Didn't know you had inside information.  

We call it truth... but really I could care less about all this now.. I'm just telling you how your coming off to a fair number of folks here.

Thats all.

All you have to do it read his tax plan.  He's ending the Bush tax cut, which means the taxes go back to what they were prior.

Now, regardless, this is all going to go through the ringer in Congress, so who knows what we're actually going to get.  This is just Obama's plan and his intention. 

My expectation is that the taxes will be no higher than they were under Clinton, when our economy was booming and our deficits were shrinking.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Another false argument.  The "some people", "most of us", and "fair number" tags are weak debater, rookie mistakes.  State your own opinion for the record and let that opinion, supported by facts, carry the weight of your argument.  It's an easy trap to fall into...as I have from time to time.

As for everyone else, they have the opportunity to speak their minds on an equal footing here and to make their own judgements about which posts are about fear and ignorance, unsupported opinions, smears, and insults, and which are reasoned positions supported by verifiable citations and the weight of the historical record.

haha, my goodness, im not trying to debate you my friend.., your coming off badly, If I say a few other folks think so too it's because its been discussed with me by others, I'm merely pointing it out, if you want to continue looking like you do, go on..It doesn't bother me in the slightest, I have just always called it like I see it and I always will.

If you were my kid tho, I'd put you to bed early.. no supper and a good spankin for not playing nice with others

go on for another 1000 angry, bitter posts, its ALL u baby!

Three men of equal ability have a job picking apples. One man picks 1,000 apples another man pickss 10 and the third picks 1.

The three men get one vote each on how those apples are used.  Two of the men vote for the first man to give each of them 100 apples apiece.

And you think that this arrangement is a good thing because the first man is picking a lot more apples.

You were just saying I get crappy financial advice.  

Sure, the tax rate might go no higher than it was under Clinton.  That's fine, we'll start laying people off to go back to the same # of people we had back then.  

Ah, I see. You're not selfish because, in your mind, supporting the government taking my earnings to give to other people makes you unselfish? That's really fascinating logic.  Sure, I give tens of thousands a year to charity and probably pay at least an order of magnitude more than you in taxes but you're not selfish because hey, you support having the government decide how what I produce should be spent rather than me. Yea, you're a real hero.

Your problem is that these discussions are really just academic to you.  But there are real world consequences. If our taxes go up, I will almost certainly have to lay someone off. It's a real possibility, at least one of the Stardockians you see in these forums could get laid off. That's the real world.

Brad , you may as well be talking to a brick... in the twilight zone.

The first enlightened thing you've said this entire thread. 

Um, your company has grown since then because of the quality of your products, market, etc. right?  I was not under the impression that Stardock was the same size today as it was 10 years ago.  Or are you claiming that the ONLY reason your company has grown is due to a Bush tax break?  I don't believe that and neither do you I suspect, so I think the logical fallacy of the statement above (and the others related to it) has now been made clear to you.

Besides, my biggest issue employee wise has been the cost of health care premiums.  Since my people are paid into the low to mid six figures, the cost of benefits to salary remains negligible, relatively speaking.  But assuming you are paying standard programmer and office/sales rates for your staff, I'll bet your monthly nut for benefits represents a REAL loss of hiring potential.  And have seen those figures SKYROCKET since 2000.   I would think that's a MUCH bigger drain on your annual corporate gross to net than a possible 2% tax increase on your net salary draw/earnings.

So, I'd think you might support true Health Care reform (rather than McCain's taxpayer giveaway to the HMOs, like that RX legislation scam) like that Obama supports...from a purely business owner's perspective.

You continue to make the assumption that this is a pissing contest.  It isn't. 

But I am sad to see you keep bringing this up, as if this is the measure by which you judge yourself against other men.  By all accounts you are a reasonably prosperous small business owner with your own home and I assume a loving family.  Kudos to you for that and I hope, for the sake of your customers, your employees, and your family that your success continues.

Quoth the brick.

he's even more dense than me frogboy, you'll never get anywhere <3

From the email stacks.....this one's probably a few years old but likely even more true given the election results.......



I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.


How Long Do We Have............................


About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'


'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage'


Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline UniversitySchool of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already ;having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

Nice post

Here's some very interesting maps from the 2008 election:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

I'd be intersted to see how this one overlays a population density map (Cities)

I love how people like to use the DNC talking points that the taxes will go back to what they were under Clinton, and that means "good things".  I guess people don't remember the recession and dot com bust that happened during his rule.

eerily similar......

more interesting stuff.......

"After complaints of one-sided reporting, the Washington Post checked their own articles and agreed. Obama was clearly favored, throughout his campaign, in terms of more favorable articles, less criticism, better page real-estate, more pictures, and total disregard for problems such as his drug use.

Hardly personal attacks.  These forums are for opinions.  You dont like them, dont read them.  But saying you are wring Bottish posts or that you can shut up and go away are not in any way impugning your character of the marital status of your parents.  And as Daiwa states, if you dont want to read the posts, why are you posting?

But I see that the new regime is going to make sure that we cannot disagree civily as that is now a personal attack. Yea, go over to du.org and tell them you like Bush and see what a REAL personal attack is.

One of many during the campaign, and starting a new list after the election!  I am sure this guy is going to wow heads of states with his gaffs.  The best thing for him is to get a portable telepromter so that he cannot open mouth without engaging handlers!

And I saw where you were so forgiving of theother candidates for their "one" mis-speak.  NOT.

And you can show proof of that?  I doubt it.  Taxation without representation was not about giving to anyone, just taking without representation.  Welfare was a foreign and unknown concept to the founding fathers. But then you dont seem to grasp that, or know how to read the constitution.

There is nothing like a woman republican scorn.

No.  The founders guarded against the tyranny of the majority by making the changing of the constitution require a super majority.  Yet neither Congress, the Dems or the courts have ever addressed that issue.  Now we know how the snake oil salesman got around it. Packing the court (FDR's tactic).  But it still does not say that "we the people" can change the constitution on a whim.  And it actually has been done 27 times.  I am sure if congress could figure out how to make women interstate commerce, they would never have tried the ERA amendment since it had no chance in hell of passing.

But dont let facts stop you.  You seem to like to spout irrelevancies and then try to defend them with a statement about posting a fact (the sky is blue I think was the one you did post) that has nothing to do with your attempt at making a point of your opinion.

Get it straight.  No one alive did that so there is no we.  And no American did that, so it still cant be an historical we.

WHich is a tax increase.

You continue to make the assumption that this is a pissing contest.  It isn't.  

But I am sad to see you keep bringing this up, as if this is the measure by which you judge yourself against other men.  By all accounts you are a reasonably prosperous small business owner with your own home and I assume a loving family.  Kudos to you for that and I hope, for the sake of your customers, your employees, and your family that your success continues.

End of quote

I bring it up because YOU keep implying how you're unselfish purely because you support higher taxes.

Supporting higher taxes doesn't make you unselfish. It's what you DO, not what you BELIEVE that makes you unselfish or not.

Now, getting back to the point about company size - Stardock's growth obviously has been because of its market success.  But I am telling you, flat out, that without the Bush tax cuts, we would not have been able to hire as many people as we have hired.

Waiting on yours.

If I were the first man I would stop picking apples. The freeloaders would have to find someone else to rip off.

That would seem to make sense.

And add to that the other two argue that the first man is "greedy" for objecting to having the apples he picked distributed to them and that they are being compassionate and caring for taking those apples to give to themselves.