Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/8/07 01:38 AM, Elfer wrote:

Actually, it kind of does. You claim that there's benefits associated with top level tax cuts, but they don't manifest themselves in the actual data. Even with all the noise, the range is fairly consistent. If there were real effects, that pocket of activity should change with the tax cuts, but it doesn't. Even if overarching economic effects have blurred out any potential effects, that still means that you have failed to show any evidence for your opinion.

The fact that my hypothesis isn't backed up by the graph doesn't mean my opinion is wrong; it could easily be do to the fact that all of the factors of economics are far to broad and far reaching to record on a graph measuring two statistics. Furthermore, the differences between lowered taxes and an Idealistic nation of next-to-nothing taxes is different.

Finally, if you can find a reliable version of number one that measures GNP instead of GDP, I would be abliged.

You know, when you get right down to it, a great deal of macroeconomics is largely without merit. That's why two different economists can look at the same data and come to completely opposite conclusions, depending on who's paying them.

Yet I doubt either of us are being paid off by Sony, so I think we can both assume that neither of our opinions are biased by anything but logic.

Precisely, lowering the tax rate had no visible effects, either aggravating or mitigating. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that there is no significant trend in general. I'm willing to bet that if you recreated the graph and performed the analysis on it, the error on the slope would have a range from positive to negative, meaning you couldn't even tell if it's an upward or downward trend.

Yet, once again, the vast ranges of economics can't be captured on a simplified growth. It may claim that yearly income isn't raised, but what about economic security, stuff like that?

And, of course, the graph could be wrong =/

No, it didn't. There is no trend visible in the data. If the variation after a tax cut is in the same range as the variation at the previous tax level, and we see a lot of spikes and troughs when the tax rate is kept constant, then it means that we can't draw a conclusion from the data.

All I noticed is that when it had already been going down, the lowering of taxes lowered the slope.

I didn't say that. What I said is that there's no trend that supports your opinion. I haven't said shit about spikes, in fact, I've claimed that the spikes and troughs are meaningless. Try to read and understand next time.
When did I say anything about spikes being in my favour? I haven't. All I've been saying is that there's no trend. The people who have been talking about spikes associated with certain events are NOT ME, it's been people who don't know how to tell the difference between "trend," "correlation," and "noise."

But you DID use the graphs to "prove" I was wrong, when they don't "prove" anything at all; they basically say "we have no fucking clue".

My exact wording was "Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates."
Does that sound to you like I was trying to claim that spikes or troughs that agree with my conclusion had any meaning?

You did use the graph itself to support your conclusion. Whilst we're on the "rhetorical question" train; when did I use the term "spike and troughs"?

Here's how my argument works, put in terms so simple even a moron could understand them:
- There are drawbacks to decreased government income. This is obvious, because less government income means less funding for public programs of any sort, including education, public safety, military etc. Again, this is obvious, apparent, and undeniable, so try to remember this for later on.

No, it isn't "undeniable". If the government couldn't keep kicking us around and wasting OUR money, if they had a finnit amound of funds which they couldn't go over, do you think they would still fund bullshit social programs knowing THEY would be paying for it, not us? A decrease in taxes would lead to the same amount of police funding, since the police would get an increased percent of a decreased portion.

- People who support trickle down economics claim that there are certain benefits to dropping the top tax rate.
- Upon inspection, these alleged benefits fail to manifest themselves in a discernible manner.

Because the core of SSE has failed to manifest itself at all; even "lowered" taxes charged huge amounts.

And, once again, you've only shown 2 biased graphs from the same person. I could find graphs by Joe Bushite saying the opposite, but we both know that wouldn't actually prove anything.

Therefore, slashing the top tax rate has obvious drawbacks and no demonstrable advantages, therefore trickle down economics is a load of rhetorical bullshit.
Can you understand that? I know that when I was trying to use complicated things like graphs or words like "trend" that you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about, so this should make it obvious. If you can't read this last post without getting confused, there's no hope for you.

Brilliant; my argument is wrong because your selective graphs said that it can't be proven. Then you go off with statements that also can't be proven and throw them around like facts.

At 10/7/07 07:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: stuff

Wow, no wonder he called my post "senseless"; the fool is actually in support of taxing citizens so much money that every taxpayer in the U.S is below the poverty line. This is where I would make a "typical liberal post", but I've met typical liberals; they're nice people, and their support of higher taxes doesn't extend into the pure stupidity of actually supporting the U.S government stealing so much money from their people that Joe American can't feed himself.

Soviet Russia, anyone?

