Obama wants to raise taxes on the American people once again

[The Rabbi]

For years they said to not vote independent, you were throwing away your vote, I told them it was being thrown away voting on the two party system anyway..

It's much better and much wiser to write-in a vote. That way you send a very strong message to professional politicians that you've wised up and will no longer play their game, nor play into their dishonest anti-America hands. It'll take a few election cycle to get the point across, but in the long run, it'll be worth it. There's power in numbers. Voters need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Utterly absurd. Plenty of people write in votes. No politician takes notice of it at all.

Not absurd at all, it's a great way to send a very strong message. And, what exactly do you call "plenty"? I do it, and I know of a few more that do it, but we are obviously very few in number. It take numbers to get the message across. There aren't nearly enough of us doing it, else it would have been noticed already. There's still way too many voters stuck on the Republican and Democrat band wagons. That fact is obvious by the results of elections.

The only "message" politiicans hear is who wins and who loses. Period.

Exactly. And why is that? It's because stupid voters play into their anti-America hands, elect them, and allow them to continue the ruin of this once great nation, as evident by the daily headlines. Also, not enough voters are sending the message for it have an effect.

Fine. So you agree your idea is worthless. Let's move on.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

Are you seriously that full of bullshit?

Yes, he is. If any Republican told The Rabbi that the only solution to our problems was to gurgle Rick Perry's cum, he would not only gurgle, but he would gurgle, spit, rinse and repeat. There's no need for logic behind it.

Please post an example of such a policy succeeding.

Which people? Who? What examples? Where? When?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

Are you seriously that full of bullshit?

Yes, he is. If any Republican told The Rabbi that the only solution to our problems was to gurgle Rick Perry's cum, he would not only gurgle, but he would gurgle, spit, rinse and repeat. There's no need for logic behind it.

Please post an example of such a policy succeeding.

Which people? Who? What examples? Where? When?

I'm sorry but if you can't follow the argument then there's no point. Move on.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

Are you seriously that full of bullshit?

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time. Supply side policies succeed.

What supply side policies are you speaking of ?

Policies like Reagan's that increased incentives to work and produce more. Those are a flatter, simpler tax code and less regulation. Special temporary giveaways do nothing to achieve that. Which is why the stimulus failed so badly.

FYI - Economic health and stability depends on consumer spending, period. Demand for goods and services encourage a positive cash flow, and creates jobs. You can have all of the "supply" you want, but if no one has the money to buy, the supply just sits there. If there's no demand, the supply may sit untouched forever.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your surrender here is noted.
You can't possibly explain it,beyond "money in the hands of consumers drives the economy"--a nonsense statement if there ever was one.

Are you seriously that full of bullshit?

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time. Supply side policies succeed.

What supply side policies are you speaking of ?

Policies like Reagan's that increased incentives to work and produce more. Those are a flatter, simpler tax code and less regulation. Special temporary giveaways do nothing to achieve that. Which is why the stimulus failed so badly.

FYI - Economic health and stability depends on consumer spending, period. Demand for goods and services encourage a positive cash flow, and creates jobs. You can have all of the "supply" you want, but if no one has the money to buy, the supply just sits there. If there's no demand, the supply may sit untouched forever.

You are clueless.
There is no supply without demand in the aggregate.
Business investment is the real driver of the economy. And that comes when businesses sense good prospects for profit. WHich is why we have seen pitiful growth.

 

[Sonny Clark]

It's much better and much wiser to write-in a vote. That way you send a very strong message to professional politicians that you've wised up and will no longer play their game, nor play into their dishonest anti-America hands. It'll take a few election cycle to get the point across, but in the long run, it'll be worth it. There's power in numbers. Voters need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Utterly absurd. Plenty of people write in votes. No politician takes notice of it at all.

Not absurd at all, it's a great way to send a very strong message. And, what exactly do you call "plenty"? I do it, and I know of a few more that do it, but we are obviously very few in number. It take numbers to get the message across. There aren't nearly enough of us doing it, else it would have been noticed already. There's still way too many voters stuck on the Republican and Democrat band wagons. That fact is obvious by the results of elections.

The only "message" politiicans hear is who wins and who loses. Period.

Exactly. And why is that? It's because stupid voters play into their anti-America hands, elect them, and allow them to continue the ruin of this once great nation, as evident by the daily headlines. Also, not enough voters are sending the message for it have an effect.

Fine. So you agree your idea is worthless. Let's move on.

Silly silly silly. No, my idea, view, is spot on. Can you dispute it in some way that makes sense? I thought so. I have explained my opinion, and its value. Care to give value to yours? Thanks.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time.

