Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:So you do not intend to behave in a manner consistent with logic or reason?

Well...yes. It's best to actually ignore my posts entirely and focus on those that post rationally and sensibly. My posts are not meant for those of supreme intellectual faculties. I'm more of the budget guru; wisdom for the masses rather than the elite.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Yup.

There are many cases in which state-media collusion has been detrimental to democracy.

So when the current US administration colludes with media organizations to exclude Fox News from covering specific events, this is a threat to democracy?

Because I would say that it's not.

dogma wrote:Additionally, in order for a thing to qualify as a conspiracy it must be either illicit or illegal.

Overthrow of the US government isn't illicit or illegal? I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you're sitting.

biccat wrote:
So when the current US administration colludes with media organizations to exclude Fox News from covering specific events, this is a threat to democracy?

Because I would say that it's not.

Yes, of course it is.

It isn't detrimental to democracy, but it is a threat to democracy.

Again, you're confusing the two concepts.

Its important to remember that most things are threats to democracy. It is actually a threat to itself, which goes to explaining why governments predicated on it tend to fail rapidly.

biccat wrote:
Overthrow of the US government isn't illicit or illegal? I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you're sitting.

Strictly speaking, no, it isn't illegal; though many of the likely consequences of such an attempt most definitely are.

Is it illicit? Probably, at least in the broad sense, as you've noted it depends on where you're sitting, and to what degree you consider specific descriptors to be comments on general fact.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
So when the current US administration colludes with media organizations to exclude Fox News from covering specific events, this is a threat to democracy?

Because I would say that it's not.

Yes, of course it is.

It isn't detrimental to democracy, but it is a threat to democracy.

Again, you're confusing the two concepts.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop indirectly accusing me of ignorance. I am not confusing the two, because there's no threat to democracy inherent in state-media collusion.

It may be a threat to the rule of law or a threat to state-media independence, but neither of these are necessary elements of a democracy. Hell, look at the UK, they are a respected democracy despite the presence of a state controlled media. Unless you don't consider the BBC to be a threat to democracy.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Overthrow of the US government isn't illicit or illegal? I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you're sitting.

Strictly speaking, no, it isn't illegal; though many of the likely consequences of such an attempt most definitely are.

Is it illicit? Probably, at least in the broad sense, as you've noted it depends on where you're sitting, and to what degree you consider specific descriptors to be comments on general fact.

Actually, strictly speaking, attempting to overthrow the government is illegal.

biccat wrote:
I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop indirectly accusing me of ignorance. I am not confusing the two, because there's no threat to democracy inherent in state-media collusion.

The only sense in which I'm accusing you of ignorance is the one which follows from correcting another person's mistake.

State-media collusion is an inherent threat to democracy because state-media collusion has been used to prevent the establishment of democracy, and curtail the institution of democracy. All that is necessary for X to be a threat to Y if for X to have been detrimental to Y in the past (this is distinct from being a projected threat). Hence, eating steak is not a threat to democracy, as eating steak has not been detrimental to democracy in the past, but state-media collusion is, because it has been detrimental to democracy in the past.

biccat wrote:
It may be a threat to the rule of law or a threat to state-media independence, but neither of these are necessary elements of a democracy. Hell, look at the UK, they are a respected democracy despite the presence of a state controlled media. Unless you don't consider the BBC to be a threat to democracy.

Yes, I do. Again, you're confusing the concepts of threat and detriment. State-media collusion is not a necessary detriment to democracy because, as you have pointed out, several nations have maintained functioning democracies and systems of state-media collusion. Though there is an argument to be made regarding state-media collusion and the degree of democracy which might indicate that the former necessarily decreases the latter.

I think you may be hung up on the concept of threat under the law, which is not the same as the idea of threat when regarding politics.

biccat wrote:
Actually, strictly speaking, attempting to overthrow the government is illegal.

What statute prohibits it, explicitly?

dogma wrote:State-media collusion is an inherent threat to democracy because state-media collusion has been used to prevent the establishment of democracy, and curtail the institution of democracy. All that is necessary for X to be a threat to Y if for X to have been detrimental to Y in the past (this is distinct from being a projected threat). Hence, eating steak is not a threat to democracy, as eating steak has not been detrimental to democracy in the past, but state-media collusion is, because it has been detrimental to democracy in the past.

That's a silly definition. Because by your logic, if at any point eating steak has been detrimental to democracy, then to do so is a threat to democracy.

