Support NeoGAF

[devilhawk]

i think its the doctors fault for accepting basically bribes from these companies for pushing the drugs on people, not advertising.

You need to hold doctors in higher regard than that. Theses 'bribes' have been severely limited in scope and expense in the past decade and the costs have still skyrocketed. Politicians have simply used legislation to pander to constituents when big pharm knows that it amounts to nothing.

Seriously. Those dicks spend far more on marketing and advertising than they do on drug development. But if you dare mention how expensive drugs are they'll whine endlessly about research & development costs.

Perscription advertising is wasteful, causes unnecessary self-diagnosis by people. If I can't buy the drug myself don't advertise it to me.

I did research for Eli Lilly and the ad expenses are not lost on the R&D guys. They bitched about it too.

 

[Hitokage]

AndyIsTheMoney: I can see where you're coming from, but much of it assumes that all business is small business. I'm not going to say how exactly, but I DO understand exactly how much work it takes to start a business and get it running. However, I've also been part of big business, and seen a company cut hours then congratulate its employees on increased profit by sharing a small fraction of the money they would have otherwise earned in the first place, seen how company policies can be completely contradictory to their defined mission, and I understand that it's no longer individuals who make these decisions, but a legally defined system. That's just it, really, and what drives the treatment of business as the bad guy. On the other hand, Republicans garner support by framing all business issues as small business, even when their idea of small is anything but.

Of course, you should take note that Obama has stated support for cutting capital gains taxes on small business.

 

[speculawyer]

the wealthiest of this country carry its tax burden. Im not stating this as being right or wrong, but they do.

Wait so we have the people with the money pay the taxes? That's crazy! Why don't we have the people with no money pay?

Oh wait . . . .

BTW, It is not the wealthy that pay . . . their is no 'wealth tax' . . . . it is the high income people (who often are wealthy too).

 

[Gruco]

The difference is a bit staggering lol But Americans want someone they can have a beer with. Good grief...

Anyone who rather have a beer with Crazy Old Man Who Can't Stop Talking About Being a POW than Guy Who Speaks Intelligently on Many Subjects deserves to have their beer privileges removed.

 

[AndyIsTheMoran]

damn you are clueless.. . . .try 14.4%

oh. so the people who own the business pay the taxes, then pay again when they pay themselves through their income. We tax the business as a separate entity, then tax the people after we tax the business.

and by taxing the business, who are we really taxing? we are taxing the owners and shareholders are we not? you know, they people who also pay a majority of the income taxes

 

[AndyIsTheMoran]

Wait so we have the people with the money pay the taxes? That's crazy! Why don't we have the people with no money pay?

Oh wait . . . .

BTW, It is not the wealthy that pay . . . their is no 'wealth tax' . . . . it is the high income people (who often are wealthy too).

your right, it is the people who have the money that pay, and everyone else gets the benefits. And yet you try to label the corporations and wealthy as the problem, when they support the government entitlement programs that you desire.

 

[Sleeker]

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2874.htm

 

[Hitokage]

and by taxing the business, who are we really taxing? we are taxing the owners and shareholders are we not? you know, they people who also pay a majority of the income taxes

Assets of an incorporated organization do not belong to its owners or its employees, they belong to the company. Acting otherwise has gotten many people into trouble over the years.

 

[Cloud]

oh. so the people who own the business pay the taxes, then pay again when they pay themselves through their income. We tax the business as a separate entity, then tax the people after we tax the business.

and by taxing the business, who are we really taxing? we are taxing the owners and shareholders are we not? you know, they people who also pay a majority of the income taxes

I can't take it anymore, you're the most annoying ignorant idiot in the world. You got owned by speculawyer and now you continue with your bullshit like we're supposed to feel pity for the rich. I'm rich you whiny annoying kid and I don't give a fuck. I've donated around 4000$ to Obama and Nader so that they can tax me more because I care about my country and not just about myself.

Now STFU with this fucking nonsense about the rich getting taxed because I can tell from experience that we can take it.

 

[speculawyer]

your right, it is the people who have the money that pay, and everyone else gets the benefits. .

