What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

[realibrad]

I saw you said market adjustments, which is a nice vague answer. You should be a politician. What new channels did they find, beside ones directly created by the stimulus of course. I'm not asking you for vague answers. Specifics please. There is plenty of data showing strong correlation between stimulus and GDP growth. The burden is on you to show what factors could have changed the GDP growth so drastically so we can eliminate stimulus as the cause.

As for who made hard claims, you said the stimulus did not work. What metrics are you using to support that claim?

What you want is not going to happen, because it cannot happen. I did give you one big part, but there are far too many to go over and those are the things we know of. Further, saying stimulus helped end the recession is far more vague.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. You are going to try to do what religious people do, and say that me not agreeing with you is a claim, and its not. If you think the stimulus stopped the recession, then back it up. Correlation is not causation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

If you want to argue that it slowed the loss of jobs to make the adjustments easier, fine. You have still not supported your claim that it ended the recession.

 

[dank69]

What you want is not going to happen, because it cannot happen. I did give you one big part, but there are far too many to go over and those are the things we know of. Further, saying stimulus helped end the recession is far more vague.

The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. You are going to try to do what religious people do, and say that me not agreeing with you is a claim, and its not. If you think the stimulus stopped the recession, then back it up. Correlation is not causation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

If you want to argue that it slowed the loss of jobs to make the adjustments easier, fine. You have still not supported your claim that it ended the recession.

I've clarified that it helped end the recession. I'm not pulling religious bullshit, if anyone is, you are. You are the one who made the original claim: stimulus didn't work.

I've pointed out that the data is strongly correlated. Bleeding jobs->stimulus->bleed stops, GDP dropping->stimulus->GDP stops dropping and begins growing again. Then there is the simple fact that the whole purpose of the stimulus was to combat the recession, no? So, we have a recession, a ton of experts suggest stimulus and get it implemented, and the recession stops. And then we have you, who says the stimulus did not work and still ignoring requests to support that claim.

 

[Exophase]

While I sort of agree with Sanders' social programs I'm more on board with where he wants to spend less, like with private prisons and defense contracts.

 

[realibrad]

I've clarified that it helped end the recession. I'm not pulling religious bullshit, if anyone is, you are. You are the one who made the original claim: stimulus didn't work.

I've pointed out that the data is strongly correlated. Bleeding jobs->stimulus->bleed stops, GDP dropping->stimulus->GDP stops dropping and begins growing again. Then there is the simple fact that the whole purpose of the stimulus was to combat the recession, no? So, we have a recession, a ton of experts suggest stimulus and get it implemented, and the recession stops. And then we have you, who says the stimulus did not work and still ignoring requests to support that claim.

I did not say the stimulus did nothing. In fact, I did not even make the claim this stimulus did not work. What I said was that people on the right have done trickle down and it did not work, and those on the left have done stimulus and it did not work. I never made this about the great recession, you did. Now you are trying to say that I need to support a claim I did not make. That sure sounds like the same spin the religious folk use around here. You are trying to say I made a claim I did not make, then ask me to support the claim I did not make to show I am wrong.

Again, just because you see a correlation does not mean it relates in any way. That is how religions form FYI. You see a shooting star and the next day there is an earthquake, so it must have been the star god. Look back and what I posted, and look at where we are now. Its because of you that we are going down a rabbit hole that you know little to nothing about.

 

[dank69]

I did not say the stimulus did nothing. In fact, I did not even make the claim this stimulus did not work. What I said was that people on the right have done trickle down and it did not work, and those on the left have done stimulus and it did not work. I never made this about the great recession, you did. Now you are trying to say that I need to support a claim I did not make. That sure sounds like the same spin the religious folk use around here. You are trying to say I made a claim I did not make, then ask me to support the claim I did not make to show I am wrong.

Again, just because you see a correlation does not mean it relates in any way. That is how religions form FYI. You see a shooting star and the next day there is an earthquake, so it must have been the star god. Look back and what I posted, and look at where we are now. Its because of you that we are going down a rabbit hole that you know little to nothing about.

Oh I see, when you said stimulus didn't work, you weren't referring to the 2009 stimulus that everyone thinks of when "stimulus" is brought up since it happened. What other stimulus were you referring to that people have said wasn't enough? Keep in mind that when Eskimo brought up economists' opinions of the 2009 stimulus you didn't correct him by saying you weren't referring to that exact stimulus.

 

[realibrad]

Oh I see, when you said stimulus didn't work, you weren't referring to the 2009 stimulus that everyone thinks of when "stimulus" is brought up since it happened. What other stimulus were you referring to that people have said wasn't enough?

Great depression stimulus did not work. Many times it made things worse. Cash for Clunkers did not work either.

There are many times where stimulus was studied and it did not work.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/US-Experience-Fiscal-Stimulus.pdf

Have a quick read of that. Im about to leave work and will be busy at home with some biology classes, so I may not go further until tomorrow.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh I see, when you said stimulus didn't work, you weren't referring to the 2009 stimulus that everyone thinks of when "stimulus" is brought up since it happened. What other stimulus were you referring to that people have said wasn't enough? Keep in mind that when Eskimo brought up economists' opinions of the 2009 stimulus you didn't correct him by saying you weren't referring to that exact stimulus.

You are apparently wasting your time. I've never seen someone back peddle so inelegantly in my life. I'm sure if you ask him what stimulus he was referring to he will remind us.../s


Oops! I was wrong and I should have seen his next move since he's used it before, the old "I was talking about something else but I was using a different definition and instance than everyone else was"

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A huge reform of the tax code in and of itself would do wonders for the nation. But it's never going to happen. Too much corruption.

Yes, it would definitely simplify things... Well, assuming you are even able to completely scrap something. As far as I understand, never in the history of the US have we simply "scrapped" everything of previous laws. The most you can do are change individual things, but not make a law that completely negates a serious of laws.

But it would also put people such as myself out of a job D: And we Can't have that

 

[realibrad]

Yes, it would definitely simplify things... Well, assuming you are even able to completely scrap something. As far as I understand, never in the history of the US have we simply "scrapped" everything of previous laws. The most you can do are change individual things, but not make a law that completely negates a serious of laws.

But it would also put people such as myself out of a job D: And we Can't have that

It was intended that way, to protect the people from someone coming in changing everything. It has its drawbacks though. Things like gay marriage took way too long to undo. The next big gridlock issue looks to be the debt ceiling.

The current tax code is set up to benefit the top, but neither side really wants to fiddle with that. Dems want to raise taxes at the top, but I bet they just increase loopholes. I cant see either side biting the hand that feeds.

 

[fskimospy]

It was intended that way, to protect the people from someone coming in changing everything. It has its drawbacks though. Things like gay marriage took way too long to undo. The next big gridlock issue looks to be the debt ceiling.

The current tax code is set up to benefit the top, but neither side really wants to fiddle with that. Dems want to raise taxes at the top, but I bet they just increase loopholes. I cant see either side biting the hand that feeds.

Looks like the tax rate on the top 1% has gone up more than 6% under Obama, which is actually quite a lot:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/

In relative terms it's gone up from ~27% to about 34%. That's a 25% increase.

 

[realibrad]

Looks like the tax rate on the top 1% has gone up more than 6% under Obama, which is actually quite a lot:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/

In relative terms it's gone up from ~27% to about 34%. That's a 25% increase.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the top 1% is paying the full 6% increase?

 

[fskimospy]

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the top 1% is paying the full 6% increase?

Sure. According to the link, the 6%+ is the increase in percentage paid on income, not the percentage increase in marginal rates or whatever else.

Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the top 1% is paying the full 6% increase?

Are you smoking something? Yes, the top 1% are the most dedicated tax payers you could ever ask for. Unlike the bottom 60%.

Don't get me wrong, they will try to get their tax obligations down as much as possible, but that's what everyone should be doing. Why should you pay more taxes than you owe?

