Originally posted by Trancer-X
"potentially writing about something like this"
I like how you edited the syntax (by omitting part of the sentence) to make it sound different than what I was originally saying but again, is this even important? lol
Actually, jer's got a point. If you say Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005 it means he could be writing, because potentially (an adverb) can only refer to the act of writing (it doesn't matter, therefore, if he omits the object or not). To convey the intended meaning, it should've read: It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about the potentiality of something like this happening, or, to put it less awkwardly, It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about how this could happen :)
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Actually, jer's got a point. If you say Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005 it means he could be writing, because potentially (an adverb) can only refer to the act of writing (it doesn't matter, therefore, if he omits the object or not). To convey the intended meaning, it should've read: It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about the potentiality of something like this happening, or, to put it less awkwardly, It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about how this could happen :)
Lira, you are a part of the Rothschild conspiracy for world domination. Why should we believe 1 word from you?
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Lira, you are a part of the Rothschild conspiracy for world domination. Why should we believe 1 word from you?
I'm part of a world domination? Erm... if you believe me, does that mean I can destroy borders and stuff?
Think of it that way: without borders, there will be no need for a visa if you want to travel abroad. With no need for a visa, hot girls can easily travel to the city you live in.
Hot women > Mind tricks
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
It's kind of funny that all of a sudden everyone wants to listen to Ron Paul.
Who is "everyone"? Fox News likes to have Paul on time to time a because hes a republican with a different view. I'd hardly say people are looking to Paul as any kind of authority on the matter.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Who is "everyone"? Fox News likes to have Paul on time to time a because hes a republican with a different view. I'd hardly say people are looking to Paul as any kind of authority on the matter.
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so hasty to use a generalization such as "everyone" but in retrospect I still don't think that I was too far off when considering that I probably watched about fifty different video clips of him being interviewed from within the last two weeks alone.
Aside from the clips, there have also been numerous polls on financial webpages and sites which seem to vindicate his position amongst those who actually follow the market trends - trends which have since moved in accordance to his predictions.
Anyway, here are just a few of the clips I had bookmarked:
Ron Paul on American Morning CNN 10-01-08
Ron Paul on CNBC's Kudlow & Company
Ron Paul on Fox Business News
Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck Show
Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV
Ron Paul on CNN talking about Economy Meltdown
Ron Paul Fox News talking about the AIG bailout
Ron Paul on the Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer
Ron Paul on WBKO 2008.10.01
noikeee
Do not worry. A dude from another forum I visit, has proposed a brilliant scheme, that, if it is implemented by the next president of the United States, will surely save all americans from the crisis:
quote:
Here is a stimulus package which is far out there, but I think it could work.
You give every American of age $500,000. First and foremost they must pay off EVERY SINGLE debt they have. After that they are free to do what they wish with the money. Some people would have a lot left over, other would have less or even none left over, but for the people who are just struggling to get by it could give them an entirely new outlook on life, and for some people it would provide a major sense of relief because all of their debts are paid off. It could also infuse the market because people will actually have some money to spend and also people could invest it and start moving the markets again. It seems that they could print more money since our money isnt backed by anything anyway. I think the one major concern though would be de-valuation of the dollar.
I urge you to get in contact with Obama and McCain ASAP and inform them of this little genius discovery.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by noikeee
Do not worry. A dude from another forum I visit, has proposed a brilliant scheme, that, if it is implemented by the next president of the United States, will surely save all americans from the crisis:
I urge you to get in contact with Obama and McCain ASAP and inform them of this little genius discovery.
What's that like a $50 trillion bail-out package? Not that I couldn't use an easy half-mill.
How about just revamping the tax code and going to the "Fair Tax?"
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
What's that like a $50 trillion bail-out package? Not that I couldn't use an easy half-mill.
yeah - that means every american would get 500K, but at the same time, every american would have an indirect liability to china in the amount of 500K. not a good idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
How about just revamping the tax code and going to the "Fair Tax?"
whether the tax is fair depends on what you consider fair. having one rate doesn't make a tax fair it makes it easy. in any event, the rich are more likely to evade taxes by underreporting. rich people never pay anything near the statutory rates. this occurs mostly because the rich have income that is more easily manipulated than the income of less wealthy people. Most people making less than 100K a year have one source of income, wages, which are reported on a W-2 and are very difficult to understate. Rich people, on the other hand, have income from many sources including business income (which can be understated by overstating business expenses) which is much more easily manipulated. Our current self-assesment system inherently favors those who have the means to manipulate the system. changing it to a flat rate won't make that any less true because you first have to determine taxable income.
If the tax was a tax on consumption (i.e. like a national sales tax and do away with income tax), it would seem to me that the rich would pay a lot more as they are arguably the most gluttonous spenders.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
If the tax was a tax on consumption (i.e. like a national sales tax and do away with income tax), it would seem to me that the rich would pay a lot more as they are arguably the most gluttonous spenders.
oh - i had my republican tax proposals mixed up. actually, consumption taxes have proven to be regressive over the short/medium term (it is arguable whether consumption taxes are regressive over the life of the average taxpayer considering savings is deferred consumption). Since rich people can save a greater percentage of their income, they would not be taxed on the income they invest. On the other hand, poor people spend almost all of their income, so nearly all of their income would be subject to the consumption tax. This is a common misconception among people, thus, the push for consumption tax among republicans (a way to actually reduce tax burden on the rich while staying under the radar). In addition, taxing consumption is a disincentive for consumer purchases, which as we all know, consumer purchases drive the economy.
for example: if we had a consumption tax of 20% on all purchases (without exemptions), someone making $1,000,000 and saving $500,000, would be pay $83K in consumption taxes on $417K in purchases. That persons ETR on the 1M in earnings is 8.3%. On the other hand, a person making $100,000 and saving $20,000, would pay $13K in taxes on $64K in purchases. That persons ETR on the 100K is 13%.
The key to reducing your tax burden with consumption taxes is to increase the percentage of your income that is invested. Since rich people save a much greater percentage of their income, their tax burden would be reduced. while it is true they would pay an overall greater amount, the percentage burden would be reduced, making it quite unfair to less privileged.
Shakka
Have you read The Fair Tax? I have not read the book but have read snippets from the authors. They have several provisions in there which are meant to level the playing field somewhat.
Personally I think you're too focused on there being a winner and loser and it sounds like an issue of class warfare the way you argue it. I like that conceptually, the IRS is all but eliminated, everybody keeps their entire paycheck with no issue of having to file a ridiculously complicated tax return every year, and you can manage your own tax burden much more effectively. Also, if you want to be more patriotic and pay more in taxes, just go out and buy more ! It's the Amurkin way!;)
