News From The War On The Poor

Language: JP EN DE FR
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » News from the war on the poor
News from the war on the poor
First Page 2 3 4 5
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-22 15:35:04
Link | Quote | Reply
 
An experimental setup using lab animals is much, much easier. Studies involving humans are so much more complicated due to ethical concerns and regulations, control and experimental groups, and the fact that (at least to me) humans themselves are just difficult creatures.

As long as the system being worked on (muscles in this case) is analogous to humans then the research is valuable to human cases. Any positive results could then be used to help bolster the case to actually use human test subjects because getting permission to test on people can be difficult from what I understand.
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:41:22
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
And now I want to become a rabbit massage therapist THANKS

there is a multiplying like rabbits/happy ending joke in there somewhere...

can we please get back to the war on the poor?...
they have so much more that we can take from them!

/steals candy from a baby
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2016-03-22 15:49:02
Link | Quote | Reply
 
The current winners in the war on the poor: rabbits
[+]
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:51:18
Link | Quote | Reply
 
[+]
Offline
Posts: 4028
By Blazed1979 2016-03-22 15:53:16
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"

Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.

OWS chants of "we are the 99%" is a lie. they should really be chanting "we are the 0.01%".

Your house maids are probably in that 1% as well.

6 / 7,500,000,000
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:53:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
this one is better... /declares war on the rabbits!

 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 15:59:01
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Blazed1979 said: »
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.

how are they devils again?
 Bismarck.Misao
Offline
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: misacat
Posts: 22620
By Bismarck.Misao 2016-03-22 16:03:42
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Blazed1979 said: »
Its the 0.000000008 % who are the devils.

how are they devils again?
[+]
 Asura.Failaras
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: Falaras
Posts: 3213
By Asura.Failaras 2016-03-22 16:33:09
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Quote:
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
Are you talking about the 1% in the world or the 1% in the US?
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2016-03-22 16:45:44
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I'm am the the 1%!!!
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-22 16:48:30
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Failaras said: »
Quote:
Everyone on these forums is most likely part of the "1%"
Are you talking about the 1% in the world or the 1% in the US?
1% of the world.

Which makes us the devils according to certain people. Because, you know, justification for those people's actions.

I mean, when to be considered to be part of the 1% of the world's population in terms of wealth equals about $32,400, which is easy to do in the US as long as you have a brain in your head and the will to do something more than minimum wage-type work.

Flipping burgers for a living does not qualify.
[+]
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2016-03-22 17:10:22
 Undelete | Link | Quote | Reply
 
Post deleted by User.
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11372
By Garuda.Chanti 2016-03-22 20:18:28
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
A LOT of stuff including quotes from Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher.
So MUCH of that is right.

So much of that is WRONG.

You are so freaking close yet so far away.
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-28 09:50:12
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center

trump tax plan
All it stated was it will reduce revenue. That's not the only factor that goes towards the deficit.

He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.

To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.

Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.

But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK?
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-28 09:54:44
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Probably based on the articles out recently siting the findings of the Tax Policy Center

trump tax plan
All it stated was it will reduce revenue. That's not the only factor that goes towards the deficit.

He also stated a strong reduction of spending, which also affects the deficit.

To contribute one factor in the deficit as the sole instigator is dishonest at best. So, like I said, uneducated opinion.

Reducing tax rates and cutting spending has, in practice, been shown time and again to be a less effective way to balance a budget than stimulus to increase GDP and then just taking the government's cut.

But maybe you want to live in David Cameron's shithole UK?
Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.

Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry). Works better if it's applied towards individuals and not businesses (say, GWB's "Making Work Pay Refundable Tax Credit").
[+]
Offline
Posts: 4394
By Altimaomega 2016-03-28 11:27:25
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Working people stimulate the economy?
Who knew!
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-28 12:17:51
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Quote:
Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.

Examples?

Quote:
Stimulus only works when it's applied to the entire nation, not specific industries (like, say, the auto industry).

Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-28 12:30:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Quote:
Doing both (reducing tax rates and cutting spending), yes. Doing one or the other (reducing tax rates or (most preferably) cutting spending), not really.

Examples?
Actual examples or theoretical examples?

I can't give you actual examples because not one thing the government does directly effects the economy, it's a bunch of things that the government does that effects the economy as a whole. Both domestic and, in the case of the US, internationally.

Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees. Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.

ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Why? The auto bailout saved a ton of jobs (within GM and Chrysler themselves, dealerships, parts manufacturers/suppliers, etc.) at a final cost of like $9 billion, which is peanuts. Nothing wrong with a loan, especially when it's in the iddle of a complete economic meltdown you're trying to stop from getting worse.
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 1534
By ScaevolaBahamut 2016-03-29 09:31:21
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.

This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.

Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.

Quote:
Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.

High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.

ScaevolaBahamut said: »
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.

Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2016-03-29 09:55:32
Link | Quote | Reply
 
ScaevolaBahamut said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
\
Theoretical examples would be that reducing tax rates will give businesses more money to reinvest in domestic industry, either by buying newer equipment or hiring more employees.

This is exactly what Sam Brownback has been doing in Kansas, and it's been a disaster, because it turns out most business owners don't actually want to expand if their current operation is profitable and they'll just pocket the money instead.

Expanding your business involves a lot of additional work and risk beyond the simple additional capital, and if you DID want to expand getting the money to do so was always the easy part anyway.

Again, you cannot attribute just one action towards the economy as a whole. What happened in Kansas was not an "All things being equal" scenario.

Quote:
Quote:
Reducing spending will lower the deficit which has a positive impact towards the economy as a whole, mainly paying down debt and not paying as much interest for said debt.

High spending/revenue accomplishes the same thing and does it without turning the country into, well, the UK.

Do you really, honestly believe in that fluff? I mean, seriously! Should I point at historical numbers and current numbers and show that not only is that completely wrong, but even any skewed numbers you may consider would still make that statement completely wrong. Even if you pretend that Obama's "deficit" started on January 1st, 2016, Obama's statement and your analysis is still completely wrong. Not a day has gone by when Obama stepped foot on the White House has the deficit has gone down. Ever. And the high spending hasn't helped with the stagnate growth, has it? It also hasn't helped with consumer confidence either. Both are strong indicators of the health of the economy.

Protip: GDP growth was averaging ~2.5% per year up until Obama went into office.

ScaevolaBahamut said: »
That's one example on how it "could" go right, would you like an example of where it did go wrong. And the only reason why the auto bailout worked was because neither company was in real danger of completely closing down their businesses. They were both getting hit with negative cash flow, which happens all the freaking time in business. Instead of weathering the storm and making a few cutbacks, they instead asked the government for money. Which they received, first by the Bush Administration and later by the Obama Administration. Because, politics.

Not to sidetrack, but I've long been wondering about this obsession with Solyndra. It was one bust out of how many...?[/quote]

The problem with Solyndra is, Obama personally approved of this, where presidents usually don't even bother with little things like loan approval or such.
[+]
Log in to post.