#25 Nov 9, 2012
I find it hilarious that people equate book smarts with common sense. Hmmmmm
#28 Nov 10, 2012
Is Topix seems to be censoring me. Must not like those who speak out against Republicans. LOL.
Oh, and by the way, studies have shown that those who you consider rich would not spend the money they make by avoiding taxes, but instead they will tie it up in other investments that do not equate to jobs, while those who are not rich would spend any money they get back from tax returns. That puts money back into the economy.
I had a source here, but Topix did want to post it.
And as for your wits challenge, I would not want to embarrass you. You haven't done to well so far. Stupid professors and smart people with 8th grade educations. I would be interested in how came to this conclusion. One cannot even hope to get a decent job without a HS diploma. And please don't tell me they got their GED because then that's more than 8th grade. And if you are talking about one person, that hardly is a rule to go by. Show me your wits.
#29 Nov 10, 2012
Here is the article I referred to:
Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth
Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.
The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.
The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years.
Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.
"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a "slight negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.
Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be "coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.
The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.
The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."
In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."
#30 Nov 11, 2012
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. I have not always voted Rebublican, heck my ticket was split Tuesday. I'm a liberal-leaning centrist on social issues and I'm very conservative when it comes to economic issues. I am a Christian, but don't believe that Republicans are always the right choice. However, I do believe that Obama is absolutely the wrong choice, and is the most liberal president we've had in my lifetime.
#31 Nov 11, 2012
I obviously know mor than you since that entire post was strictly regurgitated from a liberal news source or article. Sounded like a campaign speech. In my class, we call that plagiarism. I could go into a laundry list of Obama's mis-deeds, but I don't want to bore you with information that you'll just dismiss as lies to serve your greater purpose. Hopefully I teach your kid so that they won't be so misguided.
#32 Nov 11, 2012
If you are the same Republican that commented earlier, you are wishy-washy and in need of therapy. You berated/belittled liberals and then admit you are "liberal-leaning" wth? Obama may be liberal, but he does not run this country by himself. I respect your feelings that he was the wrong choice... for you. We've have had Presidents in the past that did not get as good of ratings as Obama has.
Here is a list from the Harris Interactive poll:
Ronald Reagan (25%)
Franklin Roosevelt (19%)
John F. Kennedy (15%)
Bill Clinton (12%)
Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
Harry Truman (4%)
Barack Obama (4%)
George W. Bush (2%)
Jimmy Carter (2%)
Lyndon Johnson (1%)
George H.W. Bush (1%)
Richard Nixon (1%)
Gerald Ford (1%)
The Gallup poll places Obama 7th out of 20. Two other respected polls rated Obama 14 and 15th out of 44 Presidents.
So despite your opinion, many others including academic historians and political scientists don't agree with you. I believe those like you have some sort of grudge or other social/mental issue so deep you don't even want to see the possibilities that the man might do okay. That is sad.
#33 Nov 11, 2012
Most polls come from people who don't work and liberals. We workers don't have time for silly polls. What is up with you and the mental thing? Someone say that about you? This is your only world. The real world rejected you. Well back to working on the motor boat, so i can go a motorboatin' with my working buddies.
#34 Nov 11, 2012
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Please show me your proof teacher. I hope you provide that to your students when you accuse them. I simply commented on accurate information available from many sources. Your refusal to provide your Obama misdeeds (which is not hyphenated, teacher) is just a lame slam. I have no "greater purpose" except speaking the truth. Obama is not perfect and I am sure you have a list of your own misdeeds. And even if you taught my kids, my kids are smart enough to know how to get through life without being tainted or misguided by anyone like you. I taught them to think for themselves, not to just accept/believe/adopt the slop that falls out of a teacher's mouth. Today's teachers are a sad example for academia, especially in Marshall County.
#35 Nov 11, 2012
So by your words, the polls Republicans present are created by the unemployed and liberals. Talk about stupid ignorance. You don't even know what academic historians and political scientists are do you?
What's the matter you can't afford a good running boat? And why are your buddies having to leech off of you? Can't they afford boats as well? Sounds like you don't have the money to donate to anyone anyway. You just keep feeding the foot in your mouth like a good Republican.
#36 Nov 18, 2012
youtube.com/watch... FM dont ask dont tell policy here
#37 Nov 18, 2012
What a total waste of space and time. You must be a Republicant.
#38 Nov 18, 2012
Republican states tend to be rural.
#39 Nov 18, 2012
Republican states tend to be the state of "confusion" or the lost state of "Mind".
#40 Nov 18, 2012
The people who read and idolized Marx also thought of themselves as intellectually superior. Look what it did for them. A higher education is not to be confused for a higher intellect. Quite often, people with less formal education are better suited to choose a leader because they have not been wrapped up in academia for half of their lives. While you were busy reading and thinking theoretically, others were busy living life and thinking based on experience.
Just an FYI, I am someone with a higher degree. However, I respect the hardships faced by those who have been less fortunate. They have learned from those hardships and often base their voting decisions upon those experiences. That is every bit as valid as someone voting based on his level of education.
#41 Nov 18, 2012
Yet, I read only one US President did not have a degree. Was it Harry Truman?
#42 Nov 18, 2012
Interesting suppositions. I believe the original post was tongue-in-cheek. Would it have been presented if it was more mixed? No. It's all a numbers game. They could have cherry picked any other statistical table to broadcast whatever they desired. That is exactly what biased media does.
Take a mass of people, discount higher education, how many have the intellect you refer too? Obviously, it will be of varying degree as well; some with much and some with little. Take all those with a desired level of intellect, regardless of their reasoning and understanding objective abilities, when limited to only two or three choices, the odds of making the best choice is still limited by what is considered best. As you say, a higher education is no guarantee higher intellect is involved. However, educated people tend to learn and continue certain study habits which include locating suitable information sources, and source comparison in order to insure they have the correct information by weeding out the biased insignificant fodder. Still, for anyone to make any choice they must have information.
What is worse, blocking all media or controlling all media? Either way, the masses can be limited by the free flow of information. Bring in social media (facebook) and even it's stifled by private agenda and manipulated by those misinformed by other opinionated groups and individuals. When social media becomes the basic or main source of information, that's like drinking water out of a tainted pond. Yet, that is where many get their information today.
So what are we left with? What we have is a conglomerate of walks of all kinds and people will do what they always have done: vote for what they perceive is the choice that satisfies or emulates their life at that point in time. The information they collect will equally reflect that point. They will even discard good information if it does not represent them and cling honorably to bad information even to the point of lying to themselves because it justifies their beliefs. It's hell being human.
Add your comments below
|wat about bill haywood (Sep '10)||Tue||Just Saying||40|
|OMAR Steakhouse (Nov '14)||Jan 15||Critic||86|
|You need this (Mar '15)||Jan 14||Happiness||3|
|Your take on ..... (Oct '07)||Jan 14||Left||4|
|Marshall County Bookings and Mugshots (Nov '15)||Jan 14||Left||15|
|Cornersville assistant principal punishes entir... (Feb '16)||Jan 13||Laughing at you||10|
|Taking back our community!! (Apr '08)||Jan 13||Its ok||27|
Find what you want!
Search Lewisburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC