Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 USNORTHCOM

USNORTHCOM

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Nation Name:USNORTHCOM
  • Alliance Name:The Mafia

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:17 AM

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A

 

Discuss


Edited by USNORTHCOM, 13 October 2013 - 07:17 AM.


#2 Gopherbashi

Gopherbashi

    Sanction Race Updater

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Nation Name:Crisconia

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:39 AM

I saw this thread and thought it was a tirade against CN's Green Old Party.....



#3 Caladin

Caladin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Nation Name:Kaitain
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Caladin
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Ordo Paradoxia

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:42 AM

Same :P



#4 Lord GVChamp

Lord GVChamp

    Liberation is at hand

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,183 posts
  • Nation Name:Quanda
  • Alliance Name:GREEN TEAM!

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:15 AM

The House can determine its own rules for operating, as stated plainly in the Constitution. The House Resolution, adopted by the majority of the House, means that House MEMBERS cannot initiate a vote on a Senate amendment to a House bill. Only the Speaker of the House can initiate the vote, or someone he/she appoints.

 

You are confusing the rules  of Democrats vs. Republicans with the rules of the Constitution. That's YOUR problem, not a problem with the Constitution. 



#5 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:51 AM

The Senate has had this rule for a while. No discussion necessary.

The comments section on that video is abysmal, by the way. "Fire them all!" "Just the koch brothers being puppet masters again." "We are now an Oligarchy or Plutarchy, the repubs are lying cheating and robbing us." (yes, that is the way he tried to spell "plutocracy".)

And, my personal favorite: "If the rich and wealthy were taxed fairly we wouldn't have a deficit!"

Edited by Teddyyo, 13 October 2013 - 10:56 AM.


#6 Rozalia

Rozalia

    Former member of HoG

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,706 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Bedford
  • Alliance Name:Nuclear Proliferation League

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

And, my personal favorite: "If the rich and wealthy were taxed fairly we wouldn't have a deficit!"

 

:huh: I thought you supported such a thing. Keep rich folk's taxes "fair"/low so they can magically solve all the world's ills and all that.
Or are you telling me the rich should "unfairly" have some huge 90% tax rate? 

 

Yes I know what you & the poster meant but there was nothing all that wrong with that comment. 
 



#7 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:31 PM

 
:huh: I thought you supported such a thing. Keep rich folk's taxes "fair"/low so they can magically solve all the world's ills and all that.
Or are you telling me the rich should "unfairly" have some huge 90% tax rate? 
 
Yes I know what you & the poster meant but there was nothing all that wrong with that comment. 
 


There is something wrong with it: the taxes we get from the rich if we taxed even at 100% would be something like $700b. Whereas our deficit is...oh yeah, trillions.

#8 Rozalia

Rozalia

    Former member of HoG

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,706 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Bedford
  • Alliance Name:Nuclear Proliferation League

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

There is something wrong with it: the taxes we get from the rich if we taxed even at 100% would be something like $700b. Whereas our deficit is...oh yeah, trillions.

 

He would be talking about them being taxed "fairly" over a long period not simply now or recent years. If the past split off in that divergent path then different events would occur and there could indeed be no deficit. 
 



#9 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:48 PM

 
He would be talking about them being taxed "fairly" over a long period not simply now or recent years. If the past split off in that divergent path then different events would occur and there could indeed be no deficit. 
 


So...tax the rich 100%...???...deficit ends!

#10 KaiserMelech Mikhail

KaiserMelech Mikhail

    BEAT BAYLUH!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Marscurian Empire
  • Alliance Name:Orange Defense Network

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:00 PM

There is something wrong with it: the taxes we get from the rich if we taxed even at 100% would be something like $700b. Whereas our deficit is...oh yeah, trillions.

The projected deficit for 2013 was 755 billion dollars.  It is the debt which is in the trillions.  Too many people confuse the two.


Edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail, 13 October 2013 - 02:01 PM.


#11 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

The projected deficit for 2013 was 755 billion dollars.  It is the debt which is in the trillions.  Too many people confuse the two.


http://m.cbsnews.com...76&videofeed=43

Over a trillion. I know the difference.