At 10/7/07 07:35 PM, Begoner wrote:

Are you referring to the purchasing of foreign bonds? That accounts for a minute portion of government expenditures and is far outweighed by the amount we borrow in the form of treasury bonds.

Man, that would sure be a legitimate point if I hadn't gone on @_@

Ah, so if we give Bill Gates millions of dollars in tax rebates, he'll finally be able to afford that food he's been craving but just didn't have the funds to purchase before? Get real. On the other hand, the government invests in such areas that can help Joe Civilian, such as education, transportation, law and order, and health-care.

Bill Gates already buys food and water. Lowered taxes will lead him to spend more on charity, spend more on his company (more time invested in Xbox means more money to shareholders), buy new fancy cars, and the likes. Once again, the average american doesn't hide their money in the shoe drawer; they spend it, they invest it, or they lend it.

At 10/6/07 10:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

Unfortunately for your case, the government doesn't hoard its money; otherwise, it wouldn't be running a budget deficit, now would it? No, it spends its money, just like other economic entities.

The government invests it's money in other nations, which does the people no good, and it spends money on certain industries; indeed, the military-industrial corporations are booming, but grocery stores aren't.

Applying your "trickle-down" logic, everybody will benefit from this government spending as much as they would benefit from Bill Gates spending the money.

No, they won't, because Bill Gates buys things like cars, food, and water, whilst the government buys things like space lasers. A strong space laser market doesn't help Joe Civillian; a strong chain of supermarkets does.

Hell, you know what you be a genial idea? Let's give all our tax money to Bill Gates himself and see the economy lifted to dizzying heights by your airtight logic!

Because then we would have an anarchy; Bill Gates doesn't fund the police force, fire departments, or other vital things the government supplies.

By the way, before professing to know something about economics, it would be helpful if you read some books on the topic -- there are intellectual arguments for supply-side economics, which, although flawed, are far superior to your senseless drivel.

You're pathetic. You disagree with my point, so you label it as "senseless drivel" by applying absolutely moronic leaps of knowledge; like, for example, point blank denying that civilians buy different things then the government.

At 10/6/07 10:46 PM, Elfer wrote:

First of all, this is exactly what I was saying: the graphs don't show any sort of trend, therefore the presumed benefits of trickle-down economics aren't really manifesting themselves.

Exactly. They aren't shown, no conclusion is given either way. Guess what? That's doesn't make me wrong. By that logic, you could prove that all of Economic study is completely without merit, since it can hardly be captured on a graph measuring a single part of it.

As for the second one supporting your conclusion, please learn to read a graph, please learn what a trend is, and please, PLEASE learn about variance and deviation from the mean

Why not take your own advice? The fact that the graph was always going downward in general doesn't show that raised taxes weakened the economy; that just shows the economy got worse. What IS relevent is that the graph went down less harshly, or in some cases ROSE, when the tax's were lowered. That's like showing a graph; the Health of an aid's victim as well as the level of treatment he was receiving. Since the begaining of the graph the health dropped dramatically, however the health decreased less sharply when treatment was increased. This would not, as you seem to think, mean that treatment caused a loss in health, it means the opposite.

I seriously don't know where the fuck you people are coming from who have no idea to interpret data, but let me put it like this: Since similar spikes and troughs occur when the tax rate remains constant, a spike or trough that coincides with a change in the tax rate is meaningless, because it is within the same range of results that occur independently of any change in tax rates.
If you can't understand that sentence, you don't have the data analysis skills required to form an opinion on economics. Sorry.

And you're moronic logic seems to be this; "When a spike supports your opinion, it's a coincidence. However, many spikes go against your opinion. Therefore, you're wrong"

You're like that bratty kid on the basketball court who keeps calling all the shots "luck", then won't shut the fuck up when you score a three pointer.

At 10/7/07 12:56 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

But free will isn't without it's limits. God gave us SOME free will (for example, I can't dematerialize or for that matter see god just because it's my will), but chose what limits there should be. So he made it impossible for us to dematerialize, but not to sin. See where I'm going?
Also, read the following:

...Are you fucking daft? Go look up 'Free Will", come back, and write me a 1 paragraph essay on how stupid it was of you to think that you can't dematerialize do to "Free Will" as opposed to "basic fucking physics".

At 10/7/07 11:38 AM, jfella91 wrote:

Gotta love the non-christian mentallity; God gave us freedom, therefor it's totally not our faults when we commit sin.

At 10/7/07 03:27 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: They really hype up those casualties. We have been in Iraq for what? 5 years now? And only 3,000 have died. Come on. Thats peepee caca. I'm not saying that American soldiers lives are meaningless, buts its just 3000. In 5 years. Not even a thousand a year. And some people want to pull back because of losses? Get real.

Actually, it's 1,220,580; 1,220,580 people have died. The fact that a so many non-U.S personell keeps dying plays a part too.

K, Elfer: Number 1 seems inconclussive; the results seem to support both sides. It seems like economic turns that don't correlate whatsoever to taxation impacts the graph far to badly for it to really show anything. And it seems like number two supports my statement; the times when tax goes lower, the blue sees a spike.

2 and 4 fall into the whole "If rich people save money, they'll give a raise to all their employee's" bullshit that I never believed.

At 10/6/07 09:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

1) How much of it should go to the government, as my duty as an american citizen

As small of a portion as is possible for the government to function

2) What should this money be used for?

Paying workers such as the President, but sure as hell not weak social programs and useless pork.

3) How much of it is going to benefit me based on number 2

Ideally, all of it; a governments action should always benefit it's people.

At 10/6/07 09:27 PM, Begoner wrote:

According to your own imbecilic logic, it doesn't matter if you give a rich guy or the government your money, since everyone will benefit from it. You just refuted your own "argument." Congratulations.

Use your fucking head; I said it doesn't matter "who get's it", as in it doesn't matter which citizen get's the money. The non-fucktarded realize that the U.S Government isn't a fucking person. It doesn't buy food to sustain itself, it doesn't buy toilets to shit. In short, it doesn't boost economy by spending. Anyone who isn't diliberately bipassing logic to make a non-existent point would see that theres a massive difference between the statement of 'It doesn't matter which citizen gets the money, since the increased spending will stimulate the economy' and 'It doesn't matter if the government gets everyones money and then just hordes it'. If "whoever" applied to inanimate objects or idea's, then no shit that would be a bad statement; "It doesn't matter if a paper shredder got 200 bucks, that would be good for the economy!"

I say grant them a temporary pass until the soldiers term expires.

At 10/1/07 02:24 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 9/29/07 09:10 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Immigration Testing is a kick in the face to everybody

There's one thing you need to test;

English Competency

That's it folks.

They do test that.

At 10/2/07 11:33 PM, Elfer wrote:

Ok then, you're just confusing supply and demand. They're different.

No, I'm not. The two are a duelty; increase demand, and you increase production.

So you created a topic "teaching" us about trickle-down economics, then you say you don't want to comment on it until you've researched it?

I don't want to comment on your graphs until I research them. Nice spin.

Then you just claim that you "could" cite sources showing evidence in favour of trickle-down economics, then fail to do so? Weak.

I could cite sources claiming that supply-side economics leads to a direct increase of homosexuality. The point is that what matters isn't whether or not you bring up supporting evidence, but whether or not that evidence is actually valid. Hence why I want time to actually look at your graphs, analyze them, and research any other sources to deny or support them.

Yes, exactly. By giving Bill Gates an extra five million to stuff into his sock drawer, you don't help anybody out, because he's already got enough money to buy everything he wants. He has enough money to shoot you in front of a cop, shit on your corpse, and still spend the rest of the day playing tennis with your naked girlfriend. Giving him even more money isn't going to make him say "Ah yes, now I can finally get that new dishwasher."

Yet somehow when he makes more money, he still uses it. Like I said (and I believe you did two), rich people DON'T have discresionary funding, they DON'T put 5 million in a sock drawer. They invest it, they donate it, they lend it to banks, they do things with it. I'm sure there are a few nuts that keep millions in a piggy banks, but they in no way represent a large enough amount of people to actually dent the theory.

Consumption is not production. Going out and buying shit is an increase in demand, not supply. Supply-side economics is about increasing production through direct incentives for production, not increasing production by increasing demand.

No; going put and buying shit is increasing supply. No one goes "Woo-hoo, my first car sale, time to close the lot forever!". They sell a car, so they make another one to replace it. The workers who made the car get compensated, at which point THEY buy things, etc. As long as we live in a nation with enough wealth that any whim of the public can be seen to, demand will always mean supply. In supply side economics, by lowering taxes and needless government intrusion, people are free to spend their money as they please.

At 10/2/07 11:01 PM, Elfer wrote: First of all, you're confusing supply-side economics with demand-side economics,

No, I'm not; Keynesian economics would support a HIGH level of taxation, as well as a high level of Government funding to encourage economic growth.

then you're conflating it with trickle-down economics.

