Good Lord

htownclone

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,832
67
48
My parents wouldn't let me watch Pee-Wee after his movie theatre "incident" and never allowed me to watch The Simpsons. I think that latter one scarred me for life.

Same with the Simpsons. I love Family Guy and shows like that, but have never really gotten into The Simpsons, but friends of mine that have watched it since they were kids still have to watch it every day. I feel like my parents may have cheated me on this... :sad9cd:
 

Kyle

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
4,074
119
63
cycloneworld said:
Just a couple I haven't seen mentioned yet: Fragglerock, Denver the Last Dinosaur, The Flinstones, Garfield and Friends.
I find this thread amusing. My personal favorite was Garfield.
I totally mentioned Garfield on page 14. :wink0st:
 

CloneFan65

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,595
688
113
Phoenix, AZ
Explanation of tax cuts:
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1...

The sixth would pay $3...

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but, what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But, if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"


"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


An interesting analogy, but I'm surprised a Professor of Economics either doesn't understand how the tax code works or is purposely trying to mislead. Taxes are progressive, each individual pays the same percent of each dollar earned, but we pay a lower percentage of the first $50,000 we earn than we for dollars $50,000 - $100,000.
 

explorer

Member
Apr 16, 2006
93
6
8
54
Marion, IA
An interesting analogy, but I'm surprised a Professor of Economics either doesn't understand how the tax code works or is purposely trying to mislead. Taxes are progressive, each individual pays the same percent of each dollar earned, but we pay a lower percentage of the first $50,000 we earn than we for dollars $50,000 - $100,000.

The point he is trying to make is that the richest in the country pay far and away the most taxes already, which is completely different than what the democrat's would have you believe. The latest stats I've seen are from 2003 and break down as follows:

Top 1% of wage earners pay more than 34% of taxes
Top 5% of wage earners pay more than 54% of taxes
Top 10% of wage earners pay more than 65% of taxes
Top 50% of wage earners pay more than 96% of taxes

This is the point the analogy was trying to make, which seems to be pretty close.

And for the record, no I am not pointing this out b/c I happen to be rich, I am solidly in the middle of the shrinking middle class. I just get frustrated when political talk clouds reality and causes more harm than good.
 

skelly

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 21, 2006
425
295
63
The Dark Hemisphere of Eternia
Back in the '80s, there was a lot of talk about how our show, Masters of the Universe, promoted the gay lifestyle. The critics said it was latently homosexual because we wore loin clothes and ran around shirtless. I assure you, Skeletor is as straight as his Havoc Staff; just ask Teela and Evil Lynn.

We did have gay people on the show. Just about every show did, but the characters were closeted back then. It was a different time. A lot of characters were afraid of getting blacklisted by the toy companies - Mattel, Hasbro, Kenner. The companies were afraid an openly gay character would hurt their sales. Some characters got written out of shows.

On the Masters set, there was a lot of experimentation going on and a lot of drugs. Some let it nearly ruin their careers.

For example, Beast Man had a major coke problem. He couldn't let go of his Studio 54 party days. But he was a hot young star. He was also openly gay. He-Man and I had to fight to keep him on the show. We even threatened to quit the show after the producers threated to kick him off the show. We knew they might try to replace us. Luckily, Man-At-Arms and the others also threatened to walk.

Luckily, Beast Man got the help he needed. After rehab, he settled down with Mer-Man in Florida. I heard they adopted a son.

In the '90s, more characters started coming out. The worst kept "industry secret" was the Smurfs, God rest their souls. Everyone knew they were gay. They were a bunch of dudes living together. What people didn't realize was that Gargamel was also gay.

There was also Thelma from Scooby Doo. She and the Baroness dated for a few years. Didn't last. It was a rebound thing after the Baroness divorced Destro. Bumblebee of the Transformers was flaming. And, of course, all of the Thundercats were gay.

Nowadays, cartoon characters have it easy.
 

CloneFan65

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,595
688
113
Phoenix, AZ
The point he is trying to make is that the richest in the country pay far and away the most taxes already, which is completely different than what the democrat's would have you believe. The latest stats I've seen are from 2003 and break down as follows:

Top 1% of wage earners pay more than 34% of taxes
Top 5% of wage earners pay more than 54% of taxes
Top 10% of wage earners pay more than 65% of taxes
Top 50% of wage earners pay more than 96% of taxes

This is the point the analogy was trying to make, which seems to be pretty close.

And for the record, no I am not pointing this out b/c I happen to be rich, I am solidly in the middle of the shrinking middle class. I just get frustrated when political talk clouds reality and causes more harm than good.

Those numbers are misleading because people in the top 5% make a lot more than someone in the bottom 50%. I looked at the tax code, and a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the 95th percentile of household incomes in the U.S. (around $150,000) will pay 21% of their income in federal income tax, while a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the median household income (around $42,000) will pay 13% of their income in federal income tax. This is progressive, but nearly the discrepency suggested by the data you quote.
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
Those numbers are misleading because people in the top 5% make a lot more than someone in the bottom 50%. I looked at the tax code, and a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the 95th percentile of household incomes in the U.S. (around $150,000) will pay 21% of their income in federal income tax, while a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the median household income (around $42,000) will pay 13% of their income in federal income tax. This is progressive, but nearly the discrepency suggested by the data you quote.

So... what you're saying is that the average household will pay a higher percentage of their salary than someone in the top 5% of the nation will, correct?
 

Cyclone62

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2007
9,115
213
63
Oldpeopleville
No, the higher income pays the higher percentage, but the difference is less than 10%.

So, is it that even though they appear to be supporting the economy the most, the actual disparity isn't as drastic as those percentages indicate? As in, the top 1% appears to support the economy 34%, but in reality, the rich do NOT have a very drastic tax percentage increase over the other top 50%.

Sorry if I sound like an idiot, math is... well, my nemesis.
 

explorer

Member
Apr 16, 2006
93
6
8
54
Marion, IA
Those numbers are misleading because people in the top 5% make a lot more than someone in the bottom 50%. I looked at the tax code, and a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the 95th percentile of household incomes in the U.S. (around $150,000) will pay 21% of their income in federal income tax, while a married (heterosexual) couple in a household at the median household income (around $42,000) will pay 13% of their income in federal income tax. This is progressive, but nearly the discrepency suggested by the data you quote.

The point is that the richest are already paying the majority of the taxes in this country. Democrat's will always argue that 'the rich only get tax cuts' which is not true. I can guarentee you that the tax cuts in Bush's first term benefited people at all levels, I know the helped me immensely, and, as I stated before I am in the mid-range of the middle class. Also, when tax cuts come, of course it is going to benefit those who pay the most. The data that gets put out that only the rich receive tax cuts is creative number crunching at its best.

Also, most of the "richest" that receive the tax cuts are small to mid-size business owners and the philosophy behind that is that those tax cuts will create further growth of their company and hiring of new people and salary increases of current employees which will be the end result of increased tax revenue for the government.
 

CloneFan65

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,595
688
113
Phoenix, AZ
Also, most of the "richest" that receive the tax cuts are small to mid-size business owners and the philosophy behind that is that those tax cuts will create further growth of their company and hiring of new people and salary increases of current employees which will be the end result of increased tax revenue for the government.

Unfortunately this "philosophy" hasn't worked out as the disparity between the haves and have nots has increased.
 

explorer

Member
Apr 16, 2006
93
6
8
54
Marion, IA
Unfortunately this "philosophy" hasn't worked out as the disparity between the haves and have nots has increased.

So the whole reason the disparity between the haves and have nots is because the rich are not paying enough in taxes? Remember, the poorest people in this county do not pay federal taxes.

Actually this philosophy does work very well when applied appropriately, unfortunately certain politicians work against the hard working small and mid-size business owners to gain political clout for themselves (selling misinformation).

The best way to lessen disparity between the haves and have nots is to motivate and educate the poorest people so they can advance to higher paying jobs and work their way up the ladder. Unfortunately, some of the policies in this country reward people to stay unemployed or in low paying jobs. Also, there are quite a number of people that are just plain lazy and expect other people to provide for them and do nothing for society in return (I unfortuanately see this quite frequently).
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron