Update: OK, it seems I get a 500 character limit when I comment on the "see all comments" page, but a 200 character limit--on this video--when I comment on the main video URL.
@vspqbd Correction: It wasn't shoe shine, it was a security check, so that was my bad. He still paid a lower rate than the person performing it on him though: 13.9% for $42 million a year.
@interstate317 Oh well then, since he ONLY makes $21 million a year, then yeah I guess he should pay a lower tax rate than me. This economy has been so unfair to him.
@vspqbd "What the fuck YouTube? Why is our character limit now only 200 characters?"
Comment on another video and come back and you'll get 500 characters. For some reason I only get the 200 character limit when I respond to comments after clicking on my inbox.
For anyone who believes projections for the deficit. "the White House is predicting that the federal deficit for fiscal 2012 will not be $557.4 billion after all. Instead, the White House says, it will be $1.3269 trillion."
And that is the error after 3 years, not a decade.
Why won't you let me view the comments sorted by thread? I even tried switching from FireFox to IE, and it still doesn't work. It's been like this for weeks now.
Hate to interupt this little pow-wow, but isn't a tax cut *by definition* a reduction in the tax rate (even if temporary), so wouldn't ending the tax cut *by definition* be a tax increase. @Shanedk-it is possible to raise taxes on, or give tax breaks to, certain groups of people- For example we charge excise taxes to those who use alcohol or smoke; while those that teach others how to worship sky daddy are exept from tax.
Hmm, there are too few rich people (REALLY rich) and they know how to evade paying those taxes so yeah, don't think it would help much. But i'd like to know what makes the nordic economic model work that well. They have the highest taxes there, with the tax burden on a common person of up to 50%. And you know how well everything works there, they have many public employees there, interestingly with incredibly low rates of corruption. Do you know more about that, could you comment on it maybe?
@Anonymous247n The Nordic model operates on oil exports that amount to upwards of $12K to $15K infused into the economy for every man, woman and child. Their living standard is built on this, not its economic system.
@shanedk Ohh, i really don't know what that flicDOT meant, didn't get any results for it :(
Yes, the nordic countries have really big government but still rank really high on the economic freedom index, plus the people there live in very good conditions. Is something different about their government?
@gonyea12 Since the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes (and, on the whole, the highest percentage - IRS) even though savings (which is economically disastrous to tax at all) are taxed at a lower rate, your premise is absurd. And since NO corporation EVER pays taxes (as they are a cost of doing business passed on to consumers) the GE example doesn't help your case in the least either.
Do you suppose the no-tax GE status had anything to do with the fact that GE paid huge amounts of money to all politicians? Including Obama, that is?
The top 10% already pay for 68% of tax burden of the state. By that, the top 10% already pay 6.8 times higher than a fair share. To ask for more in an already unfair situation is nothing short of robbery. And if that is okay with you, then KNOW that you are getting into a fight that you cannot win. You got vote, they got money
And in many ways he was a good thing for his competition too.
I recall you pointing out that despite many painting his buying out (or whatever the proper term for it is) of his competition, it was something they actually looked forward to and even prayed for at night, because (IIRC) it meant vast amounts of wealth given to them in exchange for their business. It was even to the point where they were starting them up just hoping Rockefeller would find out and buy them.
In other words, people accuse Rockefeller of having a monopoly in Standard Oil when in reality, it was some of his competitors (e.g. Pennsylvania Oil barons) who had the monopolies via government. Switching of the one who helped with the one who hurt. Oh GovCo, why am I not surprised anymore?
Lots of people fail in the market, because they can't provide as good, as cheap or as desirable a product as their competition. It does not that mean that their sons and daughters get the right to tarnish the image of a honest businessman. Now, if the businessman WAS dishonest, that is a different thing. But no one is accusing Rockefeller of cheating on a contract or defrauding them of their savings.
It's not that we should make the rich pay more, just give them fewer cuts. Rescind their tax breaks, This doesn't INCREASE their tax, just reduces their tax benefits. It isn't really the same thing.
@LegendaryAsshole Actually, it's EXACTLY the same thing. And as I've shown, they already pay more as a percentage of income AFTER all of those benefits.
Are you insane or just bad at mathematics? If someone is robbed of X amount, then for some reason robbed of X-1 the next time around - that does not mean the robber gave his victim a "robbery benefit".
@utubehayter You may want to read what I wrote again. I never said anything even remotely close to what you glean from it. I can't even begin to describe how absolutely wrong you are in your perception of what I said.
Ok, I think I was not clear. Let me clear. You are wrong. A tax break is NOT a tax benefit. It is lower tax rate. You cannot have a tax-benefit until you have a effectively negative tax rate (i.e. you get more out of the tax pool, than you pay in.. which is the case for govt workers, Govt contractors).
Not all 40%. They get govt provisions for no charge... it maybe that the provisions themselves aren't benefits. Some of the provisions are goods (in a very limited and narrow sense), but many are bads.
@LegendaryAsshole Eliminate deductions by businesses and every single business becomes unprofitable over night. How about naming actual specific "tax breaks" and I can show you the consequences of that.
@LegendaryAsshole Consequences like low profit high turnover businesses like Grocery stores become unprofitable. The fact that your all butt hurt because some people make more money than you is a bad reason to cause a famine.
But then looking at your user name it shouldn't be surprising.
If I pull 1 beer out of 6 pack, did I eliminate the 6th beer or did I reduce the total number of beers by 1? (answer, doesn't matter, it still means the same thing)
At this point, you are stuck with shaping language to put a nice face on a bad idea. Better come to the correct side before you start living in the world of lingual gymnastics as most new-age(ing) lefties do.
@shanedk No, it's not, unless you are a magical time traveller. Corrupt politicians gave a severe tax cut to the wealthy TOO severe. Only now are we in a position to remove those cuts and put it to a better level, Yes they deserve cuts because keeping it the same % as everyone else is too much. However, to say that reducing it has no effect on the budget is just creaming statistics. Take into account that the more money the govt gets, the more they'll throw it at things already.
@shanedk Reducing the tax cuts by a small amount will help significantly revitalizing otherwise dead government services. here you are saying that it will do nothing, You are trying to say cutting some tax cuts is like ADDING taxes, when the tax cuts should not have been so steep to begin with, It's like a banker giving you an extra 20 accidentally, then realizes it before you walk away. that 20 is taken from your account.
@LegendaryAsshole "Reducing the tax cuts by a small amount will help significantly revitalizing otherwise dead government services."
At what cost?
"here you are saying that it will do nothing"
No, I'm saying it will hurt more than it helps. Why do you think economists of every school (except the ones working for politicians, natch) say it's a bad idea to raise taxes during a recession?
Note how LegendaryAsshole hasn't even said a thing about the idea of reducing spending (at least that I bothered to read). Or how the idea of reducing gov't spending hurting us would be a broken window fallacy.
@vspqbd modifying budgets and keeping a fine tooth on the treasury is most certainly an important step. But the discussion was tax cuts and what can be defined as tax increase
@vspqbd modifying budgets and keeping a fine tooth on the treasury is most certainly an important step. But the discussion was tax cuts and what can be defined as tax increase
@LegendaryAsshole Now you are going completely obverboard making baseless and purely subjective claims that 1) reducing the tax cuts a small amount would be beneficial, b) dead government services can or should be "revitalized", 3) and the tax cuts should not have been so "steep" to begin with". NONE of those points are factual and all are easily argued otherwise. The notion that it was "accidental" was not merely subjective, but flatly absurd.
What is with all you retards being unable to understand what the term "disseminate" means?
Say I force you to carry 60 lbs on your back. Some time later, I provide you a break, on 10lbs, so now you need to carry only 50. Now, If I remove that break I gave you, you have to carry 60 lbs again.
Clearly removing that break, is totally different than reimposing the 60 lbs carry rule. Right? Even though in both cases you have to carry 60 lbs.
@utubehayter You're right, I was looking for another word. Let's say everyone pays 5% and you make far more than anyone else. That 5% means the government gets a whole shit load more from you than anyone else. Government cuts that down a bit to make it a little more fair for you. Now imagine some IDIOT cuts it too far. Great for you, bad for everyone else. You still pay more in taxes overall, sure. but putting taxes back up to an appropriate level while still keeping it lower....
Your initial assumption is wrong. The higher income brackets already pay far more in percentage than lower ones, EVEN after the tax cuts. Thus it is using a false premise to argue that it is a "tax-benefit" EVEN if it is argued that lower tax revenue is actually good thing. FYI, higher tax-revenues is a bad thing for EVERYONE.
@LegendaryAsshole Again, you cannot defend the argument that "reducing tax cuts =/= raising taxes" and, so, attempt to make another argument entirely (that the tax cuts were too high) which a) has nothing to do with the point being made and b) is an entirely subjective opinion with no economic basis. Tax cuts harm NO ONE; they are not "bad for everyone else". Excessive spending on the other hand...
@FletchforFreedom the very statement I made defends itself when defined. Reducing tax cuts doesn't actually raise the tax rate. That means it doesnt raise taxes. Means businesses and wealthy pay more, sure. But that does not immediately classify it as raising taxes. fuck me, your heads are empty
@LegendaryAsshole Actually, all you've done is obliterate your own position once again. Reducing tax RATE cuts, which is the case here, by definition, raises the tax rate. Reducing ANY kind of tax cut, may not affect the tax RATE (albeit it would in the case we are addressing) but, again, by definition, raises taxes.
Are you going out of your way to demonstrate a complete lack of reasoning skills or is that just a happy accident?
@LegendaryAsshole "Reducing tax cuts doesn't actually raise the tax rate. That means it doesnt raise taxes."
People end up giving more of their dollars to the government, so it DOES RAISE TAXES. Raising taxes means people giving more dollars to government. Your conflation of that with the tax RATE is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit the Republicans use to make it LOOK as if they've lowered taxes when they haven't.
LOL! You are a funny guy. It would be far more honest if you had simply cried and thrown a tantrum.. demanding the wealth that successful businesses and wealthy people have.
Gime! Gime! Gime! That is all this is. No need for mental gymnastics. No need to play around with what terms mean "by any standard".. Oh, and killing Jews is not killing at all. Because not everyone is being killed...just the Jews? Such is the bizzare logic of greedy people.
I know, right? Of course, whenever one of these statists are called greedy, they'll always retort with, "No, I'm not! I don't want the wealth for myself, only for the poor/sick/etc!"
@utubehayter Are you really calling apples oranges here? Quite the leap to go from money to murder. Shows where your mind is. Thanks for proving my point.
@shanedk So biased, and so like the religious who see mistakes and call it truth. I have well explained my side, which has not been refuted but for others screaming "no!" You can't phrase how I'm wrong, because I'm correct. By the way. Your statement that logic is universal... is your biggest fuck up yet. Logic is not universal, it evolves as our understanding and education does. NOTHING is all encompassing. Just stop talking, if you can't make an argument. Just stop. Sit down.
@shanedk You scoff, but one of these days by wishing really hard I'll build a perpetual motion machine and make electricity free. I will manifest this reality.
@shanedk In Colorado we plan on having a course taught at Patriot University claiming gravity is only a theory and leading them all off of a cliff at some point in the near future.
I was referring to this statement: "In Colorado we plan on having a course taught at Patriot University claiming gravity is only a theory and leading them all off of a cliff at some point in the near future."
Actually, reading it now, I just remembered that Patriot University was a right wing religious diploma Mill (Kent Hovind, anyone?). So it would be sarcastic. My bad.
@shanedk You are looking at it as a value, you can't do that that's a flawed way of thinking. Raising taxes is applied to all. reducing tax cuts isn't raising taxes because raising taxes means everyone gets hit. That isn't the case at all. So if only a few are getting hit, IT IS NOT A TAX INCREASE! Not by any standard
@LegendaryAsshole Here, again, you do not get to (outrageously) redefine terms in order to make (specious) points. Nothing about the concept of "raising taxes" implies ANYTHING about "everyone get[ting] hit". Not by any standard is something not a tax increase because "only a few are getting hit".
The nature of that position can only fall into two categories: incompetent or dishonest.
@LegendaryAsshole "So if only a few are getting hit, IT IS NOT A TAX INCREASE! Not by any standard"
So there's NO SUCH THING as "raising taxes on x group." Meaning there's no such thing as "raising taxes on the rich." You just defeated your own argument!
@LegendaryAsshole You said: "It's not that we should make the rich pay more, just give them fewer cuts. Rescind their tax breaks, This doesn't INCREASE their tax, just reduces their tax benefits. It isn't really the same thing." The position is logically incoherent. By definition, "removing cuts" means "mak[ing] the rich pay more" and "[r]escind[ing] ... tax breaks ... INCREASE[S] their tax". You are self-contradictory. It cannot be rationally argued that they are not "the same thing".
I can't believe what I just read ("Meat inspection: theory and practice" by Gariel Kolko). Turns out that the large meatpackers had their products banned from europe in the 1880's and they heavily lobbyied congress to step in and regulate them (to get a seal of approval). There was a tremendous amount of controversy when the 1906 bill passed, because it was paid for by the government even though it GREATLY benefited the large meatpackers. Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting quote (cont'd)
@interstate317 In other words, Roosevelt wanted this legislation so Meat Packers could export their meat to Europe, Roosevelt hated how Sinclaire LIED about how badly the meat was prepared, hurting the exports further, but at least used the book to get the bill passed.
Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Denmark banned American pork from 1883 until 1892, after Congress passed the Meat inspection act of 1891, which they heavily favored.
Incredible how history is rewritten to favor the gov't.
@shanedk and yet the history books would have us believe that congress misinterpreted the point of the jungle to pass food regulations instead of labor. One must sit back and ponder to oneself why congress couldn't just ask Upton about the purpose of his book. They ignore that "Muckrakers" was a derogatory claim because they were known for being liars.
100 years from now, Star Magazine will be considered fantastic journalism for digging up dirt on celebrities.
Should a person in the europe during middle ages, that was taught in Catholic school that the Vatican was "the benign protector of the poor and enemies of SINS and VICE" - believe these things as objective facts?
Then how come you and many others like you are so inclined to believe the state school, when they teach you that "the state is the benign protector of the poor or enemies of 'THE RICH''?
Why wouldn't they lie, if you are eager to believe them?
@utubehayter I think the big motivator is that its easy to see how someone could lie to you if it makes them rich. But people think "the government is a non-profit organization, its only goal is too protect in serve it has no motive to lie."
I am glad you brought up religion, it is a good analogy.
Note that it is also easy to see that someone could lie to you if it makes them powerful at your expense. Not everything is about money.. even money isn't about money, but about (purchasing) power. Those that fail to see that the state's primary objective is to have power over lives of good productive people.... will continue to miss the proverbial boat.
