During the last 3 1/2 years the Republicans keep saying they haven't had time to read the Affordable Care Act.
Printable View
During the last 3 1/2 years the Republicans keep saying they haven't had time to read the Affordable Care Act.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442913]During the last 3 1/2 years the Republicans keep saying they haven't had time to read the Affordable Care Act.[/QUOTE]First:
As usual just can't seem to stay on topic, comment has nothing to do with the post.
Second:
Your statement is false. Please provide some proof to back up such an obvious misrepresentation.
[QUOTE=RevBS;442911]May I suggest you visit an ophthalmologist.[/QUOTE]You may not like the observation but your dislike does not negate the fact it is true. The website still is not functioning as advertised.
Both FDR and Obama are Democrats, but I doubt FDR would find much to admire in our current president and much to dislike.
I would suggest you read one or all of these biographies of FDR:
FDR by Jean Edward Smith.
Traitor to His Class by H. W. Brands.
FDR's Folly by Jim Powell.
Franklin and Winston by Jon Meacham.
Six Months in 1945 by Michael Dobbs.
Powell's is a good counter point to the "New Deal" and it's shortcomings as well as the man himself.
Please do not attempt to compare the feeble, bumbling, incompetent, prevaricating current occupant of the White House with FDR. I am sure after becoming familiar with FDR you may come to see he would probably consider this president to be anti-American.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442917]
Please do not attempt to compare the feeble, bumbling, incompetent, prevaricating current occupant of the White House with FDR. I am sure after becoming familiar with FDR you may come to see he would probably consider this president to be anti-American.[/QUOTE]Joe Montana vs Tom Brady? The only clear thing is that we will never agree? But we can express our opinions.
The Dow Jones has been hovering in the high 17,000's. It has been quite a remarkable winning run. How, why? I really don't care. I remember a guy at the post office telling me he had to keep working because of the beating he took on his 401 k in 2008. So last night, I was eating Indian rojak & drinking tea tarik in Singapore with my high school buddies. And a few days ago, I was eating fresh sashimi in Sydney. 2 very expensive cities. And in a few months, I'll be in the Seychelles. Thanks, Barack.
No, no, no. No caviar, no Cuban cigar for me. Nothing like that. I live on my socialist SS income. So my 2 economy RD tickets cost 398 dollars total on Malaysian Airlines. Except for a few bawling kids, flight was great with inflight entertainment & food / service commendable. And 450 dollars for a clean / comfortable room in quiet trendy Birchgrove for 6 nights. Ferries & buses 3-10 minutes walk.
Thanks, FDR & Obama, the 2 run & pass duo threats. They did the job for me.
Here's some good ammo for the anti-government folks. It's pretty heinous.
[URL]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/despite-promises-social-security-still-trying-to-collect-old-debts-from-kin/ar-BBgM6X1[/URL]
Obama announces reestablishment of diplomatic and limited economic relations with Cuba.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/obama-to-announce-u-s-cuba-relations-shift-as-gross-is-released.html[/URL]
Another history altering achievement for what is turning out to be a truly historically remarkable presidency.
The Republican Congress is moaning.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;443000]Obama announces reestablishment of diplomatic and limited economic relations with Cuba.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/obama-to-announce-u-s-cuba-relations-shift-as-gross-is-released.html[/URL]
Another history altering achievement for what is turning out to be a truly historically remarkable presidency.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443001][b]But[/b]
The Republican Congress is moaning.[/QUOTE][I][b]"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) slammed the Obama administration for exchanging imprisoned aid worker Alan Gross with Cuba for three Cuban spies. Menendez calls it a dangerous precedent and one that absolves the Castro regimes behavior.
Let's be clear, this was not a humanitarian act by the Castro regime. It was a swap of convicted spies for an innocent American, the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement. President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government."[/I][/b]
[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/17/Senate-Dem-Obama-Has-Vindicated-The-Brutal-Behavior-of-the-Cuban-Government[/URL]
Looks like some Democrats are also upset, but we would never expect you to acknowledge it.
Who cares whether it "absolves the Castro regime's behavior" or not? The Castro regime is dying its own death and Fulgencio Batista would have turned the whole island into a fucking casino anyway. The whole revolution stemmed from us "absolving the behavior" of Batista and his cronies. How is Cuba even relevant nowadays? What the fuck do we need them for? Cigars? Legal hydroponic marijuana going to take all the market share from Cuba. "Made in USA. " Like we even need to go there when there is Puerto Rico and the DR.
Think how stupid it was of them to let all those baseball stars defect and become citizens of whatever suckass country Aroldis Chapman got his papers from, when they could have auctioned off rights to them, like Korea and Japan and I think maybe Taiwan are doing. Oh yeah; he has residency in Andorra. Gee, I wonder why Andorra. He doesn't really look like his ancestors came from there or anything.
The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes.
If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay. Or Like Now Minimum Wage, With no Health Care.
I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.
I Know you were too young to know what they misled us in school to believe in or what they told us to believe in what was the truth. It was just like they told us that all Indians were devils or Heathens.
I did too believed in what the told us, but my mind was not sure about what they said, so I read and listen to more points of View.
They lied to Us.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443007][I][b]"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) slammed the Obama administration for exchanging imprisoned aid worker Alan Gross with Cuba for three Cuban spies. Menendez calls it a dangerous precedent and one that absolves the Castro regimes behavior.
Let's be clear, this was not a humanitarian act by the Castro regime. It was a swap of convicted spies for an innocent American, the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement. President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government."[/I][/b]
[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/17/Senate-Dem-Obama-Has-Vindicated-The-Brutal-Behavior-of-the-Cuban-Government[/URL]
Looks like some Democrats are also upset, but we would never expect you to acknowledge it.[/QUOTE]
WT69/ Esten / Dickhead et al.
You guys are right the US is a racist, oppressive, militarily aggressive country ruled by the greedy evil rich who run the government and industry in a rigged system to deny people a living wage and healthcare benefits.
Then why do so many people risk their lives to come here and not to the worker paradise of Cuba, Venezuela, China and all the rest?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;443011]WT69/ Esten / Dickhead et al.
You guys are right the US is a racist, oppressive, militarily aggressive country ruled by the greedy evil rich who run the government and industry in a rigged system to deny people a living wage and healthcare benefits.
Then why do so many people risk their lives to come here and not to the worker paradise of Cuba, Venezuela, China and all the rest?[/QUOTE]Show me even one post where I have talked about the workers' situation in [B]any[/B] of those countries. I haven't been to either Cuba or China and I was 20 years old and drunk when I was in Venezuela. I don't know jack about the workers' situation in those places, and I haven't written squat about any of them. You must have me confused with some other left-wing asshole. I'm not even very far to the left and you would know that if you paid attention. The single and only thing I know about working in any of those countries is that China denied me a work visa. So fuck China.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes.[/QUOTE]I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay. Or Like Now Minimum Wage, With no Health Care.[/QUOTE]You're the one who needs a history lesson, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. The history of racism in this country is bred in the bone of the Democrat party, they are responsible for the creation of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Who in the Republican party has supported slavery? There may be some white supremacist in the Republican party, but the list of white supremacist in the history of the Democrat party is very long. You can argue that the parties swapped positions but that's unprovable and simply a bogus talking point. The Democrat party continues to try and control people today only their tactics have changed. Today we have the government plantation where government giveaways are used to control people. The bottom line is you can not wish the history of the Democrat party away.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Hearth Care.[/QUOTE]I thought ObamaCare was supposed to eliminate such problems?
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]I Know you were too young to know what they misled us in school to believe in or what they told us to believe in what was the truth. It was just like they told us that all Indians were devils or Heathens.
I did too believed in what the told us, but my mind was not sure about what they said, so I read and listen to more points of View.
They lied to Us.[/QUOTE]I suspect there is 5 years or less between our ages, and I never heard the American Indians referred to as "devils" and the only time I can remember them being called "Heathens" was when your buddies in Hollywood did it in the movies, but never in school.
However I can't speak for the teachings of the government schools in socialist California, anything is possible there.
Freed the slaves. Both houses were controlled by Republicans.
Yes the Tennessee confederate soldiers and the Southern Democrats were responsible for the creation of the KKK and the Jim Crow laws.
