a distant thugocracy does terrible things to their own people. We don't have enough cruise missiles to hit all the brutal thugocracies out there.

Professor Tiger wrote:I think it is a good sign that the Brits aren't signing on for the upcoming strike against Syria. I also think that it's a good sign that the American people are getting skeptical about the upcoming strike against Syria.

I hope we get back to the caution and reticence about using military force that we used to have as a country - ESPECIALLY in cases like this where US security is not involved at all. We can't keep flinging cruise missiles every time a distant thugocracy does terrible things to their own people. We don't have enough cruise missiles to hit all the brutal thugocracies out there.

This would normally be the point where some PNNeocon would pipe up with "9/11 changed everything."

funny how you rarely hear that one anymore

This would generally be the point where some PNNeocon would pipe up with "9/11 changed everything."

"Twelve more years! Twelve more years!"

Turn it into glass.

Unleash rabid monkeys on them...

heh

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:Question Conservatives won't answer: When should taxes increase? If the answer is never, then that means taxes should be at zero.

Well, we did have a balanced budget with taxes lower than what we have now. How about we start at those levels.

Conversely, ask a liberal how much taxes is too much?

you didn't answer the question. When should taxes increase?

Taxes should remain steady at the lowest they can be at a rate that brings you 18-20% of GDP window. Because no matter how much you raise rates, you won't get above that percentage. Spending should be adjusted accordingly, as well. Bush tax cuts were too much, Clinton probably is more than enough, Oprama is more than Clinton. I've said many times here that I, and most of Americans and alot of conservatives would be happy at the Clinton rates. More than that becomes a disincentive

sardis wrote:Taxes should remain steady at the lowest they can be at a rate that brings you 18-20% of GDP window. Because no matter how much you raise rates, you won't get above that percentage. Spending should be adjusted accordingly, as well. Bush tax cuts were too much, Clinton probably is more than enough, Oprama is more than Clinton. I've said many times here that I, and most of Americans and alot of conservatives would be happy at the Clinton rates. More than that becomes a disincentive

I got a neighbor that told me she wants the government to institute a "bachelor tax" as an incentive to motive single men, to marry single moms and financally support their bastards.

Seems legit

I sell rocks I collected on Mars without the Feds knowing about it.

aTm wrote:Seems legit

she's just pissed off at the world right now, blames our gender. you might be pissed off too if you were in her shoes

when you have two adult daughters living in your home, neither of them ever married, one had a kid, the other had two kids (two different dads) you know their lives are going to suck. which means YOUR life is going to suck. she's not going to throw them out on the street, she IS going to share with them her social security check. but her daughters aren't likely to get married, ever. what a quandry?

in her mind, the "bachelor tax" makes perfect sense. she's just trying to giver her girls an edge. to get that edge, there has to be some kind of financial disincentive for men to remain bachelors. then in that case, her daughters might have value to men

innocentbystander wrote:

aTm wrote:Seems legit

she's just pissed off at the world right now, blames our gender. you might be pissed off too if you were in her shoes

when you have two adult daughters living in your home, neither of them ever married, one had a kid, the other had two kids (two different dads) you know their lives are going to suck. which means YOUR life is going to suck. she's not going to throw them out on the street, she IS going to share with them her social security check. but her daughters aren't likely to get married, ever. what a quandry?

in her mind, the "bachelor tax" makes perfect sense. she's just trying to giver her girls an edge. to get that edge, there has to be some kind of financial disincentive for men to remain bachelors. then in that case, her daughters might have value to men

A bachelor tax is still unlikely to help her daughters. There is a virtual army of single, professional women with no kids and decent-to-high incomes out there looking for husbands. The problem is that these women are SO desperate that they will put up with dump truck full of crap just to have a man, so this is what halfway decent single guys are offered when they date single women over 30:

*Porn-star style sex on demand
*One-sided monogamy (only the women are monogamous)
*No fiscal liability (chicks will move them in and not demand rent)
*Willingness maintain the above listed conditions for however many years/decades it takes the guy to decide if he wants to get married.

And that is not specific to any race - I see it across the board in America - with the exception of Asian-American men. Apparently there is a surplus of Asian men due to the number of Asian women who only date white men. Those guys tend to marry later and/or importwives from back home (creating a shortage in the mother country).

Which, as Forbes reports, is a huge problem in China http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2011/ ... gle-men/2/

Here's a novel idea, why don't the daughters get a job.

"she's just pissed off at the world right now, blames our gender. you might be pissed off too if you were in her shoes"

I agree that anyone in her shoes would be pissed off at the male gender, given that you are the person representing us...

sardis wrote:Here's a novel idea, why don't the daughters get a job.

Along with that, maybe the daughters shouldn't be having sex without birth control and having the resulting kids by themselves. What a novel concept. And that's for all races.

And there used to be a bachelor tax - at least for baby daddy's. It was called paternity suits. Maybe that should come back into style too.

Porn-star style sex on demand

Most guys don't buy that sales pitch. They know that the sex stops the moment they get married.

The porn-like interest ends long before that. Not saying it's not still fun, but ball-slapping, feet on the walls shit don't last that long. At least not with the same woman. Anybody claiming otherwise is lying...