Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Proximity" data-source="post: 7924180" data-attributes="member: 589997">^ That one is too easy. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gifA) There aren&#039;t only 10 people in the world.B) This isn&#039;t taking into account how the rich one gets rich. If he closes his business, then he&#039;s leaving a hole in the market (using the analogy) which someone else will pick up and then likely get wealthy themselves.B) Taxes on the rich are a fraction of what they used to be. The top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s was 91%. This was when our economy was booming and our middle class was strongest. In the Great Depression and WWII it was over 70%. But then, rich people didn&#039;t pack up and move to Cambodia, did they? The world isn&#039;t what Ayn Rand writes in her books. So asking the rich to pay for SOME their tax breaks over the past 30 years won&#039;t wreck our economy. What WILL wreck it is what Romney wants, shouldering ALL of the burden on the working class. How can anyone be fore this approach?And as for your socialism/grades analogy, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Just like no one is arguing for pure capitalism. Each would be equally catastrophic. A mixed economy, with some socialist policies that protect the worker/consumer, on a base of capitalism is the way to go. Is this so extreme?And what does &quot;just not show up at the table anymore&quot; even mean, specifically? These things sound really good to stupid people who don&#039;t think about it, but if you think about it logically it completely falls apart.It&#039;s funny, you have to use false WAY over simplified analogies to paint pictures of reality because there is no way to logically describe your false vision of the universe. If the conservative ideology was so slam dunk, you wouldn&#039;t need analogies. Try just using facts, that&#039;s what I do. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Proximity, post: 7924180, member: 589997"] ^ That one is too easy. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif[/IMG] A) There aren't only 10 people in the world. B) This isn't taking into account how the rich one gets rich. If he closes his business, then he's leaving a hole in the market (using the analogy) which someone else will pick up and then likely get wealthy themselves. B) Taxes on the rich are a fraction of what they used to be. The top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s was 91%. This was when our economy was booming and our middle class was strongest. In the Great Depression and WWII it was over 70%. But then, rich people didn't pack up and move to Cambodia, did they? The world isn't what Ayn Rand writes in her books. So asking the rich to pay for SOME their tax breaks over the past 30 years won't wreck our economy. What WILL wreck it is what Romney wants, shouldering ALL of the burden on the working class. How can anyone be fore this approach? And as for your socialism/grades analogy, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Just like no one is arguing for pure capitalism. Each would be equally catastrophic. A mixed economy, with [B]some[/B] socialist policies that protect the worker/consumer, on a base of capitalism is the way to go. Is this so extreme? And what does "just not show up at the table anymore" even mean, specifically? These things sound really good to stupid people who don't think about it, but if you think about it logically it completely falls apart. It's funny, you have to use false WAY over simplified analogies to paint pictures of reality because there is no way to logically describe your false vision of the universe. If the conservative ideology was so slam dunk, you wouldn't need analogies. Try just using facts, that's what I do. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification