[quote]tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.[/quote]
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
[quote]100meters wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
[/quote]
Seriously?
Sorry bud, but I am making slightly more than minimum wage as is. Try again.
Do you know what raising the minimum wage is going to do, though?
1)It will encourage more employers to higher illegals.
2)It raises the costs of goods, thus raising the cost of living and completely offsetting the additional wages.
3)It decreases jobs, many small businesses can’t afford to pay artificially high wages, which leads to more unemployment.
Hmmm - push inflationary policies in this environment? Not sounding too good to me.
I also assume Tedro was referring to this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
EXCERPT:
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Hmmm - push inflationary policies in this environment? Not sounding too good to me.
I also assume Tedro was referring to this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
EXCERPT:
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.[/quote]
But no income taxes for the poor or senior citizens! I can’t wait to be old and poor so that the government will do all the work for me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear lord, if that had happened already we wouldn’t be having this discussion and people would think nothing of a black president.
Are you saying you think all “values, privileges, and restrictions based on race” have been erased? You think you will have the exact same obstacles in life as a black man?
Really?[/quote]
Really?
Read my first post again, slowly if you have to, and try to find where I said anything even remotely similar to that.
[quote]
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.[/quote]
You completely missed the point; you weren’t even close.
Some posters said that considering Obama’s skin color – even positively – when voting is racist.
You then said that if voting for a black guy because he’s black is racist, then the entire Civil Rights movement was racist as well.
I then said that I believed that the goal of the Civil Rights movement was to eliminate the practice of judging a person by the color of their skin. Thus, considering the color of a person’s skin when casting a ballot would be a practice opposed by the Civil Rights movement.
Thus, while it would be racist to vote for Obama either partly or wholly because he’s black, it would not mean that the Civil Rights movement itself was a racist movement.
That was the extent of my post. If you want to argue legitimately with the point I was making, then feel free. But I’m not going to argue strawmen with you.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.
100meters wrote:
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
Hmmm - push inflationary policies in this environment? Not sounding too good to me.
I also assume Tedro was referring to this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
EXCERPT:
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.[/quote]
What Krudlow is clearly worried about is that his taxes will be higher. I don’t care.
Jethro’s check will be fine.
The economy will get better,
Kudlow’s check will get bigger,
etc.,etc, the usual econcomic benefits of liberalism.
Whilst you may be more concerned with Kudlow’s prosperity, I’m more concerned with america’s.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.
100meters wrote:
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
Hmmm - push inflationary policies in this environment? Not sounding too good to me.
I also assume Tedro was referring to this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
EXCERPT:
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
What Krudlow is clearly worried about is that his taxes will be higher. I don’t care.
Jethro’s check will be fine.
The economy will get better,
Kudlow’s check will get bigger,
etc.,etc, the usual econcomic benefits of liberalism.
Whilst you may be more concerned with Kudlow’s prosperity, I’m more concerned with america’s.
[/quote]
Rob Peter to pay Paul. Great theory. This way, the top contributors of the country quit contributing since they are not taking home the money they deserve, while the ones that don’t contribute anyways are given further incentive to do nothing.
Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
<<< Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.[/quote]
You took the words right outta my fingers. I continue to be unceasingly mystified by people’s starry eyed confidence in the ability of government bureaucrats to spend their money more efficiently than they can.
Not only is it theoretically flawed, but it’s been a loud grotesque disaster everywhere it’s been tried and in direct proportion to it’s purity.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.
100meters wrote:
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
BostonBarrister wrote:
Hmmm - push inflationary policies in this environment? Not sounding too good to me.
I also assume Tedro was referring to this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
EXCERPT:
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
100meters wrote:
What Krudlow is clearly worried about is that his taxes will be higher. I don’t care.
Jethro’s check will be fine.
The economy will get better,
Kudlow’s check will get bigger,
etc.,etc, the usual econcomic benefits of liberalism.
Whilst you may be more concerned with Kudlow’s prosperity, I’m more concerned with america’s.
Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.[/quote]
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
<<< Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.
You took the words right outta my fingers. I continue to be unceasingly mystified by people’s starry eyed confidence in the ability of government bureaucrats to spend their money more efficiently than they can.