#12 KaiserMelech Mikhail

KaiserMelech Mikhail

    BEAT BAYLUH!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Marscurian Empire
  • Alliance Name:Orange Defense Network

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

Then it's a good thing we were in the 2013 fiscal year.

http://www.bloomberg...ts-revenue.html



#13 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:22 PM

Actual numbers are better than projected, so that's why I picked 2012. Also because my statement was based off my knowledge of it being >1 tril

#14 Rozalia

Rozalia

    Former member of HoG

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,706 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Bedford
  • Alliance Name:Nuclear Proliferation League

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

So...tax the rich 100%...???...deficit ends!

 

Not what I said at all. The road not taken could have led to a more bountiful future was what I said to defend that comment you quoted.
 



#15 Teddyyo

Teddyyo

    They call me Mr. Teddyyo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,225 posts
  • Nation Name:DaSouth
  • Alliance Name:Europa

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

 
Not what I said at all. The road not taken could have led to a more bountiful future was what I said to defend that comment you quoted.
 


So, the government destroying the economy would have led to "a more bountiful future".

Because I don't see much economic growth in taxing the rich 100% and giving hand-outs.

#16 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,317 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:40 PM

I mean, the rich were taxed at like 80% during the 50s when the US economy was booming, but don't let that get in the way of trying to use theories based on false assumptions to determine policy as if we haven't already had empirical evidence which disproves your nonsense.

 

Not to say that such a thing could ever happen again without somebody like Hitler actually scaring the rich into wanting to help the general population.


Edited by Hereno, 13 October 2013 - 04:41 PM.


#17 Rozalia

Rozalia

    Former member of HoG

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,706 posts
  • Nation Name:Great Bedford
  • Alliance Name:Nuclear Proliferation League

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:41 PM

So, the government destroying the economy would have led to "a more bountiful future".

Because I don't see much economic growth in taxing the rich 100% and giving hand-outs.

 
Why are you equating the word "fair" to 100%? Unless you actually do see it as fair which would make you a scoundrel as you don't want such a thing, it'd be best if you stop putting words in my mouth.
As I've said the comment is valid and there is nothing wrong with it, and had the shoe been on the other foot (there had been a 100% tax rate) then that very comment would still have been just fine.
 

I mean, the rich were taxed at like 80% during the 50s when the US economy was booming, but don't let that get in the way of trying to use theories based on false assumptions to determine policy as if we haven't already had empirical evidence which disproves your nonsense.

The difference between then and today is the rich of that time knew/learnt they had to part with a slice of their wealth to keep things going. The ones of today see themselves as completely untouchable/invincible and so have little care.


Edited by Rozalia, 13 October 2013 - 04:47 PM.


#18 KainIIIC

KainIIIC

    whatCHA lookin' at?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Nation Name:Kainland
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 13 October 2013 - 05:04 PM

I mean, the rich were taxed at like 80% during the 50s when the US economy was booming, but don't let that get in the way of trying to use theories based on false assumptions to determine policy as if we haven't already had empirical evidence which disproves your nonsense.

 

Not to say that such a thing could ever happen again without somebody like Hitler actually scaring the rich into wanting to help the general population.

 

WROOOONG!

 

92%! We were basically communists then! (except we were fighting to kill the commies :P)



#19 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,317 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 13 October 2013 - 05:07 PM

WROOOONG!

 

92%! We were basically communists then! (except we were fighting to kill the commies :P)

 

Yeah and now look at us our president is a Kenyan socialist and our top tax level is like 42%

 

Clearly we need to raise taxes on the rich to defeat the commies :war:



#20 Mesteut

Mesteut

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,316 posts
  • Nation Name:Turkish Republic

Posted 13 October 2013 - 05:23 PM

KainIIIC, on 13 Oct 2013 - 19:08, said:

 

WROOOONG!

 

92%! We were basically communists then! (except we were fighting to kill the commies :P)

I occasionally wonder why nobody tries to think of a progressive taxation system that allows received income to diverge as the money you receive diverges. That way the percentage would keep increasing with revenue but you would always be able to make even more money.

 

I mean, if the revenue function was f® = r(g®) where g® is the rate of net income at revenue r, we would want df/dr > 0 for all r > 0, dg/dr < 0 and limf = inf. Clearly, any r^n such that 0>n>-1 works for g®.

 

i.e. ideal taxation should be power related. /discuss






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users