This from a cry baby troll who can't come up with a cogent argument to save himself (herself/itself). "The rich just don't pay enough taxes and it isn't fair (sob!)." Never mind the other side of the equation (cutting billions in frivolous spending), different types of taxes, the fact that higher tax rates don't = higher tax revenues, etc. Let's not complicate things. Wittle Gabfwy just don't think it's faiw fo those rich folks and wants his fwee benefits.
Atlas Shrugged the movie
- Thread starter startraitor
- Start date
This from a cry baby troll who can't come up with a cogent argument to save himself (herself/itself). "The rich just don't pay enough taxes and it isn't fair (sob!)." Never mind the other side of the equation (cutting billions in frivolous spending), different types of taxes, the fact that higher tax rates don't = higher tax revenues, etc. Let's not complicate things. Wittle Gabfwy just don't think it's faiw fo those rich folks and wants his fwee benefits.
No one let you in on the joke yet? That tax cuts don't actually pay for themselves? Maybe they're planning a belated surprise party, just for you. And, very appropriately, your party hat will no doubt be cone shaped. Oh, you'll have such fun!
http://www.google.ca/search?q=tax+c...1I7SUNA_en&redir_esc=&ei=6RS4TeilKcatgQfqmqx_
Customize a search and get the results you want. Wow, what a surprise...
How about dealing with some data. The U.S. top corporate tax rate of 35 percent in 2010 was higher than all other OECD nations except Japan. The average rate was 23.5 percent. That might sound wondeful to you, but the U.S. collected less federal corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than the average OECD country. From 2000 through 2009, the U.S. average corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 2.06 percent, according to OECD data (not the Heritage Foundation, and not from one of your Leftist shill sites). The average for the rest of the OECD? Almost an entire percentage point higher.
But go ahead and cry about high taxes and ignore the billions we could cut, including entire Federal agencies (Carter-era moneysuckers like Depts of Energy, Education, etc.) It's easier to engage in theft-by-the-ballot than actually take risks, work hard and produce things that benefit others.
Oh, and thanks for the cone-shaped hat comment. It shows again that you have no arguments and use every brainless move from the Left's playbook. And you have no idea what color my skin is nor that of my family members...
Really? Including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whose analyses are based on the work of independent, nonpartisan authorities such as the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Government Accountability Office? That "leftist shill site?"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
Economists Across the Political Spectrum Reject Claims that Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
While serious economists are divided on the question of whether and under what circumstances tax cuts are good for the economy, there is no such debate on the question of whether tax cuts pay for themselves. Economists from across the political spectrum reject the latter assertion.
In recent testimony before Congressâs Joint Economic Committee, Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bushâs Council of Economic Advisors, stated, âI certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.â
Keep those guns a-blazing, Sam.
Yawwn,
Let Gabfly1 be who he is. His data is not only such a small sample but it is flawed, even though the center is ' Non-partisan".
It is pointless to argue.
Let the country go the way GABFLY1 wants. He will pay the price in the end.
I will continue to make more money and if and when the time comes, find my New Atlantis.
Just like in Atlas Shrugged, the Producers could not fight the Parasites, all they could do is continue on with their plan. Yet the producers made money and more money until the Parasites forced them to destroy all their fruit of their labor.
The same will happen here.
GABFLY1 may get his wishes as a Parasite only to wake up, jobless, broke and begging for food in the streets.
The Producers will move on.
Let Gabfly1 be who he is. His data is not only such a small sample but it is flawed, even though the center is ' Non-partisan".
It is pointless to argue.
Let the country go the way GABFLY1 wants. He will pay the price in the end.
I will continue to make more money and if and when the time comes, find my New Atlantis.
Just like in Atlas Shrugged, the Producers could not fight the Parasites, all they could do is continue on with their plan. Yet the producers made money and more money until the Parasites forced them to destroy all their fruit of their labor.
The same will happen here.
GABFLY1 may get his wishes as a Parasite only to wake up, jobless, broke and begging for food in the streets.
The Producers will move on.
It still baffles me how people can argue they want higher taxes and more government spending. Except the poor, of course.
The argument that society as a whole benefits, which in turn increases an individuals standard of living is worth arguing, but I personally believe that there are just as effective, if not more effective ways of doing this without raising taxes and raising government spending.
Is there any doubt that government tends to waste resources?
But let's talk about the movie, shall we???
"Critical reception
The film received mostly negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes reports that 6% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on a count of 31 written reviews -- only two of them positive -- with an average score of 3.5 out of 10. The 6% rating places it among the five worst-reviewed films released in the first four months of 2011. Metacritic gives the film a "generally unfavorable" rating of 28%, as determined by averaging 18 professional reviews. Several commentators noted significant differences in reaction to the film from professional critics as compared to audience members."
--------------------------------------
The last sentence is kind of funny. The significant difference in opinion is like between "sucks a whale's ass" and "kind of sucks".....
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I#Critical_reception
"Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film only one star, calling it "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Caponeâs vault." He goes on, "So OK. Letâs say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, youâre an objectivist or a libertarian, and youâve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. Itâs not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?"[31] Libertarian columnist Cathy Young in The Boston Globe gave the film a negative review.[32] Chicago Tribune published a predominantly negative review arguing the film lacks Rand's philosophical theme, while at the same time saying "the actors, none of them big names, are well-suited to the roles. The story has drive, color and mystery. It looks good on the screen".[33] Kyle Smith in the New York Post gave Atlas Shrugged an overall positive review, grading it at 2.5/4 stars, criticizing its "stilted dialogue and stern, unironic hectoring" and calling it "stiff in the joints", but also adding that it "nevertheless contains a fire and a fury that makes it more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item".[34] Las Vegas Review-Journal's assistant editor Vin Suprynowicz gave a positive review writing "the resulting 'Atlas Shrugged' is, in the end, a pretty good movie".[35] Journalist Bruce Ramsey noted "the story is told well"."
And in a Randian fashion, the market place has spoken:
"These poor returns led producer John Aglialoro to announce that he was "having deep second thoughts" about his plans to expand Part I to a thousand screens and begin production on Part II in Fall, 2011, saying: "Critics, you win.""
"Critical reception
The film received mostly negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes reports that 6% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on a count of 31 written reviews -- only two of them positive -- with an average score of 3.5 out of 10. The 6% rating places it among the five worst-reviewed films released in the first four months of 2011. Metacritic gives the film a "generally unfavorable" rating of 28%, as determined by averaging 18 professional reviews. Several commentators noted significant differences in reaction to the film from professional critics as compared to audience members."
--------------------------------------
The last sentence is kind of funny. The significant difference in opinion is like between "sucks a whale's ass" and "kind of sucks".....
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I#Critical_reception
"Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film only one star, calling it "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Caponeâs vault." He goes on, "So OK. Letâs say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, youâre an objectivist or a libertarian, and youâve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. Itâs not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?"[31] Libertarian columnist Cathy Young in The Boston Globe gave the film a negative review.[32] Chicago Tribune published a predominantly negative review arguing the film lacks Rand's philosophical theme, while at the same time saying "the actors, none of them big names, are well-suited to the roles. The story has drive, color and mystery. It looks good on the screen".[33] Kyle Smith in the New York Post gave Atlas Shrugged an overall positive review, grading it at 2.5/4 stars, criticizing its "stilted dialogue and stern, unironic hectoring" and calling it "stiff in the joints", but also adding that it "nevertheless contains a fire and a fury that makes it more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item".[34] Las Vegas Review-Journal's assistant editor Vin Suprynowicz gave a positive review writing "the resulting 'Atlas Shrugged' is, in the end, a pretty good movie".[35] Journalist Bruce Ramsey noted "the story is told well"."
And in a Randian fashion, the market place has spoken:
"These poor returns led producer John Aglialoro to announce that he was "having deep second thoughts" about his plans to expand Part I to a thousand screens and begin production on Part II in Fall, 2011, saying: "Critics, you win.""