Prove which tastes better...chocolate or strawberry ice cream?

**michaelr** · 21st February 2012 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

Since many of our debates involve opinions that each side claims to have the correct answer for, I pose the topic title's question.

Commentary:
I think many Righties have trouble differentiating between fact & opinion. In fact,
they use them interchangeably & I don't see Lefties doing that very much.

Here is one of those 'viable' long lasting must read threads. Hell it even go my attention, that is over....over.

**Devil505** · 21st February 2012 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Koios

Anyway, chocolate tastes better than strawberry. Here's taste preference stats:

"Based on ice cream consumption figures, the top five individual flavors in terms of share of segment in the United States are: vanilla (27.8%), chocolate (14.3%), strawberry (3.3%), chocolate chip (3.3%) and butter pecan (2.8%). Source: (Ice Cream Sales & Trends | International Dairy Foods Association)

Wrong!
That study doesn't take into account that most people are Masochists & deliberately force themselves to eat the lousy tasting stuff.

**Chief** · 21st February 2012 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Koios

Nope; ordinary (ahhhhh!!) Kidding.

Anyway, chocolate tastes better than strawberry. Here's taste preference stats:

"Based on ice cream consumption figures, the top five individual flavors in terms of share of segment in the United States are: vanilla (27.8%), chocolate (14.3%), strawberry (3.3%), chocolate chip (3.3%) and butter pecan (2.8%). Source: (Ice Cream Sales & Trends | International Dairy Foods Association)

I don't see Rocky Road listed, so your partisanship has obviously skewed the results.

**jackalope** · 21st February 2012 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by pragmatic

So let's reflect on the inverse:

"Raising tax rates equals higher tax revenues"

Fact or opinion? (and does it demonstrate the depth of the problem on the left??)

Also opinion, and also wrong. Actually, I guess both this and the inverse are false facts.

No, it doesn't demonstrate the depth of the problem on the left, b/c the left doesn't go around saying this. They are currently saying that particular taxes should be raised.

I'm sure you can come up with something similar on the left, however. Just your example doesn't fly, b/c the left isn't arguing it.

21st February 2012 04:35 PM

Worked for JFK and Ronnie....

Originally Posted by Babba

In some specialized cases it can bring in higher revenues. But it is not true in most cases.

**jackalope** · 21st February 2012 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by pragmatic

Agree that SS has provided salvation to a lot of people in old age. And if properly managed with periodic adjustments it could be sustainable for the long term.

But SS just recently crossed a milestone. It is now "bleeding" with output exceeding input. And the needed adjustments are politically unpopular (hence the nickname of SS being "the third rail")

In fact, the only changes that our rocket science congresspricks have made to SS lately is to decrease the revenue stream into SS by 50%. (under the brilliant Payroll Tax Holiday legislation)

It is not "bleeding". Bleeding means running red ink. It is now dipping into a long planned for trust fund. This is EXACTLY the reason Reagan made his deal in the 80s to 'save' Social Security. They collected FAR in excess of outlays for decades.

So, no, they're not bleeding anything. They're making use of a trust fun they'd long know that they'd use.

Also: the PR tax deal does not decrease the revenue stream into SS b/c the shortfall is covered by the general fund. It adds to the general fund's deficit, however.

**jackalope** · 21st February 2012 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Roo

Worked for JFK and Ronnie....

False. It worked for JFK. Ronnie exploded the deficit. Hence the reason he reversed himself, and raised taxes so many times. And why HW also did so.

21st February 2012 04:45 PM

Golly....never mind about those pesky unemployment facts

Revenue increases whenTaxes are cut..and yes it worked for Ronnie and JFK...Ronnie completely reversed Carter's destruction....and no amount "nuh-uhs" can change that.

Originally Posted by jackalope

False. It worked for JFK. Ronnie exploded the deficit. Hence the reason he reversed himself, and raised taxes so many times. And why HW also did so.

**jackalope** · 21st February 2012 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Roo

Golly....never mind about those pesky unemployment facts

Revenue increases whenTaxes are cut..and yes it worked for Ronnie and JFK...Ronnie completely reversed Carter's destruction....and no amount "nuh-uhs" can change that.

repeating yourself doesn't cause it to be true. Prove it to be true, or admit you're a hack.

**Roshi** · 21st February 2012 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Babba

Seniors make up about 40 million people in the US. About 120 million people are employed in the US and paying the SS tax

No Really? I already posted that pages ago and you never bothered responding.
Let's try this again

Originally Posted by Roshi

Let's just assume for arguments sake that SS is actually balanced. And that the government hasn't already spent all of the money. That it already isn't filled with IOUs. It is still flawed in the fact that the younger generation is paying for the older. Which doesn't take into account population change or medical advances.... In 1945 the ratio of those paying in to those collecting was 42:1. In 2002 it was 3:1. And as time goes on it only continues to decrease, eventually leading to a deficit.

My question to you is, why can't people control their own money and own future/retirement? It's my money, and it should be used for me. I should be in control of it. It isn't the governments job.

I'm still waiting on your rebuttal.... That is if you man up on that reading comprehension. I made sure to put the 3:1 in bold for you this time. Hopefully you don't just restate what I already posted. The ratio is continuing to decrease, and will reach the point where it's no longer solvent.