Nausi said: »
Scotch is like gasoline though.
So much smokiness and peat you'll think you're there licking a bonfire in Scotland.
Just the way I like it.
Random Politics & Religion #22 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #22
Nausi said: » Scotch is like gasoline though. So much smokiness and peat you'll think you're there licking a bonfire in Scotland. Just the way I like it. No I mean it just burns, it's too "hot". There's not enough flavor to offset it.
Viciouss said: » Indeed, it is wrong to try to ram through tax reform in a partisan way, and likely doomed to fail. yeah just like the ACA Viciouss said: » Yes we all know how it is supposed to work on paper, however, in the real world, tax cuts rarely if ever pay for themselves. Hell, the Kennedy tax cuts paid for itself. Bush's tax cuts almost paid for itself by the end of his term, only problem was the Great Recession. Which would have been much better than Reagan's cuts would have done in the same period. Obama's tax increase, however, has been shown to hurt the economy more than help it (hi2u tepid growth, at the absolute best). So, please, go study economics before you profess any knowledge in it. Nausi said: » No I mean it just burns, it's too "hot". There's not enough flavor to offset it. Err. Really? I mean. If you're drinking Cutty maybe. You said you've had quality, but single malts or blends? I'm not big on blends. I mean, they're okay, but even moderate high-end blends don't distinguish themselves from lower-end to me (I've never had JW Blue or any other ultra-high-end blend, admittedly). But man. A good single malt is almost *all* flavor. So little burn in, for instance, that Ardbeg up there. Ramyrez said: » Nausi said: » No I mean it just burns, it's too "hot". There's not enough flavor to offset it. Err. Really? I mean. If you're drinking Cutty maybe. You said you've had quality, but single malts or blends? I'm not big on blends. I mean, they're okay, but even moderate high-end blends don't distinguish themselves from lower-end to me (I've never had JW Blue or any other ultra-high-end blend, admittedly). But man. A good single malt is almost *all* flavor. So little burn in, for instance, that Ardbeg up there. My father drinks the stuff, he loves glenlivit. I assume that's a decent brand. I cannot enjoy it, on ice or not. Even when the ice waters it down a bit, it's just too hot. I mean I can more readily enjoy Bacardi 151
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Viciouss said: » Yes we all know how it is supposed to work on paper, however, in the real world, tax cuts rarely if ever pay for themselves. Hell, the Kennedy tax cuts paid for itself. Bush's tax cuts almost paid for itself by the end of his term, only problem was the Great Recession. Which would have been much better than Reagan's cuts would have done in the same period. Obama's tax increase, however, has been shown to hurt the economy more than help it (hi2u tepid growth, at the absolute best). So, please, go study economics before you profess any knowledge in it. I figured you would pop in with some witty reply that nobody cares about and has no relevance to the current situation. I don't care if you and nausi think tax cuts pay for themselves, that option is not on the table. They have to figure out a way to offset them, which of course is going to be on Congress because Trump doesn't have a clue. Just like his proposed budget and his border wall, its a fantasy, a wishlist at best. He doesn't actually know how to pay for them. Ramyrez said: » Nausi said: » No I mean it just burns, it's too "hot". There's not enough flavor to offset it. Err. Really? meh... more scotch for us then. courvoisier is pretty smooth for transitioning to hard liquor... I haven't tried the sam adams utpoia... *** taxes! let's get riggity riggity wrecked son! YouTube Video Placeholder
Still, he can never be right said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » That wrong guy said: » Yes we all know how it is supposed to work on paper, however, in the real world, tax cuts rarely if ever pay for themselves. Hell, the Kennedy tax cuts paid for itself. Bush's tax cuts almost paid for itself by the end of his term, only problem was the Great Recession. Which would have been much better than Reagan's cuts would have done in the same period. Obama's tax increase, however, has been shown to hurt the economy more than help it (hi2u tepid growth, at the absolute best). So, please, go study economics before you profess any knowledge in it. I figured you would pop in with some witty reply that nobody cares about and has no relevance to the current situation. I don't care if you and nausi think tax cuts pay for themselves, that option is not on the table. They have to figure out a way to offset them, which of course is going to be on Congress because Trump doesn't have a clue. Just like his proposed budget and his border wall, its a fantasy, a wishlist at best. He doesn't actually know how to pay for them. Why should anyone listen to your assertions and opinions in this matter if you can't even get the basic facts right? Will Trump get his tax cuts done before his 100th day is up? Not a chance. Will Trump and We all know that the liberals/democrats are dead space right now. Nobody on the left is willing to work with anyone, they are acting like spoiled little children. Why would anyone believe the premise that libs care about the debt or deficit?
