Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: Susan B. Anthony on December 09, 2005, 02:08:28 AM

Title: .
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on December 09, 2005, 02:08:28 AM
:)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 09, 2005, 06:40:46 AM
It is a tough concept for most people to grasp, but cutting taxes often leads to increased tax revenue.  It's basic economics.  Additionally, this current tax cut only reduces taxes that should be completely eliminated (IMHO).  The double taxation that occurs on dividends and other capital gains is unfair.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 09, 2005, 11:20:34 AM
It's just like price theory for business.  Do you think a company will maximize profits by charging the most?  No.  They maximize profits by striking a balance between price and quantity sold. At any given point, lowering prices may increase total sales and improve profits.  This holds true for taxes as well.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 09, 2005, 04:05:47 PM
Giving tax cuts lets people put some more of their money into the economy. It actually helps things out. Plus, we shouldn't have as much taxes, people need to take care of themselves.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Julie Fern on December 09, 2005, 04:41:38 PM
yes, same people whmo think they entitled to everything because they already makiing so much money.

why not just abolish taxes altogether?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 09, 2005, 04:53:27 PM
I don't care it helps the deficit or not. It's my money, if I want to give to the poor, I will (and do). It enrages me that we pay nearly 1/2 our income in taxes. Think of it this way. You work 4 hours for the government for every 8 hours you work!

Dispute the 50% if you want I haven't done all the math, but it's close. ~28% income tax, state income tax (not all states, but a lot), social security, medicaid, medicare, sales tax, property tax (ya you pay it even if you rent), licenses and fees, corporate tax (ya you pay some of this too, they pass along most of it). Then they hit you w/estate tax when you die.

Let's put it this way, the colonists paid no where near 25% tax when they revolted from the British. True they were mad about the lack of representation too, but taxes triggered the revolt.

We spend to much granted, but if the government doesn't go broke they won't stop spending.

If representatives ever figure out that they can bribe voters with their own money... - Alex de Tocqueville
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 09, 2005, 05:04:34 PM
It is a tough concept for most people to grasp, but cutting taxes often leads to increased tax revenue.  It's basic economics.  Additionally, this current tax cut only reduces taxes that should be completely eliminated (IMHO).  The double taxation that occurs on dividends and other capital gains is unfair.

Hogwash! "cutting taxes often leads to increased tax revenue"? That's the talking point.  Show us these OFTEN instances where it has led to increased tax revenue.  It's nice in theory but people forget to mention the other theories that counter this argument like people hoarding the extra money since they expect taxes will have to increase in the future (and therefore no extra economic value is generated).  People always use Reagan as an example of when this worked (well folks at the Fox network do, but sadly forget to adjust for inflation)...hilarious.  Anyhow, gives us instances of how this OFTEN works?

You'll have a hard time doing this because...........

THERE ARE NONE!
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 09, 2005, 05:12:04 PM
Myth: Tax cuts increase tax collections.

Fact: Tax cuts decrease tax collections.



Summary

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase tax collections. Almost always, tax cuts have seen tax collections fall in the following years; tax hikes have seen tax collections rise in the following years. Which is about what you would expect!



Tax cuts in recent history

Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.

There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.


Year      Current    Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981     $61,137     $78,623

1982      49,207     58,991
1983      37,022     42,544
1984      56,893     62,623
1985      61,331     65,024
1986      63,143     65,015
1987      83,926     83,926
1988      94,508     91,224
1989     103,291     98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total:        567,439
1981 (times 8     -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss     -69,545


1. Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996. 
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 09, 2005, 07:54:12 PM
...people forget to mention the other theories that counter this argument like people hoarding the extra money since they expect taxes will have to increase in the future ...

Does "hoarding the extra money" mean stuffing under the mattress?  No.  It means saving it and saving is investment.  Business uses this to expand production and improve their economic output.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 09, 2005, 09:12:31 PM
...people forget to mention the other theories that counter this argument like people hoarding the extra money since they expect taxes will have to increase in the future ...

Does "hoarding the extra money" mean stuffing under the mattress?  No.  It means saving it and saving is investment.  Business uses this to expand production and improve their economic output.

It is a tough concept for most people to grasp, but cutting taxes often leads to increased tax revenue.


I figured you wouldn't be able to back this up....Did you just copy and paste a transcript from Fox Faux radio?  ;D
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 10, 2005, 12:23:22 AM
Wow...  I didnt know that I needed to connect all the dots for you.  Saving money leads to increased capital investment leads to greater productivity leads to increased tax revenue.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 10, 2005, 12:33:49 AM
interesting stuff
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Julie Fern on December 10, 2005, 03:09:12 AM
I don't care it helps the deficit or not. It's my money, if I want to give to the poor, I will (and do). It enrages me that we pay nearly 1/2 our income in taxes. Think of it this way. You work 4 hours for the government for every 8 hours you work!

Dispute the 50% if you want I haven't done all the math, but it's close. ~28% income tax, state income tax (not all states, but a lot), social security, medicaid, medicare, sales tax, property tax (ya you pay it even if you rent), licenses and fees, corporate tax (ya you pay some of this too, they pass along most of it). Then they hit you w/estate tax when you die.

Let's put it this way, the colonists paid no where near 25% tax when they revolted from the British. True they were mad about the lack of representation too, but taxes triggered the revolt.

We spend to much granted, but if the government doesn't go broke they won't stop spending.

If representatives ever figure out that they can bribe voters with their own money... - Alex de Tocqueville

poor?  how about defense contractors?

and do you defend spending more than taking in?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 10, 2005, 06:12:14 AM
Wow...  I didnt know that I needed to connect all the dots for you.  Saving money leads to increased capital investment leads to greater productivity leads to increased tax revenue.

You can save the Econ 101 quotes, I've been a financial analyst for the last 6 years, and have worked on numerous real world Economic issues for my company.

You don't have to connect the dots, you have to SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS!  There is a difference.  Now again, I ask you, when has this ever happened?:

It is a tough concept for most people to grasp, but cutting taxes often leads to increased tax revenue.

I say "NEVER" and you say "OFTEN". I'll even lower the bar for you.  Give me ONE single instance within the last 100 years.

I really don't mean to be a male private part, but these right-wingers that come up with this sh*t lie and lie and lie, and then people pick up their b.s and repeat it and repeat it and after a while, if it's said enough it becomes "true".  No ones holds them accountable for this stuff, and it irks me.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 10, 2005, 06:26:28 AM
You don't have to connect the dots, you have to SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS! 

or STFU? :D

sorry, had to bring back your last quote, though i like your current one also.

i can think of one that vaguely resembles what he's talking about, but the situations are too radically different to bother. 

LOL, exactly Stanley! I think I know the one that you are thinking about too, and you are spot on about the situations being radically different.  As a matter of fact, there is a solid economic explanation for that particular result.  I'll wait and see if twelvehundred is going to point out that case, but I doubt it.  Why waste time on facts when you can just repeat the same thing ten times?

edit: I don't really want to be too hard on you twelvehundred, but this stuff gets me.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 10, 2005, 06:38:37 AM
i will be interested to see if we are thinking of the same instance.

Why waste time on facts when you can just repeat the same thing ten times? haha

and don't discount this as an argument tactic.  i have one co-worker that is particularly right-wing, so every chance i get i call him a communist, and i am now bringing everyone else around to my way of thinking!  :D

I'm curious to see if we are as well.
 ;D @ your co-worker story
Oh, I know that argument tactic works like a charm.  That's why even after the administration finally admitted that there was no Saddam/911 link more than half the country still believed that there was (cause they had heard the claim a 100 times prior) ;) LOL, but I won't turn this into a political convo...haha
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 10, 2005, 03:44:12 PM
Stan, I agree it's us not the government that needs to change. We let our representatives bribe us with our own money. It makes me sick.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 10, 2005, 11:41:53 PM
I'll sum it up in the words of the most brilliant economist of our time, George Reisman:

(Speaking about high incomes) "The extremely high incomes...are overwhelmingly saved and invested. In this way, they bring about large-scale capital accumulation. Capital is the foundation both of the demand for labor and the supply of consumers’ goods. Its continuous accumulation is the foundation of high and rising real wages and a high and rising standard of living for everyone."

Now for specific examples.

You beleived that the increased revenues after the Reagan cuts were nonexistant if adjusted for inflation.
The following chart shows increased tax revenues adjusted for inflation for the decade following the cuts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

[img width= height=]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif[/img]

A more modern example is occuring as we speak.  After the Bush tax cuts, the economy began improving, and surprise surprise, tax revenues are increasing.

It's a little something called the Laffer Curve.
[img width= height=]http://www.investopedia.com/images/terms/laffercurve.gif[/img]

Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Julie Fern on December 11, 2005, 03:07:18 AM
funny how you republican apologists entiely avoid subject of our record deficits.

what laffer say about them?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 11, 2005, 12:42:00 PM
Wouldn't it take more than three years for us to see the effects of the Bush tax cuts? People need to realize that things aren't going to happen in a second as far as the economy goes.
Clinton should thank Reagan, and Bush should thank Clinton for our deficit. That's the way it goes.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: TrojanChispas on December 11, 2005, 01:15:48 PM
ladies and gentlemen, The Village Idiot! 
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 01:17:44 PM
Wouldn't it take more than three years for us to see the effects of the Bush tax cuts? People need to realize that things aren't going to happen in a second as far as the economy goes.
Clinton should thank Reagan, and Bush should thank Clinton for our deficit. That's the way it goes.

right. because it wasn't the original bush tax cuts that caused the budget to go into the black. it was all clintons fault.

is the world green where you're from?

also, twelvehundred needs to do more than take a macroeconomics class before they start talking about this sort of *&^%. people who take a couple econ classes and then think they know *&^% really irritate me. a lot. try again, twelvehundred, and next time get a f-ing clue.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 11, 2005, 01:34:45 PM
What do you mean by green? Seriously, if you mean green as in rich, NO, I am definately not rich, or well-off, I am actually under the poverty level as far as that goes.
If you mean something else, what are you talkingabout?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 01:36:20 PM
meant to say sky :)

your argument, btw, is the biggest piece of crap ever. you're gonna be the kid in law school who the professors shake their head and wonder how you got accepted. js.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 11, 2005, 01:41:52 PM
I doubt that very much.
But anyways, that doesn't make any sense either, with the word sky in it. What the heck are you talking about? Also, my argument for what?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 02:05:52 PM
your supposition that clinton is the cause of the current deficits.

and yes, the sky being green allusion does make sense to anyone with even a close approximation of sentience. if the sky in your world is green, i suppose bizzaro economics might work. you're a real genius that it has to be spelled out to you, yo.

of course, on the (nearly impossible) chance your argument is correct, that'd mean the boom economy of the 50's was Roosevelt and Trumans doing, and that the bad times of the late 70's was Ford and Nixon's fault, and not Carters. and the boom of the 1980's was Carters doing, while the recession of the early 1990's would be early Reagans fault. did you even bother thinking about that before deciding that your hypothesis had even a grain of truth? because i doubt you're going to accept those as truths, considering what other sort of stupid *&^% you believe.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: be10dwn on December 11, 2005, 02:10:28 PM
*&^%, why did I wonder in here?

oh yeh, I was gonna say something....*&^% what was it???

Oh, yeh, how about the financial irresponsibility of a so called conservative president?  That's just my hypothesis though...granted I know jack dammit about economics, but I do know that if you spend more than you have, you are screwed, so....
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 02:13:46 PM
what really irritates me is that i'd be perfectly happy to see even decent programs cut from the budget if we were willing to slash real pork spending that goes to every single district. and to avoid making tax cuts that WORSEN the deficit even as we try to fix the problem by ending generally decent programs that improve the earning potential of folks, e.g. literacy programs.

i'm for a balanced budget.

i'm also for lower taxes.

but i'm not so naive as to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Yale College Inferno on December 11, 2005, 02:56:54 PM
Then they hit you w/estate tax when you die.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the population do you think this actually happens to?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 03:15:51 PM
I don't know about eating our cake and having it too. ~200 years ago we did, at least if you don't count Blacks, American Indians, and the landless [sic].  :D Of course, now everything is different; it's likely nobody can now.

sh*t, why did I wonder in here?

oh yeh, I was gonna say something....sh*t what was it???

Oh, yeh, how about the financial irresponsibility of a so called conservative president?  That's just my hypothesis though...granted I know jack dammit about economics, but I do know that if you spend more than you have, you are screwed, so....

I agree you, be10, at least on a general level. It's just hard to really know how much we have. Wealth isn't money, it's products - things, some add time and ideas, but those are very difficult to measure. The problem is that, in this country, we arguably have more time and ideas than products (though we have a lot of those as well).

It all means that we don't really know how much we have to spend as a nation. Historically money has measured wealth pretty well, but in medieval times land and time measured wealth.

This brings me to something I do know about.

But what makes the capital stay in the U.S. and thus help the taxpayers for whom the cuts were created?  ....  That's right, nothing.

I doubt you know just how accurately you described this truth.

Currently an old legal protection for hiding money has resurfaced, the perpetual trust. This trust instrument allows wealth to pass from generation to generation without depletion (thus less economically helpful). Although not currently legal it may become so shortly. This old instrument, coupled with new trusts which offer complete liability protection, enables the hoarding of money as never before. Worse, these liability protection trusts only offer complete liability protection outside of US jurisdiction, although trustors lose US legal protection, they risk that to avoid losing money for risky and profitable ventures they undertake.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 11, 2005, 06:45:15 PM
I'll sum it up in the words of the most brilliant economist of our time, George Reisman:

(Speaking about high incomes) "The extremely high incomes...are overwhelmingly saved and invested. In this way, they bring about large-scale capital accumulation. Capital is the foundation both of the demand for labor and the supply of consumers’ goods. Its continuous accumulation is the foundation of high and rising real wages and a high and rising standard of living for everyone."

Now for specific examples.

You beleived that the increased revenues after the Reagan cuts were nonexistant if adjusted for inflation.
The following chart shows increased tax revenues adjusted for inflation for the decade following the cuts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

[img width= height=]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif[/img]

A more modern example is occuring as we speak.  After the Bush tax cuts, the economy began improving, and surprise surprise, tax revenues are increasing.

It's a little something called the Laffer Curve.
[img width= height=]http://www.investopedia.com/images/terms/laffercurve.gif[/img]



You're making this too easy twelvehundred. A couple points:

1) My post used data from the U.S Budget Office, yours used data from a Conservative Think Tank.  Furthermore, 1981 should be the base year, not 1980.  The tax cuts were instituted in 1981.  The fact that they were retroactive to 1980, should not affect the analysis since 1980's receipts were already in (and I guarantee you, your conservative think tank did not adjust for that).

2)While I laughed at Fox for posting information using data that did not adjust for inflation (even a good middle school student would know to do this), inflation is not the only thing that must be taken into account to make sense of the data.

After Reagan's tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. .  Let's use your numbers, though I question them based on where you got them from, but still, I'll play along.  Using your numbers:
In 1981, tax receipts were 1004.  So if nothing happened and the gov't took in receipts of 1004 over the next 8 years, we would expect a total of 8,036 received (1004*8 ) from 1981 to 1989. If you add up what was actually received (again from your chart) you get 8,346 for a measely 3% increase over the 8 year period following the tax cuts while Real GDP grew by 3.2% PER YEAR..

Using 1981 as the base year, (and using your data) tax revenues fell in the 3 years after the tax cut.  Revenues started to slowly grow after that for a few simple reasons:

A) Tax revenues grow at the rate of economic growth (usually around 18% of GDP)[/b]. There was no huge spike in GDP, but GDP did grow at around 3% per year over the period so tax revenues would naturally have to grow with it. Because tax revenues grow with GDP, a better way of isolating the effects of one on the other is to look at tax revenues as a percentage of GDP.  In the period after the tax cuts, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, fell by close to 2%.


B) People tend to forget that while Reagan did cut INCOME taxes in 1981, he raised PAYROLL taxes in 1983 (Social Security Reform Act).  Actual corporate tax revenue fell during the period while the payroll component of tax revenues increased.

"The [1981 Reagan] tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise... tax revenue fell... the government began a long period of deficit spending... the largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than they actually are." N. Gregory Mankiw, now head of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, in his 1998 book Principles of Economics

Check out any economist worth his salt (and who isn't affiliated with a Conservative Think Tank) and you'll get a better understanding of the data.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 06:51:48 PM
BP: it won't matter. they don't care about facts if it doesn't agree with them. thi is because they're silly.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 11, 2005, 06:54:39 PM
BP: it won't matter. they don't care about facts if it doesn't agree with them. thi is because they're silly.

LOL, you're probably right.. ;D
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 06:59:54 PM
it's tunnel vision. it's why i don't do anything other than flame :)

more fun and less annoying when they ignore what you write and go off on some strawman they're saying you support.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:03:09 PM
personally, i think presenting arguments is better.  even if the person with whom you are arguing refuses to acknowledge any of your points, there is generally an audience, some of whom might be more open-minded.

A sage!
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:05:35 PM
personally, i think presenting arguments is better.  even if the person with whom you are arguing refuses to acknowledge any of your points, there is generally an audience, some of whom might be more open-minded.

true, but i post for my own fun on political threads. and i really don't care much what other people think about me. :)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:07:06 PM
A sage!

scrub-brush?

heh, that's funny really funny in several ways. heh  :D ;D
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:12:58 PM
heh, that's funny really funny in several ways. heh  :D ;D

i will laugh along with you so you don't realize that i have no idea what you mean.  :D

heh, heh! heh?  ::)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:14:30 PM
true, but i post for my own fun on political threads. and i really don't care much what other people think about me. :)

yes but people might see you as indicative of the left in general. 

then they're dumb and i don't care about their opinion.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:16:10 PM
most people don't  :D
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:22:12 PM
yes, but the media in general blows.

it's exciting the base that matters.

those who can't pick a side aren't worth my time.

i'll make sure that my base cares enough to get out and vote.

it's just i don't have anything as awesome as hatin' on gays to make em go out to the polls.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:29:24 PM
it should work for the democrats, if we can get our act together.

seriously, the republican party as a whole is SO much better run than the democrats.

40 years of perpetual minority turned them into a lean mean election winning machine.

we've gotta catch up.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:34:31 PM
 :D

we didn't start the fire...

but we sure as hell will fight it with fire  ;)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:34:41 PM
IMO, the two parties are so close on most issues that we basically have a one party system.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:36:45 PM
IMO, the two parties are so close on most issues that we basically have a one party system.

i have to agree that on a couple issues they're similar (free trade comes to mind), but i don't think you can say it's so on gay rights, abortion issues, labor issues, taxes, fiscal conservativism, and more and more the war on terror (now that democrats are no longer being f-ing cowards who are afraid to be painted as weak on defense)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:40:16 PM
IMO, the two parties are so close on most issues that we basically have a one party system.

i have to agree that on a couple issues they're similar (free trade comes to mind), but i don't think you can say it's so on gay rights, abortion issues, labor issues, taxes, fiscal conservativism, and more and more the war on terror (now that democrats are no longer being f-ing cowards who are afraid to be painted as weak on defense)

You're right about the moral issues. I'm not so sure on the rest. Of course, the moral issues are where Republicans get their base.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 11, 2005, 07:45:55 PM
and the democrats, to some extent. not many gay folk voting republican anymore. but republicans have ruled at branding themselves in the past 20 or so years. so much better than the democrats.

and there ARE still fiscal conservatives, it's just no one does more than give lip service to them.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 11, 2005, 07:49:47 PM
and the democrats, to some extent. not many gay folk voting republican anymore. but republicans have ruled at branding themselves in the past 20 or so years. so much better than the democrats.

and there ARE still fiscal conservatives, it's just no one does more than give lip service to them.

The problem with having a gay base is that there are not many of them to vote.

You're right about fiscal conservatives, but they just vote libertarian if they are really serious.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: verbal on December 11, 2005, 11:01:56 PM
hey everyone. id like to preface this by saying i only read about the first one and a half pages. I didnt really care enough about the subject to read them all plus its one in the morning and im a little tired. I just wanted to get back on topic for a second and prove that to some extent lowering taxes can increase revenue. 

LETS TAKE A LITTLE QUIZ.  ANSWER THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1. if u r taxed at a flat rate of 25% a year and u make 100 dollars a year, how much money will the gov get from u?
2. if u r taxed at a flat rate of 50% a year and make 100 dollars a year, how much money will the gov get from u?
3. if u r taxed at a flat rate of 100% a year and make  100 dollars a year, how much money will the gov get from u?

THE ANSWERS.
1 25 DOLLARS
2 5O DOLLARS
3. 0 DOLLARS
U WILL NOT WORK IF U ARE NOT GOING TO GET TO KEEP YOUR MONEY.  THIS PROVES THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE CURVE THIS IS A POINT WHERE PEOPLE WILL WORK LESS BECAUSE THEY R BEING CHARGED TO MUCH IN TAXES.  THIS IS THE FAR EXTREME EXAMPLE BUT IT IS USEFUL IN THAT IT DEMONSTRATES THE WISDOM IN A REDICULOUS SOUNDING THEORY. 

i do want to point out that it usually doesnt work. the reasons people gave like discounting the worth of money and the incredibly important fact that our taxes really arent high enough yet for this phenomenon to take effect explain why.  just thought i would put my econ degree to use for a minute.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: twelvehundred on December 12, 2005, 12:00:30 AM
I love how you guys are quick to label me a kool-aid drinking Republican. Truth is, I am not.  I enjoy economics and subscribe to the libertarian philosophy championed by the Austrian School of Economics (Ludwig von Mises, George Reisman, etc.). 

We can continue to throw numbers around but that is getting us nowhere.  Numbers can be manipulated to say just about anything in the dynamic world of economics. 

I think we can agree that lower taxes can assist in growing the economy by allowing more capital to be saved and invested.  If we deny this, then we either think that taxes have no affect on the economy, or that increasing taxes improves the economy.  If taxes continue to rise, there has to be some point at which investment stops because all dollars are used for basic human needs.  Capital investment is needed to grow an economy and therefore capital above the level required for basic needs must be available.

I will agree on this:  lowering taxes does not improve the long-term economy if there is not an equal cut in governement expenditure.  If money is borrowed to cover any short-term shortfalls then the overall gain in productivity may be minor.

http://www.mises.org/
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 12, 2005, 01:45:26 AM
People need to realize that things aren't going to happen in a second as far as the economy goes.


Actually, as far as the economy goes, things do happen in less than a second.  Moving $800,000,000,000 from one place to another (the govt. control to private control) is just not as significant for the economy's production as some people think.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 12, 2005, 04:55:39 AM
the austrian school is a shell game. fool.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:21:41 AM
your supposition that clinton is the cause of the current deficits.

and yes, the sky being green allusion does make sense to anyone with even a close approximation of sentience. if the sky in your world is green, i suppose bizzaro economics might work. you're a real genius that it has to be spelled out to you, yo.

of course, on the (nearly impossible) chance your argument is correct, that'd mean the boom economy of the 50's was Roosevelt and Trumans doing, and that the bad times of the late 70's was Ford and Nixon's fault, and not Carters. and the boom of the 1980's was Carters doing, while the recession of the early 1990's would be early Reagans fault. did you even bother thinking about that before deciding that your hypothesis had even a grain of truth? because i doubt you're going to accept those as truths, considering what other sort of stupid sh*t you believe.

I have no problems accepting truths when they have facts and argument to back them up, in fact, I may actually agree with you that the boom in the 50s was due to Roosevelt and Truman, mostly Truman, of course. Just because I am a republican does not mean that I refuse to accept anything another party does that's good as truth.
And yes, I do believe that what I said about Clinton.
Also, about your thoughts on the idea that the sky is green. I believe that everyone can hold their own perceptions of reality but that they are not necessarily true. Are you a proponent of moral relativism? There are higher ideals to aspire to, you may believe the sky is green, but it is fact is what it is. Whether it IS green or not has yet to be determined and the only one that holds that truth is God, we can only get at it once we have been able to see into the mind of God.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:24:32 AM
what really irritates me is that i'd be perfectly happy to see even decent programs cut from the budget if we were willing to slash real pork spending that goes to every single district. and to avoid making tax cuts that WORSEN the deficit even as we try to fix the problem by ending generally decent programs that improve the earning potential of folks, e.g. literacy programs.

i'm for a balanced budget.

i'm also for lower taxes.

but i'm not so naive as to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too.


Show some evidence how our economy is worse off now after all these tax cuts? I believe it is doing better actually. "U.S. economy added 215,000 jobs in November, beating the expected mark and posting the highest  number in four months. Over the past year, nearly 2 million jobs have been created -- and nearly 4.5 million jobs have been added since May 2003, when the job market began its turnaround. The unemployment rate remained at 5.0 percent -- below the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. The Labor Department report shows that the American economy not only remains resilient in the face of two major hurricanes that did enormous damage to the Gulf Coast region but that, in fact, the economy continues to grow at a remarkable rate.  "
Also, "Here are a few other recent economic data points that underscore that the American economy is a wonder of the modern world: 

 

·         The U.S. economy grew at a robust 4.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best rate in more than a year. Economic growth has been remarkably steady and strong over the past two-and-a-half years -- and the economy has now grown 3.3 percent or more for 10 straight quarters.

·         Gas prices have dropped 30 percent since September (from $3.07 per gallon to $2.15 per gallon).

·         Inflation was lower than projected. The consumer price index rose at a 3.6 percent annual rate, and core inflation was at its lowest level in more than two years.

·         Consumer spending increased 4.2 percent in the third quarter, beating the estimated mark and setting the fastest pace since the end of 2004.

·         Business spending on equipment and software grew by a 10.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter.

·         Sales of single family homes showed the biggest one-month gain in more than 12 years, increasing by 13 percent in October.

·         Orders for durable goods showed the largest increase since June of 2000, increasing by 3.4 percent in October.

·         Consumer confidence soared. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence rating increased by 13 points to 98.9 for November.  The University of Michigan's Consumer Confidence index also rose, growing by 7 points.

·         December 1 the Dow Jones industrial average closed within 90 points of 11,000, a level the Dow hasn't hit since June 2001. "

Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:28:24 AM
i am glad to see that a significant number of the people who self-identify as "conservative" still believe in fiscal responsibility.  that for me was the most appealing part about the '90's conservatives in congress.  it gives me hope.

please police up your nuts, and i will encourage the liberals to do the same.

thank you.


