Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, these people are idots. I'm convinced. Sad commentary on our colleges and universities. I went to Art School and some of these things are plain as day to me. These people are sooooo confused. I'm totally in shock.
Thank God we home schooled our kids. I would put them up against these lame brains in a debate any day of the week, and I know my daughters would demolish their arguments!
I wonder what rational arguments you even have that can logically counter any of the liberals arguments. Name calling and poor spelling. Lots of evidentiary support there.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 08-19-2008 at 05:51 PM..
Yes, one shouldn't name-call in a rational debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
and poor spelling.
Nor should they nit-pick on spelling... That's just as bad as name-calling, isn't it? Shouldn't you be concerning yourself with your opponent's argument, instead of their typos?
Perhaps it's because people have to give up too much of their income to the government...
Perhaps it's merely because private charity never has been and never will be sufficient to meet social needs. Do you know what the word "swamped" means in this context? How about the words "tax deduction"? We don't make people pay taxes on their charitable contributions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
And the government is completely transparent.
Does the Freedom of Information Act apply to any of your private sector entities? From your own private sector experience, what sorts of things might we be able to learn more about if it did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Ok, show me something that the government has done on a large scale that was done more efficiently than the private sector could have done. I can think of one or two examples, but that's it. I'd like to see what you come up with.
We could start with Congress. Where else can you find CEO types working for $217,400 per annum or less? Just picture that place in private hands. You thought Abramoff was bad??? How about the federal judiciary? Good place to put the profit motive into operation, there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Yes, I do believe that my blanket statement was completely accurate. You're entitled to disagree.
How could one do anything but? Let's just wind the clock back to the pre-depression era. There were indeed a lot of private donations back then, and one of the things most frequently donated was unwanted babies. Tucked into a little basket and then left on the doorstep of churches, orphanages, fire houses, what have you. Maybe there would be a little note tucked inside...Please take care of my baby. I can't. Go back and read some on that era. See how well this flowing stream of private charity that you speak so confidently of was able to keep up with that one problem alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Translation: Don't take it so personally. My fellow liberals and I are forcing you to contribute the money you earned for our pet projects in social welfare and wealth redistribution.
You don't support our form of representative democracy, then? You're more like Bush? If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. Why do you hate America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
There it is. I was waiting for that. Demonize your opponent - that always works. If I don't want to be overtaxed, then I must want little old ladies to die of starvation. Good job.
I'm not surprised that you'd be expecting it. Sort of like expecting a speeding ticket when you're doing 80 in a 25. Little old ladies, sick children, wounded veterans...you'd like to hang all of them out to dry because the government isn't required to help any of them in your pseudo-compassionate world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online
Another non-answer. Which activities do you see as required by this document? Hmmm?
Last edited by saganista; 08-19-2008 at 08:22 PM..
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
No you have it wrong.
You are speaking of the Laffer curve.
Two things
1) It barely works at all "in theory". Only a small bump in revenue.
2) Here's the funny part. In order to recoup the loss in revenue, you must raise rates after the stimulus has taken effect. Of course, wingers don't do this part of the equation. Hence the run historic deficits each time the get in office and a Democrat must come in and clean up their sht.
I can't believe the nerve of these guys to oppose raising taxes when they are the biggest deadbeats in the history of Mankind.
Tax cuts are the most efficient way to kick a slow econoimy into higher gear. I would never say they are not good IF they are targeted at the people who will actually go out and spend the money. Most rich people will not go out and spend the money because they already have what they want and need. But the middle class will. And a tax cut is fast- pass it today and it shows up as a "raise" in the worker's next paycheck. But it is a tool that should be used when the economy is slow or in recession. Bush took over in a good economy. There was no reason for a tax cut.
Available income????? What, exactly, does that mean???? There is not some pool of available income! Are you totally stupid, or what? That is a positively ridiculous and ignorant statement. A "share of all available income"????? Holy cow. People are more ignorant than I thought. Please explain how you come up with this concept. What exactly does that mean? Is this some kind of new economics? Do you mean to tell me that there is only so much to go around? Let me be clear here, and you listen and listen well: Wealth is created. One's earnings do not result in an other's loss. How possibly could that be? OMG, we have complete ignorance and stupidity on the march! Where on earth did you go to school to get such an asinine notion?
I went to school at a variety of places that I suspect you could not have gotten into. But let us engage in a brief bit of calculus. It may be true that the area under a curve is infinite and unbounded, but the area under any discrete interval of that curve is always finite. You are so unidimensional in your thinking that you don't recognize even the box that you are supposed to be thinking outside of. National income may not be limited over the continuum of time, but within any given year, there is a finite amount of such income produced and therefore available to be divided up. In 2006, it was $11,795.7 billion. In 2007, it was $12,270.9 billion. Those totals comprised the available income in those years. There just wasn't any more of it to be had at those times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The above is utter, unadulterated nonsense! What in the world does that gibberish mean? I have never in my life seen anybody so able to string words together that mean absolutely nothing, like those above. You are to be congratulated!
Perhaps I could have been more clear. I don't think it would have mattered, though.
86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners, up from 84% in 2000.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of income taxes, up 2% from 2000.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe...
Like yours, statements with no apparent implications. If you want there to be implications, you will need to describe what those are and how they in fact proceed from the data observed.
Perhaps it's merely because private charity never has been and never will be sufficient to meet social needs.
Then so be it. Perhaps more people would demonstrate a higher level of personal responsibility if their "safety net" weren't large enough to cover Lake Superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
We don't make people pay taxes on their charitable contributions.
Nor should we. You disagree? People would have less to give, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Does the Freedom of Information Act apply to any of your private sector entities? From your own private sector experience, what sorts of things might we be able to learn more about if it did?
Go ahead and write your FOIA letter requesting any and all information about the projects taking place at the Groom Lake facility, or the contracts given to Skunkworks. Let me know how that goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
We could start with Congress. Where else can you find CEO types working for $217,400 per annum or less? Just picture that place in private hands. You thought Abramoff was bad??? How about the federal judiciary? Good place to put the profit motive into operation, there?
You completely, totally missed the point there. Woosh - right over your head... If you'll go back and read my posts, you'll find that I have never suggested that the government be run by private entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
You don't support our form of representative democracy, then? Blah blah blah ...
I don't like the politics of a very loud and vocal group of crybabies and now I don't like democracy? Keeping with your straw man tactics, I see. Another good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I'm not surprised that you'd be expecting it. Sort of like expecting a speeding ticket when you're doing 80 in a 25. Little old ladies, sick children, wounded veterans...you'd like to hang all of them out to dry because the government isn't required to help any of them in your pseudo-compassionate world.
You got me. I'm an evil, horrible person. In fact, I'm going to confess something to you - I go out at night and steal babies (and black cats) to perform ritual sacrifices. Muahahaha...
Seriously, do you really believe that tripe you're saying? Do you honestly believe that because I feel that I'm being overtaxed and that our government spends OUR money foolishly, I'm a morally corrupt person who wants people to die? If you really believe that, then let me know now, because if that's the case, this conversation is over. If it's the case, then you're so wrapped up in your hatred (of me, apparently) that you're being totally irrational, and I don't deal with people who are totally irrational - it's a waste of my time.
Please...oh please...tell me this is meant as sarcasm? If this is serious it's the stuff that gives folks like saganista an excuse to go off on their wacky tangents.
Not all conservatives are religious and not all conservatives believe in the wacky stuff that the religious fundamentalists do.
Of course it was sarcasm. I was making fun of a Creationist poster who used the Bible as a reference.
I would also like to point out that me and Saganista don't exactly agree on much.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe...
Like yours, statements with no apparent implications. If you want there to be implications, you will need to describe what those are and how they in fact proceed from the data observed.
I went to school at a variety of places that I suspect you could not have gotten into.
Perhaps, but that doesn't matter. I don't need calculus, or an engineering degree, and the value of a liberal arts education today is in question, as most colleges today teach subjects that are of little use, and college graduates today are less educated than high school students were a few decades ago. But that's a whole other subject.
I also went to electronics school and worked many years in that field (and in those days, we had to know electronics ... we didn't simply swap out whole circuit boards), so I think I'm capable of understanding complex problems and concepts (I could explain to you the difference between a current operated divice such as a transistor, and a voltage operated divice such as a vaccum tube, and I know the physics of each).
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
But let us engage in a brief bit of calculus. It may be true that the area under a curve is infinite and unbounded, but the area under any discrete interval of that curve is always finite. You are so unidimensional in your thinking that you don't recognize even the box that you are supposed to be thinking outside of.
Really? I don't think your calculus has any bearing whatsoever on your prior statement about "available income". That statement was completely nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
National income may not be limited over the continuum of time, but within any given year, there is a finite amount of such income produced and therefore available to be divided up.
Divided up? Divided up by whom? National income (GNI) is not "available" to be divided up (except perhaps in a statistical sense, in an analysis of from where that income was derived — is that what you mean?).
But wealth creation by individuals (wealth gained either simply by the sweat of ones labor, or investment, or combination), whose income contributes to the GNI figure, is limited only by ones capabilities, amount of effort put forth, ambition, and to some degree education and so forth, and is not "available" to be divided up amongst others (though the government steals it and does just that).
Are we on the same page here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
In 2006, it was $11,795.7 billion. In 2007, it was $12,270.9 billion. Those totals comprised the available income in those years.
Yes, you are refering to the GNI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There just wasn't any more of it to be had at those times.
To be "had" by whom? The government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Perhaps I could have been more clear. I don't think it would have mattered, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
