User Tag List

First 1725262728 Last

Results 261 to 270 of 276

  1. #261
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Also @Peguy:

    138 Reagan officials were investigated for criminal charges. Resulting in 38 convictions and even more resignations.

    To put this in perspective, Nixon had 8 convictions, Bill Clinton had 1. President Reagen sure was a fine example of biblical morality.
    Reagan was a what?

  2. #262
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Reagan was a what?
    President, Govenator and B-Movie star. He also was president of the Actors Union and then was anti-union while in office. A fact that never ceases to amuse me.
    +10% Crit Chance

  3. #263
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    President, Govenator and B-Movie star. He also was president of the Actors Union and then was anti-union while in office. A fact that never ceases to amuse me.
    I dont think he was a fine example of biblical morality.

  4. #264
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Didn't explain what? The general Christian viewpoint on charity and how it relates to healthcare, in countering your attempt to claim that Jesus supports socialised healthcare?
    Obviously, no one will be able to quote Jesus endorsing a social construct that did not exist in his era. But Jesus promoted altruistic behavior. The far right seems more concerned about accumulating greater personal wealth then the plights of the less fortunate. That does not look particularly altruistic.

  5. #265
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    And the award for the fastest rise to Disco's ignore list goes to.... (drumroll)

    Critical Hit.

    Thanks for coming out.

  6. #266
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Taxes on "the rich" and on businesses have a nasty side effect of inhibiting start-ups and business expansions, which leads in turn to higher unemployment. It would not be unfair to depict this as a near-100% tax on the unemployed.
    Do you have any sort of data supporting this?



    I could go deeper into things like the flaws in how we measure cross-country statistics - e.g., infant mortality, where many countries don't count "preemies" as a live birth unless they actually survive, but the USA does - but it should suffice that if the US is judged with respect to health care based on how socialist it is in several different categories, it's going to rank lower than if it is based solely on the quality of that care.
    Tell me. Do you know of any study done that ranks US healthcare without having a "socialist" bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    "Basic" is right. Of course, it all comes down to different "basic" premises.

    Hmm, why is the economy "risky"? It couldn't have anything to do with government actions, new laws, new regulations, new taxes, etc.
    Its risky as in they have a greater chance of losing their money. And weather the economy is "risky" or not or even what causes that risk isnt the point.

    The point is they already have plenty of resources to create jobs but dont. So what makes you think throwing more resources at them will make them change their minds? They do the same thing with their tax cut money that they do with all of their excess funds, they throw it in the bank and sit on it.
    [/QUOTE]



    Take the risks out of the economy, and he'll invest. Lowering tax rates (or at least maintaining stable, reasonable tax rates that aren't about to increase in a couple of years) reduces risk, as does being cautious with respect to the extent and speed of implementing new laws and regulations.
    I can appreciate what you mean about not shaking up market confidence with sudden new regulations.

    In regards to tax cuts, you have to take in mind my earlier points. You also have to consider that we are in serious debt right now, the best thing we can do is cut spending and raise taxes on those that can afford it.

    Now THIS is a straw-man argument. You cannot even define "trickle-down" economics, never mind that isn't my argument. (For reference, my argument is specifically outlined above. Feel free to provide your own.)
    This is the first thing that popped up on google:

    the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population.
    So is this NOT your argument or do you know of a different definition of Trickle-Down Economics than I do?

    Do we even have a healthcare "system" in the US? Pretending that it is a "system" is a large part of the problem. In Europe, there actually are healthcare "systems," though we'd disagree on the quality.
    So if the problem isnt the US healthcare "system" then what is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And the award for the fastest rise to Disco's ignore list goes to.... (drumroll)

    Critical Hit.

    Thanks for coming out.
    <3 <3 <3 <3

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPpE_BrX0FM"]<3 <3 <3 <3[/YOUTUBE]
    +10% Crit Chance

  7. #267
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Do you have any sort of data supporting this?

    Oh, look. Unsourced cherry-picked data that conveniently ignores the capital gains tax.
    Tell me. Do you know of any study done that ranks US healthcare without having a "socialist" bias?
    Most people wouldn't pretend to be that all-knowledgable.

    Its risky as in they have a greater chance of losing their money. And weather the economy is "risky" or not or even what causes that risk isnt the point.
    Oh, so first you cite risk as a factor, and now it isn't?!

    The point is they already have plenty of resources to create jobs but dont. So what makes you think throwing more resources at them will make them change their minds? They do the same thing with their tax cut money that they do with all of their excess funds, they throw it in the bank and sit on it.
    Ya know, even in the bank, it can be loaned out. But no, they don't keep it there. Ask Buffet where he keeps his.

    Your entire perspective here is skewed from mine. Your focus is on "creating jobs" but your solution is to tax job creators more. Where do you think jobs come from?

    I can appreciate what you mean about not shaking up market confidence with sudden new regulations.
    Thanks.

    In regards to tax cuts, you have to take in mind my earlier points. You also have to consider that we are in serious debt right now, the best thing we can do is cut spending and raise taxes on those that can afford it.
    Or perhaps cut spending by a lot. Raising taxes doesn't get more revenue: that's the secret. If your focus is on fairness, yes, higher taxes are good. If your focus is on revenue, it's a loser.

    Ideally, I'd want to see the tax code simplified (lower the cost of compliance, remove most deductions, flatten rates), even if it's technically higher by some arcane measure, plus cutting lots of spending, mostly by cutting back on unrealistic entitlement promises.