Nausi said: » Why would anyone believe the premise that libs care about the debt or deficit? Sad part is, Republicans aren't that much better.
To be honest, anyone who states that tax cuts do not help the economy should forever be referred to as "Economic Deniers."
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Let me guess, to you, the Reagan cuts never paid for itself, never mind that it did. Quote: Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Look, you made an assertion that "tax cuts rarely(,) if ever(,) pay for themselves." Not only have I proven you wrong (yet again), I have proven that you have no *** clue as to what you are talking about (again). Why should anyone listen to your assertions and opinions in this matter if you can't even get the basic facts right? Will Trump get his tax cuts done before his 100th day is up? Not a chance. Will Trump and Actually, nausi made up the assertion that tax cuts "always pay for themselves." I guess you just glossed over that to swing and miss at me? We all know that tax cuts don't always pay for themselves, you even went well out of your way to prove it, appreciate it btw. But like I keep saying, it doesn't matter, because that option is off the table. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Let me guess, to you, the Reagan cuts never paid for itself, never mind that it did. Quote: Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them. Quote: The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. ... Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. The author's argument is against the assertion of Reagan's tax cuts near-doubling of revenues. He then proved it by saying that receipts from individual income taxes went up 91.3% during the 80's, prior to the tax cuts. That's near doubling. He (and apparently, you too) also assumed that there would be no overall effect of tax cuts, and that there would be no increase in revenues over time. Which, is proven wrong (and the author even attempted to skew his findings by making very obvious attempts in his graphs) by the very data he presented. You don't go from $600 billion of individual tax receipts to just over $1.2 trillion in about 13 years and not say that the tax cuts themselves weren't a contributing factor to such things. And that's JUST individual tax receipts. His charts even show it, even though he altered the data to try to show otherwise. His attempt to use real dollars is a plus though. He forgot to mention other things like how interest rates soared after the tax cuts (which lead to inflation) or other factors that contributed to revenue growth. Vic's argument is that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. You are applying another argument as his defense. Good luck with that. That is not my argument, nice try tho.
Vic what option is off the table?
Nausi said: » Vic what option is off the table? Liberals accepting the results of the election. You ellipsed out the best part!
Quote: At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! The option of "letting the tax cuts pay for themselves" is off the table, because the proposal isn't even close to being revenue neutral, so they must find a way to offset all of the revenue loss the tax cuts will bring. I doubt thats even possible, but if it is, then they won't be using the Trump plan.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » You ellipsed out the best part! Quote: At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! Viciouss said: » The option of "letting the tax cuts pay for themselves" is off the table, because the proposal isn't even close to being revenue neutral, so they must find a way to offset all of the revenue loss the tax cuts will bring. I doubt thats even possible, but if it is, then they won't be using the Trump plan. Nausi said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » You ellipsed out the best part! Quote: At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! That was a good laugh nausi, thanks.
Oh, shush, you economic denier.
Nah I'm good, since you have proven nausi wrong and we know reconciliation is going to be a huge problem, I am interested in seeing any ideas on how Trump is going to offset his fantasy tax plan without breaking 1 or more of his campaign promises.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-not-know-much-nato-alliance-wolf-blitzer-cnn-obsolete-a7702201.html?amp
Who knew military alliances were so complicated? |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|