33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Jhhnn said:
Yukking it up with the Stormtroopers over your fave race-baiting video, again. Not racist, of course, in the same way that one duck in a flock claims it's not a duck...

Ignorant as that woman is, even she knows about term limits for the Presidency, doesn't rise to the "third term" bait from the interviewer.
Click to expand...
Would you consider her a house n******? Or is she another kind of n******? You seem to be the expert on this sort of thing so give us a hint if you would.
 
First

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Svnla said:
Alright, your post seem like a reasonable reply so I will reply in kind.

I was not trying to play semantic game. When First said "cents on the dollar", it sounded like just a few/handful of pennies and I wanted to show (based on my own experience), it was not the case. Not a ball breaker, but not a few pennies either. When you said that I acted like it was a substantial cost because I did say that if you add up all the "fees/taxes" of all US cell phone users, the amount will not be small. Let say $0.66 multiple by 300 million cell phone accounts (from Wiki) = $198 million. No small chump change there. That's a fact, not my opinion.

Whether it is worth while or not or too much/too little of fraud or was it a tax or just a fee or this and or that, we can debate until the cows come home and still not agree with each other. You guys can do that, not me.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what are you even arguing; 0.66/month, or $7.92/year, is chump freaking change for about 99% of the country. It's an hour of work every year for minimum wage workers, or less than 1/10th of 1% of a minimum wage worker's typical yearly hours. If you can't support a commonsense program like that, then you're not reasonable.

buckshot24 said:
Nice retreat!
Click to expand...

lol Romney 2012.
 
Last edited:
Svnla

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
First said:
I'm sorry but what are you even arguing; 0.66/month, or $7.92/year, is chump freaking change for about 99% of the country. It's an hour of work every year for minimum wage workers, or less than 1/10th of 1% of a minimum wage worker's typical yearly hours. If you can't support a commonsense program like that, then you're not reasonable.
Click to expand...

Read my very first post (#213) in this thread again. I disputed your statement of "cents" as in miniscue (only a few/handful of cents) amount. I did NOT (and still haven't) participate in the debate of whether the program is worthwhile or not or fraud is rampart or not or whatever the merit or lack of it of the program.

Summary: it is NOT a lot for one person but it is not a few (handful) of pennies/cents either.
 
Last edited:
First

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Svnla said:
Read my very first post (#213) in this thread again. I disputed your statement of "cents" as in miniscue (only a few/handful of cents) amount. I did NOT (and still haven't) participate in the debate of whether the program is worthwhile or not or fraud is rampart or not or whatever the merit or lack of it of the program.

Summary: it is NOT a lot for one person but it is not a few (handful) of pennies/cents either.
Click to expand...

This is strictly in your head, as nowhere did I utter "few" or "handful" of cents, that's your interpretation.

And it's a fact the fee is minuscule. It costs exactly less than 1/100th of 1% of a minimum wage worker's yearly earnings. It's not literally cents, and if that's all you took from my statement, you should rethink why you're spending any time debating this semantic quibble with me.
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
werepossum said:
Because it IS important. If a donation is deductible, then it does more good than a similar outlay which is not deductible. If one donates $50,000 then X good can be done. If one donates $75,000 because otherwise one would lose the extra $25,000 to taxes anyway, then 1.5X good can be done. By making charitable donations deductible, people are encouraged to donate more than they would otherwise donate because their overall cost (including taxes) relative to the benefit is reduced. They never have more money than had they not made the contribution, but they can give more money for less overall financial loss.


<sigh> I swear to G-d, people used to be smarter.
The lower the effective rate - no matter the cause - the more net money lost for the contribution. Period. Your net rate is lower because you gave away some of your otherwise taxable income, not because you've found some nefarious scheme to defraud the taxpayer.

EDIT: In your example, without the donation the entity is left with $650,000 after taxes. With the donation the entity is left with $325,000 after taxes. No one should ever be so abysmally stupid as to think the entity made the donation for financial purposes.
Click to expand...
go re-read the thread. because you're not getting it and you're being intentionally obtuse.

(not even to start in on the fact that a lot of "charitable giving" by corporations is advertising)


As I've said before, if you wish to believe government is the most efficient way to accomplish things it's a free world, and I encourage you to give as much of your income to government as you wish.
Click to expand...
again with no facts, just supposition.

and clearly the only two options are that government is ALWAYS the least efficient way to do something or that government is ALWAYS the most efficient way to do things. no, there can't possibly be any other options.

Agreed - which is why people donate money. People smart enough to understand that they will wind up with less money for the donation, at least. I imagine there are people who have money and make donations because they are stupid enough to believe they are beating the system and will wind up with more money for the donations, but I doubt they have money long.
Click to expand...
they'll have less money, but again, money isn't the be-all, end-all.
 
Last edited:
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
Incorruptible said:
Does this surprise you at all? His supporters still refuse to condemn him for this and I doubt they will. They are nothing but o-bots.
Click to expand...

yeah but the next GOP candidate will probably the same. His main running point will be that he's not a Democrat. He'll end up pulling the same bullshit, wont repeal any of the illegal programs, and still blame Obama for everything.
Nothin gets fixed.
 
Fern

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
ElFenix said:
(not even to start in on the fact that a lot of "charitable giving" by corporations is advertising)
Click to expand...

IRS rules mandate that if the purpose is advertising the 'contribution' must be treated as an advertising expense and not a charitable contribution.

Not sure what the point is though, advertising expenses are fully deductible. Same for the corp either way (although charity is subject to to some limitations).

Fern
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Blaming all economic problems on republicans is just a little on the silly side. Most people are just people and their politics do not control business. The economy is like a little kid. It does what it wants till you start smacking it on the butt and giving it some rules. However, if you turn your back on it and ignore it the little tyke will start acting up again.
 
A

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
A lot of those facts are meaningless or misleading.

The biggest of which is claiming gas prices averaged $1.85 nationwide when obama took office. Which is true, but it was because of the monumental financial collapse. The increase took place years before Obama took office.

There are similar slams throughout the fact list that seem to be aimed at the Obama administration instead of correctly aimed at our wholly ineffective government over the last 20 years.

They laud the decrease in home ownership, ignoring the fact that the foreclosure crisis was ongoing when Obama took office, because homes were fraudulently sold to people who couldn't afford them so banks could rack up fees and flip the houses and sell them again for profit.

They attack the increases in health insurance costs over the short term, not pointing to the long-term rise in health costs.

Stupid arguments aside: Obama has been the best republican president of the last 20 years :p
 
Last edited:
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
shortylickens said:
yeah but the next GOP candidate will probably the same. His main running point will be that he's not a Democrat. He'll end up pulling the same bullshit, wont repeal any of the illegal programs, and still blame Obama for everything.
Nothin gets fixed.
Click to expand...

If Rand Paul runs then he will be much different and obey the Constitution though. If it's another romney they will be the same as the idiot obama.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Incorruptible said:
If Rand Paul runs then he will be much different and obey the Constitution though. If it's another romney they will be the same as the idiot obama.
Click to expand...

You must mean the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution where racist business owners' property rights trump civil rights, huh?
 
bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
Acanthus said:
Stupid arguments aside: Obama has been the best republican president of the last 20 years
Click to expand...

Actually he is a Democrat but I agree that he is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He has already surpassed MLK as the most influential African American in history.

Obama is becoming as iconic as Lincoln. I have no doubt that 100 years from now that he will be as revered as Washington is today.
 
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
bshole said:
Actually he is a Democrat but I agree that he is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He has already surpassed MLK as the most influential African American in history.

Obama is becoming as iconic as Lincoln. I have no doubt that 100 years from now that he will be as revered as Washington is today.
Click to expand...

The stupidity that comes from you is really amazing. He is nothing compared to MLK who actually accomplished good things unlike obama. Why don't you say that to his family? Of course not because you're a coward.
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
bshole said:
Actually he is a Democrat but I agree that he is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He has already surpassed MLK as the most influential African American in history.

Obama is becoming as iconic as Lincoln. I have no doubt that 100 years from now that he will be as revered as Washington is today.
Click to expand...
He will be a skid mark if history would report the facts accurately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom