A Modest Proposal for all you NSers(that are american)...

i read about half of that on a plane to SLC.... but i havent gotten the motivation to finish it. now i started a better book (in addition to all the school reading). "The coming Economic Earthquake"

i love his quotes from Patton.
 
1235533111imgad.jpeg
 
he is a very well educated person. tune into 560 and give him a listen. i haven't gotten the chance to read any of his books, but just ordered his lasted book
 
drew, you will notice i did NOT quote the whole post. only his reference to a book. maybe you should pick it up and give it a try. actually the first chapter when he explains his quantification of what a mental disorder is will leave you stunned.

i could probably even mail it to you, but only if you promise not to burn it ;)
 
drew, that is literally the title of his book. THE TITLE.

if you can believe it. no subtitle, nothing. big bold right in your face.
 
Hows this sound?

YOU SOUTHERNERS CAN KEEP YOUR COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF SNOW, OR MOUNTAINS.

The rest of us in the western states, as well as the rust belt, and northeast will wallow and play in our snow.

Go back to jesusland. AmeriCanada FTW!

 
last 4 things to stay to end the night: i love capitalism, guns, skiing and hate obama's fucked up policies
drew go move to Western Europe with your communist, socialist nonsense.
 
I'm just curious as to why you're still here if you have such a hatred for the principles this country was founded on...you know, like capitalism?

Oh, that's right...I remember from the other thread, you're here because we're paying for your schooling, then you can go to some other country and take up residence there. Using the system here for what you can and then leaving when there's nothing to suit your like anymore.

Sounds sorta like something found in nature...Leech, maybe?
 
Holding a 3.75 GPA while going to Architectural school does not exactly give you expertise in atmospheric science, just like my degree in Geosciences will not give me expertise in Construction Management. Your right, there are natural sources of Carbon dioxide, mainly the Earth's oceans, which contains 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere in the form of carbonate ions as dissolved gas. The ocean acts as a buffering agent absorbing more carbon dioxide when the concentration goes up and releasing some when it goes down. If all this Carbon dioxide were to be released we would have an atmosphere similar to Venus. The atmosphere as we know it is a delicate balance between the Earth's living organisms, oceans, and rocks. The problem is this little piece of information which I already posted - According to the U.S department of energy, the burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb half of that amount. That's a net increase of 10.65 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. Given this and the process of how our atmosphere is heated which I explained to you, and apparently that you have known for years, I don't understand how you can make a rational argument stating that global temperatures will not increase in the future. If you have one I would certainly like to hear it. And please state within your argument how it encompasses the structure and behavior of the earths atmosphere.
 
By the way I'm stoked your looking at different types of sustainable architecture, that's freaking cool.
Please do make a thread, I would like to see.
 
Are you really trying to tell me what to put in my sig? For serial?

GTFO

You already said in a previous thread that you were waiting cause your school was being paid for...so you're only here to get something free, the epitome of socialism...which you also believe in, and said as much.

And I love how you're an expert in all things of importance, you must have 6 majors, economics, poli-sci, environmental science, oceanography...am I missing any?
 
Yeah this girl in one of my ES classes did a depressing but awesome presentation about the Dead Zones off the coast here in Oregon. It's like the black plague of the sea out there.
 
i know if i was running a company i wouldnt want someone as fucking dumb as you representing them.
 
I never said that my schooling gave me expertise.

What are you doing with geosciences and where are you going to school? My sister did geology at U of Mich and is now getting her second masters in geology at Otago Uni in NZ. Geology is awesome.

Anyways, its beginning to be clear Im out of my element on this one. I used to know a lot more about this stuff, but architecture has taken up all my time the last 3 years. In my opinion, I think we want the same thing in regards to conserving the environment, just different reasons. Ill do research on my arguments sometime when I get time.

I will def start a thread at some point soon. My professors did some great lectures on this stuff and I need to find the power points of them to get more info. Prepare to be pissed off at the terrible city planners and FHA because our neighborhoods are so terribly planned leading to more pollution and energy consumption. I live in the most sprawled out city in the US, possibly the world. It's terrible.
 
How articulate of you...essentially conveying the same concept, but with three seperate words, apparently one simply would not suffice. Bravo.
 
actually you do know how to respond to this, you did just that when you called him to be considered for mandatory sterilization or shot.

so i fail to see how your post is any better?

"you should be considered for mandatory sterilization of simply shot in the face"

hahahhhahahah fucking impressive argument my friend.....
 
SOU in Ashland, Oregon. I think i'm going to transfer next year though to either UH Manoa or to Chico State. I don't know what I'm going to do for a career at the moment. I might try to work for the USGS or work for this firm with my cousin that does GIS. Eventually I would like to teach at a community college level or higher if I get that far in education, but I definitely want to work within the field for a while before considering teaching. City planning is a big deal. A lot of Geosciences people actually go into land use planning. As far as cities, I think Portland, Oregon is turning into a good model, a guy from the Portland office of Sustainable Development gave a lecture in one of my ES classes last year. I think they're definitely on the right track.
 
yeah portland is the shit. I learned a lot about Portland in my classes and how they favored public transportation over interstates and forced higher densities. I am actually going to get a masters in city planning down the line too.
 
just to say it again. how can you stop some guy from lets say trinidad & tobago and use YOUR road lighting, bridges, streets, parks for free?

state actually has to provide such goods that are non-rivaling and non-exclusive. i wonder how your perfect state would handle this (i guess some private company would have to offer them, huh, i dont think it would be a cheap thing)

BOLD:

all you republicans that hate obama for his "communist" behavior: YOU cried the most that the government didnt control the economy. on the other hand, you want the state out of everything, EXPLAIN THAT PLEASE...
 
See, its funny because he, along with most everyone else, thinks that ignorant has the same meaning as the adjectives stupid and dumb.Which is really quite ironic given the actual meaning of ignorant.
 
a lot of idiots went into city planning in the suburbs of seattle........lets let developers build whatever the fuck they want, where ever the fuck they want, because in return to this 50% annual population growth, we get an immediately larger tax base. then ten years later traffic is complete gridlock all because someone forgot to build larger roads.

could there be any correlation between our current economic problems and all the trillions of dollars nationwide dumped into suburbs, condos, and mini-malls that were not needed based on the local demographics, but funded by folks playing real-life version of the show "flip this house" who thought they could make a huge quick profit and retire by 35?

we spent all this money on big shiny sexy things for profit and neglected the infrastructure completely.

funding a sewage lift station is not sexy to most people. but add thousands of homes onto an old 6" concrete sewer pipe and oh fuck, demand is much higher than capacity, and everyone loves it when their toilet backs up.

now we are 100% reliant on the economic stimulus bill to fund vital infrastructure improvements? america's greed finally caught up.

 
jesus, this thread blew up in my absence. Good to see Drew is still here, that means the debate is still going strong. On that note, I have some bs applications to deal with. Drew, what are your majors? Im history and anthropology with a minor in archaeology. I wanted to know if you were a history guy, cuz if you are, I have a few questions for you. (dont worry, im looking for collaboration, not debate. Scholarly help is all.)
 
Well, I'm applying for a summer scholarship program in NYC and I have to retool a paper to send in with my application. I don't know how familiar you are with early colonial america and the age of exploration, but my paper is like, a primary source analysis of this pamphlet called A Discourse on Western Planting by this guy named Richard Hakluyt, written in 1584. One of my professors who looked at the original draft asked if this guy had ever been to north America to back up his claims on North America. I've looked for this shit for a good hour or so, and I can't find it anywhere. Wikipedia, JSTORE, electronic source searches, the usual. nothing has come up. any suggestions?
 
I wouldn't mind skiing with you at all man, I just don't agree with some of your political views.

And people who think I'm in favor of "raping the environment" have it all wrong.

