Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#327 Nov 09 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Quote:
your country is bleeding out the *** like it was @#%^ed by an elepahant


It was ****** by an elephant, that's the whole problem.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#328 Nov 09 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?


It's an interpretive dance.

Interpret it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#329 Nov 10 2011 at 4:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?


It's an interpretive dance.

Interpret it.
It just means you want to have buttsex with lolgaxe, right?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#330 Nov 10 2011 at 4:54 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
catwho wrote:
Quote:
your country is bleeding out the *** like it was @#%^ed by an elepahant


It was @#%^ed by an elephant, that's the whole problem.


Eh, the democrats are as much to blame as the GOP in this. Which is why I think your political system is a joke, your politicians are pathetic, and like i mentioned your country is currently holding my country back. It is too bad my government doesn't have enough balls to trade elsewhere while your politicians play like kids in a school yard.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#331 Nov 10 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
I fully support 'cutting' the top marginal rate to 86.45%. Let's account for inflation and make the trigger something like 1.3 million as opposed to $200k.


You do realize, that just like back then, such a tax would collect very close to zero revenue?

The more significant change (which you conveniently ignored) was the massive reduction to the top corporate tax rate. Ironically, that tax was targeted honestly at "excessive profits". Sound familiar to rhetoric used today? Clearly, the Congress back then realized that those excessive profits were necessary for economic growth. It's a pity that we have to relearn that lesson again.


What do they say about those who do not learn from history?
In regards to corporate tax rates, I'd like to see a low corporate tax rate; let the company do its business. Highly tax salaries above a certain threshold, dividends above a certain threshold, and capitol gains from trading stocks above a certain threshold (I'm sure TLW can find a loophole, and that should be taxed, too). Basically, let the corporation have cash to hire, build, grow, and set some aside for a rainy day, but have a relatively high tax rate for people cashing out on it massively.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#332 Nov 10 2011 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?
It's an interpretive dance.

Interpret it.
It just means you want to have buttsex with lolgaxe, right?
I'd be an angry top.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#333 Nov 10 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?
It's an interpretive dance.

Interpret it.
It just means you want to have buttsex with lolgaxe, right?
I'd be an angry top.
Just for him? If not, when and where?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#334 Nov 10 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
Thursdays. Somewhere dark, because it's all the same in the dark. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#335 Nov 10 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Thursdays. Somewhere dark, because it's all the same in the dark. Smiley: schooled


Puts a whole new spin on "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue."
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#336 Nov 10 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?
It's an interpretive dance.

Interpret it.
It just means you want to have buttsex with lolgaxe, right?
I'd be an angry top.
Just for him? If not, when and where?


I'm game.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#337 Nov 10 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I think we need lolgaxe (chest) pics first.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#338 Nov 10 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I think we need lolgaxe (chest) pics first.

I'm still game.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#339 Nov 10 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Back on topic, behold, Infographics!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#340 Nov 10 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The fact that the infographic doesn't account for what percentage of OWS supporters are still students disturbs me (and would be significantly less so if they didn't go out of their way to label the retirees).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#341 Nov 10 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
You can be a student and still be employed, even if it's part time. Like I am.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#342 Nov 10 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
catwho wrote:
You can be a student and still be employed, even if it's part time. Like I am.


Smiley: nod

I was going to say I worked 2-3 jobs while at college. But it goes both ways, as it not unusual for retirees to work part time either.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#343 Nov 10 2011 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's a terrible picture of a hipster.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#344 Nov 10 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
catwho wrote:
You can be a student and still be employed, even if it's part time. Like I am.


Smiley: nod

I was going to say I worked 2-3 jobs while at college. But it goes both ways, as it not unusual for retirees to work part time either.


Pretty much my point. "Student" is highly variable. Depending on how heavy your course load is, you might not have time to work even part time. And internships for credit probably aren't being considered in those statistics.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#345 Nov 10 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
We didn't cut taxes during 1939 to 1945. Also, we went from collecting taxes from something like 4 million people in 1939 to collecting from 43 million in 1945. The top tax rates went from 79% in 1939 to 94% in 1945. Not really sure where you got the "we lowered taxes during World War II" data. Maybe you meant that Congress during that time lowered exemptions? Either way taxes started to be reduced after the war, not during and certainly not before.


