|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,305
Last seen: 12 minutes, 53 seconds
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins]
#22924563 - 02/19/16 08:46 PM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
twighead said: Why do you bother to post in here then? 
Does it make you feel super badass to say absolutely nothing of substance yet always alluding to your superior understanding?

Quote:
Shins said: It's a waste of time for me to elaborate. I know this from experience. You guys are true believers with and you cling religiously to your leftism with all your might.
Maybe if you guys were the slightest bit receptive to other ideas instead of just looking to shoot me down I might capitulate. But you guys are like trying to explain physics to someone who still thinks the world is flat. It's a pointless waste of time.
In other words. You guys are absolutely hopeless.
You've unsuccessfully argued points that were incorrect. You failed to concede that point, and now you're saying that we are hopeless, because we don't just 'believe' without the evidence of a proper argument.
I assure you that my mind can, and has been swayed in the past. I used to consider myself a Libertarian, and I was a huge Ron Paul supporter when he ran. Over time, through discussions just like the ones we have here, I learned the error of my understanding. There are still some aspects of Libertarianism that I support, but they are leftist principles anyway.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
 
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Shall we point failed capitalist countries to prove what Trump (or insert your favorite candidate) would do to the US?
Please do not refer to the raging-red-faced fascist as Trump. His is hereafter known as BLOWHARD, and please refrain from attaching him to capitalism.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Why is it even up to me? I asked how you're going to pay for it. No one has given a legitimate answer. Just pie in the sky after thought EXCUSES. These plans were not started from a position of economic viability, the funding is an afterthought, and I've got news for you THE MONEY TO PAY US NOT THERE!
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 22 hours
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins]
#22924988 - 02/19/16 11:05 PM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said: Why is it even up to me? I asked how you're going to pay for it. No one has given a legitimate answer. Just pie in the sky after thought EXCUSES. These plans were not started from a position of economic viability, the funding is an afterthought, and I've got news for you THE MONEY TO PAY US NOT THERE!
why are you telling me?
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Replied to wrong post
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins] 2
#22925127 - 02/20/16 12:00 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I said to elaborate. Are you capable of doing that?
You guys have consistently displayed a lack of knowledge of some of the most basic economic concepts. You do not have a good knowledge of economics, you have some weak left wing justification for spending created after the fact.
Once again, can you elaborate? 
Though this has been already been explained above, here is a very simplified summary of one way to raise $1.8 trillion/year (or $18 trillion over 10 years), for those who prefer real numbers to Shin's proclamation of being the superior economist:
1. Elimination of private health insurance companies - $500 billion (here and here) 2. 6.2% employer payroll tax (currently costs employers $12,600/yr per employee) - $630 billion (Motley Fool) 3. 2.2% income-based premium on households - $210 billion (Motley Fool) 4. 45% effective tax on the top 1% - $386 billion (New York Times) 5. 35% effective tax rate on the 95th to 99th percentile - $176 billion (New York Times) 6. Eliminating the preferential rates on capital and dividends - $134 billion(New York Times)
Granted, these numbers actually show a good surplus, so you could reduce revenue in any of the categories above.
-------------------- 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.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins]
#22925130 - 02/20/16 12:01 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
twighead said:
Quote:
Shins said: It's a waste of time for me to elaborate. I know this from experience. You guys are true believers with and you cling religiously to your leftism with all your might.
Maybe if you guys were the slightest bit receptive to other ideas instead of just looking to shoot me down I might capitulate. But you guys are like trying to explain physics to someone who still thinks the world is flat. It's a pointless waste of time.
In other words. You guys are absolutely hopeless.
Does it make you feel super badass to say absolutely nothing of substance yet always alluding to your superior understanding?