Not only is it theoretically flawed, but it’s been a loud grotesque disaster everywhere it’s been tried and in direct proportion to it’s purity.[/quote]
How has the last century been a disaster for this country? Because taxes have only been higher going backwards?
Why is it so hard to grasp the concept of taxes need to be set at appropriate levels, and these levels could be higher or lower depending on the circumstances? We are in debt, and the debt is increasing, therefore we need more money. When we have money in the bank we need less money. Simple concepts for anybody, except the greedy (Kudlow) and the stupid (conservatives).
[quote]100meters wrote:
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
[/quote]
No, I meant bad economics, hence your liberalism. That should have been obvious, but I assume you’re reading with the same rose-colored glasses you use to evaluate economic policy…
The capitalized NOTHING goes to far - they do have something to do with bad economics, though it obviously depends on the absolute amount of taxes. And the level of the optimum amount of taxes is obviously one of the cruxes of the disagreement.
Back on topic with Hillary, Stephen Green offers these observations after tonight’s debate:
http://vodkapundit.com/?p=9511
[i]Debate Drunkblogging - REMEMBER THE ALAMO!
Posted by Stephen Green on 21 Feb 2008 at 09:45 pm
Also remember that the defenders lost at the Alamo.
I never thought I’d say this, but Hillary Clinton is too stupid, dependent, and timid to be President of the United States of America. A year ago, even a couple months ago, I might have said that Clinton was too shrewd, shrill, and bellicose to be President. But not anymore. Not after tonight.
Clinton came into tonight’s debate a loser. She lost the last ten primary contests, she lost the support of some unknown number of superdelegates, and she lost the mantle of inevitability to Barack Obama. She came into tonight’s debate needing to shake things up. And what did we get? The same Hillary we’ve seen in every other debate of this overlong campaign season.
That’s stupid.
Clinton has spent millions of dollars on election advisors and pollsters who told her she didn’t need a plan extending past Super Tuesday. Her advisors told her she didn’t need to bother spending money on the ground in states like Wisconsin and Texas and Ohio. Her advisors told her to play nice against Obama. And she took heed, no matter how often her advisors were wrong.
That’s dependent.
Hillary needed to shake things up. She needed to be bold, be daring. She needed to show her heart and her steel. Instead we got… what? A candidate who changed the subject when the going got rough. When asked about the Mexican border, Clinton talked about Canada. When asked about Obama’s credentials to be commander-in-chief, she talked about health insurance. When asked about what she’d do as President, she pretty much admitted that she wasn’t going to get the job. “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine,” she said.
That’s timid.
This is the Hillary Clinton who had some bloggers - including me - buying into the counterfactual nonsense that she’d prove to be “the most uncompromising wartime leader in American history?” Oh, please - she can’t even stand up to Barack Obama.
Imagine how she’d do against the Taliban, or Beijing. Hell, if you’re a Democrat, imagine how quickly and completely Clinton would fold to the Republican minority in Congress.
Clinton has already lost, and deservedly so.[/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
No, I meant bad economics, hence your liberalism. That should have been obvious, but I assume you’re reading with the same rose-colored glasses you use to evaluate economic policy…
The capitalized NOTHING goes to far - they do have something to do with bad economics, though it obviously depends on the absolute amount of taxes. And the level of the optimum amount of taxes is obviously one of the cruxes of the disagreement.[/quote]
Uhmm… any tax level can have something to do with bad economics, hence “per se”. Taxes will be higher and have been higher, and things got better and will get better for more folks than have benefited at the current levels.
But still greedy people will keep saying these same stupid things about higher taxes.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
No, I meant bad economics, hence your liberalism. That should have been obvious, but I assume you’re reading with the same rose-colored glasses you use to evaluate economic policy…
The capitalized NOTHING goes to far - they do have something to do with bad economics, though it obviously depends on the absolute amount of taxes. And the level of the optimum amount of taxes is obviously one of the cruxes of the disagreement.
Uhmm… any tax level can have something to do with bad economics, hence “per se”. Taxes will be higher and have been higher, and things got better and will get better for more folks than have benefited at the current levels.
But still greedy people will keep saying these same stupid things about higher taxes.
[/quote]
First, you confuse causation and correlation and second, the higher the prize, the lower, ceteris paribus the demand.
That is sound economics and also true for the demand of work- Meaning tax people enough and they´ll stop working.
