Jump to content


Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread


  • Please log in to reply
574 replies to this topic

#41 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:58 PM

View PostRoll the Bones, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 12:59 PM, said:

So you would be mad if the Republicans caved and allowed our government to close loopholes for the rich, or even outright raised taxes on the very wealthy? This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases? It's all mind boggling insane that just the top 25 hedge fund managers get billions in low tax income that you or I don't. I mean really, if there is anything that has become very very glaringly obvious is that all these low taxes on the wealthy have not done a thing for the middle class, the deficit, this country or anything positive.
I am not saying I don't see your point, but I think you are stopping too soon here.Those billionaire hedge fund guys go out and buy $50MM homes, have them gutted and put 100 people to work changing the motif, then buy a dozen new cars, put in new silicone implants into at least 4 super models, gamble $1mm a year to make them feel good, tip cocktail waitresses crazy amounts of money etc.Their money goes back into the economy in ways that helps the economy a lot more than giving half of it to the government so they can pay off some political debt to a former Hillary Clinton pollster etc.Its not like them keeping the money means the money is shoved into a mattress and removed from the national equation. Even the money they stick in a T-Bill or Muni Bond that they won't pay any taxes on either results in the money being put to work.Sure the taxed money also works itself back into the economy, the union guys have to buy new baseball bats to beat up people that are willing to work for only $50 an hour, Hillary's pollsters need money to invent graphs to tell her she still has a chance to run again, And scaring the public about the evils of 2nd hand smoke isn't cheap....But no matter what, the money they spend also works itself into the economy, but it is 'forced' into the economy.My philosophical difference with the democrats is that I think the way the money is put to work by the private sector is more likely to have beneficial long term gains than the government taking huge chunks of it and delaying their returning of the money to the economy, then forcing it into a non-returning result. XYZ corp spends the money on new equipment, labor etc, they will continue to do so for years. XYZ corp creates a demand for ZYX Corp etc. Long term stability in the economy.Government program IDT puts $100 million into public schools into Florida for 2 years. So they hire more teachers etc. Then 2 years expires, and there isn't $100MM lying around anymore so the Republican governor has to 'fire teachers' that never could have been hired had the Feds not forced the money into the system in a manner that would not sustain itself.Cliffs: Republicans Rule, Dems Drool
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#42 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,246 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2011 - 04:11 PM

View Posthblask, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 5:22 PM, said:

No rational economist says this, since tax rates have a negligible effect on revenue. The best way to raise tax revenue is through pro-growth polices, and raising taxes is the opposite of that.But certainly no sane person can object to simplifying the tax code with an eye to eliminating the loopholes that are thinly veiled corporate welfare. Either side could win this debate convincingly by providing a plan that balanced the budget while eliminating "targeted tax breaks", i.e., corporate welfare, for the richest corporations. This could easily be sold to the public as "raising taxes on the richest Americans".Neither side will present a plan like that, because those loopholes are how they buy campaign contributions.
I think "opposite" is not accurate. Otherwise, lots of good points, and good debate from several people in this thread.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#43 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:26 PM

View PostRoll the Bones, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 2:59 PM, said:

So you would be mad if the Republicans caved and allowed our government to close loopholes for the rich, or even outright raised taxes on the very wealthy?
Classic Dem bully tactic. Everyone wants the tax code to be changed, I didn't say anything about this, nor did I imply that any Republicans had this as a core value. I mean, you read my post, right?

Quote

This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases?
This isn't just not true, but it's probably a borderline lie. I believe that you know that you're talking out of your ass here.*opening Principles of Microeconomics book sitting right next to me**Reading"Other things equal, a tax cut is more likely to raise tax revenue if the cut applies to those taxpayers facing the highest tax rates. Economists disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cnanot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the rtax chnage affects people's behavior."*Reading another economists book"What is the implication of this Dead-Weight Loss? When tax rates are low, raising them isn't harmful, and lowering them isn't beneficial. However, when rates are high, raising them is very harmful, and cutting them is very beneficial."http://en.wikipedia....ki/Laffer_curve"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing."The only way to reduce our debt is through economic growth, which is something taxation usually murders behind the warehouse down by the river.

