|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet?
#14265499 - 04/10/11 03:28 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
apparently cut backs up to 36 billion
i don't even want to post the news link, there are so many
i suggest reading well up on it before coming and discussing anything in this thread
what DO people think of this?
let me know
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
JT


Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 7,027
Loc: athens
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14265842 - 04/10/11 07:43 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Not enough
2010 deficit was 1.2 trillion.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: JT]
#14266256 - 04/10/11 10:06 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14267449 - 04/10/11 02:48 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Peanuts, it's a joke.
|
JT


Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 7,027
Loc: athens
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14267476 - 04/10/11 02:53 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
(CNSNews.com) - The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September. The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7. Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increased by $653.4 billion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-54-billion-8-days-preceding
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: JT]
#14281932 - 04/13/11 01:52 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
we're all fucked huh?
some people seem to be doing pretty good despite that serious debt. i guess a lot of people have learned to depend on their own money. if people had done that in the first place we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
hey, maybe the country will clean up majorly after this, maybe there will be a major movement of people relying on their own money and not needing bank loans

yeah.... right
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14282935 - 04/13/11 09:45 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: we're all fucked huh?
some people seem to be doing pretty good despite that serious debt. i guess a lot of people have learned to depend on their own money. if people had done that in the first place we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
hey, maybe the country will clean up majorly after this, maybe there will be a major movement of people relying on their own money and not needing bank loans

yeah.... right 
What is this nonsense now? Personal devt is not government debt and there is nothing wrong with individuals borrowing money that they pay back with their own funds. There is a lot wrong with runaway government spending and government giveaways that rely on paying it back with other people's money. To tell you they truth I really can't figure out why any agency as huge as the federal government or most state governments should ever have to borrow money. The only reason for it is vote buying.
--------------------
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14283124 - 04/13/11 10:32 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Strangely enough, I agree with you there, Zap.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14283179 - 04/13/11 10:47 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318689 - 04/19/11 05:31 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Answer this:
Quote:
Does an inflationary medium of exchange encourage the accumulation of both public and private debt and discourage the accumulation of capital?
No doublespeak, no bullshit, just answer the goddamn question.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318718 - 04/19/11 05:37 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said: Answer this:
Quote:
Does an inflationary medium of exchange encourage the accumulation of both public and private debt and discourage the accumulation of capital?
No doublespeak, no bullshit, just answer the goddamn question.
"Does an inflationary medium of exchange encourage the accumulation of both public and private debt" Depends on the interest rate, doesn't it?
"Does an inflationary medium of exchange discourage the accumulation of capital?" You gonna eat that cash? Once again, depends on the interest rate.
I am old enough to remember 15% mortgage rates. You keep tilting at the wrong windmill, Al, as I have have demonstrated time and time again. Paulbots really are simple children.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318764 - 04/19/11 05:50 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said: Answer this:
Quote:
Does an inflationary medium of exchange encourage the accumulation of both public and private debt and discourage the accumulation of capital?
No doublespeak, no bullshit, just answer the goddamn question.
"Does an inflationary medium of exchange encourage the accumulation of both public and private debt" Depends on the interest rate, doesn't it?
"Does an inflationary medium of exchange discourage the accumulation of capital?" You gonna eat that cash? Once again, depends on the interest rate.
I am old enough to remember 15% mortgage rates. You keep tilting at the wrong windmill, Al, as I have have demonstrated time and time again. Paulbots really are simple children.
It is a yes or no question. Answer the question or GTFO.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318766 - 04/19/11 05:51 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you are limited?
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318771 - 04/19/11 05:52 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why am I not surprised that you are limited?
You can't answer a simple yes or no question.
Who's limited?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318779 - 04/19/11 05:53 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
In this area there are no simple yes or no questions, Al. Only a simpleton thinks so.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318786 - 04/19/11 05:55 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: In this area there are no simple yes or no questions, Al. Only a simpleton thinks so.
Says the man who can't answer a simple yes or no question.
You should stay out of economic debates if you're that weak.
Edited by Mr.Al (04/19/11 05:57 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318836 - 04/19/11 06:03 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: In this area there are no simple yes or no questions, Al. Only a simpleton thinks so.
Says the man who can't answer a simple yes or no question.
You should stay out of economic debates if you're that weak.
You should stay out of economic arguments if you are that simple.
If there is a currency that features a 4% inflation rate but savings pay 5% then people will save. If there is a currency that features a 4% inflation rate but savings pay 2% then people will not. Are you really that simple, Al?
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318870 - 04/19/11 06:08 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: In this area there are no simple yes or no questions, Al. Only a simpleton thinks so.
Says the man who can't answer a simple yes or no question.
You should stay out of economic debates if you're that weak.
You should stay out of economic arguments if you are that simple.
If there is a currency that features a 4% inflation rate but savings pay 5% then people will save. If there is a currency that features a 4% inflation rate but savings pay 2% then people will not. Are you really that simple, Al?
Your personalisms do not hid the fact that you are not actually addressing the argument.
We are speaking here about the difference between an inflationary and a non-inflationary monetary system and their respective effects on private and public debt accumulation.
You are not attempting to differentiate between the two systems.
Have you even attempted to contemplate the difference?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318931 - 04/19/11 06:17 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318970 - 04/19/11 06:23 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
Liar.
Does it not benefit the debtor to pay back a creditor with a currency that is losing buying power through inflation?
Does this not encourage more inflation?
Edited by Mr.Al (04/19/11 06:24 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14319000 - 04/19/11 06:27 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
Liar.
Does it not benefit the debtor to pay back a creditor with a currency that is losing buying power through inflation?
Does this not encourage more inflation?
Well the debtor likes it but the lender doesn't. I would think the lender's position might also have some impact.
By the way, haven't you just reversed your own causality arrow? Previously you said that inflation encourages debt. Now you're saying debt encourages inflation. You don't really have this all that well thought out, do you?
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14319036 - 04/19/11 06:33 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's called the business cycle zap.
I have it very well thought out. The Austrian school of economics shows that the business cycles often end in a sovereign debt crisis.
You don't have an argument do you?
Still can't answer a simple question...
Have you ever looked at A.B.C. theory?
Of course a debtor nation will prefer to pay it's debts with a devalued currency.
OF COURSE THEREIN LIES A SERIOUS MORAL ECONOMIC HAZARD.
You're taking a little while to respond, I hope that you are engaging in actual thought.
I look forward to your post...
Edited by Mr.Al (04/19/11 06:55 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14321554 - 04/20/11 04:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
All this talk about inflation is nonsense without discussing deflation as well. We would all love an economy where there is no inflation and no deflation. However, we know that isn't going to happen, as there are always fluctuations over time. Deflation is much harder to control than inflation. Deflation tends to spiral out of control once it begins. Because of this, we are willing to embrace a small amount of 'easier to control' inflation, as padding, to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic deflationary spiral. As far as I know, short of government price fixing on everything, there is no way around this. In any market that is not 100% regulated, a small amount of inflation is a necessary evil. This isn't some nefarious conspiracy by the lenders to keep the debtors poor, nor is it anything that a gold standard or unregulated free market or voodoo magic are going to fix.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Mr.Al]
#14322326 - 04/20/11 10:20 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said: It's called the business cycle zap.
I have it very well thought out. The Austrian school of economics shows that the business cycles often end in a sovereign debt crisis.
You don't have an argument do you?
Still can't answer a simple question...
Have you ever looked at A.B.C. theory?
Of course a debtor nation will prefer to pay it's debts with a devalued currency.
OF COURSE THEREIN LIES A SERIOUS MORAL ECONOMIC HAZARD.
You're taking a little while to respond, I hope that you are engaging in actual thought.
I look forward to your post...
I went to bed, Al. If a debtor nation pays its debts with a devalued currency it has to pay MORE. Frank fucking Zappa.
The form of currency is utterly irrelevant to deficit government spending. Only the elected and the electorate are relevant. You can borrow rocks, too, it doesn't have to be fiat or electronic squiggles. It never ends, this stupid bullshit from you.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14326719 - 04/21/11 08:09 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
then why the fuck do people keep blaming this whole economical situation on a housing bubble crash.
if what you are saying is true, wouldn't the housing crash simply be a symptom of the larger picture? but then again you say government debt has nothing to do with the larger picture?
i'm confused what ARE you saying? why did this meltdown recession effect so many people? i thought people didn't depend on government debt. I thought I didn't. until this crap.
i mean it's as if capitalism hasn't reached an all time high, but then that is a different argument for a different day. and then again who is argueing
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Seuss]
#14326734 - 04/21/11 08:18 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: All this talk about inflation is nonsense without discussing deflation as well. We would all love an economy where there is no inflation and no deflation. However, we know that isn't going to happen, as there are always fluctuations over time. Deflation is much harder to control than inflation. Deflation tends to spiral out of control once it begins. Because of this, we are willing to embrace a small amount of 'easier to control' inflation, as padding, to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic deflationary spiral. As far as I know, short of government price fixing on everything, there is no way around this. In any market that is not 100% regulated, a small amount of inflation is a necessary evil. This isn't some nefarious conspiracy by the lenders to keep the debtors poor, nor is it anything that a gold standard or unregulated free market or voodoo magic are going to fix.
but what do you do if it's fixed so that deflation occurs while a small amount of inflation continues to occur. over time this is disastrous. for some deflation occurs, for everyone else the price keeps going up. this results in people with less money, having to pay higher prices.
how do these things combine, and yet people just walk right past it, and think it's normal, every day.
and i'm not talking about the price of a gallon of milk, changing from $3.00 to $3.50. I'm talking about bigger things, that people can barely afford anymore, but still need, just as much as that milk. like a roof over their heads.
the united states has clearly earned the bill as being the largest capitalist state in the world. we feed the bill gates and donald trumps, while taking in all the immigrants and paying them $2.50 an hour. a lot of people hear stories, that in their country, $2.50 an hour is enough for them to buy 2 houses every year.
well maybe back in africa, but not here in the united states. that's for sure
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14326805 - 04/21/11 08:47 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I addressed your argument, Al. It all depends on what the various rates are. Are you that simple that you don't understand that?
I don't think public debt accumulation has anything to do with the monetary system. Private debt accumulation doesn't either. Interest rates (as savings or borrowings) tend to closely mirror inflation. Without debt interest there is no interest payments on savings. You have to pay somebody to protect your precious rocks. That diminishes you rock wealth so you have to find more rocks to pay your rock guarder.
then why the fuck do people keep blaming this whole economical situation on a housing bubble crash.
Because they are simpletons looking for an answer that doesn't involve them giving up on the government tit.Quote:
if what you are saying is true, wouldn't the housing crash simply be a symptom of the larger picture?
The housing boom and the subsequent bust were caused by government meddling in the housing market. Don't forget that a lot of people made a lot of money from the boom and I don't mean the bankers.Quote:
but then again you say government debt has nothing to do with the larger picture?
I don't say that. I say that the form of currency that this guy babbles about all the time is irrelevant. Government debt is usually not a huge deal but look at my sig. It has exploded. The problem with it is that people are scared shitless about how these morons expect to get rid of it. Quote:
i'm confused what ARE you saying? why did this meltdown recession effect so many people? i thought people didn't depend on government debt. I thought I didn't. until this crap.
The recession was caused by bums borrowing money and not paying it back, which led to systemic threat to the banking industry and subsequent chilling of the construction industry. Everything flowed from that. Bums who didn't repay their loans. Government debt was not the cause. Until recently government debt was not in the catastrophic range, it was in the nuisance range. It certainly didn't cause the recession but now it threatens to prolong it through the utterly chilling effect it has on business entities. With Democrat control of half of Congress and an avowed socialist in the White House who won't cut anything and endlessly insists on bleeding the People dry all business people and those of means are curtailing their activity.Quote:
i mean it's as if capitalism hasn't reached an all time high, but then that is a different argument for a different day. and then again who is argueing
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14331455 - 04/22/11 02:02 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
ok but what i meant by capitalism is reaching an all time high is, would you prefer to have a republican in the white house who is pro business pro bureaucracy pro capitalist?
we need some balance, the dems have people locking their business, but once again it's capitalism at it's finest. whether it's bush or obama, it's obvious that there is always someone pushing it one way or the other too far, and yet people are too dependent on banks, too dependent on the government etc.
you say the debt went up a trillion when obama came into office. you claim you don't think he inherited this from bush but caused it himself. but think about it, most policies presidents create don't go into effect until a few years into their presidency, when bush came into office it wasn't right away his policies took effect, clinton's policies remained in effect for awhile. then bush's kicked in. how can obama be responsible for an extra trillion if the first year he was in office, almost nothing he did went into effect?
well sure he did the bailouts for 700 billion, but everyone approved that. they said it was an emergency, and that without the bailout most companies would have collapsed and we'd be in a depression right now.
do we know this isn't true? do we know just about any president, including bush, wouldn't have done the same thing? how much of a mess has that bailout really caused?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14332785 - 04/22/11 10:53 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: ok but what i meant by capitalism is reaching an all time high is, would you prefer to have a republican in the white house who is pro business pro bureaucracy pro capitalist?Not pro bureaucrat. That isn't capitalism, it's nuisancism.Quote:
we need some balance, the dems have people locking their business, but once again it's capitalism at it's finest. whether it's bush or obama, it's obvious that there is always someone pushing it one way or the other too far, and yet people are too dependent on banks, too dependent on the government etc.
Balance between what and what? We need to throw out the socialists. Period.Quote:
you say the debt went up a trillion when obama came into office. you claim you don't think he inherited this from bush but caused it himself. but think about it, most policies presidents create don't go into effect until a few years into their presidency, when bush came into office it wasn't right away his policies took effect, clinton's policies remained in effect for awhile. then bush's kicked in. how can obama be responsible for an extra trillion if the first year he was in office, almost nothing he did went into effect?
I actually claim it started when the Dems took Congress in '06 and when another Dem took the White House it exploded. Because it was their policies that did it. A trillion dollar stimulus bill that didn't stimulate and absolutely idiotic Health Deform bill. Nobody inherited that shit from Bush. Time to move an and stop blaming W.Quote:
well sure he did the bailouts for 700 billion, but everyone approved that. they said it was an emergency, and that without the bailout most companies would have collapsed and we'd be in a depression right now.
What was approved was bailouts for banks. They have repaid the government with profit. What wasn't approved was auto union bailouts. We will lose on that for sure. The bank bailouts cost nothing. NOTHING!Quote:
do we know this isn't true? do we know just about any president, including bush, wouldn't have done the same thing? how much of a mess has that bailout really caused?
You can rest assured that there would not have been a trillion dollar porkulus and there definitely wouldn't have been the business killing Health Deform and there is little chance that the auto unions would have been bailed out.
You keeping talking President this and President that. There is a more powerful agency involved. It's called Congress and it sets spending. Ever since the Dems took it over in 2006 we have seen an incredibly irresponsible level of spending. Go figure.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14332912 - 04/22/11 11:30 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
am i wrong zappa or does the president have to come up with the bill before congress can approve it? they approve and disprove, but who sets policies.
the dems might be retards, but it's hard for me to believe that you actually think bush had nothing to do with ruining the economy. of course he just approved what everyone wanted. the economy ruined the economy.
so dems took the house in 06, which where things really started going downhill. i'm not saying that's just coincidence, but you really think a trillion debt just 'pops up' in 2 years? why didn't bush disagree with these dem policies, he is the president, he has a lot of power you know?
i really don't believe that. obviously obama is a moron, but i don't think without dems that things would've been 'just fine' with bush.
i'm not saying obama has done any differently, but don't forget that war in the middle east costs 100 billion a year. that's 8 years we were there, none of the debt comes from that?
now how great was it for bush to get involved in iraq, instead of pursueing osama bin laden(or maybe he's dead, but whatever lead they had anyway) into pakistan? sure, invading pakistan is a dumb idea, but then so was invading iraq.
and it cost us to get off track. didn't we invade iraq in 04? that's quite a few years we could've been ELSEWHERE trying to find bin laden or whatever was left of him.
and we found NO weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, JUST ABOUT NONE! aside from a few things that barely the police could use.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14333912 - 04/22/11 03:23 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: am i wrong zappa or does the president have to come up with the bill before congress can approve it? they approve and disprove, but who sets policies.
He submits a budget proposal and they hammer itQuote:
the dems might be retards, but it's hard for me to believe that you actually think bush had nothing to do with ruining the economy. of course he just approved what everyone wanted. the economy ruined the economy.
My personal opinion s that the Clinton expansion of the CRA and the role of Fannie and Freddie led to the bust in housing. Also the boom. Don't forget that part.Quote:
so dems took the house in 06, which where things really started going downhill. i'm not saying that's just coincidence, but you really think a trillion debt just 'pops up' in 2 years? why didn't bush disagree with these dem policies, he is the president, he has a lot of power you know?
No it doesn't just "pop up". And Bush would have had to veto budget bills in toto. Theer is no line item veto.
Look specifically at what the Dems did. A near trillion dollar stimulus bill that was totally bullshit and the Health Deform law, which is scaring the living shit out of business people, as are many other Dem favorites, like cap and trade.Quote:
i really don't believe that. obviously obama is a moron, but i don't think without dems that things would've been 'just fine' with bush.
Just fine? Probably not. But Bush is irrelevant. He couldn't be President now anyway. He is also nobody's idea of a conservative. He spearheaded the benighted expansion of medicaid, just for one example of his fucking compassion.Quote:
i'm not saying obama has done any differently, but don't forget that war in the middle east costs 100 billion a year. that's 8 years we were there, none of the debt comes from that?
Do the math. Look at my sig. The deficit was going down until the Dems started spending like drunken sailors even with the wars.Quote:
now how great was it for bush to get involved in iraq, instead of pursueing osama bin laden(or maybe he's dead, but whatever lead they had anyway) into pakistan? sure, invading pakistan is a dumb idea, but then so was invading iraq.
Invading Iraq was most definitely not a dumb idea. In fact, I think it was mandatory. Either treaties and ceasefire agreements mean something or thee is no law. I would rather avoid feckless waffling and present a resolute front that demands respect than be French.Quote:
and it cost us to get off track. didn't we invade iraq in 04? that's quite a few years we could've been ELSEWHERE trying to find bin laden or whatever was left of him.
You are presenting a false choice. There was no less emphasis on finding bin Laden with or without Iraq. I have zero reason to believe that insufficient effort has anything to do with finding bin Laden.Quote:
and we found NO weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, JUST ABOUT NONE! aside from a few things that barely the police could use.
Irrelevant.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14334004 - 04/22/11 03:43 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
finding weapons of mass destruction in iraq was IRRELEVANT?

 here we go again with a long discussion about why it was ok to invade iraq without proper just cause, such as finding weapons of mass destruction. wonder how many times THIS has been brought up.
but i stick with my point, if we said we invaded to take weapons of mass destruction away, and found none, then we were wrong to invade.
everything else you said seems pretty sound. one way or another president or no president we are fucked, the budget is huge, and it's too much, thing are already too expensive for this OTHER bullshit to be piled on top of it, a financial crisis at stake.
i mean geez most people BARELY manage to make enough of a living to actually pay what they have to pay for, barely making enough to compensate at work, and then on top of it probably not really being able to afford a comfortable retirement etc.
idk, we're fucked. if it doesn't get better soon, it'll get worst again. i'm sure people contest that, and say it's getting better. and maybe statistically it is, but i tend to disagree in many ways.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14334452 - 04/22/11 05:37 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14336626 - 04/23/11 01:12 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
yeah no shit
zappa doesn't get that
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14336762 - 04/23/11 01:47 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Tell me one thing I don't know five years in advance.
This has been coming down the pike for years and woefully underdone. If people knew the true extent of the trouble our fiscal house is in they'd panic. Probably why the media has dribbled out the news over the years.
No one wants to give the truth.
Fortunately, no one wants to know the truth either.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zorbman]
#14337059 - 04/23/11 04:29 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
> If people knew the true extent of the trouble our fiscal house is in they'd panic.
It is a good thing we have Obama in office to reduce government spending. Change, yes we can!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14337685 - 04/23/11 10:22 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: finding weapons of mass destruction in iraq was IRRELEVANT?

 here we go again with a long discussion about why it was ok to invade iraq without proper just cause, such as finding weapons of mass destruction. wonder how many times THIS has been brought up.
Several times and you are still as utterly clueless as ever. Saddam was still not in compliance after over ten years. He was also bribing the UN. It was time. In fact, it was long past time. Even that empty pant cunt Clinton bombed him.Quote:
but i stick with my point, if we said we invaded to take weapons of mass destruction away, and found none, then we were wrong to invade.
Nope. There was a whole long list of reasons given for the invasion, the WMDs being just one. Quote:
everything else you said seems pretty sound. one way or another president or no president we are fucked, the budget is huge, and it's too much, thing are already too expensive for this OTHER bullshit to be piled on top of it, a financial crisis at stake.
i mean geez most people BARELY manage to make enough of a living to actually pay what they have to pay for, barely making enough to compensate at work, and then on top of it probably not really being able to afford a comfortable retirement etc.
idk, we're fucked. if it doesn't get better soon, it'll get worst again. i'm sure people contest that, and say it's getting better. and maybe statistically it is, but i tend to disagree in many ways.
Getting slightly better from terrible shape is inadequate.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14337699 - 04/23/11 10:26 AM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14338150 - 04/23/11 12:11 PM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-rates-and-share-of-tax-revenues.html
Quote:
Tax Rates and Share of Tax Revenues from Top 1%
The chart above shows the relationship over time (from 1979 to 2007) between: a) the top marginal income tax rate, and b) the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% (data). In 1979 the top marginal income tax rate was 70% and 18.3% of the total taxes paid were collected from the top 1% of taxpayers. By 2007 the top tax rate was 35% (half of the 1979 rate), and the tax share of the top 1% had more than doubled to 39.5% (from 18.3% in 1979).
The historical record shows an inverse relationship between the highest marginal income tax rate and the share of taxes collected from "the wealthy." It's a relationship to keep in mind during the current tax policy debate, where Obama wants to increase tax revenues by raising tax rates for "the rich," and Rep. Ryan alternatively suggests a cut in the top marginal rate to stimulate economic growth, which would likely increase tax revenues from the wealthy, and increase overall tax revenue.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14339092 - 04/23/11 03:38 PM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
The way to get rid of government deficits is not by increasing anybody's personal deficit. Even if you took ALL of the earnings of the top 5% you still wouldn't get rid of the government deficit. The United States already relies more heavily on the top 10% that even Europe for tax revenue. Half of the population doesn't pay anything. Parasites.
do you consider yourself to make enough money to be in the overhand side of the top half of the population? where you would not be considered a parasite?
i don't have the opportunity to pay the amount of money on things that my tax money would matter. this really isn't my fault.
i'm no longer a tune in turn on drop out hippy like i was 10 years ago, that thinks the world would be better if everyone quit their corporate job and only work for themself, that people only maintain their own business. but i'm long aways from thinking this system works.
sometimes the stuff you say makes a lot of sense zappa, quite true taxing a higher percentage to a greater percentage of people who make way less money than anyone considered rich is quite futile. but really, i think since the beginning of bush's leadership things were going downhill and it just hit rock bottom on a almost coincidental note when dems took the house in 06.
think about it, tax cuts or not, when everyone gets even taxes in the united states, the u.s. gets about 7% of every sale or payment made ever, except water and electric bills, then they got 100%, except the money they spend paying workers who work for such companies, and they tax their pay checks as well.
that is quite a lot of money to make. of course it'd make up for a huge spending bill that bush probably introduced, so that no one would notice the huge debt piling up until it was too late. why would they? 100 billion a year? the government almost makes that much in taxes.
screw bush and screw obama. now let's hear a positive note, is there one?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14339398 - 04/23/11 04:37 PM (13 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I don't think it was the least bit coincidental and Bush was long out of office when the Dems crammed the near trillion dollar Porkulus bill into effect. They have also scared the living shit out of business people and passed a hideously inept inadequate and destructive 2000+ page Health Deform bill. Then theer is the looming threat of massive tax increases, which is all you ever hear out of the Dems. They cut almost nothing.
Yeah, I'm one of the schmucks that pays almost all of the taxes. My own business. Family income in the top 1% probably, which does not make me rich, in my mind. Fucking college is expensive but we're almost done paying for the little fuckers.
It is foolish to demonize big corporations. They are the reason refrigerators and computers are cheap and that we even have things like MRI machines. There is no such thing as a Mom and Pop MRI manufacturer and if there was the product would be unbelievably expensive.
--------------------
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14343997 - 04/24/11 03:31 PM (13 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Really? All the news were reporting tax cuts. I dunno. I'm not there looking at the balance sheets, so I just go by what I read on the net.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Le_Canard]
#14381146 - 05/01/11 03:07 AM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToiletDuk said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-rates-and-share-of-tax-revenues.html
Really? All the news were reporting tax cuts. I dunno. I'm not there looking at the balance sheets, so I just go by what I read on the net. 
Tax rates for the top 1% went from 39.6% under Clinton to 35% under Bush. That's a 12% tax cut. So why did revenue go up from the top 1%? Here's why:
In 1979, the top 1% of wage earners earned 10% of all wages. In 2007, the top 1% of wage earners earned 23.5% of all wages.
So the share of income by the top 1% went up by 2.3 but the share of taxes only went up by 2.0. That's due to a nice tax cut.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14381663 - 05/01/11 08:26 AM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Well, the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters much either. Just sayin'...
There were no tax cuts. Tax revenue increased. That's a tax hike.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-rates-and-share-of-tax-revenues.html
Really? All the news were reporting tax cuts. I dunno. I'm not there looking at the balance sheets, so I just go by what I read on the net. 
Tax rates for the top 1% went from 39.6% under Clinton to 35% under Bush. That's a 12% tax cut. So why did revenue go up from the top 1%? Here's why:
In 1979, the top 1% of wage earners earned 10% of all wages. In 2007, the top 1% of wage earners earned 23.5% of all wages.
So the share of income by the top 1% went up by 2.3 but the share of taxes only went up by 2.0. That's due to a nice tax cut.
If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut. Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14382191 - 05/01/11 11:42 AM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut.
By dropping the tax rate 13% on the wealthiest Americans, the Government took a 13% cut from what they would have taken in from that group. I'm surprised I have to explain this. The ONLY reason the top 1% paid more taxes than before is because they're making so much more income than before, but it's still a huge cut from the amount they would have paid under Clinton.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.
Of course they do; our rich make a hell of a lot more. If you think that's wrong, your argument should be that the wealthy should pay their employees more. Then the taxes on the rich goes down, and that on their employees goes up.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14382371 - 05/01/11 12:26 PM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut.
By dropping the tax rate 13% on the wealthiest Americans, the Government took a 13% cut from what they would have taken in from that group. I'm surprised I have to explain this. The ONLY reason the top 1% paid more taxes than before is because they're making so much more income than before, but it's still a huge cut from the amount they would have paid under Clinton.
Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income. There is zero evidence that their income would have risen under oppressive tax rates and quite a lot of evidence that they would not. Which doesn't mean that the losers would have made more, either.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.
Of course they do; our rich make a hell of a lot more. If you think that's wrong, your argument should be that the wealthy should pay their employees more. Then the taxes on the rich goes down, and that on their employees goes up.
Our country relies more heavily on the upper decile for it's share of taxes than Europe. There are immensely wealthy people in Europe and some of the most socialist phony rich people there have relocated to tax havens.
Given that the tax rates for lower income workers are shit you want to shift income to people who pay lower rates? I think it is pretty stupid to propose decreasing the income of the people who you rely on to fund the government and who you want to rely on even more. The wealthy should pay their employees just exactly as much as they need to to run their businesses. To do otherwise would fuck the consumers of their goods.
CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT! THEY FUCK UP EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH!
And stop panhandling. It is unseemly.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14383085 - 05/01/11 02:53 PM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income.
I just showed this false in my previous post. The incomes of the top 1% went up by a factor of 2.3 but their tax burden only went by a factor of 2.0. It's easy to explain why - their tax rates were cut.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: There is zero evidence that their income would have risen under oppressive tax rates and quite a lot of evidence that they would not. Which doesn't mean that the losers would have made more, either.
I think there's zero evidence their incomes would change one way or another.
If tax rates on the rich go up, then yes the rich will buy less. However, those that would receive these taxes (teachers, firefighters, military, etc) will then buy more. So gross income shouldn't change for anyone.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Given that the tax rates for lower income workers are shit you want to shift income to people who pay lower rates? I think it is pretty stupid to propose decreasing the income of the people who you rely on to fund the government and who you want to rely on even more.
You think it's stupid for working people to have a decent income after taxes?
Quote:
zappaisgod said: The wealthy should pay their employees just exactly as much as they need to to run their businesses. To do otherwise would fuck the consumers of their goods.
If a company makes $1 billion in profit, giving some to employees doesn't screw consumers any more than giving some to the CEO.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14383641 - 05/01/11 04:46 PM (13 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income.
I just showed this false in my previous post. The incomes of the top 1% went up by a factor of 2.3 but their tax burden only went by a factor of 2.0. It's easy to explain why - their tax rates were cut.
No, you didn't show that as false. Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: There is zero evidence that their income would have risen under oppressive tax rates and quite a lot of evidence that they would not. Which doesn't mean that the losers would have made more, either.
I think there's zero evidence their incomes would change one way or another.
Really? Why don't you look at what they paid when the rates were sky high. It was much less because they altered their behavior to avoid, legally, taxation. When the rates went down they acted more in accord with natural market behavior. The total amount of taxes they paid went up. What a fucking concept.Quote:
If tax rates on the rich go up, then yes the rich will buy less. However, those that would receive these taxes (teachers, firefighters, military, etc) will then buy more. So gross income shouldn't change for anyone.
What makes you think those are the people who would receive those taxes. Isn't your whole point to raise taxes to reduce the federal deficit? According to your plan nobody would get any more. Just some people would have less. Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Given that the tax rates for lower income workers are shit you want to shift income to people who pay lower rates? I think it is pretty stupid to propose decreasing the income of the people who you rely on to fund the government and who you want to rely on even more.
You think it's stupid for working people to have a decent income after taxes?
I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: The wealthy should pay their employees just exactly as much as they need to to run their businesses. To do otherwise would fuck the consumers of their goods.
If a company makes $1 billion in profit, giving some to employees doesn't screw consumers any more than giving some to the CEO.
Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus? Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage? If a company makes a profit it goes to the owners. If the workers of said company were, because of their particularly exceptional skills, responsible for the profit they could leverage that into higher pay. If they are nondescript ciphers that you can replace from the street they cannot. CEOs of major companies are exceptionally talented and brilliant people. Almost nobody can do their jobs. They play Centerfield for the Yankees. Their employees sell hot dogs in the stands. Nobody buys a ticket to a Yankee game to watch the hot dog vendors.
Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14385955 - 05/01/11 11:07 PM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income.
I just showed this false in my previous post. The incomes of the top 1% went up by a factor of 2.3 but their tax burden only went by a factor of 2.0. It's easy to explain why - their tax rates were cut.
No, you didn't show that as false.
I did. You'll either need to prove my numbers wrong, or accept the facts.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why don't you look at what they paid when the rates were sky high. It was much less because they altered their behavior to avoid, legally, taxation. When the rates went down they acted more in accord with natural market behavior. The total amount of taxes they paid went up. What a fucking concept.
No, that's not what your chart shows at all:

Here we see a continuous increase in tax revenues coming from the rich, which corresponds to their making more and more money each year as I've shown in my previous graph above. There are two major dips: One in 1988, corresponding with the tax cut from 50% to 28% (as tax rates goes down, tax revenue goes down). The other is in 2000, corresponding with the Bush tax cuts. Your own chart proves my point. Please let me know what the hell you're looking at, because I don't see it.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: What makes you think those are the people who would receive those taxes. Isn't your whole point to raise taxes to reduce the federal deficit? According to your plan nobody would get any more. Just some people would have less.
If we used the extra tax revenue to pay down the deficit, then I agree. But at least the deficit then goes down!
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more.
Then everyone lives at or near the poverty level. Free market is great for business owners, terrible for workers.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus?
CEOs today have to concentrate on short term value to the company, to make shareholders happy and to line their own pockets in the process. There's little incentive to focus on long term growth anymore.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage?
Because they are human beings with families that work hard, and because America is a generally a civilized society that believes in rewarding hard work.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
If they participate in profit sharing, then absolutely that should get cut.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/01/11 11:42 PM)
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14386644 - 05/02/11 02:20 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut.
By dropping the tax rate 13% on the wealthiest Americans, the Government took a 13% cut from what they would have taken in from that group. I'm surprised I have to explain this. The ONLY reason the top 1% paid more taxes than before is because they're making so much more income than before, but it's still a huge cut from the amount they would have paid under Clinton.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.
Of course they do; our rich make a hell of a lot more. If you think that's wrong, your argument should be that the wealthy should pay their employees more. Then the taxes on the rich goes down, and that on their employees goes up.
well jesus dude. is it wrong to take this scenario:
a man owns a company, he makes 10 million a year but gets taxed 1 million so only has 9 million, while his employees make $20,000, but only get taxed $2500, so that leaves them with $17,500 at the end.
and turn it into this?:
a man owns a company, he makes 10 million a year, but now pays his workers more, so only has 9 million a year instead, but with tax cuts he now only loses $250,000, giving him a total earning of $8 million seven hundred and fifty thousand. his workers now make $40,000 a year, but get taxed more at about $5000, so they only make $35,000 a year.
i never understand peoples comparisons. first of all, this scenario doesn't compare at all to what has actually happened. second, if i make $50 bucks from selling lemonade, and get taxed $5 at the end of the day, then go up to making $200 a day selling lemonade, but now I'm getting taxed $30, big whoop. I'm still making more.
and honestly my bleeding heart goes out to the guy who makes a million less from his tens of millions a year so he can pay his workers more, but at the same time gets taxed less but none the less makes a little less. i mean jesus poor guy 
and to be honest all these people who think rich people get the bad stick when they lose SOME money from their business, i mean to be honest a lot of people are willing to spend MILLIONS of their own money hiring exuberant amounts of middle management to do work for them they don't want to do on their own. it'd honestly be cheaper to hire some more people on the low end, pay the lowest end managers a little more money to do more work, and do a little more work yourself, then to pay out your ass half your fortune to hire hundreds of thousands of middle management people who each do just one thing and reliably have little tasks to complete, so do them with ease, and make sure the company works.
i mean, only billionaires do such a thing. anyone else in their right mind would never value paying another dozen people an extra $20 an hour to run the company from the middle over paying an extra dozen floor workers an extra $2 or $3 an hour to raise productivity and give their managers more time to do office work then to watch over them every 5 minutes.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14386661 - 05/02/11 02:26 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think there's zero evidence their incomes would change one way or another.
If tax rates on the rich go up, then yes the rich will buy less. However, those that would receive these taxes (teachers, firefighters, military, etc) will then buy more. So gross income shouldn't change for anyone.
yes exactly. if mars company pays their workers an extra $1 an hour, then that's $10 extra in their employees pockets at the end of the day. now this is one company, but if mars expects to sell snickers, they can't just sell snickers to the richest people who own $50 million or more, they make their money by feasable economical balance. meaning a company will not lose by paying it's workers an extra few bucks to go spend, if they depend on people buying their products, they can't just tailer then to one social class.
maybe some companies can afford to ONLY sell to rich people. but honestly the other 96.25% of them can't. it's not great for anyone to get rich if balance doesn't occur.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14386675 - 05/02/11 02:33 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus? Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage? If a company makes a profit it goes to the owners. If the workers of said company were, because of their particularly exceptional skills, responsible for the profit they could leverage that into higher pay. If they are nondescript ciphers that you can replace from the street they cannot. CEOs of major companies are exceptionally talented and brilliant people. Almost nobody can do their jobs. They play Centerfield for the Yankees. Their employees sell hot dogs in the stands. Nobody buys a ticket to a Yankee game to watch the hot dog vendors.
Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
you honestly say this being a former construction worker, or was that previous construction worker? i can't remember.
if a guy buys a lot of lot space, and hires people to do everything for him, he can sit on his ass and watch people build a building from the ground up, design the blueprints, and go on vacation while they are doing so.
now people always see it as the opposite, but honestly anybody can buy out a real estate owner, if he can't keep up with his company, and own it themselves. the only reason floor workers are so replaceable, is because anyone will step up and take their job if they quit or are fired. if a construction worker had to go to college to work in the field even laying bricks, they would be more appreciated, paid better, and obviously company owners would realize that without thousands of hands building this crap from scratch, they wouldn't have jack shit.
it's like saying that a general doesn't need thousands and thousands of soldiers to win a war. patton was a genius and could've taken rommel on with his own bare hands, everyone else was expendable. if such is the case then so be it next war that goes down i say obama fights gadaffi and his entire army on his own. everyone else is expendable and isn't worth even a penny more then they are paid.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14387345 - 05/02/11 08:15 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income.
I just showed this false in my previous post. The incomes of the top 1% went up by a factor of 2.3 but their tax burden only went by a factor of 2.0. It's easy to explain why - their tax rates were cut.
No, you didn't show that as false.
I did. You'll either need to prove my numbers wrong, or accept the facts.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why don't you look at what they paid when the rates were sky high. It was much less because they altered their behavior to avoid, legally, taxation. When the rates went down they acted more in accord with natural market behavior. The total amount of taxes they paid went up. What a fucking concept.
No, that's not what your chart shows at all:

Here we see a continuous increase in tax revenues coming from the rich, which corresponds to their making more and more money each year as I've shown in my previous graph above. There are two major dips: One in 1988, corresponding with the tax cut from 50% to 28% (as tax rates goes down, tax revenue goes down). The other is in 2000, corresponding with the Bush tax cuts. Your own chart proves my point. Please let me know what the hell you're looking at, because I don't see it.
There was an immediate decline in receipts because it takes time for the cuts to spur investment, which they did, then they rose:
Quote:
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
Did you think the behavior change would have an effect on tax receipts right away? That would be stupid.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: What makes you think those are the people who would receive those taxes. Isn't your whole point to raise taxes to reduce the federal deficit? According to your plan nobody would get any more. Just some people would have less.
If we used the extra tax revenue to pay down the deficit, then I agree. But at least the deficit then goes down!
While mine goes up and nothing happens to yours. No thanks, pal.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more.
Then everyone lives at or near the poverty level. Free market is great for business owners, terrible for workers.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You seem to have some idiotic notion that business owners collude to set wages. They do not. They compete with each other for workers. If that was the case nobody would be getting paid more than a minimum wage. But that isn't the case. At all.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus?
CEOs today have to concentrate on short term value to the company, to make shareholders happy and to line their own pockets in the process. There's little incentive to focus on long term growth anymore.
No they don't and there is plenty of incentive to create long term stable companies. Some shareholders demand it. Not every shareholder is a day trader. In fact, hardly any of them are.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage?
Because they are human beings with families that work hard, and because America is a generally a civilized society that believes in rewarding hard work.
Lazy jackasses don't work hard. Lazy jackasses make up the bulk of the work force.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
If they participate in profit sharing, then absolutely that should get cut.
I didn't ask that. I asked if they should have to give their pay back.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14387395 - 05/02/11 08:28 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Let's play the game. Tax rates for the owner are 40%. Tax rates for the employees are either 10% or 15%, depending on how much they make:
Company A has gross receipts of $2M. The owner gets $1.5M and pays $600K in taxes. Each of 20 workers makes $25K and pays (at 10%) $2,500 in taxes for a total of $50K. Total taxes paid: $650,000
Let's double the workers' pay at company B:
Owner gets $1M and pays $400K. Workers each get $50K and pay (at 15%) $7,500 for a total of $150,000. Total taxes paid: $550,000.
Net loss of tax receipts is $100,000. By paying the workers more the government has lost about 15% of taxes. By shifting just $500K from the owner to the employees you have lost $100K in taxes.
I really don't care who your heart goes out to. Your heartfelt redistributionism doesn't cost you a penny because it isn't your money being talked about. That isn't philanthropy. It's theft.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14387443 - 05/02/11 08:41 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus? Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage? If a company makes a profit it goes to the owners. If the workers of said company were, because of their particularly exceptional skills, responsible for the profit they could leverage that into higher pay. If they are nondescript ciphers that you can replace from the street they cannot. CEOs of major companies are exceptionally talented and brilliant people. Almost nobody can do their jobs. They play Centerfield for the Yankees. Their employees sell hot dogs in the stands. Nobody buys a ticket to a Yankee game to watch the hot dog vendors.
Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
you honestly say this being a former construction worker, or was that previous construction worker? i can't remember.
Contractor. I own the company. I was formerly a worker. Built my own company from nothing.Quote:
if a guy buys a lot of lot space, and hires people to do everything for him, he can sit on his ass and watch people build a building from the ground up, design the blueprints, and go on vacation while they are doing so.
Although completely abdicating is a bad idea because people will rob you, yes, he can sit on his ass. Which is none of your damn business. he made the investment, it's his company, he can manage or mismanagement anyway he sees fit.Quote:
now people always see it as the opposite, but honestly anybody can buy out a real estate owner, if he can't keep up with his company, and own it themselves.
No they can't. The owner can choose not to sellQuote:
the only reason floor workers are so replaceable, is because anyone will step up and take their job if they quit or are fired.
No, not anyone, just one of millions.Quote:
if a construction worker had to go to college to work in the field even laying bricks, they would be more appreciated, paid better, and obviously company owners would realize that without thousands of hands building this crap from scratch, they wouldn't have jack shit.
Now here we have a particularly heinous bit of snobbery. First of all, college is already over attended by morons who have no business being there and is largely useless in preparing people for work. Second of all, I did both and I can assure you it was a lot easier getting a degree than it was learning a trade and how to run a business. It took a lot less time, too. We don't need any more people wasting time and treasure going to college. The ambitious intelligent skilled people in construction make more than most college grads. Quote:
it's like saying that a general doesn't need thousands and thousands of soldiers to win a war. patton was a genius and could've taken rommel on with his own bare hands, everyone else was expendable. if such is the case then so be it next war that goes down i say obama fights gadaffi and his entire army on his own. everyone else is expendable and isn't worth even a penny more then they are paid.
I didn't say they were expendable, I said they were replaceable. Easily in most cases. And no, they aren't worth one penny more than I can replace them for.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14387808 - 05/02/11 10:30 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Did you think the behavior change would have an effect on tax receipts right away? That would be stupid.
then why in the world do you think the second the obama administration stepped in the deficit went up to a trillion, with half a trillion in debt already he had no choice but to make the 700 billion bailout. if you understand that things take time to process through the system you'd realize we'll be seeing his mistakes when he leaves next term and someone comes in to replace him. right now we are saying bush's bullshit.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
Edited by imachavel (05/02/11 10:31 AM)
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14387852 - 05/02/11 10:38 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Let's play the game. Tax rates for the owner are 40%. Tax rates for the employees are either 10% or 15%, depending on how much they make:
Company A has gross receipts of $2M. The owner gets $1.5M and pays $600K in taxes. Each of 20 workers makes $25K and pays (at 10%) $2,500 in taxes for a total of $50K. Total taxes paid: $650,000
Let's double the workers' pay at company B:
Owner gets $1M and pays $400K. Workers each get $50K and pay (at 15%) $7,500 for a total of $150,000. Total taxes paid: $550,000.
Net loss of tax receipts is $100,000. By paying the workers more the government has lost about 15% of taxes. By shifting just $500K from the owner to the employees you have lost $100K in taxes.
I really don't care who your heart goes out to. Your heartfelt redistributionism doesn't cost you a penny because it isn't your money being talked about. That isn't philanthropy. It's theft.
and yet you dispute even taxes for everyone, despite wage rises. sure it's theft, the government is irrefutably the biggest thief in history. never in the world has such stakes of capitalism been employed as to us making so much money while exploited the poverty of other countries and to some extent our own to make billions for the wealthy.
company owners taxes should be the same no matter the wage their employees OR their company makes. a tax is a percentage. 10% of 100 million is going to be a lot higher then 10% of 100 dollars. there shouldn't be a need to change the percentage based on the numbers, it's a percentage so you get a big chunk of whatever is spent.
my mistake was to mix an argument of the charity of a company owner to his employees with how it should effect his tax rates based on what he makes versus what his employees make. for a minute i got caught up in a good versus evil battle, whereas a business is a business and people need to be taxed no matter how nice or mean mr. forbes is.
but you disagree with even taxes don't you? getting back to the subject. or do you? i thought i've seen you post this before, maybe i'm mistaken.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14387954 - 05/02/11 11:00 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Although completely abdicating is a bad idea because people will rob you, yes, he can sit on his ass. Which is none of your damn business. he made the investment, it's his company, he can manage or mismanagement anyway he sees fit.
likewise who i work for is none of his damn business, especially if i don't want to work for him. if you do work for a friends business, he owns it, etc. you usually get a share of the company, as you bought in with your own money so if their profits rise so should yours. a floor worker just happens to be one of millions, who are easily replaceable.
if a company owner didn't pay his workers well, and for some reason these '1 of millions' decided not to show up and replace a guy that quit, and the company couldn't continue without workers, well, sucks for that guy.
this will never be the case, but like wise his investments are none of my business and who i work for is none of his business.
now being that you think company owners are SO responsible and don't constantly get bank loans and capital venture, even though these people honestly make enough money to expand the company on their own but need to get stock money forwarded to them etc. don't think i'm going to care if for some reason the world one day, decides to deny this guy a loan, and give some other guy with a smaller business and less credit the loan.
when that guy bitches that banks only give money to minorities, and his company goes bank rupt because he doesn't understand supply and demand is just a fundamental analysis of stock, and not just a technical day traders analysis, and can't handle his money. tell him not to come bitching to me. what he does with his money is none of my business, and what i do with my money is none of his damn business either.
i'm tired of rich people thinking they can know where every dollar spent by americans go, including MY fucking taxes. those are MY dollars, and I can spend them how i want, and it's none of bill gates damn business.
but for some reason every time donald trump speaks, they hold a microphone to his throat to record what he thinks. i don't give a shit what he thinks, and i personally think if i tell the world that my pennies are earned fair and square, and i don't want him thinking about my money. then i have a right to do so. he can mind of his own business. i don't work for him, there are plenty of trump towers, like 10 blocks of them to be exact, lined up way up north on miami beach, right before broward county, and a few trump towers in brickell as well. but i never did any work on them while they were being built. i never worked for the guy.
no association. seem fair?
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Now here we have a particularly heinous bit of snobbery. First of all, college is already over attended by morons who have no business being there and is largely useless in preparing people for work. Second of all, I did both and I can assure you it was a lot easier getting a degree than it was learning a trade and how to run a business. It took a lot less time, too. We don't need any more people wasting time and treasure going to college. The ambitious intelligent skilled people in construction make more than most college grads.
i don't even know how to argue with you on this one. you really think that's true? i'm just going to opt out of the argument, to think you believe in most states a good long term construction worker makes more than most college grads. i don't know if they start construction workers in new york off at $20 an hour or what.
i don't think starting pay in south florida being $12 an hour is more than "most college grads make". unfortunately most of these people make this their entire career, and later can't afford to pay for their health problems from hernias and shit from working a damn job that might as well rip your arms out of your sockets.
my dads friend is a contractor in dubai and works for turner construction. he is actually a very nice guy and takes almost every dollar he earns and turns it into an investment for start up companies and what not. probably one of the few contractors I've met that is a nice guy that i really respect. some of them are really nice and appreciate if you work hard. some of them are nobodies that watch everyone else sweat and die to build their building, and sit in the office all day doing paper work and coke or whatever.
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I didn't say they were expendable, I said they were replaceable. Easily in most cases. And no, they aren't worth one penny more than I can replace them for.
so be it man. no one is, from the ground up to right under the very top.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14387973 - 05/02/11 11:03 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Did you think the behavior change would have an effect on tax receipts right away? That would be stupid.
then why in the world do you think the second the obama administration stepped in the deficit went up to a trillion, with half a trillion in debt already he had no choice but to make the 700 billion bailout. if you understand that things take time to process through the system you'd realize we'll be seeing his mistakes when he leaves next term and someone comes in to replace him. right now we are saying bush's bullshit.
It wasn't the bailout, it was the porkulus and it didn't happen overnight, it took 2 years of Dem Congress to get the ball rolling and then when Obama got in it skyrocketed. See my sig. And the government can increase the deficit in a flash. All they have to do is spend. It takes people a few years to adjust their tax strategy. That you can't do so quickly. See my sig!
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14388004 - 05/02/11 11:13 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Although completely abdicating is a bad idea because people will rob you, yes, he can sit on his ass. Which is none of your damn business. he made the investment, it's his company, he can manage or mismanagement anyway he sees fit.
likewise who i work for is none of his damn business, especially if i don't want to work for him. if you do work for a friends business, he owns it, etc. you usually get a share of the company, as you bought in with your own money so if their profits rise so should yours. a floor worker just happens to be one of millions, who are easily replaceable.
if a company owner didn't pay his workers well, and for some reason these '1 of millions' decided not to show up and replace a guy that quit, and the company couldn't continue without workers, well, sucks for that guy.
this will never be the case, but like wise his investments are none of my business and who i work for is none of his business.
now being that you think company owners are SO responsible and don't constantly get bank loans and capital venture, even though these people honestly make enough money to expand the company on their own but need to get stock money forwarded to them etc. don't think i'm going to care if for some reason the world one day, decides to deny this guy a loan, and give some other guy with a smaller business and less credit the loan.
Theer are often very legitimate tax reasons for financing things through debt. Also spreading risk. Not any of your business.Quote:
when that guy bitches that banks only give money to minorities, and his company goes bank rupt because he doesn't understand supply and demand is just a fundamental analysis of stock, and not just a technical day traders analysis, and can't handle his money. tell him not to come bitching to me. what he does with his money is none of my business, and what i do with my money is none of his damn business either.
i'm tired of rich people thinking they can know where every dollar spent by americans go, including MY fucking taxes. those are MY dollars, and I can spend them how i want, and it's none of bill gates damn business.
but for some reason every time donald trump speaks, they hold a microphone to his throat to record what he thinks. i don't give a shit what he thinks, and i personally think if i tell the world that my pennies are earned fair and square, and i don't want him thinking about my money. then i have a right to do so. he can mind of his own business. i don't work for him, there are plenty of trump towers, like 10 blocks of them to be exact, lined up way up north on miami beach, right before broward county, and a few trump towers in brickell as well. but i never did any work on them while they were being built. i never worked for the guy.
no association. seem fair?
I don't give a fuck what you do with your money and I don't give a fuck what that slimeball Donald Trump says. He doesn't speak for anyone but himself and he's a serial bankrupt.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Now here we have a particularly heinous bit of snobbery. First of all, college is already over attended by morons who have no business being there and is largely useless in preparing people for work. Second of all, I did both and I can assure you it was a lot easier getting a degree than it was learning a trade and how to run a business. It took a lot less time, too. We don't need any more people wasting time and treasure going to college. The ambitious intelligent skilled people in construction make more than most college grads.
i don't even know how to argue with you on this one. you really think that's true? i'm just going to opt out of the argument, to think you believe in most states a good long term construction worker makes more than most college grads. i don't know if they start construction workers in new york off at $20 an hour or what.
Yes. Absolutely. In NY it is sometimes more than that and a lot of college grads are making much less than $40K a year.Quote:
i don't think starting pay in south florida being $12 an hour is more than "most college grads make". unfortunately most of these people make this their entire career, and later can't afford to pay for their health problems from hernias and shit from working a damn job that might as well rip your arms out of your sockets.
Why do you think their starting pay ois their finishing pay? And like I said, you have to spend time learning the trade. You don't do that in school.Quote:
my dads friend is a contractor in dubai and works for turner construction. he is actually a very nice guy and takes almost every dollar he earns and turns it into an investment for start up companies and what not. probably one of the few contractors I've met that is a nice guy that i really respect. some of them are really nice and appreciate if you work hard. some of them are nobodies that watch everyone else sweat and die to build their building, and sit in the office all day doing paper work and coke or whatever.
Once again what they do with their time is none of your sanctimonious business. I don't hump lumber any more, I can assure. My body is destroyed. I calculate and point and direct. That is my job. Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I didn't say they were expendable, I said they were replaceable. Easily in most cases. And no, they aren't worth one penny more than I can replace them for.
so be it man. no one is, from the ground up to right under the very top.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14388022 - 05/02/11 11:17 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Did you think the behavior change would have an effect on tax receipts right away? That would be stupid.
then why in the world do you think the second the obama administration stepped in the deficit went up to a trillion, with half a trillion in debt already he had no choice but to make the 700 billion bailout. if you understand that things take time to process through the system you'd realize we'll be seeing his mistakes when he leaves next term and someone comes in to replace him. right now we are saying bush's bullshit.
It wasn't the bailout, it was the porkulus and it didn't happen overnight, it took 2 years of Dem Congress to get the ball rolling and then when Obama got in it skyrocketed. See my sig. And the government can increase the deficit in a flash. All they have to do is spend. It takes people a few years to adjust their tax strategy. That you can't do so quickly. See my sig!
according to your sig, it wasn't looking so great in '04, what was up with that?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14388052 - 05/02/11 11:24 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
none of my sanctimonious business huh? and then when election time comes you cry when a god damned republican doesn't get elected, when the reason is he doesn't give any more of a shit then his democratic partner about people losing their jobs, and therefore doesn't get elected.
those bank loans come out my fucking taxes dude. none of my business? fine.
i don't want to hear this obama crying thing any more. the people had a chance to vote, and they have spoken. if they wanted another republican they would have voted for one.
i hope they move all our construction projects to dubai in the future, and leave the field dead over here, which they are pretty much already doing. it means so much more profit for turner, and by the time this happens, it will definitely be none of your damn business how and when they do so, or that they do so at all. business is business, shit happens. good luck.
and also, when people get money fronted by banks and companies for public stock, and i buy that stock, then it's public information, and by god damn that sure is my business, and they better get those records straight, or they are looking for one hell of a sue, and probably bankruptcy and foreclosure of a once billion dollar stock trade business.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14388146 - 05/02/11 11:47 AM (13 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: none of my sanctimonious business huh? and then when election time comes you cry when a god damned republican doesn't get elected, when the reason is he doesn't give any more of a shit then his democratic partner about people losing their jobs, and therefore doesn't get elected.
In what way does how someone runs his own company relate to how I view how my employees (elected officials) run my country? It doesn't.Quote:
those bank loans come out my fucking taxes dude. none of my business? fine.
No they don't. What the fuck are you talking about?Quote:
i don't want to hear this obama crying thing any more. the people had a chance to vote, and they have spoken. if they wanted another republican they would have voted for one.
Unfortunately he was not unanimously elected and I will continue to bash the fuck until he either changes his socialist ways or gets the boot. There was also a little bit of a public referendum on Obama not so long ago. He lost pretty badly. The people spoke.Quote:
i hope they move all our construction projects to dubai in the future, and leave the field dead over here, which they are pretty much already doing. it means so much more profit for turner, and by the time this happens, it will definitely be none of your damn business how and when they do so, or that they do so at all. business is business, shit happens. good luck.
How the fuck are they going to move American construction to a foreign country? You're losing it, pal.Quote:
and also, when people get money fronted by banks and companies for public stock, and i buy that stock, then it's public information, and by god damn that sure is my business, and they better get those records straight, or they are looking for one hell of a sue, and probably bankruptcy and foreclosure of a once billion dollar stock trade business. 
Publicly traded does not mean publicly owned. When you as a private individual buy stock in a company YOU ARE THE OWNER. Then and only then is it your business how it is run by your employees. You can bitch about the CEO all you want. It is your right and it happens quite often. Who do you think fires CEOs anyway? But unless you own stock it is none of your business.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14391832 - 05/02/11 10:28 PM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: You'll either need to prove my numbers wrong, or accept the facts.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
That article only reiterates what I've already agreed with. The rich are paying a larger share of taxes. But it completely ignores the point I'm making - they're not paying more in taxes because their tax rate went down, they're paying more in taxes because their income went up. The top 1% now makes 2.4 times the share of total income they made in 1979, but they're only paying 2.0 times the share of taxes. They should be paying 2.4 times the share of taxes, get it? But their not because their tax rate went down.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more.
Then everyone lives at or near the poverty level. Free market is great for business owners, terrible for workers.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You seem to have some idiotic notion that business owners collude to set wages. They do not. They compete with each other for workers. If that was the case nobody would be getting paid more than a minimum wage. But that isn't the case. At all.
No, I don't think business owners collude to set wages. At all.
Corporations would LOVE a free market so they could eliminate minimum wage, unions, child labor laws, and all those things that interfere with them paying poverty level prices.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14392419 - 05/03/11 12:27 AM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Corporations would LOVE a free market so they could eliminate minimum wage, unions, child labor laws, and all those things that interfere with them paying poverty level prices.
yeah, but zappa doesn't seem to understand that people would have NO problem with that if there was no minimum wage laws, according to him minimum wage laws prevent people from paying their workers more money 
does that make sense dude? 
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14393291 - 05/03/11 07:51 AM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: You'll either need to prove my numbers wrong, or accept the facts.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
That article only reiterates what I've already agreed with. The rich are paying a larger share of taxes. But it completely ignores the point I'm making - they're not paying more in taxes because their tax rate went down, they're paying more in taxes because their income went up. The top 1% now makes 2.4 times the share of total income they made in 1979, but they're only paying 2.0 times the share of taxes. They should be paying 2.4 times the share of taxes, get it? But their not because their tax rate went down.
Tax receipts went up when the rates went down. Tax receipts for top earners increased as a share of the total paid went up because they had more incentive to earn. What does 1979 have to do with the Bush rate cuts? In 1979 the top tax rate was 70%. Why would anybody even bother? Of course they made more money. They got to keep it. You don't remember 1979 but I do. That's when I graduated. It was one of the worst economies in history.Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more.
Then everyone lives at or near the poverty level. Free market is great for business owners, terrible for workers.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You seem to have some idiotic notion that business owners collude to set wages. They do not. They compete with each other for workers. If that was the case nobody would be getting paid more than a minimum wage. But that isn't the case. At all.
No, I don't think business owners collude to set wages. At all.
Corporations would LOVE a free market so they could eliminate minimum wage, unions, child labor laws, and all those things that interfere with them paying poverty level prices.
Minimum wage increases low wage worker unemployment and puts more people on the dole. Private sector unions are almost extinct because they increase unemployment and destroy companies. I don't know anybody who wants to change child labor laws and cannot imagine why corporations would want that. There is no evidence to support the idiotic assertion that corporations or any other employer would be able to pay poverty level wages in a free market. It is illegal for them to collude to set wages. The only group allowed to do that is unions. Why?
If you are making minimum wage after your first year of work you pretty much suck. Do you know why? Because employers compete for your services.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14393813 - 05/03/11 10:53 AM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
dude, you have to be kidding me. there are millions of people who make minimum wage for years, you really think they all suck?
cmon zap, employers don't compete for your service as a floor worker, just doesn't work like that. i wish the world was full of rays and sun shine and such, but it's not like so
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14393893 - 05/03/11 11:11 AM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: dude, you have to be kidding me. there are millions of people who make minimum wage for years, you really think they all suck?
I don't believe that's true (millions of people) but if it is, yes, they fucking suck so bad I can't even describe it properly.Quote:
cmon zap, employers don't compete for your service as a floor worker, just doesn't work like that. i wish the world was full of rays and sun shine and such, but it's not like so
Just what percentage of the work force do you think are floor walkers? Whatever the hell that is. Janitors get paid more than minimum wage. Illegal alien maids get paid more than minimum. A lot more. The minimum wage law is one of the reasons teen unemployment is expected to be about 75% this summer.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14394113 - 05/03/11 12:02 PM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
so what would exist without the minimum wage zappa?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14394571 - 05/03/11 01:54 PM (13 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
More employment at the very lowest levels and absolutely zero impact on anything else.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14396682 - 05/03/11 08:38 PM (13 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Tax receipts went up when the rates went down.
That doesn't prove anything. GDP grows each year, and tax receipts grow with it. Also, deficit spending under Reagan led to greater tax receipts from the extra money thrown into the economy.
As much as you'd love to believe lowering taxes increases revenue, it's simply not the case until you get to the peak of the Laffer curve, which the vast majority of economists agree is somewhere around a 70% tax rate (I don't really care about a single outlier report from a no name student in a no name college, who failed to consider the effects of deficit spending revenue in his report).
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I don't know anybody who wants to change child labor laws and cannot imagine why corporations would want that.
Um... to increase their bottom line? Maybe you're right - consumers wouldn't buy from major corporations that take advantage of Child Labor, like Nike and Walmart. Would they?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#14397206 - 05/03/11 10:10 PM (13 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
yes, and i'm sure without minimum wage our countries wouldn't resort to the type of governments and economies of other countries like africa and china, that pay their workers like .75 an hour or something, just enough for them to get a sandwhich at the end of the day for their hard work, and god knows how they afford to pay rent.
because remember employers compete for their workers, and not just for educated ones, the lowest floor worker janitor is competed over.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: imachavel]
#14399353 - 05/04/11 10:54 AM (13 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
I don't think any company sees a need to hire children. Why would they? They're shitty workers who have a lot of accidents and need constant attention. There's plenty of unemployed adults.
In America the government doesn't control the economy anywhere near as much as in China or Africa. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe there's a correlation between government control and shitty wages. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: has no one yet mentioned the government budget spending cuts yet? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14402978 - 05/04/11 11:40 PM (13 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
how is the economy controlled more in africa and china?
by controlled, you mean separated class wise? or controlled as in the communist sense?
if i'm not mistaken, cuba is the only communist country left in the world
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
|