Reply With Quote
Yes. If you are not against what he paid, then I was wrong.Ok, so you were just wrong.
At least I can admit a mistake. It would be nice if you could too.
Ok, so you were just wrong.
Yes. If you are not against what he paid, then I was wrong.Ok, so you were just wrong.
At least I can admit a mistake. It would be nice if you could too.
I did admit a mistake. In this very thread.
Nice, uh?
A simple mistake that I gave you an understandable out for. What about in that other thread? 1/3rd the oxygen? Really now. I was going to leave it alone, but I really don't understand your hard hardheadedness on that. The number of oxygen molecules in the same volume is about 70% as much at 10,000 ft as it is a sea level. Not 33% as much.
Tax Cuts for the Super-Rich
Step by step, the tax code was altered to appease and aid the super-rich. First, marginal tax rates were dramatically reduced on the top brackets, falling from a post-war high of 91 percent in the 1950s to 35 percent today. But the biggest giveaway was cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent. Since most of the super-rich receive their income in the form of capital gains, this was like winning the lottery, each and every year. That’s how Mitt Romney could pay only 13 to 14 percent on his enormous income. As this chart shows, the tax bite is fading away for the super-rich.
Financial Deregulation
Both parties tripped over themselves to assist Wall Street by dismantling nearly all of the critical New Deal financial curbs. Until deregulation, Wall Street was a boring place to work with incomes nearly identical to those with similar education in other sectors. After deregulation it became a gold mine (see chart below). Anti-trust actions to break up big banks no longer occurred. Glass-Steagall (which separated speculative banking from commercial banking) was gutted. Too-big-to-fail casinos flourished (until they crashed) along with ever rising incomes for financiers.
The $Ts are piled up in the pockets of the 1% (and especially off-shore and untaxed, reducing their effective tax rate on their gross closrer to zero) from reducing capital gains to 15% (St Ronnie was really a 1% asshole, conning people with his professional actor's voice)
The impoverishment of the 99% and the enrichment of the 1% are conservative/Repug policies, not "natural law" of economics, combined with financial and health-care vampire-squid sectors sucking the 99% dry.
What that doesn't say is what the bottom 4 quintiles got for tax breaks. My effective tax rate dropped by more than 5% also. How about yours?
And what has happened to the national debt over that same period of time?
It went up. However, the tax rates probably didn't make a difference. Between our jobs being outsourced, and endless government spending, the debt will continue to increase no matter how much we tax people.
Well okay then. If you don't believe there is a direct relationship between tax rates and the federal debt, I guess there really is nothing else to discuss.
There is a complex relationship between taxes and revenue. Debt is the ac ulation of annual deficits. We run a deficit when we spend more than we take in.
Reducing taxes can either increase or decrease revenues. It depends on which side of the Laffer Curve we are on. More taxes means less money people have to keep the economy going, which means less of an economy to tax. If the percentage of economic decrease is greater than the tax increase, then increasing taxes actually generates less revenue. Not more.
You "gave me an out"?
I made a mistake and admitted it. Your permission was never required to do so, counselor.
That's not what I said. That's probably why other posters laughed in your face over there. They got it, you didn't.
I gave you enough time in that thread and you still don't get it. You've gone past my allotted time for idiots, so I've moved on.
Yes ity is. Not only did you say that there was 1/3rd the oxygen in the same volume at 10,000 ft as there is a sea level, but you provided your support as a link that gave blood oxygen levels. Not atmospheric oxygen levels.
Why are you so hard headed?
No need to explain the Laffer curve. I think we just disagree on which side of the curve we are on.
"Reducing taxes can either increase or decrease revenues."
bull , and proven so by every serious economist. Tax cuts never pay for themselves.
A) I never said there's "1/3 the oxygen in the same volume". Already asked you for a quote and showed you to be wrong on this claim.
B) I actually said there's 21% oxygen level at any al ude
C) You're still confusing "levels" vs "pressure"
D) You're not worth my time explaining where you're going wrong. Figure it out on your own.
What do you call this?
Yes, that is true up to about 80 km.
No I'm not. "Sea level" is considered 0 ft. You are confused by your assumptions.
Bull . It's because you cannot explain it. You compounded your error with the blood gas levels, and you just are too hard headed to admit it.
Do you agree that there is about 70% as much oxygen at 10,000 ft as there is at sea level?
So, what I said:
What Wild Cobra got from that:
Next time just quote me, so there's no misunderstandings. You're on your own as far as figuring out what's the difference between what I said vs what you got from it.
I already tried to explain to you what the difference is and you just keep on yapping. School's out.
I do understand partial pressures. It is obvious you do not, especially since you used the 7.2 kPa for 10,000 ft.So, what I said:
What Wild Cobra got from that:
Next time just quote me, so there's no misunderstandings. You're on your own as far as figuring out what's the difference between what I said vs what you got from it.
I already tried to explain to you what the difference is and you just keep on yapping. School's out.
You said:
Your numbers are wrong.At 10,000 feet the oxygen pressure drops to 7.2 kPa, which is roughly one third of the pressure at sea level.
From here
The 1/3 coming from 7.2 kPA being about one-third of 19.6 kPA...
Buy a clue.
LOL...
My God, you are stupid.
Your 7.2 number is wrong. That is all there is to it. I
Atmospheric pressure at sea level = 101 kPa
Atmospheric pressure at 10,000 ft = 71 kPa
Partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is 21.21 kPa (0.21 x 101)
Partial pressure of oxygen at 10,000 ft is 14.91 kPa (0.21 x 71)
We went 3 pages and many hours last time on this. I'm not doing it again.
Let me put it clearly one last time:
1) There's absolutely nothing wrong with that I said
2) If you're going to continue with this, please quote me instead of flat out lying about what I said. Happened twice already.
3) Feel free to disagree. Other posters seemingly had no problem understanding what I was saying.
4) I don't particularly care how butthurt you're about this topic. That's entirely on you.
Your 7.2 number is wrong.
Period.
It should be 14.9 kPa, not 7.2 kPa.
I disagree.
I can't believe y'all are still arguing about this...
Yes, I'm guilty of getting multiple laughs that ElNoKnow cannot understand.
I can't believe y'all are still arguing about this...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