I believe in fiscal responsibility as well, and I am conservative. It is just that we shouldn't have as many programs as we do. We need to cut them in order to see real progress. But still, why should I (or anyone else for that matter) have to pay for John over there who sits on his butt all day doing nothing? Or Jane, his live-in gf, who has more kids because the social welfare worker told her that would help her get more money. Even though she already gets SSI for her "disability" of drug addiction. Come on now, really.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:32:55 AM
yes, but the media in general blows.

it's exciting the base that matters.

those who can't pick a side aren't worth my time.

i'll make sure that my base cares enough to get out and vote.

it's just i don't have anything as awesome as hatin' on gays to make em go out to the polls.

It's not the base that wins elections, they will vote for you no matter what, seriously, after looking at the alternatives, you weigh in better. It's the people that are at that margin that WIN the elections for you. And I thought you are considering yourself intelligent on here or something. Next time, before you criticize others think about yourself and the arguments you are lacking.

At least I dont' blatantly attack other people on here.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:34:35 AM
it should work for the democrats, if we can get our act together.

seriously, the republican party as a whole is SO much better run than the democrats.

40 years of perpetual minority turned them into a lean mean election winning machine.

we've gotta catch up.


And how would you characterize YOUR base? Seriously, what kinda people are the Democrats' base? Those people taht think voting is for idiots? Lol, like they will ever vote to begin with. The people that are genuinely your base will vote for you no matter what. You know, this must mean that Democrats are just not getting it, they need to wake up to the times.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: ImVinny! on December 13, 2005, 07:37:13 AM
IMO, the two parties are so close on most issues that we basically have a one party system.

You know, I have heard people argue this point and in a way I do agree. In order to actually win a majority of the vote you need to have all the people on the far part of your side and then just that margin of people in the middle that outweighs what the competition has. This makes sense ________middle people_________
far left_______left_middle people_right_______far right.
Those little charts, I know they are stupid, but hopefully understandable show that the right and left are actually closer than many people might imagine. The far right and the far left running and winning an election would be really something now, don't you think?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 13, 2005, 10:51:31 AM
Goddammit Vinny!
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 13, 2005, 12:03:13 PM
that's a tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing, right there.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 13, 2005, 11:48:37 PM
what really irritates me is that i'd be perfectly happy to see even decent programs cut from the budget if we were willing to slash real pork spending that goes to every single district. and to avoid making tax cuts that WORSEN the deficit even as we try to fix the problem by ending generally decent programs that improve the earning potential of folks, e.g. literacy programs.

i'm for a balanced budget.

i'm also for lower taxes.

but i'm not so naive as to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too.


Show some evidence how our economy is worse off now after all these tax cuts?

Wait fifteen years when the US declares bankruptcy because we can't pay the interest on the debt.

Quote
I believe it is doing better actually. "U.S. economy added 215,000 jobs in November, beating the expected mark and posting the highest  number in four months.

I keep hearing these numbers, and I have to ask what kinds of jobs they are.  I think they're conflating reduction in the unemployed payments -- and remember, people are being forced off the rolls because of gov't policy -- with actually getting jobs.

Even if there are more jobs available, I have to wonder what kind they are.  If the kids who are graduating summa from Wharton (and remember, Wharton is one of the two Ivies that still has a forced curve) are still winding up working in restaurants, then it suggests the jobs that are being created aren't the kinds we really want in America.

If things were really this bad, people would be running around screaming and burning down Walmarts.  Summa Cum Laude from Wharton and no job?  That guy needs to remove the swastika (sp) tattoo from his forehead.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: verbal on December 13, 2005, 11:54:56 PM
ok i will say that i agree that a great economy right now might not be worth borrowing so much money from china. if that doesnt bother u it should. the old quote about borrowing money from foreign countries is that its not a problem until its a problem. remember whenever u hear about the gov spending any money right now they mean we r going to borrow money from china to do this.  thats why so many intelligent people had a problem with giving money to katrina victims. everyone wants to help those poor people but when bush said we r going to give X amount of money what he is saying is we r going to borrow X money from china to give to them.

On an entirely different subject i think it is always wrong to give tax cuts to people when soldiers r at war. if the average citizen is not sacrificing the average soldier is screwd.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: _BP_ on December 14, 2005, 07:06:44 AM
thats why so many intelligent people had a problem with giving money to katrina victims. everyone wants to help those poor people but when bush said we r going to give X amount of money what he is saying is we r going to borrow X money from china to give to them.


So why would that make intelligent people not want to give to Katrina victims? Doesnt' make sense to me.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 14, 2005, 08:14:58 AM
Lily, you are rationalizing the data. I do recall several people accusing Republicans of ignoring facts when they don't suit them, don't fall victim to the same thing.

As far as the USA declaring bankruptcy...don't bet on it, we've have never done it and we've been a lot worse off then we are now. Or don't you remember that we paid our debts even after we won the revolutionary war. Then we had no credit and no money, yet we didn't default. I don't think we'll default now either.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Julie Fern on December 14, 2005, 10:23:53 AM
not you heard?  congress passed new law making it much harder to declare bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 14, 2005, 11:09:28 AM
As far as the USA declaring bankruptcy...don't bet on it, we've have never done it


is this even possible for a country that can generate one of the reserve currencies at will?  why would we not just massively devalue our currency instead?

Exactly,
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 14, 2005, 11:13:25 AM
titcr, watson.

we'd be argentina, not mom and pop getting run off the farm by creditors
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 14, 2005, 11:16:46 AM
Lily, I'll try to answer, but my internet is to slow to being quoting all that right now.

I'm not debating how "facts" are defined I just noted that when Republicans debate the facts we are accused of ignoring them.

I believe you're correct about the domestic loans, but I don't know if your conclusion necessarially follows.

I didn't know about the civil war debt, who did we owe?

We've had massive debt for 50 years...I don't think we'll get out, I think it'll just continue. Note that some countries forgive our loans in return for political points, but I haven't really analyzed the debt situation.

Frankly I'd listen to the Heritage foundation over you, they have done a bit more study, though I have no idea if they are right or wrong.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Freak on December 14, 2005, 11:41:58 AM
Not paying back the souther debt makes sense and negates your point. The Union (which is the United States) never incurred any southern debt. It'd be like us paying off Japan's war debt...

Oh and as far as your credentials go, I guess you know more about it than I do, but that doesn't mean the Heritage foundation knows less.

Oh and yes you dispute the facts. You wanted to know what kind of jobs were being added, giving the impression (intentionally) that they were not good jobs or that the jobs were being added incorrectly to the employment rate because of people unwilling coming off unemployment.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: Yale College Inferno on December 15, 2005, 02:23:10 PM
I like Lily's reasoning.
I dislike the way Freak's little snipe attacks miss the point.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 15, 2005, 07:10:11 PM
I'm not so sure.  If I were a 200+ year old invester, I would think that the government at the time of the Articles of Confederation was more different from the one created by the Constitution than the Confederate government was from the Union. 

why in the world would you think this?  Articles of Confederation was the predecessor government to the Union while the Confederacy was a rival and hostile government to the Union. 

she's referring to the nature of each nations constitution, not the confederacy's emnity towards the union. she's trying to say the articles of confederation was more dissimilar in form and function from the US constitution than the Confederate constitution.

i think.

i don't know enough about the confederate constitution to hazard a guess.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: backandforthforever on December 15, 2005, 07:22:54 PM
jesus kids, go out and have some fun...

(http://stuff.ubersite.com/105132234823316794/1/puppybottomnb.jpg)
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 15, 2005, 07:31:40 PM
jesus kids, go out and have some fun...

(http://stuff.ubersite.com/105132234823316794/1/puppybottomnb.jpg)

i did, with your mom.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 01:39:16 AM
If I remember correctly from my US history class, the treaty that ended the Civil War explicitly stated that debts from the South would not be paid by the Union. 

In addition, they shouldn't be.  Why the hell should we pay people who try to topple the Union? That is dumb as hell. 

If we decided that abandoning the AOC gave us the right to abandon our debt, couldn't we do that again, making our creditworthiness zero?

If the Southern investors wanted to get back at the Union for not paying them back, well, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.  They are part of the Union at this point.

In every way (politically, economically, morally) not incurring the South's debt was right.


PS – I think the Southern (and Mid-Atlantic) farmers were called the “Planter Class”

Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 01:56:16 AM
Yeah, I was basically summarizing what you had already said (maybe plus the treaty part).  I agree with you 100 percent (which seems to be a frequent occurance.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 02:21:59 AM
Yeah, I was basically summarizing what you had already said (maybe plus the treaty part).  I agree with you 100 percent (which seems to be a frequent occurance.

i think that's a good thing.  jsia.

i am tempted to start really hijacking this thread by the way.

which is ironic because it's my thread.   :D

So how about deer hunting... it sure is something, huh?
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 02:25:58 AM
no, i've only shot a gun once in my life, and not at anything.
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!/The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 02:32:17 AM
I hear it is a good sport to get really drunk while doing, that could be fun...

(you should change the name of the thread to the "deer hunting thread")
Title: Re: Hey, let's reduce the deficit by giving away TAX CUTS!!!/The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 02:33:12 AM
you read my mind, GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 02:53:11 AM
Considering most people start hunting around 5 AM, I would say drinking WHILE hunting is a twofold problem.
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 03:29:34 AM
So why do "activist" get so worked up about hunting when that is such a small number of animals dying compared to say, meat packing?  Is it because it gets more publicity?  I don't understand any of it. 
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 16, 2005, 05:05:01 AM
mmmm fish...I think I want some fish...
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: Julie Fern on December 16, 2005, 05:41:31 AM
bambi dead?
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 16, 2005, 03:03:45 PM
Does deer urine smell like people urine?
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 16, 2005, 09:27:42 PM
people who advocate against hunting and fishing are usually f-ing crazy.

jsia.

(of course, some hunters are also f-ing assholes)
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 16, 2005, 10:28:15 PM
usually, i said ;)

qualifiers, darlin'!
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 16, 2005, 10:36:41 PM
night doll!  :-*
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 17, 2005, 06:46:30 AM
I ate some fish today... the WHOLE fish.
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 17, 2005, 01:49:03 PM
pfft, your longstanding racial emnity is apparent, swats.

i've had cooked fish in japanese restaurants
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 17, 2005, 02:54:45 PM
why you gotta hate ;)
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 17, 2005, 03:05:43 PM
stop hijacking this thread!  :D

it's what i do!
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 17, 2005, 04:19:55 PM
the fish i ate whole was cooked, they were little fish, but i could see the eyeballs.  sometimes they do serve whole raw fish though.
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 17, 2005, 09:46:10 PM
They were about two inches long and fairly thin.  I honestly don't know what anchovies look like.  They tasted a little bit like salmon.
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 17, 2005, 10:39:57 PM
can't see it  :(
Title: Re: The Deer Hunting Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 17, 2005, 10:53:35 PM
never had sushi at a good place in America.  The one decent place I went to in America was pretty close, but very expensive.  I imagine big port cities, particularly those with Japanese populations have good sushi (NYC for sure I would think).  Most other Japanese style restaurants in America make food that doesn't even resemble actual Japanese food.  Sushi is at the very least like the stuff in Japan.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 18, 2005, 01:05:30 AM
Yeah, but you should see their version of American food
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 18, 2005, 01:13:53 AM
Yeah, but you should see their version of American food

please explicate.

i assume that mcdonald's is the same.

Yeah, but McDonald's sucks no matter where you are.  There is a chain called Joyfull which is supposed to be American food.  They have plates of various meats that just suck, they have pizza with corn on it, they have terrible freedom fries.  Oh, I wish there was one decent American Bar and Grill type place.  I don't need it all the time, just to remember what it is like.  I would even take an Applebee's at this point.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 18, 2005, 01:27:09 AM
I just meant that it is terribly unhealthy and gives you (or at least me) the runs.  I go there sometimes just to get a reminder of American food because around where I live, it is about all there is to offer.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 18, 2005, 05:40:43 PM
japanese food in the US is whack, but chinese food is even whacker.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 18, 2005, 05:42:21 PM
Yeah, but McDonald's sucks no matter where you are.  There is a chain called Joyfull which is supposed to be American food.  They have plates of various meats that just suck, they have pizza with corn on it, they have terrible freedom fries.  Oh, I wish there was one decent American Bar and Grill type place.  I don't need it all the time, just to remember what it is like.  I would even take an Applebee's at this point.



i am a big mcdonald's lover i'm afraid!  :D

i know, i am terribly embarrassed about it. 

and yeah, i guess fake american food would make us even with them since we have all kinds of fake japanese food.  i'm eating a sub from charlie's right now by the way.  it's decent.

at some point we will go back to talking about the news.  :D

(maybe)


I like the buffalo chicken thingy from charlies :D :D
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 18, 2005, 08:10:44 PM
translucent chicken...yum.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 07:23:34 AM
It cracks me up that all of the banners at the bottom of the page have suddenly changed to ads for sushi restaurants...
:)
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 07:37:02 AM
They're not really banners, per se, but small clickable text ads. Now they're on the previous page. I guess we haven't talked enough about Japanese food yet to make them appear.

xindogu = Sino-Japanese
;)
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 07:53:27 AM
xindogu = Sino-Japanese
;)

stateside or elsewhere?

Me? I'm here in the states.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 08:05:51 AM
Actually, I must confess I'm not actually Asian. But Asia has always been very close to my heart.
Really? There aren't many on these boards? I'm surprised...


Aha! The sushi restaurant ads appeared again.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 19, 2005, 08:07:32 AM
oh, just wondering.  :)

not lots of asian folk about these parts, you understand.  ;)

i wonder why...  ???

cuz they're busy doing calculus and stuff and not having to settle for being lawyers ;)
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 19, 2005, 08:11:15 AM
Actually, I must confess I'm not actually Asian. But Asia has always been very close to my heart.
Really? There aren't many on these boards? I'm surprised...


Aha! The sushi restaurant ads appeared again.

oh, i thought you just said you were sino-japanese or something.

oh, just wondering.  :)

not lots of asian folk about these parts, you understand.  ;)

i wonder why...  ???

cuz they're busy doing calculus and stuff and not having to settle for being lawyers ;)

::)

:-*
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 19, 2005, 08:13:26 AM
sorry, my employer won't approve.  :)

it was a heterosexual male kiss, like in europe, where you are
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 08:16:46 AM
Actually, I must confess I'm not actually Asian. But Asia has always been very close to my heart.

oh, i thought you just said you were sino-japanese or something.

Yes, my username is, but I'm not.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: be10dwn on December 19, 2005, 08:19:02 AM
I hate it when people confuse me with their ethicity by using names not at all related to them :D :D :D
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: xindogu on December 19, 2005, 08:26:03 AM
Well, I wouldn't say it's "not at all related" to me - after all, Asian culture has played a pretty big role in my life.

"xindogu" is kind of like "chindogu," but with a pinyin-esque spelling for a little of that Chinese flair.

God I am a dork.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 20, 2005, 07:05:21 PM
not like SW would know. check his facebook

biggest

honky

ever.

jsia.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: skaiserbrown on December 20, 2005, 08:02:09 PM
what, honky?

you're kidding me.

or if you mean facebook, pfft, you liar.
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 21, 2005, 12:25:13 AM
It cracks me up that all of the banners at the bottom of the page have suddenly changed to ads for sushi restaurants...
:)

I wonder what the adds look like in the "Doing Sheep" thread  ???
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: jg983 on December 21, 2005, 01:42:55 AM
I've been craving ahi tataki for the last two days. I can't wait for my old roommate to get back from Japan on Thursday so we can go out for sushi (oddly enough, he says the sushi's been awful in Asia).
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 21, 2005, 01:47:08 AM

They need the conveyer belt sushi restaurants in America (though they would probably get sued like McDonalds cause it is hard to stop eating when it just keeps coming by).  You sit down and the sushi just passes by and you can pick up as many plates as you want.  They charge you by how tall your stack of plates is.  Sushi is SOOOOO much cheaper in Japan, it will be hard to bring myself to buying inferior sushi at absorbent prices  :'(
Title: Re: The Japanese Food Thread
Post by: SCgrad on December 21, 2005, 01:53:18 AM
we have them in new york.  jsia.  :)

New york just became better in my opinion.  Bet it is ridiculously expensive though.  I could probably drop 50 bones easy.