Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#302 Nov 08 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
ITT: Gbaji can't explain why the Great Depression ended.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#303 Nov 08 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,885 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
ITT: Gbaji can't explain why the Great Depression ended.

War Economy!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#304 Nov 08 2011 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Your knowledge of economics is absolutely astounding. Then again it could be why your country is 14 trillion in debt.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#305 Nov 08 2011 at 9:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
ITT: Gbaji can't explain why the Great Depression ended.


Well, since even in your world, it apparently occurred because of military spending instead of social spending, I guess I win either way. But the reality is that it wasn't government spending that ended it at all.

Quote:
Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.



It ended because we didn't continue to spend money on New Deal style social programs. It ended because instead of doing that, we cut taxes across the board. But let's not let a little thing like actual facts get in the way of good assumption.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#306 Nov 08 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
ITT: Gbaji doesn't know when the Great Depression ended, can't discern between the US before and after our economy recovered, and has forgotten what those high taxes did for our nation's industry and infrastructure following NSC-68.

Protip, gbaji, look up what Congress did following the Roosevelt recession. Telling me what Congress did in a time of economic boom doesn't explain HOW they got to an economic upturn.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#307 Nov 08 2011 at 10:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#308 Nov 09 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:


Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

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.


Edited, Nov 9th 2011 8:17am by Lubriderm
____________________________
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
#309 Nov 09 2011 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.
Blasphemer, next thing you are going to say is that anecdotes don't equal data.
____________________________
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
#310 Nov 09 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Or that experts are qualified to analyze data from their field of expertise.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#311 Nov 09 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.

lolwiki wrote:
Folsom has written several books that revise commonly held views about the role of capitalism in the social developments of the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age. Folsom believes the term robber barons is a misnomer, and that these men were constructive visionaries who benefited consumers and were integral to the development of industry.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#312 Nov 09 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
ITT: Gbaji doesn't know when the Great Depression ended, can't discern between the US before and after our economy recovered, and has forgotten what those high taxes did for our nation's industry and infrastructure following NSC-68.

Protip, gbaji, look up what Congress did following the Roosevelt recession. Telling me what Congress did in a time of economic boom doesn't explain HOW they got to an economic upturn.


We didn't have a "boom" in the early 40s. Spending on the war provided jobs for most Americans, but at the expense of borrowing a ton of money. Debt as a percentage of GDP was around 250% during that time period. If you read the article, it clearly explained that the biggest problem was what would happen once the war ended and all those people working in the war economy needed jobs. FDR wanted to create more of the same kinds of programs that didn't work in the 30s. Congress rejected that and instead embarked on massive tax cuts and reductions of the government's role in the economy (mostly by ending the massive amounts of government jobs that existed at the time).


The result was the huge economic boom that was the 50s. Had we done what FDR wanted (which is mirrored by current Dem economic policy), unemployment would have gone back to double digits after the war, and we'd have been right back in the same Depression we were in before.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#313 Nov 09 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.


They are for opinions, right? I mean, when you say "FDRs new deal policies and the government spending on WW2 ended the Depression", you're expressing an opinion. What's wrong with countering that opinion with another one (which happens to actually have some facts associated with it at well)?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#314 Nov 09 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
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?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#315 Nov 09 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Are you serious?

The government enlisted all kinds of business, food, factories, offices into the war effort. These peoples jobs didn't just vanish, the people in car factories did a tool change from car parts to armored vehicle parts. After the war they went back to making cars. People on farms sold food to the government, after the war they sold food to the highest bidder again. People in offices did work for the government, when the war was over they went back to their old ways.

This created tens of thousands of jobs(probably hundreds of thousands but im to lazy to find numbers), and thus boosted the country out of the depression. It was a boom, it gave birth to the American family, and the wonderful pleasentvile era, a TV in every house and a Car in every laneway.

The jobs didn't disappear, the jobs stayed they just changed what they were doing.

And that is just looking at the US home front. Not even touching on the tens of thousands of jobs created before the out break of WWII and up to the US involvement, when the US was selling munitions, oil and vehicles to the Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, China most of the Allies (exc russia). American companies did this throughout the mid 30's through the end of the War (although Japan and France were dropped off that list for obvious reasons, but germany received products right up till the end of the war.)

The war was the reason that America became the greatest (statistically speaking as I believe Canada is much better than the US for obvious biased reasons). Nation in the world. However it has had a good run, it will never be as great as it was again, but it was fun while it lasted eh.

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 5:31pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#316 Nov 09 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Are you serious?

The government enlisted all kinds of business, food, factories, offices into the war effort. These peoples jobs didn't just vanish...


Of course they did, because the war effort ended. You get that once the demand for building, bundling and shipping hundreds of tons of materials overseas every week ends, a whole lot of jobs go away, right?

Quote:
... the people in car factories did a tool change from car parts to armored vehicle parts. After the war they went back to making cars. People on farms sold food to the government, after the war they sold food to the highest bidder again. People in offices did work for the government, when the war was over they went back to their old ways.


Ok. I think you're failing to grasp that as a direct result of employing people for the war effort, unemployment dropped from around 20% to about 3%. If they just "went back to their old ways", then unemployment would have gone back up to 20% or so, right? The only way to avoid that was to replicate the need for a supply of labor that the government had previously been consuming. The answer was straight out of the evil supply side handbook: Lower taxes on big business and let them hire the workers.

Which is exactly what happened.

Quote:
This created tens of thousands of jobs(probably hundreds of thousands but im to lazy to find numbers), and thus boosted the country out of the depression. It was a boom, it gave birth to the American family, and the wonderful pleasentvile era, a TV in every house and a Car in every laneway.


Yup. Because the government intelligently eliminated a whole bunch of government jobs and replaced them with private sector jobs and helped this along by providing incentives for big business to hire people. Which is the exact opposite of what the Dems have been doing over the last few years.

Quote:
The jobs didn't disappear, the jobs stayed they just changed what they were doing.


Again, the problem was that the government was employing more people for the war effort than had been employed in the market prior to the war. The expectation was that once that government demand for labor went away, most of those people would become unemployed unless new jobs could be created. There were two competing theories about how to do this:

1. Use the government to create jobs with more New Deal style public works programs. Stop gap this with greater free public services to cover those who still wouldn't be employed. So basically, the Obama strategy of public safety net and public jobs.

2. Drop taxes on employers and their businesses dramatically and let the private market handle the influx of labor.


Sound familiar? It's the exact same argument going on right now between the "raise taxes and pay for jobs and benefits for the people" and "lower taxes and encourage private industry to employ people" factions today. We're still having the same argument. The point is that back then, in the mid 40s Congress rejected FDRs plan and went with the private market solution. And *that* resulted in the massive post-war economic boom.


This is not opinion. This is a matter of fact. When the war was winding down, our government was faced with the same sort of choice we're facing right now. Back then, they chose to encourage private jobs, and it worked outstandingly. Will we make the same good choice today, or will we go the route FDR wanted? And do we think that will work?


I don't think it will. Do you? If so, why?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#317 Nov 09 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.


They are for opinions, right? I mean, when you say "FDRs new deal policies and the government spending on WW2 ended the Depression", you're expressing an opinion. What's wrong with countering that opinion with another one (which happens to actually have some facts associated with it at well)?


Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#318 Nov 09 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.


They are for opinions, right? I mean, when you say "FDRs new deal policies and the government spending on WW2 ended the Depression", you're expressing an opinion. What's wrong with countering that opinion with another one (which happens to actually have some facts associated with it at well)?


Smiley: oyvey


And? Facts are things like "Congress passed laws in the mid 40s which lowered taxes, especially corporate taxes". Opinions are things like "FDR's policies got us out of the Great Depression". I'm still curious why an opinion you agree with is fine, but one you disagree with is somehow magically disallowed from discussion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Nov 09 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
You said a bunch of stuff and did some fancy quoting.

If you honestly think WW2 did not end the great depression in the US and really around the entire globe. You are a moron.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#320 Nov 09 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
This is not opinion. This is a matter of fact. When the war was winding down, our government was faced with the same sort of choice we're facing right now. Back then, they chose to encourage private jobs, and it worked outstandingly. Will we make the same good choice today, or will we go the route FDR wanted? And do we think that will work?