They go nicely.

Trickle-down economics is bullshit, by the way. It works in rhetoric, but not in reality.

I could also site sources saying they do; I don't want to respond to this until I have time to really study it.

This is likely because the wealthy elite do not live lives of constrained discretionary spending. There's nobody saying, "Name brand peanut butter? Honey, you know that we have higher taxes because our income is in the millions!"

Exactly; the rich don't have discretionary spending; if they did, the point would be moot; the lower class doesn't benefit from Bill Gates having 5,000,000 dollars in his sock drawer. It's the rich going out, spending money, buying yachts, creating SUPPLY that fuels supply-side economics.

Hello, class room; today I come here to explain a subject in which liberals tend to be overwhelmingly ignorant; supply side economics. Now, you may be asking yourself; what IS supply side economics? Supply Side Economics (or SSE) is a theory that a bloated, overfunded government institution psuedo sociallism on businesses actually HURTS, not HELPS, our economy. With supply side economics, a government, instead of taxing it's citizens to all holy hell, would instead lower taxes to a complete minimum, hence creating more money, hence encouraging spending, hence improving the economy, hence making more money, hence starting the circle over. Now, a common counter to this is "what about the lower class"? Certainly, as the upper class are the most biasedly taxed, wouldn't it benifit THEM when taxes are at an all time low, especially when it isn't them who rely on government aid? Of course. And this is where trickle-down economics comes in; it's a belief that when rich CEO's get richer, everyone get's happier. Let's say I make 5 million a year, and now I barely pay anything in taxes; this means I have more money, which means, besides investing it in further business opertunities, they will also spend more on consumer goods; we're back to Supply Side Economics. By spending all this money, he's increasing the economy, making it better. And that's the genius of it; it doesn't matter WHO get's the money, since either way EVERYONE benefits from it. One of the main ideals of Communism, except without the actual communism. By giving that rich guy money over the poor guy, the poor guy will enjoy a healthy, re-energized economic gain.

wait, you say we should invade iraq?

WHAT IS THIS MADNESS?!?!?!

asshole

At 9/16/07 11:16 PM, TheReno wrote: Ok I had my laugh. I made it all up. lol.

Is that what you really want me to say?

Lol, what an asshole. he spouts off a bunch of falsities, makes blatantly made up excuses, then lies and say's he was joking the whole time. what a bloody tool.

At 9/16/07 10:10 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 9/16/07 09:38 PM, Q-Pac wrote: the chances honestly aren't that high; the media has obviously shown itself to have a pro-liberal bias, and by increasing the number of deaths in "bushes" war (you know, the one he didn't even start?), it will appear to be more of a failure.

Wait, what??? I must have heard wrong.

At 9/16/07 09:38 PM, Q-Pac wrote: . . . you know, the one he didn't even start? . . .

Care to run that one by me again?

Fine; the President doesn't have the power to declare war, only congress does. The president supported the war, and the congress declared it.

At 9/16/07 10:30 PM, TheReno wrote:

In a sence yes. Philisophicaly not really/

no, it's been proven wrong, period.

Read through a post's awnsers be froe responding.

i did. it's from an anime.

Yes it is. In the later years it is.

no. it isn't. Energy Conservation is a theory of physics, not alchemy.

As long as I still get my waffles, I'm fine =p

At 9/16/07 05:27 PM, DariusR wrote: This amendment loopholes itself, guns can defend people but it also used to kill people. Never allowing arms in the first place would have decreased this type of violence significantly.

Never having allowed arms would have left us vulnerable to attack.

At 9/16/07 05:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Wait...

Don't people have to graduate highschool or get an equivalence diploma to enlist in the British military? I could swear that I've heard this multiple times from British people as some sort of proof that their military accepts more educated people than the US military.

(Never minding that the US military actually does require highschool or equivalent diplomas)

Ha, no shit? That was one of the only reasons I graduated highschool, so I can join the military. Gotta love the British fetish with shoving their advantages in our noses, even when we have the exact same 'advantage' ourselves =p

the chances honestly aren't that high; the media has obviously shown itself to have a pro-liberal bias, and by increasing the number of deaths in "bushes" war (you know, the one he didn't even start?), it will appear to be more of a failure.

At 9/13/07 11:08 PM, TheReno wrote: An intresting view for you to consider. I think that we should bring back the philosophies that were the bases for Alchemy.

the ones that got proven wrong?

Like Equivilant Exhange

thats from a cartoon.

or Energy conversion/consumption.

that's not in alchemy.