    This is the first thing that popped up on google:

    So is this NOT your argument or do you know of a different definition of Trickle-Down Economics than I do?
    This is what I got from google, top item is a wikipedia hit:
    "Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are are also pejorative terms that refer to the policy of providing across the board tax cuts or benefits to businesses and the wealthy, such as tax breaks, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population. The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
    "Trickle down" is not a policy, it's a name-calling. It is entirely based upon the premise that the government doles out money, period, and that a tax-cut is the same thing as doling out money to the rich. And the reference to the Great Depression policies is a riot, because supply-side economics is not what FDR implemented by any historians standards. In general, the name gets applied to any policy that seeks to lower taxes overall, at the "expense" of not providing more benefits to the poor - generally a leftist perspective that admits no happy medium.

    My argument is that by cutting the costs of doing business (and you acknowledge how new regulations can shake up market confidence, the very reason being its cost to business), one makes it easier for businesses to employ workers. Ways to cut costs to business include cutting the corporate tax (which has remained stubbornly high, among the highest among developed nations), the capital gains tax (which has the distinction of being the tax rate cut that most increases revenues - cutting personal income taxes doesn't have the same effect, and in agreement with your chart, I wouldn't expect personal tax rates to affect employment), and reducing costly regulations (current bad boys include Sarbanes-Oxley, plus the unknown regulations to come down the pipeline with Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, plus the EPA trying to back-door regulate the "cap-and-trade" that Obama couldn't get passed).

    Ironically, most liberal/socialist/union paradigms involve increasing costs to business. While this makes conditions (nominally) better for people who already have a job, it does nothing for maintaining low unemployment, nor for preventing those who are employed from losing their jobs, too, as the costs of business become too high.

    So if the problem isnt the US healthcare "system" then what is it?
    In my opinion, it's a mishmash of "have your cake and eat it too" policies. The issues with healthcare are such emotional hot-button issues that it's difficult to say "no" to one constituency or another. So we pay for it all, borrowing what isn't paid for with taxes.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  8. #268
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Where do you think jobs come from?

    That's easy. They will come from the new green economy funded by the government.

    [YOUTUBE="-tfsxCeC9m0"]Biden on solyndra[/YOUTUBE]
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #269
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Oh, look. Unsourced cherry-picked data that conveniently ignores the capital gains tax.

    Most people wouldn't pretend to be that all-knowledgable.


    Oh, so first you cite risk as a factor, and now it isn't?!


    Ya know, even in the bank, it can be loaned out. But no, they don't keep it there. Ask Buffet where he keeps his.

    Your entire perspective here is skewed from mine. Your focus is on "creating jobs" but your solution is to tax job creators more. Where do you think jobs come from?


    Thanks.


    Or perhaps cut spending by a lot. Raising taxes doesn't get more revenue: that's the secret. If your focus is on fairness, yes, higher taxes are good. If your focus is on revenue, it's a loser.

    Ideally, I'd want to see the tax code simplified (lower the cost of compliance, remove most deductions, flatten rates), even if it's technically higher by some arcane measure, plus cutting lots of spending, mostly by cutting back on unrealistic entitlement promises.



    This is what I got from google, top item is a wikipedia hit:

    "Trickle down" is not a policy, it's a name-calling. It is entirely based upon the premise that the government doles out money, period, and that a tax-cut is the same thing as doling out money to the rich. And the reference to the Great Depression policies is a riot, because supply-side economics is not what FDR implemented by any historians standards. In general, the name gets applied to any policy that seeks to lower taxes overall, at the "expense" of not providing more benefits to the poor - generally a leftist perspective that admits no happy medium.

    My argument is that by cutting the costs of doing business (and you acknowledge how new regulations can shake up market confidence, the very reason being its cost to business), one makes it easier for businesses to employ workers. Ways to cut costs to business include cutting the corporate tax (which has remained stubbornly high, among the highest among developed nations), the capital gains tax (which has the distinction of being the tax rate cut that most increases revenues - cutting personal income taxes doesn't have the same effect, and in agreement with your chart, I wouldn't expect personal tax rates to affect employment), and reducing costly regulations (current bad boys include Sarbanes-Oxley, plus the unknown regulations to come down the pipeline with Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, plus the EPA trying to back-door regulate the "cap-and-trade" that Obama couldn't get passed).

    Ironically, most liberal/socialist/union paradigms involve increasing costs to business. While this makes conditions (nominally) better for people who already have a job, it does nothing for maintaining low unemployment, nor for preventing those who are employed from losing their jobs, too, as the costs of business become too high.


    In my opinion, it's a mishmash of "have your cake and eat it too" policies. The issues with healthcare are such emotional hot-button issues that it's difficult to say "no" to one constituency or another. So we pay for it all, borrowing what isn't paid for with taxes.

    It also doesn't include data from before the permanent federal income tax, either. I'd love to see the economic growth between the Civil War and WWI.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #270
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    As always the left might have the best arguments and evidence but its not going to make any impression. It's beliefs that are being contended with here. Not reason.

Similar Threads

  1. media coverage of the tea parties
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
  2. Tax Day Tea Party Protests
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  3. Civil unrest: National tea party, tax revolt
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
  4. Let pretend we are at a party!
    By Ypsilon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 05:39 PM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO