|
|
On October 31 2012 07:21 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:17 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:14 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:13 sam!zdat wrote:
When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!"
The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?"
Confucius said, "Enrich them."
The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?"
Confucius said, "Educate them." That is obtuse and irrelevant. Good to know you ground your opinions in this thread with reason. um. what's your beef with confucius? I have no problem with Confucius. I have a problem with jackasses coming in this thread and trying to be indirect so they don't have to actually give their opinions. You don't want to look like an idiot, I get that. Next time just don't say anything. Jesus. What do you want, a political philosophical treatise? I'll write you one as soon as I finish this grad school application. Don't be a douche. You come in and instead of actually answering the question you give some quote from Confucius? Yeah, I'm the douche here. Stop shitting up the thread with your inanities, please. Even if you're right you certainly seem like a douche right now.
I'm gonna have to agree with this post a few pages back.
|
haha "well documented history that religion is what he stated"
I thought it was all just bias?
edit: if you're looking for a book, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, if you haven't read it, while we're on the question of work and value
|
I find it hard to believe Democrats wouldn't be in on the action, too. Or at least if they weren't they wouldn't have the resources to expose it.
|
On October 31 2012 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "well documented history that religion is what he stated"
I thought it was all just bias?
edit: if you're looking for a book, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, if you haven't read it, while we're on the question of work and value
I said all history is biased. Simply because it's biased doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I was only saying that your statements contradicted each other if you wanted someone to be able to think in an unbiased manner and learn about history at the same time.
Edit: Already downloading it and I'll PM chat with you about it when I'm done.
|
On October 31 2012 08:39 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "well documented history that religion is what he stated"
I thought it was all just bias?
edit: if you're looking for a book, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, if you haven't read it, while we're on the question of work and value I said all history is biased. Simply because it's biased doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I was only saying that your statements contradicted each other if you wanted someone to be able to think in an unbiased manner and learn about history at the same time. .
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. That is the purpose of dialectical thought. It is a non-question this one of "biased" vs. "unbiased." Here you go, here's some sources and research of the level typical to internet discourse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
|
On October 31 2012 08:39 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "well documented history that religion is what he stated"
I thought it was all just bias?
edit: if you're looking for a book, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, if you haven't read it, while we're on the question of work and value I said all history is biased. Simply because it's biased doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I was only saying that your statements contradicted each other if you wanted someone to be able to think in an unbiased manner and learn about history at the same time. Edit: Already downloading it and I'll PM chat with you about it when I'm done.
Someone start a blog or thread, I wanna talk Arendt! More to the point, we need a nice thread for all of this humanities blather to take place 
|
What, you mean US politics has nothing to do with the humanities?!?!? You mean we don't consider questions of real philosophical import when considering our collective future? What is this madness!
|
She has often been described as a philosopher, although she refused that label on the grounds that philosophy is concerned with "man in the singular."
Oh god, I've read two line about her and I'm already turned off. No thanks, you guys have fun with that.
|
On October 31 2012 08:35 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 08:29 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 08:25 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:56 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, well put jd. But we don't educate people so they can fill the holes in better ways. Also we took away people's religion and now all they have is steven jobs.
[quote]
Oh, just wait, they're coming for you. Wat... ಠ_ಠ That seems umm... a bit paranoid? Ok. But don't say I didn't tell you so. On October 31 2012 08:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:how to think about the question of what to value You've lost me now. Can't interpret the meaning of this statement, or it's implications. Sorry. you don't tell them WHAT to value, you teach them how to do philosophy. How to ask questions about what things should be valued and to think about them in a rigorous way. You teach them the history of the various things that people have thought about values, and you have them read the texts in which these various positions and arguments were set forth. If you teach them WHAT to value, that is just indoctrination. But if you teach them how to think about what to value, that is education. @Kwark: If you get me started about religion that will derail the thread even more than I normally do. But a) your little story about religion is typical smug pomo dismissal of thousands of years of human thought and b) I fail to see how "catholicism has its moments" can be understood as a ringing endorsement of same By doing all the bolded portion you're imprinting your own biases on them. Also, you're pretty much saying all religions are indoctrinating their followers when you say, "If you teach them WHAT to value, that is just indoctrination." Yes, that is why you teach them to do comparative religion, which is a kind of philosophy. If my bias is toward education and critical thought, I'll happily own that bias. That's why I'm not a postmodernist.
You seem to have the problem most people do when they have opinions they can't sustain under questioning. You have no sources and no research to prove anything.
