|
Abe Lincoln posted:I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. Politics.txt
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
 I'm trying to find a good voice for arguing with these people. I have a bad habit of half-heartedly explaining complex ideas, and assuming that everyone I argue with will understand my point because we're all starting from the same general assumptions about how societies work. I'm very wrong, and it hurts my position to argue so ineffectually. I'm really trying to improve, and this is where I'm at. I'm all for any advice on debating better. As for the actual content, I hadn't read anything about sterilizing teenagers before she posted it on Facebook, and if I'm dead wrong about any facts, please call me out on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
How is sterilization not 100% effective? Also that's quite the misleading headline. "Obamacare begins child sterilization" makes it sound like they're lining up all kids to sterilize them (forcibly).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
From CNSnews.com's about page:Brent Bozell's Beard posted:Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Here's some fun stuff! My cousin's response to my refutation of her argument:My cousin posted:I understand all of the variables involved but there are many folks who would benefit from being able to go back to school - they're screaming for trades people. There are options we could make available to the able bodied. I don't believe in the stats - most times they're skewed to give a particular result being sought. I'm not referring to the folks who have mental or physical limitations, I'm referring to folks who are able bodied. Monthly welfare cheque for a single person is $685 and funding programs for upgrading skills, creating skills for those who have none would go along way to people being able to look after themselves. The people that abuse the system shouldn't be allowed to abuse said system and again, the stats are not reliable. I know 10 people alone that cheat the system and they are young people who think they're very cool. The honest and hardworking welfare recipients won't be on the system for long but could avail themselves of programs designed to get them back into the workforce a little quicker than perhaps on their own. The stats don't break down the types of people on welfare and if they did, you would be surprised at the amount of young people, immigrants that avail themselves of the system - we see it here everyday and people resent those who use the system and never attempt to assimilate into the workforce. Its not a simple problem and there isn't one solution but we could serve people better giving them the tools to move on and the ones that just don't want to would be forced to contribute. Social services was never intended to be a career but the services offered aren't enough or aren't geared to helping people become independent and here, in Ontario, food banks are closing because it isn't just welfare recipients using them, many working poor are having to use them as well. The economy is being made worse by our illustrious leader and working folk are finding it hard to make ends meet and more and more are actually living in worse conditions than people on welfare. tl;dr: Statistics are a lie, welfare cheque is a huge amount, welfare cheats, my anecdotes trump your data, HONEST people aren't on welfare for long, IMMIGRANTS USING MY TAX DOLLARS, lazy, welfare-for-life, stealing from food banks from Honest Workers, liberal politician's fault. Did I miss any? Pretty much everything is easily refuted with facts from various government websites like this one for London, Ontario which not only lists an age breakdown but also reveals that 40% of the evil immigrants are in fact Canadian citizens, most of them are women and 40% have a university degree or higher, but statistics are liberal lies, so is there any point in continuing this argument at all with her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:is there any point in continuing this argument at all with her? Usually once someone says they are unwilling to believe facts, the argument has gone so far downhill it is now looking wistfully up the scale of useful arguments at drunken brawls and debating entirely using movie quotes. So...get drunk and spout lines from Clerks or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Megiddo posted:"for anyone who fears propaganda" I think her catholic.org link was less biased. Imperialist Dog posted:Here's some fun stuff! I don't know why it always stands out so much, but I hear the "This thing happens! I've seen it here!" incredibly often and it always drives me nuts. "No dude you're wrong, it's not racist! Those lazy Mexicans--they don't do poo poo, they take 30 minute smoke breaks, I see it here everyday." And it's always in an argument about border control or welfare queens. vez veces fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog's cousin posted:...Monthly welfare cheque for a single person is $685... Yeah, gimmie that sweet 8 grand a year. Easy street here I come.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:statistics are liberal lies, so is there any point in continuing this argument at all with her? At least you have to call her out on this, if only to help her be a rational person. All you have to say is: There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in what you're saying. I've tried to point them out, but you dismissed the official facts as lies. When you call official statistics a lie, how can anyone have a rational conversation with you? I hope you can see how destructive this attitude is to real dialog. If you're going to insist on your own different set of facts, there's really nothing to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I mean originally maybe you could make the argument that the Civil War wasn't about the complete abolition of slavery in part because Lincoln had said he had no interest in ending slavery in those states where it was legal but instead that he wanted to prevent newly forming states in the west from also making slavery illegal. In some form the Civil War was always about slavery, just not explicitly abolition of all slavery, until it became obvious that poo poo wasn't going to get fixed with half the country owning slaves. As an example of this, Lincoln wrote the following letter to Horace Greeley (a New York Tribune editorial editor) in response to the assertion that his administration lacked direction and purpose during the war: The states' rights aspect of the Civil War doesn't really hold water if you look at the events directly preceding the Civil War. The South not only didn't mind that the fugitive slave laws and Dred Scott decision eviscerated the states' rights of the North not to have slavery in their state boundaries, the South actually pushed for these things, with the end goal of de facto expanding slavery to free states through federal fiat. Even more interesting is how loving pissed off the South got when several state governments of the North explicitly came out in defiance of fugitive slave laws and said they were nullifying SCOTUS' Dred Scott decision forcing them to comply with the fugitive slave laws. The rank hypocrisy by the South during this period preceding Lincoln's election shows just how flimsy the states' rights justification and historical apologism is. The South didn't give two shits about states' rights other than their own and were perfectly willing to use federal power to force other states to abide by their will until it looked like that federal power could be used against them. So, the Civil War was pretty much like that popular website "The only moral abortion is my abortion." The South gave no fucks about states' rights until it came to their turn to exercise them. As for the Lincoln stuff, he actually was completely against slavery, it's just that there were two main philosophies in the Republican Party, (1) end slavery ASAP with a constitutional amendment vs. (2) end slavery over time by letting new territories become free states and letting the powerful northern free states influence them to outlaw slavery. Lincoln was of the latter school of thought but once the Civil War broke out, he kind of sidelined that idea in favor of his single-minded desire to reunite the nation, which is where that famous letter that you posted comes in. As for abolition wrecking the South's economy, that's true but the South only had itself to blame. It chose to focus entirely on slave-based agriculture because it made them quite rich and they had a stranglehold on the global cotton market, hence "King Cotton." They were even planning on using this to coerce France and Britain into helping them in the Civil War, but that ended up not working (for various reasons). The South had previously gotten pissed off because they wanted higher prices for the raw materials they sold to the North and didn't like paying lots of money for finished goods made in northern factories, but again, this was their fault for not building many factories of their own to compete. At least the American revolutionaries were restricted by British law into becoming dependent on British products made with American raw materials, but the South did it to themselves. This actually became one of the South's main weaknesses in the Civil War as they didn't have the industrial infrastructure to manufacture the war materials that the North could. To digress from Civil War chat, anyone get any good emails, comments, etc. about Paul Ryan apparently being a big Rage Against the Machine fan and Tom Morello releasing a blistering editorial against him? Most that I've seen so far are pretty tepid and generally revolve around Morello somehow being a hypocrite because he got rich playing guitar in RATM. Apparently, you're only allowed to criticize Paul Ryan, capitalism, American foreign policy, corporatism, etcif you're middle class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:The states' rights aspect of the Civil War doesn't really hold water if you look at the events directly preceding the Civil War. The South not only didn't mind that the fugitive slave laws and Dred Scott decision eviscerated the states' rights of the North not to have slavery in their state boundaries, the South actually pushed for these things, with the end goal of de facto expanding slavery to free states through federal fiat. Even more interesting is how loving pissed off the South got when several state governments of the North explicitly came out in defiance of fugitive slave laws and said they were nullifying SCOTUS' Dred Scott decision forcing them to comply with the fugitive slave laws. Not even middle class; Louise Mensch, (former) MP for Corby famously repeated the line that you can't be a proper Occupy protester if you drink Starbucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
myron cope posted:How is sterilization not 100% effective? He's misguided about his entire argument, but right on this point because it isn't. Sterilization introduces a mechanical barrier to conception, which has a small but finite failure rate. Too bad he hangs his hat on abstinence, the only birth control method with a 100% failure rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:He's misguided about his entire argument, but right on this point because it isn't. Sterilization introduces a mechanical barrier to conception, which has a small but finite failure rate. Too bad he hangs his hat on abstinence, the only birth control method with a 100% failure rate. The article seemed to separate the idea of surgical, reversable, contraception and sterilization. I think they're talking about things like removing ovaries or a hysterectomy; which, rarely, even 15 year old girls may need. And they prevent pregnancies 100%. To me, the biggest thing is, short of having something like ovarian cancer where they have to be removed; what kind of 15 year old girl wants to get this kind of procedure done. If they just wanted to have carefree sex there are plenty of other methods that are nearly 100% effective, especially when combined with a condom to prevent STDs and pregnancy. And they are a lot less risky to perform. Also, it sounds more like an Oregon thing, than an ACA thing. Oregon's state laws are what allow a 15 year old to get sterilized without parental consent. ACA has nothing to do with that. And I strongly suspect that there are plenty of teens in Oregon whose parents' insurance already covers sterilization. Even if it is with a co-pay, I doubt they're going, "I can't wait for Obamacare, I wanted to get my ovaries removed so bad, but $20 is just too much!!!" If there's not an epidemic of sterilized 15 year-olds now, I doubt its going to change with ACA. Sarion fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
quote:The £50 Lesson ETA 1st reply: quote:tbf, a true Tory would have taken the job, and then subbed it out to the homeless guy, thereby ensuring everyone profits from the encounter... The first "lesson" is so oversimplified it's not even funny, and the "everyone profits" line has so many flaws but I just can't seem to find ways to articulate these problems in such a way that won't invite a "LOL bleeding heart loony lefty" response. KayTee fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:He's misguided about his entire argument, but right on this point because it isn't. Sterilization introduces a mechanical barrier to conception, which has a small but finite failure rate. Too bad he hangs his hat on abstinence, the only birth control method with a 100% failure rate. She goes on about abstinence but got pregnant out of wedlock. I don't understand Catholics. I think the expression is "If you're going to sin, sin twice." You're already having sex outside of marriage, how much more wrathful can you really make god by adding contraception in the mix?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
KayTee posted:ETA 1st reply: The second guy is admitting that the middle man Tory in that encounter is profiting from doing almost no work at all at the expense of the homeless person's labor. Sounds like hand outs to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
KayTee posted:ETA 1st reply: Ah poo poo, they're making it over here now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Empire State posted:She goes on about abstinence but got pregnant out of wedlock. I actually had some decent sermons about this sort of thing when I was growing up Catholic. And from anecdotal evidence I can say that priests seem just as exasperated and upset at the idiocy of their members when they show up unwed and pregnant because they, "believed strongly in the church's teachings about birth control." Missing the forest for the trees kind of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
KayTee posted:ETA 1st reply: The very idea that homeless people are going to better themselves by spending all day doing unreliable, manual labor for less than minimum wage is preposterous on its very face. Imagining, for a moment, we live in a world devoid of any kind of connection between mental illness - drug abuse - homelessness, there's still the problem that employers don't want to hire people who have no home, who look like they've barely eaten in weeks (because they haven't) or gotten real sleep in weeks (because they haven't) or who look like they only have one set of clothes and haven't showered in weeks (because they haven't). And the idea that individuals are going to want people who look this way working at their homes all day, any more than employers are going to want to hire them, is nearly as absurd as suggesting that they can buy a home on less than minimum wage. Besides, doesn't Britain already have some program to give work to the homeless? My father is from Glasgow and we used to visit Scotland every few years, and in Glasgow there was some newspaper or magazine (I can't recall which) that the homeless would sell for like 10p a copy or something. Perhaps this was only something in Glasgow. Anyways, as a child I thought, "oh, that's nice, it helps them earn money!" But now it just seems exploitative. I don't know the details of the