Quote

It's all mind boggling insane that just the top 25 hedge fund managers get billions in low tax income that you or I don't. I mean really, if there is anything that has become very very glaringly obvious is that all these low taxes on the wealthy have not done a thing for the middle class, the deficit, this country or anything positive.
I don't care about hedge fund managers, and I'm totally in favor of having a simplified tax code.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#44 All_In

All_In

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,202 posts
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Poker, Golf, Poker, Guitar, Poker, etc...

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:33 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 11:03 AM, said:

NOW its the US.Before Obama is was all Bush's economy, Bush's war, Bush's fault.But now it the US problem, the US not able to recover, the US debt issue.Funny how you lefties are such hypocrites.And by Funny I mean pathetic.
and it's pathetic how simple and short-minded idiots like u r. it was bush who led america on this path. man, don't u feel like an idiot for being so clueless on EVERYTHING?
I don't need to be a global citizen because I'm blessed by nationality I'm member of a growing populace we enforce our popularity I feel sorry for the earth's population 'cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners can copy our morality they can visit but they cannot stay Only precious few can garner the prosperity it makes us walk with renewed confidence He's the farmers barren fields the force the army wields The expression in the faces of the starving millions The power of the man he's the fuel that drives the clan He's the motive and conscience of the murderer He's the preacher on t.v. the false sincerity The form letter that's written by the big computers He's the nuclear bombs and the kids with no moms

#45 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:34 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 9:26 PM, said:

*Reading another economists book"What is the implication of this Dead-Weight Loss? When tax rates are low, raising them isn't harmful, and lowering them isn't beneficial. However, when rates are high, raising them is very harmful, and cutting them is very beneficial."http://en.wikipedia....ki/Laffer_curve"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing."
The debate in economics is what the level of taxation is where the Laffer curve comes into play. Not even Laffer thinks that current levels of US taxation are close to that level.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#46 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:38 PM

View PostFCP Bob, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 8:34 PM, said:

The debate in economics is what the level of taxation is where the Laffer curve comes into play. Not even Laffer thinks that current levels of US taxation are close to that level.
I apologize, Mr. Laffer.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#47 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:52 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 5:58 PM, said:

My philosophical difference with the democrats is that I think the way the money is put to work by the private sector is more likely to have beneficial long term gains than the government taking huge chunks of it and delaying their returning of the money to the economy, then forcing it into a non-returning result. XYZ corp spends the money on new equipment, labor etc, they will continue to do so for years. XYZ corp creates a demand for ZYX Corp etc. Long term stability in the economy.
Much of it boils down to this; it's the difference between hiring someone to dig a hole and fill it back in or hiring someone to build a new computer chip that provides 30% more processing for 1/2 the price.Liberals tend to believe that the former is just as valuable to the economy as the latter, especially if the hole-digging job is union and pays above-market rates.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#48 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:15 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 7:58 PM, said:

Those billionaire hedge fund guys go out and buy $50MM homes, have them gutted and put 100 people to work changing the motif, then buy a dozen new cars, put in new silicone implants into at least 4 super models, gamble $1mm a year to make them feel good, tip cocktail waitresses crazy amounts of money etc.Their money goes back into the economy in ways that helps the economy a lot more than giving half of it to the government so they can pay off some political debt to a former Hillary Clinton pollster etc.
It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#49 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:23 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 8:15 PM, said:

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...
Seriously, it only stimulates the economy if you give it to millionaire campaign contributors like politicians do. Voluntary private exchanges aren't good for anything.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#50 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:21 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 9:15 PM, said:

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks.
These sentences reek (wreak? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#51 JubilantLankyLad

JubilantLankyLad

    you can't see me!

  • Members
  • 9,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in hiding
  • Favorite Poker Game:PANDA

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:45 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 8:21 PM, said:

This sentences reeks (wreaks? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.
Unless it's a Dairy Queen!
there were no special effects, no special effects.

#52 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:58 PM

View PostJubilantLankyLad, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 10:45 PM, said:

Unless it's a Dairy Queen!
Agreed. **** Dairy Queen owners.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#53 phlegm

phlegm

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,631 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 08:14 PM

Not sure how it could be done, but Id like to see the rich taxed in different catagories. When nephew Biff inherits 3 billion, then spends his life laying on the beach, then tax the shi t outta him.But when a rich guy is actively engaged in the economy, lay off.
I am not an alcoholic

I am a drunk

Alcoholics go to meetings

#54 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 11 July 2011 - 08:21 PM

View Postphlegm, on Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 12:14 AM, said:

Not sure how it could be done, but Id like to see the rich taxed in different catagories. When nephew Biff inherits 3 billion, then spends his life laying on the beach, then tax the shi t outta him.But when a rich guy is actively engaged in the economy, lay off.
Death / Estate tax

#55 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 08:33 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 11:21 PM, said:

Death / Estate tax
Exactly. We don't need family farms. If they inherit that shit, ****ing take it from them and give the land to a big corporation that can afford the tax.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#56 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:44 PM

View Posthblask, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 10:23 PM, said:

Seriously, it only stimulates the economy if you give it to millionaire campaign contributors like politicians do. Voluntary private exchanges aren't good for anything.
Nice comeback I guess, but your counter-example is obviously not what I'm talking about, and you kind of ignored my main point, which was that letting the rich and super-rich keep more of their money doesn't usually mean it will "trickle down" to the people who need it. Particularly in BG's examples. Campaign contributions are a bit of a non sequitur. I'm pretty sure we're talking about closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy, and whether or not letting them keep more of their money would have a "trickle down" effect. It's annoying when you respond to me and completely change the topic.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#57 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:53 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 11:21 PM, said:

These sentences reek (wreak? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.
Um, I wasn't saying it's bad to hire 12 people to build you a house, or that all casino owners are evil billionaires. I just don't think that "gambling" will stimulate the economy particularly. And car dealers that sell luxury cars to extremely wealthy individuals are all pretty wealthy themselves, and aren't really the ones who need "stimulating." I thought my point was pretty clear though. If a guy takes in $16m after taxes instead of $20m after taxes, he's still gonna buy cars and houses and tip waitresses. He's not, however, going to aid federal job programs or aid federal unemployment insurance or any of the other million positive things the federal government does with our tax dollars.Oh, and it's "reek." You had it right.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.

#58 El Guapo

El Guapo

    Like A Boss!

  • Members
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carmen's Flower

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:20 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Monday, July 11th, 2011, 7:15 PM, said:

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...
Plastic surgeons have a staff. They order supplies from a company that has employees, those supplies are constructed fronted materials purchased from another company, whom also has staff. That company has a CPA firm who has a staff of accountants. Those accountants have pay to go continuing education. They pay a compant to provide....do I need to keep going?

#59 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:29 PM

View Posttimwakefield, on Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 12:53 AM, said:

Um, I wasn't saying it's bad to hire 12 people to build you a house, or that all casino owners are evil billionaires. I just don't think that "gambling" will stimulate the economy particularly. And car dealers that sell luxury cars to extremely wealthy individuals are all pretty wealthy themselves, and aren't really the ones who need "stimulating." I thought my point was pretty clear though. If a guy takes in $16m after taxes instead of $20m after taxes, he's still gonna buy cars and houses and tip waitresses. He's not, however, going to aid federal job programs or aid federal unemployment insurance or any of the other million positive things the federal government does with our tax dollars.Oh, and it's "reek." You had it right.
He's already doing that indirectly through his tax dollars. And if he is religious and a republican, then on average, he gives a shit-ton of money to charity, which provides poor people all of those things but way more efficiently than government.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#60 timwakefield

timwakefield

    I haven't got the time time

  • Members
  • 14,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston
  • Favorite Poker Game:Boxmaha

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:47 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 2:29 AM, said:

He's already doing that indirectly through his tax dollars.
Right, and that's exactly what we're talking about: closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy and making them pay a larger amount of taxes than they may currently. They're still gonna get their girlfriend implants, which is obviously the only thing Guapo was worried about :club:. And they're still gonna buy fancy cars and houses.
Karl: She was a bit -- what's the word that you can use, cuz I don't wanna offend anyone?
Steve: Was she a homeless person?
Karl: Yeah but sort of mental homeless.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users