The few that ARE using illegal means (such as not reporting income in off-shore accounts, etc...) are few and far.

 

[realibrad]

Sure. According to the link, the 6%+ is the increase in percentage paid on income, not the percentage increase in marginal rates or whatever else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ome-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/

If they are adjusting their taxable income to look lower, that to me is a loophole. They might be paying 6% more on their taxable income, but if they are able to reduce what they pay on, its still a net gain.

 

[realibrad]

Are you smoking something? Yes, the top 1% are the most dedicated tax payers you could ever ask for. Unlike the bottom 60%.

Don't get me wrong, they will try to get their tax obligations down as much as possible, but that's what everyone should be doing. Why should you pay more taxes than you owe?

The few that ARE using illegal means (such as not reporting income in off-shore accounts, etc...) are few and far.

You are dumb. You did not understand what I was saying. I was not making an argument for taxing the rich more. I was saying that the top benefit most of the current structure. They are able to extract far more from the government then any other group in total value. Yes, poor people are able to get social benefits, but the wealthy have loopholes that others do not. I'm not making a value judgement, but its true that the wealthy have access to hide their taxable assets that the poor do not, and the US will not do much to stop it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are dumb. You did not understand what I was saying. I was not making an argument for taxing the rich more. I was saying that the top benefit most of the current structure.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the top 1% is paying the full 6% increase?

Really, you are saying that you weren't implying here that the top tax bracket isn't paying the 6% increase? You're SOMEHOW implying that the top benefit from the current structure that puts them in a larger tax bracket? You're cute :whiste:

They are able to extract far more from the government then any other group in total value. Yes, poor people are able to get social benefits, but the wealthy have loopholes that others do not. I'm not making a value judgement, but its true that the wealthy have access to hide their taxable assets that the poor do not, and the US will not do much to stop it.

Doing things such as offsetting gains with losses isn't "extracting from the government". It's the government saying "Alright, you gained $30,000 on your investments with technology stocks this, but you got screwed out of $20,000 on your investments in oil after the markets plunged. Therefore, you owe taxes on your $10,000 net gain".

Again, do you really know what you are talking about, or just spewing a bunch of shit?
"RAH RAH, LOOPHOLES!!!"
"What loopholes?
"I don't know, but LOOPHOLES!!!"

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ome-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/

If they are adjusting their taxable income to look lower, that to me is a loophole. They might be paying 6% more on their taxable income, but if they are able to reduce what they pay on, its still a net gain.

First, your chart is from 2012, which is before almost all of the mentioned tax changes went into effect. Second, both of them use percentage of AGI, which is after deductions. Third, median AGI for the 1% has continued to increase.

So nope, they really are just paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Obama raised the taxes of the ultra rich, and by a fairly significant amount.

 

[bshole]

First, your chart is from 2012, which is before almost all of the mentioned tax changes went into effect. Second, both of them use percentage of AGI, which is after deductions. Third, median AGI for the 1% has continued to increase.

So nope, they really are just paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Obama raised the taxes of the ultra rich, and by a fairly significant amount.

Unless he raises it to 60% or more for the ultra rich, he did not raise it by much. The tax rate should increment all the way up to 99% for incomes in the 100s of millions. The tax rate for the ultra rich should not be in same ball park as the middle class. Obama has been a huge disappointment in this regard.

 

[BoberFett]

Looks like the tax rate on the top 1% has gone up more than 6% under Obama, which is actually quite a lot:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/

In relative terms it's gone up from ~27% to about 34%. That's a 25% increase.

How much has their income increased under Obama?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Unless he raises it to 60% or more for the ultra rich, he did not raise it by much. The tax rate should increment all the way up to 99% for incomes in the 100s of millions. The tax rate for the ultra rich should not be in same ball park as the middle class. Obama has been a huge disappointment in this regard.

....Because.... you know... Those people that have "100s of millions" can't pack their bags and leave for somewhere that doesn't have one of the highest corporate (and personal) tax rates.... Yup. They are stuck with their money bags in 'Merica.

Don't mind the recent influx of people renouncing their citizenship either.

Boy you guys sure do think before you say something stupid, don't ya?


By the way, hows that 70%+ tax on the FILTHY rich doing in France? Please, do tell!

 

[bshole]

....Because.... you know... Those people that have "100s of millions" can't pack their bags and leave for somewhere that doesn't have one of the highest corporate (and personal) tax rates.... Yup. They are stuck with their money bags in 'Merica.

Don't mind the recent influx of people renouncing their citizenship either.

Boy you guys sure do think before you say something stupid, don't ya?

Good riddance, let the robber barons loot other nations. Never let the fuckers or their products back into America. Black ball their asses. The income inequality in America is obscene and completely outside the bounds of all other industialized nations.

 

[realibrad]

First, your chart is from 2012, which is before almost all of the mentioned tax changes went into effect. Second, both of them use percentage of AGI, which is after deductions. Third, median AGI for the 1% has continued to increase.

So nope, they really are just paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Obama raised the taxes of the ultra rich, and by a fairly significant amount.

Yes, I know they are paying more then they used to. The point is that the super rich are able to lessen their tax burden. Obama did not raise the rates of the top only 6%.

 

[realibrad]

Really, you are saying that you weren't implying here that the top tax bracket isn't paying the 6% increase? You're SOMEHOW implying that the top benefit from the current structure that puts them in a larger tax bracket? You're cute :whiste:



Doing things such as offsetting gains with losses isn't "extracting from the government". It's the government saying "Alright, you gained $30,000 on your investments with technology stocks this, but you got screwed out of $20,000 on your investments in oil after the markets plunged. Therefore, you owe taxes on your $10,000 net gain".

Again, do you really know what you are talking about, or just spewing a bunch of shit?
"RAH RAH, LOOPHOLES!!!"
"What loopholes?
"I don't know, but LOOPHOLES!!!"

You really think I am someone on the left dont you?

 

[realibrad]

Good riddance, let the robber barons loot other nations. Never let the fuckers or their products back into America. Black ball their asses. The income inequality in America is obscene and completely outside the bounds of all other industialized nations.

There is nothing inherently wrong with income inequality so long as that inequality comes from fair things. I don't care that Musk is as rich as he is, because he has improved the world and people paid him willingly. He has made the world better off and in return we gave him money. Its a win win.

Now, there are many people out there that have become rich through shitty actions, and those I dont like, but inequality is not the inherent problem.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

....Because.... you know... Those people that have "100s of millions" can't pack their bags and leave for somewhere that doesn't have one of the highest corporate (and personal) tax rates.... Yup. They are stuck with their money bags in 'Merica.

Don't mind the recent influx of people renouncing their citizenship either.

Boy you guys sure do think before you say something stupid, don't ya?


By the way, hows that 70%+ tax on the FILTHY rich doing in France? Please, do tell!

I'm not going to defend bshole's tax plan, because I think it's a bit extreme, but I find this argument to be entirely uncompelling. Why should we care if some rich people decide they'd rather leave than pay to stay in the place that they're fond of calling "the best country on Earth"? What, all the silicon valley billionaires are going to take up residence in Ireland and then realize, shit, we don't have any of our engineers or market over here? The Texas oil magnates are going to leave when their wealth is tied to physical property they own in the United States? All the bankers leave and NO ONE steps up to replace them because we all know there's no money to be made in banking? Movie stars and athletes book it until they realize that their fame and fortune is derived solely from a culture willing to pay exorbitant salaries for entertainment and good luck finding that in a tax-free place like Somalia? A mass exodus of the rich won't happen, and even if it did, we've got hundreds of millions of people; surely SOMEONE is capable of filling those gaps. It's just silly to act like taxing the rich is going to result in them absconding with all the capital they control like Robert Irsay trucking the Colts out of Baltimore in the dead of the night. Especially because even if they leave, they're still going to need to sell their products to someone, and American consumers have all the money. It's a nonsensical argument.