Print

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

[misko27]

I really do love Rush. Not because of his opinions of course, since we disagree on almost anything, but I love listening to him in a "morbid fascination with the utterly insane" way.

Same.

I sorta thought it might be similar to Stephen Colbert's "Good job america, you choose the cool black guy over the nice rich guy I picked out for you. You slut.".

[majikero]

I can't load the video. Can someone explain?

[Flying Dice]

I can't load the video. Can someone explain?

Rush:
-Blame the hispanics
-Sexism
-Blame the unmarried women (who obviously all want Obama's dick and don't want Romney to take away birth control)
-Blame the kids
-Blame the hispanics again

So just about what you'd expect.

[MaximumZero]

I really, really need to meet that man.

[ed boy]

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

[alexandertnt]

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

I never thought of it like that, but that makes alot of sense. Get someone to agree with your points by saying something else they couldn't disagree on.

[GreatJustice]

The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31. Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.[67]
 
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets. The deficit spending proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression. By 1934, Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions.

Sounds effective to me.

They also tried those methods in 1920, which resulted in a prolonged period of economic downturn that lasted until around 1927, whereas the American equivalent only lasted two years and was followed by a strong economic boom.

Furthermore, Japan was able to sustain such growth largely through imperialistic ventures as opposed to sustainable economic development. The Soviets experienced fairly massive economic growth (if you could call it that) immediately after WW2 as well, but it less to do with enlightened policy and more to do with new client states.

[olemars]

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861

[tryrar]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh in the morning.   

[USEC_OFFICER]

Which imperialistic ventures are you talking about? I thought that we had already established that the Japanese had invaded Manchuria after their economy had already recovered/began to recover. And besides some pre-invasion economic concessions in Manchuria, I can't find any other imperialistic ventures at the appropriate time.

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861

Silly Americans, wanting to get into Manitoba.

...

I would make a joke deriding Manitoba here, but I quite honestly can't think of one.

[Lysabild]

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

I'm not sure I agree, since some people do not agree that anyone wealthy does need to pay a 'fair share' back to his society.


Anyway, since a lot of smart people in here, could somebody tell my why rich people are scared of paying more in tax, so that the middle class can grow, so that more people can buy their products, rather than them just getting more money, and the poor being unable to buy anything? Maybe it's just me, but this economic crash seems to come from exactly that. People can't spend any money, because the rich have gotten them all in tax cuts for them.

But I'm probably just an evil communist worshipping the devil with my gay ass in my communist country cursing at Jesus because we're jealous of America's eternal glory.

Or something.

[majikero]

Isn't there a different tax rate for what goes into your personal bank and what goes to your business's bank?

[Leafsnail]

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

This is true in most cases, but not when talking to the Ron Paul "0% tax rate for all" crowd.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anyway, since a lot of smart people in here, could somebody tell my why rich people are scared of paying more in tax, so that the middle class can grow, so that more people can buy their products, rather than them just getting more money, and the poor being unable to buy anything?

There are a couple of reasons:

A. Blind Greed: The rich, rather ironically, often do not understand how the principle of spending money to make money applies to taxes. They react badly to any attempt to drain their money through taxes because they see themselves as not in control of the investment. This is despite the fact that many investments are not controlled by the investors, such as everyone who plays the stock market.

B. Ideology: Rich people are still people and thus vulnerable to fallacious beliefs. It is entirely possible for the rich to also believe that capitalism is a meritocracy and that they deserve to have 100% of their money because the poor are lazy.

C. Inertia: All people are resistant to change in general, and the rich have the most resources to keep things how they are of everybody.

[Nadaka]

On "fair".

Fair is: people who do not earn enough to meet their basic needs should not be taxed, because they are already not meeting their basic needs. Income beyond that may be taxed. On average, the more you earn beyond that point, the more you owe your success to the existing public infrastructure and the higher percentage of that income you should pay. There should never be a point where earning more means paying less. And this is also important, there should never be a point where earning more means receiving less.

Isn't there a different tax rate for what goes into your personal bank and what goes to your business's bank?

Corporations have different tax rates than people, but its more complicated than which bank account the money goes into.