For example, the Mongols under Genghis Khan ate steak. They were not democratic. Ergo, eating steak is a threat to democracy. Hitler was a vegetarian. Whatever.

There must be some causal relationship between the proscribed activity and the negative consequences in order to deem something a 'threat' to democracy.

dogma wrote:What statute prohibits it, explicitly?

18 USC 2381

biccat wrote:
That's a silly definition. Because by your logic, if at any point eating steak has been detrimental to democracy, then to do so is a threat to democracy.

Yes.

biccat wrote:
For example, the Mongols under Genghis Khan ate steak. They were not democratic. Ergo, eating steak is a threat to democracy. Hitler was a vegetarian. Whatever.

No, that's incorrect. You're abusing the transitive property. In order to legitimately apply the transitive property, you must supply legitimate causation, you cannot do that with your example. Conversely, my statement demonstrates that X (state-media collusion) is y (a threat to democracy) by nature, because of historical confluence between the two concepts. I'm inferring a general trait of X based on its ability to produce y, in other words generalized induction. In essence, and argument from can describes what x is just as certainly as an argument from will.

Additionally, you're arguing a strawman. I flatly stated that there are instance in which state-media collusion has impeded the formation (or practice) the democracy, and then concluded that state-media collusion is capable of impeding the formation (or practice) of democracy. My argument turns on the assumed connection of x and y, which I am willing to demonstrate by example; I am not claiming that X and Y are otherwise unassociated variables.

biccat wrote:
There must be some causal relationship between the proscribed activity and the negative consequences in order to deem something a 'threat' to democracy.

Yes, and that exists in the case of state-media collusion.

You're still confusing the concepts of threat and detriment.

To explain further, I'm arguing from the category of state-media collusion, not any particular instance of it. Therefore any effect elicited by any member of the category in question is definitive of what effects said category can produce.

biccat wrote:
18 USC 2381

I see a statement about making war, not about attempting to overthrow the state. One can overthrow a state without force of arms.

dogma wrote:No, that's incorrect. You're abusing the transitive property. In order to legitimately apply the transitive property, you must supply legitimate causation, you cannot do that with your example. Conversely, my statement demonstrates that X (state-media collusion) is y (a threat to democracy) by nature, because of historical confluence between the two concepts.

You keep making these unsupported arguments that state-media collusion is a threat to democracy "because of historical confluence between the two concepts." Please, support your answer.

On causation, there can certainly be a correlation between eating steak and threats to democracy. When an elite class suppresses the majority legally (prohibiting the eating of steak generally and allowing the elites to eat steak) or economically (Communism), there is a threat to democracy. The eating of steak is not the direct or proximate cause of the detriment, but it is certainly a cause in fact (if the elites hadn't eaten steak, there wouldn't be social unrest). However, I'm sure that your examples of state-media collusion being detrimental to democracy are also not examples of direct causation.

But if you're willing to accept that the BBC and the Obama Administration are threats to democracy in the same vein as Murdoch, I really see no reason to engage in more semantic nonsense. I really don't think that was the original poster's intent.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
18 USC 2381

I see a statement about making war, not about attempting to overthrow the state. One can overthrow a state without force of arms.

Pardon me.

18 USC 2381 et seq.

2382: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same

2383: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto

2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States

2385: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence

biccat wrote:
You keep making these unsupported arguments that state-media collusion is a threat to democracy "because of historical confluence between the two concepts." Please, support your answer.

North Korea is the iconic example, in which the state control of media is used in order to manipulate public perceptions of the government such that its oppressive nature is not laid in relief.

After that we can talk about Russia (modern and Soviet), Nazi Germany (which subsumed a democratic state), Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma/Myanmar, and Mexico; all of which use, or have used, the media in order to directly discredit the concept of democratic election.

biccat wrote:
On causation, there can certainly be a correlation between eating steak and threats to democracy. When an elite class suppresses the majority legally (prohibiting the eating of steak generally and allowing the elites to eat steak) or economically (Communism), there is a threat to democracy. The eating of steak is not the direct or proximate cause of the detriment, but it is certainly a cause in fact (if the elites hadn't eaten steak, there wouldn't be social unrest). However, I'm sure that your examples of state-media collusion being detrimental to democracy are also not examples of direct causation.

No, that's wrong. Correlation and causation are not interchangeable, even when considered de facto. Note in particular that whether or not the elites eat steak is irrelevant to both your presented arguments.

biccat wrote:
But if you're willing to accept that the BBC and the Obama Administration are threats to democracy in the same vein as Murdoch, I really see no reason to engage in more semantic nonsense. I really don't think that was the original poster's intent.

Well, semantics are fully sensible, especially given how far this has drifted off track.

biccat wrote:
Pardon me.

18 USC 2381 et seq.

It seems I was incorrect in my original assertion.

biccat wrote:Except it's not a threat to democracy and doesn't pose real harm to the citizenry.

Collusion between public officials or politicians and private citizens isn't a threat to democracy? That's just ridiculous.

I can point out all day the left-wing groups that Soros sponsors. But when I start claiming that it's proof of a nationwide conspiracy to corrupt the government and institute communism it delves into the realm of conspiracy theory.

You can't see a difference between sponsoring a left wing group and bribing policemen to hand over private information?

Sure it does. Murdoch is a target because his media empire tends to advocate a right-wing position, as you state below.

No, it doesn't. FOX News does, but that's just one small part of a global empire. I'm guessing now your entire cause in this thread was to come in to defend FOX News, and you were unaware of or failed to consider Murdoch's greater holdings.

Here's the thing, most of Murdoch's outlets have no overt political stand. The defining feature of most is their tabloid nature, meaning they tend to shy away from politics in favour of pictures of sporting stars' girlfriends. They're defined mostly by their crappiness, not their politics.

More than that, the political support of his papers swings from party to party, attempting to pick the mostly likely winner and then drive favours from them in exchange for beneficial coverage. The Murdoch papers supported Blair's New Labour, and they supported Kevin Rudd's Labor here in Australia.

The bias claim isn't that you're against certain political groups, it's that you're against certain ideas. One such idea is the Iraq War. Your bias against the war is clouding your judgment. It's not possible that people reasonably support both the Iraq War and fewer laws against media ownership. Therefore, there must be some conspiracy.

It's certainly reasonable for reasonable people to have supported the war. The idea that all 170+ of Murdoch's papers all happened by themselves to agree with it is not so reasonable an idea.

In fact, that second one is a completely ridiculous idea, and I'm more than a little surprised you even pretended to believe it.

Otherwise, you would note that all of the non-News Corp companies who opposed the Iraq War would benefit from more media control, and therefore were engaged in a similar conspiracy against Blair, Bush, etc.

If a collection of newspapers owned by a single person but spread across the globe all happened to oppose the Iraq war, I would believe that to be very suspicious as well.

dogma wrote:North Korea is the iconic example, in which the state control of media is used in order to manipulate public perceptions of the government such that its oppressive nature is not laid in relief.

After that we can talk about Russia (modern and Soviet), Nazi Germany (which subsumed a democratic state), Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma/Myanmar, and Mexico; all of which use, or have used, the media in order to directly discredit the concept of democratic election.

So your whole point is that non-democratic states use state-controlled media as a tool to control the populace? You're confusing causation and correlation. If state control of media is a threat to democracy, then you need to show that democracies have failed due to state control of media. And that's not the case in any of the examples you cited.

sebster wrote:Collusion between public officials or politicians and private citizens isn't a threat to democracy? That's just ridiculous.

Nope. It isn't when the BBC does it. It's not when the Obama administration does it.

sebster wrote:I'm guessing now your entire cause in this thread was to come in to defend FOX News, and you were unaware of or failed to consider Murdoch's greater holdings.

Actually, it wasn't. My cause in this thread was to point out the blatent political manipulation of the debt ceiling issue by the President and Democrats in Congress. And the fact that it's the Republicans who are advancing solutions.

But then I got distracted by some absurd conspiracy theory. See above.

biccat wrote:Nope. It isn't when the BBC does it. It's not when the Obama administration does it.

And as long as we keep spamming contentless sentences then it may not be debate, but maybe someone out there might think it is!

I mean, are you claiming the BBC cuts deals with political parties for favourable factions? Or that they bribed policemen for the phone numbers of celebrities and crime victims? Or are you just throwing out sentences in the hope that people assume you're attempting a debate?

Actually, it wasn't. My cause in this thread was to point out the blatent political manipulation of the debt ceiling issue by the President and Democrats in Congress. And the fact that it's the Republicans who are advancing solutions.

That's an ambitious re-interpretation of reality. I mean, honestly, I could even grant that someone could sensibly conclude that the Republicans have advanced a solution (if we consider they're sufficiently partisan).

