Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Ľ Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Ľ Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-24-2017, 02:11 AM   #61
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I have yet to see a single credible analysis (You should have stopped here. Economic forecasts are notoriously unreliable.)

that shows long-term growth. Everything is based on faith.

It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income.

Yes, let's borrow even more money to fund the elite. Feed the sparrows by feeding the horses right?
It's not about sparrows and horses. They don't have the ability to generate wealth. They don't have individual entrepreneurs. They don't have a distributive tax system, nor a government which spends more than it has. They operate under a herd instinct in which individual freedom does not exist. They don't borrow money nor have an elaborate welfare system in which half the herd can exist without expending labor and so be fed and cared for by the other half.

It's about either expending labor to feed a dominating over-structure with more than half of the money created by the entrepreneurs which can then be redistributed in ways that ensure its domination. Or about reducing the feed of the over-structure, and limiting its ability to dominate a much freer society of individuals.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 07:21 AM   #62
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income..
Bingo.

Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?

What happened to the economy, after Clinton/Gingrich slashed taxes? Please remind us?

Cutting taxes doesn't always work (didn't work in Kansas). Increasing taxes doesn't always work (CT is on the brink of insolvency).
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 07:47 AM   #63
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income.
There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 08:39 AM   #64
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Bingo.

Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?

What happened to the economy, after Clinton/Gingrich slashed taxes? Please remind us?

Cutting taxes doesn't always work (didn't work in Kansas). Increasing taxes doesn't always work (CT is on the brink of insolvency).
I believe he is a snake oil salesman of sorts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 09:39 AM   #65
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
https://www.politico.com/interactive...e-cut-wealthy/


The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.

Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.

POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:07 AM   #66
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,544
Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth due to companies looking to achieve maximum deductions to lower their taxes by means of hiring more employees or more expenses. Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:14 AM   #67
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
https://www.politico.com/interactive...e-cut-wealthy/


The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.

Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.

POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
Obama referred to published federal studies, which said that Obamacare would save each family $2,500. Maybe tomorrow, they'll publish a paper saying the earth is flat. I'm not impressed.

If Hilary had won, and she was proposing tax cuts, Spence would be all for it.

As long as the feds have enough to do the things they are supposed to do, it cannot be a bad thing to take no more.

Tax cuts can be followed by a recession (or growth), it doesn't mean the cuts caused the recession (or growth). There's too any moving pieces. But who here, chooses to pay more taxes than we have to?

Being slightly above middle class here in CT, I presume I'll be paying more since I can no longer deduct my asinine CT taxes. If poorer people are helped by doubling the standard deduction, and businesses are helped by slashing the corporate tax rate, I'll take it.

I'd like to see businesses keep more of their income (and this become instantly more valuable), I'd like to see some of the money parked overseas come back here, and for sure I'd like to see people below the middle, (1) keep more of their income, and (2) have better potential for wage increases. I don't know if this plan does that, neither does anyone else.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:18 AM   #68
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,767
I remember the good old days when the Repub. said deficit matters. Now, not so much.

Hypocrites.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:21 AM   #69
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth due to companies looking to achieve maximum deductions to lower their taxes by means of hiring more employees or more expenses. Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth"

Oh my, yes. Which explains the surging economy in high-tax places like Connecticut, Venezuala, Cuba, and the Soviet Union.

"Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there"

Wrong. This is economic illiteracy at its absolute zenith. It only "ends there", if the business owners bury that profit in their backyards and leave it there, or I guess if they burn it. Nebe, is that what you do with your profits? I bet it isn't. And if you either (1) spend that profit to buy things, (2) invest that profit to grow, (3) put it in the bank and save it, or (4) invest it in the stock market, or (5) give some of it to charity...if you do ANY of those things, the profit most certainly does not "end there", it gets re-circulated and helps the economy.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:26 AM   #70
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I remember the good old days when the Repub. said deficit matters. Now, not so much.

Hypocrites.
Now, that is true. But, lower taxes, by themselves, don't always increase deficits. Because they can be stimulative. Don't you live in CT? We raised taxes one too many times, and tax revenue collected dropped by 450 million, because it was restrictive, people finally had enough. Tax revenue collected, often does not move in proportion with tax rates levied. There are way too many moving pieces. If revenue always moved in lockstep with price, a Honda dealer could get rich by charging $100,000 for a Civic. Supply and demand gets in the way of that.

What thoughtful people should be advocating for, is what Clinton/Gingrich did. Cut taxes in a way that is stimulative, and cut wasteful spending. It worked when they did it, it worked like a charm. How come no one remembers that?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:42 AM   #71
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
What thoughtful people should be advocating for, is what Clinton/Gingrich did. Cut taxes in a way that is stimulative, and cut wasteful spending. It worked when they did it, it worked like a charm. How come no one remembers that?
Shhhhhhh, Jim...come here. Quietly please. Here, crouch down. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Do not tell anyone. Here's the deal. The Clinton tax cuts and growth that followed...was during the dot.com bubble. I know. Really.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 10:49 AM   #72
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Shhhhhhh, Jim. ...come here. Quietly please. Here, crouch down. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Do not tell anyone. Here's the deal. The Clinton tax cuts and growth that followed...was during the dot.com bubble. I know. Really.
Maybe they helped fuel the dot-com bubble,by making it cheaper and more attractive, to take risk on new technologies and products? Maybe they made that surge better than it would have been, without it? Way too many moving pieces.

The growth during the Clinton and Bush years, was unlike anything my generation has seen. I'm not sure you've shot down my proposition that it might be a good idea to replicate that. Today, there are lots of technology and green energy ideas on the verge of taking off. Maybe tax cuts could help spur that along. Maybe it's worth a try. Anyone who claims to know that it can't work, is blinded buy ideology. If the Democrats were proposing this, everyone here knows you'd be cheerleading for it.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 11:11 AM   #73
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Maybe they helped fuel the dot-com bubble,by making it cheaper and more attractive, to take risk on new technologies and products? Maybe they made that surge better than it would have been, without it? Way too many moving pieces.
Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 12:01 PM   #74
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.
Tax cuts can give business more capital to invest in or use new technologies regardless of where those technologies were born. And government funding is not government creating. God help us if we are going to depend on government tax collection and control to develop technology, business, culture, and the well-being of society. You seem to be all in for socialism. That's OK, but don't pose as some supporter of a free market system.

Here are two articles that analyze things a bit differently than you:

http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report...conomic-growth

https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-...growth-1146370

Last edited by detbuch; 11-24-2017 at 11:02 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 02:14 PM   #75
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Tax cuts can give business more capital to invest in or use new technologies regardless of where those technologies were born.
But that's the rub. Big corporations in general have excess cash they're unwilling to invest because they don't see a return. For many sectors capital investment goes to automation which further reduces the need for employment.

Of the articles you linked, the heritage piece is just standard conservative philosophy but doesn't take in the complexities of our current situation. We have massive debt, a crumbling infrastructure, an evolving global economy etc... What is the impact of increased leverage in terms of debt service and inflation? Hello???

The other one is more just reform minded but doesn't even support your argument for the most part. I'm not against reform, that's not what is really being proposed right now though.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 02:20 PM   #76
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?
I work primarily with Fortune 500 manufacturing executives to help them understand how capital investments in technology can best drive innovation and operational excellence.

Front row seat.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 04:14 PM   #77
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I work primarily with Fortune 500 manufacturing executives to help them understand how capital investments in technology can best drive innovation and operational excellence.

Front row seat.
So what do you tell them, to turn over operations to the masses and to raise minimum wage? Everything you must tell them, spurs in the face if everything you profess to believe here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 04:18 PM   #78
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.
But lower taxes, changed the math behind the cost benefit analysis, that is undertaken whenever a new technology is being considered. Me thinks your front row seat has an obstructed view.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 01:49 AM   #79
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
But that's the rub. Big corporations in general have excess cash they're unwilling to invest because they don't see a return.

"Excess" cash that is held rather than invested for expansion, will lose value to inflation. But if it goes to bonuses or raises in salaries or stock dividends (providing that the business sold stocks), the bonuses and raises and dividends will either be invested or used to buy things, all of which fuels the economy. However, raising salaries with government fiat money can lead to higher salaries than profitable when the fiat money runs out if there is no actual growth in productivity and profit.

For many sectors capital investment goes to automation which further reduces the need for employment.

In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.


Of the articles you linked, the heritage piece is just standard conservative philosophy but doesn't take in the complexities of our current situation.

Your assertions are just the standard Progressive philosophy. As I have said, there are conflicting thoughts and analyses re economics and economic forecasts. Not just what you consider uncontested, universally agreed to theories or forecasts.

Progressive economics requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions) to justify spending more than the revenue collected, and the necessity to borrow in unlimited fashion in order to fund the Progressive model of government which controls and defines the shape and content of the societal order. All of which requires government command of the economy and ultimately requires government funding of the economy.