The wealthy get benefits too. They get more benefits. Who benefits more from police and fire protection . . . the person with a $10 million mansion or the person in shotgun shack?

Who benefits more from the FAA? Joe Sixpack that flies maybe once a year? Or the Billionaire with a private jet?

Who benefits more from the SEC, FDIC, and bank regulators? Joe Sixpack with $4000 in his bank account and $10,000 in his IRA? Or the billionaire with billions in the market and banks?

Who benefits more from the legal system? The big business owner with 40 cases in court? Or JoeSixpack who does everything to stay out of court?

And yet you try to label the corporations and wealthy as the problem, when they support the government entitlement programs that you desire.

Excuse me? I am the wealthy. I do not view either the wealthy or corporations as a problem.

 

[Hitokage]

Sorry, you two, but lying won't get you anywhere. You both say you're wealthy but I'll be hard pressed to believe either of you make more than five million dollars a year.

 

[numble]

democrats=increase taxes on companies which is in turned passed down to the consumer through pricing being the same as if they increased taxes on everyone, also causing further outsourcing and less development...and spend
republicans=Borrow Money From China, Tax & Spend us into debt

damned either way i guess

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e212/Jedi631/FiscalConservatism.jpg

 

[speculawyer]

I can't take it anymore, you're the most annoying ignorant idiot in the world. You got owned by speculawyer and now you continue with your bullshit like we're supposed to feel pity for the rich. I'm rich you whiny annoying kid and I don't give a fuck. I've donated around 4000$ to Obama and Nader so that they can tax me more because I care about my country and not just about myself.

Now STFU with this fucking nonsense about the rich getting taxed because I can tell from experience that we can take it.

Exactly. For a party that dared to use 'Country First' as a slogan, they really seem to hate their government and refuse to pay taxes preferring to instead shift the burden to the next generation.

 

[Frank the Great]

oh. so the people who own the business pay the taxes, then pay again when they pay themselves through their income. We tax the business as a separate entity, then tax the people after we tax the business.

and by taxing the business, who are we really taxing? we are taxing the owners and shareholders are we not? you know, they people who also pay a majority of the income taxes

Do you have any historical evidence that taxing businesses results in economic hardship for everyone?

Because there is tons of evidence that letting the wealthy run free merely allows them to trample all over the lower classes and speculate them into oblivion (see; last 6 years.)

 

[speculawyer]

Sorry, you two, but lying won't get you anywhere. You both say you're wealthy but I'll be hard pressed to believe either of you make more than five million dollars a year.

:lol Yeah, I'm no where near that.

 

[Mandark]

Cloud: That's REALLY not helping anyone.

oh. so the people who own the business pay the taxes, then pay again when they pay themselves through their income. We tax the business as a separate entity, then tax the people after we tax the business.

and by taxing the business, who are we really taxing? we are taxing the owners and shareholders are we not? you know, they people who also pay a majority of the income taxes

Protip: Not all businesses are corporations.

Also, see that big chunk for "Social Insurance and Retirement"? That's a regressive tax on earned income which doesn't even touch returns on capital.

 

[LCGeek]

Exactly. For a party that dared to use 'Country First' as a slogan, they really seem to hate their government and refuse to pay taxes preferring to instead shift the burden to the next generation.

They are selfish sociopathic power mongers using lemmings to get what they want what do you expect, the idea of the future to them is meaningless someone else will pick up the tab inevitability regardless whether they want to or not.

 

[speculawyer]

Do you have any historical evidence that taxing businesses results in economic hardship for everyone?

Because there is tons of evidence that letting the wealthy run free merely allows them to trample all over the lower classes and speculate them into oblivion (see; last 6 years.)

There seems to be a weird loss of memory in this country on tax rates. Listening to the GOP, you'd think we must have been in permanant economic malaise when you consider the tax rates that were in place from the 1920s to the 1980s. But things were actually pretty good during most of those times. I don't want to adopt the European model . . . but for fuck's sake, let's at least pay our bills. We gotta stop these deficits. Even Greenspan came out against Mcain's numbers. (I think he feels guilty . . . as he should . . . for not speaking out against the Bush fiscal irresponsibility enough.)

 

[Hitokage]

They are selfish sociopathic power mongers using lemmings to get what they want what do you expect, the idea of the future to them is meaningless someone else will pick up the tab inevitability regardless whether they want to or not.

No, not really. Many of them sincerely believe their policies will result in everyone's betterment, even if they don't realize that what's good for them may not be good for everyone else, not to mention that it's even arguably not good for them in the long term.

There seems to be a weird loss of memory in this country on tax rates. Listening to the GOP, you'd think we must have been in permanant economic malaise when you consider the tax rates that were in place from the 1920s to the 1980s. But things were actually pretty good during most of those times. I don't want to adopt the European model . . . but for fuck's sake, let's at least pay our bills. We gotta stop these deficits. Even Greenspan came out against Mcain's numbers. (I think he feels guilty . . . as he should . . . for not speaking out against the Bush fiscal irresponsibility enough.)

As I said earlier, Clinton is the evil man who supposedly gave us the largest tax increase in history, resulting in a crippled economy and millions left eating their shoes for sustenance. Contrary to the teachings of voodoo economics, there are far more variables to an economy than tax rates, and one of these is government investment funded by taxes.

 

[Huzah]

Educational resume of all 4 candidates...



The difference is a bit staggering lol But Americans want someone they can have a beer with. Good grief...

Palin aside, don't marginlize McCain's qualifications for candidacy by just using a comparison of education.

 

[Cloud]

Cloud: That's REALLY not helping anyone.

It helps ME because sometimes when I read this thread I want to explode. He spews his ignorant bullshit over this thread and when he gets cornered he either goes around the point or completely ignores it. Watch him do the same with Frank the Great's post like he did with speculawyer. I wish I were as calm as you but I'm not and the latest polls are making it worse for me. It's people like him who ignore any facts given to them that vote for these lying GOP scumbags.

 

[Frank the Great]

As I said earlier, Clinton is the evil man who supposedly gave us the largest tax increase in history, resulting in a crippled economy and millions left eating their shoes for sustenance.

"Clinton handed Bush a recession!"-Hannity

 

[Mandark]

No, not really. Many of them sincerely believe their policies will result in everyone's betterment, even if they don't realize that what's good for them may not be good for everyone else.

Disagree.

Conservatives might think lower taxes and less regulation lets corporations create more jobs, but the more important meme is capitalism as a meritocracy.

It's not that they don't think there will be losers. It's that they think the losers get what they deserve.

 

[Frank the Great]

By the way, I'm reading a book called The Urban Crucible, about Boston/NYC/Philly BEFORE the American Revolution.

It's pretty hilarious how at the onset of capitalism, people were having the exact same arguments. During recession, the wealthy of the cities were arguing to not be taxed or regulated, while the dying and starving poor and laboring classes were being destroyed. Once town hall meetings and popular elections started happening, the conservative rich resorted to attacking the character of their opponents to get the laborers to vote against their economic interest, and even told the laborers themselves that they were lazy and should work harder and don't deserve any help. The issues were different, such as public banks and paper money, but the arguments were the same.

I can't wait until the day that Americans recognize that capitalism does not work for everyone and we all really work on trying to fix it, instead of half the country (mostly poor) being hoodwinked and in denial.

 

[Hitokage]

Disagree.

Conservatives might think lower taxes and less regulation lets corporations create more jobs, but the more important meme is capitalism as a meritocracy.

It's not that they don't think there will be losers. It's that they think the losers get what they deserve.

...and losers are better off getting what they deserve! I suppose I should have said "society's" rather than "everyone's".

 

[Mandark]

I wish I were as calm as you but I'm not and the latest polls are making it worse for me.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

your right, it is the people who have the money that pay, and everyone else gets the benefits. And yet you try to label the corporations and wealthy as the problem, when they support the government entitlement programs that you desire.

Your dad seems like a decent guy. It's too bad he works so damn hard that he doesn't seem to have the time to set you straight on economics.

In purely pragmatic terms, the overall wealth of a country and the wellbeing of its people is decided on the basis of how well money circulates.

Taxing the wealthy more, helps circulate more cash, while creating an empowered middle class, also, helps circulate more cash. An empowered middle class, also means more opportunities for the middle class, which means the lower class will have more opportunities to move up as well.

When you have money for the middle class, the money flows up. Middle class are much more likely to spend a larger portion of their income than upperclass will. Ergo, with more money going into the economy; the upper class will get richer as they own the production elements, and in turn returning the favour by increasing employment opportunities in turn leading to more middle class.

It's a good feedback system... and even if the upperclass are taxed a higher portion of their income, they'll make that back and then some in strong economy. In the mean time, many many more people are helped out and become better off, than in a system where the upperclass keeps a greater portion of their money, and spend less of it (because they've already filled most of their needs and wants; what else can they do? Buy more luxuries, which... tend to benefit mainly, upperclass business owners).

Don't think of the money that flows through your hands as all yours. Some of it is certainly for you, but some of it must be returned so that the flow can continue to be healthy.

Of course, there are limits to that balance... but they haven't been reached yet. Far from it.

Certainly, I don't believe your own dad would've ever had the chance to make it big, if he couldn't meet the basic needs of his family... so why deny many people that opportunity by reducing the flow of money and increasing their tax burden?

 

[Huzah]

There seems to be a weird loss of memory in this country on tax rates. Listening to the GOP, you'd think we must have been in permanant economic malaise when you consider the tax rates that were in place from the 1920s to the 1980s. But things were actually pretty good during most of those times. I don't want to adopt the European model . . . but for fuck's sake, let's at least pay our bills. We gotta stop these deficits. Even Greenspan came out against Mcain's numbers. (I think he feels guilty . . . as he should . . . for not speaking out against the Bush fiscal irresponsibility enough.)

It's a global marketplace today that we are competing in. There's no soviet bloc of economic black holes, a mao zedong controlled china, or an europe zone ravaged by world wars and instability that allowed the US to be the leader in the global marketplace historically.

The question is, growth is slowing rapidly, companies are hurting and cutting jobs, raising taxes on these companies will only hurt them further.

 

[Mandark]

It's a global marketplace today that we are competing in.

But countries don't compete economically! They trade with each other!

This was one of Adam Smith's central insights, right? The one that differentiates capitalism from mercantilism?

 

[LCGeek]

No, not really. Many of them sincerely believe their policies will result in everyone's betterment, even if they don't realize that what's good for them may not be good for everyone else, not to mention that it's even arguably not good for them in the long term.As I said earlier, Clinton is the evil man who supposedly gave us the largest tax increase in history, resulting in a crippled economy and millions left eating their shoes for sustenance. Contrary to the teachings of voodoo economics, there are far more variables to an economy than tax rates, and one of these is government investment funded by taxes.

That's the problem with some of them they don't acknowledge their beliefs lead to their own demise or conflict. To avoid certain types of heated go nowhere discussion I never get in to it with people about certain political or business figures. Most will never believe the shit I went through this past year for knowing certain info and even now it lingers in my mind in topics like this. Clintons are evil for reasons outside of their political doings rather what they do to keep their power.

You and people like specularlawyer enjoy a perspective of influence or perception most never will. Despite going against my own teachings of treating things from a unique view I'm left with a permanent view of the elite worldwide that will never change for the foreseeable future. If it wasn't for a few good examples among them at times throughout history I think I would go nuts about the way the future of our species is heading very soon.

 

[Hitokage]

You and people like specularlawyer enjoy a perspective of influence or perception most never will.

First of all, I am not wealthy.

Second, I grew up an archconservative, and I don't like to think of myself as evil during that time, just horribly misguided.

 

[Huzah]

But countries don't compete economically! They trade with each other!

This was one of Adam Smith's central insights, right? The one that differentiates capitalism from mercantilism?

Sadly the world is not as idealistic as Adam Smith's vision. Countries have nice things like different tax systems that distorts marketplaces to produce winners and losers, just like the US has a tax system that also produces winners and losers.

Some more info: http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=archives_wachtel_distortion

Also I like to add trading between nations involve moving goods not capital.

 

[Hitokage]

Also I like to add trading between nations involve moving goods not capital.

Then what the hell do we have Japan for?

 

[Huzah]

Then what the hell do we have Japan for?

I do not understand what you're asking. Clarify?

 

[Hitokage]

I do not understand what you're asking. Clarify?

Electronics are capital.

 

[Huzah]

Electronics are capital.

Certain forms of electronics are capital goods, true, but modern day capital is more in the form of financial, human, and intellectual. I think my main point is, to clarify, is that countries compete for capital against each other which is different from trading goods with each other. You can have a competition of capital without even trading with each other.

 

[Hitokage]

...and those aren't traded?

 

[LCGeek]

First of all, I am not wealthy.

Second, I grew up an archconservative, and I don't like to think of myself as evil during that time, just horribly misguided.

I meant more than wealth, fair point.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

First of all, I am not wealthy.

Second, I grew up an archconservative, and I don't like to think of myself as evil during that time, just horribly misguided.

Pretty close to my best friends life growing up.

His dad is a 700 Club, Assembly of God church goer, FoxNews watcher, and diehard Republican.

My friend is a pothead, Democrat, and agnostic rationalist. I never really had much of a religious background. I went to a Methodist church a few times. I've studied about every faith under the sun, but none really stuck.

His family seems to be taking it hard since they found out he's a Democrat. They've been sending him those emails lately.

He's agitated.

 

[Huzah]

...and those aren't traded?

I think you're stretching the word trade to something its not. I've always heard the word trade in economics to refer to goods and services. You trade goods and services because you specialize to gain efficiency to be able to produce and satisfy more wants overall. I don't see how you can stretch the concept of trade to encompass capital. Where have you seen the term of trade in reference to capital movements?

 

[Hitokage]

Trade is pretty basic. I give you something, you give me something in return. This may include hardware, machines, equipment, or schematics for making widgets that give blowjobs. All are capital, but they may also be goods.

 

[syllogism]

Obama raised $66m in August. This obviously does not include the "$10m" raised during republican convention. New ad: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisadministration_ad/

e: also, Rasmussen has now changed their weighting targets so expect Mccain to stay ahead for a while at the very least

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ighting_targets_38_7_democrat_33_6_republican

 

[typhonsentra]

Obama raised $66m in August

e: also, Rasmussen has now changed their weighting targets so expect Mccain to stay ahead for a while at the very least

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ighting_targets_38_7_democrat_33_6_republican

There are McCain ads all over the site too. I know you can't just claim bias but those weights seem fucking ridiculous to me given the voter drives that have occurred in the past few months.

 

[Huzah]

Trade is pretty basic. I give you something, you give me something in return. This may include hardware, machines, equipment, or schematics for making widgets that give blowjobs. All are capital, but they may also be goods.

Again, those are capital goods that can be traded, but things like natural capital, human capital, social capital, financial capital, etc. can not be traded in the normal sense. But this is really just of tangent, and I'm not an expert on it so let's just let it be.

Back to my main point, Adam Smith proposed that trade between nations is a win win situation due to satisfying mutual wants

Capital can move from one nation to another nation producing a win lose situation.

 

[Hitokage]

"Natural capital"? Ok, you really need to go back and relearn these terms properly.

 

[sprsk]

Obama raised $66m in August. This obviously does not include the "$10m" raised during republican convention. New ad: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisadministration_ad/

e: also, Rasmussen has now changed their weighting targets so expect Mccain to stay ahead for a while at the very least

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ighting_targets_38_7_democrat_33_6_republican

Ehhh, Ramussen proved itself pretty useless during the primaries...

 

[Guileless]

If you're trying to tell me that a Dem. administration would have resulted in the Iraq mess we're in now, then you're a lying fuck.

I'm not trying to tell you anything, just reminding you what Sen. Biden has said on the subject. Why are y'all so vituperatively scornful towards me when I just quote what he said? He went on all the shows in '02 and forcefully argued for the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. I'm not making it up or selectively quoting him.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

... natural capital...

Uh... you meant land, right?

 

[Huzah]

Uh... you meant land, right?

I'm not using the classical factors of production for my definition of capital.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

I'm not using the classical factors of production for my definition of capital.

Which definition are you using in that case?