Some are still in the dark on Obama

[Guns Guns Guns]

All I know is, when your dream of a Socialist government is realized, the result will eventually be, the government confiscating property from those who have more than others. You wanted a dream world where everyone has the same amount, well... that's how you get there! Many idiots like you, will reel off some stupidity like... "We should all share the wealth!" But when you count the number of people in the world, and divide by the wealth in the world, you come up with something like $30,000 per person. You think you might be able to live the rest of your life at your current lifestyle, on $30k? ...That's not 'per year' but total. Pinheads have no clue as to how much better off we are than most of the rest of the world. I have often said, our impoverished have a richer lifestyle than most 'average citizens' elsewhere.
As for your last line, I know that probably made you feel good, to spew a bunch of crap about something you know nothing about, but you really know nothing about me and who I am, or how much money I have, or anything else. You're flailing, because you can't articulate a point here, and it seems every point you make, I've either gotten you to reverse your position on it, because of how stupid I made you look, or you've simply ignored my points and resort to character smearing.
Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, really. Trying to tax greed out of people, is FUTILE! The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters... or they move their wealth to another country entirely. In the end, greedy people are just as greedy as before, if not, more so. Here's a simple example: A guy is making $100k a year, and he routinely gives 2% to charity ($2,000), you think that is "greedy" and he should be able to give more, so you raise his taxes by 2% ($2,000)... what will this guy do next year? Will he still give his regular 2% and at the same time, fork over another 2% in taxes? No... the 'greediness' kicks in and he says, fuck that, $2k is all they are getting, and he doesn't contribute to charity as usual. Now, if the government were able to operate at the same efficiency as most NPOs, this situation breaks even.... but... we know for a fact, the government is much less efficient, so that same $2k that would have been donated to an NPO, is now acquired through the tax base, where about 80% of the amount is eaten up in administration and bureaucratic red tape. By levying a mere 2% increase in tax, you have deprived the needy. In other words, your socialist policy and trying to 'even the field' actually hurts the poor. Now, I am just as benevolent as you. I don't want people to suffer, just like you. I wish for everyone to have enough food, clothing, housing, and medical care, and I contribute my time AND money to charitable causes in my community. I'm not a less caring person than you, I am not more greedy than you, I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you. I know that your way doesn't work, and actually creates MORE poverty in the end. I know that your ideas have failed every time they have been tried, because they stifle the human spirit and freedom to succeed. And if I truly did not care, I wouldn't have ever bothered responding to you.

All that, and not a single verifiable fact?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not advocating Socialism.

When you make statements like "Capitalists have had 80 years to come to the plate, it's time to try a new way..." It sounds like you are backing Socialism an Socialist government. Unless you are now going to argue that Marxism isn't Socialism, I am not sure how you wiggle out of this one?

Let the free market function. Let people acquire as much money as they want. The only stipulation I have is some of that money has to be shared with those in need. Why do you keep talking about interfering with the freedom of the entrepreneurial spirit?

Because that is what you have to do in order to implement Socialism and replace Capitalism. You know... the new way we haven't tried the past 80 years, while Capitalists have failed to bring anything to the plate?

As I pointed out in my last post, the actions you wish to take, actually HURT the poor MORE! You don't eliminate greed, you make greed WORSE!

It seems you are stuck on something you read or heard many years ago, the demonization of Socialism and Communism, resulting in your inability to understand social programs.

What I am stuck on is that pesky propaganda being taught in World History! Where every wonderful Socialist Utopian plan has failed miserably and ended in disaster. You can't "demonize" something that is already inherently evil! All the diseases and plagues in history, haven't claimed as many human lives as Socialism and Communism.

That is the reality that's been created. In the past wealhy folks paid a high percent in taxes, much higher than today and it didn't stop them from acquiring more money and it didn't dampen their entrepreneurial spirit. Check it out. Do some research. I've never known anyone who is so ignorant of history except their holding on to the fear and hatred of anything with the word "social" which was programmed into the population, years ago, during the cold war.

No, that's the reality that has always been. In the past, 'wealthy folks' paid taxes the same way as middle class folks, based on their incomes. The same way the wealthy folks pay taxes today. We don't charge taxes bases on a person's wealth, they are levied on the basis of INCOME earned, not wealth owned. In the past, very few wealthy people actually earned INCOME. They had already earned their income, on the way to becoming WEALTHY! For the most part, they owned all kinds of things, but corporations were established as separate entities, and taxed according to profits, which determined the price of goods and services to the consumer. The individual paid income tax, but since they earned no real income, there was nothing to tax. The rate was up around 91% on income earned, but this never mattered, because they didn't earn income. All of these things have changed over the years with the tax codes, but one thing remains the same, we still do not tax people according to their WEALTH!

Yes, it is like that and getting much worse every day.

So we can check off what you stupidly said earlier about not wanting America to become a place where you couldn't safely go into some neighborhoods?

If you go back to the time when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie things were quite different

Oh really? When was that, back when the Carnegie's and Vanderbilt's owned everything, and we built the railroad across a nation on the backs of immigrants? Maybe you are talking about back when people in the South either owned a cotton plantation, or worked on one? Or perhaps you are talking about more recently, when a typical auto worker made $24 an hour building shitty cars no one would buy, and routinely went on strike to demand more money? Please enlighten me on this time in history when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie?

and that's what's at the core of my political position, besides fairness.

It's your notion of Utopian "fairness" that I have the most trouble with. "Life is NOT FAIR! Deal with it!" ~My Mom (circa 1973)

Considering my love of "motoring" there was a time when people could travel around North America (the US and Canada) and not be so concernd about what area they were in.

Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to travel to Detroit to get mugged, because gas is $5 a gallon now.

More poeple had a decent shot at life.

Oh really? You mean, before FDR and LBJ and all your Socialist programs to help the needy and poor? How the fuck can that be, Apple?

As statistics show the gap between workers and management was not that spead out. That has changed. Upper management wages have seen a huge increase while worker wages stagnated. Add to that the high unemployment and what do people expect?

You can make statistics tell you whatever you want to hear, Apple. Much of what you note is the result of advancement in technology. Once was a time, a skilled and competent worker was required, and sought after, because things weren't easy to make, the work was much more complicated and difficult, both mentally and physically. Computers changed things a lot, technology, robotics, etc. Now a company can hire much fewer and less skilled workers, to produce the same thing. Therefore, the upper level management becomes the 'brains' of the outfit, and what is highly sought after. We can't do a thing about this, it's part of progress. The goal shouldn't be to take from upper management and give to the worker, it should be, to encourage and reward competence and promote as many workers to upper management as possible.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

When you make statements like "Capitalists have had 80 years to come to the plate, it's time to try a new way..." It sounds like you are backing Socialism an Socialist government. Unless you are now going to argue that Marxism isn't Socialism, I am not sure how you wiggle out of this one? Because that is what you have to do in order to implement Socialism and replace Capitalism. You know... the new way we haven't tried the past 80 years, while Capitalists have failed to bring anything to the plate? As I pointed out in my last post, the actions you wish to take, actually HURT the poor MORE! You don't eliminate greed, you make greed WORSE! What I am stuck on is that pesky propaganda being taught in World History! Where every wonderful Socialist Utopian plan has failed miserably and ended in disaster. You can't "demonize" something that is already inherently evil! All the diseases and plagues in history, haven't claimed as many human lives as Socialism and Communism. No, that's the reality that has always been. In the past, 'wealthy folks' paid taxes the same way as middle class folks, based on their incomes. The same way the wealthy folks pay taxes today. We don't charge taxes bases on a person's wealth, they are levied on the basis of INCOME earned, not wealth owned. In the past, very few wealthy people actually earned INCOME. They had already earned their income, on the way to becoming WEALTHY! For the most part, they owned all kinds of things, but corporations were established as separate entities, and taxed according to profits, which determined the price of goods and services to the consumer. The individual paid income tax, but since they earned no real income, there was nothing to tax. The rate was up around 91% on income earned, but this never mattered, because they didn't earn income. All of these things have changed over the years with the tax codes, but one thing remains the same, we still do not tax people according to their WEALTH! So we can check off what you stupidly said earlier about not wanting America to become a place where you couldn't safely go into some neighborhoods?
Oh really? When was that, back when the Carnegie's and Vanderbilt's owned everything, and we built the railroad across a nation on the backs of immigrants? Maybe you are talking about back when people in the South either owned a cotton plantation, or worked on one? Or perhaps you are talking about more recently, when a typical auto worker made $24 an hour building shitty cars no one would buy, and routinely went on strike to demand more money? Please enlighten me on this time in history when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie? It's your notion of Utopian "fairness" that I have the most trouble with. "Life is NOT FAIR! Deal with it!" ~My Mom (circa 1973) Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to travel to Detroit to get mugged, because gas is $5 a gallon now. Oh really? You mean, before FDR and LBJ and all your Socialist programs to help the needy and poor? How the fuck can that be, Apple? You can make statistics tell you whatever you want to hear, Apple. Much of what you note is the result of advancement in technology. Once was a time, a skilled and competent worker was required, and sought after, because things weren't easy to make, the work was much more complicated and difficult, both mentally and physically. Computers changed things a lot, technology, robotics, etc. Now a company can hire much fewer and less skilled workers, to produce the same thing. Therefore, the upper level management becomes the 'brains' of the outfit, and what is highly sought after. We can't do a thing about this, it's part of progress. The goal shouldn't be to take from upper management and give to the worker, it should be, to encourage and reward competence and promote as many workers to upper management as possible.

All that, and still no verifiable facts?

 

[apple0154]

All I know is, when your dream of a Socialist government is realized, the result will eventually be, the government confiscating property from those who have more than others. You wanted a dream world where everyone has the same amount,...

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

....well... that's how you get there! Many idiots like you, will reel off some stupidity like... "We should all share the wealth!" But when you count the number of people in the world, and divide by the wealth in the world, you come up with something like $30,000 per person. You think you might be able to live the rest of your life at your current lifestyle, on $30k? ...That's not 'per year' but total. Pinheads have no clue as to how much better off we are than most of the rest of the world. I have often said, our impoverished have a richer lifestyle than most 'average citizens' elsewhere.

And many go hungry when feeding a person can cost very little. Homes are empty across the country when people are homeless. There is a suburb near Las Vegas there were/are 167,000 vacant homes. Empty. Abandoned. And they are deteriorating due to insects, etc. http://www.lvrj.com/business/nevada-s-boom-ends-in-record-number-of-empty-homes-118026629.html Have you ever heard of such an absurd way for a society to function?

As for your last line, I know that probably made you feel good, to spew a bunch of crap about something you know nothing about, but you really know nothing about me and who I am, or how much money I have, or anything else. You're flailing, because you can't articulate a point here, and it seems every point you make, I've either gotten you to reverse your position on it, because of how stupid I made you look, or you've simply ignored my points and resort to character smearing.

You told us you have a big investment in Germany. You told us you don't want to bring the money here due to taxes. I don't need to hear any more in order to figure out what type of person you are.

As for reversing my position, you're delusional.

Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, really. Trying to tax greed out of people, is FUTILE! The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters...

Finally you said something correct. Yes, people will continue to be greedy and figure out ways to get/make money. More on that later.

.....or they move their wealth to another country entirely. In the end, greedy people are just as greedy as before, if not, more so. Here's a simple example: A guy is making $100k a year, and he routinely gives 2% to charity ($2,000), you think that is "greedy" and he should be able to give more, so you raise his taxes by 2% ($2,000)... what will this guy do next year? Will he still give his regular 2% and at the same time, fork over another 2% in taxes? No... the 'greediness' kicks in and he says, fuck that, $2k is all they are getting, and he doesn't contribute to charity as usual. Now, if the government were able to operate at the same efficiency as most NPOs, this situation breaks even.... but... we know for a fact, the government is much less efficient, so that same $2k that would have been donated to an NPO, is now acquired through the tax base, where about 80% of the amount is eaten up in administration and bureaucratic red tape. By levying a mere 2% increase in tax, you have deprived the needy. In other words, your socialist policy and trying to 'even the field' actually hurts the poor.

If he has more than $2,000 to part with the government can take more. Also, charities help specific groups of people. That is why social programs are necessary. Some people do not fall in to a certain group.

Now, I am just as benevolent as you. I don't want people to suffer, just like you. I wish for everyone to have enough food, clothing, housing, and medical care, and I contribute my time AND money to charitable causes in my community. I'm not a less caring person than you, I am not more greedy than you, I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you. I know that your way doesn't work, and actually creates MORE poverty in the end. I know that your ideas have failed every time they have been tried, because they stifle the human spirit and freedom to succeed. And if I truly did not care, I wouldn't have ever bothered responding to you.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you wrote, "The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters" and I agreed with you. That is exactly what people do. That is exactly what people did many years ago when taxes on the wealthy were high, very high. You wrote, "Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it." Again, absolutely correct. That's why increasing taxes is not going to stifle the human spirit.

Did you read "Atlas Shrugged"? I got news for you. It was fiction. Entrepreneurs, top business people, are not going to stop making things. If someone stops developing in order to protest someone will come along and pick up where they left off. How do I know? I know because you were correct. Greed is a fact of the human condition. Taxing people will not cure greed just as it will not stifle the human spirit.

You wrote, "I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you." Yes, you do. Being a greedy person it is natural you would hold the position you do but as long as you think you'll make a buck and get to keep a part of it you'll keep trying. As you said greed is a fact of the human condition. However, there are people who are not quite so greedy and that is the way the world is going. How do I know? I know that by watching poor countries getting first world jobs. While one can debate the pros and cons and reasons the fact is the jobs are helping the people in those countries. So, you see Dix, sharing is already happening and it going to continue and depending on where you stand it will either get worse or better.

Consider bank interest rates. They're below the cost of living meaning the people with money in the bank are losing money. Consider the companies one may invest in. A lot are overseas. So, the wealthy either help support those poor countries by investing in companies that moved there or they leave their money in the bank and lose.

Get with the program, Dix. The world is changing. Resistance, like voting for Romney, is futile.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?
AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How many times do I have to tell you that is NOT what I am advocating. I'll put it in simple terms. If everyone has a dinner and one guy has 50 dinners, fine. If one person does not have a dinner then the guy with 50 dinners gives one to the guy who has no dinner leaving the 50-dinner guy with 49 dinners. Now do you understand?

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one?

You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help.

And many go hungry when feeding a person can cost very little. Homes are empty across the country when people are homeless. There is a suburb near Las Vegas there were/are 167,000 vacant homes. Empty. Abandoned. And they are deteriorating due to insects, etc. http://www.lvrj.com/business/nevada-s-boom-ends-in-record-number-of-empty-homes-118026629.html Have you ever heard of such an absurd way for a society to function?

