Well, factually, I'd used the word first to refer to his rural argot. He basically accused me of having had to access a thesaurus to divine the word in attempt to make myself look 'smart.' Peruse earlier posts in the thread for reference. Thinking back I think it was the evident francophone association that drew his ire, you know, hate what you don't understand and so on.
Very good! stick to your convictions! On your quest for basic economic knowledge that you seem to lack, make sure you don't fall off the flat earth mind you, there are a lot of nasty looking turtles on the way down! Although if you do fall, make sure that you have plenty of leeches on hand to disgorge any ill humours!
Fatty: when you got that 172, two things happened. One, you decided you never needed to pay attention to anyone but Rush, ever, and two, I decided I was deeply in love with you. No girlfriend could ever compare. Perhaps that accounts for my gentlemanly behavior. p.s. Darling. Darling, darling Fatty. Sass doesn't become you. You can't pull it off. It's only due to my deep love for you that I feel comfortable being honest. I KNOW you can appreciate that. Stick to the genius thing. When you get sassy people mistake you for an honest to goodness hayseed. xoxo batman
What exactly was your major in? Mine was a double major in finance and economics. My economics thesis was compare Galbraith to Schumpter. But I suppose you're the authority. My bad.
Yet you stubbornly believe that the average American pays a total of 70% of his/her income in various taxes. Shall I refer you to my accountant?
Yeah, Galbraith and Schumpeter are both cutting edge theorists there; that thesis must have involved high level economic modeling. I'm guessing you must have studied at Chicago or MIT, or quite possibly ITT Tech? I would think you'd have lost enough face to call it a night; both your premises and your conclusions have been shown to be way, way off base in this thread. Since you want to continue this, where did you get that 70% figure? Did you just make it up? Or was it in your thesis? And where did you get this silly VAT tax idea, what part of the tax code is that in, I have some familiarity with it but haven't seen that part? Did you make that up too or was it in your thesis too? Seriously, are you being this r****ded about this or are you just having fun? Somebody help me. Batman? What's the story? Clown or imbecile?
Close on the college. Texas Tech. Nope, not having fun at all, and I'm tired of regurgitating what should be obvious. Don't want to believe it? Fine. Enjoy them rose-colored glasses.
Yeah, I knew there must have been a "Tech" or a "Junior" or a "community" involved in there somewhere.... I guess those "rose-colored glasses" -- rose colored glasses of common sense, Econ 101, the Congressional Budget Office, OECD, and every single other source of empirical evidence which invalidates your contention, as well as the fact that your assumptions are demonstrably false according to basic tenets of economics, -- are a real problem, because you think some jackass in Lubbock told you otherwise once and you don't care what anybody says you must be right? Yeah, I'll take that suggestion under advisement. In return, I'd ask you to refrain from voting in this year's election, or performing any task that involves operating heavy machinery or supervision of small children....also please please don't look at the sun during a total eclipse; do yourself a favor and make a pinhole camera using a shoebox. You can keep arguing this point though. Cheap ego boosts are few and far between at 2 am.
I'm tired of your lame allegations. According to you, businesses don't have to pay taxes on manufacturing products. Feel that way, if you must.
If your IQ is that high then you should have no problem coming up with ACTUAL NUMBERS rather than the unsubstantiated claims, lectures from a professor, or vague ramblings about 70% tax rates. Others have given numbers, but you just keep squawking about double taxation when every single dollar in our economy is taxed at least 3 or 4 times. You can parrot the "double taxation" mantra made famous by Limbaugh and O'Liely, but it does not change the fact that it is impossible to support your 70% claim with actual numbers.
Self serving, yes. Traitor, no more than Bush I and Reagan (Iran-Contra). Honestly, bama, if there were anything substantial on Clinton that was ACTUALLY illegal, the GOP would have been all over it like white on rice. They were looking for anything they could to take Clinton down and if their proof was concrete enough, they would have used it. Clinton did some bad things (as ALL presidents do), but IMO his upside FAR outweighed his foibles.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the "manufacturing products tax"..silly me. What section of the IR Code is that in again? What you should be tired of is being wrong...maybe if you could find one ounce of proof to back up any of your bizarre claims, or if you could comprehend the idea of total tax receipts... You know, the funny part is, you claim that you started this thread because you were open to new ideas....yet you continue to cling to a below-college level misconception of basic economics that has been proven demonstrably false many times over on many different levels. puzzling.
FFB - I hate to ask the same question that everybody is asking, but where on earth did you come up with that 70% figure?! Assuming we have a $10 trillion economy, why aren't total government outlays equal to $7 trillion? Is the government just pocketing the extra ~$4 trillion and hiding it in a cave somewhere? (And if so, do you know where this cave is?!) p.s. What do Schumpeter and Galbraith have to do with this at all?! It seems like you're just dropping names. Are we talking about Consumer Sovereignty or early I/O? Entrepreneurship?
honestly fatty have you put up any sort of hard numbers to base your statement? i'm not trying to be blind but you haven't said anything concrete or listed any sources to anything concrete and you've just denied any evidence that anyone has put up. it's kind of silly trying to have a rational argument when you just put up stuff anecdotally (is that a word?) and don't accept people's sources that dispute what you say.
Ridiculous. Bush and Regan did not threaten generations of Americans to follow by allowing nuclear secrets and rocket technology to fall into the hands of enemies like the Chicoms. The GOP had spent their capital on Lewinsky, as Clinton knew they would. Clinton had no upside. He was no more responsible for the boom than Bush is responsible for the "jobless recovery." His foreign policy was a disaster and his domestic agenda, besides welfare reform he was forced to sign over his objections, was disasterous as well. How can you call yourself a libertarian and even look at him (Bush as well) in any sort of a positive light? My support from Bush derives from the fact we can't afford another naive, do-nothing, terrorism is a LE problem president. Otherwise, I'd vote libertarian because his domestic agenda short of tax cuts is awful.