program, so maybe its a much better thing than it seems. But it seems to me like it just gets them a small bit of money so they can survive to the next day to do it all over again. All it really does is mask the problem. The root cause of their homelessness is not being addressed by it, nor would the stupid suggestion in the e-mail/Facebook forward address the root causes. Or you could just try responding with this: Jack London posted:But, O dear, soft people, full of meat and blood, with white beds and airy rooms waiting you each night, how can I make you know what it is to suffer as you would suffer if you spent a weary night on London's streets? Believe me, you would think a thousand centuries had come and gone before the east paled into dawn; you would shiver till you were ready to cry aloud with the pain of each aching muscle; and you would marvel that you could endure so much and live. Should you rest upon a bench, and your tired eyes close, depend upon it the policeman would rouse you and gruffly order you to `move on.' You may rest upon the bench, and benches are few and far between; but if rest means sleep, on you must go, dragging your tired body through the endless streets. Should you, in desperate slyness, seek some forlorn alley or dark passageway and lie down, the omnipresent policeman will rout you out just the same. It is his business to rout you out. It is a law of the powers that be that you shall be routed out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
My mother continues to be a regressive monster as of yesterday, when she complained that a guy with a cardboard sign at an intersection had dyed his hair. Not that she would have given him money if he was wearing sackcloth and ashes, but I guess it's the principle of the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Besides, doesn't Britain already have some program to give work to the homeless? My father is from Glasgow and we used to visit Scotland every few years, and in Glasgow there was some newspaper or magazine (I can't recall which) that the homeless would sell for like 10p a copy or something. Perhaps this was only something in Glasgow. Anyways, as a child I thought, "oh, that's nice, it helps them earn money!" But now it just seems exploitative. I don't know the details of the program, so maybe its a much better thing than it seems. But it seems to me like it just gets them a small bit of money so they can survive to the next day to do it all over again. All it really does is mask the problem. The root cause of their homelessness is not being addressed by it, nor would the stupid suggestion in the e-mail/Facebook forward address the root causes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:You're talking about The Big Issue. I dont know that much about it beyond the way everyone else thinks about it ie "that magazine homeless people yell at you to buy", but it has some success afaik. Not sure how old you are, but I've never known it to cost 10p. That would defeat the purpose, as they have to make a certain amount per day, and at 10p they'd never finish. Thanks. It probably never did cost that much. My most memorable experience with it was when I was maybe 5 or 6 and asked my dad what they were yelling about (mid-1980's). On subsequent trips I've known what it was and generally ignored it, so I never paid much attention to the cost cause it never really interested me to buy one. You can probably just chalk that comment up to, "thing I barely remember from when I was little." edit: Actually it must have been a later trip than that, cause it says the first issue was from September 1991. I think we went over for Christmas either in 1991 or 1992, which I guess would have been the trip. Even still, I would have been about 10 or 11. Sarion fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Thanks. It probably never did cost that much. My most memorable experience with it was when I was maybe 5 or 6 and asked my dad what they were yelling about (mid-1980's). On subsequent trips I've known what it was and generally ignored it, so I never paid much attention to the cost cause it never really interested me to buy one. You can probably just chalk that comment up to, "thing I barely remember from when I was little." It would have been 50p then IIRC. The Big Issue kinda tears me. I agree that there's an element of exploitation involved (and the founder is a bit of a libertarian shitheel, but at least he has put his money where his mouth is) but at the same time, from most of the sellers I've chatted to over the years, they all are much happier with it than begging, and it has a pretty good record of getting people into homes and jobs, an area where the Government has been singularly failing for at least 30 years. I suppose, like a lot of charity, the problem is that it's papering over the cracks. Sure it helps some homeless people get back into mainstream society, but a functioning society should have caught them on the way down rather than helped them back up. It's an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I suppose, like a lot of charity, the problem is that it's papering over the cracks. Sure it helps some homeless people get back into mainstream society, but a functioning society should have caught them on the way down rather than helped them back up. It's an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top. Yeah, this pretty much sums up my feelings quite well. And I don't see it as being significantly different from what Smug-Tory is proposing in the email forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:My mother continues to be a regressive monster as of yesterday, when she complained that a guy with a cardboard sign at an intersection had dyed his hair. Not that she would have given him money if he was wearing sackcloth and ashes, but I guess it's the principle of the matter. Point out to her that his (I assume brightly colored) hair serves to attract more attention to him, which is an asset to those in the panhandling industry. $3 worth of hair dye was a sound business investment!