The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty.

And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul.

You told us you have a big investment in Germany. You told us you don't want to bring the money here due to taxes. I don't need to hear any more in order to figure out what type of person you are.

Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford.

To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy?

As for reversing my position, you're delusional.

Really?
"Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.)
"Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit)
"Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.)

Finally you said something correct. Yes, people will continue to be greedy and figure out ways to get/make money. More on that later.

No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start.

If he has more than $2,000 to part with the government can take more. Also, charities help specific groups of people. That is why social programs are necessary. Some people do not fall in to a certain group.

Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you wrote, "The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters" and I agreed with you. That is exactly what people do. That is exactly what people did many years ago when taxes on the wealthy were high, very high. You wrote, "Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it." Again, absolutely correct. That's why increasing taxes is not going to stifle the human spirit.

You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit.

Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed.

Did you read "Atlas Shrugged"? I got news for you. It was fiction. Entrepreneurs, top business people, are not going to stop making things. If someone stops developing in order to protest someone will come along and pick up where they left off. How do I know? I know because you were correct. Greed is a fact of the human condition. Taxing people will not cure greed just as it will not stifle the human spirit.

Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon.

You wrote, "I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you." Yes, you do. Being a greedy person it is natural you would hold the position you do but as long as you think you'll make a buck and get to keep a part of it you'll keep trying. As you said greed is a fact of the human condition. However, there are people who are not quite so greedy and that is the way the world is going. How do I know? I know that by watching poor countries getting first world jobs. While one can debate the pros and cons and reasons the fact is the jobs are helping the people in those countries. So, you see Dix, sharing is already happening and it going to continue and depending on where you stand it will either get worse or better.

Consider bank interest rates. They're below the cost of living meaning the people with money in the bank are losing money. Consider the companies one may invest in. A lot are overseas. So, the wealthy either help support those poor countries by investing in companies that moved there or they leave their money in the bank and lose.

Get with the program, Dix. The world is changing. Resistance, like voting for Romney, is futile.

Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one? You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help. The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty. And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul. Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford. To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy? Really? "Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.) "Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit) "Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.) No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start. Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass. You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit. Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed. Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon. Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

All that, and still no verifiable facts?

 

[apple0154]

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?

Because he's a member of a group known as "society".

AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

Why wouldn't we know? I'm sure someone could verify that fact.

 

[apple0154]

So... If I happen to notice someone doesn't have a TV, I can come to your house and take one to give to them, since you have more than one? And if you happen to own a TV shop, I can come there and take as many as I need, to give to all the people in your town who don't have a TV and don't have money to buy one?

As I’ve explained numerous times it has nothing to do with equality but you are having difficulty grasping that point so it looks like I’ll have to break this down further. So, we’ll start with, “Is a TV one of life’s necessities?”

You see, the problem here is, you are meddling in the affairs of others. It's not up to you to decide what I give, if I have given fairly, or if I gave enough. It's particularly troubling you seem to want to hand over your freedoms and rights to government, in order to do this. If you want to give to the poor, sell some of your old cars or set aside your pond building project, go out and find some needy family, and help them, Apple! Don't displace your greed onto me, I can make up my own mind on who to help.

No, the group, represented by the government, will decide as long as you are part of the group just like they decided that if you bring your money back here you will be taxed. Get used to it.

The housing bubble was created by the government implementing the exact social policies you claimed would help the needy! You see, Democrats pushed for, and got, low interest housing loans for poor people. The poor people took the low interest loans and built houses, then couldn't afford the mortgage payments, so they were eventually foreclosed, and are now empty.

Predatory lending. Low interest rates to start and then raise them. It’s like buying something and not knowing what the ultimate price will be.

And I will challenge you once again to back up your 'people starving' claims... Show me ONE example of a person who has died of involuntary starvation in America since 1940? They don't fucking exist, Apple! Even people who have absolutely nothing, and are homeless, can get a hot meal at any number of shelters. The Salvation Army is present in almost every city in America, and they have never turned away a starving soul.

One does not have to die. I said people were starving. They lack the money to buy nutritious meals which results in contracting illnesses and diseases and where does that lead? It leads to medical care and we all know that boondoggle that Obama is trying to change.

So, you’re against people being fed properly and you’re against people receiving medical attention when they become ill due to not being fed properly. You’re a real nice guy, Dix.

Well, I am a smart person. I had rather have money in Germany, than to give it to Socialists to blow on things like giving poor people houses they can't afford.

Great. So you’re a happy man with no complaints.

To be completely honest, I would LOVE for the government to suspend taxation on repatriated wealth. I would transfer my funds to an American bank account, and probably open a business of some sort. Now, I can only imagine there must be others like me, who have wealth overseas, but aren't motivated to bring it back home. Some economists estimate there is approximately $10 trillion in American dollars abroad, what do you imagine the influx of that would mean to our economy?

Of course you and others would love to bring that money back. Enjoy that money in this society while not contributing to it. However, there is always the alternative. Go to where the money is.

"Income is income. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All income should be taxed the same." (Except poor people and income from gov't assistance.)

Exactly. When you gave your children an allowance did you ask for part of it back?

"Some foreign resorts advise you to stay near the resorts... you don't want America turning into that, do you?" (Followed by me reminding you of Detroit)

I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend so I’ll spell it out. The conditions are worsening. Larger areas are becoming dangerous areas. Or put another way people are required to build more and more gated communities.

If you are still having difficulties following along let me know.

"Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate, it's time for a new idea." (followed by claims you aren't a Socialist.)

Again, difficulty in comprehension. The free market, the invisible hand….things associated with unrestricted capitalism has shown us they do not work. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he was wrong. His philosophy, his idea of how people and society worked was wrong. Just like you’re wrong.

No, finally you acknowledged something I said was correct. But it's good to know you now understand you can't eliminate greed through taxation, that's a start.

Looks like I have to repeat myself again. No one is trying to change the nature of certain human beings. There will always be those chasing the dollar regardless of how much or how little they ultimately get to keep and that’s fine. Let them connive and seek loopholes and devise all sorts of shady ways to grab the dollar but remember these wise words, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Let the greedy do whatever they want (within reason, of course) to grab all they can and then tax them. It saves the government time. The money is all in one place.

Well the point is, the more government takes from him, the less he will give. As for actual HELP for actual NEEDY people, is much more efficiently handled by the NPOs. Dollar for dollar, more of your actual donations go to helping people, than any program ever instituted by ANY government agency. So $2,000 in taxation, would equal $400 in actual HELP for people in NEED, the rest is eaten up in governmental costs. If I were poor, I would think $2,000 would benefit me more than $400, and I really wouldn't care if it came from the government or a private donor. Yes... charities target specific groups of people... generally known as THE NEEDY you dumbass.

Yes, dumbass. Certain groups of needy. Take a church charity, for example. As I mentioned before if a widow who sings in the choir requires financial help you can bet she’ll receive it before the single mother with 5 kids who doesn’t attend church regularly. Of course, the church will continue to preach how special children are and condemn abortion while the children go hungry.

You are getting confused and re-organizing what I have written. I never said that raising taxes stifles the human spirit. I said, Socialism and Communism stifle the human spirit.

Then why are you disagreeing with what I write? I’m for taxing the people and letting them acquire the money any way they want (again, within reason).

Again, I will note your progress in understanding you can't defeat greed, and increasing tax rates only promotes MORE greed.

Great! The government will know where the money is thereby making it easier to collect.

Got news for you, we've already stopped making things! That's precisely the reason we have a trade deficit. Greedy people aren't interested in making things which aren't profitable to make. They also aren't interested in handing over more of their wealth to a Socialist debacle, and so, they've taken their marbles and gone home... or maybe, sent their marbles to Indonesia? In any even't, our manufacturing sector is shot, and I have news for you, it ain't coming back anytime soon.

Then let them keep their marbles in Indonesia or Germany or some other country. Let them enjoy the money there. Why are they, like you, bitching about bringing the money back here? Go to the money. Live in the society where they make their money. Sounds logical to me. They love money and they make money in those societies so they must like them? Or do they?

Actually, I am not a greedy person. I am frugal, and smart with my money, but I am very benevolent as well. As I said, I would LOVE for government to suspend taxation of repatriated wealth, I would be in hog heaven! My money would be almost immediately put to work in the economy, as would trillions of other repatriated dollars, but you will have none of it. In your mind, it is better to keep trying to figure out ways to punish my success and steal my wealth, while you pretend to be Robin Hood on a futile mission to stamp out greed.

You’re very benevolent but the government wanting to help the needy with your money is stealing and punishing. Yea, right. Sure, Dix. The truth is you’re not interested in helping the needy. You’re interested in giving to those you want to give to and to hell with the others. You want to decide who is needy and who isn’t. You want to be little god. Sorry. That doesn’t work here.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because he's a member of a group known as "society".



Why wouldn't we know? I'm sure someone could verify that fact.

It's no one's business as to how many dinners he gave, or to whom.
Society has nothing to do with taking what others have.

 

[zappasguitar]

But you're forcing the guy to give up a dinner and if they are his, why should he be forced to give up any?
AND
How do you know that the guy might have had 60 dinners and has already given 10 away, so why should be now have to give yet another one?

Because others are going without dinner and it's the DECENT thing to do?

I understand that compassion and basic human decency are foreign concepts to you, but do try to keep up.

 

[apple0154]

It's no one's business as to how many dinners he gave, or to whom.
Society has nothing to do with taking what others have.

It has everything to do with contributing.

You know what's strange? Conservatives/Repubs label themselves as the party of family. They claim they're such strong proponents of family. They're for traditional marriage, against single parent families, against unwed mothers, claim families are the main building block of society, if families operated properly there would be less crime....in other words they champion the way families operate but when it comes to society they take a completely different approach. No one is obliged to help anyone. No one has to care about anyone.....it just seems strange they don't apply any of the "traits" that they claim are so important. I wonder why that is.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It has everything to do with contributing.

You know what's strange? Conservatives/Repubs label themselves as the party of family. They claim they're such strong proponents of family. They're for traditional marriage, against single parent families, against unwed mothers, claim families are the main building block of society, if families operated properly there would be less crime....in other words they champion the way families operate but when it comes to society they take a completely different approach. No one is obliged to help anyone. No one has to care about anyone.....it just seems strange they don't apply any of the "traits" that they claim are so important. I wonder why that is.

Your lack of cognitive comprehension obviously allowed you to miss the part where I offered that he had already "contributed" 10 dinners, so why should he forced to "contribute" more
Plus it's no one's business how many he "contributed" or to who.

 

[apple0154]

Your lack of cognitive comprehension obviously allowed you to miss the part where I offered that he had already "contributed" 10 dinners, so why should he forced to "contribute" more

Because there are people in need and his contributing will not result in any inconvience to him.

Plus it's no one's business how many he "contributed" or to who.

It is government's business. It is the business of the community, the country, the society in which he lives. He most likely wouldn't have acquired those extra dinners if he lived in Somalia. The society in which he lives offered him the opportunity and the decent thing to do would be to contribute to that society.

Rampant capitalism works fine when there is plenty to grab such as when the country was founded. There was land for everyone. Wild animals for food. Regardless of how much one grabbed there was plenty for everyone. Such is not the case anymore. Changes have to be made and they are being made, worldwide. A one world government is being implemented, one step at a time. Logic and common sense dictate doing so or the result will be wars over resources. Of course, the next war will destroy the enemy's resources (radiation) as well as the enemy so war's not really a solution.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because there are people in need and his contributing will not result in any inconvience to him.



It is government's business. It is the business of the community, the country, the society in which he lives. He most likely wouldn't have acquired those extra dinners if he lived in Somalia. The society in which he lives offered him the opportunity and the decent thing to do would be to contribute to that society.

Rampant capitalism works fine when there is plenty to grab such as when the country was founded. There was land for everyone. Wild animals for food. Regardless of how much one grabbed there was plenty for everyone. Such is not the case anymore. Changes have to be made and they are being made, worldwide. A one world government is being implemented, one step at a time. Logic and common sense dictate doing so or the result will be wars over resources. Of course, the next war will destroy the enemy's resources (radiation) as well as the enemy so war's not really a solution.

Who are you to say it's no inconviance to him?
He already contibuted; but Liberals always want more, except when it comes to them "giving".

There will be no "one world government", except in your world of hack.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As I’ve explained numerous times it has nothing to do with equality but you are having difficulty grasping that point so it looks like I’ll have to break this down further. So, we’ll start with, “Is a TV one of life’s necessities?”

Obviously, they must be, since the average family living below the poverty line has 1.4 televisions.

No, the group, represented by the government, will decide as long as you are part of the group just like they decided that if you bring your money back here you will be taxed. Get used to it.

Got a little analogy for you here Apple... Let's say you are retiring from your office, and the staff has decided to throw a retirement party. Now, they have tow options on your gift, they can each go out and buy something for you individually, or they can pool their monies and buy one gift... which way are YOU likely to come out BETTER? Everybody can spend what they want, or each person can put a set amount in the kitty.... which is better, Apple? I'll tell you which, it's when you leave it up to the individual what to spend, instead of setting an arbitrary amount. And don't tell me what to get used to, punk motherfucker! I don't have to get used to Socialism!

Predatory lending. Low interest rates to start and then raise them. It’s like buying something and not knowing what the ultimate price will be.

What? Are you trying to say that our precious government, in a vain attempt to make housing more affordable for the poor and needy, actually created a predatory lending scam instead? How the fuck did that happen, Apple? I thought you were about HELPING people, not TRAPPING people in scams? Why would you ever condone such a thing, much less, continue to vote for and support the people who did it?

One does not have to die. I said people were starving. They lack the money to buy nutritious meals which results in contracting illnesses and diseases and where does that lead? It leads to medical care and we all know that boondoggle that Obama is trying to change.

If I were starving and owned 1.4 televisions, I would probably sell them and buy food. OR I would sell the 1.2 cars I typically own, or the air conditioner... but who needs to do that, when we have saps like you giving away other people's money?

So, you’re against people being fed properly and you’re against people receiving medical attention when they become ill due to not being fed properly. You’re a real nice guy, Dix.

Yes, that's what I am against, Apple. I said exactly those words, didn't I? Yep... I want people starving and sick, dying in the streets! My goal is to have everyone eventually be starving and sick and dying in the streets, that will make me giddy with joy! You retarded moron!

Great. So you’re a happy man with no complaints.

Relatively speaking.

Of course you and others would love to bring that money back. Enjoy that money in this society while not contributing to it. However, there is always the alternative. Go to where the money is.

