| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
BoX
United States214 Posts
If you actually mean it, I could invest the time to provide sources for all of that.. If you're just being facetious (and don't want to use Google to see if I'm full of shit or not) then let me know now, so that I don't waste my time ._. All of that stuff is fairly accurate though. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:29 BoX wrote: @Risen If you actually mean it, I could invest the time to provide sources for all of that.. If you're just being facetious (and don't want to use Google to see if I'm full of shit or not) then let me know now, so that I don't waste my time ._. All of that stuff is fairly accurate though. I live in this thread to ask people for sources to their claims. So yes, I'm serious. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:29 BoX wrote: @Risen If you actually mean it, I could invest the time to provide sources for all of that.. If you're just being facetious (and don't want to use Google to see if I'm full of shit or not) then let me know now, so that I don't waste my time ._. All of that stuff is fairly accurate though. I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof falls on the guy making the stupid statements. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I meant open ended in terms of paying for it. As for the incentives I'm more asking about the supply side incentives. Obama wants to raise taxes on dividends / cap gains from 15% to over 40%. How will businesses react to that? Will they focus less on expansion and more on adding leverage to their existing balance sheet? Also, how will entrepreneurs react? Will they still be able to launch as many start ups once equity is more expensive? I'm not an economist by any means but shouldn't the question be framed differently? Rather than just looking at how businesses will react, think about how increased government revenue to pay for services that increase demand might change the dynamics of things. Or even how a reduction in our deficit might affect the business climate. Not sure if you can predict this stuff especially since small details can change the net effect drastically but I think whats ultimately interesting is the net effect on society. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:22 BoX wrote: I realize I'm stating things very bluntly and am open for debate, but that's my position. I LOL at people who go on touting that BS that the Obama admin tries to LIE TO YOU about Romney only paying 15% in his taxes -- he's already paid 35% on his money, now he's paying an additional 15% on his ROI income (that's a total of 50% taxation fellas, not 15% - LOL!) Romney made $21.7 million in 2010. Romney paid $3 million in federal taxes in 2010 3 / 21.7 != 50% | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I meant open ended in terms of paying for it. As for the incentives I'm more asking about the supply side incentives. Obama wants to raise taxes on dividends / cap gains from 15% to over 40%. How will businesses react to that? Will they focus less on expansion and more on adding leverage to their existing balance sheet? Also, how will entrepreneurs react? Will they still be able to launch as many start ups once equity is more expensive? Unfortunately, the answers to those questions aren't obtainable in an election year because every business owner will answer them depending on who they want to win; look at that timeshare real estate broker who blamed Obama for his business being smaller than it was before, not seeming to realize that real estate was going to shrink no matter what. The financial models in an election year also tend to be colored by politics. My best bet is that they would make do, as they've made do under every president who raised taxes on capital gains. Plus, the payroll tax decreases can help out entrepreneurs a fair bit. I mean, the Laffer curve exists (it's common sense), but there's no evidence that the "peak" is closer to 15% than 40%. And there's also an argument that cheaper equity encourages reckless investment and money going nowhere-just look at the 90s. That investment did next to nothing, and now we have a bunch of useless cables under the sea. Edit: From the perspective of paying for it, it's incredibly reckless to implement a stimulus without having a concrete method for retrieving the costs, just like with any other new government program (cough cough Part D). Could you imagine if they pitched Social Security but without any tax on wage earners? I mean, you can pray the economy recovers enough to recoup costs, but you need a plan B that works even if the stimulus is less effective than you thought it would be. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:04 Mindcrime wrote: It's only "viable" with government subsidy, loan guarnatees, limited liability and government run insurance. It would not exist in a free market. Nuclear power is the one that is viable without subsidies. What is making the market for it so bad that new nuclear plants are not being constructed is the weight of government regulation. Beyond safety, beyond public knowledge of its features, beyond even drafting messages to educate the public on the great steps taken towards safety ... these are just anti-nuclear muck from the special interests opposed to it. So, with a removal of man-made obstructions, the market for thorium or uranium nuclear reactors will take off. It's more a matter of government getting out of the way than anything else. And yes, all those wind, solar, biofuel, and geothermal guys are trying to generalize energy demands for niches into something that can work for the country. I'd