Why do conservatives belieave the earth is 8K years old and global warming is false?

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

If you don't think Bush represents the "conservative" small government ideology, give me an example that does.

Try to remove the government from your life and see if your company can survive.

Ron Paul.

Noone said anything about removing government from our lives. Obviously we need some government. Just downsize it..........way, way down.

Check out the FairTax you might like what you see. It's named that for a reason.

Anyway, I'm done, we're not even close to the OP's original question. Good Trading

 

[CowboyBlue]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

It seems that lack of good manners is a common strait among the conservatives here. Where did you guys all get your education? Read the context of discussion before ridiculing the posts. The Jews were separated out because in his "rule," jem took exception of the Jews.

You're just rude.

I believe you meant "trait" not "strait," and you sir are clueless!

You were the one who came up with that moronic drivel, and no Bush in no way represents the right, he is a disgrace, Reagan was a good example, and he did more for the U.S. than any president in modern era has done, im not even from the U.S., and even i can figure out that simple point, go hump michael moore you deadbeat.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

Ron Paul.

Noone said anything about removing government from our lives. Obviously we need some government. Just downsize it..........way, way down.

Check out the FairTax you might like what you see. It's named that for a reason.

Anyway, I'm done, we're not even close to the OP's original question. Good Trading

Good answers but I wasn't asking you. I was asking the moron upstairs. But now it seems no answer is necessary. He's not worth the attention.

 

[Tums]

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from fhl:

Liberals can tell us with great assurance that their science shows it is beyond debate that there is global warming and it is man made. They can then look at life expectancy studies which show life expectancy for homosexuals is twenty to thirty years less than heterosexuals and "cannot conclude that homosexuality is an inferior lifestyle".

It would certainly appear that their science is just an expression of their politics, and does not have nearly as much to do with science as they would like you to believe.

I could show you a picture of what happens during a so called partial birth abortion, and then follow with the caption from a "science believing liberal" that concludes they can see no evidence that anything untoward is going on in this procedure.

So much for objectivity based on evidence. It's all politics.

=================
Good points;
& a suprising number of noteworthy scientists wetre Bible students, like sir Isaac Newton

As far as conservatives not believing global warming;
same reason we didnt buy into global cooling hype of 1970's

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from murray t turtle:

=================
Good points;
& a suprising number of noteworthy scientists wetre Bible students, like sir Isaac Newton

As far as conservatives not believing global warming;
same reason we didnt buy into global cooling hype of 1970's

speak for yourself i still have my parka on, ....trying to ice fish in cuba. brrrrrrr

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

I wonder if have any idea of what you just cited.


Why don't explain to me how Japan's progressive taxation system has helped contribute to their stagnant economy.

I will help you - they are currently trying to become more regressive because they realized that instead of investors they have turned their country into a nation savers.

It is not worth it to them to take the risk. As they make more money - more of the money gets taxed.


This is exactly what Europe was suffering from as well. And yes some countries in Europe reduced the rates on the high end and that is part of the reason the are growing.

You make this too easy for me.

I didn't see this one.

One of the best-known criticisms of a progressive tax rate, is that it does not encourage savings. You have to come up with some very twisted logic to argue the opposite of all economists have known for centuries. You think you're a candidate for a Nobel Prize in economy?

Japan has had a progressive tax rate since the 50's. Are you going to credit the growth from 50's to 80's to its implementation? If not, then how can you blame the stagnation in the 90's to it? At least try to be consistent.

And last, you are still confusing progressive rates with high tax rates. Can't you conservatives get real and stop arguing fake strawmen? Nobody is proposing a tax hike here.

You're still screwing everything up even when I made this "too easy" for you...

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I didn't see this one.

One of the best-known criticisms of a progressive tax rate, is that it does not encourage savings. You have to come up with some very twisted logic to argue the opposite of all economists have known for centuries. You think you're a candidate for a Nobel Prize in economy?

Japan has had a progressive tax rate since the 50's. Are you going to credit the growth from 50's to 80's to its implementation? If not, then how can you blame the stagnation in the 90's to it? At least try to be consistent.

And last, you are still confusing progressive rates with high tax rates. Can't you conservatives get real and stop arguing fake strawmen? Nobody is proposing a tax hike here.

You're still screwing everything up even when I made this "too easy" for you...

You are the confused one. - Taking down or eliminating the highest tax brackets or rates is not just a tax reduction it is the partial elimination of progressive rates. Progressive rates are frequently made less progressive in this manner. It is what frees up economies to grow.

finally your little game with Japan is juvenile.

You confuse Japan's post war investment, re- industrialization and export targeted growth strategy with the work of progressive rates. Progressive rates retarded their growth and caused stagnation across their entire domestic economony. They now know it.

 

[jem]

bond said -

One of the best-known criticisms of a progressive tax rate, is that it does not encourage savings. You have to come up with some very twisted logic to argue the opposite of all economists have known for centuries. You think you're a candidate for a Nobel Prize in economy?
----------------------------
No but I think I was considered qualified enough to teach on this simple material in a business class at a college.

You must have missed class.

A proper comparison is to compare the utility of savings to the utility of investment under a progressive rate structure.

With progressive rates - the utility of savings vs investing is skewed in favor of saving.

why risk your money on a 1-10 shot.

with progressive rates. you are discouraged from investing in a long shot which may have a big payout.

Even if your tech startup hits paydirt- your profits get taxed away at an increasing rate and you therefore do not get reimbursed for the tech startups that failed.

With progressive rates -- pools of venture and angel capital are discouraged from forming.

Progressive rates cause people to become more risk averse. Capital and Intellectual capital get drained out of the economy. you get more savings relative to investment.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

bond said -

One of the best-known criticisms of a progressive tax rate, is that it does not encourage savings. You have to come up with some very twisted logic to argue the opposite of all economists have known for centuries. You think you're a candidate for a Nobel Prize in economy?
----------------------------
No but I think I was considered qualified enough to teach on this simple material in a business class at a college.

You must have missed class.

A proper comparison is to compare the utility of savings to the utility of investment under a progressive rate structure.

With progressive rates - the utility of savings vs investing is skewed in favor of saving.

why risk your money on a 1-10 shot.

with progressive rates. you are discouraged from investing in a long shot which may have a big payout.

Even if your tech startup hits paydirt- your profits get taxed away at an increasing rate and you therefore do not get reimbursed for the tech startups that failed.

With progressive rates -- pools of venture and angel capital are discouraged from forming.

Progressive rates cause people to become more risk averse. Capital and Intellectual capital get drained out of the economy. you get more savings relative to investment.

You got it completely backwards. Look up any economics textbook. Progressive rates would skew economy towards consumption, rather than savings, because of the diminishing marginal return on savings. Yet in the case of Japan, which we were discussing, the problem is not too much consumption, too little saving, but the exact opposite.

Where do you think the savings go to? Hint: not under your mattress.