Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it doesn't. A correlation means their is a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. That relationship or connection may or may not be causal. They are not always equal.Correlation =/= causation.
No it doesn't. A correlation means their is a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. That relationship or connection may or may not be causal. They are not always equal.Correlation =/= causation.
Challenge for Teabaggers:
Explain how raising taxes on millionaires would hurt the economy, and provide evidence.
I'm not expecting much, so don't be afraid.
That's what I'm wondering. I'm wrong all the time so does that mean I'm constantly lying?
That's what I'm wondering. I'm wrong all the time so does that mean I'm constantly lying?
So being wrong is now a lie?
Well, you got him beat....you're all three.....It is if you know you are wrong. O'reily is an asshole and a liar but not stupid.
It is if you know you are wrong. O'reily is an asshole and a liar but not stupid.
Well since you are a USC grad.....it must be the later! ;-P
Check out the video between 7:28 and 7:40 "we had the highest growth in capital and productivity and in the economy in general in the 40's, 50's and 60's when we had much higher taxes." (Numerous studies show that to be the case.)
So, if there is a correlation between taxes and growth then it's obvious it's better to tax. If there isn't a correlation between taxes and growth then the extra taxes will not harm the economy and the extra money can be given to those in need.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
well that and you're only useful when you're on a dick.You bring up an excellent point, even when I think I'm wrong I must be right because as a Trojan I am superior!!!
I'm no economist but I do know we are in a global economy today and were in far less of one back then. In 1950 the U.S. produced 50% of the world GDP. Today it is under 23%. To me you can't just say let's go back 50 years economicly and think all other variables will be the same.
Well, you got him beat....you're all three.....
That's not a relevent point. No one even implied that. He was using that as an example.
He said if there is or isn't a correlation its better to tax. I'm saying that is not the case and stated why.
BTW, Does anyone else recognize who the other gentleman is?
He did?
No, I am an asshole, but neither a liar nor stupid, as you well know. When have you ever caught me lying? When have I ever not pwned you? It got so bad you put me on ignore for a while.