I'm totally in favor of alternative energy, etc (Personally I think geo-thermal and hydrogen have the best potential)

But I'm also aware that it's not practical at this point to totally abstain from fossil fuels, it just won't work.

I love the outdoors and want to preserve it as much as the next guy, but you can't just halt a market as big as oil/gas, the economy couldn't take it.

Just like a child needs to be weened from breastmilk slowly, the same is true of the energy needs.

A lot of it has to do with the transportation system here.

I'm not saying this nation is perfect by any means...but I also don't like it when people dog on it and take way too much stuff we have here for granted.
 
Cities are going to grow, for the most part. The increase in tax base is going to happen, and cities need it. But usually if the suburbs are growing, the actual city doesn't see much from those taxes, since the people, well, live in the suburbs. People aren't forgetting to build larger roads. Intercity highways are a disaster. What needed and still needs to be built is more public transportation. What would make an even greater impact is higher densities in the suburbs. It's absolutely rediculous you have to drive 5 miles to get to a grocery store. There are so many gallons of gas burned, dollars wasted, etc from people trying to do simple tasks just because the suburbs are designed so poorly. All suburban roads filter onto large collector highways, instead of spreading out traffic on a grid...THE WAY IT HAS WORKED FOR CENTURIES.

Eventually, because of this terrible design and lack of adaptability to other uses (Try taking a neighborhood with a cul-de-sac with no outlets into a commercial area). It won't happen. There is only one point of access.

Correlation between the current econ problems and the money dumped into suburbs? Im not sure. the flip this houe thing is def. true, but I think most of the mini malls and condos have been needed, just planned improperly in the wrong locations.

Talk about infrastructure?

Atlanta's sewer system is over 200 years old. Whenever we have big storms, the storm water enters our dirty sewer water, and that flows out with out storm drains. We have shit in our streams.

Usually infrastructure is updated when new neighborhoods are developed. Sometimes cities, like Portland don't allow it to increase density and reduce sprawl and it works. developers have used septic tanks to get around this, and this is even worse because septic tanks are commonly used in the wrong soil types and the groundwater gets polluted.

We shouldn't be reliant on a stimulus bill to fund vital infrastructure. It should have been funded from the beginning.

And to that Austrian guy or whatever that thinks that we dont want roads to be public and street lighting to not be public....Private roads are fuckin stupid. Gated Communities make me cringe. Roads and many services like that will always be public. We are not looking to privatize everything. It doesn't work.
 
see my other post, we don't want that stuff to be private. That's ridiculous.

Im not saying obama's behavior is communist, but socialist. Communism is somewhat far off. I never wanted the government to control the economy. I think if republicans did ( I am not republican), I think their opinion of the stimulus bill is that you can't buy yourself out of this. Japan tried it in the 90s.

I for one am getting afraid at this stuff. Architecture billings have hit an all time low. Architectural unemployment is at 20%(much higher than the national unemployment rate), so this stuff hits my field very hard.
 
1. most things are. America is one of the more partisan coun tries in the world.

2. no shit, but for a majority of issues we do.

3. YOURE TOO STUPID TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING. AMERICA ISN'T STUPID FOR HAVING 2 POLITICAL PARTIES: IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE ELECTORAL RULES. Moreover, we have 2 parties to overcome collective action and to facilitate compromise. If you look at the number of effectively enacted bills compared to ANY country with a westminster parliamentary system, you'd see we are far more efficient, structured, stable, and predictable than any other country.
 
Well, unless you are refuting my points in the post...I can use whatever metaphor I wish.

Maybe I should've said "formula", that would've been more culturally accurate...but since breat milk is far healthier, I went that route.
 
No, you have to be a conservationist. An environmentalist would generally be against ski areas because of the land development and forest cutting.
 
False, it is not a reflection of the stupidity of the United States, it is a reflection of its political structure. The Democrats and Republicans are parties of mixed ideas combined to attain the most central goal for many parties. I'll break it down in a simple way: Say the country is divided into 5 groups, Very Liberal, Moderatley Liberal, Moderate, Moderatley Conservative, Very Conservative and the precentages are as follows:

VL - 16%

ML - 30%

M - 10%

MC - 32%

VC - 12%

Now in an election in which people voted for the exact party they wanted, the Moderatley Conservative party would win, so in the next election the Moderatley Liberal and Very Liberal Parties would combine, becausethey would rather have compromises on their ideals rather than a conservative victory, to fight that the Conservatives do the same thing so it is not a landslide. Now it looks like

VL/ML - 46%

VC/MC - 44%

M - 10%

Now the Liberals are at the advantage for winning the political position, and in the United States which is a winner take all single member district only needing a pluraility, this is wht results, not because of "stupid" people.
 
lol at environmentalist response

And lol short cold showers? if you really wanted to conserve energy, you'd stop surfing the internet and shut off your computer.
 
I actually even doubt that. You might find passing reference to it in a book somewhere, and you'll find lots of books on the period, but actually researching something like that is going to require piecing together a lot of info from various, somewhat tangential primary source documents around the same time. If you can line up things he says with other things in other PSDs you can come to some conclusions. But not a lot of people write about such specific items.
 
Illegal forms of art? Uh pornography is an easy one. Acts of terrorism can even conceivably be art.
 
you're missing a HUGE part. where does the money come from? and why the hell should MY MONEY be going to pay for some deadbeat crack addicts strep test?

you are effectively taking away the choice..... not to mention its pretty much a given that social security is a colossal fuckup. imagine if you were able to privately invest that 7% instead of it going into a big pay the old investors with the new investors money scheme...(i know i would be planning to retire a hell of a lot sooner, but hey i wont see any social security money anyway.) not to mention you could easilly spend 1/3rd of our total government budget on healthcare. in addition to the welfare spending we already ingage in.

basically what gives you the right to take even more of peoples money when they are already being taxed like there is NO tomorrow.

also comparing roads(which actually help the free market along) and healthcare. wow. nice leap dude....

 
well, it might be roads, healthcare or whatever, the main thing is (you cant deny that): some stuff needs to be provided by the government (of course we can debate which stuff) so there are no free markets for all goods and hardly totally free markets in general

and to be honest, i would say that establishing a good healthcare system with the money that was "spend" in the iraq would have been the better choice.

of course your carrying a few suckers. but i am proud to live in a country thats not forgetting a widow (whose husband DID NOT die because he couldnt afford health care) that has to raise its children, some random guy that worked year after year and is dropped and cannot find a job right now, and even that guy (it was in newspapers here, no joke) that needs medication valued at around 1,000,000 € every year (idk, some blood disease).

i dont want you to think like i do, i hope youre as respectful as well.
 
Exactly...the whole idea of this Robin Hood economics is ridiculous.

@ Drew.

Sorry for being a dick, I can get overzealous about political and social issues, and it's nothing against you personally.

Serious question for you though:

You are obviously working your ass off in school, etc.

to get a good job and make a living to support yourself and a family at some point (I imagine)...do you think it's right for the government to then (simply because you worked hard to get where you are, speaking in the future of course) tax you above and beyond the tax rate for others?

Because where I come from, forcefully taking something from one person or party, and giving it to another is called stealing.

That's the problem I have with socialism.

And the fact that I don't think citizens should have the government inserting itself into every facet of their lives...
 
we have elected thieves. they're called congressmen and senators.

last year here in MN tax freedom day was i believe april 22 (i might be off by 2-3 days)... in all honesty like you, i want someone to explane to me why anyone should be working from jan 1st, to april 22nd just to pay taxes. it really is stealing like you said.

does someone who has 40-50% of their earnings taken by the government get more bang for their buck than someone who pays no taxes? actually the inverse is true.

but as soon as you say one damn word about cutting government the politicians pull out their token cop or their token teacher and scream. "cops, teachers, the children, firemen, you must not care" "cops and teachers, cops and teachers"....

like i said i really dont need my hard earned money going to pay for some crack addicts flu shot.

o to top it off, just for living in the great state (note the sarcasm) i actually hold insurance for drug rehab. yep thats right its mandated into my policy! fuck yes! actually fuck no.

do people really want the idiots in washington to be running the healthcare system?
 
and thats the fundamental difference between us justin. i think that if someone is fortunate enough to be making a large sum of money, they should share it with those less fortunate. perhaps by doing that they, or their children, can be part of the next generation of people making a large sum of money.
 
