Lou Dobbs is cooler than Stephen Colbert and John Steward

[Sparky]

I was merely pointing out raw numbers to provide some context for the anchors comments. If you want to have an economics debate we should prolly make another thread .

[Xfaustx]

i think i like John Stewart cuz he is subtle, somewhat in his humor. i dont like when people are hardcore and beat dead horses. i can look to myself if i want that

[edgarfigaro]

The other night I turned to lolFox for a bit and their ancor was saying the rich pay too many taxes already.

You do realize that the top 25% of wage earners pay 83.88% of the total federal income tax, the top 50% pay 96.54%, The Top 1% pay 34.27%.

Problem with that argument is the Top 1% still make 3000% (being generous, probably a lot more than this) more money than your average American household with 2.5 children.

Let's say you increased the tax rate someone in a particular bracket had to pay by 1%, and that it would cost them an extra $100k. That's a fuckton of money for you and me, but for them, it's likely to be chump change.

Not to mention the tax writeoffs the wealthy have access to because they have the means to hire numerous attorneys to find tax exemptions which they can exploit.

Except the fact that the person spending that 100k in the economy is a shitload better than the government taking. In Clinton's first 2 years, he got a huge luxury tax passed. Good idea right, make yachts cost 100k more and give the money to the poor, right? Except people buying yachts decided, fuck that, I'm not paying 100k extra or simply couldn't afford the extra cost and didn't buy the yachts. All of the sudden people are losing their jobs because the yacht demand is now much lower. Rich people, just like the rest of America, like to live at the edge of their means. They just don't sit there on their millions (if they have them), they spend it...alot of it. You raise their taxes, that's less they spend, which cuts demand, which means loss of jobs.

I watched it happen in my town where one of the big employers, Hatteras Yachts, laid off half its workforce in the mid 90's. Thankfully, they've been booming for the past 6-7 years and have expanded past where they were, but it's still a cautionary tale. It seems like every time the government tries to punish the wealthy and give back to the poor, it ends up fucking the middle class (hey2u AMT). So instead of raising taxes, how about the government concentrate on becoming more efficient, less bureacratic, and actually try to fix our problems in a new way, instead of the old standby of throwing more and more money at them.

[Saga]

Lou Dobbs' daughter goes to Harvard, and my friend knows her. He says she's a "huge, grade-A whore." Flat, too, but nice ass, except her face looks like Lou's. And she has a twin sister that's going to Harvard next semester. >_>

[archibaldcrane]

In Clinton's first 2 years, he got a huge luxury tax passed. Good idea right, make yachts cost 100k more and give the money to the poor, right? Except people buying yachts decided, fuck that, I'm not paying 100k extra or simply couldn't afford the extra cost and didn't buy the yachts. All of the sudden people are losing their jobs because the yacht demand is now much lower.

Ah yeah, i remember when all those people were losing their jobs and the economy was going to shit during the Clinton Administration. If only he had learned about trickle-down economics. I mean, he was alive then, he should've been all over that.

[Marquisate]

Except the fact that the person spending that 100k in the economy is a shitload better than the government taking.

The underfunded schools near where I live in Brooklyn and Queens would beg to differ. I've seen classrooms where the kids are packed 50-60+ to a single teacher because the school can't afford to hire more.

I think the ~50 million Americans without health insurance would also have something to say about that.

In Clinton's first 2 years, he got a huge luxury tax passed. Good idea right, make yachts cost 100k more and give the money to the poor, right? Except people buying yachts decided, fuck that, I'm not paying 100k extra or simply couldn't afford the extra cost and didn't buy the yachts.

So they took their money elsewhere, creating new jobs in a different sector of the economy resulting in a net balancing of jobs, and the people who kept buying yachts paid extra taxes, creating more tax revenues. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Rich people, just like the rest of America, like to live at the edge of their means. They just don't sit there on their millions (if they have them), they spend it...alot of it. You raise their taxes, that's less they spend, which cuts demand, which means loss of jobs.

Not true.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_19566156

You give the rich tax breaks, they spend less than average Americans do. How about tax breaks for the middle class and raised taxes on the highest earners? That would actually pump more money into the economy, in terms of spending, than tax cuts for the rich... and it might save our sagging middle class burdened with mortgage costs, education costs, credit card debt, etc.

It seems like every time the government tries to punish the wealthy and give back to the poor, it ends up fucking the middle class (hey2u AMT).

Examples?

So instead of raising taxes, how about the government concentrate on becoming more efficient, less bureacratic, and actually try to fix our problems in a new way, instead of the old standby of throwing more and more money at them.

The reason I can't stand the Republican party is that they keep focusing on tax cuts rather than cutting pork-barrel spending. Every time I turn on CNN, some fat, rich white guy with (R) Texas next to his name is advocating cutting education, health care, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESEARCH ON WHICH WE ONLY SPEND ~1.5 BILLION PER YEAR EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION AND WORLD (can you tell I care about this issue the most?), etc., while his staffers are back in his office planning $243 million bridges to nowhere and billions is pointless highway reconstruction. I doubt the Democrats will be able to change much, because of the nature of the political process, the slimness of their majority, and the more pressing issues at hand (Iraq, Iran, China) but I'm holding out hope that spending reform will be on the table in the 2010's.

[Marquisate]

I was merely pointing out raw numbers to provide some context for the anchors comments. If you want to have an economics debate we should prolly make another thread .

Ah-ah-ah...

"Providing context" doesn't mean giving a tinged version of facts that implicitly advance one viewpoint. That's called "spin".

[Norelco]

Lou Dobbs ftw.

[BRP]

Kind of off topic..


Health Care should work like this:

Based you natural build you have guidelines. Basically if you are fat and lazy, you don't get Health Care. If you have diabetes and continue to neglect it, you don't get treated. If you do drugs, you don't get treated. All willing disabilities you place on yourself causes you penalties on how much Health Care works for you. Also, drug testing for students, celebrities, and most professions.

I know I'm a bit dick-ish with the idea, but I think it would do wonders. It will either kill off all the fat people in this country or make them skinny. Maybe the US will gain some respect back. When it is so easy to sin, there needs to be some incentive not to.