/palmface.

You have a 14 trillion dollar DEBT. Not deficit, your country needs money. I think (and have said it many times) you need to cut spending and increase taxes. You need to do both. You have a stupid amount of DEBT. It is incredibly stupid. This is because of bad practices over the last 30-40 years, but looking recently it is due to both the Bush, and Obama white houses, but more directly with your laughable congress, they are pathetic.

That is what I think. I think your country is @#%^ed if you don't cut and tax, your country is bleeding out the **** like it was @#%^ed by an elepahant, and since my country is tied to yours I am going to be **** of at your pathetic government of late. That is what I think.

Both your political parties are pathetic, absolutely terrible. Your politics suck and as such your political ideas suck.


(or find a good war, not some stupid money draining pit like the War on Terror has been, think you would have learned after nam. A good quick war 2-3 years get some money moving around.)

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 6:59pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#321 Nov 09 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, for the love of god, we've been over this.

OPINION ARTICLES ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.


They are for opinions, right? I mean, when you say "FDRs new deal policies and the government spending on WW2 ended the Depression", you're expressing an opinion. What's wrong with countering that opinion with another one (which happens to actually have some facts associated with it at well)?


Smiley: oyvey


And? Facts are things like "Congress passed laws in the mid 40s which lowered taxes, especially corporate taxes". Opinions are things like "FDR's policies got us out of the Great Depression". I'm still curious why an opinion you agree with is fine, but one you disagree with is somehow magically disallowed from discussion.


Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#322 Nov 09 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
This is not opinion. This is a matter of fact. When the war was winding down, our government was faced with the same sort of choice we're facing right now. Back then, they chose to encourage private jobs, and it worked outstandingly. Will we make the same good choice today, or will we go the route FDR wanted? And do we think that will work?


/palmface.

You have a 14 trillion dollar DEBT.


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

The result was a major economic boom. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for at this point.

Quote:
Not deficit, your country needs money.


We need jobs to be created. Seriously, that's the problem. Where do you think "money" comes from?

Quote:
I think (and have said it many times) you need to cut spending and increase taxes. You need to do both. You have a stupid amount of DEBT. It is incredibly stupid. This is because of bad practices over the last 30-40 years, but looking recently it is due to both the Bush, and Obama white houses, but more directly with your laughable congress, they are pathetic.



We have a stupid amount of Debt almost entirely because of the policies of the Obama administration. Cutting spending is what we need to do. But raising taxes is the exact wrong thing to do. If we were sitting at 4% normal unemployment, and weren't collecting enough revenue, raising taxes might be on the table. But when we're at 9% unemployment (and more people are really unemployed than that), the revenue problem isn't tax rates which are too low, but not enough people employed and paying taxes.

Raising taxes on the businesses and wealthy people most likely to create those jobs is counterproductive. We need to commit to *not* raising taxes, allow business to feel like they can calculate their business risks well enough to start hiring people, and then the economy will recover, Until we do that, we'll continue to lurch from one economic problem to another and suffer a lackluster economy the whole time.

Quote:
That is what I think. I think your country is @#%^ed if you don't cut and tax, your country is bleeding out the **** like it was @#%^ed by an elepahant, and since my country is tied to yours I am going to be **** of at your pathetic government of late. That is what I think.


I think you haven't thought it through enough. Smiley: wink
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#323 Nov 09 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#324 Nov 09 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts


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

#325 Nov 09 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 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.

Smiley: inlove
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#326 Nov 09 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,225 posts
Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#327 Nov 09 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,187 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. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#328 Nov 09 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
Avatar
******
26,961 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
****
7,460 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 **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. 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
******
43,397 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
******
43,397 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
*****
11,913 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."
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#336 Nov 10 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
Avatar
******
26,961 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
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
*****
11,913 posts
Back on topic, behold, Infographics!
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#340 Nov 10 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
Avatar
******
20,187 posts
You can be a student and still be employed, even if it's part time. Like I am.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#342 Nov 10 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,587 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
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
******
31,462 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
******
31,462 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
******
43,397 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
****
7,460 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 **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#349 Nov 10 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 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
******
43,397 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
******
31,462 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: 28 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (26)