Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Thursday, December 22, 2011

Meant to post this ealier...

Someone posted this infographic on MMFA lasty week, and I had meant to post it here and forgot about it until now. It comes from [IMHO HoF'er] Newscorpse and it serves as a pretty handy reference should you find yourself in a debate with any C-Students about taxes or economics. Please feel free to download it and pass it on.


  1. "Someone posted this infographic on MMFA lasty week"

    That seems like the usual MMFA misinformation and lies promoted as truth and ideals.

    "The rich" ... I assume you mean only the 1%rs? I guess that would be true. They only own companies like .... well, EVERY oil company (none of them hire many people) and EVERY auto company (none of them hire many people) and every major professional sport team owner (none of them hire many people) and the top 40% of (big 3 sports) professional athletes (well, they actually do NOT hire anyone), I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. Which "the rich" don't hire people according to MMFA?

    The increase of the wealth to the top 1%. Hmmm, I guess you could compare the increase of wealth to the rich by using Adrian Beltre's contract negotiations as an example. Yes one team offered him $220 MILLION to play baseball, but he opted for $254 MILLION. I would guess the bulk of that increase will go to savings. Ok, that stat makes sense, where else would they put the money? Perhaps they should stand on the street corner and beg people to take some from them? I'm sure all the "occupiers" would feel more at ease by getting money that way, instead of working for it.

    There is brought as "fact" that tax cuts are the "least productive measure for increasing the GDP". However, there are only 2 examples brought to support that "theory". There are also 3 examples of tax cuts that DO increase the GDP. With 2 of them being among the TOP 6 ways to increase the GDP. How very misleading and simply a "I hate Bush" tactic, which no longer applies since Bush is NO LONGER PRESIDENT. The democrats are in control and have been for quite a while. But liberals (nearly all of them democrats) typically refuse to accept personal accountability and usually put blame on anyone but their own. So, I would expect that stat to be included.

    The unemployment down to 8.6%??? That was achieved by no longer counting the people who stopped looking for work, NOT because they were hired. Quite a bit of misinformation being brought there. For a good example of left-wing "job counting" abilities you should check out Nancy Pelosi's support of the 'bullet train' in California. She says it will create 1 million jobs. FACTS are it will create up to 60,000 jobs.

    And that ending "occupy" circle of job creation? Wow, I am wondering how many jobs were created during the "occupy" idea of shutting down ports of delivery along the west coast? Their entire demand structure sounds more like it was read from the communist manifesto.

    Eddie, you can't be really suggesting that people adhere to those ideals are you? Why do you fall for the misinformation and lies promoted by MediaMatters? You seemed like a smarter person than that.

  2. I "fall for the misinformation and lies" becasue I graduated w/ Honors getting my MBA from the U of M, having Aced both Micro- and Macro-Econ. (And all but two other courses.) And you're wrong.

    "They only own companies like... well, EVERY company."

    Irrelevant. Read the graphic. (Carefully this time.) Companies don't hire based on their tax rate. They hire based on the marginal return on labor. And the tax rate doesn't factor into that equation. If there isn't sufficient demand to pay for the cost of a new hire, how can the tax rate change that? And if there IS? Taxes can't change that either. Profits may be more or less, but a higher tax rate can't turn a positive into a negative, nor can a lower rate turn a negative into a positive. And that's not a matter of economics. That's MATH.

    "The unemployment down to 8.6%??? That was achieved by no longer counting the people who stopped looking for work, NOT because they were hired."

    You see that graph with the blue and red bars? Poorly labelled, yes, but that's the # of jobs added or lost during the Bush yrs , b4 the stimulus and the Obama yrs after. It's not from any liberal source, but from the Dept.of Labor. Again: you're wrong.

    And as I have pointed out to you before, the unemployment rate remains HIGH becuase more people who had stopped looking are now looking again; typically what happens in a recovery. Jobs TEND to be a lagging indicator.

    "There is brought as "fact" that tax cuts are the least productive measure..."

    That chart's from Moody's. Not a bastion of liberalism. Again: You're wrong.

    "Adrian Beltre, etc..."

    If you think a guy making upwards of $30M a yr spends a higher % of his $ than a guy making $30K? I know a good neurologist you should see. The rich? SAVE the bulk of their money. That why they're rich! The middle class? Well, given the state of things, can save very little. (That's why most of them, ~99%, will never be rich!) Now you can argue the wisdom of those habits on an individual level, but you can't argue (intelligently) about the effect this has on the economy. Give a rich guy a dollar and 90-cents of it ends up in the "bank" (meanining 'invested') which helps no one but himself. Give the middle class a dollar, and all of it gets spends, creating demand (= INCOME) for another person. This happens sveral times before that dollor is finally whittled away by profit retention, savings and taxation.

    "Pelosi, etc..."

    Ms.Pelosi doesn't write or inform this blog, nor did she create that info graphic, nor did she create the Keynsian Model of Econ. If she made some goofy exageration? It's her statement, not mine and is neither here nor there.

    "democrats are in control and have been for quite a while"

    Republicans have controlled the House for the past year, and have filibustered EVERYTHING in the Senate for the past 3. That's not Liberal Opinion, it's public and historical record. LOOK IT UP. YOU'RE WRONG.

    "That seems like the usual MMFA misinformation and lies"

    Except that both I and the graphic itself stated that it came from Newscorpse, not MMFA. AGAIN: YOU'RE WRONG.

    "Occupiers, etc..."

    If you're suggesting that the occupiers are little more than unfocused anger, lack a coherent message and in some cases have hurt thier own cause? I'd be inclined to agree with you. The difference is that you continue to defend the system of supply-side econ that, after 30+ years in practice, DIRECTLY CREATED the situation in which there are no longer enough middle-class jobs left in this country. Which is really the ONLY POSSIBLE result of supply-side economics in the long term.

    I'm afraid YOU'RE the one who's misinformed, my friend. And, if you don't mind my asking, if you don't watch Fox and you don't listen to AM Radio, where DO you got your "information" from?

  3. "if you don't watch Fox and you don't listen to AM Radio, where DO you got your "information" from?"

    I don't listen to the shows you have worried I listen to (rush, beck, ect). I do listen to AM radio, a mixture of CBS and religion and the Armstrong/Getty show (on the way into work in the morning). Otherwise, it's newspapers and the internets.

    "Give a rich guy a dollar and 90-cents of it ends up in the "bank" "

    Yeah, and the other 10-cents goes into expenditures that help keep the economy going. The guy making $30K is going to be limited as to how much he can spend, while the rich guy isn't limited to how much he can spend ... even at 10-cent per dollar.
    The reference to Betran was only to show that once a certain plateau has been reached in income, then there can only be so much done with it. Unless you favor redistributing that money to those who don't have the talent to make it on their own.

    The MMFA reference was because you said you got the information from there. It wasn't a reference to who initially made up the stuff, but rather that they are a bastion of misinformation and lies. BTW, that's their main complaint about right-wing anything/anybody. So, while all the "stats" you posted associated with that graphic may be from other places, MMFA is promoting it as fact. Which it is not. Half-truths don't equal fact.

  4. "they are a bastion of misinformation and lies"

    Proove it. (Good luck.)

  5. Look, if you don't see that some of the information they allow to be promoted is incorrect, there really isn't any way to discuss this.

    In your article graphic alone there are some misleading information. I've pointed them out. The very headline statement in that graphic is incorrect. Using this data;
    ( ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat23.txt ), they are promoting that NO rich person created ANY of those jobs. They are telling me that people like Steve Jobs or Steven Spielberg never created a job for anyone.
    Now, you tell me that "The rich have never created an American job not one" is fact, with a straight face, and I'll stop coming to this site. I would prefer discussing with an honest person.

    How much of that next $1 'the rich' get does he actually get to use? Isn't he taxed at a rate of 35% then add on another (possibly) 15% state tax? So while the lower income get to keep around 85-cents of every dollar, the upper income keeps about 50-cents of every dollar. S/He starts out with more to use (reason for the higher tax rate) so there is less to spend it on until s/he expands (hopefully) their business. So, it is put in savings until needed to create more jobs (and become more rich). Do you REALLY expect them to live paycheck to paycheck like many of us (me included) do? Of course they put it into savings. If I (and I assume you) have an adequate income and then add more to it, I would put it in a bank. Would you prefer they stash it in their mattresses? Sure it's a fact (that MMFA allowed) but it is misleading by insinuating the rich don't do anything with their money except hoard it.

    The "working class" are not the job creators, they are the job do'ers. Those of us in the lower classes do the work for the rich. It is because of the rich there are jobs for us lower classers to actually work at. You are probably the exception. You have a nice income from your blog site and probably don't work for anyone else. Your employer probably isn't rich.

    That is the kind of information that MMFA is promoting. It is wrong and misinformation. It doesn't matter if they type the words themselves or authorize it's promotion by allowing a poster to post it. They made that choice. Of course not every article they post is wrong, but they have their fair share, just like the ones they describe themselves as 'outing'.

  6. ""they are a bastion of misinformation and lies"
    Proove it. (Good luck.)"

    Done, with no reprisals. Every one of your explanations for misinformation being brought by MMFA has been proven wrong. Do you want to try again? You have had quite a while to check those "facts" that MMFA promoted. Feel free to take another month to think about it.