Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Nah, I'm gonna go straight to drive-by sniping from now on. That's your level, and you think it counts as "winning," so I want to be a "winner" too. LOL
Then, future accusations of "insults" will roll off my back, because I'm now fully on board with the "level" of "discussion" you are able to handle.
Stupid sh|ts!
(Wow, that felt good. I can see why this is your preferred mode of "communication").
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I'm not sure how what you posted is suppoesed to contradict what I posted, HDDJ and Wade Icey. I said the Democrats gutted the Freedom to Farm Act. HDDJ said the Act created more subsidies. I guess I should have been more specific with what I meant by "gutted." The original act was to eliminate subsidies. The Act as passed added more.
And Wade Icey (a handle I've always admired, by the way), which political party is responsible for those corporate subsidies and welfare? Do those subsidies have a disparate racial impact?
Finally, please note that GE and its CEO were big Obama supporters.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/08/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge-and-president-obama-at-the-altar-of-industrial-policy/#3081ec231895
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
John posted The original act was to eliminate subsidies. The Act as passed added more.
The one in 1996? Who controlled congress in 1996 again?
John posted Finally, please note that GE and its CEO were big Obama supporters.
Yeah, lots of CEOs did (and do). What's your point? The DNC went full corporate in the 90's. It's Republicans who insist that they are all socialists. So...congrats on acknowledging the obvious?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
My point is that placing blame for corporate subsidies on Republicans misstates the facts. The Democrats' policies to stimulate the economy tend to involve giving things to "targeted" groups and industries. The Republicans' stimulus tends to be to reduce marginal tax rates.
To understand the difference, consider the tax cuts the Democrats enacted when they took power in 2009. Rather than reducing marginal rates, they reduced rates for FICA (thereby worsening the actuarial deficit of Social Security). Conservative economic theory says that would have little stimulative effect compared with a decrease of marginal rates. Liberal economic theory says all that matters is the amount of money people have to spend, and sending relief to those paying FICA would increase the amount everyone has to spend, so it's more just and just as stimulative.
I am not convinced that the econometric studies from the resulting eocnomic activity offer strong support for either theory, because there were too many other factors involved. This makes it difficult to isolate the effect of tax policy alone with any real statistical significance, but to the extent the data provide evidence, they tend to confirm the conservative view.
Similarly, the Democrats tend to promote changes in corporate taxation that provide tax incentives for certain types of expenditures, but not others. Republicans tend to support lower marginal rates and more uniform tax treatment of investments and profits. The econometric studies, unfortunately, don't convince me that either strategy has empirical validation.
And, again, do these policies result in disparate racial impact? If so, what?
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
My point is that placing blame for corporate subsidies on Republicans misstates the facts.
You're totally missing the point, John. "Discussion" here has nothing to do with facts. It is about misstating the facts. Get on board.
Oh, and throw "stupid," "racist," and other sweeping accusations in while you're at it. The SJWs have one and only one filter, so if you don't speak that language, you're not really discussing.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
madbolter posted You're totally missing the point, John. "Discussion" here has nothing to do with facts. It is about misstating the facts. Get on board.
Funny, you demanded some info earlier you could have looked up yourself. I provided it and you went way out of your way to ignore it.
Mad continued Oh, and throw "stupid," "racist," and other sweeping accusations in while you're at it. The SJWs have one and only one filter, so if you don't speak that language, you're not really discussing.
Projecting a little, eh?
John posted To understand the difference, consider the tax cuts the Democrats enacted when they took power in 2009. Rather than reducing marginal rates, they reduced rates for FICA (thereby worsening the actuarial deficit of Social Security). Conservative economic theory says that would have little stimulative effect compared with a decrease of marginal rates. Liberal economic theory says all that matters is the amount of money people have to spend, and sending relief to those paying FICA would increase the amount everyone has to spend, so it's more just and just as stimulative.
Yes, which then actually gave tax cuts to the people who most needed it. Marginal rates don't affect people who don't pay them. Your argument is "how dare they disproportionally cut taxes for poor people?"
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Yes, which then actually gave tax cuts to the people who most needed it. Marginal rates don't affect people who don't pay them. Your argument is "how dare they disproportionally cut taxes for poor people?"
That nicely describes the Democrats' side of the argument. As I stated, the Republican side is that if you cut taxes to stimulate the economy, you need to cut marginal rates. The failure to do that insures the lack of stimulative effect.
While the Obama cuts did not show much stimulative effect, if any, there were too many other variables to conclude, with any generally accepted level of statistical significance, that his tax cuts were a failure. They certainly provided more money to people who could use it. What you cannot say is that they stimulated economic recovery.
John
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
John the stuff I posted was not meant to contradict anything you posted. It was a response to MB1's request to substantiate the The greatest recipients of "free stuff" in America has always been and still is white citizens.
I find it particularly amusing that Obama supporters, for example, ignore the tax breaks the corporations supporting him receive.
is this a case of the facts getting in the way of religion?
GE subsidies have been in place longer than Obama. Who was POTUS in 2006?
General Electric received a tax subsidy of nearly $29 billion over the last 11 years. While dodging paying its fair share of federal income taxes, GE pocketed $21.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts from Uncle Sam between 2006 and 2012.
Links I posted were also a response to your request that I
... please list what you allege to be "corporate welfare," then substantiate its racial distribution.
Please do the same with "farm subsidies."
I note that Republicans have generally campaigned and tried to legislate against both, unless you consider "corporate welfare" from the attitude of the Beatles "Taxman," i.e. "Be thankful I don't take it all."
Thanks.
John
I admit to this being a bit of a 'drive-by sniping' but please note no personal insults were hurled, no slights on your intelligence. I respect your opinions, your experience and your bias/party loyalty. I'd really enjoy your response to those pesky facts about "alleged" corporate welfare and Republicans "campaigning and legislating against it."
Also, despite my left leanings I actually don't care who is at fault here. Rather than GOP vs.DNC I see our current situation as Politicians/Corporations/$ vs. Populous.
As for the Beatles, well, never been a fan. More a Stones guy.
cheers
|
|
Lurkingtard
climber
|
|
As for the Beatles, well, never been a fan. More a Stones guy.
Let it bleed
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
John posted That nicely describes the Democrats' side of the argument. As I stated, the Republican side is that if you cut taxes to stimulate the economy, you need to cut marginal rates. The failure to do that insures the lack of stimulative effect.
Which makes no mathematical sense at all and I think actually improperly states the argument even a conservative economist would make. It boggles the mind how you could make that concept work. Putting more money into people's pockets puts more money into their pockets.
John posted I find it particularly amusing that Obama supporters, for example, ignore the tax breaks the corporations supporting him receive.
Again, this requires some very bizarre contortions of the mind. The CEO supporting Obama doesn't necessarily mean anything in regards to GE and I don't think you'd have a hard time convincing most Obama supporters that most GE subsidies are worth getting rid of. This is the kind of smug, nonsensical argument that someone builds in their own mind to create a sense of self-righteousness whether it has any real world basis or significance.
|
|
originalpmac
Mountain climber
Anywhere I like
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 12:53am PT
|
Bump for Bernie!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 05:27am PT
|
Nah, I'm gonna go straight to drive-by sniping from now on. That's your level, and you think it counts as "winning," so I want to be a "winner" too. LOL
Welcome to the machine. Took you a while. I appreciated your posts even if I don't agree 100% it was a much higher percentage than most of these tards.
If nothing else, at least your posts were authentic vs. the regurgitated crap and links you see from most everyone else.
When people are too stupid to understand the difference between debt and deficit, or they equate the concepts of white privilege with racism (two fundamentally different things) or they consider food stamps in the same category as corporate tax breaks and Social Security.....well then we get what you have here.
Namely, people that want to vote a socialist in America. You and I both know freedom and individual liberty is dead in the US, the husk left of what once was is wearing thin like a pinata that's been beaten right to the point of breaking in half with one more good solid thwack.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 08:02am PT
|
... it was a much higher percentage than most of these tards.
Nice of you to come on down to the mental slums Esco. What, you must feel so good about yourself, giving us for free your enlightened views of the world. Kinda like giving turkey sandwiches to the homeless on Thanksgiving, right?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 08:19am PT
|
giving us for free your enlightened views of the world
And what you, or anybody else, are doing is different in just what manner?
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 08:29am PT
|
T-tradster,
George speaks the truth.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 10:06am PT
|
Nice of you to come on down to the mental slums Esco.
Not my fault you self-identified with that group.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 10:15am PT
|
Another +1 for George Carlin.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
May 10, 2016 - 10:17am PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!