So, Bush's tax cuts were a failure?

Supply side policies succeed.

Your supply side bullshit is the nonsense. If supply is what drives the economy, then why do recessions happen ever?

 

[Dana7360]

So? He's going after your inheritance again. What a wonderful Pres eh?

Don't worry. Your trailer and govt cheese are safe.

The poster you're replying to shows that they either can't read and understand plain english or is too lazy to find information themselves or they just like to lie.

The president is removing a loophole break called "step-up" that allows people to avoid capital gains taxes on LARGE inheritances.

That means that people like the children of Bill & Melinda Gates won't have that loophole to use to get out of paying taxes on their inheritance.

It doesn't mean that it applies to over 90% of the citizens of our nation.

That person is so self involved that they think that they will have to pay taxes on any inheritance they receive below 2 million dollars.

That's one thing I've noticed about right wingers and conservatives. They're so very wrapped up in their own self importance.

 

[aaronleland]

The Rabbi believes in "trickle down" economics. The rich will trickle their jizm into his throat, he will swallow it, and become rich just like them.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time.

So, Bush's tax cuts were a failure?

Supply side policies succeed.

Your supply side bullshit is the nonsense. If supply is what drives the economy, then why do recessions happen ever?

Bush's tax cuts were the very definition of supply side economics. By lowering cap gains taxes he not only fueled larger payouts of dividiends to shareholders but also unlocked value that was reinvested.
Not supply, moron. Supply side policies. Surely you grok the difference.

 

[The Rabbi]

So? He's going after your inheritance again. What a wonderful Pres eh?

Don't worry. Your trailer and govt cheese are safe.

The poster you're replying to shows that they either can't read and understand plain english or is too lazy to find information themselves or they just like to lie.

The president is removing a loophole break called "step-up" that allows people to avoid capital gains taxes on LARGE inheritances.

That means that people like the children of Bill & Melinda Gates won't have that loophole to use to get out of paying taxes on their inheritance.

It doesn't mean that it applies to over 90% of the citizens of our nation.

That person is so self involved that they think that they will have to pay taxes on any inheritance they receive above 2 million dollars.

That's one thing I've noticed about right wingers and conservatives. They're so very wrapped up in their own self importance.

You are grossly ignorant. Like that's news.
Taxes on large inheritences will not be affected at all. Step up refers to subsequent capital gains when those assets are sold by the heirs.
So now you want to punish people twice: Tax them on the inheritance and then tax them on the increase in value from purchase.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi believes in "trickle down" economics. The rich will trickle their jizm into his throat, he will swallow it, and become rich just like them.

You seem obsessed with fellatio. Why not excuse yourself and head to the bus station mens room like you usually do and leave the rest of us alone?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Are you seriously that full of bullshit?

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time. Supply side policies succeed.

What supply side policies are you speaking of ?

Policies like Reagan's that increased incentives to work and produce more. Those are a flatter, simpler tax code and less regulation. Special temporary giveaways do nothing to achieve that. Which is why the stimulus failed so badly.

FYI - Economic health and stability depends on consumer spending, period. Demand for goods and services encourage a positive cash flow, and creates jobs. You can have all of the "supply" you want, but if no one has the money to buy, the supply just sits there. If there's no demand, the supply may sit untouched forever.

You are clueless.
There is no supply without demand in the aggregate.
Business investment is the real driver of the economy. And that comes when businesses sense good prospects for profit. WHich is why we have seen pitiful growth.

Ah, but before anyone is going to invest in "supply", there has to be a demand, or at least a reasonable expectation of demand. That expectation is triggered by demand. If businesses see that no one is buying, they're certainly not going to invest money in inventory. No one is going to build up a "supply" ( inventory ) with a strong indication that they can move that inventory. They see a strong possibility of demand before they invest money in products or services. No business is going to fill warehouse space with goods unless the economy warrants it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time. Supply side policies succeed.

What supply side policies are you speaking of ?

Policies like Reagan's that increased incentives to work and produce more. Those are a flatter, simpler tax code and less regulation. Special temporary giveaways do nothing to achieve that. Which is why the stimulus failed so badly.

FYI - Economic health and stability depends on consumer spending, period. Demand for goods and services encourage a positive cash flow, and creates jobs. You can have all of the "supply" you want, but if no one has the money to buy, the supply just sits there. If there's no demand, the supply may sit untouched forever.

You are clueless.
There is no supply without demand in the aggregate.
Business investment is the real driver of the economy. And that comes when businesses sense good prospects for profit. WHich is why we have seen pitiful growth.

