I'm sorry but Keynesian economics has worked. It was government spending that got us out of the Great Depression, not in the form of the New Deal but in the form of one of the largest public works project ever to be implemented; that being WWII. Government spending went through the roof and the result of that was about 1-2% unemployment.-Sun_Tzu-
But the difference between make-work projects and fighting a war is that eventually you'll run out roads or bridges to repair. While WW2 did eventually end after it was over the American entrepreneurial spirit was unleashed. Factories that once put out tanks and airplanes were converted to putting out cars and such. Plus there was the massive task of helping Europe rebuild so there was plenty of work to go around.
Wow you know nothing. Superchargers are notorious for the whining sound, not turbochargers. Just google "supercharger whine" and see for yourself.
And Superchargers actually have more linear HP than a Turbo car...Turbo cars have more "thrust" GioVela2010
Wile I do agree that turbos give more thrust at higher RPM I also say that superchargers make the power-band wider, making engine power seem a little more bottomless.
Plus I find the sudden kick of a turbo annoying... but that's just me. :P
[QUOTE="thardus317"] I say keep it illegal but frankly it's kid's stuff. If you're still smoking it after the age of say 20 then you're either a loser or an addicted loser.Jandurin
What if you don't start until you're after 20?Damn curve-balls. :P
Seriously though, at that age you're getting dangerously close to entering the real world. We all gotta grow up sometime, pal.
I say keep it illegal but frankly it's kid's stuff. If you're still smoking it after the age of say 20 then you're either a loser or an addicted loser.
Because a flat tax may seem fair, but in reality is very unfair. The richer you are the less affected by taxes you are. The poorer you are, the harder hit you are by them. As John McCain once said, "when you're rich you can afford nicer things. You should be able to afford higher taxes as well" (or something to that effect).
Let's turn this into a McDonald's metaphor. Let's use you as a poor person. Say you want to buy a small drink, which costs $0.90 (I don't know if it really does and I don't care). You have one dollar. A man comes up to you and says that before you can buy anything at this McDonalds you must pay him 25% of the money you have on you. You give him 25 cents and now you have 75 cents, which is no longer enough to buy anything. Meanwhile a rich person walks in, he has $35 on him (this is in proportion to the real gap between poor and rich. $10,400 as compared to $350,000). He again asks for a flat fee before using the McDonalds, so the rich guy pays him $8.75, buys a large drink ($1.50) and walks out with $24.75 still left over. He didn't feel the squeeze at all, whereas you are unable to make ends meet, despite both of you paying the same percentage in taxes.
But let's say the guy charging you to enter the resturaunt now goes by a fixed rate tax. He now charges you 10% and the other guy 35%. You pay 10 cents and can now get what you want (albeit with nothing left over) and the rich guy pays $12.25 but can still get his large drink and walk out with $21.25. The tax collector just made $3.35 (or 37%) more money than if he had been using a flat rate tax. The rich guy still has plenty of money left over and you got what you wanted. Everybody wins. gameguy6700
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Let's just say you're now running said McDonalds. You making a good amount of money and are currently approaching the next tax bracket. Your taxes are going to go up 10-15% and to make ends meet you're either going to have to raise prices on the food (hurting the poor) or fire some employees (lost tax revenue to the govt. and reducing the disposable income).
No one seems to understand that the evil rich are not bottomless money-pits.
Log in to comment