U.S. Politics - Page 147 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1461  
Old 02-01-12, 04:16
Moose McKnuckles's Avatar
Moose McKnuckles Moose McKnuckles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Dilute yourself at your own risk.
It's "delude". And English isn't even my first language.
Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 02-01-12, 04:26
Moose McKnuckles's Avatar
Moose McKnuckles Moose McKnuckles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Regardless of what the truth is, the R nominee will be able to say that the economy would be in much worse shape had the Bush tax cut NOT been extended. And, I believe, rightly so.
I think that is a popular view among those with a) a vested interest in the Bush tax cuts for the highest income tax brackets and b) those who do not fall in the first category but have at best a superficial understanding of the economy.

If you fall into the former category, congratulations. If you fall into the latter, not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #1463  
Old 02-01-12, 04:31
Scott SoCal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose McKnuckles View Post
It's "delude". And English isn't even my first language.
I meant dilute.

Here's a definition from the Webster's English Learners Dictionary.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dilute[1]
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 02-01-12, 04:32
gregod's Avatar
gregod gregod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
You must have more money then you let on.

There's virtually no difference in economic growth or tax revenue between someone in the upper .1% buying up 100 houses, and 100 of his employees buying one house each. But I guess in your world the boss deserves it all, all of it, while the serf's deserve what they get, even if it's nothing?

Furthermore, you didn't even address my point, you just skirted it. Do you truly believe that if there's a large tax cut, or large profits, that regardless of demand, owners and upper management at companies will hire more people and give them better benefits, instead of just hoarding the money for themselves?
you are wrong about the bolded part. there are HUGE economic growth and tax differences. i don't have time for a detailed explanation, but if you think about it, you will see that 100 people buying 100 houses would have a massively greater economic effects.
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 02-01-12, 04:32
Cobber's Avatar
Cobber Cobber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
My best guess is your boss will hire when necessary. He or she likely will not overstaff unless there is a belief in doing so will position your company for coming growth opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Regardless of what the truth is, the R nominee will be able to say that the economy would be in much worse shape had the Bush tax cut NOT been extended. And, I believe, rightly so.
Scott, in the first post you quoted, you imply that the Bush tax cuts for the rich do nothing for job growth, which I agree with. Hiring will only be driven by market demand, and I would argue that putting more money into the pockets of the middle class would do more to increase that demand.
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 02-01-12, 04:33
Scott SoCal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose McKnuckles View Post
I think that is a popular view among those with a) a vested interest in the Bush tax cuts for the highest income tax brackets and b) those who do not fall in the first category but have at best a superficial understanding of the economy.

If you fall into the former category, congratulations. If you fall into the latter, not so much.
Study tax receipts much? I do.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 02-01-12, 04:36
Scott SoCal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobber View Post
Scott, in the first post you quoted, you imply that the Bush tax cuts for the rich do nothing for job growth, which I agree with. Hiring will only be driven by market demand, and I would argue that putting more money into the pockets of the middle class would do more to increase that demand.

Just curious, who are the middle class? How are they defined?

It's not a trick question.
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 02-01-12, 04:36
Moose McKnuckles's Avatar
Moose McKnuckles Moose McKnuckles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I meant dilute.

Here's a definition from the Webster's English Learners Dictionary.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dilute[1]
If you meant "dilute", your language skills need help.

But then, we both know you meant "delude" and you're just embarrassed and trying to cover it up. No problem. It just adds to the humor.
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 02-01-12, 04:38
Scott SoCal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose McKnuckles View Post
If you meant "dilute", your language skills need help.

But then, we both know you meant "delude" and you're just embarrassed and trying to cover it up. No problem. It just adds to the humor.

Glad I was able to make you smile.
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 02-01-12, 04:42
Moose McKnuckles's Avatar
Moose McKnuckles Moose McKnuckles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Just curious, who are the middle class? How are they defined?

It's not a trick question.
When most people say "middle class", they seem to mean "middle income".

There is no standard definition of middle class, which is why politicians use it. People in all sorts of financial positions think politicians are talking about them. It's just an example of using ambiguity to appeal to a broader swath of people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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. The time now is 12:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.