LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:43 pm

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:49 pm Our guy Tucker giving ‘em hell!

A Dutch guy telling us what to do.

Exactly! Tucker showed him!

The Dutch guy was half BS. Pretty full of himself.

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:48 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:43 pm

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:49 pm Our guy Tucker giving ‘em hell!

A Dutch guy telling us what to do.

Exactly! Tucker showed him!

The Dutch guy was half BS. Pretty full of himself.

Yep! Tucker owned him!

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:51 pm

Yep! Tucker owned him!

Agreed, the Dutch guy is pretty obnoxious and deserved to be told off.

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:52 pm I missed this one. A couple weeks back an antifa member attacked an ICE facility with firebombs and an assault weapon and was shot dead. Tucker Carlson again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFr6N-1vLxs

So is this guy who attacked the ICE facility a martyr for you TLD?

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:06 pm

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:52 pm I missed this one. A couple weeks back an antifa member attacked an ICE facility with firebombs and an assault weapon and was shot dead. Tucker Carlson again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFr6N-1vLxs

So is this guy who attacked the ICE facility a martyr for you TLD?

I don't know him. I don't hero worship. He got what was coming to him.

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:48 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:43 pm

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:49 pm Our guy Tucker giving ‘em hell!

A Dutch guy telling us what to do.

Exactly! Tucker showed him!

The Dutch guy was half BS. Pretty full of himself.

Agreed, "pretty full of himself".
But he ran circles around the numbskull at Fox.

And nothing he said was actually BS, nor 'half BS'.
His facts were correct and the message was astutely presented.

Which needn't mean that we need to agree that the right answer is 70-90% top marginal tax rates.
But it's also pretty darn clear that lowering marginal rates doesn't have the positive effect supply-siders claimed.

Most of Tucker's "guest's" hold an opposite view to him. He gives them a chance to tell their side. Why call him a knuckelhead, because he collects a paycheck to infotainment from a pretend CONservative website? Tucker bashes tRump pretty good on occassion.


It's really strange how set in your ways you are, MDlax. So many "sources" for infotainment. Willing to bet you haven't watched any of the Joe Rogan interviews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeKoh2zHg1o

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:49 pm Our guy Tucker giving ‘em hell!

A Dutch guy telling us what to do.

Gee...wonder where he learned that? Trump has been telling Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, UK, France, Germany, China, NK, SK, Vietnam, Japan etc etc etc what to do. BFD.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:31 am Most of Tucker's "guest's" hold an opposite view to him. He gives them a chance to tell their side. Why call him a knuckelhead, because he collects a paycheck to infotainment from a pretend CONservative website? Tucker bashes tRump pretty good on occassion.


It's really strange how set in your ways you are, MDlax. So many "sources" for infotainment. Willing to bet you haven't watched any of the Joe Rogan interviews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeKoh2zHg1o

I would pay to hear Joe Rogan interview Tyrone Biggums.

Cooter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:49 pm Our guy Tucker giving ‘em hell!

A Dutch guy telling us what to do.

That Dutch "historian" has no clue about actual taxes paid in the 1950's & '60's.

He defaults to the standard leftist talking point of citing top marginal tax rates, while ignoring the enormous loopholes which made them avoidable for most wealthy taxpayers.

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/effectiv ... tes-1950s/

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:52 pm

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/effectiv ... tes-1950s/

Here's the key takeaway for me from that article :

It’s not a coincidence that the rich are so much richer now than they were in the 50s: it’s precisely because effective tax rates on the rich have gone down so much that it’s worthwhile to become rich in the first place. After all, when the government was going to tax away 91% of your income, what’s the point in bargaining for so large a slice of the pie?

High marginal rates discourage risk taking entrepreneurs who have done so much to grow our economy since the '60's.

As Tucker tried to point out. We're no longer an industrial, manufacturing based economy, as we were in the 2-3 post war decades.

Silicon valley would still be farm land if we'd kept a 91% top rate. ...although that might not have been all bad.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:11 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:52 pm

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/effectiv ... tes-1950s/

Here's the key takeaway for me from that article :

It’s not a coincidence that the rich are so much richer now than they were in the 50s: it’s precisely because effective tax rates on the rich have gone down so much that it’s worthwhile to become rich in the first place. After all, when the government was going to tax away 91% of your income, what’s the point in bargaining for so large a slice of the pie?

High marginal rates discourage risk taking entrepreneurs who have done so much to grow our economy since the '60's.