@utubehayter Right. If the poor man is a priest, or a skilled con artist, he can end up milking the rich man for everything he has, by pretending it's necessary to save his soul, or that whatever con he's running is worth it.
@vspqbd That and for some reason these statists claim their ideas are "mainstream" when they reject much of beginning macroeconomics. They can't draw a supply and demand graph, and don't understand what stagflation even was, but they'll lecture everyone else on what mainstream economics is.
@vspqbd I suppose I'm interested to know why you reject creationism. I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics. Austrian economists generally use an unscientific approach to economics called praxeology which rejects empirical data in favor of logical deduction. I suspect the reason why you reject mainstream economics is not the same as the reason why you reject creationism, but because you use a different approach.
enthalpay is a funny guy, he thinks Austrian econ predicts net investment will be negative during recessions. Ofcourse he can't show any source for this being an Austrian prediction.. which is why it is even more hilarious. Talk about evidence.
@enthalpay "I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics."
I see no evidence that what you claim is main stream economics is even mainstream.
"Austrian economists generally use an unscientific approach to economics called praxeology which rejects empirical data in favor of logical deduction."
The two are not mutually exclusive. Most people use deduction and empiricism like the two blades of a scissors.
@enthalpay "I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics."
I reject creationism not because of a lack of evidence, but because of direct evidence that it is false. Just like I reject the idea that inflation increases employment because stagflation in the 70's showed me empirically that the idea is false.
corperations dont pay any taxs. they make the customers pay the tax, while their profits stay the same. you need to make them pay while not raisintg prices.
Why did you accuse CappitranoBellephant of racism? That's utter bullshit. I know him, and he's the least racist person I know. You're an intellectually bankrupt coward who can't stand dissenting opinions. You want to ban him because you can't put up a fight? Fine. But leave his comment up so that everyone can see the context.
Oh, that's right, you won't. Because like I said, you're just a coward and an ideologue.
@vspqbd I know, Einstein. I can read. So what was the "false accusation"? Since shanedk removed the comment, no one knows what it is. And CappitranoBellephant never accused anyone of racism, he merely said that mutual aid societies could refuse services to people based on ideological grounds, and that one of the criticisms lodged against societies is that they were extremely racist and weren't aiding African Americans. Which is a valid criticism, and is based on historical fact.
@vspqbd And apparently you can't read either. In my original comment I asked WHY he was accused of false accusations of racism, not what he was banned for.
@vspqbd "False accusations of racism," is a pretty serious charge, and is open to interpretation. If shanedk is so confident of his BS claim, then he should have left the comment up so that everyone can see what was said.
@cyborgninja13 We've been down that road before. But I've left yours in. You made an accusation of racism, which was FALSE, and you were BLOCKED.
This is a zero tolerance policy. Lately people have tried to convince me I should be more lenient here; when I've tried it's only caused more trouble and I ended up regretting it.
"that one of the criticisms lodged against societies is that they were extremely racist and weren't aiding African Americans"
And that is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE--in fact, many of them were run SPECIFICALLY by and for African-Americans. It is NOT valid, NOT based on fact (maybe SOME of them were, but NOT all), and IS a false accusation of racism, which you yourself have just repeated and has earned you a block too, asshole!
@abeismain Whether or not the Bush tax cuts should expire. Since they have cost the govt $1 trillion in lost revenue, were set to expire in 2010, extended erroneously, and are set to expire again in 2012, I say let them go. They had these extensions built in for a reason: budget-wise they are not 'paid for', meaning Congress did not set aside a way to offset this revenue loss. Obama wants to keep the tax cuts for income brackets under $250,000, but republicans want them all to stay.
@shanedk Well then you're just not bothering to look. I assume you have access to google? Different think tanks (like your Heritage Foundation) will calculate that different ways, but most estimates are at least $1 trillion over ten years. Extending the bush tax cuts through 2020 would add $2.7 trillion to the deficit. You know, the thing you want us to get rid of. That's the CBO talking, not me.
@Raptor302 And how did they account for the detrimental effects to the economy of additional taxation? What would that $1 trillion in lost productivity have meant for both individual and corporate income tax revenues?
@Raptor302 Well if Dennis Kucinich said it. Also your article claims that they cost 1 trillion in ten years. The actual deficit in the last ten years was 7.3 trillion. Spending accounts for a lot more than the drop in the bucket a tax increase would create. And tax cuts during Reagan and Kennedy administrations raised revenue.
@johnrainrules Yes, $1 trillion out of that 7 was from the tax cuts (insert wars, rebuilding of New Orleans, prescription drug plan here). And they will cost $2.7 trillion more through 2020. I'll ask you again: are you interested in fixing the deficit or not? If not, by all means keep the tax cuts. We should call this segement "attention-deficit disorder".
@Raptor302 Repeating the $2.7 trillion canard as if it was not from a demonstrably discredited source hardly helps your credibility. That the CBO is constrained from considering any of the significant factors is a widely known and understood fact.
Why wont you trust the good regulators in DC to do the necessary borrow and spend? What are you some sort of hater of unionized $62 per hour "poor" workers and the poor?!!
@utubehayter Do NOT conflate the interests of unionized workers and the poor!!!!! Unions have cost the economy more than $50 TRILLION by conservative estimates (Vedder & Gallaway). And inflated union wages come at the expense of wages elsewhere (the compensation pool as a percentage of the economy has stayed stable). Think how many poor people could have been employed with those resources.
Leaving ideas like that around Lefties is like leaving viable RPGs around gang members.
@FletchforFreedom Who exactly has discredited the CBO's estimates? Funny how I'm the one posting all the links while you act as the anecdotal pope of what you think is "fact". I gave you sources. Give me yours. And what school do you teach at? Remind me to stay away and go to an institute that is actually accredited.
@Raptor302 THE CBO ITSELF - it is a matter of public record that the CBO estimates of EVERYTHING are based upon ONLY the direct impact. NO economic effects of any kind, no matter how well established can be considered in their calculations. That would be DYNAMIC SCORING as used by economists all the time to estimate REAL impacts. Actually, all you've done is passingly reference Wikipedia. I've mentioned sources and suggested you check your own.
@FletchforFreedom I used wikipedia for Upton Sinclair since you claim that he did no research. Every source I've come across says the same thing: 7 weeks in a meat packer plant. Don't mix our two arguments.
So if the CBO bases the impact assessment on policy alone, then it appears the burden of proof is on you to prove that these tax cuts have stimulative effects beyond $2.7 trillion. Is that a bet you are willing to make?
@Raptor302 Actually, I thought you were referring to the economic positions (which are not controversial). I'll find the link - you might also note that the same Wikipedia article makes clear the inaccuracy of Sinclairs claims.
If you want to read about the stimulative effects of tax cuts read ANY economics text. Read Keynes' "General Theory". There are numerous studies (do a google search) - all that is at issue is HOW MUCH they are stimulative.
@FletchforFreedom "all that is at issue is HOW MUCH they are stimulative."
Right. Are they stimulative enough to pay for themselves? Are they stimulative enough to offset the $2.7 trillion? When even the best sources are saying less than a 25% return, that doesn't sound worth it. Sounds like the right wing is ready to throw the country under the bus again, just like it did during the debt ceiling debacle.
Ofcourse, the right wing is ready to throw the country under the bus by not driving away everyone that has wealth. The left wing better take charge raise taxes and drive away the rest of the money from the US to the developing world. Because THAT would save everyone. We are the 99% (of the zombies who don't understand economics or taxation).
Do you know how much you pay in China? Estonia? Latvia? Bulgaria? Czech Republic? Botswana? How about Australia? Chile? Argentina? All of that and I just need Switzerland or Luxembourg to put all the super rich people and make the "tax to rich" dreams of idiots come to the ground.
@Raptor302 Bruce Bartlett is a nice enough guy, but he's an historian, not an economist and his argument is entirely fallacious. There are two problems with it. First he overlooks the fact that taxation as a percentage of GDP falls during an economic downturn - this is why that measure is not used by economists. Second, every economist will tell you that what matters is the MARGINAL tax rate (which is the statutory, NOT effective rate) because its the last dollar taxed that matters.
@Raptor302 Again, all you demonstrate is complete ignorance of even the most basic economics. Literally EVERY economist understands that what determines behavior (and ultimately economic results) is what occurs at the margin. The last dollar subject to taxation - under the statutory rate - determines the economic outcome. This makes no sense to you because you are ignorant of the concepts under discussion.
@FletchforFreedom For a person who makes $85,000 a year and is taxed at 28% for his highest bracket, he would pay $17,500. But because of the way its stacked, that only amounts to 20.5% which is his effective rate. NOBODY pays the percentage of their income listed in the statutory rate. Certainly not wealthy folks with a bunch tricks up their sleeves.
Oh really? So the 30%+ that is taken out of my paycheck every month is just fiction of my mind? And I am not even in that high a bracket! Jeez.. you state worshipers will never admit to the fact that your God is the problem.
...Imported Substance Tax, Occupational Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Real Estate Investment Tax, Golden Parachute Tax, Group Health Plan Tax, Alcohol Taxes, Tobacco and Tobacco Products Tax, Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms Tax, Tax on Generation-Skipping Transfers, Greenmail Tax, Structured Settlement Tax, Self-Employment Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, Non-Petroleum Energy Tax, and, of course, the Spanish-American War Tax.
@utubehayter Your talking about Fed tax alone, right? You would need to make over $174,000 a year before you reached that point, and even then only the money you made over $174,000 would be taxed at that rate. So your effective rate would be closer to 24% or $43,000. This leaves you with $131,000, you poor down trodden victim. Pardon me while I summon the tears.
No, I am not talking about Federal income tax alone.. That was something you and Shane assumed. You and your God, both are immoral. And I wish you would meet your own God, which is inevitable, as fueled by taxes, it grows stronger everyday.. weilding the gun, the riot stick and the cage. I live to see the day when the chickens will come home to roost, upon every supporter of the state.. which apparently isn't that far as the Occupy morons found out.
Update: OK, it seems I get a 500 character limit when I comment on the "see all comments" page, but a 200 character limit--on this video--when I comment on the main video URL.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
And back down to 200 again....>_<
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
YES!
Back to 500 characters! :D
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
"that romney pays a lower tax rate than his shoe-shiner"
[Citation Needed]
Also: flicDOTkr/p/aw54Q1
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd Correction: It wasn't shoe shine, it was a security check, so that was my bad. He still paid a lower rate than the person performing it on him though: 13.9% for $42 million a year.
Raptor302 1 week ago
@Raptor302 actually it was $42 million over the last two years. Remember the whole "he makes $57,000 a day" thing. That adds up to 21 million a year.
interstate317 1 week ago
@interstate317 Oh well then, since he ONLY makes $21 million a year, then yeah I guess he should pay a lower tax rate than me. This economy has been so unfair to him.
Raptor302 9 hours ago
@Raptor302 One more difference between a skeptic and a dogmatist:
The skeptic would have replied with, "Noted. Thank you for the correction."
Only the dogmatist replies with snark and a strawman.
shanedk 8 hours ago
@shanedk "The skeptic would have replied with, "Noted. Thank you for the correction."
Only the dogmatist replies with snark and a strawman."
Well I'd like to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
Raptor302 5 hours ago
OK, so I went to a few other videos, and it seems this is the only one that has the bogus 200 character limit.
Again, WTF?
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
What the fuck YouTube? Why is our character limit now only 200 characters?
GODDAMNIT!
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd "What the fuck YouTube? Why is our character limit now only 200 characters?"
Comment on another video and come back and you'll get 500 characters. For some reason I only get the 200 character limit when I respond to comments after clicking on my inbox.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
@johnrainrules
I did. YouTube seems to be Schizophrenic or something, because now it's back to 500 again.
Christ, would it kill them to make sure their shit works BEFORE launching it?
It was bad enough when I couldn't view the comments in threaded form for a while, but at least that was consistent.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
@vspqbd It's still 500 for me.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
Not for me. :'(
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
For anyone who believes projections for the deficit. "the White House is predicting that the federal deficit for fiscal 2012 will not be $557.4 billion after all. Instead, the White House says, it will be $1.3269 trillion."
And that is the error after 3 years, not a decade.
johnrainrules 2 weeks ago
What the fuck, YouTube?
Why won't you let me view the comments sorted by thread? I even tried switching from FireFox to IE, and it still doesn't work. It's been like this for weeks now.
vspqbd 2 weeks ago
Hate to interupt this little pow-wow, but isn't a tax cut *by definition* a reduction in the tax rate (even if temporary), so wouldn't ending the tax cut *by definition* be a tax increase. @Shanedk-it is possible to raise taxes on, or give tax breaks to, certain groups of people- For example we charge excise taxes to those who use alcohol or smoke; while those that teach others how to worship sky daddy are exept from tax.
dj092768 1 month ago
@dj092768 "@Shanedk-it is possible to raise taxes on, or give tax breaks to, certain groups of people-"
It was LegendaryAsshole, not me, who claimed that.
shanedk 1 month ago
Hmm, there are too few rich people (REALLY rich) and they know how to evade paying those taxes so yeah, don't think it would help much. But i'd like to know what makes the nordic economic model work that well. They have the highest taxes there, with the tax burden on a common person of up to 50%. And you know how well everything works there, they have many public employees there, interestingly with incredibly low rates of corruption. Do you know more about that, could you comment on it maybe?
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n The Nordic model operates on oil exports that amount to upwards of $12K to $15K infused into the economy for every man, woman and child. Their living standard is built on this, not its economic system.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n "Hmm, there are too few rich people (REALLY rich) and they know how to evade paying those taxes"
Yeah, here's how well they evade: flicDOTkr/p/aw54Q1
Nordic countries rank as high or higher than the US on the Economic Freedom Index.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Ohh, i really don't know what that flicDOT meant, didn't get any results for it :(
Yes, the nordic countries have really big government but still rank really high on the economic freedom index, plus the people there live in very good conditions. Is something different about their government?
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n
"Ohh, i really don't know what that flicDOT meant, didn't get any results for it."
Copy and paste the whole URL into the Address bar (where the name of the website is) Replace the "DOT" with a "."
I just tried it: it works fine for me.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n Yes: their rank on the EFI means that their government doesn't meddle in the economy as much as ours.
shanedk 1 month ago
Forget about a tax hike on the 1%
Just make them pay THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!
Last year GE payed $0.00 in taxes, many other wealthy use loop holes and tax havens.
I give 20% of my pay to Uncle Sam, Mitt Romney gives 15% WTF!?
gonyea12 1 month ago
@gonyea12 Since the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes (and, on the whole, the highest percentage - IRS) even though savings (which is economically disastrous to tax at all) are taxed at a lower rate, your premise is absurd. And since NO corporation EVER pays taxes (as they are a cost of doing business passed on to consumers) the GE example doesn't help your case in the least either.
The facts are entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@gonyea12 "Just make them pay THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!"
Sigh...flicDOTkr/p/aw54Q1
shanedk 1 month ago
@gonyea12
Do you suppose the no-tax GE status had anything to do with the fact that GE paid huge amounts of money to all politicians? Including Obama, that is?
The top 10% already pay for 68% of tax burden of the state. By that, the top 10% already pay 6.8 times higher than a fair share. To ask for more in an already unfair situation is nothing short of robbery. And if that is okay with you, then KNOW that you are getting into a fight that you cannot win. You got vote, they got money
utubehayter 1 month ago
What about Ida Tarbell? I know standard oil lowered the price of oil, and that her father was put out of business by Rockefeller.
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 Her father was put out of business because he kept trying to profiteer through corporatism instead of competing properly.
Standard Oil lowering oil prices is a GOOD thing--to everyone except the competition and their crony politicians.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
And in many ways he was a good thing for his competition too.
I recall you pointing out that despite many painting his buying out (or whatever the proper term for it is) of his competition, it was something they actually looked forward to and even prayed for at night, because (IIRC) it meant vast amounts of wealth given to them in exchange for their business. It was even to the point where they were starting them up just hoping Rockefeller would find out and buy them.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Yeah, but all the Pennsylvania Oil barons--of whom Ida Tarbell's father was one--could see is lost profits.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
In other words, people accuse Rockefeller of having a monopoly in Standard Oil when in reality, it was some of his competitors (e.g. Pennsylvania Oil barons) who had the monopolies via government. Switching of the one who helped with the one who hurt. Oh GovCo, why am I not surprised anymore?
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Well, an oligopoly, at any rate. But yes, they were acting at the behest of the oil barons, NOT the consumers.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Oops. My bad. That should have read "cartel," but the point still stands, yeah.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@interstate317
Lots of people fail in the market, because they can't provide as good, as cheap or as desirable a product as their competition. It does not that mean that their sons and daughters get the right to tarnish the image of a honest businessman. Now, if the businessman WAS dishonest, that is a different thing. But no one is accusing Rockefeller of cheating on a contract or defrauding them of their savings.
utubehayter 1 month ago
It's not that we should make the rich pay more, just give them fewer cuts. Rescind their tax breaks, This doesn't INCREASE their tax, just reduces their tax benefits. It isn't really the same thing.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Actually, it's EXACTLY the same thing. And as I've shown, they already pay more as a percentage of income AFTER all of those benefits.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
Are you insane or just bad at mathematics? If someone is robbed of X amount, then for some reason robbed of X-1 the next time around - that does not mean the robber gave his victim a "robbery benefit".
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter You may want to read what I wrote again. I never said anything even remotely close to what you glean from it. I can't even begin to describe how absolutely wrong you are in your perception of what I said.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
Ok, I think I was not clear. Let me clear. You are wrong. A tax break is NOT a tax benefit. It is lower tax rate. You cannot have a tax-benefit until you have a effectively negative tax rate (i.e. you get more out of the tax pool, than you pay in.. which is the case for govt workers, Govt contractors).
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter And the lower 40% of income earners, according to the CBO.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Not all 40%. They get govt provisions for no charge... it maybe that the provisions themselves aren't benefits. Some of the provisions are goods (in a very limited and narrow sense), but many are bads.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter "Not all 40%."
As a whole, they do. More money is paid to those income earners than is collected from them in revenues.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Are you sure? I would not count the per-head govt expenditure share as money being paid to them. That would be bad measure of cost-benefit.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter No, I'm talking about money that goes directly back to them on their tax returns, like the EIC.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Can EIC exceed the tax paid by a person? hmm.. this is not good.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter It can and does.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Eliminate deductions by businesses and every single business becomes unprofitable over night. How about naming actual specific "tax breaks" and I can show you the consequences of that.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules I never said ELIMINATE tax breaks, I said reduce them. I'm well aware of the consequences
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Consequences like low profit high turnover businesses like Grocery stores become unprofitable. The fact that your all butt hurt because some people make more money than you is a bad reason to cause a famine.
But then looking at your user name it shouldn't be surprising.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
If I pull 1 beer out of 6 pack, did I eliminate the 6th beer or did I reduce the total number of beers by 1? (answer, doesn't matter, it still means the same thing)
At this point, you are stuck with shaping language to put a nice face on a bad idea. Better come to the correct side before you start living in the world of lingual gymnastics as most new-age(ing) lefties do.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter What is with all you retards being unable to disseminate what I actually said, It's right there. I said nothing like this.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole You said that eliminating a tax reduction was not the same thing as raising taxes, when it very clearly is.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk No, it's not, unless you are a magical time traveller. Corrupt politicians gave a severe tax cut to the wealthy TOO severe. Only now are we in a position to remove those cuts and put it to a better level, Yes they deserve cuts because keeping it the same % as everyone else is too much. However, to say that reducing it has no effect on the budget is just creaming statistics. Take into account that the more money the govt gets, the more they'll throw it at things already.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@shanedk Reducing the tax cuts by a small amount will help significantly revitalizing otherwise dead government services. here you are saying that it will do nothing, You are trying to say cutting some tax cuts is like ADDING taxes, when the tax cuts should not have been so steep to begin with, It's like a banker giving you an extra 20 accidentally, then realizes it before you walk away. that 20 is taken from your account.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
"Reducing the tax cuts by a small amount will help significantly revitalizing otherwise dead government services. "
And this is good... how?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "Reducing the tax cuts by a small amount will help significantly revitalizing otherwise dead government services."
At what cost?
"here you are saying that it will do nothing"
No, I'm saying it will hurt more than it helps. Why do you think economists of every school (except the ones working for politicians, natch) say it's a bad idea to raise taxes during a recession?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Note how LegendaryAsshole hasn't even said a thing about the idea of reducing spending (at least that I bothered to read). Or how the idea of reducing gov't spending hurting us would be a broken window fallacy.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd modifying budgets and keeping a fine tooth on the treasury is most certainly an important step. But the discussion was tax cuts and what can be defined as tax increase
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@vspqbd modifying budgets and keeping a fine tooth on the treasury is most certainly an important step. But the discussion was tax cuts and what can be defined as tax increase
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Now you are going completely obverboard making baseless and purely subjective claims that 1) reducing the tax cuts a small amount would be beneficial, b) dead government services can or should be "revitalized", 3) and the tax cuts should not have been so "steep" to begin with". NONE of those points are factual and all are easily argued otherwise. The notion that it was "accidental" was not merely subjective, but flatly absurd.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
What is with all you retards being unable to understand what the term "disseminate" means?
Say I force you to carry 60 lbs on your back. Some time later, I provide you a break, on 10lbs, so now you need to carry only 50. Now, If I remove that break I gave you, you have to carry 60 lbs again.
Clearly removing that break, is totally different than reimposing the 60 lbs carry rule. Right? Even though in both cases you have to carry 60 lbs.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter You're right, I was looking for another word. Let's say everyone pays 5% and you make far more than anyone else. That 5% means the government gets a whole shit load more from you than anyone else. Government cuts that down a bit to make it a little more fair for you. Now imagine some IDIOT cuts it too far. Great for you, bad for everyone else. You still pay more in taxes overall, sure. but putting taxes back up to an appropriate level while still keeping it lower....
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
Your initial assumption is wrong. The higher income brackets already pay far more in percentage than lower ones, EVEN after the tax cuts. Thus it is using a false premise to argue that it is a "tax-benefit" EVEN if it is argued that lower tax revenue is actually good thing. FYI, higher tax-revenues is a bad thing for EVERYONE.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
*correction*
"lower tax revenue is actually good thing"
should be
"higher tax revenue is actually a good thing"
utubehayter 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "Government cuts that down a bit to make it a little more fair for you."
No, they don't, as I've ALREADY SHOWN YOU: the rich pay MORE as a percentage of their income than others do.
So at this point I can only conclude you're a liar.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Again, you cannot defend the argument that "reducing tax cuts =/= raising taxes" and, so, attempt to make another argument entirely (that the tax cuts were too high) which a) has nothing to do with the point being made and b) is an entirely subjective opinion with no economic basis. Tax cuts harm NO ONE; they are not "bad for everyone else". Excessive spending on the other hand...
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom the very statement I made defends itself when defined. Reducing tax cuts doesn't actually raise the tax rate. That means it doesnt raise taxes. Means businesses and wealthy pay more, sure. But that does not immediately classify it as raising taxes. fuck me, your heads are empty
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Actually, all you've done is obliterate your own position once again. Reducing tax RATE cuts, which is the case here, by definition, raises the tax rate. Reducing ANY kind of tax cut, may not affect the tax RATE (albeit it would in the case we are addressing) but, again, by definition, raises taxes.
Are you going out of your way to demonstrate a complete lack of reasoning skills or is that just a happy accident?
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "Reducing tax cuts doesn't actually raise the tax rate. That means it doesnt raise taxes."
People end up giving more of their dollars to the government, so it DOES RAISE TAXES. Raising taxes means people giving more dollars to government. Your conflation of that with the tax RATE is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit the Republicans use to make it LOOK as if they've lowered taxes when they haven't.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
LOL! You are a funny guy. It would be far more honest if you had simply cried and thrown a tantrum.. demanding the wealth that successful businesses and wealthy people have.
Gime! Gime! Gime! That is all this is. No need for mental gymnastics. No need to play around with what terms mean "by any standard".. Oh, and killing Jews is not killing at all. Because not everyone is being killed...just the Jews? Such is the bizzare logic of greedy people.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
I know, right? Of course, whenever one of these statists are called greedy, they'll always retort with, "No, I'm not! I don't want the wealth for myself, only for the poor/sick/etc!"
vspqbd 1 month ago
@utubehayter Are you really calling apples oranges here? Quite the leap to go from money to murder. Shows where your mind is. Thanks for proving my point.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Logic is universal. The only point he proved is how invalid yours is.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk So biased, and so like the religious who see mistakes and call it truth. I have well explained my side, which has not been refuted but for others screaming "no!" You can't phrase how I'm wrong, because I'm correct. By the way. Your statement that logic is universal... is your biggest fuck up yet. Logic is not universal, it evolves as our understanding and education does. NOTHING is all encompassing. Just stop talking, if you can't make an argument. Just stop. Sit down.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole
"You can't phrase how I'm wrong"
I ...JUST ...did that! Oh! the irony!
utubehayter 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "I have well explained my side, which has not been refuted "
It absolutely HAS been refuted--logically, factually, and every other way! You're just behaving like a creationist now.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "You can't phrase how I'm wrong"
I love this! It's not that you aren't full of shit, it's that someone used the wrong syntax in explaining why your full of shit.
"Logic is not universal, it evolves as our understanding and education does"
So your lack of education makes your statement somehow not fallacious. Awesome.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@shanedk
Logic its not always real...
Just like in physics, especially old linear greek logic dosent always lead to the correct answer.
Alexsuper15 1 month ago
@Alexsuper15 Beautiful. Why don't you just go and join up with the Law of Attraction nutbars?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You scoff, but one of these days by wishing really hard I'll build a perpetual motion machine and make electricity free. I will manifest this reality.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Good luck. I've been wishing really hard the Religious Right would vanish forever and it hasn't worked yet...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk In Colorado we plan on having a course taught at Patriot University claiming gravity is only a theory and leading them all off of a cliff at some point in the near future.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules
Seriously?
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Are you referring to the perpetual motion machine or the leading the Religious Right off of a cliff?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules
I was referring to this statement: "In Colorado we plan on having a course taught at Patriot University claiming gravity is only a theory and leading them all off of a cliff at some point in the near future."
Actually, reading it now, I just remembered that Patriot University was a right wing religious diploma Mill (Kent Hovind, anyone?). So it would be sarcastic. My bad.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@shanedk Isn't the Law of Attraction called Gravity? Isn't there a ton and a half of evidence for it? J/K!
dj092768 1 month ago
@utubehayter ...Does not mean you are raising the taxes. Not by any standards. Reducing tax cuts =/= raising taxes.
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "Reducing tax cuts =/= raising taxes."
Um, yes, it is! -(-1) = +1!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You are looking at it as a value, you can't do that that's a flawed way of thinking. Raising taxes is applied to all. reducing tax cuts isn't raising taxes because raising taxes means everyone gets hit. That isn't the case at all. So if only a few are getting hit, IT IS NOT A TAX INCREASE! Not by any standard
LegendaryAsshole 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole Here, again, you do not get to (outrageously) redefine terms in order to make (specious) points. Nothing about the concept of "raising taxes" implies ANYTHING about "everyone get[ting] hit". Not by any standard is something not a tax increase because "only a few are getting hit".
The nature of that position can only fall into two categories: incompetent or dishonest.
Choose.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "You are looking at it as a value, you can't do that"
I can't look at the number of dollars paid to the government as a value???
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole "So if only a few are getting hit, IT IS NOT A TAX INCREASE! Not by any standard"
So there's NO SUCH THING as "raising taxes on x group." Meaning there's no such thing as "raising taxes on the rich." You just defeated your own argument!
Moron.
shanedk 1 month ago
@LegendaryAsshole You said: "It's not that we should make the rich pay more, just give them fewer cuts. Rescind their tax breaks, This doesn't INCREASE their tax, just reduces their tax benefits. It isn't really the same thing." The position is logically incoherent. By definition, "removing cuts" means "mak[ing] the rich pay more" and "[r]escind[ing] ... tax breaks ... INCREASE[S] their tax". You are self-contradictory. It cannot be rationally argued that they are not "the same thing".
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
I can't believe what I just read ("Meat inspection: theory and practice" by Gariel Kolko). Turns out that the large meatpackers had their products banned from europe in the 1880's and they heavily lobbyied congress to step in and regulate them (to get a seal of approval). There was a tremendous amount of controversy when the 1906 bill passed, because it was paid for by the government even though it GREATLY benefited the large meatpackers. Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting quote (cont'd)
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 "in any movement it is impossible to
avoid having some people go with you temporarily whose reasons are different
from yours and may be very bad indeed. Thus in the beef packing
business I found that Sinclair was of real use. I have an utter contempt for
him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the
things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there
was only a basis of truth."
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 In other words, Roosevelt wanted this legislation so Meat Packers could export their meat to Europe, Roosevelt hated how Sinclaire LIED about how badly the meat was prepared, hurting the exports further, but at least used the book to get the bill passed.
Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Denmark banned American pork from 1883 until 1892, after Congress passed the Meat inspection act of 1891, which they heavily favored.
Incredible how history is rewritten to favor the gov't.
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 Absolutely! See what you learn when you do your own research?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk and yet the history books would have us believe that congress misinterpreted the point of the jungle to pass food regulations instead of labor. One must sit back and ponder to oneself why congress couldn't just ask Upton about the purpose of his book. They ignore that "Muckrakers" was a derogatory claim because they were known for being liars.
100 years from now, Star Magazine will be considered fantastic journalism for digging up dirt on celebrities.
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317
Should a person in the europe during middle ages, that was taught in Catholic school that the Vatican was "the benign protector of the poor and enemies of SINS and VICE" - believe these things as objective facts?
Then how come you and many others like you are so inclined to believe the state school, when they teach you that "the state is the benign protector of the poor or enemies of 'THE RICH''?
Why wouldn't they lie, if you are eager to believe them?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter I think the big motivator is that its easy to see how someone could lie to you if it makes them rich. But people think "the government is a non-profit organization, its only goal is too protect in serve it has no motive to lie."
I am glad you brought up religion, it is a good analogy.
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317
Note that it is also easy to see that someone could lie to you if it makes them powerful at your expense. Not everything is about money.. even money isn't about money, but about (purchasing) power. Those that fail to see that the state's primary objective is to have power over lives of good productive people.... will continue to miss the proverbial boat.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Right. If the poor man is a priest, or a skilled con artist, he can end up milking the rich man for everything he has, by pretending it's necessary to save his soul, or that whatever con he's running is worth it.
shanedk 1 month ago
shuld you rich more? atleast tax them, cos they practicaly dont pay any. yes, companys practicaly dont pay tax bechose of all the loops.
gethsoftware 1 month ago
@gethsoftware "atleast tax them, cos they practicaly dont pay any."
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! flicDOTkr/p/aw54Q1
shanedk 1 month ago
"Why do libertarians reject mainstream economics?" -- enthalpay's video response.
For the same reason we reject creationism. Also, implied argument from authority + argument from popularity in that video title.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd That and for some reason these statists claim their ideas are "mainstream" when they reject much of beginning macroeconomics. They can't draw a supply and demand graph, and don't understand what stagflation even was, but they'll lecture everyone else on what mainstream economics is.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@vspqbd I suppose I'm interested to know why you reject creationism. I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics. Austrian economists generally use an unscientific approach to economics called praxeology which rejects empirical data in favor of logical deduction. I suspect the reason why you reject mainstream economics is not the same as the reason why you reject creationism, but because you use a different approach.
enthalpay 1 month ago
@enthalpay "but I see evidence to support mainstream economics"
Then present it. You can start with the Phillips Curve--and explain why so many Nobel prizes have gone to economists who've shown it's a load of bunk!
"Austrian economists generally use an unscientific approach...which rejects empirical data..."
Long-debunked garbage. Why don't you go research what it REALLY says, instead of what its detractors say abou tit?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
enthalpay is a funny guy, he thinks Austrian econ predicts net investment will be negative during recessions. Ofcourse he can't show any source for this being an Austrian prediction.. which is why it is even more hilarious. Talk about evidence.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@enthalpay "I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics."
I see no evidence that what you claim is main stream economics is even mainstream.
"Austrian economists generally use an unscientific approach to economics called praxeology which rejects empirical data in favor of logical deduction."
The two are not mutually exclusive. Most people use deduction and empiricism like the two blades of a scissors.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@enthalpay "I reject creationism because there is no evidence to support it, but I see evidence to support mainstream economics."
I reject creationism not because of a lack of evidence, but because of direct evidence that it is false. Just like I reject the idea that inflation increases employment because stagflation in the 70's showed me empirically that the idea is false.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
corperations dont pay any taxs. they make the customers pay the tax, while their profits stay the same. you need to make them pay while not raisintg prices.
solomonkane23 1 month ago
@solomonkane23
BOGUS!
Even if it were true, because corporations are fictional entities created by government, it would be an argument against, not for, government.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@solomonkane23 They don't "make" customers pay the tax. ALL costs get passed on to the consumer. That's how it works!
And it LESSENS their profits because the higher price reduces sales. The supply curve is shifted to the left. Basic economics.
shanedk 1 month ago
"You say too many regulations led to this mess."
Is that the ONLY thing johnrainrules is arguing? Or are you not paying attention?
"They would have less incentive to do so in the absence of regulation."
Right, because if government does not regulate.. then there are no regulations!!! OMG!
utubehayter 1 month ago
Why did you accuse CappitranoBellephant of racism? That's utter bullshit. I know him, and he's the least racist person I know. You're an intellectually bankrupt coward who can't stand dissenting opinions. You want to ban him because you can't put up a fight? Fine. But leave his comment up so that everyone can see the context.
Oh, that's right, you won't. Because like I said, you're just a coward and an ideologue.
cyborgninja13 1 month ago
@cyborgninja13
Reread Shane's comment.
He was blocked for "false accusations of racism".
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd I know, Einstein. I can read. So what was the "false accusation"? Since shanedk removed the comment, no one knows what it is. And CappitranoBellephant never accused anyone of racism, he merely said that mutual aid societies could refuse services to people based on ideological grounds, and that one of the criticisms lodged against societies is that they were extremely racist and weren't aiding African Americans. Which is a valid criticism, and is based on historical fact.
cyborgninja13 1 month ago
@cyborgninja13
"I know, Einstein. I can read."
Apparently not, as you said replaced "false accusation of racism" with "accuse [Guy's name here] of racism."
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd And apparently you can't read either. In my original comment I asked WHY he was accused of false accusations of racism, not what he was banned for.
cyborgninja13 1 month ago
@cyborgninja13
"And apparently you can't read either."
Bullshit.
I quoted you directly, you backpedaling fucktard.
Enjoy your ban and go wallow with the creationists: your peers and your betters.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd "False accusations of racism," is a pretty serious charge, and is open to interpretation. If shanedk is so confident of his BS claim, then he should have left the comment up so that everyone can see what was said.
cyborgninja13 1 month ago
@cyborgninja13 We've been down that road before. But I've left yours in. You made an accusation of racism, which was FALSE, and you were BLOCKED.
This is a zero tolerance policy. Lately people have tried to convince me I should be more lenient here; when I've tried it's only caused more trouble and I ended up regretting it.
shanedk 1 month ago
"that one of the criticisms lodged against societies is that they were extremely racist and weren't aiding African Americans"
And that is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE--in fact, many of them were run SPECIFICALLY by and for African-Americans. It is NOT valid, NOT based on fact (maybe SOME of them were, but NOT all), and IS a false accusation of racism, which you yourself have just repeated and has earned you a block too, asshole!
shanedk 1 month ago
CappitranoBellephant has been blocked for false accusations of racism.
shanedk 1 month ago
Profits are to business what happiness is to a person.
It tells them they are doing it right
To tax profits is to deny happiness.
adhocrat1 1 month ago
@raptor302 what are you arguing with @shanedk?
abeismain 1 month ago
@abeismain Whether or not the Bush tax cuts should expire. Since they have cost the govt $1 trillion in lost revenue, were set to expire in 2010, extended erroneously, and are set to expire again in 2012, I say let them go. They had these extensions built in for a reason: budget-wise they are not 'paid for', meaning Congress did not set aside a way to offset this revenue loss. Obama wants to keep the tax cuts for income brackets under $250,000, but republicans want them all to stay.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 "Since they have cost the govt $1 trillion in lost revenue"
You STILL have not supported this with anything other than pseudoscientific claptrap.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Well then you're just not bothering to look. I assume you have access to google? Different think tanks (like your Heritage Foundation) will calculate that different ways, but most estimates are at least $1 trillion over ten years. Extending the bush tax cuts through 2020 would add $2.7 trillion to the deficit. You know, the thing you want us to get rid of. That's the CBO talking, not me.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 And how did they account for the detrimental effects to the economy of additional taxation? What would that $1 trillion in lost productivity have meant for both individual and corporate income tax revenues?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Yes
politifact. com/ohio/statements/2011/apr/29/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-says-bush-tax-cuts-caused-subs/
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Well if Dennis Kucinich said it. Also your article claims that they cost 1 trillion in ten years. The actual deficit in the last ten years was 7.3 trillion. Spending accounts for a lot more than the drop in the bucket a tax increase would create. And tax cuts during Reagan and Kennedy administrations raised revenue.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Yes, $1 trillion out of that 7 was from the tax cuts (insert wars, rebuilding of New Orleans, prescription drug plan here). And they will cost $2.7 trillion more through 2020. I'll ask you again: are you interested in fixing the deficit or not? If not, by all means keep the tax cuts. We should call this segement "attention-deficit disorder".
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Repeating the $2.7 trillion canard as if it was not from a demonstrably discredited source hardly helps your credibility. That the CBO is constrained from considering any of the significant factors is a widely known and understood fact.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom
Why wont you trust the good regulators in DC to do the necessary borrow and spend? What are you some sort of hater of unionized $62 per hour "poor" workers and the poor?!!
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Do NOT conflate the interests of unionized workers and the poor!!!!! Unions have cost the economy more than $50 TRILLION by conservative estimates (Vedder & Gallaway). And inflated union wages come at the expense of wages elsewhere (the compensation pool as a percentage of the economy has stayed stable). Think how many poor people could have been employed with those resources.
Leaving ideas like that around Lefties is like leaving viable RPGs around gang members.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom
(I was being sarcastic!)
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter I know - so was I!
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom Who exactly has discredited the CBO's estimates? Funny how I'm the one posting all the links while you act as the anecdotal pope of what you think is "fact". I gave you sources. Give me yours. And what school do you teach at? Remind me to stay away and go to an institute that is actually accredited.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302
Chicago school of economics isn't actually accredited? Oh wait. Those are right wingers.. so they can't really be saying ANYTHING true.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Raptor302 THE CBO ITSELF - it is a matter of public record that the CBO estimates of EVERYTHING are based upon ONLY the direct impact. NO economic effects of any kind, no matter how well established can be considered in their calculations. That would be DYNAMIC SCORING as used by economists all the time to estimate REAL impacts. Actually, all you've done is passingly reference Wikipedia. I've mentioned sources and suggested you check your own.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom I used wikipedia for Upton Sinclair since you claim that he did no research. Every source I've come across says the same thing: 7 weeks in a meat packer plant. Don't mix our two arguments.
So if the CBO bases the impact assessment on policy alone, then it appears the burden of proof is on you to prove that these tax cuts have stimulative effects beyond $2.7 trillion. Is that a bet you are willing to make?
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Actually, I thought you were referring to the economic positions (which are not controversial). I'll find the link - you might also note that the same Wikipedia article makes clear the inaccuracy of Sinclairs claims.
If you want to read about the stimulative effects of tax cuts read ANY economics text. Read Keynes' "General Theory". There are numerous studies (do a google search) - all that is at issue is HOW MUCH they are stimulative.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom "all that is at issue is HOW MUCH they are stimulative."
Right. Are they stimulative enough to pay for themselves? Are they stimulative enough to offset the $2.7 trillion? When even the best sources are saying less than a 25% return, that doesn't sound worth it. Sounds like the right wing is ready to throw the country under the bus again, just like it did during the debt ceiling debacle.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302
Ofcourse, the right wing is ready to throw the country under the bus by not driving away everyone that has wealth. The left wing better take charge raise taxes and drive away the rest of the money from the US to the developing world. Because THAT would save everyone. We are the 99% (of the zombies who don't understand economics or taxation).
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Where exactly would we drive people away to? We are one of the least taxed modern nations on earth.
economix. blogs. nytimes. com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302
Do you know how much you pay in China? Estonia? Latvia? Bulgaria? Czech Republic? Botswana? How about Australia? Chile? Argentina? All of that and I just need Switzerland or Luxembourg to put all the super rich people and make the "tax to rich" dreams of idiots come to the ground.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Raptor302 You ARE kidding, right? With an effective tax burden of 62% and the highest corporate income tax rate on the PLANET???
shanedk 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Bruce Bartlett is a nice enough guy, but he's an historian, not an economist and his argument is entirely fallacious. There are two problems with it. First he overlooks the fact that taxation as a percentage of GDP falls during an economic downturn - this is why that measure is not used by economists. Second, every economist will tell you that what matters is the MARGINAL tax rate (which is the statutory, NOT effective rate) because its the last dollar taxed that matters.
Oops.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom That makes absolutely no sense. The effective rate is what they are actually paying after offsets.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Again, all you demonstrate is complete ignorance of even the most basic economics. Literally EVERY economist understands that what determines behavior (and ultimately economic results) is what occurs at the margin. The last dollar subject to taxation - under the statutory rate - determines the economic outcome. This makes no sense to you because you are ignorant of the concepts under discussion.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom For a person who makes $85,000 a year and is taxed at 28% for his highest bracket, he would pay $17,500. But because of the way its stacked, that only amounts to 20.5% which is his effective rate. NOBODY pays the percentage of their income listed in the statutory rate. Certainly not wealthy folks with a bunch tricks up their sleeves.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302 Ahem: flicDOTkr/p/aw54Q1
shanedk 1 month ago
@Raptor302
Oh really? So the 30%+ that is taken out of my paycheck every month is just fiction of my mind? And I am not even in that high a bracket! Jeez.. you state worshipers will never admit to the fact that your God is the problem.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter And that's not including Estate Tax, Gift Tax, Gift Tax, Bequest Tax, Expatriate Tax, Employment Insurance Tax, Railroad Retirement Tax, Employee Tax, Unemployment Tax, Railroad Unemployment Repayment Tax, Manufacturer Excise Tax, Retail Excise Tax, Facilities and Services Tax, Foreign Insurer Tax, Gambling Tax, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Water Transportation Tax, Commercial Vehicle Tax, Petroleum Tax, Environmental Chemical Tax, Ozone-Depleting Chemicals Tax,...
shanedk 1 month ago
...Imported Substance Tax, Occupational Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Real Estate Investment Tax, Golden Parachute Tax, Group Health Plan Tax, Alcohol Taxes, Tobacco and Tobacco Products Tax, Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms Tax, Tax on Generation-Skipping Transfers, Greenmail Tax, Structured Settlement Tax, Self-Employment Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, Non-Petroleum Energy Tax, and, of course, the Spanish-American War Tax.
shanedk 1 month ago
@utubehayter Your talking about Fed tax alone, right? You would need to make over $174,000 a year before you reached that point, and even then only the money you made over $174,000 would be taxed at that rate. So your effective rate would be closer to 24% or $43,000. This leaves you with $131,000, you poor down trodden victim. Pardon me while I summon the tears.
Raptor302 1 month ago
@Raptor302
No, I am not talking about Federal income tax alone.. That was something you and Shane assumed. You and your God, both are immoral. And I wish you would meet your own God, which is inevitable, as fueled by taxes, it grows stronger everyday.. weilding the gun, the riot stick and the cage. I live to see the day when the chickens will come home to roost, upon every supporter of the state.. which apparently isn't that far as the Occupy morons found out.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Raptor302 You're not including payroll tax with that, are you?
shanedk 1 month ago
@Raptor302 You continue to demonst