Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Warren said....Follow

#102 Aug 19 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
My bad. It's a 17"

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#103 Aug 19 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own)

Plus, you need to find a guy to buy all those old futons, 14" CRTs and Nascar collectible plates.


You say 14" CRT like it's a bad thing.

No wonder you can't see anything.




Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lol




















Smiley: mad
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#104 Aug 19 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
HAHA BIJOU IS BLIND!!
HAHA BIJOU IS BLIND!!


now he can see it.

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 2:41pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#105 Aug 19 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,933 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Fact check on a Daily Show clip I saw this morning. Stewart claimed that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 2% of Americans would raise 700 billion over 10 years. Republicans argue this is unfair to the rich, especially when about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. He said that the poorest 50% of Americans own 2.5% of all the wealth in the US; and if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own), it would equal the same amount raised (700 billion) as the income tax raise on the most rich. Granted, that would be "immediately," not over 10 years.

Anyone know if that's correct? The math seemed sound, but I don't know if the figures he was using were.


I don't like taking points directly from Daily Show, but last nights little bit was great. I especially liked that they made a big deal about 99.6% of poor people owning a refrigerator. Like somehow a fridge was some expensive luxury item that was a waste of money, rather than a relatively cheap, decade or longer investment that is almost a requirement to survive on a very low income basis (You have to have some way to store your bulk generic food purchases).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#106 Aug 19 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wouldn't most poor people (or at least many, don't hold me on "most") rent and therefore have a fridge as part of their rental dwelling rather than them throwing down $1,100 for a brand new Kenmore?

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 3:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Aug 19 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Fact check on a Daily Show clip I saw this morning. Stewart claimed that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 2% of Americans would raise 700 billion over 10 years. Republicans argue this is unfair to the rich, especially when about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. He said that the poorest 50% of Americans own 2.5% of all the wealth in the US; and if we took half of their wealth (not income, but everything they own), it would equal the same amount raised (700 billion) as the income tax raise on the most rich. Granted, that would be "immediately," not over 10 years.


That's a lot of statements. Did he bother to mention that if we did let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest 2% (and his numbers are correct) that this would only generate about 5% of the amount needed to balance the budget?

Doesn't this basically just support what I've been saying?

Quote:
Anyone know if that's correct? The math seemed sound, but I don't know if the figures he was using were.


Why does it matter? Why not talk about how much we'd save if we eliminated the Bush tax cuts on everyone? Or how much we'd save if we cut social spending across the board by 10%?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Aug 19 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Aug 19 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Someone posts about Jon Stewart doing exactly what I've been saying the left has been doing and you laugh? You honestly don't see how the combination of constant talk about how much money we'd save if we let the Bush tax cuts expire (but just on the rich!), condemnation and/or dismissal of any GOP ideas, and absolute lack of actual math comparing said savings to the actual deficit might just result in exactly the false "fairy tale" I've been talking about?

They're trying to thread the needle here. They want to keep spending the same (or increase it), and raise taxes to pay for it. They can't tell people they'll have to raise taxes on them to do this, so they do everything they can to make it seem like they're just going to raise taxes on "the rich". What do you think they're doing here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Aug 19 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Someone posts about Jon Stewart doing exactly what I've been saying the left has been doing and you laugh?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol


Edited, Aug 19th 2011 6:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Aug 19 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,933 posts
Ya... the point wasn't so much that the money would solve everything, but that Fox News was going off about how the 700 billion is so insignificant, yet also going off about how 51% of the US citizens didn't pay any federal income tax. The point being that if that 700 billion from the top 2% earners is so insignificant to the debt, and 50% of every poor person in the US's entire worth would be ~700 billion... how significant do they think the federal income tax collected from people making less than 21,000 USD/year would be?

It's the Daily Show, it wasn't offering solutions to the national debt crisis, and instead just making fun of apparent hypocrisy of Fox News saying that 700 billion is insignificant yet millions not being collected from the poorest is outrageous. Followed by various statements of nickle and dime expenditures being so important as well. It's what the Daily Show does, comedy.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#112 Aug 19 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ya... the point wasn't so much that the money would solve everything, but that Fox News was going off about how the 700 billion is so insignificant, yet also going off about how 51% of the US citizens didn't pay any federal income tax. The point being that if that 700 billion from the top 2% earners is so insignificant to the debt, and 50% of every poor person in the US's entire worth would be ~700 billion... how significant do they think the federal income tax collected from people making less than 21,000 USD/year would be?

It's the Daily Show, it wasn't offering solutions to the national debt crisis, and instead just making fun of apparent hypocrisy of Fox News saying that 700 billion is insignificant yet millions not being collected from the poorest is outrageous. Followed by various statements of nickle and dime expenditures being so important as well. It's what the Daily Show does, comedy.


"That amount is only 700,000 NPRs!"

Edit; Oops, off by a magnitude of THOUSANDS Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 7:33pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#113 Aug 19 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually Stewart opened the segment with a joke about how the GOP said we could fix the debt with 100% spending cuts while Democrats had an opposite approach, saying we'd only need 90% spending cuts.

But, hey, why let that get in the way of a hysterical freakout if Gbaji is CERTAIN this proves his point!



Well, now it'll only be his opinion that Stewart said those things...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Aug 19 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
It's what the Daily Show does, comedy.


It's also what gbaji does, accidentally, when he hilariously swings and misses trying to refute it.

It's weird when you can see how his views cause him to skew a point before it's even had a chance to be made.

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 7:32pm by Eske
#115 Aug 19 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Ya... the point wasn't so much that the money would solve everything, but that Fox News was going off about how the 700 billion is so insignificant, yet also going off about how 51% of the US citizens didn't pay any federal income tax. The point being that if that 700 billion from the top 2% earners is so insignificant to the debt, and 50% of every poor person in the US's entire worth would be ~700 billion... how significant do they think the federal income tax collected from people making less than 21,000 USD/year would be?


It's irrelevant though.

The primary argument conservatives make for a more "fair tax" isn't about deficit reduction or even remotely related to deficit reduction, or even brought up in the context of deficit reduction. The argument for changing the tax code so as to ensure that everyone feels some pain when total tax by the federal government increases is specifically about the danger in a democracy of having a large percentage (especially a majority) not paying any part of the bill, but potentially receiving the benefits of increased government spending.

It has *nothing* to do with deficit reduction. It has everything to do with the danger of creating incredibly corrupt vote-buying political processes.

When liberals argue about the Bush tax cuts, they are overwhelmingly making some kind of point in relation to the current deficit/debt situation.

So Stewart is creating a false dilemma.

Quote:
It's the Daily Show, it wasn't offering solutions to the national debt crisis, and instead just making fun of apparent hypocrisy of Fox News saying that 700 billion is insignificant yet millions not being collected from the poorest is outrageous. Followed by various statements of nickle and dime expenditures being so important as well. It's what the Daily Show does, comedy.



Sure. And along the way they just happened to reinforce the idea that eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be good for the economy, get in a jibe about how the GOP wants to ***** over poor people (is it election season yet?), suggest that cutting spending that's less than the Bush tax cuts wouldn't be worth our while, while at the same time managing to twist the fact that the only Dem idea that's actually openly on the table wont work into some kind of attack on GOP proposals.

But I'm sure all of that was just accidental, right? I mean, it's just a comedy show, right? No one actually forms any opinions based on what is said or is influenced in any way, right? Right!? Lol!

Edited, Aug 19th 2011 5:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Aug 19 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Dig in deeper, man
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Aug 19 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Ah.... The "I laugh when I have no counter" bit. It's a Joph classic!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Aug 19 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What counter? You're just babbling, you obviously hadn't seen the clip before you started babbling (who knows if you have by now) and are just spinning.

Gee, Gbaji, should I point out the errors so you can start yelling "It's just my opinion!!!"?

Or should I just laugh at the hysterical martyrdom complex on display before me?

Answer: Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Aug 19 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji, why do you care what the rich are taxed? It doesn't affect you at all.
#120 Aug 19 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji, why do you care what the rich are taxed? It doesn't affect you at all.


Why do you ask a question I've already answered 500 times on this forum?

I'll give you a hint: The second sentence you wrote is false. As I have said numerous times, when you tax the rich, you don't really take anything from that rich person. Most people we'd label as rich could pay several times as much taxes as they do and not have to reduce their own personal standard of living a single dime. But "someone" pays that tax, right? That someone is us. It's all the people their investments benefits. It's the people the money that was taxed away might have hired, or the products they might have made which are now just a little bit more expensive or less advanced, or any of the zillions of things that rich people do with their money.


Who do you think is actually paying the tax if a guy who earns $500M/year, spends $50M of it on himself, and then rolls the remaining $450M each year into his investment portfolio pays an extra $20M in taxes? Do you honestly think he's going to deduct that from his personal expenses? Or do you think he'll just put less of the remainder back into the market?


And I'll ask this question again: If you don't believe that money held/invested in the market actually affects the fortunes of regular joes, then why do you suppose a housing bubble collapse, which almost exclusively affected the total volume of wealth in the investment pools of large financial institutions caused a recession and made unemployment increase from 5% to nearly 10%? As I have also said repeatedly, clearly money invested in the market *does* affect all of us. If a reduction in that money causes us to lose jobs, then it's reasonable to argue that the presence of that money was what created those jobs in the first place (or at least sustained them). Not directly, but indirectly via market effects (yes, the dreaded "trickle down theory" that liberals have worked so hard for 3 decades to convince everyone doesn't work).


This can't really be in question anymore, can it? And if we accept that that money does help all of us, and not just the rich, and we accept that by raising taxes on the rich, we're really taxing that pool of investment money, why continue to think that it doesn't hurt us at all? Why on earth, after we just saw a reduction of investment capital in the financial industry caused by a bubble trigger a nasty recession would we refuse to believe that the same reduction caused by taxation would be any different? It might be slightly less dramatic, but it will have the same dollar for dollar effect.


That's why I oppose higher taxes on the rich. Because it does affect me, and everyone else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Aug 19 2011 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
why do you suppose a housing bubble collapse, which almost exclusively affected the total volume of wealth in the investment pools of large financial institutions caused a recession and made unemployment increase from 5% to nearly 10%?

Lack of real development and growth in other economic sectors from 2001-2008 (in fact, decay of those sectors in many instances) but rather relying entirely on the ephemeral props of a bubble economy to look good.

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Aug 19 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Gbaji, let's say increase the percentiles in the upper tax brackets instead of the middle tax brackets. These are not the poor, they have investments, which as you said help to build companies and are a component in growing the economy. Keep in mind that these are the only two taxation models available, as increasing the very bottom tier tax brackets is realistically not sufficient to generate any sort of income increase, as they don't have enough taxable wealth. Both potentially taxable groups will have to make changes in their investment choices, taxing no-one won't affect the policy decisions in nearly they way you want; as public debt isn't as strong a motivator for program reform as actual taxation, and will lead to higher taxes down the road.

If anything, higher taxation rates in the higher brackets (on investment income) would give a competitive advantage to broad based asset management, which would created less irrational markets and thus tighter and less rigid hi-low swings, since the fundamental mechanics get weird when investor size is enough to buyout swaths of market assets.

Sidenote: I'd actually like to make several entitlement adjustments, like a progressive welfare incentive system (ie. transitioning out the irregular income edge effects created by the mish-mash of current entitlements into a smooth income curvature for those working while on public assistance), similar reforms for those who have been laid off/are out of work (along with a decaying compensation scale), and a couple other smaller things. I haven't taken enough of a look at EoL care modeling to give any well balanced solutions for that.

Quote:
Why on earth, after we just saw a reduction of investment capital in the financial industry caused by a bubble trigger a nasty recession would we refuse to believe that the same reduction caused by taxation would be any different? It might be slightly less dramatic, but it will have the same dollar for dollar effect.


Yeah, no, it's not the reduction of capital that hurt the financial industry. It's a valuation problem.

If a bank is worth less than zero dollars (A solvency problem), it's not a problem that can ever be solved by increasing investment returns by cutting taxes on that investment. It is **** out of luck. (Barring a negative case bailout)

If noone wants to lend to the bank because they think it's worth less than zero dollars, due to unknown asset evaluations, it's not a problem that can be solved by increasing investment returns by cutting taxes on that investment. It's a problem that requires public evaluation (and subsequent correction), capital bridging (positive case public or private bailout) or increases in investment returns orders of magnitude above capital gains tax reduction, unless the tax is somewhere on the order of 50%+.

Please think things through here.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#123 Aug 20 2011 at 4:38 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji, why do you care what the rich are taxed? It doesn't affect you at all.


Why do you ask a question I've already answered 500 times on this forum?

I'll give you a hint: The second sentence you wrote is false. As I have said numerous times, when you tax the rich, you don't really take anything from that rich person. Most people we'd label as rich could pay several times as much taxes as they do and not have to reduce their own personal standard of living a single dime. But "someone" pays that tax, right? That someone is us. It's all the people their investments benefits. It's the people the money that was taxed away might have hired, or the products they might have made which are now just a little bit more expensive or less advanced, or any of the zillions of things that rich people do with their money.


Who do you think is actually paying the tax if a guy who earns $500M/year, spends $50M of it on himself, and then rolls the remaining $450M each year into his investment portfolio pays an extra $20M in taxes? Do you honestly think he's going to deduct that from his personal expenses? Or do you think he'll just put less of the remainder back into the market?


And I'll ask this question again: If you don't believe that money held/invested in the market actually affects the fortunes of regular joes, then why do you suppose a housing bubble collapse, which almost exclusively affected the total volume of wealth in the investment pools of large financial institutions caused a recession and made unemployment increase from 5% to nearly 10%? As I have also said repeatedly, clearly money invested in the market *does* affect all of us. If a reduction in that money causes us to lose jobs, then it's reasonable to argue that the presence of that money was what created those jobs in the first place (or at least sustained them). Not directly, but indirectly via market effects (yes, the dreaded "trickle down theory" that liberals have worked so hard for 3 decades to convince everyone doesn't work).


This can't really be in question anymore, can it? And if we accept that that money does help all of us, and not just the rich, and we accept that by raising taxes on the rich, we're really taxing that pool of investment money, why continue to think that it doesn't hurt us at all? Why on earth, after we just saw a reduction of investment capital in the financial industry caused by a bubble trigger a nasty recession would we refuse to believe that the same reduction caused by taxation would be any different? It might be slightly less dramatic, but it will have the same dollar for dollar effect.


That's why I oppose higher taxes on the rich. Because it does affect me, and everyone else.


Ok, that's not what I was getting at, but I should have known you'd go off on some tangent. Thanks.
#124ThiefX, Posted: Aug 20 2011 at 12:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You know what the truly funny (sad) part is? It's that you're too ******* stupid to realize how ******* stupid that question/statement was.
#125 Aug 21 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,000 posts
Quote:
It's irrelevant though.


Gbaji's standard response to anything he can't think of a real answer to. Yawn.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#126 Aug 22 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
why do you suppose a housing bubble collapse, which almost exclusively affected the total volume of wealth in the investment pools of large financial institutions caused a recession and made unemployment increase from 5% to nearly 10%?

Lack of real development and growth in other economic sectors from 2001-2008 (in fact, decay of those sectors in many instances) but rather relying entirely on the ephemeral props of a bubble economy to look good.

Smiley: thumbsup


Then why did we see increases in the aftermath of other such collapses in the financial sectors? As the S&L crisis progressed, we saw unemployment spike up to 8%. After the tech-stock bubble and 9/11 attacks, unemployment spiked up just over 6%.

Clearly, this is not a factor that is unique to some economic conditions which started in 2001 and can somehow be blamed on Bush and the GOP. This is *normal*. When the financial sector takes a hit, unemployment tends to increases. The effects of less capital held in the supply side "trickles down" and affects Joe public working at their jobs.


****. It's a very clear labor trend. Plug in a good starting date on that applet and look at the output.

What's interesting is that the low points for unemployment occur just before the "crash" in each case, with the high point occurring about 1-2 years afterwards. Crisis point for S&L crisis was 1989. Crisis point for techbubble and 9/11 was late 2001. Crisis point for housing bubble was mid 2008. While I'm sure a "correlation != causation" response is coming, given that both our arguments are based on an assumption that one is causative to the other, it's an unfair counter. If you're going to argue that the housing bubble caused false low unemployment and then high unemployment after it crashed, it's kinda absurd to argue that it *didn't* have the same effects in the others given that we see a very similar pattern.

This pattern is not "new" in any way. It's normal. There's just no data to support the supposition that Bush and the GOP made some fundamental change to our economic structure to make this recession "different" than the previous ones. Certainly, you can't make that argument just looking at the employment figures.

What is new is the lack of recovery though. And as I've been arguing all along, that's because of the difference in what our government did in response to the respective economic conditions. While the specifics of the events leading up to each crisis were different, the pattern of effect was very similar in all three cases. If we want to look at why the recovery is different in this case, we need to look at the differences. And in this case, those differences occurred *after* the crash, not before. The before-crash pattern is the same. It's what happened after that is different.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2011 3:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (56)