Redistribution, It is all about being FAIR, right?...
Why do we allow Democrats to RUN on a platform where they are taking our money and giving it to others when WE worked for that money?...
Even kids can see through that logic, and yet, people still vote for those money grubbing liberals who want to take YOUR money and give it to their friends.
Why do we allow Republicans to govern everything from a creation myth? Even kids can see through that.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
LISTEN TO YOUR IDOLS AND REALIZE YOUR POSITIONS ARE IDIOTIC
Quote:
Judging from the candidates’ tax proposals, they seem to believe that the most Reagan-like candidate is the one with the biggest tax cut. But as the person who drafted the 1981 Reagan tax cut, I think Republicans misunderstand the premises upon which Reagan’s economic policies were based and why those policies can’t — and shouldn’t — be replicated today.
I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. Kemp and Sen. Bill Roth (R-Del.) proposed cutting tax rates across the board by about a third, lowering the top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent and reducing the bottom rate from 20 percent to 8 percent. (Though when the Reagan tax cut was enacted in 1981, the bottom rate was reduced to 11 percent.)
...
When comparing Reagan’s policies with Republican proposals today, several things stand out. Inflation is low now. We are not looking at “bracket creep” or sharply rising taxes, as we were in the late 1970s. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, half the rate Reagan inherited. And federal revenue is at a 60-year low of about 15 percent of GDP, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18.5 percent.
These differences are essential to understanding why Reagan’s policies worked when they did — and why they are not appropriate today.
All of the evidence tells us that the economy’s fundamental problem today is not on the supply side but the demand side. According to a recent study by Credit Suisse, two-thirds of the difference in growth at this point in the business cycle, compared with previous cycles, is due to slower consumer spending. And low inflation — as well as widespread unemployment, vast stocks of unsold houses, empty factories and other indicators — tells us that money is tight, not loose, as was the case in the late 1970s.
“Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight,” economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1997. Yet, absurdly, Republicans continually berate the Federal Reserve for being too easy; some even insist, insanely, that the United States should return to the gold standard, even though it was a key cause of the Great Depression.
Because inflation and interest rates are low, Fed policy is constrained today in ways it was not in the early 1980s. Back then, the Fed could bring down the federal funds rate to a little less than the inflation rate and create negative real rates, thus stimulating borrowing, investment and consumption. It can’t do that now because it can’t reduce market interest rates below zero.
Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances.
Well that is typical. Maybe you could try the ad hominem again?
liberals...
The point was they do what they do because the base lets them.
Umami, your wall of text will be ignored, stupid LIEberal.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
Why do we allow Democrats to RUN on a platform where they are taking our money and giving it to others when WE worked for that money?...
Even kids can see through that logic, and yet, people still vote for those money grubbing liberals who want to take YOUR money and give it to their friends.
Nice but why stop there... All those people who are giving away free hand outs of candy to those kids should be stopped because the Republicians are tired of giving away free hand outs. Those kids should earn their candy or inherit it from their candy loaded families.
Then once they stop giving away hand out candy they should give some of the children who have stock in the candy factory extra candy because they invested and they should be rewarded. Which would simulate the lowered capital gains tax which enables guys like Mitt to have an effective tax rate of 14%.
Then next thing they should do is set up ID check stations to ensure that the children who are earning thier Halloween candy are not illegals, so as not to take candy away from American kids.
After that any child who dresses in the opposite gender's clothing should have to pay a candy tax, unless they file multiple powers of atterney to ensure they have the same rights as those who are following "God's Will" as it's writen in the bible because God didn't want Adam dressing as Eve.
Finally to ensure that the kids truely understand the lessen he should line al the kids up. He should then give 1 kid 20 bags of candy. 5 kids get 5 bags of candy. 10 kids he should give 1 bag of candy. 37 kids he should give a candy basket too. The remaining 47 kids he shouldn't give anything to and he should tell them if they work hard they too can get 20 bags of candy one day.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Last edited by Lazarusrat : 10-31-2012 at 10:08 AM.
"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy’s unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions." - Sun Tzu
Don't police, firefighters, teachers, military and all the goverment employees get paid through "redistribution" due to taxes? It's not a terrible concept really brochacho.
I feel like the difference between wealthy democrats, and wealthy republicans is that dems. are willing to pay a little more for the benefit of the entire country. For as much as the republican party plays off their love for Jesus, they sure as hell don't follow his principles.
Conservatism still holds it's place in government, but there needs to be serious party reform. Other countries have conservative parties that are secular, rational, and relevant to societies needs and changes. Quit swinging on Reagan and Lincolns nuts. They are from a different era, when the party stood for something other than American Exceptionalism and big business.
If wealthy Democrats really believe in paying higher taxes, there's nothing stopping them from doing so voluntarily. If Warren Buffet really, really wanted to, he could donate 75% of his income to the Federal government.
__________________
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
-Thomas Jefferson
If wealthy Democrats really believe in paying higher taxes, there's nothing stopping them from doing so voluntarily. If Warren Buffet really, really wanted to, he could donate 75% of his income to the Federal government.
Though not the Federal government, probably an even better choice.
If wealthy Democrats really believe in paying higher taxes, there's nothing stopping them from doing so voluntarily. If Warren Buffet really, really wanted to, he could donate 75% of his income to the Federal government.