Did you not read any of my posts or the link I provided? My whole point is about tax rate changes made as the war was winding down. WTF? You just responded with a bunch of statements which don't counter anything I said. Was there a point to your post?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#346 Nov 10 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
rdmcandie wrote:


Quote:
And? What's your point? Debt as a percentage of GDP is around 65% right now.


lol what

US Debt. Is just over 100% of your current GDP.

US GDP is about 14.8 trillion. Your current debt is 14.9 trillion.

The US debt is not current 65% it is 100% it was 51% in 1988, and under 40% in 1980 when taxes on the richest were still 50%.

You should read more. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html


I was speaking of "debt held by public", since everyone who isn't deliberately attempting to inflate the debt value for some political reasons (or is ignorant of the difference and just repeating figures someone else used to mislead them) uses that figure when calculating relative debt.

You know what's funny? That link makes a point of the difference between "debt held by public" and "total federal debt" right at the top, but then proceeds to use the total federal debt figure in all its tables from that point on, despite the fact that it's the wrong figure to use. If you want, I'll explain exactly why you should never ever ever ever ever ever ever use the total debt figure when comparing relative debt over time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#347 Nov 10 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
gbaji wrote:
My whole point is about tax rate changes made as the war was winding down
This is what I was commenting on:
gbaji wrote:
During WW2, debt as a percentage of GDP was 250%. We were massively more in debt then than we are now. Yet, instead of increasing government spending and taxes, we cut taxes and decreased the government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military).
Which is wrong. During World War II taxes were increased. Also, and I admit it was my mistake for not pointing it out initially, but government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military) were actually increased during that time. In 1940 Federal Spending was about 9% of the GDP, and by 1945 it was about 41.5%, while defense spending went from about 1.5% in 1940 to a whopping 37% in 1945.

So no, during World War 2 taxes weren't reduced, nor was spending.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 4:47pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#348 Nov 10 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
I was speaking of "debt held by public", since everyone who isn't deliberately attempting to inflate the debt value for some political reasons (or is ignorant of the difference and just repeating figures someone else used to mislead them) uses that figure when calculating relative debt.


Says the guy ignoring 37% of the US debt to support his stance against raising taxes. Smiley: laugh
Quote:

If you want, I'll explain exactly why you should never ever ever ever ever ever ever use the total debt figure when comparing relative debt over time.


I don't really want to read a novel but I am sure there will be lots to laugh at. Type away Captain Economy. Smiley: rolleyes

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#349 Nov 10 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My whole point is about tax rate changes made as the war was winding down
This is what I was commenting on:
gbaji wrote:
During WW2, debt as a percentage of GDP was 250%. We were massively more in debt then than we are now. Yet, instead of increasing government spending and taxes, we cut taxes and decreased the government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military).
Which is wrong. During World War II taxes were increased. Also, and I admit it was my mistake for not pointing it out initially, but government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military) were actually increased during that time. In 1940 Federal Spending was about 9% of the GDP, and by 1945 it was about 41.5%, while defense spending went from about 1.5% in 1940 to a whopping 37% in 1945.

So no, during World War 2 taxes weren't reduced, nor was spending.


Yes. Outstanding deduction there Watson. During WW2, taxes were increased and spending massively increased *and* ... wait for it... our debt massively increased.

AFTER WW2 (technically, while it was winding down), there was a choice about what to do with all the returning veterans and all of the people employed in the war effort. And it was at that time that FDR wanted to continue the spending and high taxes and use that money to provide jobs and social services to the people. Congress rejected this and instead lowered taxes and lowered spending and... evil people that they were... left all those people to fend for themselves. The result? The biggest economic boom in our nations history (and possibly in any nations history).

I'm not talking about what happened between 1940 and 1945. I'm talking about what happened after 1945 and the choices that were made. I'm talking about this because it shows that lowering taxes and decreasing spending absolutely can result in massive employment and a huge economic boom. Given the constant talk by the left that the only way to solve our current economic woes is to increase spending and taxes, this would seem relevant. Also relevant is that this argument is justified "because of our massive debt", but debt at the time in question (1945) was much much higher relatively speaking than our debt is today.


The point being that lowering taxes (especially on corporations) and decreasing spending was the absolute right choice then, so why do liberals just automatically discount this as even a possible solution?

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 6:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#350 Nov 10 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
gbaji wrote:
AFTER
It's a shame you didn't use this word instead of "during" in that one sentence I correctly gigged you on. You wouldn't look like a putz that doesn't know what happened during World War II. It's just a greater shame that you're going to continue to tap dance around trying to explain how your saying that "during World War II" was the same as saying "after World War II."

And I'm sure by your saying "technically winding down," what you're saying is that the amount of increases in spending and tax rates were reduced year to year and weren't "actually" reduced until 1946. And spending started to rise again slightly in 1949.

Maybe you should get back on the cocaine and morphine Sherlock, because I have to spell this out for you and pretty much any normal person could figure it out (which is a shame, since you're such a superior intellect), but my argument has nothing to do with the debt argument you're in. I simply don't like that faulty data you were trying to sling around.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 8:46pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#351 Nov 10 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
AFTER
It's a shame you didn't use this word instead of "during" in that one sentence I correctly gigged you on.


Um... Because "during" WW2, while we were spending all that money, and tax rates were so high, our debt skyrocketed. Then (meaning at the point we were in 1945) we made a decision to cut taxes and reduce spending. If you'd bothered to read the link you'd have understood what I was talking about. What part of "we made a decision to lower taxes and spending" made you think I was talking about the time period in which we had high taxes and spending?

I was making a point about the two different approaches dummy. You seriously couldn't figure that out?

Quote:
You wouldn't look like a putz that doesn't know what happened during World War II. It's just a greater shame that you're going to continue to tap dance around trying to explain how your saying that "during World War II" was the same as saying "after World War II."


You misread it, didn't bother to read the link I provided, and completely failed to grasp what I was talking about even after I clearly explained it several times. Don't blame me for this.

Quote:
And I'm sure by your saying "technically winding down," what you're saying is that the amount of increases in spending and tax rates were reduced year to year and weren't "actually" reduced until 1946. And spending started to rise again slightly in 1949.


Huh? No. Spending and taxes (and debt) were high all during the time period we were fighting WW2. Arguably, those things increased during that period of time (I could look up the exact numbers if you want, but it really doesn't matter for the point I'm making). The point, as I have stated at least 4 times now, is that as WW2 was winding down (that's in 1945 in case you are historically challenged), FDR intended to replace the war spending with domestic jobs and social program spending. Then he died (did you read the link?). 6 months later (after FDRs death, since you apparently can't follow a logical train of thought and have to have such details spelled out to you), Truman attempted to get congress to pass the plan FDR had laid out. They rejected it soundly. Then (as in after that point in time, in case you're still being stupid), they embarked on a plan to lower taxes across the board, massively lower corporate taxes, and massively cut spending. That plan phased in over a few years, but the point is that they chose to go in the exact opposite direction that FDR had wanted.


And, despite the conventional wisdom that the free market would not be able to employ all those people, and there would be massive poverty and whatnot, instead, the exact opposite happened and we had a major economic boom. This is relevant because the liberals of today are making the same assumptions the liberals of that time did. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. But instead of facing that they were wrong, they instead ignore the actions made after 1945 and the effect they had on the economy, and pretend that the economy recovered in the lead up to and during WW2 and that the post war boom was just a continuation of their own policies coming to fruition.



Quote:
Maybe you should get back on the cocaine and morphine Sherlock, because I have to spell this out for you and pretty much any normal person could figure it out (which is a shame, since you're such a superior intellect), but my argument has nothing to do with the debt argument you're in. I simply don't like that faulty data you were trying to sling around.


I didn't sling any faulty data around. You misread what I wrote, made a frankly bizarre conclusion, and then tried to make the whole argument about something completely stupid. It's almost like you don't want to look at the actual series of events during that time period because it might just disprove some of your hard held assumptions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 93 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (93)