Welcome to the Sexy and Funny Forums forums.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you very limited access to what we have to offer. By joining our community you will have access to post replies/topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, remove some of the ads and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bored? Go watch girls get naked on cam for free!

Go Back   Sexy and Funny Forums > Special Interest > The Master Debaters
User Name
Password

Latest from S&F
Random S&F
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes 0 Attachment(s)
Old 10-09-2018, 06:02 PM   #1
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,044
Casino Cash: $4130
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.08
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)x10
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)
Economy Professor calls to tax the rich at 80 percent

I know the liberals here won't watch videos, this way when they comment and look stupid they have an excuse, which of course is their intolerance to anyone elses opinion.

This video is really funny and it shows the difference in demeanor between conservatives and liberals
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 06:27 PM   #2
garison808
I saw a perfect gift for mOOse, but I didn't buy it, because, well, I'm cheap.
 
garison808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the road
Posts: 11,625
Casino Cash: $117102
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 24.85
garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)x44
garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)
Default

Hmm. No closed captions. Typical Republicans.
__________________
garison808 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 09:33 PM   #3
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garison808
Hmm. No closed captions. Typical Republicans.
I would have expected them to include captions, given how much of their base is scared old people, whose hearing may not work that well.

Anyway, iron_warmonger is incorrect, shockingly enough. I have no objection to opinions which differ from mine, but I do not want Tucker Carlson's whiny-white-boy voice assaulting my ears. So, since I can't read and will not listen to this debate, I'll just point out that the professor is broadly correct, it's basically just immoral to be rich.
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 10:31 PM   #4
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,044
Casino Cash: $4130
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.08
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)x10
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob88
Quote:
Originally Posted by garison808
Hmm. No closed captions. Typical Republicans.
I would have expected them to include captions, given how much of their base is scared old people, whose hearing may not work that well.

Anyway, iron_warmonger is incorrect, shockingly enough. I have no objection to opinions which differ from mine, but I do not want Tucker Carlson's whiny-white-boy voice assaulting my ears. So, since I can't read and will not listen to this debate, I'll just point out that the professor is broadly correct, it's basically just immoral to be rich.
But of course in your mind all the black millionaire sports figures, actors, businessmen etc. are not immoral I take it. Also, what about families that came here after slavery was abolished, both sides of my family came to the US between 1890 and 1909 all through Ellis Island where they lived their entire lives in NYC as did everyone right to me. I sincerely doubt that after 1890 there were many slaves in NYC since New York state's first laws regarding free slaves was 1799.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 10:32 PM   #5
ASHSON
I'm not arrogant. I'm just better than you.
 
ASHSON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12,074
Casino Cash: $120946
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 45.46
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)x84
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob88
I would have expected them to include captions, given how much of their base is scared old people, whose hearing may not work that well.

Anyway, iron_warmonger is incorrect, shockingly enough. I have no objection to opinions which differ from mine, but I do not want Tucker Carlson's whiny-white-boy voice assaulting my ears. So, since I can't read and will not listen to this debate, I'll just point out that the professor is broadly correct, it's basically just immoral to be rich.
It's immoral to work hard and get ahead?
Define rich.
What the average American out in the suburbs would consider to be average the tribesman in Africa would consider rich.
Russia refused to screen To Kill A Mockingbird because it showed that even poor families in the US owned a car - thus making them rich.

This wealth that the rich 'own' is not 'owned' so much as controlled, providing jobs and opportunities.
These rich people aren't storing up huge piles of cash, stashing it in a Money Vault a la Scrooge McDuck. That money is out there working.

If Bill Gates ($97b+) decided his money across all Americans (300m+) everyone would receive about $3,000+. The cost of doing this is the money he gives to charity wouldn't be there any more. No-one in the US has received enough to actually really do anything with that money. Microsoft itself would probably fail, costing thousands of jobs. The result would be a complete debacle.
__________________
ASHSON is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 10:32 PM   #6
garison808
I saw a perfect gift for mOOse, but I didn't buy it, because, well, I'm cheap.
 
garison808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the road
Posts: 11,625
Casino Cash: $117102
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 24.85
garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)x44
garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)garison808 has a reputation beyond repute (288881 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob88
Quote:
Originally Posted by garison808
Hmm. No closed captions. Typical Republicans.
I would have expected them to include captions, given how much of their base is scared old people, whose hearing may not work that well.
Yes, but once their hearing goes, they are now handicapped, so Republicans lose interest.
__________________
garison808 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 10:50 PM   #7
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,044
Casino Cash: $4130
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.08
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)x10
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garison808
Hmm. No closed captions. Typical Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob
since I can't read and will not listen to this debate
https://www.360converter.com/convers...TextConversion
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 11:22 PM   #8
ASHSON
I'm not arrogant. I'm just better than you.
 
ASHSON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12,074
Casino Cash: $120946
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 45.46
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)x84
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)
Default

Flaws in her argument:
* wealthy people would just move their wealth offshore;
* people would stop working at a certain point because it's counter productive.
* People run out of money. I can't expand my business because the Government has taken my money.

Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?

If that learned professor had deigned to study why the tax rates were decreased from that top margin of 94% she might understand economics better and start working on a workable solution rather than her wouldn't it be nice approach.

People can be sorted into two broad types. Those who grab the immediate reward and those who are prepared to forego the immediate reward for a better reward in the long term. This woman is obviously of the first sort. The richest entrepreneurs are invariably of the second type.
__________________

Last edited by ASHSON : 10-09-2018 at 11:27 PM.
ASHSON is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 11:39 PM   #9
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentBob
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob
since I can't read and will not listen to this debate
https://www.360converter.com/convers...TextConversion
Thanks, although it's taking a long damn time to process this video, probably won't convey the demeanor that iron_warmonger is so het up about, and its transcription is frankly awful.

Quote:
But of course in your mind all the black millionaire sports figures, actors, businessmen etc. are not immoral I take it. Also, what about families that came here after slavery was abolished, both sides of my family came to the US between 1890 and 1909 all through Ellis Island where they lived their entire lives in NYC as did everyone right to me. I sincerely doubt that after 1890 there were many slaves in NYC since New York state's first laws regarding free slaves was 1799.
Mate, the example used in that article is a black athlete. Anti-billionaire rhetoric just focuses on white dudes because, let's face it, America's billionaires are predominantly male and pale.
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 12:45 AM   #10
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Flaws in her argument:
* wealthy people would just move their wealth offshore;
* people would stop working at a certain point because it's counter productive.
* People run out of money. I can't expand my business because the Government has taken my money.
Except, "people not working as hard" is only bad if you subscribe to Great Man bullshit, and are afraid of losing out on whatever Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk actually produce. If you're sensible, this is job creation. If some dude decides to cut his worked hours by a thousand or so per year, because that's all he'd get to keep after taxes, that just creates a job opening for somebody else to do a thousand or so hours of work. If he decides not to expand his business, that's room for competition.

And frankly, "People will just try to evade the law" doesn't cut any more ice with me when you're talking about tax law than when you're talking about homicide law.

Quote:
Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?
This argument only works if you assume the government and/or its beneficiaries burn their tax dollars, rather than putting it to productive use. If you live in the real world, things generally turn out a bit better.

Quote:
People can be sorted into two broad types. Those who grab the immediate reward and those who are prepared to forego the immediate reward for a better reward in the long term. This woman is obviously of the first sort. The richest entrepreneurs are invariably of the second type.
Tautologically true, since only the richest entrepreneurs can afford to gamble significant sums of money for a possible future reward. Further, this is not an innate thing, this is a learned skill/adaptation.
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 01:29 AM   #11
ASHSON
I'm not arrogant. I'm just better than you.
 
ASHSON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12,074
Casino Cash: $120946
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 45.46
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)x84
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob88
Except, "people not working as hard" is only bad if you subscribe to Great Man bullshit, and are afraid of losing out on whatever Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk actually produce. If you're sensible, this is job creation. If some dude decides to cut his worked hours by a thousand or so per year, because that's all he'd get to keep after taxes, that just creates a job opening for somebody else to do a thousand or so hours of work. If he decides not to expand his business, that's room for competition.

And frankly, "People will just try to evade the law" doesn't cut any more ice with me when you're talking about tax law than when you're talking about homicide law.

Quote:
Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?
This argument only works if you assume the government and/or its beneficiaries burn their tax dollars, rather than putting it to productive use. If you live in the real world, things generally turn out a bit better.

Quote:
People can be sorted into two broad types. Those who grab the immediate reward and those who are prepared to forego the immediate reward for a better reward in the long term. This woman is obviously of the first sort. The richest entrepreneurs are invariably of the second type.
Tautologically true, since only the richest entrepreneurs can afford to gamble significant sums of money for a possible future reward. Further, this is not an innate thing, this is a learned skill/adaptation.
Point 1 - Taking steps to protect your wealth from confiscatory taxation is not breaking the law. It is taking advantages of the laws as they are written.

Point 2 - The government and/or its beneficiaries already burn their tax dollars. Why would more tax change this? It just gives them more taxes to waste.

Point 3 - Bill Gates started in a garage, taking chances, foregoing immediate rewards for long term benefit. He wasn't rich when he started. Also, while this may be learned behaviour this is only true in some cases. Offer a child a sweet now or two in an hours time and most will accept the immediate reward, but some will be willing to wait. They're the ones to watch as they'll get ahead. That willingness to wait is actually a factor of intelligence, and one of the factors to measure a person's EQ.

Quote:
EQ (unlike IQ) can be developed. Emotional intelligence: “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action.”
__________________
ASHSON is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 01:45 AM   #12
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Point 2 - The government and/or its beneficiaries already burn their tax dollars. Why would more tax change this? It just gives them more taxes to waste.
Ah yes, I remember when my mother would get her food stamps at the start of every month, and we would ritually burn them in the wood stove. Fuck off, you Goddamn moron.

Quote:
Point 3 - Bill Gates started in a garage, taking chances, foregoing immediate rewards for long term benefit. He wasn't rich when he started. Also, while this may be learned behaviour this is only true in some cases. Offer a child a sweet now or two in an hours time and most will accept the immediate reward, but some will be willing to wait. They're the ones to watch as they'll get ahead. That willingness to wait is actually a factor of intelligence, and one of the factors to measure a person's EQ.
On the other hand, if you tell a kid that you just ran out of marshmallows and they get nothing, how long will they wait the next time you offer them a treat? Like I said, it's a learned adaptation because sometimes gambling on deferred gratification is a bad idea.
E: Actually, since you obviously didn't read my article, I'll just quote the relevant section entirely.
Quote:
Moreover, while some tasks favor waiting, others favor taking what you can right now. In one experiment, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2012, researchers fiddled with the algorithm that determined how points were earned in a simulation game and then tracked the interaction between that change and the players' personalities. "Impulsivity," they concluded, "is not a purely maladaptive trait, but one whose consequences hinge on the structure of the decisionmaking environment."

And here's another twist: The inclination to wait depends on one's experiences. "For a child accustomed to stolen possessions and broken promises, the only guaranteed treats are the ones you have already swallowed," remarked a group of social scientists at the University of Rochester. In 2012, they conducted an experiment in which children were encouraged to wait for a new set of exciting art supplies rather than using the well-worn crayons and dinky little stickers that were already available. After a few minutes, the adult returned. Half the kids received the promised, far-superior materials. But the other half got only an apology: "I'm sorry, but I made a mistake. We don't have any other art supplies after all."

Then it was time for the marshmallow challenge. And how long did the children wait for two to appear before they gave up and ate the one sitting in front of them? Well, it depended on what had happened earlier. Those for whom the adult had proved unreliable (by failing to deliver the promised art supplies) waited only about three minutes. But those who had learned that good things do come to those who wait were willing to hold off, on average, for a remarkable 12 minutes.

Thus, the decision about whether to defer gratification may tell us what the child has already learned about whether waiting is likely to be worth it. If her experience is that it isn't, then taking whatever is available at the moment is a perfectly reasonable choice. Notice that this finding also challenges the conclusion that the capacity to defer gratification produces various later-life benefits. Self-restraint can be seen as a result of earlier experiences, not an explanation for how well one fares later.
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.

Last edited by darthbob88 : 10-10-2018 at 01:49 AM.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 02:47 AM   #13
ASHSON
I'm not arrogant. I'm just better than you.
 
ASHSON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12,074
Casino Cash: $120946
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 45.46
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)x84
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (548861 total rep)
+10
Default

Dart, if you had actually bothered to read what I posted you'd have seen that I quoted an official definition about EQ, including the fact that it can be learned.
Just because your Mother didn't burn her food stamps doesn't mean everyone spends there Government charity wisely. Congressmen build unneeded bridges, take junket flights, waste money left, right, and centre. The government doesn't spend your tax dollar wisely because they don't have to. It's not their money.

Might I point out that what that experiment actually proved was that the children can learn to trust or not trust specific people. It hasn't actually helped with their EQ development except in a peripheral manner.
__________________
ASHSON is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 04:37 AM   #14
billxl883
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
billxl883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,180
Casino Cash: $6800
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.26
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)x2
billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)billxl883 has a reputation beyond repute (13640 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Flaws in her argument:
* wealthy people would just move their wealth offshore;
* people would stop working at a certain point because it's counter productive.
* People run out of money. I can't expand my business because the Government has taken my money.
Flaws in your argument - history.

None of that happened when the top incremental rate was 90% during the 1950's. At that time the middle class was growing and the economy was doing fine.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?

If that learned professor had deigned to study why the tax rates were decreased from that top margin of 94% she might understand economics better and start working on a workable solution rather than her wouldn't it be nice approach.
Debt carried by the government helps it to regulate the economy. If the tax rates remained that high after the war debt was retired we would have had no government debt and therefore a more difficult time avoiding a boom/bust/boom/bust/boom/bust economy. Hence the reduction in rates.

It's really a tough balancing act. Higher top rates don't hurt the economy, just check history. But it strikes me as morally wrong to have rates as high as 80-90%.
__________________
Trained by experts in the art of hiding dead bodies.
billxl883 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 05:19 AM   #15
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Just because your Mother didn't burn her food stamps doesn't mean everyone spends there Government charity wisely. Congressmen build unneeded bridges, take junket flights, waste money left, right, and centre. The government doesn't spend your tax dollar wisely because they don't have to. It's not their money.
I am utterly shocked that you believe in this horseshit as well, because of course taxes are a blank check and nobody would ever try to cut the government budget or force agencies to operate more efficiently.

Further- Unless they literally burn that money, government spending and aid stimulates the economy at least as much as private sector money-wasting efforts.
Quote:
Might I point out that what that experiment actually proved was that the children can learn to trust or not trust specific people. It hasn't actually helped with their EQ development except in a peripheral manner.
Who gives a drippy shit about EQ? I'm just talking about the fact that deferring gratification is, depending on one's circumstances, a maladaptation. Or do you think these kids, or these adults, aren't smart enough to extrapolate out and realize that maybe they shouldn't rely on a payday that probably won't come?
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 07:40 AM   #16
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,662
Casino Cash: $13349
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 1.80
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (15584 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Flaws in your argument - history.

None of that happened when the top incremental rate was 90% during the 1950's. At that time the middle class was growing and the economy was doing fine.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?

If that learned professor had deigned to study why the tax rates were decreased from that top margin of 94% she might understand economics better and start working on a workable solution rather than her wouldn't it be nice approach.
Debt carried by the government helps it to regulate the economy. If the tax rates remained that high after the war debt was retired we would have had no government debt and therefore a more difficult time avoiding a boom/bust/boom/bust/boom/bust economy. Hence the reduction in rates.

It's really a tough balancing act. Higher top rates don't hurt the economy, just check history. But it strikes me as morally wrong to have rates as high as 80-90%.


Flaws in your argument. War time economy and post wartime economies are artificially produced. The government raised taxes to pay for the war. Post war the government put caps on prices so there would not be price gouging on limited resources. The government handed large lumps sums of money to factories to convert away from munitions. Coupled with military men returning home wanting to buy all new things. The post war economy was completely artificially produced to prevent a collapse. So your comparison of wink wink history is about worthless.
65dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 01:28 PM   #17
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,868
Casino Cash: $8234
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.62
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)x3
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (23271 total rep)
Default

Comparing the 1950s to today is like comparing apples and hand grenades.

So, I'll just ask a basic question - do you think if the IRS went to a 90% top rate like it was in the 1950s that rich people wouldn't move it off shore or otherwise develop strategies to not have to pay anywhere close to 90%?

Ronald Reagan famously said he only did two films per year due to the high tax rate. Why bother to do any more films if his income would then be taxed at 90%? So, he didn't. That meant, the writers, people that worked on the set, caterers and all the "little" people didn't get as much work, either.

But, actually, I'm actually FOR taxing Hollywood stars more. Same with professional athletes. Most of them are left-leaning anyway. So, they are likely for higher taxes. Hell, just let California as a state tax them at 90% over say, $10 million. And, watch the film industry leave California. LOL The hypocrisy stuns me. Most of these people are hard core leftists but if you try to tax them more - as they apparently want - most will move to get away from it.

Maryland decided to have a millionaire's tax. That didn't work out so well. Maryland actually lost money because so many people moved out of the state.



Quote:
Originally Posted by billxl883
Flaws in your argument - history.

