|
This image shows up on facebook, people say, "I wish I could have the chick on the left with the personality of the chick on the right!!!!" I sit back and cradle my head in my hands.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 14:16 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 06:42 |
|
dur posted:If we tax the poor more, it gives them incentive to become rich and thus lower their tax rate. Pretty much. quote:It seems we have just about the right amount of income inequality. If it’s trending upward just a little from where it was that’s a good thing because it would signal trouble in the culture as well as the economy if it were trending downward. Income inequality is a good thing that inspires people to work and invest in their own futures. They see that others just like them have made it and are better off. That is a wonderful and tangible example for them, giving them hope for the future that if they work and save and make good decisions they can live well.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:03 |
|
You should show that guy how back in the 1850's Marx had articles published in the major Republican newspapers of the day and used to correspond with good ole' Abe Lincoln.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:13 |
|
Bubbacub posted:Pretty much. Show whoever wrote that that picture about actual income inequality Vs what Americans think it is Vs what they'd like it to be. Or was that wealth inequality? Anyway they're both hosed. Bonus points if you ask him how much he thinks the top 20% and the bottom 20% should roughly be making percentually first.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:16 |
|
Bubbacub posted:Pretty much. Lincoln said a lot of things Abraham Lincoln posted:"I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world."
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:17 |
I think my favorite break down of the income divide was when Jon Stewart proposed that instead of raising the taxes on the rich at all, which would have generated something like 700bn, just raise the tax rate on the lowest 80% of citizens to 100%
|
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:38 |
|
Z-Magic posted:Lincoln said a lot of things I would bet serious money that if you quoted that to a tea partier they would come way with TAXES BAD
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 15:55 |
|
Orange Devil posted:Show whoever wrote that that picture about actual income inequality Vs what Americans think it is Vs what they'd like it to be. Or was that wealth inequality? Anyway they're both hosed. Bonus points if you ask him how much he thinks the top 20% and the bottom 20% should roughly be making percentually first. In my experience that graph never really changes anybody's mind. Conservatives (no matter what their actual income level is) just handwave it away by saying that the people on the bottom of the distribution don't work as hard as the people on the top. Seriously, when you try to argue with somebody who says "this is the essence of American Exceptionalism over dismal places like the European Union" without any irony, it's pretty much a lost cause.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 16:04 |
|
I loved that, and about cutting 700,000 NPR's it would take to fill that 700 billion dollar hole. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over "So what we do is, we take half of everything they own. Oh hey, 700 billion dollars." "I see what the problem is. We need to take it all." I saw an interesting article in Fortune that might be more palatable to conservatives: have Wall Street bail out Main Street. Specifically, refinance all the people that are current on their mortgages but underwater. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/18/mortgage-refis-assistance/ Now, in a sane world they would have already done that (and the other stimulus I thought was explicitly to loosen up credit, but apparently the law didn't actually require it to be spent that way so the banks just pocketed it and spent it on bonuses). Can anyone tell me whether this is a good idea, or if this is some kind of astroturfing from CNN, Fortune, or big finance? EDIT: Bubbacub posted:In my experience that graph never really changes anybody's mind. Conservatives (no matter what their actual income level is) just handwave it away by saying that the people on the bottom of the distribution don't work as hard as the people on the top. Seriously, when you try to argue with somebody who says "this is the essence of American Exceptionalism over dismal places like the European Union" without any irony, it's pretty much a lost cause. DarkHorse fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Feb 17, 2012 |
# ? Feb 17, 2012 16:05 |
|
I realized walking to work this morning that the argument that the Keystone Pipeline will "Create 25,000 jobs!" is based on the same argument that supports deficit spending by the government on infrastructure projects. So if people support Keystone they should also support Keynesian deficit spending. I guess you could try that counter argument with some of these people.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 16:41 |
|
Orange Devil posted:Show whoever wrote that that picture about actual income inequality Vs what Americans think it is Vs what they'd like it to be. Or was that wealth inequality? Anyway they're both hosed. Bonus points if you ask him how much he thinks the top 20% and the bottom 20% should roughly be making percentually first. Here's a quote from the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America. quote:"There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be," said the former Pennsylvania Senator. "Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace and that's as it should be." A frothy mixture indeed.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 17:46 |
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:Here's a quote from the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America. The loving hero worship of the rich in this country disgusts me. Mass envy is almost tolerable in comparison.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:00 |
|
What gets me is the instant accusation of envy. I only want enough money to be able to live comfortably, and I'm seriously considering a huge pay cut to switch careers just because I think I'd like the work more. Sure, having a million dollars and being free to do whatever I want whenever I want would be nice, but I'm not begrudging anyone that has that much money. I don't even care about the billionaires of the world having more money than a person could reasonably spend in a lifetime. But the moment I suggest that maybe capital gains should be taxed at a similar rate as income, or that the country wouldn't implode on itself if we returned to 50's or 60's era tax rates, and suddenly I'm part of the politics and economics of envy
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:07 |
|
Didn't Obama basically save Detroit not just by bailing out GM but by creating a super popular program where people bought new cars by getting rid of their old ones. You know, the program the Republicans killed because it was working. Or does that not count?
