Hodad

Oh, good. Another reality TV heel desperate for a hit of media attention. "Pay attention to me, guys! Look over here! I'm relevant!"

Which is bullshit, and Rush Limbaugh dittohead stupid. Not even a straw man. Just dumb. Lol. Welp, you just confirmed that you have no farking clue what a nonprofit is. Maybe read up on that before offering any further opinions. i didn't attribute growth exclusively to a high top marginal tax rate. But it's absolutely a proof point that those rates are fully compatible with explosive growth. The idea that the rich will just stop their commerce if they have to pay protonate taxes is the silliest kind of dogma. But those high rates did indeed help fuel the economic boom. They funded things like the GI Bill and projects like the interstate highway system, adding massive amounts of human capital and economy-accelerating infrastructure. And if personal profit taking is heavily taxed, there is incentive to put profit back into expansion. You're welcome to dither about this or that, but bottom line is that it happened--for decades it worked. Rates were lowered in an effort to put more free cash into a stagnant economy. The economy did start rolling again (again not exclusively because of tax rates) but Reagan also gutted much of what helped build that boom with his trickle-down bullshit, and ushered in the era of voluntary deficits. We're still paying and suffering--from those decisions. Now the middle class continues to shrink, and the ultra rich keep getting richer. The American dream is dying in the shadow of the Reaganomics legacy.

There's a very long list of things that are fundamentally wrong with that post. Top 3: 1. It's absurd that you still don't know the difference between communism, socialism and liberalism. Conflating them is just silly, and neither socialists nor liberals are opposed to profit. 2. Nonprofits can't expand and grow? Are you oblivious? I really think you don't have any idea what "nonprofit" means. They absolutely can generate revenue over cost. They can hold cash reserves. They are not "living paycheck to paycheck,' and they certainly can grow. In fact, grow and expand is ALL that nonprofit can do. With no one taking profit out of the organization all revenue above cost is plowed back into the growth and expansion of the organization, as it must be. There are non-profits operating on a massive scale like a fortune 50 company. Kaiser Permanente is a $100+ billion organization. Novo Nordisk Foundation holds a $167 Billion endowment. It's true that they often grow slower because they actually have to earn their growth capital rather than gambling with investor contributed capital. But they do grow. 3. Your unfettered free market dogma is demonstrably wrong. There are countries that are thriving in systems that embrace profit, but also are structured to curb extreme individual wealth. (You're the OP of a thread discussing this fact.) They prioritize building a robust middle class of spenders rather than consolidating wealth in the hands of a few. Hell, the biggest economic boom period in American history was post-war through the mid 70s. And we had a top tax rate of 90%+. You want to "Make America Great Again," but you have no idea what made it great. It's certainly not the busted-ass dogma of the Reagan era.

Aren't you a supporter of nakedly partisan gerrymandering? Are you also upset about Texas? Or are you just nakedly partisan too.

It is, clearly and explicitly. That was the focus of the investigation basically all along, and the conclusions published in all related reports: the Russian influence campaign. The idea that Gabbard is "debunking" the "hoax" and crying foul by saying that the Obama administration knew all along that the the Russians didn't hack our voting machines is farking nuts. And they are buying it hook line and sinker. See something convenient on Twitter? Must be true! Not to mention that nearly ALL of the investigation happened DURING the Trump administration, including the appointment of Mueller by Trump's DOJ.

What did you not understand about that post? The household income is not a normalized figure. That's why you would use an apples to apples number like PPP. And, as I explained, you'd want to measure disposable (after tax) income and then compare that against cost of living. The taxes are high-ish in Nordic countries (Switzerland is not Nordic, btw) but not really higher than the total burden in our comparable US Metros. And, in exchange for their taxes, on top of quality infrastructure, they get health care, child care, college tuition, retirement etc. And more affordable housing to boot. Some stuff is more expensive, but net it out and they really do have a better situation for the VAST majority of the population. There's not really any dispute there. The US system is better for the rich, but everyone else is worse off. And the rich are fine everywhere. Our GDP is rising, but the middle class is shrinking. The wealthy are keeping larger and larger portions of the growth. CEO pay is already many many times greater than employee pay, and it continues to grow at a faster rate too. The wealth gap is killing us. We're not on a good trajectory. Millennials, Gen Z are progressively worse off than the generations before. The Nordic countries have prioritized the middle class, and it's paying dividends.

You're going to have to make up your mind what you want to compare. No, GDP (raw or per capita) does not account for tax rates, just economic activity. PPP is more useful because it allows one to account for differences in cost of living. If you want to consider tax rates also, you'd want to look at something like measurements of disposable income, relative to COL. For example, if I make about $300K in NYC and the same in Oslo, my total tax burden would be just shy of 40% in NYC, but would actually be about a point less in Oslo. -- But in Oslo my rent would also be half as much, my childcare would be about 75% cheaper and I wouldn't have to pay for health coverage. So not only would I have more disposable income, but it would go much further because of the lower cost of living. Lower cost, higher quality of life. The thing people forget about taxes is that they're not just a cost, they also provide benefits.

I can see why you don't like math, lol. Even in your screenshot, Oslo has a higher GDP per capita than every US state. And our highest tax states (NY, CT, CA etc.) dramatically outperform notable tax havens like Texas and Florida. So what argument are you trying to make again? But, as before, GDP per capita is about the crudest proxy for quality of life. For that you'd want to look at PPP. And if, for some reason you think productivity is crucial to quality of life, you'd at least want to look at something like GDP per work hour. Either of those will tell you something more about what it's like to live and work in those countries. Just looking at GDP or GDP per capita is kinda silly if you want to make an argument about "better" systems of government and taxation. Working 15 hour days 7 days a week can really boost GDP, but I don't think anyone really wants to live that way.

If you find math difficult, you don't have to try it. You could, you know, listen to the economists who study these questions full time. Save your self the headache.🤷‍♂️ But if you did want to look at the numbers, you'd see that what I've said is correct.

How many times are you going to post this nonsense. From your article--which has been posted before and which I've quoted before. The documents don't lie, but you do. Gabbard is setting up a straw man. This is from your own article. Read it. "There is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means," wrote an ODNI official whose name was redacted in a newly published email. "However, as seen in recent media reporting, any cyber activity directed against the election infrastructure is likely to have an effect on public confidence," they continued. Gabbard also released a timeline that outlines events leading up to the 2017 assessment that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. The timeline focuses on the conclusions by intelligence community officials that Russia likely had not and would not use cyber means to directly compromise voter systems or change vote tallies. Gabbard argues that these conclusions are hypocritical and poke holes – if not directly contradict – the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russian attempted to influence the election. But Obama officials never claimed that Russian hackers had successfully changed votes or hacked election infrastructure at scale. The 2017 assessment focuses on Russian influence, from social media disinformation networks, hack-and-leak campaigns, Russian bot farms and other more psychological efforts made by Russian actors. Intelligence community experts acknowledge that Russian hacking targeting election infrastructure was likely limited and aimed at gathering intelligence.

Hypocrisy! -- Didn't you buy your wife from Eastern Europe? You could have hired local.

Careful. You're starting to make an argument about that's not very flattering for the US. 😜 If the economic activity per capita is higher but the PPP is lower one might speculate that we work more hours with less to show for it than, say, the Nordic countries. The Nordic countries are actually more productive per hour than we are. They've just made an active choice to work fewer hours and have more social stability. This manifests in things like medical care, child care, extended parental bonding, expected vacations, etc. Hence, the people are happier.

Well, you did. The second you started talking about taxing individuals you start talking about individual finances and how well off the individuals are under a certain system of taxation. Is productivity an intrinsic good, or are you intending it to be a proxy for individual well being? You are doing the latter. Which is a correct instinct. The GDP of a slave state could be off the charts, but you wouldn't want to live in one. So, detour aside, you want to make the argument that lower taxation leads to higher productivity and higher individual well being, therefore it's better to live in a system of lower taxation. That's your thesis, right? The point of the thread? But the data you linked doesn't support that. GDP and GDP per capita are the crudest proxies. As I said earlier, GDP PPP is what you want to look at if you are trying to comparing quality of life across countries using GDP data. (Which is the data that's readily available at-a-glance. Economists who study standard of living will look much deeper.)

Nonsense. This is a case of data that you don't know how to interpret. Income is an irrelevant comparison on it's own. What you actually need to understand is how much quality of life people can get with the money they earn. If a person A makes twice as much money as Person B, but also has a 2x cost of living then they are equally well off. There are economists that study quality of life measurements full time and in sophisticated ways (the US doesn't crack the top 10 in most lists), but even if you just wanted a crude, raw number, you're using the wrong one. You'd want to look at PPP. Open your first link. Flip the 2nd selector to PPP GDP. -- The US comes in 12 on that list--the entire US, certainly not Mississippi.

🙄 A. It's not a god whistle for anything. Just because someone COULD reference that phrase in another context doesn't change what the damn phrase means. It's just that: a reference. B. Comey posted it before any assassination attempts. C. He happily removed it and clarified when you crybabies actively tried to make something out of nothing.

Found that morning bar again, eh? Or just still there from last night?

It's gonna be a really rough transition for people like you. Good luck!

So you agree. China is not where most Fentanyl comes from, and they at not distributing fentanyl to Americans as an act of "war." Good. It was gonna be awkward watching the "party of personal responsibility" complain that Brazil was at war with the US by selling the sugar to the neighborhood bakery that then uses it in those delicious cookies they just can't stop eating. Fentanyl, like guns and sugar, is definitely killing a lot of Americans. It's an epidemic. It could and should be treated like one. We should address demand. We should address supply. It's all fair game. But the economic forces that drive these things are in no way an act of war. The goal is not to hurt or disable. It's old fashioned greed.

