Tax Cuts For The Rich!

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Black Power

Say when.

Not that it would matter, you are a former fake Navy Seal, I am sure you would tell us that your IQ is eleventy-billion and you would have no proof

Last test I took was either 138 or 148, so there you go. Let me guess, you are a 149 right?

I'm pretty sure what your IQ is by just reading your posts, and looking at the pictures in your signature

[86NYGN]

Hmmmmmmmmm, I think someone is full of themselves. 138 or 148?????
Descriptive Classifications of Intelligence Quotients

IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very superior 2.2%
120-129 Superior 6.7%
110-119 High average 16.1%
90-109 Average 50%
80-89 Low average 16.1%
70-79 Borderline 6.7%
Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%

Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, Know Your Child’s IQ, Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians.
100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers.
100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers.
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.


IQ Expressed in Percentiles

IQ is often expressed in percentiles, which is not the same as percentage scores, and a common reason for the misunderstanding of IQ test scores. Percentage refers to the number of items which a child answers correctly compared to the total number of items presented. If a child answers 25 questions correctly on a 50 question test he would earn a percentage score of 50. If he answers 40 questions on the same test his percentage score would be 80. Percentile, however, refers to the number of other test takers’ scores that an individual’s score equals or exceeds. If a child answered 25 questions and did better than 50% of the children taking the test he would score at the 50th percentile. However, if he answered 40 questions on the 50 item test and everyone else answered more than he did, he would fall at a very low percentile — even though he answered 80% of the questions correctly.

On most standardized tests, an IQ of 100 is at the 50th percentile. Most of our IQ tests are standardized with a mean score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. What that means is that the following IQ scores will be roughly equivalent to the following percentiles:
IQ Percentile
65 01
70 02
75 05
80 09
85 16
90 25
95 37
100 50
105 63
110 75
115 84
120 91
125 95
130 98
135 99

An IQ of 120 therefore implies that the testee is brighter than about 91% of the population, while 130 puts a person ahead of 98% of people. A person with an IQ of 80 is brighter than only 9% of people, and only a few score less than 60.

[V8Assassin]

Cool info, making me feel all good about myself this morning.

I haven't taken the test since I was a kid.


My score was high 130's, don't remember the exact, only remember that because my sister has never let me live it down. She is a doctor, and scored lower than I did. She likes to bring it up when we talk about the importance of my brother finishing school. We were all only about 4-5 points difference.

Along those lines, a high IQ doesn't mean squat without a strong work ethic. I have known many people in my life that were just too smart for their own good. Rent a place to one of them now. Guess he shouldn't have depended on all that "natural intelligence" so much.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

So giving money to Americans out of work is wrong, cause theyre lazy.
but we can give unlimited amounts of Money to sunni iraqis, so THEY can sit home and do nothing.

dude, none of my objections to redistribution of wealth are based on whether the recipient is lazy or not. i am against it on principle; whether the recipient is lazy, or whether he is the hardest worker in the world that has just come upon unavoidable hard times. either way, it is wrong to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another. It violates the rights of one and gives an unwarranted benefit to the other. Everyone has an equal right to the product of his labor, no matter how great or little it is.

nobody should ever be forced to live for the sake of another person. some may choose to do so voluntarily, but nobody owes anybody else a living. The ultimate form of personal property is one's own body. When we put the labor of our bodies into the physical things of the world by exerting dominion over them and converting them to our own uses (work), we effectively put our bodies into the things, and make them our own. This is the origin of property. As free men, we may contract our labor or our work product out in trade for someone else's property, as most people do for wages. You relinquish your right over the work product you produce at your job in exhange for your employer relinquishing his right over his money that he pays you. The money you earn at your job is therefore the product of your own labor, and it is completely yours. nobody else has any rightful claim on it. government is only legitimate to the extent that it protects rights such as these. it has no more legitimate authority to transfer property from you to another person than that other person does himself.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

Along those lines, a high IQ doesn't mean squat without a strong work ethic. I have known many people in my life that were just too smart for their own good. Rent a place to one of them now. Guess he shouldn't have depended on all that "natural intelligence" so much.

that's exactly right v8assassin. my sister and I are 13 months apart and have the exact same IQ -- we are both 140-something (we took the test in 1st grade so I don't remember the exact number). We also made all the same grades on other standardized tests like the ACT. She has a hell of a work ethic, so she was the valedictorian at our high school, and she participated in all kinds of crazy extracurricular stuff like a medical research fellowship (she was the only high-schooler admitted), and she played in the local State college's wind ensemble when she was still in HS. She got into Harvard, and just graduated with honors a couple months ago.

I have much less of a work ethic. my balance between work and fun is tipped a little bit towards sacrificing achievement for things like cars, guns, and beer. Anyway, I just went to the local state college. I got into a pretty decent law school, but I am still a bit of a slacker. I guess I am headed for a career in an area that is more befitting of a 130 IQ person, judging by 86NYGN's chart (lol), but hey, you never know, I might end up being a "top civil servant" or something someday. I guess sometimes it sucks a little bit to think what I could have done if I was willing to work as hard as my sister, but I figure you only live once, so you gotta have some fun with life. you just can't balance things too far toward the "fun" end of the spectrum, or your life ends up being anything but fun -- kinda like a buddy of mine who is probably as smart as me, but happens to be the laziest SOB I know.

[salvageV6]

Mines only 57 and I can still own every lying lefty on this website.

IQ test from ones youth is rarely a good judgement of anything in ones adult life.

I have never known anyone to take the adult tests or what they are even used for other than perhaps mensa or genius testing.

I do know I don't need a high IQ not to lie on the internet, and to make sure all my first words in a sentence are capitalized.

Didn't need a high IQ to speeel words reasonably well and try to make complete thoughts and sentences on occasion when typing on the world wide web.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by henschman

dude, none of my objections to redistribution of wealth are based on whether the recipient is lazy or not. i am against it on principle; whether the recipient is lazy, or whether he is the hardest worker in the world that has just come upon unavoidable hard times. either way, it is wrong to forcefully take money from one person and give it to another. It violates the rights of one and gives an unwarranted benefit to the other. Everyone has an equal right to the product of his labor, no matter how great or little it is.

nobody should ever be forced to live for the sake of another person. some may choose to do so voluntarily, but nobody owes anybody else a living. The ultimate form of personal property is one's own body. When we put the labor of our bodies into the physical things of the world by exerting dominion over them and converting them to our own uses (work), we effectively put our bodies into the things, and make them our own. This is the origin of property. As free men, we may contract our labor or our work product out in trade for someone else's property, as most people do for wages. You relinquish your right over the work product you produce at your job in exhange for your employer relinquishing his right over his money that he pays you. The money you earn at your job is therefore the product of your own labor, and it is completely yours. nobody else has any rightful claim on it. government is only legitimate to the extent that it protects rights such as these. it has no more legitimate authority to transfer property from you to another person than that other person does himself.

we arent forcibly taking money to give to someone else, When you live here You either accept or reject our system. By staying here and working and paying taxes you are giving your consent to be taxed and allow some of that tax money to be put in a fund for Americans down on their luck.

I was pionting out that republicans hate to help a fellow American, but have no problem helping an Iraqi...its bizarre

[NM Tom]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

we arent forcibly taking money to give to someone else, When you live here You either accept or reject our system. By staying here and working and paying taxes you are giving your consent to be taxed and allow some of that tax money to be put in a fund for Americans down on their luck.

I was pionting out that republicans hate to help a fellow American, but have no problem helping an Iraqi...its bizarre

I don't think republicans "hate" to give money to people down on their luck but rather hate watching people live off the system. The system is what is flawed...young single female wants to move out of mommy's house, easy get pregnant and get free housing. Want bigger welfare checks, easy just have some more kids and never marry their father. Long term welfare should be limited to people with legitimate disabilities, the rest should get short term assistance (say 6 months) then be FORCED to get out and be productive assets to society. Welfare has become a lifestyle in this country and there is no reason for that.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by NM Tom

I don't think republicans "hate" to give money to people down on their luck but rather hate watching people live off the system. The system is what is flawed...young single female wants to move out of mommy's house, easy get pregnant and get free housing. Want bigger welfare checks, easy just have some more kids and never marry their father. Long term welfare should be limited to people with legitimate disabilities, the rest should get short term assistance (say 6 months) then be FORCED to get out and be productive assets to society. Welfare has become a lifestyle in this country and there is no reason for that.

these are just stories, there is no statistics to prove that the country is being bled to death with unwed mothers on welfare. But even if they are gaming the system, is there any possible way that this kind of fraud is comparable to the massive fraud going on in Iraq? NO

[NM Tom]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

these are just stories, there is no statistics to prove that the country is being bled to death with unwed mothers on welfare. But even if they are gaming the system, is there any possible way that this kind of fraud is comparable to the massive fraud going on in Iraq? NO

Never said the country is being bled to death by this. It still should not be happening regardless of the finacial stake. No reason for anybody (except the disabled) to be living off the government. Unemployment benifits are limited because if they were not everybody would just quit working and stay on it. That is what they are doing on welfare, just staying on it since it's unlimited. Get the people who can get out and work off it and take that saved money and give it to the truly disabled to provide them with a better lifesyle.

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

But even if they are gaming the system, is there any possible way that this kind of fraud is comparable to the massive fraud going on in Iraq? NO

Why do you keep bringing up Iraq?

Does the fact that we are in Iraq condone every other form of government waste?

[V8Assassin]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

we arent forcibly taking money to give to someone else, When you live here You either accept or reject our system. By staying here and working and paying taxes you are giving your consent to be taxed and allow some of that tax money to be put in a fund for Americans down on their luck.

I was pionting out that republicans hate to help a fellow American, but have no problem helping an Iraqi...its bizarre

Originally Posted by Gothmog

these are just stories, there is no statistics to prove that the country is being bled to death with unwed mothers on welfare. But even if they are gaming the system, is there any possible way that this kind of fraud is comparable to the massive fraud going on in Iraq? NO

Goth, we have discussed both of these numerous times.

It is just alot more than stories, come spend a day with me and I will be happy to show you how the system is being bled by flat out lazy people. There is an entire generation of poor people in this country that believe it is the goverment's responsibility to take care of them. Your argument is we should keep paying for these people because we are at war with Iraq. Come on, you can do better than that.

As far as Republican's and giving money to fellow Americans, how much have you given to charity this month. I doubt one red cent. Didn't see you on Dave's post asking for donations to the lymphoma society.

Lastly, I do not accept the current welfare system in this country simply because I live here, and should not have to. This is a country built on the ideas of hard work and freedom. Not laziness and socialism.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by The Blob

Why do you keep bringing up Iraq?

Does the fact that we are in Iraq condone every other form of government waste?

Because republicans are only conservative when it comes to domestic spending, they dont want to spend a dime on SS, welfare, infastructure etc
but when it comes to Iraq, they dont ask how much money is being spent, what its going to, how its being used, they just sign off on it. Then when you have whistle blowers point out the abuse, they dont get outraged, they change the subject to welfare moms

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

Goth, we have discussed both of these numerous times.

It is just alot more than stories, come spend a day with me and I will be happy to show you how the system is being bled by flat out lazy people. There is an entire generation of poor people in this country that believe it is the goverment's responsibility to take care of them. Your argument is we should keep paying for these people because we are at war with Iraq. Come on, you can do better than that.

As far as Republican's and giving money to fellow Americans, how much have you given to charity this month. I doubt one red cent. Didn't see you on Dave's post asking for donations to the lymphoma society.

Lastly, I do not accept the current welfare system in this country simply because I live here, and should not have to. This is a country built on the ideas of hard work and freedom. Not laziness and socialism.

see my above post. Nothing wrong with wanting to fix the system, but you guys seem to only want to fix the system that is pro- American, the systems that are broke that are pro-corporate welfare or pro-corruption in Iraq, you guys act like they dont exist, even though they dwarf the problem YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Because republicans are only conservative when it comes to domestic spending, they dont want to spend a dime on SS, welfare, infastructure etc
but when it comes to Iraq, they dont ask how much money is being spent, what its going to, how its being used, they just sign off on it. Then when you have whistle blowers point out the abuse, they dont get outraged, they change the subject to welfare moms

Or you could say this...

Because Democrats are only liberal when it comes to domestic spending. They don't want to spend a dime on national security, defense, the military, etc.

But when it comes to entitlement programs they don't ask how much money is being spent, what its going to, how its being used, they just sign off on it. Then when you have whistle blowers point out the abuse, they don't get outraged, they change the subject to Iraq.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by The Blob

Or you could say this...

Because Democrats are only liberal when it comes to domestic spending. They don't want to spend a dime on national security, defense, the military, etc.

But when it comes to entitlement programs they don't ask how much money is being spent, what its going to, how its being used, they just sign off on it. Then when you have whistle blowers point out the abuse, they don't get outraged, they change the subject to Iraq.

You could say that, but it wouldnt be true. There are very few liberals that wouldnt support a war on terror- A WAR ON THE REAL ALQUEDA

since we dont have ANY WAR on the people who attacked us on 9/11, we obviously dont support it

but if staying in iraq is paramount to our national security...the #1 issue in republicans mind, why isnt paying for it? Republicans say if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will take over and they will also follow us home. If this is such a precarious situation- WHY IS TAXING THE RICH OFF TO PAY FOR IT OFF THE TABLE?????????

obviously
tax cuts for the rich #1 priority
National Security #2