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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 48 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report