None of that happened when the top incremental rate was 90% during the 1950's. At that time the middle class was growing and the economy was doing fine.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Capital gains tax up? People would have to sell their shares to pay their taxes. Result, the following year they have less money to generate wealth, hence lower taxes. The law of diminishing returns would hit, and hit hard. The Government would get an initial increase in taxes at the cost of a longer term decrease. She cites previous tax rates of over 90%. This was during a time of war when the Government need that extra money. Eventually the tax rates were slashed to help the economy recover as the high tax rates were killing it, proving to be unsustainable. Does she really think that the Government would have cut those high rates if it hadn't proved economically viable to do so?

If that learned professor had deigned to study why the tax rates were decreased from that top margin of 94% she might understand economics better and start working on a workable solution rather than her wouldn't it be nice approach.
Debt carried by the government helps it to regulate the economy. If the tax rates remained that high after the war debt was retired we would have had no government debt and therefore a more difficult time avoiding a boom/bust/boom/bust/boom/bust economy. Hence the reduction in rates.

It's really a tough balancing act. Higher top rates don't hurt the economy, just check history. But it strikes me as morally wrong to have rates as high as 80-90%.
__________________
------------

Quote:
darthbob88

1. It's not racist if it's true.

Quote:
darthbob88
And for a quarter million dollars, I'd shoot a black person. Click here
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 03:33 PM   #18
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,044
Casino Cash: $4130
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.08
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)x10
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)
Default

The problem with her was, she wants to tax income (over 470K) 83% and capital gains at 50%, so like Tucker said no one becomes a billionaire from their salary and this becomes a reward to the ultra rich who really have no labor income. I would have expected her to be quicker (seeing as she is a professor) but she kept saying "well I'm not in the 1%" rather than saying "yes, of course, any money I made over 470K would be taxed at the higher rate". That really makes you wonder how this woman is a professor but does not know how to say something in a manner that stops a bit of the bleeding in losing a debate.

Other points she failed on was saying she didn't know how to give extra money to the IRS, that she "practices what she preaches" by giving to non-profits, here she makes the other sides argument by saying this. She wants other people to give the money to the govt, but she understands that non govt entities are more efficient and her goodwill goes there.

It is really unfortunate people like her are in positions to shape young people's minds.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 04:48 PM   #19
darthbob88
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,937
Casino Cash: $10249
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.20
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)x2
darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)darthbob88 has a reputation beyond repute (15784 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentBob
The problem with her was, she wants to tax income (over 470K) 83% and capital gains at 50%, so like Tucker said no one becomes a billionaire from their salary and this becomes a reward to the ultra rich who really have no labor income. I would have expected her to be quicker (seeing as she is a professor) but she kept saying "well I'm not in the 1%" rather than saying "yes, of course, any money I made over 470K would be taxed at the higher rate". That really makes you wonder how this woman is a professor but does not know how to say something in a manner that stops a bit of the bleeding in losing a debate.
Oh for fuck's sake. Yeah, no, fuck this lady this is a terrible proposal.
__________________
Asking Republicans to run government is like asking a vegetarian to cook a steak. They can't do it well if they don't think it should be done at all.
Facts or GTFO. Anecdotal arguments will be met with mockery.
Food stamps stimulate the economy, tax cuts don't, tax rates are at a historic low, welfare queens are either non-existent or embarrassingly near.
My posting is a PC-Optional zone. I reserve the right to refrain from using PC euphemisms, and to speak my opinion, fucknut.
darthbob88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 02:40 PM   #20
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,044
Casino Cash: $4130
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.08
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)x10
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (69085 total rep)
+10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthbob88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentBob
The problem with her was, she wants to tax income (over 470K) 83% and capital gains at 50%, so like Tucker said no one becomes a billionaire from their salary and this becomes a reward to the ultra rich who really have no labor income. I would have expected her to be quicker (seeing as she is a professor) but she kept saying "well I'm not in the 1%" rather than saying "yes, of course, any money I made over 470K would be taxed at the higher rate". That really makes you wonder how this woman is a professor but does not know how to say something in a manner that stops a bit of the bleeding in losing a debate.
Oh for fuck's sake. Yeah, no, fuck this lady this is a terrible proposal.
Quote:
I know the liberals here won't watch videos, this way when they comment and look stupid they have an excuse, which of course is their intolerance to anyone elses opinion.

ding ding ding we have a winner
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags: , , ,



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Users Who Have Viewed This Thread In The Last 7 Days: 21
65dart, Alisadiode, APARTMENTNive, ASHSON, billxl883, darthbob88, Frankhit, infantrystud, JohnsonsJ, karter42, LOANNive, LotbrockV, NEF2Nive, oppenoppen, RobertGlype, SanoramK, thpowell, WarrenScurn, Willienam

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.