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:17 |
|
I wouldn't say that Obama "saved" Detroit considering the vast majority of cars that Americans are buying aren't produced in SE Michigan anymore.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:29 |
|
I think people use Detroit as a metonym for the domestic auto industry.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:31 |
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:Here's a quote from the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America. He's holding up Detroit as his paragon of free-market success? A city and industry that exists primarily because of government intervention, grew because of union labor, and was only saved from collapse because of a government bailout?
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:41 |
|
euphronius posted:I think people use Detroit as a metonym for the domestic auto industry. They certainly do, but contextually that doesn't make a whole lot of sense regarding Santorum's speech.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:41 |
|
Econosaurus posted:Is there a good article on why the keystone pipeline is a bad idea that anybody could link? http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf This is a report from the Cornell University Global Labor Institute from September 2011. Basically it won't create that many jobs, the oil will be diverted from the Midwest to the Gulf for export — raising prices in the Midwest, and additional pipeline carries increased health risks and cleanup costs. Here are the bulletpoints right from their main findings:
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:42 |
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:Here's a quote from the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America. NO RATIONAL PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A DIFFERENCE IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE MOST SUCCESSFUL VS THE LEAST SUCCESSFUL People are saying the least successful should not have to choose between rent and food, and the most successful should realize that they did not achieve their vast success solely on their own with no help from government programs or the communities in which they are a part of.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 18:47 |
|
The thing gets me is no one is saying the distribution needs to be even. I mean just off the top of my head... Bottom 20% - 5% of wealth Next 20% - 10% of wealth Next 20% - 15% of wealth Next 20% - 20% of wealth Top 20% - 50% of wealth The people at the top can still be ridiculously wealthy, and the bottom 80% are all significantly better off. Right now, the bottom 40% owns less than 1% of our nation's wealth. And I don't care how lazy you think poor people are. There is no way you can tell me people making $40,000 a year must be lazy, or that 40% of the country literally sits around doing nothing and therefor deserves nothing. It's so far divorced from reality, I don't even know how to start bringing things back the other way. Plus, the whole argument in favor of the way things are now basically boils down to a "work hard and soon we'll all be in the top 1%!!!" mentality that is incredibly stupid.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 19:27 |
|
Lansdowne posted:Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States. This one seems a bit disingenuous, didn't the BP gulf spill happen in 2010? That would skew that fact a bit.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 19:46 |
|
synthetik posted:This one seems a bit disingenuous, didn't the BP gulf spill happen in 2010? That would skew that fact a bit. I think this is referring to pipeline only, not drilling. The Deepwater Horizon by itself released almost 5 million barrels according to Wikipedia, so it appears they aren't factoring that into those numbers. This is data from the source the report linked to for that section. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html?nocache=3550
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 20:03 |
|
Lansdowne posted:I think this is referring to pipeline only, not drilling. The Deepwater Horizon by itself released almost 5 million barrels according to Wikipedia, so it appears they aren't factoring that into those numbers. This is data from the source the report linked to for that section. Good catch, I stand corrected!
|
# ? Feb 17, 2012 20:16 |
|
Seeing a lot of facebook posts from friends saying Obama is cutting combat pay unless you are shot at. Of course it isn't true. He's changing it so you get paid per day rather than per month to stop people who are only in country for a few days from getting a month's combat pay rate. And if you are under fire, you get the full month even if you were only there a day.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2012 23:56 |
|
TLG James posted:Seeing a lot of facebook posts from friends saying Obama is cutting combat pay unless you are shot at. And (without looking it up) I bet it's not so much his decision as it is a recommendation from the Pentagon/Joint Chiefs/someone. I find it very unlikely that he just woke up and said "gently caress soldiers, let's take their combat pay!" (but hey, I could be wrong )
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 00:03 |
|
myron_cope posted:And (without looking it up) I bet it's not so much his decision as it is a recommendation from the Pentagon/Joint Chiefs/someone. I find it very unlikely that he just woke up and said "gently caress soldiers, let's take their combat pay!" They are trying to find ways to scale down the military's budget, and my guess is this is one of the suggestions.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 01:06 |
|
TLG James posted:Seeing a lot of facebook posts from friends saying Obama is cutting combat pay unless you are shot at. I saw someone post this on facebook the other day and I decided to just hide the status from my wall, because I knew the conversation that would ensue would make me want to drink gasoline.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 01:31 |
|
Sarion posted:You are right however, that they use it to intentionally lead people to believe that half the country pays absolutely no tax. Which is crazy, but I still see people say it all the time. You also get the whole "flat tax is great because everyone should have skin in the game". Apparently FICA, sales, State income, and property taxes isn't enough skin. When you point this out to a typical person moaning about taxes and ask if they would like to eliminate these transfers altogether the answer is always "No, of course not, bbbbutyousee there are these welfare cheats..." followed by a lame unverifiable personal anecdote they probably heard from a friend of a friend. I sometimes wonder if these people are just mislead by political propaganda designed to exploit their sense of justice and fairness, or if they simply pretend to care about the less fortunate because that's what you do in polite company.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 03:46 |
Post this on your Facebook. Whitney Houston did a concert welcoming the troops back from Desert Storm way back when. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSvH4s-4sCQ&feature=related
|
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 05:36 |
|
Anecdotal, but my roommate did a tour in Afghanistan, and while flying back to Germany, his transport detoured to land in Iraq, giving all the soldiers on the plane two combat pays for the month. Making it by day would cut down on that.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 05:51 |
|
winterwerefox posted:Anecdotal, but my roommate did a tour in Afghanistan, and while flying back to Germany, his transport detoured to land in Iraq, giving all the soldiers on the plane two combat pays for the month. Making it by day would cut down on that. The military is the biggest entitlement society that has ever existed.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 06:28 |
|
winterwerefox posted:Anecdotal, but my roommate did a tour in Afghanistan, and while flying back to Germany, his transport detoured to land in Iraq, giving all the soldiers on the plane two combat pays for the month. Making it by day would cut down on that. You guys would be loving flabbergasted by the number of warships that change transit routes and cut through maritime combat zones just to give the entire crew a month's worth of combat pay.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 10:13 |
|
myron_cope posted:And (without looking it up) I bet it's not so much his decision as it is a recommendation from the Pentagon/Joint Chiefs/someone. I find it very unlikely that he just woke up and said "gently caress soldiers, let's take their combat pay!" I'm not much of a Support the Troops type of guy, but when one of your first suggestions for cutting our bloated military budget is reducing pay for the little guy instead of closing bases or cutting the corporate fat or not fighting pointless wars all the time, then yeah, that's a bit of a dick move.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 11:46 |
|
Sarion posted:It is true, as long as you frame it correctly by saying "Nearly half of all people who file income tax returns end up paying no Federal Income Tax. I wonder if it would help or hinder the argument by phrasing it as a loan. Taxes are taken out of your paycheck every week, and when you file your taxes you get them back, thus giving the government a 0% loan for one year. Shasta Orange Soda posted:I'm not much of a Support the Troops type of guy, but when one of your first suggestions for cutting our bloated military budget is reducing pay for the little guy instead of closing bases or cutting the corporate fat or not fighting pointless wars all the time, then yeah, that's a bit of a dick move. I believe all of those are on the table, too, such as bringing home a ton of troops from Germany and downsizing or closing some bases there.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 15:06 |
|
chesh posted:I wonder if it would help or hinder the argument by phrasing it as a loan. Taxes are taken out of your paycheck every week, and when you file your taxes you get them back, thus giving the government a 0% loan for one year. I can't even imagine how I would source this but Limbaugh used to push this in the nineties, maybe also in 'the way things ought to be'.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 15:19 |
|
Gourd of Taste posted:I can't even imagine how I would source this but Limbaugh used to push this in the nineties, maybe also in 'the way things ought to be'. Well now I feel dirty.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 15:25 |
|
From facebook: quote:Wow...ridiculous. Legit, the next thing coming is government provided meals. And you won't be allowed to buy your own poo poo. King Size candy bars.....REALLY?! OBAMAS!!! e: fuckin facebook link myron cope fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Feb 19, 2012 |
# ? Feb 19, 2012 17:47 |
|
Good thing Mars is the only candy manufacturer in the United States.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 06:42 |
|
myron_cope posted:From facebook: Anybody think Mars is really only doing this because it increases their profits? No king sized candy bars, or any candy bars over 250 calories? "Hey, by signing this agreement, instead of charging .99 for a regular size snickers bar, I can now charge .99 for a Snickers bar that's 20% smaller! And someone who wants a king size bar, instead of paying 1.49 for one bar, will pay 1.98 for 2 bars! KACHING!" On top of that, you get brownie points with health conscious consumers, who might be slightly more likely to reach for your bars because they know each one won't be over 250 calories. I don't like government getting into determining candy bar sizes and certainly wouldn't want a law about it, but it was voluntary, and agreeing to this is pretty genius on Mars end.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2012 18:44 |