Not contributing to it? How do you figure we're all going to bring trillions of dollars back into the economy, dwarfing most any "stimulus" package you could possibly envision, and yet.... it's not going to contribute? I would think, when I started spending all that wealth, it would probably make it's way into the economy, causing people to be hired, new businesses to open, production increased to meet my demands, etc. Most anything I would choose to spend my wealth on, would require me to pay some amount in sales tax, since that is normally the procedure. Those would be sales tax dollars which presently do not exist, because the money isn't here to be spent.

I should also think, if I did what I said I would like to do, and opened some kind of business with my wealth, it would probably turn a profit. On that profit, I would pay income taxes, again... tax money that can't be collected if the money is never spent because it isn't here to spend. Is any of this making sense to you? Trillions of dollars abroad, not doing us one bit of good, and you had rather keep it that way, than to reconsider your own ignorant stupidity. No, there is yet another alternative, Apple... to leave the money right where it is for now.... which is MY personal choice.

Exactly. When you gave your children an allowance did you ask for part of it back?

My children never got one dime of allowance they didn't earn by doing chores around the house. Again, if you want to adopt some kind of work-for-welfare deal, I am all ears!

I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend so I’ll spell it out. The conditions are worsening. Larger areas are becoming dangerous areas. Or put another way people are required to build more and more gated communities.

You were talking about how when you travel to a foreign country, they tell you to stay near the resort, and lamented that we didn't want America turning into that. Well, parts of America are already like that now! After pointing this out, you have done a complete 180, and are now trying to argue the opposite point... the opposite point was MINE! Fucktard!

YES, things are getting worse! Thanks to decades of Liberal Socialist idiocy which has driven this nation to the brink of bankruptcy. It's time for a new idea!

If you are still having difficulties following along let me know.

It does get quite confusing as you flip-flop around on what you believe.

Again, difficulty in comprehension. The free market, the invisible hand….things associated with unrestricted capitalism has shown us they do not work. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he was wrong. His philosophy, his idea of how people and society worked was wrong. Just like you’re wrong.

Greenspan admitted nothing of the sort, that is pure propaganda, spun from snippets of a speech he gave, where his words were mangled into this rhetoric, it's just simply untrue. Free market capitalism is the reason the United States is, and has been, the world's leading superpower. But let's get back to your contradiction... You first staid; "Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate... it's time for a new idea." Then you followed that up with continued insistence you are not a Socialist and don't condone Socialism. Well what do you think is the new idea we need to try other than Capitalism, Apple? What you continue to advocate is Socialism. What you are saying here, is Capitalism hasn't worked and we should abandon it for Socialist policies. I guess one could make the nit-picky argument that it's actually Marxism, but I consider that a part of Socialism, and I think most people believe the same way.

Looks like I have to repeat myself again. No one is trying to change the nature of certain human beings. There will always be those chasing the dollar regardless of how much or how little they ultimately get to keep and that’s fine. Let them connive and seek loopholes and devise all sorts of shady ways to grab the dollar but remember these wise words, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Let the greedy do whatever they want (within reason, of course) to grab all they can and then tax them. It saves the government time. The money is all in one place.

Well Apple, I really wish when you repeat yourself, you'd avoid contradicting what you said previously. It would make this argument go much more smoothly. It appears you have done another complete 180, and now are arguing MY point! I have said all along, let the "greedy wealth bastards" have and spend their wealth! Stop trying to punish them with the tax codes and mandates, and let the greedy sons of bitches spend their fucking wealth, so we can benefit from the tax revenues! This is what every conservative since Ronald Reagan has said as well! You are better off with less regulation, less taxation, less restriction, and MORE CAPITALISM!

Yes, dumbass. Certain groups of needy. Take a church charity, for example. As I mentioned before if a widow who sings in the choir requires financial help you can bet she’ll receive it before the single mother with 5 kids who doesn’t attend church regularly. Of course, the church will continue to preach how special children are and condemn abortion while the children go hungry.

I have personally worked with three national charity organizations and about a half-dozen local charity organizations, for a total of about 25 years service in all, and in all those years, and all those various religious and non-religious based charities, I have never once known of them discriminating or turning someone away who needed help. You can make all the false claims you like, you haven't given a single example, and my guess is, you simply can't, because what you are saying is just not the truth.

Then why are you disagreeing with what I write? I’m for taxing the people and letting them acquire the money any way they want (again, within reason).

Sorry, it's just really difficult because I never know when you are going to completely reverse something you said previously. One minute you are opposed to Capitalists, think we need to try something else, the next minute you're telling us Capitalists should be allowed to make as much money as they want, and you're not a Socialist. It gets confusing. If you would try remaining consistent in your views throughout the thread, perhaps I wouldn't have so much trouble understanding you, and maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation?

Great! The government will know where the money is thereby making it easier to collect.

The government can collect tax revenue, that's money which comes from taxing profits or incomes. If someone isn't making a profit or earning an income, there is no money for the government to collect. They can't just confiscate wealth, that is against the Constitution.

Then let them keep their marbles in Indonesia or Germany or some other country. Let them enjoy the money there. Why are they, like you, bitching about bringing the money back here? Go to the money. Live in the society where they make their money. Sounds logical to me. They love money and they make money in those societies so they must like them? Or do they?

Well we are letting them do that Apple, we have no other choice, we can't confiscate their wealth! I know it's pleasing for you to continue pushing these people out of this country and into foreign countries, but it really doesn't do a thing to help the US gain more money in tax revenue or stimulate a fledgling economy, and continuing to let more of it happen, isn't going to make matters better.

I could live like a king in Germany, if I wanted to. I don't want to live in Germany! My family and friends are here, my home is here, I want to stay here until I die, I don't want to go live in Germany. And I would like to bring my wealth back to my own country to spend and invest, but you are standing in the way of that, because you are so envious that I have money and you don't, and unless you can figure out a way to finagle my money from me, you simply refuse to budge. Fuck you, I'll leave my money in Germany! You'll get not one penny of it!

You’re very benevolent but the government wanting to help the needy with your money is stealing and punishing. Yea, right. Sure, Dix. The truth is you’re not interested in helping the needy. You’re interested in giving to those you want to give to and to hell with the others. You want to decide who is needy and who isn’t. You want to be little god. Sorry. That doesn’t work here.

When did I ever say I wanted to be a little god? Again, I have a total of about 25 years, volunteering for various charities. I will bet that you have probably never volunteered for any charity. In your eyes, charity work shouldn't be your responsibility, that's why we have government. Here's an example comparing NPOs to government; I give $100 to the Salvation Army.. About $5 goes to administrative costs, and $95 goes to helping feed homeless people. On the other hand, I give $100 to the government in taxes, whereby, $50 is eaten up in administration costs, and the remaining $50 is spent on a grant to study the mating habits of spider monkeys. Which way has actually HELPED people in need more?

 

[apple0154]

(Apple) Again, difficulty in comprehension. The free market, the invisible hand….things associated with unrestricted capitalism has shown us they do not work. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he was wrong. His philosophy, his idea of how people and society worked was wrong. Just like you’re wrong.

(Dixie) Greenspan admitted nothing of the sort, that is pure propaganda, spun from snippets of a speech he gave, where his words were mangled into this rhetoric, it's just simply untrue. Free market capitalism is the reason the United States is, and has been, the world's leading superpower. But let's get back to your contradiction... You first staid; "Capitalists have had 80 years to bring something to the plate... it's time for a new idea." Then you followed that up with continued insistence you are not a Socialist and don't condone Socialism. Well what do you think is the new idea we need to try other than Capitalism, Apple? What you continue to advocate is Socialism. What you are saying here, is Capitalism hasn't worked and we should abandon it for Socialist policies. I guess one could make the nit-picky argument that it's actually Marxism, but I consider that a part of Socialism, and I think most people believe the same way.

Following is an excerpt. Do try to read for comprehension.

(Excerpt) REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive -- and this is your statement -- "I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We've tried regulation. None meaningfully worked." That was your quote.

You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price.

Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.

And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality...

ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. (End)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html

Did you follow that? I underlined the "Cole's Notes" version to help you.

Greenspan was wrong just as you are wrong. Unrestricted capitalism does not work. How do you expect the situation/country to repair itself when fools like you continue to believe it does? That is why Republicans have to be as far away from power as possible because they hold those same old, tired, worn-out ideas which Obama referred to during the health care debate. Greenspan's ideology was faulty just as the ideology of the Republican, right wing ideology is faulty. Just as your ideology is faulty.

This is not a guess. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. It has been proven faulty. The world is living with the disaster such faulty ideology caused. Until you are able to accept that fact it's useless to continue debating anything else. Trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain the movement of the planets and the cause of day and night to a flat earth believer. One can not explain sunrise and sunset to one who believes in a flat, stationary earth just as one can not explain the failures of the economic system to one who believes, like Greenspan, in unfettered capitalism.

Furthermore, as the video (The Warning/PBS) portrays people like Greenspan usually do not change their ideology until disaster strikes and even then many are blind to the facts.

You wrote, "Fuck you, I'll leave my money in Germany! You'll get not one penny of it!"

Do some research, Dixie. You can whine and complain about Obama and not being able to repatriate your funds from Germany without paying your dues to society but to use an old phrase, "You're pissin' in the wind." As you continue to defy paying the proper taxes you can not enjoy that money here. Depending on the amount it's not a case of cutting off ones nose to spite their face but more like cutting off ones head to spite society. So, back to you, "Fuck you, you'll leave your money in Germany! You'll get not one penny of it!"

 

[dixon76710]

Again, difficulty in comprehension. The free market, the invisible hand….things associated with unrestricted capitalism has shown us they do not work. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress he was wrong.

He said he found a flaw, not that they dont work.

 

[apple0154]

He said he found a flaw, not that they dont work.

Flaw: a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault:

How can something work if it has a defect or fault?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Flaw: a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault:

How can something work if it has a defect or fault?

Lot of things work and have defects or flaws. Very few things are "perfect."

IDIOT!