The internet told me this about Buffet: "In June 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation"
Not exactly sure what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does, but I've gathered it does a lot to help kids become educated and healthy world wide.
Don't police, firefighters, teachers, military and all the goverment employees get paid through "redistribution" due to taxes? It's not a terrible concept really brochacho.
I feel like the difference between wealthy democrats, and wealthy republicans is that dems. are willing to pay a little more for the benefit of the entire country. For as much as the republican party plays off their love for Jesus, they sure as hell don't follow his principles.
Conservatism still holds it's place in government, but there needs to be serious party reform. Other countries have conservative parties that are secular, rational, and relevant to societies needs and changes. Quit swinging on Reagan and Lincolns nuts. They are from a different era, when the party stood for something other than American Exceptionalism and big business.
generally, it was shown (not sure how reacent) that conservatives generally donated more of their time and money as a percetage of income more often than self-proclaimed liberals. Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by WgPaintball
The internet told me this about Buffet: "In June 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation"
Not exactly sure what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does, but I've gathered it does a lot to help kids become educated and healthy world wide.
jus' sayin yo
Cool, he made a fortune lobbying for privilege (estate tax his life insurance company made out on) and low-balling estates whose families couldn't pay. Goes on TV misrepresenting how much taxes he pays since he owns majority stake of Berkshire and that pays cap gains and other taxes, which is part of his salary but he doesn't claim and donates to further lower his burden of taxes. He is the worst kind of person, insisting others should pay more in taxes and willing to get behind law (force) to do it but doesn't donate his filthy crony fortune himself to the government and instead to charity with questionable motives and garner even more phony public support and idealism.
**** Buffet he can go have sex with Michael Moore and raise the most hypocritical dishonest children the world has yet to know
/buffet rant.
__________________
"Originally posted by pokenose: We quit doing that secret Santa thing after the black guy got a bucket of fried chicken, watermelon jolly ranchers, a bottle of colt 45 and a cotton scented candle then someone else got a ball of that free twine you tie down your items with at ikea and a vibrator so you can go **** yourself if you didn't like the twine."
They should just work to encourage the companies they own to pay their employees more, and hire more workers to keep the workloads sane. That would do more for the economy and the country than foundation giving.
generally, it was shown (not sure how reacent) that conservatives generally donated more of their time and money as a percetage of income more often than self-proclaimed liberals. Also
Cool, he made a fortune lobbying for privilege (estate tax his life insurance company made out on) and low-balling estates whose families couldn't pay. Goes on TV misrepresenting how much taxes he pays since he owns majority stake of Berkshire and that pays cap gains and other taxes, which is part of his salary but he doesn't claim and donates to further lower his burden of taxes. He is the worst kind of person, insisting others should pay more in taxes and willing to get behind law (force) to do it but doesn't donate his filthy crony fortune himself to the government and instead to charity with questionable motives and garner even more phony public support and idealism.
**** Buffet he can go have sex with Michael Moore and raise the most hypocritical dishonest children the world has yet to know
/buffet rant.
I hated Catcher in the Rye, book was a joke and should never have been "banned" to gain popularity. I love Quagmire. Go read some Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky lol
Also, not really a self-proclaimed liberal if that was aimed at me... Grew up with a conservative point of view, and a pretty strict constitutionalist. But after traveling around and seeing all the social issues in this country, and how little is done to change anything, I've come to think that you can't truly be a successful nation if so many are without quality schools and medical care. Look at how we fare in literacy, science, and math.. Or as you may think, the devils school subjects.
This nation is far too divided by people who blindly follow political parties. Go out there, learn about the world we live in, have sex on lsd and come back a new man.
I wasn't the first who mentioned Buffet mah brotha. My response was more so sarcastic, due to the fact that he did plan on giving huge amounts of money to go toward education and healthcare for needy children lol
But holding a discussion with ya'll really will just be a mudslinging match of retard. Why mention Michael Moore? Last I knew he didn't have any true political sway, save for perhaps giving people new perspectives on healthcare and gun control. He's a fat activist who makes movies. I can't think of one person, save the goofy highschool liberal who thinks he knows everything about the world because he read a book, who loves that guy.
But I stick to my guns on my original post. Because I am America, and so can you.
They should just work to encourage the companies they own to pay their employees more, and hire more workers to keep the workloads sane. That would do more for the economy and the country than foundation giving.
You cannot endlessly expand a company and keep hiring new workers.
I'd argue that giving funding to support a stronger foundation (youth education, training, health, science and medical research, etc.) is a better long-term deal for the economy. Also, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a world-wide program. It's helping the lives of people around the planet.
I don't want to go off topic though. I simply wanted to point out that some of the world's richest people do, in fact, give a good portion of their wealth back to the world.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
You cannot endlessly expand a company and keep hiring new workers.
Paying workers more is not expansion and hiring to alleviate overwork is not expansion either. Most if not many companies run smaller staffs than needed for standard workloads -- America's workers consistently rank near the top in productivity due to their long hours and heavy workloads. Most people who have worked for a decent length of time have seen positions cut and the work divvied up among the remaining workers.
Redistribution, It is all about being FAIR, right?...
Your Privacy Choices