Get your government out of my hole!
Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?
Firestreak said:
But the government are the rich people...
They are just spending money so us little people can have a little of their tax cut. I understand if you cry, they will tip you better.
Only if they are Japanese business men.Trippyhippy said:
h34r:
Rones said:Only if they are Japanese business men.
:sars11:
:sars06: rittle boys onry!
I never get the Japanese jokes.......
?
?
Darkdante said:
It's a reference from the show "Drawn Together"...
Xandar figures out he's gay and is forced into prostitution by yadda yadda yadda...
He's real popular with the japanese businessmen because he can't stop crying. Eventually, he accidently kills one when he's shitting on top of a glass table with the japanese business man under it, the glass breaks, then another prostitute helps him dispose of the body...
It really is funny and not JUST disgusting (although it is disgusting too)
I'm sorry I asked, lol.
Darkdante said:
As well you shuold be.
So I suppose this is the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure we can all agree our views on such matters as the ones discussed in this thread are largely different because of the different cultures we were all exposed to when we were children and the experiences we've each had in our lives thus far.
Now how bout a group hug to make sure we can all still be friends.
:emote_grouphug:
Hugs cost extra. :spiteful:Trippyhippy said:
Rones said:
Er... extra? You aren't a prostitute are you rones?!!!
man, i feel betrayed. I'm never making out with you again
S
Sculli
Guest
I am too lazy to look through this thread, just figured to add that the current administration will ask Congress to raise the debt cap to 9 trillion in the coming days. That's a bunch of national debt, and I would like to see someone agrue that the current administration had nothing to do with getting this country into more debt than we have ever seen.
It was Clinton's fault!
:evilsmile:
:evilsmile:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34787-2004May17.html
Here some more stuff to read for those who think I need to take an economics class. You still think the workers are benefitting from giving tax breaks to the rich? You still think corporations have to worry about taxes? Then you can argue that with Warren Buffet.
http://www.house.gov/lincolndavis/newsmarch182003.htm
Heres an article about debt and taxes. Still think lowering taxes is actually giving money back to America? This is like drawing money out from your credit card, sooner or later you need to pay it back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701736.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy
Hey lookie they using government pension money to pay back the debt. lol
Here some more stuff to read for those who think I need to take an economics class. You still think the workers are benefitting from giving tax breaks to the rich? You still think corporations have to worry about taxes? Then you can argue that with Warren Buffet.
http://www.house.gov/lincolndavis/newsmarch182003.htm
Heres an article about debt and taxes. Still think lowering taxes is actually giving money back to America? This is like drawing money out from your credit card, sooner or later you need to pay it back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701736.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy
Hey lookie they using government pension money to pay back the debt. lol
I read through all three articles. 2nd and 3rd having nothing to do with taxes and big corporations. Did you post the wrong links? 2nd is just a complaint about the national debt and taxes cuts in general (not specifically corportions). It does not discuss the effect of taxes on corporations. 3rd just discusses the debt and then tech security near the end.
The interesting one is the first link.
Lower taxes boosts the economy. Higher taxes hurts the economy. Your 1st link only supports those beliefs. We already have income taxed as it moves to individuals. There is no reason to tax the businesses themselves, that only serves to hurt the economy and slow growth. I'm still waiting to see how you handle this:
The interesting one is the first link.
Thank you for providing a link that supports my argument. The large part of that article is just stating the fact that the government is taking in less money from taxing corporations and we have a national debt. However, it supports my statements that tax cuts boost the economy. It discusses loopholes some, and I agree those should be fixed. However, you do not fix loopholes by just stacking on more taxes to make up for it.
This is an example of economic growth that happens when you reduce taxes. This is exactly what you claim does not happen and has no effect. If the taxes were insignifigant, this wouldn't be important to corporations.
Lower taxes boosts the economy. Higher taxes hurts the economy. Your 1st link only supports those beliefs. We already have income taxed as it moves to individuals. There is no reason to tax the businesses themselves, that only serves to hurt the economy and slow growth. I'm still waiting to see how you handle this:
Rones said:
Last edited:
Rones said:
Well sure, but if 10,000 businesses give up an insignifgant amount of cash, cumulativly, that's signifigant. We aren't just wanting to tax 1 business, or any business for that matter, we want to tax the people that own them.
Firestreak said:
Is this some kind of badly coordinated attack? Why are you guys both using the same argument?Rones said:
This is like saying if I eat 1 orange and it is good for me, then if I eat a 1000 oranges then it will be good for me.
To Fire: Just because a 100% tax on ciggarttes is bad, that doesn't mean that a 4% tax is bad. With that kind of menatlity all taxes are bad, might as well do away with the government entirely. Lets go back to Hunting and gathering, I'll go get my furskins you grab the spears.
To Rones: You just made a case to raise taxes dude. Because if we follow your advice then government can't do shit. But anyway Trippy's comment pretty much covered this.
Firestreak said:
Again bad example. How did the consumer get jacked? Any taxes collected will go back to the poor in the form of government spending that everyone benefits from, it also reimburses the government for spending so much on the health effects of ciggartes, and it also is a deterrent for many to quit smoking. It was for me anyway.
I know you guys want to harp on how much goverment officials make, but lemme set you striaght, they do not make billions like the oil, ciggerate, and technology CEO's make. And when you give them tax cuts, it goes to the CEO's.
Please explain how the consumer got jacked? The ciggartte smoker got jacked yes, but THAT was the plan, and it works.
Firestreak said:
Firestreak said:
Exactamondo!
Arnt you guys the one saying that if we give tax breaks to the rich it will somehow be passed on to the poor?
Why would they do that? They got no reason to! Thats what I"ve been trying to say all this time, why you arguing?
This is WHY you tax the RICH.
Darkdante said:
Not sure what your reading Rones, but here is a sentence from the 2nd article that pretty much summerizes it.
"I object to tax cuts that are financed with borrowed money," Davis said, "and will increase taxes on our children and grandchildren."
Rones said:
Ok Rones I'll run with this, seems like your reading comprehension has dropped a notch though.
There are 2 ways to fix loopholes, more taxes, or fix the loophole.
The tax cuts that we have today are not boosting the economy, it is passing the burden on to future gernerations. This is like going on a shopping spree when you don't have no money in the bank, frankly it's stupid.
Poor person #1: Lookie lookie those dumbfucks at the bank gave me another credit card.
Poor person #2: Coool, lets go shopping now while the good times last!
Theres your economic boom Rones.
Rone said:
So how do you explain Clinton? :biggrin:
Last edited:
Darkdante said:
Anything can be toxic beyond a certain point. That's a medical thing, it's not a economic thing. You can't explode off too much money in your wallet. I never said no taxes, I simply illustrated my point of who pays for those taxes.
Obviously some taxes are needed. I already told you the things I want the government to do. Basic, needed function. Protection, roads, ext.
If we can already agree your extreme would be communism, and that's a total failure, and anarchy nobody wants. Let's compare economies on a sliding scale from the US, to more liberal European economies with higher taxes. The further you go, the worse off the average citizen is.
It appears to me the question isn't the standard of living for the poorest Americans that bothers you all. It's the comparitive wealth. When you increase taxes, don't forget the consumers(everyone) pays those, not the rich specifically. If you for example tax walmart, to get at the rich executives, who suffers, those executives or the consumers(many of whom, poor). If you can keep the costs down of real estate and consumables, 15,000 dollars can either be a lot or a little to live off of in a year. Just compare how far you'll get with 15k in New York City versus rural Alabama. Taxes make everything more expensive.
Darkdante said:
Who the fuck is the government to tell me to smoke or not? It's enough to hear propoganda through 13 years of the public education system, to have it outlawed in just about every place but my home and car... do I really need the government to do more to make life hell for smokers?
And I don't give a shit about how much government officials make. It's a question of the cost of running useless government branches. Don't compare it to a company. Companies make money. governments waste money as a job.
Just look at toll booths. The government had to build a branch of the parks and highway commission to handle all the tollbooths. All their employees, toll booth operators.
So guess what they resisted? EZ-Pass. Segments of our government fought tooth and nail to keep EZ-Pass out, because they don't want to fire the toll booth operators. Who we don't need. Who we're wasting money on. And it's a shitty job, and it's dangerous and they get their lounges filled with smog.
But oh no, they need a job! So it's better to keep people's job where they're not needed than to fire them, free up the money and allow the economy to absorb them in other places?
And of course to collect 25 cents, people waited literally hours on long toll booths, causing countless MILLIONS of lost net into the local economy. Gogo, big government!
Darkdante said:
The smoker IS THE CONSUMER!!! Look at what you're typing! How does the consumer get jacked??? Is there someone besides the guy buying the smokes who is the consumer I'm failing to see?
Darkdante said:
We don't tax the rich. There's no assett tax. What the government taxing is productivity. What you have to start thinking is, what is it you really want for the poor, and what are the effects of taxes?
If a tax increase, for example, results in a 10,000 person layoff. And then as a result the governent pays for those 10,000. with the money from the taxes?
Is this better, people not working? The economy functions best when people are fired from positions where they're no longer needed, hired in new companies that easily form and expand because the government doesn't hinder their development. And crappy minimum wage jobs going overseas through outsourcing helps our economy, because it allows for more companies to be created, or current companies to expand, reabsorbing the jobs lost, but BETTER jobs.
Last edited:
I knew DD wouldn't catch on to that, but I'm glad you did. My response is, while it maybe be insignifigant to companies individually, the collective effective on the economy will be signifigant if the government is drawing out a signifigant amount of money. The government is a leech, drawing money from the economy in a parasitic relationship and disturbs the proper flow of the economy. However, it is a necessary evil. We can minimize its effect though by making sure it leechs from the least damaging area and as little as is needed.Trippyhippy said:
Actually no. As I stated in an earlier post, most anything positive the government could do, can be done better by leaving the money in the economy where not only will be people earn more but the economy will grow faster.DarkDante said:
You are right, debt is bad and rising. However, you forget that by taxing less now, the economy will grow more and faster. This means while you get less in taxes this year, you will get more in taxes next year than you would have had you taxed heavily the previous year. Taxes reduce the growth rate, thus you want to get by on the minimum amount of taxes possible, which can actually result in more taxes being collected in the long run thanks to economic growth.
Why do you think European countries struggle with such a low GDP growth? Here's a hint, it starts with a "T", ends with "s", is five letters long, and it isn't Texas. :wink:
Your logic fails. Just because a national debt is getting passed along doesn't mean the tax cuts don't boost the economy. You have yet to prove that tax cuts don't boost the economy. Your link actually proves otherwise as I even quoted in my previous post.
It was the dot com bubble. It was going to happen regardless of who was in charge. It is also an example of what happens when you let the economy grow beyond safe and steady rate (typically 3-5% GDP annualy).
Rones said:
In my opinion, the current administration fails miserably at taking taxes from the least damaging area.
you say this as if the economy is in good shape...
Read this and pick it apart for me, as you inevitably will. Reguardless, I'm still of the opinion the economy is not getting better, but a lot of that is from observing the world around me. I know at least 10 people that have been laid off because of companies downsizing to increase proffits.
This is all theoretical. Here is another theory. After you find time to go over it, tell me what you think.
Truthfully, I'm ignorant to the economy of other nations. But I can tell you 1 thing, Texas is the root of our problem... How come everytime a Texan is in the Whitehouse, we have to go fight a war? As for Eisenhower, that one wasn't his fault. Good thing he was in the Whitehouse tho, without a Texan, we'd be screwed! That son of a bitch Johnson was from texas too.
I believe the burdon of proof here lies at your feet. You are the one that says the economy is so much better, tell us how. How does the adminstration help to make the economy better for the poor man. Don't just come at me with Trickle down economics, I (along with many other people) don't agree that it helps the poor man, and you know that.
The dot com bubble got bigger this year. Sergey Brin the president and co-founder of google is the 43rd richest man in the US with a net worth of 4 Billion dollars.
edit: Fixed a [/url] tag
Last edited:
It appears to me that you're ignoring basic economic fundelmentals. You either aren't very well educated about the economy(hence all you're intelligent sounding arguments are quotes), or you are ignoring the fundelmentals to justify intellectually what you believe emotoinally.