If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Study: "tax cuts ≠ economic growth" GOP: "Grrr. Kill it." Dems: "Hey, where'd that study go? Let's republish it." And...scene {bow}   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 198
    More: Interesting, GOP, Sander Levin, tax cuts, Democrats, Orrin Hatch, personal incomes, R-UT, economic growths  
•       •       •

6823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 6:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-01 03:40:30 PM
You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!
 
2012-11-01 03:51:11 PM

MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!


You sound like one of those Comm'nist Muslins I keep hearing about...
 
2012-11-01 04:29:07 PM
Huzzah for the ease with which things are now fished out of the memory hole.
 
2012-11-01 05:22:38 PM
"This is a completely shocking attempt by the Republicans to censor a nonpartisan analysis because they didn't like the findings," a senior Democratic aide told TPM.

The only thing that is "completly shocking" about this is that someone finds this to be completly shocking.
 
2012-11-01 05:27:15 PM
Ahh, ultrapartisanship, where your side can never be wrong. Never admit defeat. Destroy anything that makes you look bad.
 
2012-11-01 05:29:00 PM
Those damn pesky facts and their liberal bias again.
 
2012-11-01 05:30:23 PM
I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?
 
2012-11-01 05:31:52 PM
I should probably make some popcorn before this thread hits the politics tab, huh?
 
2012-11-01 05:33:04 PM
Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls.
 
2012-11-01 05:41:54 PM

Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls a golden shower.



FTFY.
 
2012-11-01 05:42:32 PM

Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls.


What's this? A Pyroclastic Flow of Proletariat Prosperity?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-01 06:07:50 PM
Facts: the enemy of conservatives.
 
2012-11-01 06:24:48 PM
Party before principle/facts/reality/greater good!
 
2012-11-01 06:28:12 PM

GAT_00: Facts: the enemy of conservatives.


Add them to the list.
 
2012-11-01 06:32:43 PM
Marginal Propensity to Consume versus Marginal Propensity to Save is a Lieberul plot, not real economics.

-The GOP
 
2012-11-01 06:32:53 PM

Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls.


Only after the wealthy actually have all the wealth will there be any trickle down. maybe.
 
2012-11-01 06:40:51 PM
Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


The biggest issue the GOP seem to have with this study is the fact that it exists.
 
2012-11-01 06:53:51 PM
Shorter GOP: Your facts are inconvenient and insufficiently freedom-truthy.
 
2012-11-01 06:53:54 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

//oblig
 
2012-11-01 06:58:21 PM
Moody's did it first(well, earlier)

Summary: "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."
 
2012-11-01 06:58:54 PM

mrshowrules: Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


I'm gonna put that on a t-shirt

/Every reasonable person should memorize the salient facts in that paragraph and break them out every time some imbecile starts yelling about how Obama wants to hurt the "job creators"
//Rage
 
2012-11-01 06:59:37 PM
media.syracuse.com
TAX CUTS FOR THE TAX CUT GOD!!
 
2012-11-01 06:59:40 PM

meat0918: Moody's did it first(well, earlier)

Summary: "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."


Exactly. How many f*cking Big Macs and Plasma TVs can a 1%er consume?
 
2012-11-01 07:00:13 PM
Aren't they always screaming bloody murder over social engineering experiments? Can we put this one to rest now that we have 30+ years of conclusive evidence that shows it's a load of bunk?
 
2012-11-01 07:00:39 PM

jasimo: mrshowrules: Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


I'm gonna put that on a t-shirt

/Every reasonable person should memorize the salient facts in that paragraph and break them out every time some imbecile starts yelling about how Obama wants to hurt the "job creators"
//Rage


It seems to me that if the 1950s were so great to the GOP, why not start with the tax code of the 50s?
 
2012-11-01 07:00:55 PM

eraser8: I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?


There is no such thing as "truth" anymore. Hell, there really aren't even any facts, either. This will be the downfall of our nation. That's a fact.
 
2012-11-01 07:02:01 PM

eraser8: I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?


And Limbaugh keeps crowing about "liberal mainstream media".

/FOX is not a news center, it's a propaganda channel
 
2012-11-01 07:03:26 PM

TV's Vinnie: [media.syracuse.com image 380x255]
TAX CUTS FOR THE TAX CUT GOD!!


There are a lot of punchable faces out there, but this is one of the most punchable.
 
2012-11-01 07:03:40 PM
Turtle.
 
2012-11-01 07:03:45 PM

coeyagi: jasimo: mrshowrules: Funny how no one is refuting any of the facts or supporting information or event he conclusion of the study.

here it is: Link

Here is the conclusion it after all the stupid facts/data and such:

Concluding Remarks
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced-lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.


I'm gonna put that on a t-shirt

/Every reasonable person should memorize the salient facts in that paragraph and break them out every time some imbecile starts yelling about how Obama wants to hurt the "job creators"
//Rage

It seems to me t ...


something shorter would be simpler like: "The Bush Tax Cuts Sucked Donkey Dick".
 
2012-11-01 07:03:54 PM
Why doesn't the GOP do what they do with everything they disagree with? Call the author a liberal conspirator the likes of Hitler and Stalin and demand the author prove he doesn't molest children
 
2012-11-01 07:04:32 PM
Hmmmm, the people with the highest propensity to consume and drivers of the monetary momentum are struggling...I know! Let's let the people with the highest propensity to save SAVE EVEN MORE MONEY, thus in some bizarre Twilight Zone dimension, the momentum of money will increase!
 
2012-11-01 07:05:02 PM

MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!


If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.
 
2012-11-01 07:08:40 PM

Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


But these have not been ordinary years, and instead of the 1% have taken to re-investing their money in matresses.
 
2012-11-01 07:10:18 PM
You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.
 
2012-11-01 07:10:22 PM

Hunter_Worthington: If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


The fact that companies are sitting on over 5 trillion in liquid assets says that they're not investing it. They're putting the cash in a coffee can and burying it in the backyard.
 
2012-11-01 07:13:03 PM
At the in-laws a couple weeks ago I stated that there is little to no evidence that tax cuts have ever paid for themselves. Judging by the reaction, you would have sworn I kicked the dog and called my mother-in-law a see you next Tuesday.

/CSB
//Remind me to never inject reason into one of their political discussions again
 
2012-11-01 07:13:21 PM
I do not understand why NO ONE from Obama's campaign is hammering Romney on this. No one is saying the obvious,that lowering the upper income tax rate for the past 70 years hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy or the middle class.
 
2012-11-01 07:13:36 PM
Trickle down is an article of faith in the GOP (one could say that it is the central article of faith) - heresy must be stamped out.
 
2012-11-01 07:14:24 PM

Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


We're all gonna miss this disinformation campaign of yours after Tuesday.
 
2012-11-01 07:14:41 PM

Hunter_Worthington: If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


Everything you just said is both somewhat absurd, self-contradictory, and wrong.

Let's go through it piece by piece.

'Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth'
'and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future'

this is contradictory. They're either gathering/saving, or their investing. They can do both, but one thing is the exact opposite of the other.

' In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment'

...

What? No. The answer is no. This is both exactly wrong, and exactly what the published study disproves.

' and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.'

Again, no. Please google 'marginal propensity to consume'. Read about it. Understand it. Then come back with at least a basic understanding of macroeconomics.
 
2012-11-01 07:15:26 PM

YodaBlues: I do not understand why NO ONE from Obama's campaign is hammering Romney on this. No one is saying the obvious,that lowering the upper income tax rate for the past 70 years hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy or the middle class.



Maybe they figure it would be about as effective as signing to a bunch of deaf people "You've got to listen to this music!"
 
2012-11-01 07:16:09 PM

dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.


This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR
 
2012-11-01 07:17:17 PM
I wonder how Republicans, who always hearken back to "tradition" and "the good old days," can explain how the United States' economy burgeoned under people like President Eisenhower, he of the 90% tax rate for people earning 2M and over.
 
2012-11-01 07:17:57 PM

Snapper Carr: Trickle down is an article of faith in the GOP (one could say that it is the central article of faith) - heresy must be stamped out.


And, just like religon, no objective evidence to the contrary will dissuade them from their faith.
 
2012-11-01 07:19:29 PM

Guidette Frankentits: Why doesn't the GOP do what they do with everything they disagree with? Call the author a liberal conspirator the likes of Hitler and Stalin and demand the author prove he doesn't molest children


Because they have Fox News to do it for them. Look upthread for the article infroming the Fox viewers.
 
2012-11-01 07:20:16 PM
Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?
 
2012-11-01 07:21:43 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Snapper Carr: Trickle down is an article of faith in the GOP (one could say that it is the central article of faith) - heresy must be stamped out.

And, just like religon, no objective evidence to the contrary will dissuade them from their faith.


When reason fails, use fire.
 
2012-11-01 07:21:53 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


No, but if you told me that I could either a) give that fifty dollars to you or b) spend it to give another person a job, I'd choose b).

Because job creators hate giving money to the government almost as much as I'd hate to give money to you.
 
2012-11-01 07:22:05 PM

cman: dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.

This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR


i'd suggest the caffeine free crystal meth, but...yah, whatever. rage on, man.
 
2012-11-01 07:22:08 PM

cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR


You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?
 
2012-11-01 07:23:22 PM

mrshowrules: Guidette Frankentits: Why doesn't the GOP do what they do with everything they disagree with? Call the author a liberal conspirator the likes of Hitler and Stalin and demand the author prove he doesn't molest children

Because they have Fox News to do it for them. Look upthread for the article infroming the Fox viewers.


You spelled lying wrong.
 
2012-11-01 07:23:38 PM

cman: This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting.


cman, seriously, it's loud, it's annoying, it's tense, it's depressing, all of these things, I know. But it's not imminent civil war bad. Put on your big boy pants and man up just a little.
 
2012-11-01 07:23:48 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Yes. Things would be better. It would give a us a brief reprieve from your threadshiatting ways.
 
2012-11-01 07:24:01 PM

randomjsa: A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Depends on how the money is spent.
 
2012-11-01 07:25:18 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Actually it's nothing like that. It would be more like if I took fifty dollars from you, had it broken up into ten dollar bills, and handed those ten dollar bills out to five random homeless people.

As for taking money from the private sector though, that's just bullshiat. There's the obvious government contracts, there's food stamps, there's government employees spending money. It pretty much all goes back into the economy, not flushed down some magical marxist money toilet.
 
2012-11-01 07:25:31 PM

GhostFish: randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?

Yes. Things would be better. It would give a us a brief reprieve from your threadshiatting ways.


The GOP can't prove that trickle-down works and random can't prove that anyone in the history of Fark has ever agreed with him.

-But but but confirmation bias!
-STFU!
-First Amendment!

And it goes on...
 
2012-11-01 07:25:32 PM

GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?


if it gets us to the 13th Armored Hoverround Calvary, it could be worth it.
 
2012-11-01 07:26:17 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


What a perfectly cromulent argument.
 
2012-11-01 07:26:27 PM
Has there ever been anyone, anywhere, who has looked more like a turtle than Mitch McConnell? I don't even see a human face on him anymore, it's just a 200 year old sea turtle with glasses on.
 
2012-11-01 07:26:46 PM

GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?


I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.
 
2012-11-01 07:28:19 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


If you took that 50 bucks and put it toward the debt it might not 'make things better' but it would be the responsible, fiscally conservative thing to do. Pay the bills is not a farking choice. You Repubs helped create the debt, you can help pay it off. No more farking tax cuts until the bills are paid.
 
2012-11-01 07:28:53 PM

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


Let's just let the South secede. Who's with me?

Hell, throw in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana along with them. Then we'll build a wall. It'll be AWESOME.
 
2012-11-01 07:29:21 PM

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


On the plus side, we could have Road Warrior style battles, which would be awesome.
 
2012-11-01 07:29:27 PM

randomjsa: A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Is it my last 50 dollars or just a tiny fraction of my income and net worth, f*cktard?
 
2012-11-01 07:29:34 PM
The results of the analysis suggest that [...] the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.


That works for me.
 
2012-11-01 07:29:52 PM

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


It's not unfathomable. But no one will go to war unless financial or deep social issues (like slavery in the past) present themselves in such a way that the government appears helpless to rectify the issues. Even the most impassioned partisans are rarely willing to sacrifice their comfort for their cause.
 
2012-11-01 07:29:57 PM

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


I don't hate conservatives. I think they are a little to wrapped up in their own hatred to be reasoned with, but I don't hate them.

Pity would be a better word.

And some of them do scare me, but more towards "lone wolf" than any organized uprising.
 
2012-11-01 07:30:31 PM

cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


You spend too much time online is my guess. Real people in the real world don't deal with different opinions like they do here on FARK. Anonymity and all that.
 
2012-11-01 07:31:08 PM

cman: I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.


just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.

in summation, taco.
 
2012-11-01 07:31:32 PM

Smelly McUgly: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

Let's just let the South secede. Who's with me?

Hell, throw in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana along with them. Then we'll build a wall. It'll be AWESOME.


No way, we want their natural resources. What we really need to do is find a way to make watching Fox News give people some hyper aggressive face cancer, or non-contagious but 100% lethal strain of Ebola.
 
2012-11-01 07:31:59 PM
Simple lesson here:

Thou shalt not fark around with the Library of Congress, and all the services they offer. Including CRS.
 
2012-11-01 07:32:50 PM
The fact that anyone still buys this supply-side bullshiat astounds me.
 
2012-11-01 07:34:40 PM

coeyagi: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

It's not unfathomable. But no one will go to war unless financial or deep social issues (like slavery in the past) present themselves in such a way that the government appears helpless to rectify the issues. Even the most impassioned partisans are rarely willing to sacrifice their comfort for their cause.


I dont know. I am starting to think that if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans that could be the beginning. Religion is important to many people, and they will see that as a direct attack against them. They just might fight back.

I hope I am wrong. I want homosexuals to have the same rights as us heterosexuals. Alas, that is me and it would make me the most liberal to ever lib liby libbed in the south.

/Thank god I live in the North
 
2012-11-01 07:34:45 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


If you take my fifty bucks and use the government's negotiating position to get what would, at retail, be hundreds of dollars of medicine to treat several people who would otherwise not be able to afford medicine, yes it does. Society in general is improved. However, people like you resolutely refuse to acknowledge the concept of the entire society improving through shared sacrifice.
 
2012-11-01 07:35:59 PM

cman: coeyagi: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

It's not unfathomable. But no one will go to war unless financial or deep social issues (like slavery in the past) present themselves in such a way that the government appears helpless to rectify the issues. Even the most impassioned partisans are rarely willing to sacrifice their comfort for their cause.

I dont know. I am starting to think that if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans that could be the beginning. Religion is important to many people, and they will see that as a direct attack against them. They just might fight back.

I hope I am wrong. I want homosexuals to have the same rights as us heterosexuals. Alas, that is me and it would make me the most liberal to ever lib liby libbed in the south.

/Thank god I live in the North


You've been being reasonable lately. What's up?
 
2012-11-01 07:36:23 PM

dahmers love zombie: cman: coeyagi: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

It's not unfathomable. But no one will go to war unless financial or deep social issues (like slavery in the past) present themselves in such a way that the government appears helpless to rectify the issues. Even the most impassioned partisans are rarely willing to sacrifice their comfort for their cause.

I dont know. I am starting to think that if SCOTUS overturns gay marriage bans that could be the beginning. Religion is important to many people, and they will see that as a direct attack against them. They just might fight back.

I hope I am wrong. I want homosexuals to have the same rights as us heterosexuals. Alas, that is me and it would make me the most liberal to ever lib liby libbed in the south.

/Thank god I live in the North

You've been being reasonable lately. What's up?


Shh. Don't mess with a good thing.
 
2012-11-01 07:36:53 PM

Smelly McUgly: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

Let's just let the South secede. Who's with me?

Hell, throw in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana along with them. Then we'll build a wall. It'll be AWESOME.


I'm on board with this. The problem is that a large portion of the GOP has abandoned objective reality. I don't know how you can have a functioning nation when that happens. I'm tired of being the most bass-ackward industrial country on the planet. And I'm especially tired of "compromises" that require progressives to step 10 paces to the right for every step to the left conservatives take.
 
2012-11-01 07:36:59 PM

heap: cman: I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.

in summation, taco.



southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2012-11-01 07:38:37 PM
"This is a completely shocking predictable attempt by the Republicans to censor a nonpartisan analysis because they didn't like the findings," a senior Democratic aide told TPM.

FTFY.
 
2012-11-01 07:40:37 PM

meat0918: cman: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

I don't hate conservatives. I think they are a little to wrapped up in their own hatred to be reasoned with, but I don't hate them.

Pity would be a better word.

And some of them do scare me, but more towards "lone wolf" than any organized uprising.


There's also the whole Western aversion to casualties. Even the lone wolf types we have are pussies. Compare that douche in Colorado to the fearless farkers who go all suicide bomber in the middle east. They not only don't fear death, they crave it. Just so long as they get to take a bunch of people with them. Imagine the effect one suicide bomber would have at a Tea Party gathering. Those farkers would never gather in groups bigger than one for the next fifty years after that.
 
2012-11-01 07:43:33 PM

Guidette Frankentits: mrshowrules: Guidette Frankentits: Why doesn't the GOP do what they do with everything they disagree with? Call the author a liberal conspirator the likes of Hitler and Stalin and demand the author prove he doesn't molest children

Because they have Fox News to do it for them. Look upthread for the article infroming the Fox viewers.

You spelled lying wrong.


I spelled it properly. Know your memes - stay infromed.
 
2012-11-01 07:45:58 PM

heap: you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them.


auctionstx.com 

/this country was bought and paid for a long time ago, I refuse to participate in this election circus
//"you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fark it's gonna take you."-Lester Freamon
 
2012-11-01 07:45:58 PM
Fark fark fark! The Dems are playing right into the GOP's hands! the GOP wants them to protest this, so that the common voter will assume that the Dems are against ALL tax cuts.

The Dems should just quietly repost the study to the CRS website, no public discussion, nothing. The GOP was able to take it down, probably by knowing which CRS individuals to lean on. The Dems should be able to get it posted again, by leaning on different individuals within the CRS hierarchy.
 
2012-11-01 07:46:24 PM

mrshowrules: Guidette Frankentits: mrshowrules: Guidette Frankentits: Why doesn't the GOP do what they do with everything they disagree with? Call the author a liberal conspirator the likes of Hitler and Stalin and demand the author prove he doesn't molest children

Because they have Fox News to do it for them. Look upthread for the article infroming the Fox viewers.

You spelled lying wrong.

I spelled it properly. Know your memes - stay infromed.


I was told their wood be no grammer.

churchandstate.org.uk
 
2012-11-01 07:46:58 PM

cman: Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.


Well, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.
 
2012-11-01 07:50:57 PM
Lets try "Trickle UP" Economics for a while and see how that works.

/ The past 30 years have been shiat
 
2012-11-01 07:53:50 PM

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Everything you just said is both somewhat absurd, self-contradictory, and wrong.

Let's go through it piece by piece.

'Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth'
'and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future'

this is contradictory. They're either gathering/saving, or their investing. They can do both, but one thing is the exact opposite of the other.

' In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment'

...

What? No. The answer is no. This is both exactly wrong, and exactly what the published study disproves.

' and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.'

Again, no. Please google 'marginal propensity to consume'. Read about it. Understand it. Then come back with at least a basic understanding of macroeconomics
. is supported by this book

 

So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.
 
2012-11-01 07:54:11 PM
it appears that the CRS has studied it out.


Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Doctrine and Covenants
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
 
2012-11-01 07:54:55 PM

Avery614: /this country was bought and paid for a long time ago, I refuse to participate in this election circus



i'll vote, i'll pay my taxes and show up for jury duty, but...beyond that? society at large is for laughing at, not seriously contemplating or attempting to amend. anything else gets depressing. and after all, there are always tacos.
 
2012-11-01 07:58:06 PM

Avery614: this country was bought and paid for a long time ago, I refuse to participate in this election circus


...I remember when I felt ways about stuff
 
2012-11-01 07:59:46 PM

Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.


but you assume that the U.S. or even the global economy uses the Keynesian model and adheres to its principles completely.
 
2012-11-01 08:03:39 PM

MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!


And people would rather sit around and mock-marvel the obvious than do anything about it? Shock of shocks! It's as if doing stuff is hard!
 
2012-11-01 08:04:10 PM

Isitoveryet: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

but you assume that the U.S. or even the global economy uses the Keynesian model and adheres to its principles completely.


If he had realistic assumptions, he wouldn't be a Republican.
 
2012-11-01 08:04:16 PM

heap: just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.


One of my coworkers listens to the Rush Limbaugh show twice a day (which means I have to listen to it twice a day).

Another bought his wife a $2000 semiautomatic shotgun with a drum magazine made completely out of stainless steel so she would be able to protect herself after the election. She's either in danger from masses of Obama voters rioting in the middle of farmland because they lost or from the SS goons Obama is going to send out to round up people who voted for Romney after he wins the re-election - the reason changes from day to day.

And finally one of our clients keeps forwarding us racist birther emails. And no, they're not racist because of birtherism - they're racist because of all the n-bombs and black people are subhuman in general filth. He's an annoying redneck, but his checks keep clearing.

So for me, fark trolls are pretty tame compared to non-anonymous folks.
 
2012-11-01 08:06:22 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Well, actually yes. When done properly, that money will be spent to create things of use. Roads, bridges. My $50 itself won't be able to build a bridge. But my $50 together with millions of others' $50 will be able to build that bridge and that will enable me to move over that river or gorge or bay easier. It will enable many people to move easier. When that happens, then trade is easier to conduct. I now can get my products to more people and thus earn back that $50 and then some.
 
2012-11-01 08:07:50 PM

Karac: One of my coworkers listens to the Rush Limbaugh show twice a day (which means I have to listen to it twice a day).


workplace cabbage farts, if applied in rigid concordance with said broadcasts, could cause a pavlovian response that will eventually allow you to listen to the smooth jazz channel instead.

i get what you're saying, but...these people are dumb. they were dumb before the election, they'll be dumb after it. they'll drool on themselves in victory, or they'll drool on everybody else in defeat. it's just part of the gig.

you know dumb people - i suggest you start hitting them with sticks. it won't solve anything, but neither will anything else you could do.
 
2012-11-01 08:07:54 PM

Isitoveryet: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

but you assume that the U.S. or even the global economy uses the Keynesian model and adheres to its principles completely.


www.ericgarland.co
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.


Real world =/= textbooks
 
2012-11-01 08:10:49 PM

Heraclitus: Lets try "Trickle UP" Economics for a while and see how that works.

/ The past 30 years have been shiat


Bubble up economics, yes. It's the demand-side economics as opposed to supply-side economics.

/This is why you don't hire an idiot actor as president, folks.
 
2012-11-01 08:11:41 PM

heap: Karac: One of my coworkers listens to the Rush Limbaugh show twice a day (which means I have to listen to it twice a day).

workplace cabbage farts, if applied in rigid concordance with said broadcasts, could cause a pavlovian response that will eventually allow you to listen to the smooth jazz channel instead.

i get what you're saying


The dog's already tried farting throughout the show, so the pavlovian thing ain't gonna work. I can't match her strength. And I don't think you really do get what I'm saying.

He listens to the Limbaugh show twice a day - but it only comes on once. He records it, and thens plays back the very same show he just heard for the last three hours to make sure he didn't miss anything.
 
2012-11-01 08:11:56 PM
"fark the economy. We have to pay back the Job Creators who fill up our campaign coffers somehow."
 
2012-11-01 08:14:08 PM

Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.


Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.
 
2012-11-01 08:15:09 PM

Karac: He records it, and thens plays back the very same show he just heard for the last three hours to make sure he didn't miss anything.


may i suggest a location for gathering a pile of sticks?
 
2012-11-01 08:15:53 PM

burning_bridge: Aren't they always screaming bloody murder over social engineering experiments? Can we put this one to rest now that we have 30+ years of conclusive evidence that shows it's a load of bunk?



No you idiot. All this shows is that we still haven't cut taxes ENOUGH.

It won't be until we cut taxes on millionaires to -5000% that we finally see tax cuts starting to work.
 
2012-11-01 08:18:21 PM
Wow. Congressional GOP commissions study. Study finds no evidence for their sacred cow. Congressiona GOP hides study.

How much more stereotypically partisan can these asshats be?
 
2012-11-01 08:21:32 PM

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.


That's going to leave a mark.
 
2012-11-01 08:22:12 PM

cman: Ahh, ultrapartisanship, where your side can never be wrong. Never admit defeat. Destroy anything that makes you look bad.


Exactly. And the Democrats are just as bad, because of an anecdote my Uncle once told me, that I can't quite remember right now.

I guess I'd better vote for change, then, to stick it to those fatcats in DC.

www.logotypes101.com
 
2012-11-01 08:22:23 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


I'm sure some or all of this has been covered between your post and mine, but...

That massive tax rate on the top end of the heap in the fifties, is not unlike the top rate now, no one with an accountant actually paid that.
Also, that massive tax rate in the fifties and sixties helped pay for infrastructure that made the making of money easier for the guys getting taxed so it was kinda a win for them too. They understood that, and were mostly okay with it too...
 
2012-11-01 08:22:45 PM

Karac: He listens to the Limbaugh show twice a day - but it only comes on once. He records it, and thens plays back the very same show he just heard for the last three hours to make sure he didn't miss anything.


Are you certain he's actually alive? Are any bits of him rotting off? Does he moan and try and eat your face off? What I'm saying is that your co-worker doesn't have a functioning brainstem, let alone brain.
 
2012-11-01 08:24:27 PM

sno man: randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?

I'm sure some or all of this has been covered between your post and mine, but...

That massive tax rate on the top end of the heap in the fifties, is not unlike the top rate now, no one with an accountant actually paid that.
Also, that massive tax rate in the fifties and sixties helped pay for infrastructure that made the making of money easier for the guys getting taxed so it was kinda a win for them too. They understood that, and were mostly okay with it too...


If that's true, then why wouldn't they be content with the 1950s-era tax rate?

(checks income gap percentage increase since then)

Oh, right, greed.
 
2012-11-01 08:28:11 PM

heap: i'll vote, i'll pay my taxes and show up for jury duty, but...beyond that? society at large is for laughing at, not seriously contemplating or attempting to amend. anything else gets depressing. and after all, there are always tacos.


Yes, tacos rule, we are in agreement.

Lionel Mandrake: ...I remember when I felt ways about stuff


Right. Now I just watch my Sons of Anarchy and Doctor Who, play my Skyrim and amuse the cats. Life is much more relaxing this way. It is also nice to have friends over seas and up north. I can leave whenever I want, for the cost of a plane ticket or a few tanks of gas if the shiat ever truly hits the fan..,,, I'm done trying to care.
 
2012-11-01 08:30:10 PM

coeyagi: sno man: randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?

I'm sure some or all of this has been covered between your post and mine, but...

That massive tax rate on the top end of the heap in the fifties, is not unlike the top rate now, no one with an accountant actually paid that.
Also, that massive tax rate in the fifties and sixties helped pay for infrastructure that made the making of money easier for the guys getting taxed so it was kinda a win for them too. They understood that, and were mostly okay with it too...

If that's true, then why wouldn't they be content with the 1950s-era tax rate?

(checks income gap percentage increase since then)

Oh, right, greed.


bingo
80's me, me, me....
and Mr. Gekko
 
2012-11-01 08:32:16 PM
Sure, but that study uses liberal math. It doesn't even recognize potato as a number!
 
2012-11-01 08:32:56 PM

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.

 
2012-11-01 08:34:39 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: heap: cman: I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.

in summation, taco.

[southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com image 400x300]


This thread is now tacos.
 
2012-11-01 08:35:14 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Sure, but that study uses liberal math. It doesn't even recognize potato as a number!


Then what is this magnificent digit 0? See the similarities. The Indus civilization couldn't properly call zero potato as potatoes are indigenous to the Americas. But if they knew them, they would know what they'd created.

us.123rf.com
 
2012-11-01 08:35:25 PM

cman: dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.

This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR




Partisanship of Congress

Note how the far-right has slowly extinguished the center-right completely, and is now squeezing the moderate-right. When you mock people for partisanship, make sure you put the blame where the majority of it lies: In the party that has tripled Senate Cloture votes the moment Obama was elected. The party where members will not receive any campaign funding unless they sign a pledge of allegiance to far-right causes.

Democrats have tried and tried and tried to compromise, and been rebuked every single time. "We got 98% of what we wanted", said Boehner 2 years ago. And still his party rejected it, because getting 98% of what they wanted was just. not. enough.
 
2012-11-01 08:36:24 PM

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.


Let's try that again... 

nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-01 08:36:37 PM

MithrandirBooga: cman: dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.

This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR



Partisanship of Congress

Note how the far-right has slowly extinguished the center-right completely, and is now squeezing the moderate-right. When you mock people for partisanship, make sure you put the blame where the majority of it lies: In the party that has tripled Senate Cloture votes the moment Obama was elected. The party where members will not receive any campaign funding unless they sign a pledge of allegiance to far-right causes.

Democrats have tried and tried and tried to compromise, and been rebuked every single time. "We got 98% of what we wanted", said Boehner 2 years ago. And still his party rejected it, because getting 98% of what they wanted was just. not. enough.


It was 1 year ago, it only seems like that f*cking mess was 2 years ago.
 
2012-11-01 08:38:28 PM

PonceAlyosha: A Dark Evil Omen: Sure, but that study uses liberal math. It doesn't even recognize potato as a number!

Then what is this magnificent digit 0? See the similarities. The Indus civilization couldn't properly call zero potato as potatoes are indigenous to the Americas. But if they knew them, they would know what they'd created.

[us.123rf.com image 850x850]

 

nextlol.com
 
2012-11-01 08:38:35 PM
TFA: "I don't think there's a conclusion that there's no relationship," Auerbach added, "only that it's not so big that it comes through."

So there may be a relationship but it's so small that it is undetectable in the last 65 years of data. Yeah, that must be it.
 
2012-11-01 08:39:27 PM
Sorry, guys, Grover Norquist is just too good in the sack.
 
2012-11-01 08:41:33 PM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


Salmon swim against the current, upstream, to fight for spawning opportunities in a desperate and inspiring bid for the survival of their bloodline.

In your case, I feel more like I'm watching a guppy swim against the tide of a swirling toilet bowl.
 
2012-11-01 08:48:01 PM

kasmel: Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.


I laughed heartily.
 
2012-11-01 08:48:01 PM

Blue_Blazer: Hunter_


kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.


I don't really need to appeal to an authority, as -unlike yourself- I have both read and understood that text book, where as you're confusing textbooks with punditry, and confusing Mankiw for Romer. More importantly, on the off chance your parents can take you down to the local library, or you can save several years of allowance money and can purchase a copy, I suggest you start your studies with Chapters 5 and 6, which develop an Open Economy New Keynsian model, starting with an elementary Hicks-Hansen IS-LM model, and moving on to models incorporating imperfect flows of capital and labor between countries (it's a two country model -more countries would be a bit beyond the scope of that book.) Chapter 7 deals with Consumption, including the marginal propensity to consume, although, as a fair warning, truly understanding this material will require at least Calculus II and a decent Econometrics course. Now, then, as I recall Chapter 8 deals with Investment (Consumption and Investment are components of GDP, in case you didn't know) you will need a good understanding of Ordinary Differential Equations to handle the material in that chapter and understand my original point.

Now, I too would welcome "an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence". Alas, it won't be with you. In this brief exchange, you've managed to not only embarrass yourself, and your parents, but expose relatively poor quality of your education -which I can only assume is provided by America's Public School system. Perhaps, someday, after you've demonstrated sufficient mastery of Analysis, Statistics and Economics, we could try again.

For now, it's approaching 9pm here on the East Coast, and I do believe tomorrow is a school day. So, it's time for you to log off AOL, slink into your parents basement, crawl into your Pokemon bedsheets, and prepare yourself for a fun filled day of being the smartest person in your high school English class.

Yours,

Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding
 
2012-11-01 08:48:14 PM

The Onion is prophetic: Has there ever been anyone, anywhere, who has looked more like a turtle than Mitch McConnell? I don't even see a human face on him anymore, it's just a 200 year old sea turtle with glasses on.



Well, maybe this guy

media.tumblr.com

...but not by much.
 
2012-11-01 08:48:43 PM

LectertheChef: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Snapper Carr: Trickle down is an article of faith in the GOP (one could say that it is the central article of faith) - heresy must be stamped out.

And, just like religon, no objective evidence to the contrary will dissuade them from their faith.

When reason fails, use fire.


i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-01 08:49:33 PM

mediablitz: kasmel: Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

I laughed heartily.


Muphry's Law.
 
2012-11-01 08:50:09 PM

coeyagi: MithrandirBooga: cman: dickfreckle: You gotta love this country. It only took a few years for 50% of the population to conveniently forget what got us here, and that the extension of the cuts only worsens the deficit (especially annoying when it comes from a self-styled "deficit hawk").

What does it take, people? Herbert Hoover? When are you gonna wise up to this bullsh*t?

Meh, keep wrapping turds in a flag and I guess people will keep buying it.

This is not like other elections that we have had before. This has become rather personal for many.

This election SCARES the shiat out of me by the way everyone is acting. Ultrapartisanship reigns supreme. We have thrown out all logic for emotion.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are saying this is the most important election in many, many years. We are cut throat take no farking names kicking ass. Both sides are throwing everything at the farking wall hoping that it will all stick.

This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR



Partisanship of Congress

Note how the far-right has slowly extinguished the center-right completely, and is now squeezing the moderate-right. When you mock people for partisanship, make sure you put the blame where the majority of it lies: In the party that has tripled Senate Cloture votes the moment Obama was elected. The party where members will not receive any campaign funding unless they sign a pledge of allegiance to far-right causes.

Democrats have tried and tried and tried to compromise, and been rebuked every single time. "We got 98% of what we wanted", said Boehner 2 years ago. And still his party rejected it, because getting 98% of what they wanted was just. not. enough.

It was 1 year ago, it only seems like that f*cking mess was 2 years ago.


... God it's been a long year.
 
2012-11-01 08:52:35 PM

Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding


Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40
 
2012-11-01 08:53:24 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Muphry's Law.


It was a great burn for both. "Let me very clearly tell you why you wrong, AND fark up while I'm showing you how much better I am than you and why".

I love Fark!!!
 
2012-11-01 08:55:09 PM

mediablitz: kasmel: Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

I laughed heartily.



No, he's good.

"They operate from a conclusions driven [paradigm] rather than an evidence driven paradigm."
 
2012-11-01 08:55:46 PM

kasmel: Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.


I do have to take issue with this statement. Both Mankiw and Romer have done quite a bit of good 'scientific' (I use quotes since as economists we can't perform true scientific experimentation, but we try our best to get there) research in the past. They've both written some very informative and ground-breaking papers in their time, especially their work on endogenous growth theory; and in Mankiw's case his more recent work on price stickiness.

Now, I'm just talking about his research. Some of the policies Mankiw has campaigned for have been a bit odd, and even at odds with his own research (budget deficits being one). So I also have to admit that I don't understand what causes him to become a proponent of some policies.

Basically, my take is that his research has been pretty good, but his policy recommendations have been a bit more iffy and/or ideologically motivated.
 
2012-11-01 09:04:51 PM

PonceAlyosha: A Dark Evil Omen: Sure, but that study uses liberal math. It doesn't even recognize potato as a number!

Then what is this magnificent digit 0? See the similarities. The Indus civilization couldn't properly call zero potato as potatoes are indigenous to the Americas. But if they knew them, they would know what they'd created.

[us.123rf.com image 850x850]


I think I just witnessed a miracle. You can see the true value of potato in the image. It is 123RF. If we an just resolve the variables of R and F in the formula, we might finally understand the Conservative mind.
 
2012-11-01 09:08:32 PM

phaseolus: mediablitz: kasmel: Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

I laughed heartily.


No, he's good.

"They operate from a conclusions driven [paradigm] rather than an evidence driven paradigm."


Well shiat. You are correct on that one. Now you're going to tell me he was talking about Romer, not Romney ;-)

*hangs head in shame*
 
2012-11-01 09:09:41 PM
So anyway, once again today's Republican Party demonstrates how much they're like the USSR's Communist Party from back in the bad old days -- Party dogma always trumps anything it disagrees with.

See how these other comments from upthread could apply equally well to 20th century Soviet Communists or to 21st century American Republicans:

cman: Ahh, ultrapartisanship, where your side can never be wrong. Never admit defeat. Destroy anything that makes you look bad.


Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will.

[yep, just one more Five Year Plan and we'll have our paradise...]

Lionel Mandrake: Party before principle/facts/reality/greater good!

 
2012-11-01 09:17:10 PM

KhanAidan: kasmel: Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I do have to take issue with this statement. Both Mankiw and Romer have done quite a bit of good 'scientific' (I use quotes since as economists we can't perform true scientific experimentation, but we try our best to get there) research in the past. They've both written some very informative and ground-breaking papers in their time, especially their work on endogenous growth theory; and in Mankiw's case his more recent work on price stickiness.

Now, I'm just talking about his research. Some of the policies Mankiw has campaigned for have been a bit odd, and even at odds with his own research (budget deficits being one). So I also have to admit that I don't understand what causes him to become a proponent of some policies.

Basically, my take is that his research has been pretty good, but his policy recommendations have been a bit more iffy and/or ideologically motivated.


He gets paid a lot of money to say shiatty things.
 
2012-11-01 09:21:20 PM

cman: This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

Thank you for being civility and rationality to our political discourse. Clearly you're above throwing fire bombs.
You're a shining example to us all.

jWeren't you the guy saying that Libertarians have nothing to do with the GOP, despite the fact that they've nominated two lifelong GOP hacks for President in the last two elections?
//If you were trying to be funny, thanks for the laughs. Even if you weren't trying to be funny, thanks for the laughs.
 
2012-11-01 09:22:16 PM

KhanAidan: kasmel: Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I do have to take issue with this statement. Both Mankiw and Romer have done quite a bit of good 'scientific' (I use quotes since as economists we can't perform true scientific experimentation, but we try our best to get there) research in the past. They've both written some very informative and ground-breaking papers in their time, especially their work on endogenous growth theory; and in Mankiw's case his more recent work on price stickiness.

Now, I'm just talking about his research. Some of the policies Mankiw has campaigned for have been a bit odd, and even at odds with his own research (budget deficits being one). So I also have to admit that I don't understand what causes him to become a proponent of some policies.

Basically, my take is that his research has been pretty good, but his policy recommendations have been a bit more iffy and/or ideologically motivated.


I think Mankiw is a bit of a star-farker. If you read his blog, he is inordinately proud of his textbooks. Sure, those are things to be proud of, but undergirding much of what he writes and much of who he is seems to be a profound desire not just for money, but to be a player, a power.

I believe he sold out whatever was good in his work for a chance to run with the big dogs, and he produced work that completely compromised the best of his profession. Trying to endorse fast food workers as manufacturing? Really?
 
2012-11-01 09:24:58 PM

Mentat: Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it never will. If you let the tax cuts accumulate over time, eventually the wealth will trickle down like Niagara Falls.


nah the wealthy are like Piñatas. fat and full of goodies but you have to take a stick to em and bust them open first.
 
2012-11-01 09:25:09 PM

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40


He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-01 09:26:55 PM

InmanRoshi: cman: This election is insane. fark ALL OF YOU PARTISAN farkS WHO ARE THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR
Thank you for being civility and rationality to our political discourse. Clearly you're above throwing fire bombs.
You're a shining example to us all.

jWeren't you the guy saying that Libertarians have nothing to do with the GOP, despite the fact that they've nominated two lifelong GOP hacks for President in the last two elections?
//If you were trying to be funny, thanks for the laughs. Even if you weren't trying to be funny, thanks for the laughs.


Well, at least I did entertain you, so I guess that is a plus
 
2012-11-01 09:37:53 PM

Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.


That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.
 
2012-11-01 09:40:06 PM

KhanAidan: Basically, my take is that his research has been pretty good, but his policy recommendations have been a bit more iffy and/or ideologically motivated.


A methodology is only as strong as the conclusions that can be drawn from it. So either his methodology for devising models is flawed or his capacity to derive conclusions through analysis of data based on those models is flawed.

In either case, when those conclusions consistently have an ideological bent, it's relatively safe to assume that there is a bias skewing the results.

Mankiw, more than Romer, has demonstrated the capacity to operate from a microeconomics perspective in terms of risk/reward on a price/value level. But even there his 'insight' leans towards flawed supply side models. His take on 'nominal rigidities', that since a company lowering their prices doesn't necessarily mean that they'll receive the full benefit because their competitors will adjust and while consumers will be able to buy more they won't necessarily buy more from THEM, fails to take into consideration that the larger motivating factor of price changes is demand. Lowering the price of an unwanted product/service will not necessarily spur demand for that product/service. Jiffy Lube can lower the cost of an oil change to $5 if they want, but people aren't necessarily going to go out of their way to get MORE oil changes. Jiffy Lube may benefit for a short time by stealing some business from competitors, but in the long run it's not going to make much difference, and then when they have to raise prices again they're likley to lose both the customers they gained as well as customers they may have kept by not changing their prices at all. By the same token most people are not motivated to buy something just because they can. Which means that whether a company will receive the full benefit of a consumer base for lowering their prices presupposes that people will arbitrarily increase their consumption simply because it's within their economic means to do so.

Anyway. We've gotten off topic. Long story short, I'm not suggesting that Mankiw and Romer are completely without merit. Simply that more often than not their conclusions, and the content of their texts, hold to a particular ideological bent that is neither supported by evidence, nor practically supported by any valid model. I take anything that they may offer with an extra helping of skepticism.
 
2012-11-01 09:43:48 PM

Hunter_Worthington: Blue_Blazer: Hunter_

kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: So, you might want to call your mom to pick you up from Little League, because you're not in the majors, kid.

Good stuff. Point at a Mankiw clone. Appeal to authority much?

I go to this guy if I'm looking for such staggering insight as

"The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases"

Truly an unparalleled economic mind. Really, why not just point at Mankiw, who, by the way I've personally worked with and spoken to on these matters and who is the 'economics advisor' to the Romney campaign. Neither Mankiw or Romer study economic theory from a scientific perspective. They operate from a conclusions driven rather than an evidence driven paradigm. They hold a conviction as regards how they FEEL an economic model should behave.

I welcome an honest discussion that includes even the barest evidence of their conclusions. I'm really not impressed by how many text books someone sells. I made good money correcting text books and supporting materials. Up to the point that the publisher would allow it because the author might get butthurt.

Nice try though, logical fallacy and all.

I don't really need to appeal to an authority, as -unlike yourself- I have both read and understood that text book, where as you're confusing textbooks with punditry, and confusing Mankiw for Romer. More importantly, on the off chance your parents can take you down to the local library, or you can save several years of allowance money and can purchase a copy, I suggest you start your studies with Chapters 5 and 6, which develop an Open Economy New Keynsian model, starting with an elementary Hicks-Hansen IS-LM model, and moving on to models incorporating imperfect flows of capital and labor between countries (it's a two country model -more countries would be a bit beyond the scope of that book.) Chapter 7 deals with Consumption, including the marginal propensity t ...


I didn't understand a word you two have said, but it reminded me of this scene:

wheatcitymag.com 

"How do you like them apples?"
 
2012-11-01 09:44:04 PM
Germany's highest tax rate is 45% and somehow their GDP growth is around 3% and their unemployment rate is 5%.

I was told high taxes impede growth. This can't be right.
 
2012-11-01 09:45:00 PM

coeyagi: He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.


After reading back through his stuff I can say that if he's not a very talented troll (seriously Hunter W. Gathers, hats off for the last bit) he's a truly and spectacularly delusional human being.

So he has that going for him.

I guess that that's nice.
 
2012-11-01 09:45:14 PM

coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]


Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.
 
2012-11-01 09:56:31 PM

kmmontandon: GAT_00: Facts: the enemy of conservatives.

Add them to the list.


I think it's been there a while already.
 
2012-11-01 09:57:25 PM

Hunter_Worthington: coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]

Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.


No, a simpler formula - Outrageous Comments + Brand new ALT the week of elections = Nobody takes you seriously.
 
2012-11-01 10:02:59 PM

AkaDad: Germany's highest tax rate is 45% and somehow their GDP growth is around 3% and their unemployment rate is 5%.

I was told high taxes impede growth. This can't be right.


Not to mention their entire work force is unionized and they have far more of a national sense of priority put on worker safety and high wages (their autoworkers make around $67 dollars per hour compared to $33 for an American autoworker ... they also produced twice as many automobiles in 2010). Amazing what can be done when companies take a collaborative approach with their workforce rather than an adversarial/authoritative approach.
 
2012-11-01 10:03:34 PM

Karac: heap: Karac: One of my coworkers listens to the Rush Limbaugh show twice a day (which means I have to listen to it twice a day).

workplace cabbage farts, if applied in rigid concordance with said broadcasts, could cause a pavlovian response that will eventually allow you to listen to the smooth jazz channel instead.

i get what you're saying

The dog's already tried farting throughout the show, so the pavlovian thing ain't gonna work. I can't match her strength. And I don't think you really do get what I'm saying.

He listens to the Limbaugh show twice a day - but it only comes on once. He records it, and thens plays back the very same show he just heard for the last three hours to make sure he didn't miss anything.


I'm pretty sure you can get unemployment after that level of workplace acrimony.
 
2012-11-01 10:10:26 PM
oi49.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-01 10:14:44 PM

clkeagle: [oi49.tinypic.com image 678x416]


"Government can't create jobs!"
"Elect me and I'll create 12 million jobs!"
 
2012-11-01 10:18:39 PM

Hunter_Worthington: coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]

Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.


Hey, whatever you gets you through your miserable existence of plopping mind farts on whatever piece of internet real estate that hasn't banned previous incarnations of your virtual being, man, hold on to those delusions! Some people spend lots of money on drugs to get that feeling!
 
2012-11-01 10:28:56 PM
What I love about trickle down believers is that generally these same people act like it's a zero sum game when talking about socialism. Taking more from the rich to make sure consumers are more secure could never result in more money for everyone, but somehow taking less from the rich means more for the rest of us.
 
2012-11-01 10:30:30 PM

Cyclometh: Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.


Agreed. Let's deconstruct what he posted.

"Don't be dumb. Rich get richer by investing to spend later. If they have more money, they invest more. Everyone gets richer because people see how cool it is to be rich."

The fact that not everyone gets richer is where it sorta falls apart.
 
2012-11-01 10:34:41 PM

mrshowrules: Cyclometh: Hunter_Worthington: MisterTweak: You mean the Blessed Job Creators, peace be upon them, might actually just be a bunch of wealth accumulators who want to accumulate more wealth?

I am shocked. Shocked!

If you're going to criticize stupid policy, don't be a moron yourself. Wealth "accumulators" gather wealth, and addition wealth through investment, i.e. setting aside surplus money now, to enjoy potentially greater consumption utility in the future. In this matter, under ordinary times, wealth accumulation raises investment, and through that, expectations of future income for everyone, so that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.

Agreed. Let's deconstruct what he posted.

"Don't be dumb. Rich get richer by investing to spend later. If they have more money, they invest more. Everyone gets richer because people see how cool it is to be rich."

The fact that not everyone gets richer is where it sorta falls apart.


It's Bizarro Adam Smith.
 
2012-11-01 10:45:09 PM
Serious question here. When the job numbers come out tomorrow, they are likely to show a modest increase in private sector jobs, with a decrease in public (i.e. Government) sector jobs. The resulting number is the net job growth. Immediately, this will trigger the standard GOP response blaming Obama for how awful this net job number looks.

Here's my question. Why is this viewed as a bad thing? I though the whole idea is for government to get smaller and shed jobs, while the private sector grows and creates jobs? Isn't that the basic Republican ideology for the last...oh....40 years?

Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.
 
2012-11-01 10:50:42 PM

Hunter_Worthington: coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]

Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.


More a case of you gave yourself away by using the line, "rising tide lifts all boats" which is so old, and has been debunked and laughed at for so long that people are more likely to use it sarcastically than seriously.
 
2012-11-01 10:55:09 PM

TheBigJerk: Hunter_Worthington: coeyagi: kasmel: Hunter_Worthington: Hunter W. Gathers,
Col. OSI, Commanding

Account created: 2012-10-28 17:28:40

He has the dubious honor of having his profile copypasta'ed in every thread he's been in since his birth.

We don't know much about him... but I suppose that's something.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x624]

Well, some Farkers don't get away from their comfort zones much, and operate under the perception that disagreements = trolling, or that their B.A. in Political Science qualifies them to have a valid opinion on Economics (or anything, come to it.). If it weren't for the fact that that sort of thing makes it more difficult to get constructive policy through, it'd be funny.

A bit like hearing a tour guide talk of a far away land, of which she knows nothing and understands even less, really.

More a case of you gave yourself away by using the line, "rising tide lifts all boats" which is so old, and has been debunked and laughed at for so long that people are more likely to use it sarcastically than seriously.


I think he's on his way to the gym.
 
2012-11-01 10:57:41 PM

Close2TheEdge: Serious question here. When the job numbers come out tomorrow, they are likely to show a modest increase in private sector jobs, with a decrease in public (i.e. Government) sector jobs. The resulting number is the net job growth. Immediately, this will trigger the standard GOP response blaming Obama for how awful this net job number looks.

Here's my question. Why is this viewed as a bad thing? I though the whole idea is for government to get smaller and shed jobs, while the private sector grows and creates jobs? Isn't that the basic Republican ideology for the last...oh....40 years?

Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.


Given their current level of dishonesty? There is a good chance they will say, "No one ever said public-sector jobs are bad!"

Actually I don't know if they've figured this one out yet, (they are stupid creatures) but given their "state government good, federal government baaad!" mantra they might latch onto the fact that most of the jobs lost are state governments hemorrhaging jobs (due to Republicans and Republican budget problems) and claim (probably erroneously) that federal government jobs are the same or up at the cost of state governments because of the communistic obamanation stealing state money. Or something.
 
2012-11-01 11:02:19 PM

Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.


Think about it this way - if no municipality or state or county could afford to employ anyone anymore and laid off their work forces but private sector jobs ticked up a smidge, is that a good indication of a healthy economy?

I think you need to view the desire for privatization apart from analyzing jobs numbers.
 
2012-11-01 11:04:32 PM

Close2TheEdge: Serious question here. When the job numbers come out tomorrow, they are likely to show a modest increase in private sector jobs, with a decrease in public (i.e. Government) sector jobs. The resulting number is the net job growth. Immediately, this will trigger the standard GOP response blaming Obama for how awful this net job number looks.

Here's my question. Why is this viewed as a bad thing? I though the whole idea is for government to get smaller and shed jobs, while the private sector grows and creates jobs? Isn't that the basic Republican ideology for the last...oh....40 years?

Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.


Because if they talk about what's actually happened during the Obama administration - downsizing of government, elimination of wasteful programs, additional audits to deter corruption, and a
DJIA that's responded like it's on Viagra - it kind of pretty much makes the case for never, ever electing another Republican.

Oh, and Somali pirates. BOOM, HEAD SHOT!
 
2012-11-01 11:11:22 PM

Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.


Because:

healthexchangeadvice.org
 
2012-11-01 11:18:13 PM

heap: cman: I do.

Hatred runs deep. Liberals hate Conservatives, conservatives hate Liberals, everyone hates Greens, Libertarians, and Communists.

We are too divided now. Unless something happens that scars us on the scale of 9/11 I cannot see any other outcome except for civil war.

just as an experiment, (and i realize it will have to be delayed, i doubt you could do it with the election eminent) try turning off the news channels. step away from politics threads.

you very well could be amazed at just how many people could give a flying fark, and...you might just join them. you sound immersed in political bullshiat, and sure that everyone else is too....when most just want a taco and something funny on TV.

in summation, taco.


They give a fark, they're just lazy. You can bet when their jobs, their homes, their communities, their families, etc. are effected, they'll care. Then they'll wonder "Who let this happen"? "Why didn't someone do something about it?" "Who elected these terrible people who did XYZ"? The answer? Not these lazy farks, because they couldn't be bothered.

Not caring isn't some sort of noble achievement. These lazy shiats are part of the problem.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Wake the fark up.
 
2012-11-01 11:19:54 PM

skullkrusher: Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.

Think about it this way - if no municipality or state or county could afford to employ anyone anymore and laid off their work forces but private sector jobs ticked up a smidge, is that a good indication of a healthy economy?

I think you need to view the desire for privatization apart from analyzing jobs numbers.


I thought shrinking government was a GOOD thing. Naturally that means everything associated with government, like jobs, need to get smaller too, correct?
 
2012-11-01 11:20:14 PM

coeyagi: meat0918: Moody's did it first(well, earlier)

Summary: "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

Exactly. How many f*cking Big Macs and Plasma TVs can a 1%er consume?


You still own a plasma TV? What is this? 2003?
 
2012-11-01 11:21:06 PM

TheBigJerk: More a case of you gave yourself away by using the line, "rising tide lifts all boats" which is so old, and has been debunked and laughed at for so long that people are more likely to use it sarcastically than seriously.


Ah, I appreciate the clarification. I failed to realize the issue was a poor choice of metaphor to describe the behavior of living standards over time. In the future, I will avoid such an obtuse metaphor, to make my point about the evolution of income and consumption, at the macro level, over time more accessible to our friends of lesser reading comprehension abilities. Again, my thanks.

mrshowrules:
That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.

Agreed. Let's deconstruct what he posted.

"Don't be dumb. Rich get richer by investing to spend later. If they have more money, they invest more. Everyone gets richer because people see how cool it is to be rich."

The fact that not everyone gets richer is where it sorta falls apart.


If you are going to attempt to "deconstruct" my statement, you may need to be able to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the topic matter, less the jibes you doubtlessly poured so much effort into bear less resemblance to the statements of the no doubt educated man you believe yourself to be, but to a tale told by an idiot -all sound and fury signifying nothing.
 
2012-11-01 11:30:28 PM

dericwater:
Well, actually yes. When done properly, that money will be spent to create things of use. Roads, bridges. My $50 itself won't be able to build a bridge. But my $50 together with millions of others' $50 will be able to build that bridge


Redistribution of wealth, soshulizm, no more Big Gubmint, who is John Galt, privatize.

I have just nullified your point.

That's Republican logic.

/money equals power, power equals five celery sticks
 
2012-11-01 11:34:21 PM

Savage Belief: coeyagi: meat0918: Moody's did it first(well, earlier)

Summary: "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

Exactly. How many f*cking Big Macs and Plasma TVs can a 1%er consume?

You still own a plasma TV? What is this? 2003?


Worse. I own a projection. Sonofabiatch weighs more than a car.
 
2012-11-01 11:38:57 PM
Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?
 
2012-11-01 11:39:29 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.

Think about it this way - if no municipality or state or county could afford to employ anyone anymore and laid off their work forces but private sector jobs ticked up a smidge, is that a good indication of a healthy economy?

I think you need to view the desire for privatization apart from analyzing jobs numbers.

I thought shrinking government was a GOOD thing. Naturally that means everything associated with government, like jobs, need to get smaller too, correct?


You looking for a strawman or an explanation of why even a right winger could see a drop in government employees as a negative signal?
 
2012-11-01 11:53:20 PM

Hunter_Worthington: TheBigJerk: More a case of you gave yourself away by using the line, "rising tide lifts all boats" which is so old, and has been debunked and laughed at for so long that people are more likely to use it sarcastically than seriously.

Ah, I appreciate the clarification. I failed to realize the issue was a poor choice of metaphor to describe the behavior of living standards over time. In the future, I will avoid such an obtuse metaphor, to make my point about the evolution of income and consumption, at the macro level, over time more accessible to our friends of lesser reading comprehension abilities. Again, my thanks.

mrshowrules:
That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.

Agreed. Let's deconstruct what he posted.

"Don't be dumb. Rich get richer by investing to spend later. If they have more money, they invest more. Everyone gets richer because people see how cool it is to be rich."

The fact that not everyone gets richer is where it sorta falls apart.

If you are going to attempt to "deconstruct" my statement, you may need to be able to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the topic matter, less the jibes you doubtlessly poured so much effort into bear less resemblance to the statements of the no doubt educated man you believe yourself to be, but to a tale told by an idiot -all sound and fury signifying nothing.


"Lest" the jibes.
 
2012-11-01 11:54:06 PM

BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?


It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.
 
2012-11-01 11:54:21 PM

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.

Think about it this way - if no municipality or state or county could afford to employ anyone anymore and laid off their work forces but private sector jobs ticked up a smidge, is that a good indication of a healthy economy?

I think you need to view the desire for privatization apart from analyzing jobs numbers.

I thought shrinking government was a GOOD thing. Naturally that means everything associated with government, like jobs, need to get smaller too, correct?

You looking for a strawman or an explanation of why even a right winger could see a drop in government employees as a negative signal?


I don't know what they want anymore. They seem pretty desperate for an America that's misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, rich man's paradise, Christian theocracy that declares wars at Israel's beck and call, though. And they scream for small government while demanding government inside every woman's uterus and in everyone's bedrooms so the icky gays won't be butt-sexing.

You're welcome to try explaining it.
 
2012-11-01 11:58:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Close2TheEdge: Please, right wingers. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a bad thing.

Think about it this way - if no municipality or state or county could afford to employ anyone anymore and laid off their work forces but private sector jobs ticked up a smidge, is that a good indication of a healthy economy?

I think you need to view the desire for privatization apart from analyzing jobs numbers.

I thought shrinking government was a GOOD thing. Naturally that means everything associated with government, like jobs, need to get smaller too, correct?

You looking for a strawman or an explanation of why even a right winger could see a drop in government employees as a negative signal?

I don't know what they want anymore. They seem pretty desperate for an America that's misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, rich man's paradise, Christian theocracy that declares wars at Israel's beck and call, though. And they scream for small government while demanding government inside every woman's uterus and in everyone's bedrooms so the icky gays won't be butt-sexing.

You're welcome to try explaining it.


no thanks. Not my jam.
 
2012-11-01 11:59:20 PM

Hunter_Worthington: BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?

It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.


Well, speak of the devil.
 
2012-11-02 12:09:35 AM

Hunter_Worthington: BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?

It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.


Dude- if you get off the computer and stop pretending to be be someone you are not- you can go out and meet a woman- since you are ya know you- she will not be attractive but she will have a vagina- trust me here- vaginas are better than keyboards. And here is the cool thing- you can believe in all the debunked Econ theory you want and still enjoy real life vagina. Just go outside and stop pretending to be someone else. Even fark geeks can experience wonderful, wonderful vulva
 
2012-11-02 12:22:09 AM

Evil High Priest: kmmontandon: GAT_00: Facts: the enemy of conservatives.

Add them to the list.

I think it's been there a while already.


I just checked and I don't see it. However "Math" is there right between Small Business Owners and CPAC.
 
2012-11-02 12:25:21 AM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


I should really know better than to reply to you, but here I go anyhow.

Money the Government spends does not just magically vanish into thin air.

1. That spending always becomes someones income. Case in point with Republican talking about defense jobs lost if the sequester comes to pass. That spending is Boeing's income. If the government lowers spending, this lowers demand for their products/services and thus their need for as many employees. But the defense industry works the same as any industry. No matter where you cut. this effect occurs. Granted, some types of spending are more effective than others.

2. Infrastructure spending is not only helps those "job creators" but is in fact VITAL to their ability to make money. Not to mention police to keep everyone from looting all their stuff(case in point... Hurricane Katrina). You could say it works a lot like national defense but on a local level.

3. Even entitlement spending is helpful. Those without much money will spend every damn dollar you give them - which in turn drives consumption and thus demand. It means those "job creators" have more customers. When they have enough business coming in, they will - out of necessity - hire more people. The more people working, the more consumption that occurs and the greater amount of business that is to be had. Its an uplifting spiral.

But the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy is not about enabling more spending. Its about doing the adult thing as PAYING OUR BILLS for what we have already spent and will continue to spend.

Now you somehow think that raising taxes on the wealthy will hinder investment, but that is not so. Let me ask YOU what you would do in this exaggerated scenario.

You have a chance to make $10,000,000. But after taxes(at those insane 90% levels that once existed), you will only get to keep $1,000,000. Do you make that $1,000,000 or do nothing and thus make... nothing?

What is the smart play here? Don't even tell me you would let that chance to make the money slip.

No sane person thinks taxes should be anywhere near 90% for anyone - and likely never will again. But explain how an extra 3% Clinton level top rate is gonna make all the wealthy people just give up on making money. I'd like to hear why they would do that.
 
2012-11-02 12:39:33 AM

smellysocksnshoes: Hunter_Worthington: BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?

It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.

Dude- if you get off the computer and stop pretending to be be someone you are not- you can go out and meet a woman- since you are ya know you- she will not be attractive but she will have a vagina- trust me here- vaginas are better than keyboards. And here is the cool thing- you can believe in all the debunked Econ theory you want and still enjoy real life vagina. Just go outside and stop pretending to be someone else. Even fark geeks can experience wonderful, wonderful vulva


I appreciate the input my friend, but before you hand out crude, though no doubt well intended, advice to strangers, you spend some time with your dictionary, and perhaps familiarize yourself with, at least, the rudiments of grammar.
 
2012-11-02 01:06:13 AM

Hunter_Worthington: smellysocksnshoes: Hunter_Worthington: BMulligan: Funny. I wrote a post that expressed my theory about the alternative identity of someone trolling this thread hard, and it disappeared down the memory hole after posting. Isn't that weird?

It sounds as though you'd wish for a "do-over" for that post. If there was but some word you could use to describe such a function.

Dude- if you get off the computer and stop pretending to be be someone you are not- you can go out and meet a woman- since you are ya know you- she will not be attractive but she will have a vagina- trust me here- vaginas are better than keyboards. And here is the cool thing- you can believe in all the debunked Econ theory you want and still enjoy real life vagina. Just go outside and stop pretending to be someone else. Even fark geeks can experience wonderful, wonderful vulva

I appreciate the input my friend, but before you hand out crude, though no doubt well intended, advice to strangers, you spend some time with your dictionary, and perhaps familiarize yourself with, at least, the rudiments of grammar.


It's an interesting character you've made to be sure, but your profile says you're IN Massachusetts, while your name suggests that you're FROM Worthington, MA, but currently reside in Lougheed, BC.

As entertaining as you are I think I'll have to farkie you in gray until you mature past your Triumph phase and either move more firmly into satire or start playing with the other trolls. Sadly, even if your persona and timing weren't enough to tip most people off, the ideas you propose to champion are absurd enough on their own merit that anyone who knows enough to refute your statements will also know not to take you too seriously in very short order.

In any case, I look forward to your inevitable outing and will be entertained by your lampooning in the meantime.
 
2012-11-02 01:10:03 AM

Smelly McUgly: Let's just let the South secede. Who's with me?

Hell, throw in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana along with them. Then we'll build a wall. It'll be AWESOME.


dafuq? Son, you just insulted nearly a million people with that dig at Montana. NEARLY A MILLION PEOPLE. That's like...half of San Diego or something, and ... uh ...

Hm.

Your mother's a whore.
 
2012-11-02 01:16:04 AM

Hunter_Worthington: perhaps familiarize yourself with, at least, the rudiments of grammar.


Your anosognosia is showing. You should stop.
 
2012-11-02 01:25:18 AM
I used to work for Microsemi. Ireland offered Microsemi a 7% tax rate guaranteed for 25 years. Microsemi moved 900+ jobs to Ireland. Guess who got laid off.
 
2012-11-02 01:33:37 AM

pxsteel: I used to work for Microsemi. Ireland offered Microsemi a 7% tax rate guaranteed for 25 years. Microsemi moved 900+ jobs to Ireland. Guess who got laid off.


Half the workers in Ireland, when their Milton Friedman fantasy blew up?
 
2012-11-02 01:34:50 AM

pxsteel: I used to work for Microsemi. Ireland offered Microsemi a 7% tax rate guaranteed for 25 years. Microsemi moved 900+ jobs to Ireland. Guess who got laid off.


Dale Johnston?

no wait

Alan Thornhill.
 
2012-11-02 02:18:09 AM

heap: GhostFish: cman: THROWING US SO EVER CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR

You don't actually believe that's a possible outcome, do you?

if it gets us to the 13th Armored Hoverround Calvary, it could be worth it.


Armored Hoverround Calvary... hmm, sounds like Daleks to me..
 
2012-11-02 07:39:08 AM
"Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report's factual findings and conclusion"

Ideological objections to facts. Pretty much sums up the mentality of most of today's GOP.
 
2012-11-02 07:41:42 AM

Hunter_Worthington: TheBigJerk: More a case of you gave yourself away by using the line, "rising tide lifts all boats" which is so old, and has been debunked and laughed at for so long that people are more likely to use it sarcastically than seriously.

Ah, I appreciate the clarification. I failed to realize the issue was a poor choice of metaphor to describe the behavior of living standards over time. In the future, I will avoid such an obtuse metaphor, to make my point about the evolution of income and consumption, at the macro level, over time more accessible to our friends of lesser reading comprehension abilities. Again, my thanks.

mrshowrules:
That is among the stupidest things I have ever seen committed to text.

Agreed. Let's deconstruct what he posted.

"Don't be dumb. Rich get richer by investing to spend later. If they have more money, they invest more. Everyone gets richer because people see how cool it is to be rich."

The fact that not everyone gets richer is where it sorta falls apart.

If you are going to attempt to "deconstruct" my statement, you may need to be able to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the topic matter, less the jibes you doubtlessly poured so much effort into bear less resemblance to the statements of the no doubt educated man you believe yourself to be, but to a tale told by an idiot -all sound and fury signifying nothing.


You are obviously a man of higher education. The stories you must have. First, thank you for gracing us with your presence. I would be remiss if I didn't take advantage of your academic prowess to embiggen my own. I deconstructed your earlier post because it was too complex for me to process at the high level of intellect it was presented at. As my Grade 3 teacher explained to me before I dropped out, if something seems too complicated, break it up into smaller pieces and study it again. Obviously, I did it wrong.

You want me to stay on the "topic matter" so let me begin again, how are tax cuts to the top marginal income tax brackets good for the economy? Please use small words because my brain is less educated than yours. Plus, please don't refer to text books chapters and page numbers because our Canadian libraries mostly just have books about beaver pelts and maple syrup processing.
 
2012-11-02 08:14:50 AM

InmanRoshi: AkaDad: Germany's highest tax rate is 45% and somehow their GDP growth is around 3% and their unemployment rate is 5%.

I was told high taxes impede growth. This can't be right.

Not to mention their entire work force is unionized and they have far more of a national sense of priority put on worker safety and high wages (their autoworkers make around $67 dollars per hour compared to $33 for an American autoworker ... they also produced twice as many automobiles in 2010). Amazing what can be done when companies take a collaborative approach with their workforce rather than an adversarial/authoritative approach.


To be fair though, ist not quite an apples to apfel comparison.

Unions in the US have a much harder job than the Unions in Germany do, and as such it makes sense theyre more confrontational/adversarial. Why? The german state provides many services to its citizens which the US government does do (ermahgerd soshulizm), and so the unions have to wring it out of employers.

Things like, you know, health care, maternity leave, pensions you can live on ...

Consider:
My ex's grand parents were a GM family. The granddad worked his whole career on the assembly line in Jersey somewhere. Died in 1977. His wife was taken care of till she died by GM's pension and health care. So guess who carried her costs for 40 years after he quit working for them? GM and their share holders! Pensions and retired worker health care is shockingly expensive. And GM has to carry it.

Contrast this with Germany. If my ex's grandparents had been living in Germany, they would've gotten something from the pension of the company, but also the state would've paid a fair bit more in social security and state funded health care, and it wouldn't have all been on the shoulders of the company and its union to carry.

Its basically risk mitigation. When the whole country contributes to pay for the elderly, the risk is spread around. When its just one company that has to carry it, and as technology and times have changed they've shrank their work force, suddenly you have fewer workers paying for the retirees, and you end up with a very top heavy pension cost structure and then all the Right wingers whinge about how "unions are the devil". Well, the reason they ARE is because the Right Wingers DON'T want the governments to take care of you either.

So the state passes the buck to the private sector, who tries to shoulder the costs with unions and private pensions.

Now we're seeing this is too expensive, so theyre passing the cost on to the families and saying "too bad, you didn't save for your 401k from when you were working at mcdonalds as a teen, if youre homeless and uninsured youre lazy, tough shiat."

Basically, as far as I can see it, retirement is a giant insurance plan, and its only affordable if the gropu paying into it is huge. Like... national govt. huge. Only then are the economies of scale large enough to make the costs bearable.

If the govt was able to provide for the same level of services in the US that the National programs in Germany do, there wouldn't be such a bad labor/management relationship, they wouldn't have as much to fight over.
 
2012-11-02 09:25:19 AM

eraser8: I wondered whether Fox "News" would run this story.

They did. With a predictable slant: Author of study appearing to back Democratic tax policy is a Democratic donor

Could they be any more predictable?


Man, if they had to run a story about conservative studies and the donation habits of their backers, it would be crazy. Oh I forgot, Democratic is the same as Communist, carry on.
 
2012-11-02 10:34:02 AM
So, is it silly or inflammatory to suggest that the reduction of marginal tax rates for the top earners in this country over the past 60 years is pretty much nothing more than a royal scam cloaked in faux economic populism? Let's find out.
 
2012-11-02 10:47:11 AM

dahmers love zombie: You've been being reasonable lately. What's up?


Late to the thread, but cman's following Weaver95's footsteps, little by little. Sometimes the derp gets so thick that any thinking person has to step back and say, WTF?

However, cman, don't give up your core convictions. When this wave of whaarrrrgarble passes we'll still need a decent political debate in this country.
 
2012-11-02 01:42:52 PM
Saying that tax cuts equal economic growth makes about as much sense as saying that using coupons at the grocery store actually causes me to earn a profit.
 
2012-11-03 01:09:15 AM

randomjsa: Yet somehow in the lala land of liberalism simply by having the government take money from the private sector and then spend that money... The private sector gets better.

A bit like if I took 50 dollars from you and spent it, somehow things get better for you right?


If you spent it on things that would help me, like electricity for streetlights so I don't get mugged, firefighters who might save my life, or schools to educate my kids, then I would say YES.

Taxes aren't "taking" either... they are what you contribute to live in a first-world society with other people and all the luxuries that come with it. You don't like it, there are plenty of other places you can go.
 
2012-11-03 07:17:36 AM

Alphax: Armored Hoverround Calvary... hmm, sounds like Daleks to me..


Subtle difference:

Daleks - EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!!

Armored Hoverround Calvary - MAS-TI-CATE!!!
 
Displayed 198 of 198 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report