As Tucker tried to point out. We're no longer an industrial, manufacturing based economy, as we were in the 2-3 post war decades.

Silicon valley would still be farm land if we'd kept a 91% top rate. ...although that might not have been all bad.

I read that too. There was no innovation in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:19 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:11 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:52 pm

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/effectiv ... tes-1950s/

Here's the key takeaway for me from that article :

It’s not a coincidence that the rich are so much richer now than they were in the 50s: it’s precisely because effective tax rates on the rich have gone down so much that it’s worthwhile to become rich in the first place. After all, when the government was going to tax away 91% of your income, what’s the point in bargaining for so large a slice of the pie?

High marginal rates discourage risk taking entrepreneurs who have done so much to grow our economy since the '60's.

As Tucker tried to point out. We're no longer an industrial, manufacturing based economy, as we were in the 2-3 post war decades.

Silicon valley would still be farm land if we'd kept a 91% top rate. ...although that might not have been all bad.

I read that too. There was no innovation in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

It was "in house" or govt subsidized R & D. Not like the tech boom, then social media.
DoD gave us the internet (remember the blue tube ?), but look at the startups it has enabled.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:28 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:19 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:11 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:52 pm

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/effectiv ... tes-1950s/

Here's the key takeaway for me from that article :

It’s not a coincidence that the rich are so much richer now than they were in the 50s: it’s precisely because effective tax rates on the rich have gone down so much that it’s worthwhile to become rich in the first place. After all, when the government was going to tax away 91% of your income, what’s the point in bargaining for so large a slice of the pie?

High marginal rates discourage risk taking entrepreneurs who have done so much to grow our economy since the '60's.

As Tucker tried to point out. We're no longer an industrial, manufacturing based economy, as we were in the 2-3 post war decades.

Silicon valley would still be farm land if we'd kept a 91% top rate. ...although that might not have been all bad.

I read that too. There was no innovation in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

It was "in house" or govt subsidized R & D. Not like the tech boom, then social media.
DoD gave us the internet (remember the blue tube ?), but look at the startups it has enabled.

https://www.nap.edu/read/2103/chapter/3

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:31 am Most of Tucker's "guest's" hold an opposite view to him. He gives them a chance to tell their side. Why call him a knuckelhead, because he collects a paycheck to infotainment from a pretend CONservative website? Tucker bashes tRump pretty good on occassion.


It's really strange how set in your ways you are, MDlax. So many "sources" for infotainment. Willing to bet you haven't watched any of the Joe Rogan interviews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeKoh2zHg1o

No, I'm not a Rogan devotee. Find some of his views a bit whacky, but he's got a plenty entertaining style.

But he's also not on prime-time on cable with the largest single cable audience network. So, no, I'm more likely to see a Carlson piece than a Rogan one.

I used to watch Fox a lot more. Always found Tucker to be smarmy, arrogant, but with no actual substance. Then he got worse.

I tuned back in because one of my nieces became good friends with one of his daughters. I'd asked the group of friends, absent the daughter, what they thought of Tucker. They said he's nice guy, just 'acting' on his show, isn't such a jerk in real life. Ok, so he's a lightweight intellectually and 'acting' like a jerk to earn the paycheck. Perhaps.

He often brings onto the show some real fringe characters and then proceeds, with the benefit of editing, to make them look stupid (and sometimes they are!). In this case, he thought he was going to find some common cause in making fun of the global elite, but then was blown away when the guns were turned on him. Exposed for the lightweight he is, by a very bright, though arrogant, well prepared guest. The guy knew Tucker's modus operandi and taped the entire show from his end so as to control what actually got aired to not be an unfair edit of the discussion. Oops, the Fox model blown up.

Yeah, FREE college isn't whacky, Spending $200 billion on an Aircraft carrier that doesn't work isn't whacky.

Is it that he's not an IVY grad, or a mind expanding drug user?

Yes or NO, have you ever watched/listen to even ONE joe rogan podcast?

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:17 pm Yeah, FREE college isn't whacky, Spending $200 billion on an Aircraft carrier that doesn't work isn't whacky.

Is it that he's not an IVY grad, or a mind expanding drug user?

Yes or NO, have you ever watched/listen to even ONE joe rogan podcast?

He went to a little Ivy.

Lol.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:17 pm Yeah, FREE college isn't whacky, Spending $200 billion on an Aircraft carrier that doesn't work isn't whacky.

Is it that he's not an IVY grad, or a mind expanding drug user?

Yes or NO, have you ever watched/listen to even ONE joe rogan podcast?

I found this!