Dude, fuck you. I spend my life reading books about questions like these. I'm not citing sources and making arguments with scholarly apparatus because we're talking philosophy on the internet and that's not what you do and it would be a waste of my time. These aren't the kind of things you post a link to some internet article or wikipedia and go "SEE!??" I'm saying what I think. I've come to this opinion because I'm obsessed with cultural criticism and that's what I do with my life. I've got nothing to prove to you. Yes, this is based on how I feel - it would be fucking dishonest if it weren't. I'm expressing myself. Why don't you tell me how YOU feel about it and we'll have a discussion. Then why are you here? Go away. Edit: bolded to what I was responding to. I think I've made it clear how I feel in this thread. Economically I'm a selfish actor and will support anything that increases my wealth. Socially I feel everyone deserves their fair shot b/c doing otherwise weakens humanity. Social issues are more important to me than economic ones because I'm already happy with where I am economically. ok, "support it", wise guy. Let's see YOUR "sources and research" Support what? What would you like me to support? I'm not making any claims here. You made claims, I asked you to try and convince me using sources and research, you failed that task. Because you don't understand what philosophical argumentation is, and you've demanded something which is a category error to demand. What sort of "sources and research" do you have in mind? What would you like me to post? I can demand that you go read a stack of philosophical literature that my ideas are coming from, but I don't think you're gonna go do that, now are you? I think you underestimate the amount I read. I'm out of books at the moment and would gladly read more. When you make statements like "Oh, just wait, they're coming for you." I demand a source or some sort of research backing that statement up. When you claim religion isn't what Kwark has declared (in spite of well documented history that religion is what he stated) I ask for sources to your claim. When you claim we're developing a corporate theme park I say I don't see it, and ask for why you feel that way. I ask what you mean by getting what I deserve, and you do not answer in spite of saying I deserve "something". Why should anyone take you at your word? I'm trying to help you every step of the way here. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to persuade ME to your way of thinking and you continually fail to meet expectations. I don't know how you can expect an intelligent individual to come around to your way of thinking if you're unwilling to back up your statements. Edit: "That's a major part of what you teach about, when you teach about history." Simply teaching that does not remove the bias. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 31 2012 08:28 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:56 sam!zdat wrote:Yes, well put jd. But we don't educate people so they can fill the holes in better ways. Also we took away people's religion and now all they have is steven jobs. On October 31 2012 07:51 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:45 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Because everything is designed to make you want to buy things... if that's not banal I don't know what is.
[quote]
That's because you've mistaken it for reality Also, from my point of view here in the mountains I don't see a corporate theme park, but maybe you're right. Oh, just wait, they're coming for you. Wat... ಠ_ಠ That seems umm... a bit paranoid? Ok. But don't say I didn't tell you so. On October 31 2012 08:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:how to think about the question of what to value You've lost me now. Can't interpret the meaning of this statement, or it's implications. Sorry. you don't tell them WHAT to value, you teach them how to do philosophy. How to ask questions about what things should be valued and to think about them in a rigorous way. You teach them the history of the various things that people have thought about values, and you have them read the texts in which these various positions and arguments were set forth. If you teach them WHAT to value, that is just indoctrination. But if you teach them how to think about what to value, that is education. @Kwark: If you get me started about religion that will derail the thread even more than I normally do. But a) your little story about religion is typical smug pomo dismissal of thousands of years of human thought and b) I fail to see how "catholicism has its moments" can be understood as a ringing endorsement of same By doing all the bolded portion you're imprinting your own biases on them. Also, you're pretty much saying all religions are indoctrinating their followers when you say, "If you teach them WHAT to value, that is just indoctrination." You seem to have the problem most people do when they have opinions they can't sustain under questioning. You have no sources and no research to prove anything. All your opinions are based on how you feel. Guess what? I don't feel like you do. Your saying "But don't say I didn't tell you so" isn't getting us anywhere, and you're only going to convince fools to follow you. By truly teaching people how to ask questions and think about questions, you are not indoctrinating them. Indoctrination can masquerade under the guise of education, but legitimate teaching about critical thinking is the farthest you can get from indoctrination. Just exposing people to something doesn't indoctrinate them, especially if you frame it as an exercise in evaluating the quality of the thing you're exposing them to. The only thing I can possibly think of that wouldn't have a bias would be the teaching of mathematics. Teaching any history will be biased because we only have a limited perspective on it. If you teach things through the socratic method then you eliminate the authoritative bias and, more than that, encourage individuals to explore their own biases. A genuine discussion led appropriately does the opposite of instill values in people. I feel sorry for you if you've never had one in an educational setting, to be honest. I find it funny you bring up math since math (well, the interesting parts of math) only exists because people knew how to ask fundamental questions. How do you plan on teaching history through Socratic method?
The same way you teach anything with the Socratic method? Assign multiple readings outside of class and encourage individuals to discuss what they've read and whether they think it has a foundation in evidence, analyze which are the weakest portions, and most importantly explore why the things that happened happened.
It only works if you're actually interested in the topic, but hey. You can't "force" people to internalize information, anyway. That's how I learned network science.
Edit: This is the best way to teach math, too, except instead of out of class readings you cooperate to do in class problem sets.
|
On October 31 2012 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:39 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "well documented history that religion is what he stated"
I thought it was all just bias?
edit: if you're looking for a book, I recommend "The Human Condition" by Hannah Arendt, if you haven't read it, while we're on the question of work and value I said all history is biased. Simply because it's biased doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I was only saying that your statements contradicted each other if you wanted someone to be able to think in an unbiased manner and learn about history at the same time. . Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. That is the purpose of dialectical thought. It is a non-question this one of "biased" vs. "unbiased." Here you go, here's some sources and research of the level typical to internet discourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
I should note that when I say bias I mean it in the good/bad sense, not the it actually happened/didn't happen.
|
I think I'll try to steer this back toward high tax rate.
In the period of 1940s-1970s, where America was the most prosperous with unprecedented growth, we had an extraordinarily high top income tax, usually around 70% but went as high as 90% sometimes.
I'm not even suggesting going up that high. A 50% tax would be fine. What people did back then was instead of taking home a huge salary from their corporation, they simply left the money in the corporation, and grew the business, creating jobs. They simply took a smaller income. High Income Taxes encourages the wealthy to be job creators, rather than just be big spenders which is less efficient. That just seems to be how it works. The fact is that America's wealthy has rarely been as greedy as they are right now.
The fact is we need more revenue. And the wealth disparity is destabilizing our economy. And we have super-low taxes historically. If you wouldn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy now, then I'm not sure what circumstance you would raise taxes on the wealthy.
And in fact that's basically what we're seeing from conservatives now. Taxes are never low enough. Ever. No matter what.
|
On October 31 2012 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I think I'll try to steer this back toward high tax rate.
In the period of 1940s-1970s, where America was the most prosperous with unprecedented growth, we had an extraordinarily high top income tax, usually around 70% but went as high as 90% sometimes.
I'm not even suggesting going up that high. A 50% tax would be fine. What people did back then was instead of taking home a huge salary from their corporation, they simply left the money in the corporation, and grew the business, creating jobs. They simply took a smaller income. High Income Taxes encourages the wealthy to be job creators, rather than just be big spenders which is less efficient. That just seems to be how it works. The fact is that America's wealthy has rarely been as greedy as they are right now.
The fact is we need more revenue. And the wealth disparity is destabilizing our economy. And we have super-low taxes historically. If you wouldn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy now, then I'm not sure what circumstance you would raise taxes on the wealthy.
And in fact that's basically what we're seeing from conservatives now. Taxes are never low enough. Ever. No matter what.
Yes, this is pretty much exactly correct.
|
On October 31 2012 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I think I'll try to steer this back toward high tax rate.
In the period of 1940s-1970s, where America was the most prosperous with unprecedented growth, we had an extraordinarily high top income tax, usually around 70% but went as high as 90% sometimes.
I'm not even suggesting going up that high. A 50% tax would be fine. What people did back then was instead of taking home a huge salary from their corporation, they simply left the money in the corporation, and grew the business, creating jobs. They simply took a smaller income. High Income Taxes encourages the wealthy to be job creators, rather than just be big spenders which is less efficient. That just seems to be how it works. The fact is that America's wealthy has rarely been as greedy as they are right now.
The fact is we need more revenue. And the wealth disparity is destabilizing our economy. And we have super-low taxes historically. If you wouldn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy now, then I'm not sure what circumstance you would raise taxes on the wealthy.
And in fact that's basically what we're seeing from conservatives now. Taxes are never low enough. Ever. No matter what.
Those high tax brackets also kicked in at a much higher income level than today. Also between 1940 and 1970 overall government taxation and spending were at lower levels than today.
|
On October 31 2012 09:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I think I'll try to steer this back toward high tax rate.
In the period of 1940s-1970s, where America was the most prosperous with unprecedented growth, we had an extraordinarily high top income tax, usually around 70% but went as high as 90% sometimes.
I'm not even suggesting going up that high. A 50% tax would be fine. What people did back then was instead of taking home a huge salary from their corporation, they simply left the money in the corporation, and grew the business, creating jobs. They simply took a smaller income. High Income Taxes encourages the wealthy to be job creators, rather than just be big spenders which is less efficient. That just seems to be how it works. The fact is that America's wealthy has rarely been as greedy as they are right now.
The fact is we need more revenue. And the wealth disparity is destabilizing our economy. And we have super-low taxes historically. If you wouldn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy now, then I'm not sure what circumstance you would raise taxes on the wealthy.
And in fact that's basically what we're seeing from conservatives now. Taxes are never low enough. Ever. No matter what. Yes, this is pretty much exactly correct.
No, it's not correct at all. It's a simplistic theory which has been created after the fact to justify a pre-existing normative philosophy. First of all, you can't have job creation without demand to meet the additional production, and so reducing spending in order to induce "more efficient" job creation is nonsense. The whole theory is nonsense, jobs aren't produced magically by how we choose to spend wealth, they are induced by the creation of wealth.
But the more important point here is this: Where is that 50% of taxed income going? It's going to the government, which is guaranteed to be a less efficient use of resources and will result in even less job creation than either spending or corporate reinvestment.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 31 2012 06:55 DoubleReed wrote:
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
This is a flawed presumption. You invest with your take home income. The less extra income you have, the less investments you make. Do you really think rich people sit around with piles of cash in their living room? No, they invest in companies to make more money, which in turn gives needed capital to companies who can then expand their business. Higher income taxes stifles job growth, no matter how much you want the opposite to be true. We could argue in circles for days about how MUCH it stifles job growth, but there are zero job related benefits to higher tax rates on ANYONE.
On October 31 2012 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
A higher tax rate would make fewer investments worth it and so the money would be spent on consumption instead.
This is also untrue. Less income means less money to invest OR consume. Higher taxation leads to less of both, not more of one or the other. Remember that consumption and/or investment comes AFTER taxation. Once you tax, you have less of your money, regardless of what you intend to do with it.
On October 31 2012 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
oh, and I can guarantee you that Chris Christie will never be anything more than a governor. He's too heavy, too abrasive, and way too moderate.
Which is only a problem if you can't make it out of a primary. However, the base loves him regardless of some of his views. I think he can survive a primary.
On October 31 2012 08:36 Lmui wrote:
Secondary confirmation of the statistical anomaly I posted earlier. It did seem pretty impossible at the time and some people, BluePanther especially tried to refute it but didn't have a concrete reason. This article elaborates further and suggests that it has occured starting only in 2008, only for republican candidates and is only ever in favour of republican candidates.
You're asking me to disprove something that didn't happen. It is hard to do that. I also believe when you throw around these kinds of accusations, it's YOUR job to PROVE that it happened. And correlations are not PROOF. Like I said, the author of that study noted that in Wisconsin, we've had that same trend. But I pointed out that we use paper ballots, and that the machines only count. When there is a recount, they count the paper ballots. Just recently we had a huge election scandal. A Democrat won the election for a spot on our Supreme Court. A clerk in a large (and very Republican) Milwaukee suburb failed to submit a large group of votes until the day after the election which swung the results in favor of the Republican candidate for Supreme Court. Obviously, hell was raised and a recount commenced to verify the results.
See: http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/latest-report-to-gab-shows-waukesha-county-recount-628-completed
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/122443704.html
They used a partial hand recount in this Supreme Court election (which was hugely partisan) where the Republican won by a miniscule amount. He still won after the recount. About 1/3 of the counties in the state were required to recount the ballots BY HAND. There was no suggestion of wildly varying vote totals nearing the 10% your conspiracy theorist alleges. The mistakes were well within reasonable changes to the total, and nobody accused anyone of stealing the election.
Here are the historical counts as this whole debacle unfolded so you can see these changes from a machine count to a hand count:
http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2011/spring
You are chasing a ghost. Our machines are not rigged. And this is proof (at least in a single example). Where is YOUR proof?
|
The internet provides enormous amounts of information and knowledge to society. Unfortunately, it also provides nutjobs with all sorts of theories and websites that will stoke their paranoia, and links they can provide as "evidence" that we have to waste the time to refute.
Edit: Oh god, he's made his own OP. -_-
|
On October 31 2012 08:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Ah ok. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:18 XoXiDe wrote:
wow, I go eat and this thread takes another strange turn, where will it go next?!
Disneyland.
A nice long series of rides on the Micky mouse goes to hoth and mets jack sparrow and the avengers roller coaster.
|
On October 31 2012 07:51 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 07:45 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:38 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:34 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:29 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:25 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:24 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:22 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 07:17 Risen wrote:On October 31 2012 07:16 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
no, that's the first step. you read books so that you can have a vision of what you want society to be. We just chase wealth for wealth's sake and we have a vulgar, debased culture because of it Explain? Look around you. Everybody is trying to sell things, all the time. you can't have art, or anything else, without somebody slapping corporate logos on it. you can't learn anything interesting or noble or excellent without somebody asking you "what product are you going to market." Everything is advertising, you absorb it into your ideology, you think that buying all this stupid shit from these stupid corporations will make you happy, really it just breaks and you throw it away and buy something else useless and shiny and plastic next year to keep the whole cycle going. Walk down the street and ask yourself, how much of the stuff that's going on here is actually useful? How much of it is just people convincing each other that what they are doing is useful? How much of it is consumption just to show off how much you can consume? Why do people work so much? Technology advances, and we work MORE, and HARDER! What the fuck? It's only because we've convinced ourselves that we have to have all this trash. According to American standards, I'm pretty much straddling the poverty line - but I live like a fucking Merovingian king of something. We have no perspective. What's wrong with the situation you have come up with? Is there some sort of purpose you have in mind for the human race? As far as I can tell we don't really have any purpose besides the ones we create for ourselves. yes, but which one do we want to create? Is it this fucking corporate theme park? I hope not, because that's damn pathetic. I'd like to make a civilization worth being proud of, and I'll tell you right now it doesn't involve any marketing consultants. edit: On October 31 2012 07:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
samzdat, you've seen "They Live", right? no what is that Why aren't you proud of the current civilization we have? It seems you feel we should all be grateful for what we have since we're better off than we once were. But what's wrong with not being satisfied with the present and wanting more? What's wrong with the "corporate theme park" as you put it? What? you *like* the theme park? Get what you deserve, I guess. I think it's fucking banal, and it makes me embarrassed to think of what the future will think of our "culture."
Why aren't you proud of what we've created? The only reason I have to be unhappy with the United States as it stands is our current social problems. We have a country in which I'm able to take advantage of my hard work in school and prosper. Why aren't you proud of the marketing consultants? They've mastered the art of manipulating fools. Doesn't seem so bad to me.
I am proud, actually. I just think it's time for the next step. As far as the marketing consultants... let's not go there. What do you mean by get what you deserve? Not really as important by why you think it's banal, though. (Why do you think it's banal) Because everything is designed to make you want to buy things... if that's not banal I don't know what is.
It's not that I like the theme park, it's that I don't think it's there at all.
That's because you've mistaken it for reality Perhaps we have different definitions of banal in mind. Also, from my point of view here in the mountains I don't see a corporate theme park, but maybe you're right.
He sounds bitter that people aren't as spiritual and intellectual as he is or whatever. I like buying things. Almost everything I buy allows me live a better and fuller life. I hate to think what it was like long ago not having easy access to food, music, information like we have today not to mention the work it required to earn a living.
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
leave it to a libertarian to tell us about the flaws of a preconceived normative philosophy. lmao
On October 31 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I think I'll try to steer this back toward high tax rate.
In the period of 1940s-1970s, where America was the most prosperous with unprecedented growth, we had an extraordinarily high top income tax, usually around 70% but went as high as 90% sometimes.
I'm not even suggesting going up that high. A 50% tax would be fine. What people did back then was instead of taking home a huge salary from their corporation, they simply left the money in the corporation, and grew the business, creating jobs. They simply took a smaller income. High Income Taxes encourages the wealthy to be job creators, rather than just be big spenders which is less efficient. That just seems to be how it works. The fact is that America's wealthy has rarely been as greedy as they are right now.
The fact is we need more revenue. And the wealth disparity is destabilizing our economy. And we have super-low taxes historically. If you wouldn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy now, then I'm not sure what circumstance you would raise taxes on the wealthy.
And in fact that's basically what we're seeing from conservatives now. Taxes are never low enough. Ever. No matter what. Those high tax brackets also kicked in at a much higher income level than today. Also between 1940 and 1970 overall government taxation and spending were at lower levels than today.
income tax is also less relevant than it was back then. the wealthiest people now pay a lesser proportion.
|
On October 31 2012 10:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The internet provides enormous amounts of information and knowledge to society. Unfortunately, it also provides nutjobs with all sorts of theories and websites that will stoke their paranoia, and links they can provide as "evidence" that we have to waste the time to refute.
Edit: Oh god, he's made his own OP. -_-
No one can say you didn't try 
Who needs credible sources, anyways?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