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:At least you have to call her out on this, if only to help her be a rational person. All you have to say is: There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in what you're saying. I've tried to point them out, but you dismissed the official facts as lies. When you call official statistics a lie, how can anyone have a rational conversation with you? I hope you can see how destructive this attitude is to real dialog. If you're going to insist on your own different set of facts, there's really nothing to discuss. I used what you wrote as a base, adding some more of an explanation of what statistics actually are as I don't think she really knows how stats are gathered, other than "they are just made-up numbers that each side uses to support their cause". Interestingly enough she lists her political views as "liberal" and works for a taxpayer-funded council.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
I've gotten myself involved in an argument with a dude who thinks tax hikes for the rich are a bad idea and we shouldn't be so focused on Romney's returns. Noteworthy points by him:quote:When I read your post, I sense a certain level of "anger". Ok, I get that. I really do. But, it really doesn't change what I wrote. Yes, you feel a 10% tax burden more than a Romney. I get that, too. But, again, go back to what I wrote and asked. Would a rich person just pay the hypothetical 10% tax and say, "Oh well, its just money". Or would their team of accountants and managers figure out a way to rat gently caress the system? What do you really think? quote:And, even if they had to pay it, do you think they'd reduce costs somehow? Yes, they probably would. What would that look like? Perhaps if they made widgets, they'd raise the price of their widgets to compensate. You need widgets. So, now your widgets cost 10% more, hypothetically. So, who paid for that tax increase? Same thing if the rich guy decided, "well, we'll cut payroll 10% across the board". So, you either take a 10% cut or he decides that 1 out of every 10 employees will lose his/her job. Again, who pays for that tax increase? The rich guy? Nope. quote:And, as for the question of "what does the military do?" Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. They pay the price for doing what politicians want them to do in various shitholes around the world. Nobody values the military until they really need them. And, you can't just conjure up a well trained military overnight. Google Task Force Smith Korean War.  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
I got linked this by another goon, though I can't remember what their username was. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:I got linked this by another goon, though I can't remember what their username was. Maybe this is unfair, but I can't help but think people like this are suffering from mental problems. Its just so far beyond normal even for people that hate Obama and gays. Its like the ramblings of a madman in bumper sticker form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Maybe this is unfair, but I can't help but think people like this are suffering from mental problems. Its just so far beyond normal even for people that hate Obama and gays. Its like the ramblings of a madman in bumper sticker form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
It's a bit startling because the camper looks so old, and I imagine he's an old hermit who's utterly disconnected from the world, who's just been keeping that camper going for decades. Then I remember Obama's only been president 3 years. This guy spiraled so far out of control in 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Then I remember Obama's only been president 3 years. This guy spiraled so far out of control in 3 years. He was probably already crazy and just updated his old screeds to the current President.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:It's a bit startling because the camper looks so old, and I imagine he's an old hermit who's utterly disconnected from the world, who's just been keeping that camper going for decades. I think a lot of these people were the same ones with the Clinton conspiracy theories. They've been stewing in their delusions for a good 20 years now, kept alive by a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and (later) Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I've gotten myself involved in an argument with a dude who thinks tax hikes for the rich are a bad idea and we shouldn't be so focused on Romney's returns. Noteworthy points by him: 1. Economics is a bit more complicated than, "Pfft, the government is so stupid, if they raise my taxes, I'll just charge more for my goods/services." A business owner couldn't simply keep raising prices to compensate for increases in taxes, as not every product or service has perfectly inelastic or even mostly inelastic demand. At a certain point, depending on numerous other factors (e.g. substitute goods, quality, brand recognition, etc.), increasing prices is going to lead to decreases in demand and, eventually, decreases in revenue and profits. 2. This guy is (likely) inadvertently arguing in favor of unions. If every laborer were part of a union, their collective power would prevent employers from exploiting them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They would threaten to strike if employers tried to cut their pay or fire 10% of them to avoid actually paying taxes. 3. The US spends more on defense and the military than the next 13 highest spending nations combined. We can afford to cut a huge chunk of our military industrial complex and still greatly overpower any nation many times over, including China and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I've gotten myself involved in an argument with a dude who thinks tax hikes for the rich are a bad idea and we shouldn't be so focused on Romney's returns. Noteworthy points by him: Just point out that there isn't a historical relationship between the top marginal tax rate and unemployment, GDP, prices or any other economic indicator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:3. The US spends more on defense and the military than the next 13 highest spending nations combined. We can afford to cut a huge chunk of our military industrial complex and still greatly overpower any nation many times over, including China and Russia. Money spent doesn't equal military effectiveness. A dollar spent in China goes a lot further to getting things and getting things done than it does in the US, for one thing; and it matters as much how that money is being spent as what it is being spent on. That doesn't mean that military spending should not or could not be cut, but it does mean that you can't directly compare the power of militaries based on their budgets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:A dollar spent in China goes a lot further to getting things and getting things done than it does in the US, for one thing You have no idea how corrupt the Chinese military-industrial complex is. You know how bad it is in a democratic system with significant oversight. Just imagine how terrible it is in an unaccountable, totally opaque system. I really doubt that a dollar here goes as far as a dollar in the U.S. And if you know the U.S. system then you know that's really saying something. In the U.S. it's just the contractors. In China virtually the whole officer corps is on the take, the PLA actually owns a lot of the industries that go into supplying the army, or worse high level officers own the industries, and it's hard to know exactly because these economic connections are completely opaque and unsupervised. There was a recent article here in China from a very high-level PLA official essentially warning that the PLA is in danger of complete dysfunction as a fighting force. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:A dollar spent in China goes a lot further to getting things and getting things done than it does in the US E: Including every other Western nation. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I've gotten myself involved in an argument with a dude who thinks tax hikes for the rich are a bad idea and we shouldn't be so focused on Romney's returns. Noteworthy points by him: Bruce Leroy already made some excellent points, but I felt like expanding. Since this is a Facebook argument, you could probably just point out that if they could raise their prices by 10% without it causing them to sell fewer widgets, they already would have. This is really just a simplification of Bruce's first point, and his explanation is more correct; but given that its a Facebook discussion, keeping it short and simple may be helpful. But I also felt like expanding on the issue, if the conversation keeps going: People who are rich make their money a couple different ways, and it doesn't always (or even usually) boil down to something as simple as profit => pocket. Here are the three main ways I could think of: 1) Small Businesses - These are the people FacebookGuy is talking about. And I'm using a really broad idea of Small Business: anyone who reports their business profits as personal income. Doesn't matter if they make $50K or $50M; if their business' profits are entirely their income, that's who I'm talking about. Now, to be clear, very few people like this are "rich". Only something like 2% of small businesses make more than $250K a year ("Obama rich"). And even then, they wouldn't be hit by the hypothetical 10% tax hike for two reasons. First, they have to make more than $250k in taxable income to be hit with the tax hike. Which after deductions, exemptions, and credits, it generally means they have to make well over $300k to even get hit by this hypothetical tax hike at all; which means the number of businesses that will be "forced" to behave the way FacebookGuy described has shrunk even further. Secondly, because the US uses marginal tax rates, they would have to make WAY WAY more than $300K in order for an increase in the top tax rate to translate into paying 10% of their income as taxes. So we're getting into "ridiculously small number of businesses" type of territory. Now, I know its a favorite Republican talking point to say that over 50% of people who make over $250k are small business owners. But this point has been debunked over and over. What they really mean is that over 50% of people who make more than $250k, report some amount of business income on their tax returns. However, this could include a guy who owns a second house that he rents. After the associated costs of renting a house, he might make $15000 a year from it. Meanwhile he makes $600k from being a corporate executive. That $15k a year from renting some property hardly makes him a business owner; but he's included in that 50% statistic all the same. Anyways, we can continue to look at what these precious few business owners would actually do when their taxes go up. And I'll even ignore, for the moment, that raising their prices could very well result in lower profit due to decreased demand. The main issue here is the idea that 10% tax increase = 10% price hike. That is bullshit, and here's why: - Widget Co. makes widgets that they sell for $100. - Mr. Moneybags keeps $33 of every widget as profit; this is his income. And for a small business its pretty drat generous, too. - Mr. Moneybags currently makes $1M a year, and is taxed 25%, leaving him with $750K in take home pay. - Obama taxes Mr. Moneybags another 10% of his income ($100k). - Mr. Moneybags doesn't like this, so he raises the price of his widgets to make sure he still makes $750k after taxes. - In order to get an extra $100k after 35% taxes, he has to earn an extra ~$150k. - Mr. Moneybags needs to increase his income by 15% to offset the 10% tax (oh nos!) - But Mr. Moneybags only keeps $33 from each widget, so he only increases THAT part of the cost by 15%: $33 => $38 - New cost of Widget Co. Widgets: $105, a 5% increase. 2) Salary Earners - People like Mr. Moneybags above are really, really rare. Its more likely that if someone makes over $350k, they're making a really high salary. This could be people in entertainment (actors, musicians, atheletes, etc). Musicians and Authors (which is how Obama got rich: book royalties) aren't really salaried, but the idea still stands. None of these people get to decide the cost of what they sell. If Steven King is taxed 10% extra, he doesn't get to increase his books by 10%. Nor does an athlete get to raise the ticket price for their games. They can try to exert some control and demand better contracts, but that's about it, it can take years depending on the contract, and there's no guarantee that they'll get what they want, that they wouldn't have demanded a better contract anyways, or that the increased contract costs will pass to customers. The other people who are like this are corporate executive types. But again, they don't get to tie their income directly to profits. Their income is set by the corporation. If the President of Sony USA gets taxed an extra 10%, he can't recoup those dollars by raising the price of all Sony Products sold in the US by 10%. Even if he, by himself, could raise prices on a whim, and if a portion of his pay is from bonuses tied to the company's profits (which it probably is), he still can't directly increase his take home pay by raising the price. That's just not how those types of bonuses work, and it doesn't do anything for the salary or stock portion of his compensation. Plus, arbitrarily raising prices like that is likely to harm Sony's profits in the US, which would directly lower his bonus income further. 3) Investment Income - This is how Mitt Romney makes $20M a year. And its how nearly all of the "richest of the rich", 0.01% types, make their money. And while they may be able to hold some sway over some of the businesses they have investments in, generally they can't do poo poo. Even if they have enough shares to have a say, they can't just make up the taxed income by raising prices. Once again, that kind of decision could just amount to shooting their own foot. But even still, raising prices 10% will not result in a 10% increase in their own capital gains, even if demand is unchanged. At this level, there's way more factors that go into how much money they earn than that. Obviously the company's profits are a big part of it, but they're by no means all of it. But, at the end of the day, people like Mitt Romney just aren't involved in the day to day running of all the businesses they have money invested in. Besides, they don't need to raise the price anyways. They're just going to have their accountants avoid the tax increase in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
If you post all of that or try to explain point-by-point, no one will read it. Stick to simply pointing out that there isn't any historical relationship between the top marginal tax rate and any aggregate economic indicator. You can explain that other stuff all you want but it will either fall on deaf ears or they will nitpick minor points and you'll get into a circle of example and counterexample. Stick to the basics. The data does not support their claim. Anything beyond that is frivolous. One thing I learned about Facebook arguing is that the more you type, the more they have to find minor flaws or counterexamples with. I usually try to limit myself to two or three sentences. baw fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 16:02
|
|