Until that ultimate model is in place, programs must incrementally be added in the move toward the desired government command. And, while the private market still funds the government via taxation, Progressive economic theory has to constantly adjust and increase taxation to pay for those programs in ways that give the illusion that they are adequately funded. And those programs require ever new regulations. All of which create new "crises" that must be responded to with even more regulations. Which, in turn, compounds the complexity of the taxing bureaucracy's codes and rates in order pay for new regs and programs and still maintain the appearance of favoring the majority of voters. And thus it can continue to expand the private sector's and its people's dependence on government and its regulations . . . and continue the increasingly complex tax system required to give the appearance of funding that growth.


We have massive debt,

It wasn't "conservative" economic philosophy that created that massive debt. It was various forms of Keynesian economics that created it.

a crumbling infrastructure, an evolving global economy etc... What is the impact of increased leverage in terms of debt service and inflation? Hello???

Infrastructure is addressed in the articles I linked to. "Conservative" economics is in favor of infrastructure. I am not sure that Progressive economics requires anything other than whatever government wishes at any given time. What happened to the promised spending on infrastructure in the Progressive stimulus bill. We are still waiting for it.

"Conservative" economics is all for debt "service" (reduction). Progressive economics constantly increases debt to expand government power. Inflation is necessary to help even paying for the interest on the debt in order to avoid default. But actually paying down debt is of no concern to Progressives.


The other one is more just reform minded but doesn't even support your argument for the most part. I'm not against reform, that's not what is really being proposed right now though.
I didn't intend to link to that one. As you say, it doesn't speak to anything now . . . or ever, since the reform it specifies ain't gonna happen no matter who is in power.

The one I intended to link to was this one (I replaced the wrong one with this in my previous post):

https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-...growth-1146370

This article reduces "conservative" economic policy to the basic requirements to which taxes should be addressed and for which government should spend. When government is restricted to its constitutionally required basics, tax policies don't have to be obscure, complex beyond readability, as Progressive tax codes must be in order to give the illusion of fairness.

Last edited by detbuch; 11-25-2017 at 08:54 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 06:11 AM   #80
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Progressive economic theory requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions)
yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...l-judge-rules/

“In order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.”

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.

Last edited by scottw; 11-25-2017 at 06:55 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 08:02 AM   #81
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...l-judge-rules/

ďIn order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.Ē

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.
What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didnít build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 08:44 AM   #82
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didnít build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 09:12 AM   #83
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I donít think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 10:15 AM   #84
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.
I think you're making it complex and confusing, just like this new GOP tax plan. Now you can set up 529s for the unborn? This is the simplification that was touted?

A lot of private sector growth the past century has been led by government funding. That doesn't mean it all is, certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree.

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. These often aren't see as the most profitable or if really disruptive totally absurd. It's hard to automate something you've never done before so there's a surge of energy required to bring it to life. That creates growth.

A lot of business today is totally stale though, they look to be more efficient and minimize risks until the point at which they are obsolete. They don't do this what for a lack of capital -- many are still very profitable -- they do it as a matter of culture and a really big problem their religious adherence to the virtue of shareholder value.

But, this still remains the bulk of the corporate sector. If you want to spur growth just routing cash disproportionately to non-managerial shareholders doesn't seem like an effective place to put it. To do so at the expense of additional debt and inflation is even further counter productive.

This is a money grab plain and simple.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:29 AM   #85
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I donít think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Me? I'm great.

Here is the speech I was referring to, by Princess Lies Through Her Teeth.

Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!

Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:32 AM   #86
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. .
Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?

Corporate income taxes are the cost of income. And page 1 of every undergraduate economics text says that when you decrease the cost of something, the demand for that something (no matter what it is), goes up. And the opposite is true when you increase the cost of something.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:33 AM   #87
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?
Did you read my post? It's all there.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:34 AM   #88
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Did you read my post? It's all there.
Oh, I did. I've also read Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Similarly useful.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 11:35 AM   #89
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!
That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2017, 01:14 PM   #90
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.
Watch the video, donít take my word for it. Naked contempt for the successful.

If I am making fun of someone who lied about being Native American for personal gain, I can make a compelling case that I care a lot more about native Americans than she does.

As for warrens idiotic remarks. Yes, we all drive on public roads and use public police. But only Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, only bill gates invented Windows. The individual, therefore, has an awful lot to do with it, and should therefore be encouraged to take risks. Not demonized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com