K here's the problem with a lot of right wingers. Your main issue is taxes, and you don't understand the tax system. Who could blame you? It's IMPOSSIBLY difficult to understand. You could be even smarter than Drew and not understand it. The best way to put it is that tax law is not written for human beings to understand. So why do you guys think you can have effective arguments about it?

Let me give you a really, hugely oversimplified example with numbers I'm just pulling out of nowhere for the sake of the example. Assume you have progressive income taxation, which we do. Guy A, works at a restaurant making low wage pays no tax, guy B making a decent wage as a teacher pays 30% tax, rich dude C, a real estate investor, pays 40% tax.

A makes 30,000 a year in employment income. That's all he makes. He ends up with 30,000.

B makes 80,000 a year in employment income. He's taxed 30%, 24,000, ends up with 56,000.

C makes 300,000 a year from selling properties that have accrued value, minus his overhead. He includes 150,000 of that in income. He's taxed at 40% on that, 60,000, and finishes with 240,000.

Notice something there? Guy C paid, effectively, 20% tax on his income. Less than guy B. He also ends up with a hell of a lot more money, and can put some of it back into the business and make more next year.

The tax rates you see are not as straightforward as normal numbers, and that was a MASSIVELY oversimplified example. Realistically most rich dudes aren't earning solely from capital gains, they earn income from property and business income. However, they disproportionately access low capital gains taxes because he has disposable income to invest, whereas the teacher and the waiter have to put almost everything they earn into their mortgage or rent, and living expenses, their kids etc. Rich guy C also likely runs his enterprise through a business, which he can incorporate; corporate tax rates are lower than personal tax rates, meaning he can defer tax left within the corporation and use that savings to accrue further gains on it, which offsets even MORE of his overall effective tax rate: another bonus. Every time a rich guy, because he has enough money to hire accountants and lawyers and enough freed-up money to put it into structures that can work around the tax system and take advantage of the many little benefits in it, every time he gets one of these little bonuses, his effective tax rate drops. And there are so, so many you wouldn't believe.

So those guys who worked hard to get where they are? They're paying less tax than anyone. Trust me, helping them do it is now my main area of study.

Annnnd that's my sole contribution to this thread. Anyone who wants to reply might as well just PM me.
 
That's stealing...plain and simple.

Just because someone has money, that doesn't mean he should be FORCED to share with others.

If they want to support charity, awesome. Bill Gates is one of the biggest philanthropists around, good on him for it.

But making someone pay for someone else's expenses just because they have more money is wrong.
 
your making a boatload of assumptions on the rich guy there.

How about this for a rich guy situation, he gets paid 400,000/year. Pays 30% in income tax. 400,000 X .3 = 120,000 400,000 - 120,000 = 280,000. But he also works in multiple states. And so as to make sure the IRS doesn't get a ton of extra money, cause they'd love to get money out of people like this, he pays a bit extra in every state. Then H&R block screws up his taxes, and this costs him a whole lot more money.

Yea i don't know shit about taxes, but you've got one side, i've got the other, and somewhere in the middle, is the truth.
 
yet with all these little loopholes and ways around taxes look who pays the taxes....

Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg


RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%20Cut.jpg


this one is kinda damning. cut tax rate collect more taxes? like whoa!

chart2_lg.gif


please work? its a GIF.

not to mention the total amount of money Government collects is VERY closely tied with the GDP, of our economy.

am i saying our tax code is good, fuck no. am i saying we should have a "fairer" (i HATE that word) tax code. sure, but what i consider fair and the the next guy might be different. actually i will go out on a limb and say it is different.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top