Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirus]

Do... do Aqizzar tears taste good? Are they sufficiently delicious to warrant provoking them? You seem sufficiently close to see Aqi's crying, so I'd wager you're close enough to take a taste.

Do it, Sirus. Do it for science.

I was referring to this, you...you dolt

Why I'm even entertaining this I don't know, because I hate coming back to my thread and seeing four new pages, because it's always a pointless argument.

[Aqizzar]

Who the fuck said I'm crying?  There's no crying in politics, or the Internet.


Hear ye hear ye, this be a call for Participation.

Okay, so I think it's time I updated the OP, just once for posterity before the election.  I think it would be best served by just being a bunch of links to interesting shit that happened over the course of the election since... March 6th, when I last updated it.  (Holy fuck.)  Post links to news stories you think should be preserved for as long as they stay alive and this forum continues to be hosted.  A lot of crazy shit happened in the last eight months, and I can't begin to parse through it all for a montage before the end.

[mainiac]

Ah march, what a simpler time.

[Darvi]

Dayumn, has it been that long already?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[Not for preservation]

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

TL; DR Congressional Research Service released a study this September, GOP is staunchly against it and pressures the organization to recede the report. What is the report about?

The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

How [lower] top tax rates have no notable effect, at all, on economic growth.

I think you know why the GOP basically forced it back into the dark.

Here's the report, it's actually pretty dead on.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

[Kon]

...
Wait. I might be wrong, but did you really just quote an interview with someone related to the Band of Six as an unbiased source? Ye gods, that's like talking to Nixon about Watergate and expecting the slimy bastard to give you straight answers.

So, I was right that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years despite only needing 51 votes. You quote my saying it is a "well known fact." It is. I gave two references, one being CNN. Some have called my references biased, but then you cite the New York Times, which, incidently, does not dispute the "well known fact." I would love to have one of you assholes quote anyone, even MSNBC, denying this "well known fact."

You guys insult me, not realizing that I am right.

Now, one of the main reasons for these types of arguments is that we often have two sides saying contradictory things, and both can't be right. So you have to choose who to believe, or, at least, who you think is more likely to be lying least. Some of you are more likely to believe liberals and some more likely to believe conservatives. But the bottom line in this case is I have presented a "well know fact," and you choose not to believe me despite it being very easy to verify. Try this link and then, please, admit that you were wrong and I am right.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=senate+budget+three+years

[Flying Dice]

...
Wait. I might be wrong, but did you really just quote an interview with someone related to the Band of Six as an unbiased source? Ye gods, that's like talking to Nixon about Watergate and expecting the slimy bastard to give you straight answers.

So, I was right that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years despite only needing 51 votes. You quote my saying it is a "well known fact." It is. I gave two references, one being CNN. Some have called my references biased, but then you cite the New York Times, which, incidently, does not dispute the "well known fact." I would love to have one of you assholes quote anyone, even MSNBC, denying this "well known fact."

You guys insult me, not realizing that I am right.

Ah, how delicious. Incidentally, since you seem to enjoy ignoring things.

It's a "fact", but you're drawing very contestable conclusions from the fact.

We aren't saying that it isn't true, we're saying that you're drawing invalid "facts" from it. I can say that bananas are yellow. I can then say that because bananas are yellow, fruit is cowardly. Just because I say it doesn't make it true, it just means I'm being a moron.

Now, one of the main reasons for these types of arguments is that we often have two sides saying contradictory things, and both can't be right. So you have to choose who to believe, or, at least, who you think is more likely to be lying least. Some of you are more likely to believe liberals and some more likely to believe conservatives. But the bottom line in this case is I have presented a "well know fact," and you choose not to believe me despite it being very easy to verify. Try this link and then, please, admit that you were wrong and I am right.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=senate+budget+three+years

Again, we're not debating that it is true that the Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. We're saying that your conclusion that "Senate can't pass a budget" equates to "Obama is a hardliner and completely unwilling to compromise" is idiotic. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring that or what.

[mainiac]

Dayumn, has it been that long already?

Personally I feel like it's been a bajillion years but that's just me.

[Frumple]

Interesting little piece on the budget whaznummy. Why is often more interesting than what, I guess.

I'm mostly just twiddling my thumbs at this point. Did the whole early voting thing earlier this week. Wished to hell there were third party candidates worth voting for in races besides the presidential, but outside some local stuff, nothing on the ballot. I do detest being in a winner-takes-all state Not that there's much option for places in the states that aren't, so far as I know, but still.

[Nadaka]

Dear god, you're a moron. I'm a conservative. Quantify your previous horseshit and I'll consider you worth arguing with, all you're doing is spewing unverified, ridiculous statements and falling back to 'Oh wah, you're a mean Liberal!' when I don't agree with your hollow ideological rhetoric.

Tell me what was good about the House's 'budget' proposals, once again.

People ask me to qualify my statements, but I don't know which ones they are talking about. I don't mind discussing each issue.

You refer to me as "blowing hot air out of his ass for the sake of spewing more party patriotism out there." Which statement are you talking about?

As far as Republican budgets go, obviously they did not go far enough. Ryan's last budget, apparently, will take decades to balance the budget, yet it is called extreme by liberals.

Actually... The Ryan plan never reduces the deficit. EVER. The only budget proposal that balances the budget is the one created by the congressional progressive caucus. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

[Aqizzar]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

[GlyphGryph]

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

[Zangi]

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I have not looked at the budget...  can I bet it cuts planned parenthood and NPR?  Huzzah!  Fiscal responsibility achieved!

[SalmonGod]

not realizing that I am right.

whenever I hear someone saying that non-jokingly in an argument, I die inside a little.

And that's why I continue to hang out here.

[Shadowlord]

Hey, Kon: Understanding is a three-edged sword: Your side, their side, and the truth.


Here's more on personal tax rate cuts not being the cause of improvements in the economy. This quote is from the beginning of http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-20/do-personal-income-tax-cuts-grow-the-economy-again-no-dot

Martin Feldstein and Doug Elmendorf discovered something surprising in 1989. So much so that when they presented it to a National Bureau of Economic Research conference, they titled their paper (PDF) “Budget Deficits, Tax Incentives and Inflation: A Surprising Lesson From the 1983-1984 Recovery.” Feldstein had been Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser during that recovery; Elmendorf now runs the Congressional Budget Office. In 1989, they were surprised to read in their own data that the recovery that began in 1983 had been caused mainly by an expansionary monetary policy. (To a lesser extent, it had come from growth in business investment after changes to corporate taxes in 1981.) Feldstein and Elmendorf pointed out that the recovery had not been caused, as was popularly thought at the time, by reductions in the personal income tax rate.

That is: As early as 1989, Reagan’s economics guy did not find any evidence that the Reagan recovery had come from the Reagan administration’s personal income tax cuts.