Re: The Sarah Palin corner of the Sandbox!

**KoopaTroopa** · 10-25-2008, 08:01 PM

The ABC News Palin interview was heavily edited (were the others? Who knows?). Sorry, but since that point I automatically count the media reports on Palin as gigantic piles of horse****.

Hey, is TG a bastion of liberalism, or are you dudes just the most vocal? Did we pick up MSNBC or CNN as a sponsor or something? :P

**Switch** · 10-25-2008, 09:22 PM

Has anyone mentioned her complete lack of science know-how yet?

Idiot probably never heard of a model organism.

You've heard about some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk[/media]

An article about it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._and_antis.php

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-25-2008, 09:22 PM

TG is nothing but liberal hippies.

Give peace a chance, bro.

**Zebra** · 10-26-2008, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

--The Bush years of "tax cuts for the rich" still brought in more tax dollars than any years before them

Federal income tax revenue (billions):

2000 - $1211.8
2001 - $1145.4
2002 - $1006.4
2003 - $925.5
2004 - $998.3
2005 - $1205.5
2006 - $1397.8

It took five years for those tax cuts to bring in more dollars than any years before them.

**Kerostasis** · 10-26-2008, 06:12 PM

You're limiting your scope to just one class of taxes, which makes up less than half of total receipts. Try looking at all of them. Either way though, you admit they DID bring in more money. It won't be an overnight change, obviously -- it takes time for incentives to work their way through the system (although capital gains changes see results much faster than others).

**Zebra** · 10-26-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You're limiting your scope to just one class of taxes, which makes up less than half of total receipts. Try looking at all of them.

Yeah, I'm looking at income taxes, which is where the changes being discussed were made. Looking at other revenues doesn't help your case. They didn't drop off the way income tax revenues did. Common sense tells me that income tax revenues wouldn't have taken a five year dip if somebody hadn't lowered the rates.

Either way though, you admit they DID bring in more money.

Five years later revenues got back to where they would've been if no changes had been made. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, okay, but it added trillions to the debt.

**Hambergler** · 10-26-2008, 08:06 PM

Damn Liberal media

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...-barack-obama/

**Kerostasis** · 10-26-2008, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Zebra

Yeah, I'm looking at income taxes, which is where the changes being discussed were made. Looking at other revenues doesn't help your case.

Why wouldn't it help my case?

They didn't drop off the way income tax revenues did.

That is exactly my case. Well, part of it at least. There is a tendancy among some people to assume that raising taxes on an activity doesn't change anything except the amount of money brought in through that tax, but that's not reflected by reality. Taxes shape the activity of our economy by encouraging some actions and discouraging others. If lowering taxes in one sector encourages more (taxable) economic activity, it can raise tax receipts in another sector where the tax rates didn't change at all. Its very much worthwhile to look at other types of government taxes rather than just cherry picking the one that showed the lowest numbers.

**AMosely** · 10-27-2008, 03:12 PM

As if Palin's not enough to fill your niche (attractiveness, bulldogishness, inexperience, whatever), they let Elisabeth Hasslebeck join up?

Hasselbeck added: "I’m most impressed by her accessories, you know, like the flag pin she wears in honor of her son and our military — men and women — fighting abroad. And they fight for our every right to be here today."

The flag pin was always my favorite accessory. Apparently it's not McCain's anymore, but who's really counting. I like Palin's polar bear. She must support them their right to be here too.

**Zebra** · 10-28-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

That is exactly my case. Well, part of it at least.

Only if your case was that when a tax is lowered, revenues from that tax go down, and when a tax remains unchanged, revenues from that tax go up.

There is a tendancy among some people to assume that raising taxes on an activity doesn't change anything except the amount of money brought in through that tax, but that's not reflected by reality. If lowering taxes in one sector encourages more (taxable) economic activity, it can raise tax receipts in another sector where the tax rates didn't change at all. Its very much worthwhile to look at other types of government taxes rather than just cherry picking the one that showed the lowest numbers.

The thing is, you only have to go back to the equivalent period in the Clinton presidency to see that this theory of yours doesn't pan out.

**War.mongeR1** · 10-28-2008, 11:36 AM

How's this for something completely related and absolutely creepy. Cracked me up for some strange reason, though.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8uEzGuvfc[/media]

**USN_Squid** · 10-28-2008, 11:46 AM

But Obama thinks raising taxes is for fairness not really to raise revenue:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894[/media]

...and in fact would hurt the economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7fSZ...eature=related

**Greflin** · 10-28-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

But Obama thinks raising taxes is for fairness not really to raise revenue:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894[/media]

...and in fact would hurt the economy:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7fSZiZG91o&feature=related[/media]

Wouldn't this be better in the Obama or Mccain threads? It has nothing to do with Bulldogs, lipstick or mavericks.

**Rincewind** · 10-28-2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Greflin

Wouldn't this be better in the Obama or Mccain threads? It has nothing to do with Bulldogs, lipstick or mavericks.

I'm confused as well. Oh well, I look at them all so it doesn't really matter

**AMosely** · 10-28-2008, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

But Obama thinks raising taxes is for fairness not really to raise revenue:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894[/media]

He said it was also about fairness, not just 'for' fairness. Obviously raising taxes is intended to raise revenue, but it's also (in his mind) about fairness. If you actually watch the clip, he gave this answer in response to the question of higher taxes not necessarily raising revenues, at least immediately. Why did revenues from the tax go down when the tax was raised? Because people avoided the tax by either loopholing, shifting assets or simply not taking on capital gains in the hope that a republican would come along and cut the tax, which eventually happened.

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

...and in fact would hurt the economy:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7fSZiZG91o&feature=related[/media]

That's not at all what he said - in fact when questioned on the first answer of raising taxes during a recession he said he may not even do it depending on the conditions because it would hurt the economy.

What's the point of so obviously misrepresenting this stuff?

And why is this in Palin's thread? I thought we were talking about sexism and accessories in this thread. Oh, and meahvericks too (wink but don't blink)!

Thread Tools

Display