Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 QualityJay
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 303 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:22:57 PM
You spelled "Truths" wrong. |
|
 richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
513 Posts
|
Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:34:09 AM
Said this in another post but the Laffer Curve works, here is some proof. |
|
 missPWNAGE
Female, 18-29, Europe
300 Posts
|
Saturday, October 15, 2011 12:57:14 AM
He speaks the truth. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14460 Posts
|
Saturday, October 15, 2011 12:24:50 AM
Baal: It's not so much about corporate tax rates now, it's about heavy-handed and over burdensome regulations that act like taxation. Regulatory costs meet or exceed corporate taxes in most industries now.
The Gov't raided Gibson guitar recently over legally obtained fret board blanks, they've prevented Boeing from opening a new airplane plant in South Carolina, Mile High Cab in Colorado is being prevented from operating taxis by a public utility commission.
And this over regulation is often has multiple layers to deal with like local public commissions that recommends to a board, that then recommends to a state licensing authority, each layer taking 3-4 months of waiting minimum.
It's so ridiculous they are fining kids with lemonade stands if they don't have a license that costs $500. |
|
 Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 10:29:12 PM
Lets have a look at "The system we're using now" shall we?
Here's the top- marginal tax rate vs employment:
Taxes down. Unemployment up. You're pretending taxes are currently up and not working.
Same again for corporate taxes:
Finally, the idea that "if only corporate profits can be stimulated, we'd have jobs" is not true, they literally have never been richer:
So about this "system we're trying now"... I like his idea better. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 10:04:04 PM
"This guy is so smart. Kind of wonder why nothing he said was right is actually working right now. After all, the system he says works, is pretty much the one we are using now."
He pretty much argued for a change in every point he made. A change that is not currently occurring. If you think you're running America AGAINST trickle down theory right now, you need to explain why the rich pay the lowest taxes they've paid in decades.
Corporations pay the lowest percentage of overall taxes they've paid in decades.
The highest tax bracket pays the lowest they've paid in years.
Under the OBAMA admin, we've done nothing but cut taxes on them. Not raise. Bush tax cuts extended, Obama tax cuts implemented.
"The system we're currently using" is not the one he described at all. |
|
chec13
Male, 18-29, Western US
1 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 8:55:16 PM
This guy is so smart. Kind of wonder why nothing he said was right is actually working right now. After all, the system he says works, is pretty much the one we are using now. |
|
 I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
2432 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 7:41:10 PM
@MattyP
actually a lot of it is supported historically and statistically, there's even data relating general happiness to tax rates on the rich in countries |
|
 ruthless1990
Female, 18-29, Europe
2999 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 7:34:39 PM
"does he speak the truth?"
in a word, yes. |
|
FartSmeller
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
33 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 7:26:57 PM
What a FN idiot. Of course fewer than 2% of small business owners are in the top tax bracket. Just define a small business owner that way.
The rest of it is similarly idiotic. |
|
 MattyP
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
173 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 6:11:30 PM
A bit of a democratic idealist, and probably an oversimplification/generalization, but still thought provoking. Take it with a grain of salt. I wish all politics was this much fun to watch. |
|
 Thdot
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
660 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 4:45:57 PM
This guy looks horrible in a spread collar. |
|
uatme
Male, 18-29, Canada
795 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:51:39 PM
How did this spawn an environmental debate? |
|
 PirateWillis
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
128 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:37:52 PM
People forget that the tax cuts went to everyone, yes it had a bigger impact on the rich, but that doesn't mean it didn't help everyone. People believe this kind of stuff because it's easy to understand, but the facts of the economy aren't easy to understand because you need all the facts. You can't cover these topics in 2.5 minutes, but you can when you leave out information and distort facts to quick, easy declarations. People need to hear both arguments and make a decision instead succumbing to generalities and invalid syllogisms. |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:17:57 PM
@Crakrjak
That's a bad example as you don't know who sent the mail. |
|
 Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:06:50 PM
I do, however, agree with him that government is not the best solution.
I'm not debating that, though.
I don't know a good solution, otherwise I would be yelling it from the rooftops and busting my ass to get the message out.
But it's pretty hard to believe there are people out there than can honestly just disregard all evidence of humanity's effect on the environment. Even the common sense factors.
For 4.55 BILLION years the planet was able to balance itself out consistently. It will continue, but last time something this damaging happened to the planet, albeit within a much quicker time-frame (although by comparison with the natural time-frame this is relatively fast), the bulk of the flora and fauna of the planet died off in one cataclysmic boom.
I don't know about MeGrendel, but I don't like the idea of that happening to humanity, not yet at least. |
|
AngryAsian
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
122 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:06:37 PM
the counter at the top right was truly unnecessary |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14460 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:06:34 PM
Hybrovi: Listening to something without considering the source is like clicking on that e-mail that says, "Free Money" in your inbox. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
831 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 2:00:39 PM
This guy talks out of his arse. Typical leftie, he talks about the immediate effects, and ignores the unintended consequences. That simply destroys his entire hypothesis. |
|
 scheckydamon
Male, 50-59, Southern US
109 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 1:55:46 PM
Sorry Fatninja01 but the definition of facts is that they are provable. Reich has never spoke facts or truth. This is one more left leaning wash of facts. Read and research things and don't parrot the talking points of the uninformed. Everything in this video has been proven wrong. Gee and by the OMB which is a government mouth piece. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 1:03:56 PM
Hell government could make things even worse by unintentionally curbing efficiency with good intentions. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 1:02:09 PM
Fair point Altaru, but unlike MeGrendel I do think AGW is a recognizable problem how much is the biggest question on every climatologists' mind though. I do, however, agree with him that government is not the best solution. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23998 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 12:54:07 PM
wow facts! |
|
 Hybrovi
Male, 18-29, Canada
77 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 12:47:56 PM
Nice ad hominem CrakrJak. If you're going to criticize the points being made in the video, criticize the points being made in the video, NOT the person making them. |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Friday, October 14, 2011 12:42:32 PM
Bad example, a mathematician and biologist would say such a system is statically stable. If you don't know what that means imagine a marble in a bowl.
Predator-prey model, Google it!
I'm familiar with the model, and it works...
When it's allowed to naturally balance itself.
But, like you said, it was a bad example. The more relevant example would be to continue introducing more piranha and taking more wildlife out constantly, increasing the number of piranha put in and the number of animals taken out every time.
Because it's not like we stopped after doing it one time. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}