09-11-2011, 08:23 AM | #51 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Rich people decorate their houses, buy yachts, private jets, mansions, sports cars, and other luxury items, which are produced by companies, companies which employ many many middle class citizens. When the rich get taxed more, they have less money to spend on their big luxury items, so instead of spending it, they save it and buy only essentials, maybe conservatively buying a luxury item or two, just like everyone else does when they start losing money. So, what happens when these rich people stop buying their expensive luxury items? Well, the people who make those items can't sell them any more, and they start to lose money. So to keep themselves in business, they lay off employees, middle class workers, who are now stuck without a job. And then these jobless middle class workers conserve their money as well, since they can't afford even small luxuries anymore, as they search for a new job so even fewer things are bought. Which in turn forces businesses to downsize again, to keep afloat, turning even more middle class workers jobless. It's a vicious spiral that only ends with dead businesses and jobless middle class workers. That's the spiral we've been going through ever since Obama's been elected, and go through every other time we have a democrat controlled congress as well. That's why Republicans continually say "Tax cuts for the rich," because it is the rich which keep our economy running, and businesses employing middle class workers. What's more, it is mid-sized local businesses which qualify for the "Rich" tax bracket, not just huge corporations like Big Oil and Apple, but it is also the mid-sized businesses that employ the most percentage of people in the US, and yet, they barely ride the line between sink and float, extra taxes will tip them over the edge, and they can't afford it if hiring a new employee is going to cost them in the future, so they just don't hire. Which is also a part of the cause for 10%+ unemployment, not counting those who are no longer counted in the "unemployed" number when they give up and stop looking for a job altogether. Businesses not hiring due to political uncertainty, because they just don't know how much possible new regulation and taxes will cost them to run their business in the future. This is not the entirety of the issue, but it's a basic overview. If you want more specifics I'll hunt them down for you. Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 09-11-2011 at 08:32 AM. |
||
09-14-2011, 06:14 PM | #52 | ||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Which brings me to the next topic. The Trickle Down Effect, which you have so favorably referred to, doesn't exist. Rich people with tons of money tend to buy what? Foreign goods. Why buy things that are American-made? There are better countries for making luxury items all around the world, and each country has only a small portion - including America. Want a car? The rich buy Lamborghini, not Ford. Need a delicious meal? Import caviar from Russia. Conservative point refuted a long time ago. Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UNOWNMEW'S PLAN! 1. Cut taxes to rich 2. Rich buy things 3. More jobs to people in other countries while Americans starve 4. Economy fixed! Yay for more deficit = higher GDP!
__________________
|
||
09-14-2011, 08:43 PM | #53 |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Oh cool we're talking about economics. Let me get my flavored popped corn.
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
09-15-2011, 04:36 AM | #54 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
09-15-2011, 12:07 PM | #55 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
I'm talking about the people considered "Rich" by the Tax bracket they fall into, which Obama says starts from $250,000, and ends up into the billions (That's a HUGE gap!). Now, I'd like to clarify, those who barely make the bracket by earning around $250,000 are definitely Not going to be buying Yachts and private jets, but they do have a slight bit of leeway for luxuries others earning lower are not going to have. This leeway mostly dependent on where the families live in America, since different states have different costs of living, which could leave that $250,000 as very very little extra money left over after taxes, food, education, utilities, sales tax, and etc. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/f...ap-debate.html Of course the millionaires and billionaires can afford higher taxes, but even they, if they start losing more then a comfortable amount of money, will conserve, perhaps not to the point of only buying necessities, but their buying will certainly slow down, and they'll start sheltering their income in foreign tax shelters and capital gains, so they pay even less taxes then their "claimed" tax rates. Experiment: Consider a small sole proprietorship business, (sole proprietors are taxed on a personal level, meaning, all profits their business makes, are considered their own personal income). This Business makes a profit of $250500 annually. The Business owner is taxed on the $250000 level of 39.6%, leaving $151302 to live on after federal income taxes. Assume the business owner has a family of four, pays state and local taxes, buys food, pays for a mortgage on his house, and utilities, and invests a modest amount in retirement and future education for his kids. Also assume he spends 1/2 of remaining income on reinvesting in his business. How much money is left over for luxuries, or any economic good besides bare necessities? Explain how the simplicity of the example can never be mimicked in real life. Explain why the remaining income is dependent on the state this business operates in. Here's some reading: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13665 http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-class-warfare http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/t...=16673&posts=5 http://www.progress.org/2004/fold379.htm (Particularly 9, 11, and 12) http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/09/tax...000-crowd.html http://understandingfiscalresponsibi...0000-threshold Quote:
Quote:
MY PLAN 1. Pass "Cut Cap and Balance" 2. Reduce Taxes for all citizens, including the rich 3. cut Federal spending so it's growth is limited and future deficits less expensive 4. Actually CUT Federal Spending 5. Repeal the Baseline Budget so federal growth is significantly slowed down 6. Reduce (but not completely) Federal Regulations on all Businesses 7. Return to States' Rights 8. Repeal ObamaCare 9. Cap Federal Spending to a set % of GDP so deficits can be reduced and future deficits not allowed 10. Remove Tax Loopholes to prevent Tax Shelters, so more money is gained from a lower tax rate. 11. Cut out Waste and Fraud from Government Agencies and spendings. Simplified: 1. Pass Cut Cap and Balance Bill 2. Repeal or completely defund ObamaCare and repeal the Baseline Budgeting 3. Close Tax Loopholes, or comprehensive Tax reform, including tax rate cuts for all Americans, and broadening the tax base so more people are paying their "fair share," when originally they weren't paying at all. 4. Deregulate Business 5. Return to States' Rights 6. Watch Growth, and with it, Revenue, soar, while the debt and deficit start to fall. Quote:
I'm gunna stop explaining when Google can do such a better job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics Obamanomics vs Reaganomics http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/laff...8/10/id/406893 Even Obama says raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea The reason Reagan ran up a deficit under his "Reaganomics", was because he ramped up Defense spending to deal with the Cold War we were in. If instead we were to cut down on all Federal Spending, the deficit would be greatly decreased under Reaganomics. Let us not forget either, that, during the time Ronald Reagan was president, Democrats held the House of Representatives all 8 years, and Controlled the Senate for 2 years as well. That's quite the significant opposition to his policies. (Source: Here) And yet he won a Landslide victory in his second term.. He must have done something right during his first term to merit such a victory. While Obama is hovering around 38% approval, 62% disapproval? Go figure, maybe it's the policies? Last edited by unownmew; 09-15-2011 at 12:23 PM. |
||||
09-15-2011, 02:21 PM | #56 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
A few things.
1) Generally, do not trust things on Wikipedia, as they are generally wrong. 2) Reagan did not have to handle to economic crisis that we were facing because of Bush's office. Obama did have to. 3) One of the articles you posted, the one talking about Reaganomics and Obomanomics, was pretty Republican sided, as it did not mention one thing good that actually happened. Find a more neutral article, and I might take it with a little ore leinancy. 4) One site did not look like it had anything to do with economics or politics at all. I could not tell what it was, probably why you did not directly post the link like in others. Post a site that knows what they are talking about or at least is widely known, because small-sites often have heavy political leans.
__________________
|
09-16-2011, 09:00 AM | #57 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
2. Yes, actually Reagan did have the same "Economic Crisis". And quit blaming Bush, it's getting old, Obama's 3 years into his presidency, if he can't fix "Bush's" problems by now, perhaps he's not capable, or not trying to. Here: Unemployment Numbers for Obama and Reagan Parallel between Obama and Reagan Unemployment numbers. As you can see, They both started with generally the same unemployment numbers, by Reagan's third year, things were dropping drastically, while Obama's are barely tapering off. Do not forget that, once a person "stops looking for work," they are removed from the unemployment numbers, even if it just means they gave up trying. So expect the real numbers to be even higher then reported. Obama had the same "Economic Crisis" Reagan had to deal with, and that's undeniable. 3. One of? I'd expect anything that criticizes Obama to be considered "Republican Sided" by someone who disagrees with it. "It's only valid Criticism if their own party says it," is that it? Sorry, most news media are biased. They're either biased for, or against a position. So instead of worrying about whether it's "Republican Sided," or not, how about you look at the actual data presented instead, and then find out if that data presented is true or false, instead of ignoring it simply because "it comes from the opposing party's supporting website." I'm not going to allow you to get away with ignoring valid data. If you want to ignore it, INVALIDATE it first, with actual Facts of your own. I'm not going to claim to know everything, so, there's quite possibly something I may have missed, if you make me aware of that, I will adjust accordingly. 4. Which site is that one you're referring to? I thought I linked everything worthwhile. Are you referring to the site with the video showing Obama saying in 2009 that tax increases during a recession are bad? Or the source material showing which political party controlled which House of Congress during president Ronald Reagan's 2 terms? I'm thinking you mean the video site, but if i'm wrong, let me know. Regarding that site. All you have to do is watch the video and see Obama himself say raising taxes is a bad thing. Here's an alternate link, where the video is more prominent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGTJD0YtXSo Now, are we finally ready to start debating Facts? Or do you want to discredit my sources some more and ignore valid data because it disagrees with you? I've yet to have anyone directly address the actual evidences I've posted with counter facts of their own. All that's being done is talking about the sites, and saying, "No, I disagree." "No, that's not how it works, Pshn00b." "No, that site is too Republican, we can't trust that, I'm not even going to address what it says." "You can't trust Wikipedia, don't use it." Last edited by unownmew; 09-16-2011 at 09:04 AM. |
|
09-16-2011, 02:05 PM | #58 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Also, when a site is leaning heavily towards one way, the information cannot be trusted, as it is going to be askwed in one direction. I would not post a Democratic leaning site, because of bias, which yes, all sites have, but some have more than others. Really look at a site before posting it.
__________________
|
|
09-16-2011, 02:06 PM | #59 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Your line of reasoning -- that it should be as easy to clean up a mess as it is to make one -- is so ri-goddamn-diculously stupid that even a five-year old would see the error in it. It is much easier to make messes than to clean them up. Macondo oil spill, took only a few months to happen (whereby "happen" we mean from time of leak onset until time of final capping), will take years for people to recover from the damage it caused to the Gulf. Fukushima earthquake, took only minutes to occur, but the damage it caused will scar some people for the rest of their lives and could possibly leave a scar behind on the region itself for the next 20-30 years, all things depending on what's going on with the reactors. You break a bone in your leg in one instant, it takes you months to heal. You accidentally set fire to your home by not watching the stove, there goes $200,000 of property and for at least the next few months (if you're mega-wealthy and can afford to rebuild a new home on the spot and have it built pronto and with good foundation and everything) you get to live somewhere else. The ruination of anything is always easier to do and to do more quickly than is its repair, its cleanup. And yet here you go and you say, "Maybe if Obama can't fix Bush's fuck-up he doesn't deserve to be President." Quote:
But back to this thread: neither side had really posted much in the way of concrete numbers until your post before your last post. I'm sure someone more willing than I to systematically deconstruct each and every one of those links will give you the reply you seek in due time. Until then, you can't really say "NOBODY'S REPLYING TO MY NUMBERS" when you hadn't even posted any numbers until just yesterday.
__________________
Last edited by Talon87; 09-16-2011 at 02:30 PM. |
||
09-16-2011, 05:59 PM | #60 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
If the "information" I got from that "white supremicist cite," on MLK, is available from other sources, or reproducible under the same circumstances, the evidence should stand on it's own. Quote:
So what should we do in that case? Quote:
It really would seem like he doesn't WANT to fix the economy. So, what topic would you like to debate? The advantages of Reaganonmics over Obamanomics? Or the possibility that Obama is purposely designing economic crisis to enact his extreme liberal ideals about Big Government controlling as much of then populace as possible through creation of a welfare state? Or would you like to explain to me what exactly Bush did that screwed the economy up worse then Obamacare and Obamanomics did? Quote:
To be honest, I quite intended to reply to your post. However, I'm in college, and things have gotten quite busy for me. and I'm writing textbooks to reply to you guys here, not to mention putting in the same amount of time researching links for you guys, which are ignored even more then yours. I still plan to address your points, though I have lost a bit of interest in the debate for the moment. That story was something Rush Limbaugh recently brought to my attention, so I wanted to share it, in no way was it meant to be my entire argument. Regarding Numbers: I brought a whole hunking 98 page research paper which all the numbers one could ask for in the Global Warming thread, and the first significant address to it is, "the authors are involved in a controversial matter regarding a different paper, which hasn't even been resolved yet, with no verdict reached, so your information is invalid." REALLY?! Quote:
So I decided to bring the real hard numbers into it myself instead of speaking my points without sources, to support my side, and like in the Global Warming thread, all people seem interested in doing is to attempt to discredit my sources without their own numbers so they don't have to actually look at the numbers I provided. Last edited by unownmew; 09-16-2011 at 07:33 PM. |
|||||
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|