But to conclude that the Democrats are manipulating the debt ceiling is just absurd, and really shows once and for all that you are fundamentally dishonest in your politics. The idea that the Democrats would 'manipulate' the issue just makes no damn sense, there's no result in this for them, if there was no issue then they would just proceed with running the deficit budget they already passed.

Rather, this is an issue of Republicans looking to gain some level of power over the budget, despite only holding the House of Reps. From there there's been a few issues at play - Obama's poor bargaining conceding too much too early giving Republicans a hope of extracting more than could have gained, and Republicans needing to make a deal but wary over the Tea Party block reacting badly to any deal.

This has led to the slightly farcical situation of Republicans rejecting a deal that was as generous as what they originally stated they wanted.

But then I got distracted by some absurd conspiracy theory. See above.

No, you wandered in to try and take a shot, without realising you had little or no understanding of the issue being debated. Then I explained to you the half dozen odd mistakes you made in thinking conspiracies about the Rothschilds were the same as matters on the public record about Murdoch. Then you took the time honoured stance everyone takes when their argument has been dismissed, ignore all the points they can't respond to and just repeat their opening salvo.

sebster wrote:I mean, are you claiming the BBC cuts deals with political parties for favourable factions?

Yes, I am. And they do.

sebster wrote:The idea that the Democrats would 'manipulate' the issue just makes no damn sense, there's no result in this for them, if there was no issue then they would just proceed with running the deficit budget they already passed.

There is a result in this for them, raising the debt ceiling. You see, the United States has a statutory limit on the amount of debt that the government can issue. We're at this limit, and unless the limit is raised, the spending binge that Obama has been on has to come to an end. A lot of other spending will also have to be stopped.

sebster wrote:Rather, this is an issue of Republicans looking to gain some level of power over the budget, despite only holding the House of Reps.

See Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

sebster wrote:From there there's been a few issues at play - Obama's poor bargaining conceding too much too early giving Republicans a hope of extracting more than could have gained

Obama's poor bargaining is really at the heart of the issue. The president asked for an increase in the spending cap and the Republicans insisted on spending cuts in exchange. Now we've got arguments over tax increases, basically the Administration is trying to trade spending cuts for tax increases. But he's not giving anything in exchange for the debt ceiling increase.

sebster wrote:This has led to the slightly farcical situation of Republicans rejecting a deal that was as generous as what they originally stated they wanted.

Actually, there wasn't a deal on the table.

sebster wrote:Then you took the time honoured stance everyone takes when their argument has been dismissed, ignore all the points they can't respond to and just repeat their opening salvo.

Heh.

biccat wrote:
So your whole point is that non-democratic states use state-controlled media as a tool to control the populace?

No, unless you're suffering under the colloquial, American definition of "democratic". In which case, there have been, at best, 3 democracies in world history.

biccat wrote:
You're confusing causation and correlation.

Yes, I know you don't understand the distinction between the two, you illustrated that in your last post; the xkcd post was unnecessary, and really only undermined your point.

Again, I'm not making an argument from certainty, I am making an argument from what can occur given the existence of X; meaning that those characteristics of X define what can occur given the existence of X.

biccat wrote:
If state control of media is a threat to democracy, then you need to show that democracies have failed due to state control of media. And that's not the case in any of the examples you cited.

No, that's wrong. All I need to show is that state-media collusion had a negative impact on democracy, which is a fact of all the examples I've cited.


Honestly, you either do not understand the distinction between a claim from what will happen and a claim that can happen, or you're trolling me. There are no other options.

In regards to the actual OP, and not to the three way Sebster-Dogma-bicat love fest... the solutions that are being proposed by almost everyone on the hill are utter none sense and most are based on false hopes that the Fed will eventually be able to wave its magic wand to fix the economy.

This 4 trillion over 10 years stuff is total none sense, seeing as the debt still increases to well near double its current size. To think... we used to make fun of the Soviets for 3 and 5 year plans! If you really want to fix the problem, real spending cuts need to take place and the culture in Washington needs to be changed. As much as I feel that our SS/Medicade programs need to be fixed, I believe that cutting militarism (and by extensive the famed military-industrial complex) is the least painful route that will produce the most immediate positive results.

Such is the hypocrisy with "establishment" Republicans (the Boehner crowd), they harp on the Democrats for not wanting to cut enough but refuse to even consider cutting a nickel from the military budget. Both are wrong for continuing their obstinate protection of the sacred cows, and both like to levy the blame for their mistakes on the new "tea party." Real fiscal conservatives don't buy into interventionalism, and that's why I have some hope in the newly elected Republicans.... hope being the key word.

biccat wrote:Yes, I am. And they do.

Huh, I honestly didn't expect you to claim the BBC is also picking sides in exchange for favourable legislative treatment. I probably should have, but I guess I considered the silliness of the charge to be enough to dissuade you from running the 'both sides!' standard debating line. I'll know better for next time.

Anyway, for funsies, do you have anything to prove the BBC's nefarious deeds?

There is a result in this for them, raising the debt ceiling. You see, the United States has a statutory limit on the amount of debt that the government can issue. We're at this limit, and unless the limit is raised, the spending binge that Obama has been on has to come to an end. A lot of other spending will also have to be stopped.

Well, fething obviously that's end the game. It's the end game for both parties. Don't play dumb.

But if you're going to play that silly game, we'll wind it back a step and state some things everyone knows. The debt ceiling has been getting raised as a matter of course since early in the last century. It was raised in every year from 2002 onwards. There has never been any expectation it wouldn't get raised again, until Republicans decided to use it as a lever to force through spending cuts they wanted. Then the Tea Party got vocal and Republicans got really nervous about making any kind of deal, then Obama offered up too much, too early getting the Republicans excited about how much they could extract over the issue, then Cantor started undercutting Boehner and Boehner was no longer able to make any deal and ensure his position, leading us to where we are now.

See Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Which didn't matter to you when you were complaining that only the Republicans have put a plan forward, but matters a lot when you're making a claim about who controls the finances of the country. Never mind it actually states where the plan is supposed to come from, and doesn't in anyway state who has absolute control over finances.

But you wouldn't be making a highly partisan, selective reading of the constitution, would you?

Actually, there wasn't a deal on the table.

Is this the bit where you get highly pedantic about exactly what is and what isn't a deal on the table. Because we all know the original position Boehner wanted was 85% cuts and 15% spending increases, which Obama offered up, only for it to be rejected.

I think the gang of six bill won't pass. The democrats would go along with it but most of the new republicans ran on unrealistic campaign promises so getting more than the few moderate republican votes is impossible.

What will happen is they will raise the debt ceiling for a while or half- a last-minute bill.

Manstein wrote:... the solutions that are being proposed by almost everyone on the hill are utter none sense and most are based on false hopes that the Fed will eventually be able to wave its magic wand to fix the economy.

Well, no that's not really true, they're predicated on the notion that the economy will begin to grow more quickly, which is not the same thing as predicating a spending program on Federal Reserve policy.

Additionally, the majority of plans on the Hill have the advantage of being politically feasible, which is infinitely more important than whether or not they're effective. You can talk about perfect solutions all you want, but its irrelevant if that solution can't mass political muster.

Manstein wrote:
...real spending cuts need to take place and the culture in Washington needs to be changed.

All the present bills involve real spending cuts, unless by "real" you meant "larger", in which case you're correct. The tax code also needs attention, and the average tax burden probably needs to be adjusted upwards.

Changing culture is such an abstract process that it doesn't even bear mentioning in the short term, and is arguably a matter which is outside the hands of voters, who tend to be too diffuse in their desires to engage in the sort of coercion necessary to affect such a thing.

Manstein wrote:
Real fiscal conservatives don't buy into interventionalism, and that's why I have some hope in the newly elected Republicans.... hope being the key word.

Of course they do, they simply like to pretend that they don't so that they can us it as a rhetorical device. You cannot run a government without intervening in the economy, because the government is a part of the economy.

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Lordhat wrote:And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Is this the thread for chain emails from the early 2000s defending Bush administration tax cuts?

Is it also the thread for explaining chain emails from the early 2000s are incredibly silly?

Because the thing where the rich man can just up and leave and move out of society is idiotic. Because unlike the analogy, the income that rich man is due to him being part of society. No man, along by himself, can produce the equivalent of $250,000 dollars worth of stuff, it is only because he has taken a place in our society and fitted himself nicely into our economy that he can be so productive, and create so much wealth.

When that rich man threatens a hissy fit, and pretending he will leave because we don't cut his taxes by enough, he is lying. He may not like paying 35c in the dollar on every new dollar he earns, but ultimately he's still taking home a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and he'd be an absolute loon for giving that up. It is an obvious lie that's been told countless times before, and everytime has proven utterly ridiculous.

Yet people keep pretending it is true. It's very strange.

Lordhat wrote:
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

A real life Ascian!