/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

By contrast - AOC is actually fairly interesting. She'll blatantly accuse Ted Cruze of attempted murder and won't take people's shit laying down.

AOC is just a left wing version of Trump where they have no idea how anything works yet is worshipped by people, just by redditards instead of 4chantards. If you’ve read some of her idiotic bills she knows jack shit. It’s crazy how these people laugh at trumpers for being indoctrinated whilst licking the boots of AOC. Plus she’s just fucking annoying, again like Trump she seems desperate for attention

Got some examples of idiot bills that show she doesn't know anything?

thehogshotgun wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

By contrast - AOC is actually fairly interesting. She'll blatantly accuse Ted Cruze of attempted murder and won't take people's shit laying down.

AOC is just a left wing version of Trump where they have no idea how anything works yet is worshipped by people, just by redditards instead of 4chantards. If you’ve read some of her idiotic bills she knows jack shit. It’s crazy how these people laugh at trumpers for being indoctrinated whilst licking the boots of AOC. Plus she’s just fucking annoying, again like Trump she seems desperate for attention

Got some examples of idiot bills that show she doesn't know anything?

Her “A just society” is built on faulty data and has many issues, but the one that I mainly know of is her suggestions of up to 70, 80% tax rates for the rich, due to America having such rates for a long time, ignoring the fact that the tax codes in that era had a ton of tax breaks and exceptions, something most tax historians would tell you. Of course AOC doesn’t care because she believes in eat the rich

oranges wrote:so you vote democrat right because you're about budget responsibility?

Armhulen wrote:

oranges wrote:so you vote democrat right because you're about budget responsibility?

You're talking to the people who vote Ted Cruz and company every senate election

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

By contrast - AOC is actually fairly interesting. She'll blatantly accuse Ted Cruze of attempted murder and won't take people's shit laying down.

AOC is just a left wing version of Trump where they have no idea how anything works yet is worshipped by people, just by redditards instead of 4chantards. If you’ve read some of her idiotic bills she knows jack shit. It’s crazy how these people laugh at trumpers for being indoctrinated whilst licking the boots of AOC. Plus she’s just fucking annoying, again like Trump she seems desperate for attention

Got some examples of idiot bills that show she doesn't know anything?

Her “A just society” is built on faulty data and has many issues, but the one that I mainly know of is her suggestions of up to 70, 80% tax rates for the rich, due to America having such rates for a long time, ignoring the fact that the tax codes in that era had a ton of tax breaks and exceptions, something most tax historians would tell you. Of course AOC doesn’t care because she believes in eat the rich

you're just making this up entirely cause you dont like women

oranges wrote:so you vote democrat right because you're about budget responsibility?

Grazyn wrote:

Timonk wrote:what was it for then? the human rights hurting parts of Saudi arabia are still there

Long story short, we tricked America into thinking Saddam was making WMDs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:I do not acknowledge the superiority of deontological ethics.

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Man honestly voting yellow is a legit waste of time don't bother.

Its not like in Australia where the third party will actually get a seat or two.

XSI wrote: Also of course the Iraq thing wasn't literally to go get oil.

[...]
It was a combination of to make oil-producing countries sell in dollars for the petrodollar(Look at Libya too),

[...]
"For the oil" is just a reference to the petrodollar, which allows the US a much greater international power projection and helps the US currency so long as enough of the world's oil supply is sold only in dollars

thehogshotgun wrote:I just don’t vote retard. Waiting for a good libertarian candidate

oranges wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:I just don’t vote retard. Waiting for a good libertarian candidate

rich calling me a retard then lmao

Timonk wrote:

XSI wrote: Also of course the Iraq thing wasn't literally to go get oil.

[...]
It was a combination of to make oil-producing countries sell in dollars for the petrodollar(Look at Libya too),

[...]
"For the oil" is just a reference to the petrodollar, which allows the US a much greater international power projection and helps the US currency so long as enough of the world's oil supply is sold only in dollars

Do you even read the shit you type? They did the Iraq thing not for the oil but for them to sell oil to the US, which inevitably leads to them getting oil? Are you saying they were in it for the oil after all?

thehogshotgun wrote:

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:Her “A just society” is built on faulty data and has many issues, but the one that I mainly know of is her suggestions of up to 70, 80% tax rates for the rich, due to America having such rates for a long time, ignoring the fact that the tax codes in that era had a ton of tax breaks and exceptions, something most tax historians would tell you. Of course AOC doesn’t care because she believes in eat the rich

you're just making this up entirely cause you dont like women

That video's description wrote: But John Stossel interviews economic historian Phil Magness, of the American Institute for Economic Research, who says that progressives miss an important fact: high tax rates that America had in the past actually didn't bring in much revenue.

When rates were at 70%, Magness tells Stossel, "a millionaire on average would pay 41%."

That's because rich people find loopholes. When America had its highest top tax rates, newspapers ran ads like "cruise for free … $2499 value."

Magness explains: "Basically [you could] take a vacation around the Caribbean, but while you're onboard the ship, you attend, say, an investing seminar or a real estate seminar -- then write off the [whole] trip."

Stossel says that deductions became so complex that rich people, instead of inventing, say a precursor to the iPhone, hired accountants and tax lawyers to study the tax code. Some also worked less.

This led President Reagan, with bipartisan support from Democrats, to lower rates and remove deductions. That began the path to the 37% top rate that rates that we have today.

Despite the lower rates, federal government revenue -- as a percentage of the economy -- is still about the same as it was when the top rate was 70%. It's even about the same as it was when the rate was 90%.

Progressives still say, "raise taxes on the rich.” Stossel asks Magness about the claim that: "the government will collect more, and do good things."

"You're asking for an economic disaster," Magness replies. More money will be wasted in the hands of government. "Do we leave it in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?"

cacogen wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:Her “A just society” is built on faulty data and has many issues, but the one that I mainly know of is her suggestions of up to 70, 80% tax rates for the rich, due to America having such rates for a long time, ignoring the fact that the tax codes in that era had a ton of tax breaks and exceptions, something most tax historians would tell you. Of course AOC doesn’t care because she believes in eat the rich

you're just making this up entirely cause you dont like women

That video's description wrote: But John Stossel interviews economic historian Phil Magness, of the American Institute for Economic Research, who says that progressives miss an important fact: high tax rates that America had in the past actually didn't bring in much revenue.

When rates were at 70%, Magness tells Stossel, "a millionaire on average would pay 41%."

That's because rich people find loopholes. When America had its highest top tax rates, newspapers ran ads like "cruise for free … $2499 value."

Magness explains: "Basically [you could] take a vacation around the Caribbean, but while you're onboard the ship, you attend, say, an investing seminar or a real estate seminar -- then write off the [whole] trip."

Stossel says that deductions became so complex that rich people, instead of inventing, say a precursor to the iPhone, hired accountants and tax lawyers to study the tax code. Some also worked less.

This led President Reagan, with bipartisan support from Democrats, to lower rates and remove deductions. That began the path to the 37% top rate that rates that we have today.

Despite the lower rates, federal government revenue -- as a percentage of the economy -- is still about the same as it was when the top rate was 70%. It's even about the same as it was when the rate was 90%.

Progressives still say, "raise taxes on the rich.” Stossel asks Magness about the claim that: "the government will collect more, and do good things."

"You're asking for an economic disaster," Magness replies. More money will be wasted in the hands of government. "Do we leave it in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?"

So basically if you believe this they closed the loopholes that were being exploited in exchange for lowering the tax rate, and effectively it did nothing. But according to economic historian Phil Magness, increasing tax rates on the rich would be an economic disaster because of corrupt politicians. The only way to avoid this is to keep money out of the hands of the government and in the private sector, where the market decides what happens to it.

Obviously nonsensical fearmongering that the type of people who watch these sorts of YouTube videos love to hear and not the real reason he doesn't want to see the rich taxed more.

Is AOC a self-deluded narcissist in the vein of Donald Trump and an ignorant idealist whose policies don't stand up to the light of day? The jury's still out but if America's period of high taxes on the rich really was plagued with loopholes they exploited that doesn't mean that raising taxes on the rich isn't practical today. Maybe just not to that level.

Timonk wrote:Would you accept increased taxes if it meant yall had universal healthcare

thehogshotgun wrote:

Timonk wrote:Would you accept increased taxes if it meant yall had universal healthcare

Universal Healthcare doesn’t work for America due to our large amount of fucking fatasses, which would eat up a lot of money, so no fuck you timonk I dont want to pay more taxes

thehogshotgun wrote:Universal Healthcare doesn’t work for America due to our large amount of fucking fatasses, which would eat up a lot of money, so no fuck you timonk I dont want to pay more taxes

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:Universal Healthcare doesn’t work for America due to our large amount of fucking fatasses, which would eat up a lot of money, so no fuck you timonk I dont want to pay more taxes

this just further proves my point that you just make shit up as reverse logic to justify hating something cause a woman suggested it

thehogshotgun wrote:I don’t get what your deal is man

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:I don’t get what your deal is man

your inability to take what you can dish makes me think your some kind of SJW

thehogshotgun wrote:

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:I don’t get what your deal is man

your inability to take what you can dish makes me think your some kind of SJW

what the hell is your problem faggot?

thehogshotgun wrote:

Timonk wrote:Would you accept increased taxes if it meant yall had universal healthcare

Universal Healthcare doesn’t work for America due to our large amount of fucking fatasses, which would eat up a lot of money, so no fuck you timonk I dont want to pay more taxes

Timonk wrote:lets invent free universal healthcare, make burger king and mcdonalds pay for it and call it bidencare

cacogen wrote:

Timonk wrote:lets invent free universal healthcare, make burger king and mcdonalds pay for it and call it bidencare

What a sensible solution to the problem. Make the problem they contributed heavily to their problem to solve. Incentivise them to lower their contribution to the obesity epidemic for reasons of profit rather than PR or whatever half-assed regulations the FDA have put in place.

thehogshotgun wrote:

cacogen wrote:

Timonk wrote:lets invent free universal healthcare, make burger king and mcdonalds pay for it and call it bidencare

What a sensible solution to the problem. Make the problem they contributed heavily to their problem to solve. Incentivise them to lower their contribution to the obesity epidemic for reasons of profit rather than PR or whatever half-assed regulations the FDA have put in place.

Why would they do that? I'm curious at that point they should even bother when they could probably just leave the U.S at that point if they are fucking extorting them. Like I know trumptards use communist very willy-nilly but forcing them to pay for government healthcare is just absurd

Timonk wrote:now lets come back to that "hurr durr muh fat muh pockets" argument

lets say that both countries use 50% of their GDP for free universal healthcare dedicated to the obese

USA: has 70 million obese adults, 20 trillion GDP, which equates to 142.857$ per obese person
Nauru: between 60-80% of adults are obese, lets say 70. because im too lazy, lets say every person in nauru is an adult. with a population of about 10.000 people, that equates to 7000 obese people. with a gdp of 160 million, that equates to 11.428$ per obese person.

EVEN IF THE USA USED 10% OF ITS GDP FOR THAT IT WOULD HAVE MORE TO SPARE FOR OBESE AMERICANS THAN NAURU, THE FATTEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, WHICH HAS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

edit: im retarded, i corrected my numbers but my point still stands

cacogen wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

cacogen wrote:

Timonk wrote:lets invent free universal healthcare, make burger king and mcdonalds pay for it and call it bidencare

What a sensible solution to the problem. Make the problem they contributed heavily to their problem to solve. Incentivise them to lower their contribution to the obesity epidemic for reasons of profit rather than PR or whatever half-assed regulations the FDA have put in place.

Why would they do that? I'm curious at that point they should even bother when they could probably just leave the U.S at that point if they are fucking extorting them. Like I know trumptards use communist very willy-nilly but forcing them to pay for government healthcare is just absurd

Well Timonk railroaded me into that with that strawman appeal to ridicule and I wanted to clarify I didn't think it was as insane as he was presenting it. It wouldn't be my first suggestion, though. Threatening to leave the US sounds insincere to me though, especially for McDonald's.

What I initially said that Timonk then presented as "Biden is a socialist! Socialists are INSANE!" (neither of which is true) was to increase taxes to cover public healthcare mostly on the wealthy and corporations who aren't paying enough to begin with. You're saying you don't want your taxes increased. I don't see why they should be. I'm assuming you aren't a billionaire.

thehogshotgun wrote:

cacogen wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:

cacogen wrote:

Timonk wrote:lets invent free universal healthcare, make burger king and mcdonalds pay for it and call it bidencare

What a sensible solution to the problem. Make the problem they contributed heavily to their problem to solve. Incentivise them to lower their contribution to the obesity epidemic for reasons of profit rather than PR or whatever half-assed regulations the FDA have put in place.

Why would they do that? I'm curious at that point they should even bother when they could probably just leave the U.S at that point if they are fucking extorting them. Like I know trumptards use communist very willy-nilly but forcing them to pay for government healthcare is just absurd

Well Timonk railroaded me into that with that strawman appeal to ridicule and I wanted to clarify I didn't think it was as insane as he was presenting it. It wouldn't be my first suggestion, though. Threatening to leave the US sounds insincere to me though, especially for McDonald's.

What I initially said that Timonk then presented as "Biden is a socialist! Socialists are INSANE!" (neither of which is true) was to increase taxes to cover public healthcare mostly on the wealthy and corporations who aren't paying enough to begin with. You're saying you don't want your taxes increased. I don't see why they should be. I'm assuming you aren't a billionaire.

In 2020, the U.S Collected 3.42 Trillion dollars a year. The U.S SPENT 6.55 trillion in 2020. Bernie Sanders claims that he would have a Healthcare program the would cost 30-40 trillion dollars over the decade. Seeing as he is the only candidate I know of who would be able to implement this, I'm using his estimate. That's 3-4 Trillion dollars a year. The Top 1% has 34.2 Trillion (according to the federal reserve). If we took all of their money, we might be able to pay for healthcare for a decade. We would have to forcibly take all of their money though. Again, we Collect 3.42 trillion dollars a year, which currently all gets spent, even if we cut military there is no long term solution that I can see. Thanks for being respectful by the way cacogen, I know you have a handicap in timonk

thehogshotgun wrote:Bernie Sanders claims that he would have a Healthcare program the would cost 30-40 trillion dollars over the decade.

IkeTG wrote:

thehogshotgun wrote:Bernie Sanders claims that he would have a Healthcare program the would cost 30-40 trillion dollars over the decade.

Again you are just making shit up randomly to suit your own beliefs. Bernie Sanders claimed that his spending estimate for his overall projection, covering all of his policies, would amount to around $40 trillion for the next decade. This includes healthcare, but isn't exclusively healthcare spending. The current projection for for government spending this next decade is not dissimilar to Bernie's projection, if not more expensive due to inefficient budgeting like our medicare or military spending.

You're quite literally making a big number bigger than it actually is, a decade of government spending is not as dramatic as you make it out to be here. But that's the point, all of your beliefs are flashy and reactionary because you watch too much television.