Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (582641)	8/25/2010 4:52:15 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1572378

It should be obvious that Alghieri isn't interested in facts. He's only interested in silencing the opposition. Which facts are you presenting here Ten? I've read the CBO report...have you? According to him, they're infinitely more "qualified" to comment on the effects of the stimulus than you or I. Duh! Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (582641)	8/25/2010 4:53:51 PM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572378

Argument from authority is the mirror of ad-hominem. They both are in a sense the same fallacy, that someone is wrong or right because of who they are.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (582641)	8/25/2010 7:45:33 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1572378

Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a “People’s Tax Cut” TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010 robertreich.org ( Sounds like a good idea to me. A tax cut for YOU and Intel..) Republicans are calling the Democrat’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on the richest 3 percent a “tax increase,” and demagoging that it will hurt the economy and small business. This is baloney, to put it politely. Let me count the ways: – Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase. – Ending it for the rich simply returns them to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly confiscatory (reminder: the Clinton years were damn good for business). – Small businesses would barely be affected. Only 3 percent of small business owners earn over $250,000. And because it’s a “marginal” tax, the Clinton rate would apply only to the portion of their incomes over $250,000. – Yet extending the Bush tax cut to the richest Americans would give them a $36 billion bonus next year. ($31 billion of this would go to billionaire households.) And that $36 billion would be added to the budget deficit. – And it wouldn’t even stimulate demand and jobs, because the very rich save (rather than spend) more of their disposable income than the rest of us. – Finally, ending the Bush tax cut for the top is fair. Income inequality has become so grotesque that the top 3 percent of households rake in almost a third of total income (the highest portion since 1928). But by the time Democrats explain all this, it’s too late. The Republican furor over a “tax increase” has framed the debate. Republicans understand the art of tax demagoguery: Put the other side on the defensive by forcing them to explain why a “tax increase” is warranted and they lose regardless. So instead of playing defense, Democrats should go on the attack. Accuse Republicans of being shills for the rich. And don’t stop there. Do tax jujitsu. In addition to ending the Bush tax cut for the rich, put forward another proposal for growing the economy that cuts taxes on lower-income Americans. Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent. It would also give employers an extra incentive to hire because they’d save on their share of the payroll tax. And most of the incentive would be directed toward hiring lower-income workers – who have taken the biggest hit on jobs and pay during the recession. It wouldn’t add to the deficit. Lost revenues would be made up by applying payroll taxes to income exceeding $250,000. This is certainly fair. As it is now, the Social Security payroll tax doesn’t apply to any income over $106,000. Having the tax kick in again at $250,000 would draw on the top 3 percent of earners, who (as noted) now rake in a larger portion of total income than they have in more than 80 years. Call it the People’s Tax Cut, and let Republicans explain why they’re against it.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (582641)	8/26/2010 7:52:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572378

This blog post is to an extent about existential risk, which is besides the point I'm talking about here, but it uses talking about and responses to existential risk as an example of the type of issue I'm talking about, evaluating claims based on the claimant, rather than the claim itself or the arguments for and against it. - ----- ...The question then arises: is it possible to get more people thinking seriously about existential risk? A first approximation to an answer to this question is "yes, by talking about it." But this answer requires substantial qualification: if the speaker or the speaker's claims have low credibility in the eyes of the audience then the speaker will be almost entirely unsuccessful in persuading his or her audience to think seriously about existential risk. Speakers who have low credibility in the eyes of an audience member decrease the audience member's receptiveness to thinking about existential risk. Rather perversely, speakers who have low credibility in the eyes of a sufficiently large fraction of their audience systematically raise existential risk by decreasing people's inclination to think about existential risk. This is true whether or not the speakers' claims are valid. As Yvain has discussed in his excellent article titled The Trouble with "Good" To make an outrageous metaphor: our brains run a system rather like Less Wrong's karma. You're allergic to cats, so you down-vote "cats" a couple of points. You hear about a Palestinian committing a terrorist attack, so you down-vote "Palestinians" a few points. Richard Dawkins just said something especially witty, so you up-vote "atheism". High karma score means seek it, use it, acquire it, or endorse it. Low karma score means avoid it, ignore it, discard it, or condemn it. When Person X makes a claim which an audience member finds uncredible, the audience member's brain (semiconsciously) makes a mental note of the form "Boo for Person X's claims!" If the audience member also knows that Person X is an advocate of existential risk reduction, the audience member's brain may (semiconsciously) make a mental note of the type "Boo for existential risk reduction!"... lesswrong.com