California is a sorry excuse for a state

[59 Dano]

They don't even see that the high tax rates of the time they remember so fondly were the reason for the country's strength and growth, with the high rates on profits taken out of a business forcing reinvestment and growth. They will never have the same level of growth as we had with higher tax rates when profit is taken out of the economy and put into the hands of those who don't need to spend it.

That's defies all economic logic and makes absolutely no sense.

 

[It will be fine]

There's a difference between knowing how much is in someone's bank account, and going in and changing how much is in their account. See the distinction?

Bad analogy. The question is about informational warfare and its influence on the electorate. We have decades of knowledge that shows advertising/propoganda is effective and influences people. Pretending it doesn't is foolish.

 

[It will be fine]

That's defies all economic logic and makes absolutely no sense.

No such thing as economic logic only theory.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Bad analogy. The question is about informational warfare and its influence on the electorate. We have decades of knowledge that shows advertising/propoganda is effective and influences people. Pretending it doesn't is foolish.

Are you saying your candidate would have been elected if there had been LESS information disseminated about her?

 

[It will be fine]

Are you saying your candidate would have been elected if there had been LESS information disseminated about her?

My candidate never had a chance, he only got about 2% of the vote. You realize you're siding with a foreign adversary, right? Your are taking part in spreading false narratives to protect your chosen political party. Freaking traitor.

 

[Fred's Myth]

No such thing as economic logic only theory.

 

[Fred's Myth]

My candidate never had a chance, he only got about 2% of the vote. You realize you're siding with a foreign adversary, right? Your are taking part in spreading false narratives to protect your chosen political party. Freaking traitor.

I'm saying that if the information is accurate and pertinent, it's immaterial WHERE it comes from.

 

[59 Dano]

Low rates on the top 10% who own 50% of the country just exacerbates the difference. The high tax rates used to force them to spend that money, improving the economy.

Then we got rid of those high tax rates and found out that they'll still spend the money and improve the economy.

If high taxes were so great, the people who are eager to impose them would be eager pay them.

 

[59 Dano]

When any bank, off or on shore, loans money for mergers and aquisitions, how does that help the working man???? It ends up eliminating jobs while the wealthy make even more money, with which to buy more companies, or sock away in a mattress.

And here we are, with unemployment at 4.1%.

Making the wealthier more wealthy helps the working man how since you support it????? You need to be real dense to believe as you do.

Guy, you're the one arguing that high taxes are required for a strong economy despite over 35 years of evidence to the contrary.

 

[59 Dano]

When cash is put in the pockets of those who don't spend it in the economy, or spend it in a manner that it doesn't recirculate, it is taken out of the economy. No one should need to explain this to you. I guess if you are slow enough to fall for the fedex scam, you need a lot explained to you. I suppose you think that a bank adds to the real GNP by loaning money. Not all business activity produces actual goods or creates tangible assets. You REALLY should not need so much explanation.

But you can't spend it in a manner that it doesn't recirculate. Keep trying.

 

[59 Dano]

And still no answer how the "cash" is taken out of the economy. I need more help, these offshore banks, they have a larger bed, larger fire or larger hole in the backyard? How is the money taken out of the economy?

It isn't. It's just another excuse to take money via taxation and spend it "better" (wink wink).

 

[59 Dano]

You don't think information changes people's votes? How else do they make decisions?

Any day now I'm sure we'll have hordes of people coming forward asserting that they were going to vote for HRC but voted for Trump on account of the FB tricked them.

 

[59 Dano]

Bad analogy. The question is about informational warfare and its influence on the electorate. We have decades of knowledge that shows advertising/propoganda is effective and influences people. Pretending it doesn't is foolish.

Alrighty then. Show us those who changed their votes based on the Russian FB posts.

 

[dmac1]

Then we got rid of those high tax rates and found out that they'll still spend the money and improve the economy.

If high taxes were so great, the people who are eager to impose them would be eager pay them.

No they won't, because to actually spend the money on anything but their business, they need to pay the high tax on it. It was good for the country, not necessarily for the individuals, especially short term. The country was booming because they were just about forced to spend it constructively if they didn't want to pay high taxes. The drop in high rates after the seventies coincides almost perfectly with the decrease in government spending on infrastructure, education, and research and coincides with the drop in adjusted income for the working people.

What is good for the country is not always good for the individual, and starting with the election of Reagan the country and elected reps seems more concerned with the welfare of donors rather than the welfare of the country.

 

[Fred's Myth]

No they won't, because to actually spend the money on anything but their business, they need to pay the high tax on it. It was good for the country, not necessarily for the individuals, especially short term. The country was booming because they were just about forced to spend it constructively if they didn't want to pay high taxes. The drop in high rates after the seventies coincides almost perfectly with the decrease in government spending on infrastructure, education, and research and coincides with the drop in adjusted income for the working people.

What is good for the country is not always good for the individual, and starting with the election of Reagan the country and elected reps seems more concerned with the welfare of donors rather than the welfare of the country.

God help us if this is what is passes for an education nowadays.

 

[dmac1]

Alrighty then. Show us those who changed their votes based on the Russian FB posts.

Are you another idiot?????? Just double checking.

Some people were on the edge as to who they would vote for, and reading some fake story about Clinton could have easily been enough to sway their vote.

Except for complete fools( and maybe you?????) no one's vote is based on any single bit of info. If someone is on the fence, it only takes a little push to send them over. It would be impossible to show you who changed votes based on the Russian trolls, and you should be able to understand that fact. Asking for proof makes you look too dumb to know that there is no proof available. Prove that you don't watch kiddie porn. I bet you can't.

There was one facebook story about Clinton running a pedophile ring, and one repub idiot Trump supporter went so far as to bring a gun to a pizza parlor to rescue non-existent victims. That could have been Russian trolls, you have no way to prove otherwise. That idiot's mind was clearly influenced by something on facebook, so are you are too ignorant to think that other minds were changed by something they read?????

 

[59 Dano]

No such thing as economic logic only theory.

Interesting. Answer me this.

I work for $1000/week. I'm taxed at 25%. I get $750 and the government gets $250. My tax rate is raised to 80%.

How much do I get and how much does the government get after that tax increase?

 

[Fred's Myth]

Interesting. Answer me this.

I work for $1000/week. I'm taxed at 25%. I get $750 and the government gets $250. My tax rate is raised to 80%.

How much do I get and how much does the government get after that tax increase?

Theoretically, you'll find enough deductions and credits that you'll keep your $1000, AND get a $5000 EIC refund. Social engineering by taxation.

 

[59 Dano]

No they won't, because to actually spend the money on anything but their business, they need to pay the high tax on it. It was good for the country, not necessarily for the individuals, especially short term. The country was booming because they were just about forced to spend it constructively if they didn't want to pay high taxes.

It worked out so well that it created high inflation, high interest rates, and high rates of inflation. Or, as we call it, "the seventies."

The drop in high rates after the seventies coincides almost perfectly with the decrease in government spending on infrastructure, education, and research and coincides with the drop in adjusted income for the working people.

What is good for the country is not always good for the individual, and starting with the election of Reagan the country and elected reps seems more concerned with the welfare of donors rather than the welfare of the country.

The economy took off as inflation, interest rates, and unemployment plummeted. The horror.

 

[vantexan]

Are you another idiot?????? Just double checking.

Some people were on the edge as to who they would vote for, and reading some fake story about Clinton could have easily been enough to sway their vote.

Except for complete fools( and maybe you?????) no one's vote is based on any single bit of info. If someone is on the fence, it only takes a little push to send them over. It would be impossible to show you who changed votes based on the Russian trolls, and you should be able to understand that fact. Asking for proof makes you look too dumb to know that there is no proof available. Prove that you don't watch kiddie porn. I bet you can't.

There was one facebook story about Clinton running a pedophile ring, and one repub idiot Trump supporter went so far as to bring a gun to a pizza parlor to rescue non-existent victims. That could have been Russian trolls, you have no way to prove otherwise. That idiot's mind was clearly influenced by something on facebook, so are you are too ignorant to think that other minds were changed by something they read?????

Wasn't the Facebook advertising estimated at $125k? That's not even a drop inside a drop in the bucket. Clinton campaign spent close to a billion. What was so ineffective about her message that you think average people would be swayed by baloney but didn't believe her? Could it be they just didn't trust her? And there was plenty available to average people to decide whether she was trustworthy or not without silly stories about child sex rings.