[quote]100meters wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bye-bye paycheck.
Actually he wants to increase the minimum wage, so your check will be bigger, no word on increasing minimum IQ’s though (dangerously low judging by your post.)
[/quote]
You are an idiot.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.[/quote]
He may not be very bright but at least he isn’t spouting conspiracy theories and gold buggery.
[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
No, I meant bad economics, hence your liberalism. That should have been obvious, but I assume you’re reading with the same rose-colored glasses you use to evaluate economic policy…
The capitalized NOTHING goes to far - they do have something to do with bad economics, though it obviously depends on the absolute amount of taxes. And the level of the optimum amount of taxes is obviously one of the cruxes of the disagreement.
Uhmm… any tax level can have something to do with bad economics, hence “per se”. Taxes will be higher and have been higher, and things got better and will get better for more folks than have benefited at the current levels.
But still greedy people will keep saying these same stupid things about higher taxes.
First, you confuse causation and correlation and second, the higher the prize, the lower, ceteris paribus the demand.
That is sound economics and also true for the demand of work- Meaning tax people enough and they´ll stop working.
[/quote]
Uh, no.
They’ll keep working. Even at pre-bush levels the tax level on elites would historically be very, very, very low.
[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
surely you mean superior economics (hence my liberalism)
obviously higher taxes has NOTHING per se to do with bad economics, and conservatives have always looked like idiots making that statement.
No, I meant bad economics, hence your liberalism. That should have been obvious, but I assume you’re reading with the same rose-colored glasses you use to evaluate economic policy…
The capitalized NOTHING goes to far - they do have something to do with bad economics, though it obviously depends on the absolute amount of taxes. And the level of the optimum amount of taxes is obviously one of the cruxes of the disagreement.
Uhmm… any tax level can have something to do with bad economics, hence “per se”. Taxes will be higher and have been higher, and things got better and will get better for more folks than have benefited at the current levels.
But still greedy people will keep saying these same stupid things about higher taxes.
First, you confuse causation and correlation and second, the higher the prize, the lower, ceteris paribus the demand.
That is sound economics and also true for the demand of work- Meaning tax people enough and they´ll stop working.
Uh, no.
They’ll keep working. Even at pre-bush levels the tax level on elites would historically be very, very, very low.
[/quote]
But they stop sooner as they would otherwise do, meaning they create less wealth for all people. Which could interestingly lead to less tax revenues when taxes become higher.
Meanwhile those elites pay almost all taxes.
If they contribute that much to society, first by creating so much wealth that they get royally paid and second by being so heavily taxed, why not just say thank you and let them be?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
<<< Your blind faith in bad economics does not make me feel more secure about America’s prosperity.
You took the words right outta my fingers. I continue to be unceasingly mystified by people’s starry eyed confidence in the ability of government bureaucrats to spend their money more efficiently than they can.
Not only is it theoretically flawed, but it’s been a loud grotesque disaster everywhere it’s been tried and in direct proportion to it’s purity.
How has the last century been a disaster for this country? Because taxes have only been higher going backwards?
Why is it so hard to grasp the concept of taxes need to be set at appropriate levels, and these levels could be higher or lower depending on the circumstances? We are in debt, and the debt is increasing, therefore we need more money. When we have money in the bank we need less money. Simple concepts for anybody, except the greedy (Kudlow) and the stupid (conservatives).
[/quote]
Lowering taxes INCREASES revenues in a free market which this is admittedly resembling less and less. There are some very hard historical numbers that make this undeniable. During the Eighties revenues went through the roof in the wake of lowered taxes, but not even Reagan could stop the socialists like you in congress from spending it all on vast astronomically large programs that continue to this day to fly in the face of everything this country stands for.
Some research would hit you between the eyes with these facts, but the peoples republic of Massachusetts has a very low population of citizens who entangle themselves in trivialities like facts or history when there’s all these neato big government theories to inflict upon themselves.
There are a number of reasons why this country will not survive in it’s historical form and this could be debated to the tune of thousands of pages in a forum like this which is the reason I so rarely get involved. It’s pointless. I started my adult life as a hippified, peace, love, party down dumbass and spent the last 20 years paying attention to reality and learning the grave errors in my thinking. Nobody is changing my mind and long after I’ve left this thread which is going to be soon, nobody else’s will be changed either.