Did the other poster discuss anything about fentanyl consumers? Or just mistakenly accuse a supplier? It was the latter. Your motives are as gross as usual, but thanks for demonstrating that the analogy was an effective rebuttal.

Ah, the old enemies-to-lovers trope. You did not "win a debate" against AI. As I told you in the other thread, AI will eventually tell you whatever you want to hear. And it will with unquestioning authority. If you were to open up a new chat and press it to go in the other direction, it would eventually tell you that Fauci deserves a medal. AI is optimized for engagement. It's another piece of technology that is dangerous to people who don't understand how it works, what it's for and when/how to use it.

This really has nothing at all to do with your lumpy, orange Jesus. In spite of your fawning obsession, not everything is about him. 💡

That's just the point. You're not stating indisputable facts. You came to a dogmatic conclusion several years ago, and you're filtering every piece of information through the lens of whether it supports your conclusion or undermines your conclusion. Anything that supports your conclusion you call an "insisputable" fact. Anything the undermines your conclusion you call a lie. And you interpret and label information based on that paradigm. For example: There are no "known" Fauci lies. You have assigned both awareness and intent to statements that don't conform to your original conclusion, and because of your conspiracy thinking you havelabelled them as lies. Meanwhile, there is no actual evidence that he lied. And there's also no evidence that he concealed the truth or destroyed evidence. You're doing the exact same thing here. You think your original conclusion is "truth" and that it was censored. It's all a sequence of poor reasoning. You don't understand vaccine efficacy, so you mistakenly concluded that the vaccines didn't work. Because you mistakenly think the vaccines didn't work (despite being debunked many times) you cling dogmatically to that article of faith. Because you mistakenly think that the vaccines didn't work (they did) and that they were dangerous (they weren't) you think that everyone who promoted vaccines was promoting "dangerous misinformation." At the same time: Because the vaccines do work and it was a matter of life and death, platform owners engaged in content moderation to stem misinformation that would discourage vaccine uptake. (That's just socially responsible.) Because the "lab leak" theory was so frequently tied to anti-vaccine misinformation, and that adjacency undermined uptake in other ways, it too was moderated by platform owners. Probably only SOME of it should have been, but they were doing their best to keep people alive and nuance was sacrificed. It's not conspiracy. It's not "censorship of the truth." It's just humans making critical decisions in real time with an evolving set of information. Sorry, but no. Scientists should not burn time and money "trialing" every goddamn stupid thing that is proposed. And no, neither of them were effective. Check with the FDA, NIH and WHO. Lol. If you can't sort out an errant apostrophe, I don't think you're up to proving anything was "stupid." Scientists debate things and come to a consensus on a report. It's not a consensus that you like. So you assume it was a conspiracy. Ooooookay. And no, the "lab leak" is not far more likely, and you are not being honest. As mentioned before, the natural origin is still, to this day, has the preponderance of evidence and is the dominant explanation. AI is terribly sycophantic. It will turn your predisposition to confirmation bias to 11 if you let it. Don't log in. Just ask it the question. Regardless of when the website was updated, what you describe as "changing the definition" was a clarification made in 2017 so that researchers had clarity on what was permissible under the law. Again, not a conspiracy. This is rich. The agency that you insult and denigrate at the top of your lungs says something that supports your position and suddenly you're citing them? Bringing us right back 'round to your terminal case of confirmation bias. 🤣 The FBI does (only moderate confidence). They are the only intelligence agency with that assessment. Others are low or natural origin. And the scientific community (which is where you should be looking) is still predominately natural origin. The absurdity of you claiming lies and coverup about a matter that is still widely debated in the science community (though leaning heavily toward natura) is par for the course. Hell, anthropogenic global warming is far past consensus and approaching unanimity, and you still think all the scientists in the world are lying. 🙄 A layperson (very lay) contradicting specialized expertise with extreme certainty? Dunning, Kruger, we've got your new poster child.

Fentanyl deaths are unfortunate, sometimes tragic, but we import it illegally because there is a high demand, not because China is waging "war" on the US. Nearly all fentanyl comes into the US from Mexico, and most of it is made there. (Although Canada is a big problem, according to Trump🙄.) And the number of fentanyl deaths is running neck-and-neck with gun deaths, and most of those are manufactured domestically. So questions: Why aren't you equally concerned about stopping fun sales? Is The US government at war with the citizenry for "making" that happen? Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens. Are MAGA and the gun lobby specifically at war on America's children?

I'm a cityist. Why should my city entangle itself with other governments an economies? Those other people are different. The city is the only right size of government and I'll believe it until I die. Everyone telling you about the need for and value in more sophisticated relationships is a commie Satanist traitor hell-bent on destroying the city. Yessir, 32.7 square miles is the ONLY holy and blessed and legitimate unit of land that can be legitimately governed.

This is noteworthy. Trump usually just bankrupts his own businesses. I guess it's just part of making America great again... He works in mysterious ways.