The manager of the restaurant said something about the city of Berkeley Marina laws that said we had to pay 3% to help with the employees heath care. The manager could explain the law either.
Ever read "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee"?
[QUOTE=Punter127;443017]I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
You're the one who needs a history lesson, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. The history of racism in this country is bred in the bone of the Democrat party, they are responsible for the creation of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Who in the Republican party has supported slavery? There may be some white supremacist in the Republican party, but the list of white supremacist in the history of the Democrat party is very long. You can argue that the parties swapped positions but that's unprovable and simply a bogus talking point. The Democrat party continues to try and control people today only their tactics have changed. Today we have the government plantation where government giveaways are used to control people. The bottom line is you can not wish the history of the Democrat party away.
I thought [B]Affordable Health Care Act[/b] was supposed to eliminate such problems?
I suspect there is 5 years or less between our ages, and I never heard the American Indians referred to as "devils" and the only time I can remember them being called "Heathens" was when your buddies in Hollywood did it in the movies, but never in school.
However I can't speak for the teachings of the government schools in socialist California, anything is possible there.[/QUOTE]
Most of the time when used, the writer actually is implying "In My UN-HUMBLED Opinion", I am a stud.
Sorry for the interruption, it's 7 am, and I had 3 cups of coffee already.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.[/QUOTE]You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443018]A presidential proclamation and executive order. Freed the slaves. Both houses were controlled by Republicans.[/QUOTE]Sorry, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. I was a pure publicity stunt. It freed slaves ONLY in states that were in rebellion, where the union had no jurisdiction. In other words, entirely backwards if the intent was to free slaves. It didn't free slaves that were in union states where he actually had the ability to do so.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443017] Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' [/QUOTE]The first part of that statement is certainly true, but how the second part follows from it eludes me. I can't even get to [I]post hoc ergo propiter hoc [/I]with that one. You are saying that no Cuban Americans can be white. Seems like a racist assumption. Hmm. Aren't a lot of Cubans of Spanish descent? So Spaniards aren't white? And if European people aren't white, who is? But anyone can google Menéndez and decide for themselves how white he is or isn't. The boy looks pretty pale to me but then I just got back from Hawaii.
The history of racism in this country was bred long before today's political parties emerged. Weren't we like kinda mean to the indigenous people? Weren't there slaves in the US colonies? Isn't colonialism sort of inherently racist? These people are inferior so let's occupy their land and exploit them economically and sexually? Kill most of them off? Did I miss something here?
Then in 1776 or 1789 was there a race to abolish slavery and property qualifications for voting? I think not. I say we blame all the racial problems on the Whigs. If it weren't for those god damn Whigs everything would have been peachy and it would have been a racial Shangri-La. Really, nothing like the modern day Democratic or Republican parties existed in 1863 so it's just absurd to blame or credit one or the other for emancipation or lack thereof. Or we could blame it on the Bull Moose Party, given the virulent racism of Teddy Roosevelt.
I don't really think the US has reached the point of no racism nor will it ever. But, I think we've gotten to a tipping point where for every racism there is an equal an opposite racism. So the fulcrum does not need to be moved any more in relation to the lever, or the seesaw is balanced, or something like that. Some might argue that "racism" is nothing more than protective xenophobia.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443022]The first part of that statement is certainly true, but how the second part follows from it eludes me. I can't even get to [I]post hoc ergo propiter hoc [/I]with that one. You are saying that no Cuban Americans can be white. [/QUOTE]Technically you're correct, but I was responding to WT's use of "The Good Old White boys" which I don't believe he was speaking of (white) Cubans, Spaniards, or Latinos. I think we all know who he was talking about, when he first lashed out it was Republican, and when his hand was called he came back with the following statement.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes. [/QUOTE]Hmmm, no polemic against WT 69 from you for his statements?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443022]The history of racism in this country was bred long before today's political parties emerged. Weren't we like kinda mean to the indigenous people? Weren't there slaves in the US colonies? Isn't colonialism sort of inherently racist? These people are inferior so let's occupy their land and exploit them economically and sexually? Kill most of them off? Did I miss something here?[/QUOTE]Yes, you seem to have missed the fact that todays Democrats like WT 69 want to blame all racism on "old white guys", they also inject words like "southern" and "successful" in the mix. Seems kind of odd that you haven't picked up on all that? But I don't remember you ever speaking a single word about any of those type of statements.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443022]Then in 1776 or 1789 was there a race to abolish slavery and property qualifications for voting? I think not. I say we blame all the racial problems on the Whigs. If it weren't for those god damn Whigs everything would have been peachy and it would have been a racial Shangri-La. Really, nothing like the modern day Democratic or Republican parties existed in 1863 so it's just absurd to blame or credit one or the other for emancipation or lack thereof. Or we could blame it on the Bull Moose Party, given the virulent racism of Teddy Roosevelt. [/QUOTE]Racism can be found worldwide it is not limited to the USA, IMHO there are very high levels of racism in some parts of Asia. I disagree with you about the Democratic and Republican parties, granted they have evolved but they are still the same parties. However it was WT 69 that first brought up the history of the parties.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]
If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay.[/QUOTE]Where does he come up with this crap?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443022]I don't really think the US has reached the point of no racism nor will it ever. But, I think we've gotten to a tipping point where for every racism there is an equal an opposite racism. So the fulcrum does not need to be moved any more in relation to the lever, or the seesaw is balanced, or something like that. Some might argue that "racism" is nothing more than protective xenophobia.[/QUOTE]I can't say that I disagree with you here, but go tell it to those that cry racism ever time someone disagrees with Obama.
[QUOTE=SpiritRider;443021]Sorry, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. I was a pure publicity stunt. It freed slaves ONLY in states that were in rebellion, where the union had no jurisdiction. In other words, entirely backwards if the intent was to free slaves. It didn't free slaves that were in union states where he actually had the ability to do so.[/QUOTE]You are correct it was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery nationwide, or in the Union if you prefer.
I gave it and more to the waiter.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443020]You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.[/QUOTE]
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez and his parents were most likely supporters of the Dictator Batista and were some of the 1%ers that could afford to leave Cuba.
The Cubans that were left behind; under Batista did not get free schooling and health care, as they do now. They had to work the fields of the rich.
Their Economy is in shambles, because of the Embargo. It is only hurting the Cuban people.
It's funny how our Government seem to support Dictators; in parts of the world; in Latin American and the Middle East.
It was embarrassing when I started traveling that I had to apologize for being an American. In Sweden I met a lady and some of her friends at a park. One guy told me he was going to Vietnam and kill Americans. I had to tell him that I did not vote for Nixon. After that when I traveled I just told people that I was from San Francisco or California.
I do miss Cuba.
Sorry, I meant to say Good Old White Republicans. Their new committees make up has one woman and one Latino.
Punter that sounds like an English phrase. Are you even an American?
[QUOTE=Punter127;443017]I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443023]Hmmm, no polemic against WT 69 from you for his statements?[/QUOTE]As his posts themselves generally constitute a better argument against his positions, I don't bother with polemics in his case. I mean, something like this: "The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes"? Does that really merit a polemic? My thinking is no. In your case there is a faint ray of hope, and I don't think the first part of your post came out the way you meant it to.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443026]I gave it and more to the waiter.[/QUOTE]It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
I know that it's a liberal mantra that all business are fountains of money waiting to be tapped by saintly politicians to be righteously spent on "social justice" programs, said additional taxes to be magically absorbed by said businesses, but that's just not reality.
Case in point: The Obamacare tax on "Cadillac Plans". Obama told the unions that their members wouldn't have to pay the "Cadillac Tax" because the tax was to be paid by the insurance companies, but of course the insurance companies passed the cost of the tax onto the union policyholders.
This particular restaurant decided to add the Obamacare costs to the bill as a surcharge instead of raising all of their menu prices by 3%, but one way or another, the cost of providing health care to the employees is absolutely going to be passed onto the consumer. Period.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443009]They lied to Us.[/QUOTE]Do you mean like "[I]If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period.[/I]"?
[QUOTE=Jackson;443029]It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
[/QUOTE]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443030]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.[/QUOTE]Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443030]Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.[/QUOTE]Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?
[QUOTE=Doggboy;443031]Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?[/QUOTE]No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443032]Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.[/QUOTE]Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business [B]cannot pass on increases in its costs[/B] to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on [B]some, but not all[/B] of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443033]No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...
Trickle-down economics is associated with tax breaks (or we can just call them targeted reductions) for the wealthy, or for corporations, to stimulate job and business creation (and capital spending as well), and eventually everyone else will (allegedly) benefit. An example would be accelerated depreciation. Another example would be low-income housing tax credits. Trickle-down is a subset of supply-side economics. Both supply-side and demand-side economic stimulation can be effective. I am more a demand-sider or Keynesian not for any particular philosophical reason, but because both my research and my experience tell me demand side economics works more quickly. That's even leaving out the fact that I haven't seen very much trickle, and what I have seen hasn't trickled very far.
Handjobs for the homeless, vote for Spanky.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isqj49WkoTg[/URL]
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443034]Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business [B]cannot pass on increases in its costs[/B] to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on [B]some, but not all[/B] of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.[/QUOTE]Very enlightening.
You could always take off the jelly shell, eat the inside and trickle down the shell.
Wait, or is that hand me down?
[QUOTE=Doggboy;443035]My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...[/QUOTE]
From the BBC:
Mr Rubio said he didn't care if "99% of people in polls" disagreed with his stance, a message that could resonate in Florida, the traditional home of the Cuban exile community but also a state that is increasingly becoming more diverse and less dominated by Cuban affairs.
Mr Rubio told CNN on Wednesday he reserved the right "to do everything within the rules of the Senate to prevent that sort of individual from ever even coming up for a vote," referring to the confirmation process for ambassadors in relation to Cuba.
Isn't this type of behavior and attitude similar to what we accuse Obama of doing to the detriment of the country?
Of course we children of the sixties grew up reading "Profiles in Courage" in the 5th and 6th grades where this type of behavior was celebrated.
On the one hand, fuck Cuba, but on the other hand, our policy towards them could have been changed as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and by now we would have another playground similar to the DR but easier to get to. From an economic standpoint there is little reason for [B]us[/B] to pursue [B]them[/B] since they are just a bunch of broke dick motherfuckers. But Cubans could possibly make better wetbacks than Mxicans or Central Americans, because there is a higher educational level there. By extension, a better educated hooker is a more interesting hooker. Perhaps now we will see more cubanas in places like Costa Rica or at Campo Alegre. I had to go all the way to Spain to fuck a cubana. There was one at Catto's for a while but I would never meet her price. She was a real [I]borracha[/I] and I think she was more interested in hanging out and drinking.
The whole embargo thing is so 19th century, and to try to exclude a market that is 90 miles away seems doomed to failure anyway. We've wasted resources on that stupid island far beyond its economic importance ever since we stole the thing from Spain. Plus there aren't any Muslims there. Islam is the threat, not fucking Communism which was given a thorough trial in various areas and did not do too well in any of them.
What's funny now is that the Republican Cuban-Americans in Florida weren't even born when Batista bit it, and you [I]still[/I] can't tell those fuckers a thing. They know it all. Here's a news flash for all those assholes: Batista was a sadistic dick. He raped the treasury before he left, and he ended up just fine in quiet iberian luxury. Castro did him a favor because someone would have popped a cap in his ass sooner rather than later. But what the fuck do we know? We supported Efraín Ríos Montt, to say nothing of Anastasio [I]'Nicaragua es mi finca'[/I] Somoza Debayle, for christ's sakes. Under Republican presidents, of course, but it's still pretty hard to believe from an historical standpoint.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443029]This particular restaurant decided to add the Obamacare costs to the bill as a surcharge instead of raising all of their menu prices by 3%, but one way or another, the cost of providing health care to the employees is absolutely going to be passed onto the consumer. Period.[/QUOTE]Absolutely. This has the nature of a sales tax. Sales and excise taxes are passed onto the consumer, regardless of whether the business is a monopoly or in a competitive industry where returns are reduced to the cost of capital.
With respect to the larger picture, I would have said that most costs are passed onto the consumer, not all costs, but that's nitpicking.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443033]No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]Great analogy. This ties in with your first point. Profits are a small percentage of revenues. Most profits are re-invested, thus growing jobs and the economy. Good luck trying to convince ideologues though, they're convinced profits are spent mostly on luxurious houses, cars, etc. , and nothing's going to change their opinions.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;443043]Absolutely. This has the nature of a sales tax. Sales and excise taxes are passed onto the consumer, regardless of whether the business is a monopoly or in a competitive industry where returns are reduced to the cost of capital.[/QUOTE]Well, actually, no:
[URL]http://thismatter.com/economics/tax-incidence.htm[/URL]
And, in fact, sales taxes and excise taxes do not behave similarly. I think this situation also has elements of a [B]payroll[/B] tax:
[URL]www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/.../bush_tax...[/URL]
Not sure if that link will work but you can google 'who bears the burden of payroll taxes' if it does not. This next one is probably the best overall explanation of who pays what taxes and to what extent. Note that it is authored by a [B]conservative[/B] think tank.
[URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/tax-incidence-tax-burden-and-tax-shifting-who-really-pays-the-tax[/URL]
Jackson and Tiny are both just flat out wrong on this one.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;443044]Well, actually, no:
[URL]http://thismatter.com/economics/tax-incidence.htm[/URL]
And, in fact, sales taxes and excise taxes do not behave similarly. I think this situation also has elements of a [B]payroll[/B] tax:
[URL]www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/.../bush_tax...[/URL]
Not sure if that link will work but you can google 'who bears the burden of payroll taxes' if it does not. This next one is probably the best overall explanation of who pays what taxes and to what extent. Note that it is authored by a [B]conservative[/B] think tank.
[URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/tax-incidence-tax-burden-and-tax-shifting-who-really-pays-the-tax[/URL]
Jackson and Tiny are both just flat out wrong on this one.[/QUOTE]WT69 paid a tax of 3% of sales. How is that not a sales tax?
Your link says, "Generally, because sales taxes are assessed on many items, buyers bear most of the burden of sales taxes, since there are few other things that they can buy that are tax-free. On the other hand, excise taxes, which are taxes on particular products, would, in many circumstances, hurt the sellers more because buyers can buy untaxed goods. This elastic demand pushes the tax burden on the sellers. However, there are some items where demand is inelastic because there are no close substitutes, such as alcohol and tobacco, so the tax burden for these items falls more on the buyers. ".
So since this is a sales tax, I think they're saying you're flat out wrong. An excise tax is a sales tax. The only distinction is that it's levied as a function of weight or volume instead of cost. I've looked at closely at several companies that bear excise taxes on alcohol and gasoline over periods when excise taxes increased. The excise taxes were passed onto the consumer. The margins of the companies, using gross revenues less excise tax in the denominator, weren't affected in the long term.
Why do you think sales and excise taxes are regressive? It's because they're passed onto the consumer.
Umm, it's a tax on a [B]particular product or service[/B], so it's excise and not sales. By the way, I don't argue that [I]most[/I] of the burden of a [I]sales[/I] tax falls on the consumer. That is consistent with a lack of (non-taxable) substitutes, which would decrease elasticity of demand and increase the incidence of the tax on the consumer. This tax can be avoided by eating at home or driving a bit farther away, or avoided by multiplying the pre-surchage, pre-sales tax amount by 115% and then adding the sales tax, and then paying that total amount (which is what I would do). That ability to substitute increases elasticity of demand and decreases the incidence of the tax on the consumer.
Now, while it is clearly not a sales tax ("Excise taxes (insert ellipses here) are taxes on [I]particular products[/I]"), I believe it to have elements of a [B]payroll[/B] tax because it is an alternative to paying higher wages. It bears repeating that the whole idea of employer-paid health care, which makes no particular logical sense other than having certain economies of scale available, arose due to the [B]inability to pay higher wages[/B] because of WWII wage and price controls. And, the burden of a payroll tends to fall on the employee, meaning that most of it does [B]not[/B] get passed on to the customer.
But righties are barking up the wrong tree even talking about the [B]incidence[/B] of a tax, which is what we are discussing here. The Heritage article I cited should put you on the right track. You supply siders want to talk about the [B]deadweight loss[/B] from a tax. [B]That's[/B] the argument you should be making. Trickle-down claims to reduce the "deadweight triangle" over time.
I do find it interesting that the one article claims there are no close substitutes for alcohol. I've certainly found a number of them over the years.