-------------------- 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.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Pie in the sky
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins] 1
#22925199 - 02/20/16 12:26 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You're a self proclaimed economics expert who can't do simple math?
-------------------- 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.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
I don't trust your numbers.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins]
#22925216 - 02/20/16 12:31 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
They're not "my" numbers. Notice that provided sources.
And regardless, if you knew basic math, you could easily verify the numbers. Would you like me to hold your hand through that process Mr. Economist?
-------------------- 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.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
You numbers are based on rosy speculations and wish wash. They rely on a laundry list of variables and speculations which may or may not pan out. Basically we are asked to trust your speculatory numbers. I don't trust you. I think funding is an afterthought.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins]
#22925244 - 02/20/16 12:40 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No, they're not. They're based on simple math. Again, should I hold your hand through the determination of any of the numbers above? Maybe you need a lesson in basic economics/math.
-------------------- 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.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,817
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Hurry durrr they're based on math and numbers.... numbers which are magically derived and ot based In reality.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
It's clear you're not the economist you claim to be, and so I will hand hold you through an example.
Let's look at #5 above:
Quote:
5. 35% effective tax rate on the 95th to 99th percentile - $176 billion (New York Times)
According to the New York Times article and the Tax Policy Center, there are 4,422,000 people in the 95% to 99% range of taxpayers (do you want me to hand hold you through how this was determined, or do you understand?)
The average income for people in this group is $405,492, and their average effective tax rate is 25.2%. If their average effective tax rate were raised by 9.8% to 35%, then we would increase revenue by the following amount:
4,422,000 people x $405,492 x 9.8% = $175,722,391,152 ($176B)
What do you know, simple math proves the number is exactly right!
-------------------- 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.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,305
Last seen: 12 minutes, 53 seconds
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins] 2
#22925392 - 02/20/16 01:43 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said: You numbers are based on rosy speculations and wish wash. They rely on a laundry list of variables and speculations which may or may not pan out. Basically we are asked to trust your speculatory numbers. I don't trust you. I think funding is an afterthought.
So... You're saying that there is essentially no way of knowing how to pay for these things, and to suggest otherwise is bad economics? Because you don't trust numbers... Real numbers that are the result of hard data?
That sounds like bad economics to me. Numbers and projections are an essential part of economics. I think You're the one who has taken the belligerent right-wing stance, and are unwilling to concede despite the data. You're the one whose mind was and will continue to be made up, regardless of any information presented to you. You're the one with a poor grasp on economics.
Sorry bruh.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,305
Last seen: 12 minutes, 53 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: It's clear you're not the economist you claim to be, and so I will hand hold you through an example.
Let's look at #5 above:
Quote:
5. 35% effective tax rate on the 95th to 99th percentile - $176 billion (New York Times)
According to the New York Times article and the Tax Policy Center, there are 4,422,000 people in the 95% to 99% range of taxpayers (do you want me to hand hold you through how this was determined, or do you understand?)
The average income for people in this group is $405,492, and their average effective tax rate is 25.2%. If their average effective tax rate were raised by 9.8% to 35%, then we would increase revenue by the following amount:
4,422,000 people x $405,492 x 9.8% = $175,722,391,152 ($176B)
What do you know, simple math proves the number is exactly right! 
You're blowing my mind with all of your leftist wizardry...
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
 
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: It's clear you're not the economist you claim to be, and so I will hand hold you through an example.
Let's look at #5 above:
Quote:
5. 35% effective tax rate on the 95th to 99th percentile - $176 billion (New York Times)
According to the New York Times article and the Tax Policy Center, there are 4,422,000 people in the 95% to 99% range of taxpayers (do you want me to hand hold you through how this was determined, or do you understand?)
The average income for people in this group is $405,492, and their average effective tax rate is 25.2%. If their average effective tax rate were raised by 9.8% to 35%, then we would increase revenue by the following amount:
4,422,000 people x $405,492 x 9.8% = $175,722,391,152 ($176B)
What do you know, simple math proves the number is exactly right! 
You're assuming all other variables will stay exactly the same when they definitely won't. This is why you keysian fuck heads are ruining the economy. It's not all about aggregates and statistics, it's also about how those numbers are arrived. You can't just force a massive restructuring of the economic system and then expect everything to turn out in the best possible of ways. More wishful thinking
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bernie 2016! [Re: Shins] 1
#22925436 - 02/20/16 02:18 AM (7 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: What do you know, simple math proves the number is exactly right! 
You're assuming all other variables will stay exactly the same when they definitely won't.
Jesus Christ, you're a desperate man. Sure, the economy will probably improve when everyone has more money to spend, so the above numbers may turn out to be a little low. Whatever, they're close enough.
Quote:
Shins said: This is why you keysian fuck heads are ruining the economy.
Anyone who believes Keynesianism ruined the economy is someone who knows NOTHING about economics. Keynesianism is taught at all major universities because it's been proven through empirical evidence. If you don't think the massive spending that occurred during WWII had a major impact on the economy, you're probably a Republican without a college degree.
What caused the economy to collapse was primarily a real estate bubble in a highly deregulated market, something that's been discussed at length in other threads.
Quote:
Shins said: You can't just force a massive restructuring of the economic system and then expect everything to turn out in the best possible of ways. More wishful thinking
So when more people have more money to spend, you think that will be bad for the economy? At worst, it would be neutral since the rich would have less, but one rich person has a lot less impact on the success of a restaurant (for example) than a whole bunch of middle class people. Same thing with smartphone sales, etc.
-------------------- 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.
|
|