like all the new subsidies to require them to do the bird-death investigation, the panel cleaning, and computing how little they actually generate to separate the legitimately uninformed from the politically/ideologically motivated. Or maybe put some mini turbines to collect all the air expended in lip service to the pipe dream green energy projects. + Show Spoiler [Sciency Green-Nuclear primer] + http://blip.tv/play/h9Qlj4FRnftW The one comes from a very dedicated green energy guy that spent several years fighting for wind and solar until the breadth of research convinced him otherwise. Particular to this sort of research is the fact that worst-case is no longer city-size radioactive contamination. China is on board with this, to name a major nation doing safe (modern) nuclear. EDIT: And by lip service, almost every serious politician will pay lip service by expressing the needs to explore "all of the above" green energy options, and both Romney and Obama put this in speeches and on their platforms. I'm behind Romney on exploring on more publicly-owned lands (Making the contracts available) to power the nation into a switch to nuclear (as it will emerge the only viable alternative in time). | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
On October 26 2012 02:23 Rassy wrote: Cant compare republicans with european extreme right. If want to compare it you should compare it to the most right wing "normal" party and then the republicans can be considered more right wing then anny party in europe (nothing wrong with that btw) Extreme right is a small minority and not realy considered a suitable choise in most middle classes. People vote for them as a protest vote against the current system. Extreme right in europe is also pretty liberal, they extreme right wing on only 1 point and that is immigration and integration isues. Most of them do support a huge welfare system. One poster said it nice. Republicans:liberal on economic isues, conservative on social isues Democrats:Conservative on economic isues,liberal on social isues. Looks like there is room for at least 2 more parties in the usa. A full conservative and a full liberal one. The full liberal one would do pretty well i think. Liberal economics and liberal social policy is called Libertarianism. There is a Libertarian candidate running for the presidency. He is named Gary Johnson. He has the support of a few thousand people. There is no majority support for libertarianism. It appeals to certain logically minded people, pot smokers, small business owners and no one else. Socially conservative and economically conservative (meaning FOR social spending/big govt) is basically the compassionate conservatism of Bush. This is the strongest and most mainstream position in the US. They won't take away social spending (which people love), they pay lip service to pro life, sanctity of marriage (Americans are naturally a bit conservative but don't like extreme positions), and get to take the strongest stance on foreign policy. This is what they were writing about in "Grand New Party". Reducing big government is not a mainstream position because people get scared if you talk about taking away freebies. But that's really the only weak point in the Republican platform. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power, especially with more modern reactor designs but one has to acknowledge the potential for extreme not-goodness with nuclear compared to other energy sources. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:37 Mindcrime wrote: Romney made $21.7 million in 2010. Romney paid $3 million in federal taxes in 2010 3 / 21.7 != 50% He's talking about double taxation though his math is a bit off. You do not add the 15% cap gains tax to the 35% corporate rate. You'd need to multiply what remains after the corporate tax by 15% then divide what remains by the initial income amount to get the effective tax rate. On $100 of income a 35% corporate rate plus a 15% cap gains rate would equal a 44.8% tax rate (not 50%). Of course that assumes the nominal 35% rate is what was paid and that there was no deferral on the cap gain realization. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 26 2012 03:34 ZeaL. wrote: I'm not an economist by any means but shouldn't the question be framed differently? Rather than just looking at how businesses will react, think about how increased government revenue to pay for services that increase demand might change the dynamics of things. Or even how a reduction in our deficit might affect the business climate. Not sure if you can predict this stuff especially since small details can change the net effect drastically but I think whats ultimately interesting is the net effect on society. True, and that's the big question - is creating 2 million jobs now worth it, given the pain that will result down the road. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Romney is a lot of things. A Mormon. A family man. A successful venture/vulture capitalist. But he is the personification of someone born into exceptional privilege. Like George W. Bush, he was born into one of the most powerful political/business families in the America. His entire youth -- an Ivy League education, studies abroad (to dodge the draft) and first home were paid for. To be frank, if Romney were anything less than a multi-millionaire, he would have been considered a failure. But to his credit, he took every opportunity he had and made the most of it. In contrast, Obama was essentially raised by a single, hippie mother and never really knew his Black, alcoholic father. If he ended up the Operations Manager of a hardware store, people would probably be impressed. Both Romney and Obama are overachievers, but frankly Obama had the harder path. Whether that matters -- whether character matters -- is completely subjective. | ||
|
BoX
United States214 Posts
For Risen: Vote for the career politician who made all of his money via politics... Whose campaign is based upon intangible ideas like Change and Hope (Barack) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Vote for the career businessman who made all of his money in business... Whose campaign is based upon tangible ideas like business and the ass-whooping reform of idiot America (Romney) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney It's kind of blatantly obvious that Obama is charismatic and extremely politically powerful - he's a born and raised politician. His greatest talent is making people like him. -- This is an opinion of course, but I'm fairly confident that it's an accurate one. Romney is a businessman. His natural talent is making money and building shit//making shit happen. -- Another opinion which I am confident is accurate. I realize I'm stating things very bluntly and am open for debate, but that's my position. I LOL at people who go on touting that BS that the Obama admin tries to LIE TO YOU about Romney only paying 15% in his taxes -- he's already paid 35% on his money, now he's paying an additional 15% on his ROI income (that's a total of 50% taxation fellas, not 15% - LOL!) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Private_equity -- His company is an investment company. Investing with money that has already been taxed. The Obama campaign likes to talk about the fact that he paid 14.1% on the income he made last year. This is a very controversial idea, because regular dudes like us pay 25%'ish on our meager earnings. They don't tell you that he's only paying 15% because it follows a different tax level, because it's an investment not a regular salary type income. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/21/mitt_romney_s_effective_tax_rate_is_very_low_most_economists_think_it_should_be_.html Ya, brb, I'm Obama, I listened and watched as my American civilians are tortured and killed and do nothing about it 'cuz whatevs.. (by listened and watched, I meant, was fully aware while it was happening. and by Obama of course I mean him and his people, which is effectively the same thing because Obama doesn't run everything, he's part of a team. A shitty team. I guess I should provide sources for that too ._.) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/24/benghazi-terror-attack/1653831/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254 But I make sure to praise the people who LOL and celebrate American civilian's torture, 'cuz we wanna be super nice to those dudes <3 -- He didn't do it DIRECTLY, but he has praised the very same people who are shown on video celebrating after the US Embassy attacks. So yeah that one was a little BS'ish. BRB dumping osama's body over water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Handling_of_the_body) 'cuz it's offensive to keep his body - don't wanna offend those guys, they're super cool dudes. definitely gotta show respect to osama's body 'cuz whatevs no big deal he's not a bad dude <3 SO my post was a little aggressive and off the handle. My bad. My communication skills are rusty, what can I say? I hope this helps. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:14 BoX wrote: Ya armada[sb], I guess it's stupid that I made statements. Every now and then I forget that forums aren't worth posting in, thank you for reminding me. For Risen: Vote for the career politician who made all of his money via politics... Whose campaign is based upon intangible ideas like Change and Hope (Barack) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Vote for the career businessman who made all of his money in business... Whose campaign is based upon tangible ideas like business and the ass-whooping reform of idiot America (Romney) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney It's kind of blatantly obvious that Obama is charismatic and extremely politically powerful - he's a born and raised politician. His greatest talent is making people like him. -- This is an opinion of course, but I'm fairly confident that it's an accurate one. Romney is a businessman. His natural talent is making money and building shit//making shit happen. -- Another opinion which I am confident is accurate. I realize I'm stating things very bluntly and am open for debate, but that's my position. I LOL at people who go on touting that BS that the Obama admin tries to LIE TO YOU about Romney only paying 15% in his taxes -- he's already paid 35% on his money, now he's paying an additional 15% on his ROI income (that's a total of 50% taxation fellas, not 15% - LOL!) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Private_equity -- His company is an investment company. Investing with money that has already been taxed. The Obama campaign likes to talk about the fact that he paid 14.1% on the income he made last year. This is a very controversial idea, because regular dudes like us pay 25%'ish on our meager earnings. They don't tell you that he's only paying 15% because it follows a different tax level, because it's an investment not a regular salary type income. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/21/mitt_romney_s_effective_tax_rate_is_very_low_most_economists_think_it_should_be_.html Ya, brb, I'm Obama, I listened and watched as my American civilians are tortured and killed and do nothing about it 'cuz whatevs.. (by listened and watched, I meant, was fully aware while it was happening. and by Obama of course I mean him and his people, which is effectively the same thing because Obama doesn't run everything, he's part of a team. A shitty team. I guess I should provide sources for that too ._.) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/24/benghazi-terror-attack/1653831/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254 But I make sure to praise the people who LOL and celebrate American civilian's torture, 'cuz we wanna be super nice to those dudes <3 -- He didn't do it DIRECTLY, but he has praised the very same people who are shown on video celebrating after the US Embassy attacks. So yeah that one was a little BS'ish. BRB dumping osama's body over water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Handling_of_the_body) 'cuz it's offensive to keep his body - don't wanna offend those guys, they're super cool dudes. definitely gotta show respect to osama's body 'cuz whatevs no big deal he's not a bad dude <3 SO my post was a little aggressive and off the handle. My bad. My communication skills are rusty, what can I say? I hope this helps. It's not stupid for you to make statements, but when you make bold statements without sources and then say "well, gosh, if you really want me to tell you where I got these ideas, I will, but otherwise I'm going to just spout nonsense" that's a little stupid. | ||
|
BoX
United States214 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: He's talking about double taxation though his math is a bit off. You do not add the 15% cap gains tax to the 35% corporate rate. You'd need to multiply what remains after the corporate tax by 15% then divide what remains by the initial income amount to get the effective tax rate. On $100 of income a 35% corporate rate plus a 15% cap gains rate would equal a 44.8% tax rate (not 50%). Of course that assumes the nominal 35% rate is what was paid and that there was no deferral on the cap gain realization. Math was off, but this is what I'm talking about. Yeah. My post was a little over the top, but it's coming from an honest perspective. And I'm open for enlightenment from anyone. Romney catches a lot of crap, so does Obama, but the misinformation (or at least, partial information) that is spread about Romney irritates the crap out of me. I'll keep reading this thread to see more information. | ||
KwarK
United States43221 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote: BoX is one of your complaints about Obama really that he didn't do enough to defile Osama's corpse before dumping it in the ocean? Seriously? I think BoX wanted to see the body paraded into Times Square or something... which would be really weird. | ||
|
BoX
United States214 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote: BoX is one of your complaints about Obama really that he didn't do enough to defile Osama's corpse before dumping it in the ocean? Seriously? No, I didn't want them to pee on his body. I don't care that they dumped it over the ocean. I didn't even care about the fact they they killed him. The part that annoys me is that they were all apologetic about it. Did they say they did it out of respect because they wanted to avoid retaliation from angry extremists? Was it just an act of good faith? I dunno, but if they did it because they wanted to avoid offending anyone, that seems weak. If they did it to be nice, that seems disrespectful towards those who osama hurt. Or I just fail to see the big picture on this altogether. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:33 BoX wrote: No, I didn't want them to pee on his body. The part that annoys me is that they were all apologetic about it. Did they say they did it out of respect because they wanted to avoid retaliation from angry extremists? Was it just an act of good faith? I dunno, but if they did it because they wanted to avoid offending anyone, that seems weak. If they did it to be nice, that seems disrespectful towards those who osama hurt. Or I just fail to see the big picture on this altogether. He's dead man, and our culture isn't one that is big on tossing around corpses as trophies for the masses to ogle. They weren't apologetic, they just said that they didn't want the body to become a symbol so they dumped it in the sea. If they kept it in some storage locker at Quantico or The Big Damn Warehouse of Secrets from Indiana Jones (which is NOT in Area 51, I don't care, Indiana Jones and the Lameass Skull will never be canon to me), it could become a symbol for terrorists to get pissed over. "Those infidels desecrating the body of holy Osama in their CIA shrine!" fuck that we don't need that. Plus Islamic burial practice says get 'em in the ground before the next time the sun goes down and there's no need to piss off Muslims (who get pissed off at the drop of a hat, or a light breeze) by disrespecting their burial practices just because Osama was bad. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On October 26 2012 04:33 BoX wrote: No, I didn't want them to pee on his body. I don't care that they dumped it over the ocean. I didn't even care about the fact they they killed him. The part that annoys me is that they were all apologetic about it. Did they say they did it out of respect because they wanted to avoid retaliation from angry extremists? Was it just an act of good faith? I dunno, but if they did it because they wanted to avoid offending anyone, that seems weak. If they did it to be nice, that seems disrespectful towards those who osama hurt. Or I just fail to see the big picture on this altogether. It's called being the better man. We respected their faith as much as we could without creating a shrine for his "martyrdom". | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