Ah, but before anyone is going to invest in "supply", there has to be a demand, or at least a reasonable expectation of demand. That expectation is triggered by demand. If businesses see that no one is buying, they're certainly not going to invest money in inventory. No one is going to build up a "supply" ( inventory ) with a strong indication that they can move that inventory. They see a strong possibility of demand before they invest money in products or services. No business is going to fill warehouse space with goods unless the economy warrants it.

How much demand was there for iPhones before the first one appeared? Yeah, none.
Businesses anticipate future sales and act accordingly. When they see tax and regulatory blockage cutting into profits they will not invest. Invest here means expanding plants, adding product lines, hiring people for production or advertising. A ll of that is investment in future sales.
And that is what produces those future sales which produce profit which produces growth in the economy. And we havent gotten much of it over the last 8years.

 

[zeke]

Ah, but before anyone is going to invest in "supply", there has to be a demand,

Save your fingers Sonny. You are trying to educate the most stupid motherfucker posting here. And that's saying a lot. But the rabbit has had this topic explained to him by so many people that the only conclusion to reach is that the stupid fucking rabbit is to dumb to learn. He's a rabbit. And a willfully stupid one at that.

 

[Sonny Clark]

It is total nonsense. Every policy based on that has been a failiure. Demand side policies fail all the time.

So, Bush's tax cuts were a failure?

Supply side policies succeed.

Your supply side bullshit is the nonsense. If supply is what drives the economy, then why do recessions happen ever?

Bush's tax cuts were the very definition of supply side economics. By lowering cap gains taxes he not only fueled larger payouts of dividiends to shareholders but also unlocked value that was reinvested.
Not supply, moron. Supply side policies. Surely you grok the difference.

Again. That's putting money into the pockets of consumers. It has absolutely nothing to do with "supply", unless you mean the "supply of money flowing within the economy".

 

[aaronleland]

The Rabbi believes in "trickle down" economics. The rich will trickle their jizm into his throat, he will swallow it, and become rich just like them.

You seem obsessed with fellatio. Why not excuse yourself and head to the bus station mens room like you usually do and leave the rest of us alone?

Nothing you post is worthy of anything more than ridicule. Notice how you end up alone in these threads defending your points? It's because you SUCK at debating. Your arguments are so useless that none of your fellow Republicans come to your defense. You argue in circles, until the other guy gives up in frustration.

Just admit that you are the biggest partisan tool on this board. Call anybody a RINO that you want, but you will vote for ANY Republican who gets the nomination no matter what. If Biden became a Republican tomorrow and received the nomination you would praise him as the second coming of Christ, and vote for him without question.

You are one of the biggest jokes on this forum.

 

[SwimExpert]

Bush's tax cuts were the very definition of supply side economics. By lowering cap gains taxes he not only fueled larger payouts of dividiends to shareholders but also unlocked value that was reinvested.
Not supply, moron. Supply side policies. Surely you grok the difference.

Considering the majority of the Bush tax cuts were not reductions to capital gains taxes, you're response shows your dedication to willful ignorance and dishonesty in pursuit of defending your idiotic ideas.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What supply side policies are you speaking of ?

Policies like Reagan's that increased incentives to work and produce more. Those are a flatter, simpler tax code and less regulation. Special temporary giveaways do nothing to achieve that. Which is why the stimulus failed so badly.

FYI - Economic health and stability depends on consumer spending, period. Demand for goods and services encourage a positive cash flow, and creates jobs. You can have all of the "supply" you want, but if no one has the money to buy, the supply just sits there. If there's no demand, the supply may sit untouched forever.

You are clueless.
There is no supply without demand in the aggregate.
Business investment is the real driver of the economy. And that comes when businesses sense good prospects for profit. WHich is why we have seen pitiful growth.

Ah, but before anyone is going to invest in "supply", there has to be a demand, or at least a reasonable expectation of demand. That expectation is triggered by demand. If businesses see that no one is buying, they're certainly not going to invest money in inventory. No one is going to build up a "supply" ( inventory ) with a strong indication that they can move that inventory. They see a strong possibility of demand before they invest money in products or services. No business is going to fill warehouse space with goods unless the economy warrants it.

How much demand was there for iPhones before the first one appeared? Yeah, none.
Businesses anticipate future sales and act accordingly. When they see tax and regulatory blockage cutting into profits they will not invest. Invest here means expanding plants, adding product lines, hiring people for production or advertising. A ll of that is investment in future sales.
And that is what produces those future sales which produce profit which produces growth in the economy. And we havent gotten much of it over the last 8years.

FYI - An iphone is electronics, a very useful and common electronics devise. Before iphones, people were using portable phones all over the world. It was a hot commodity. The demand was there for new and innovative phones. Also, businesses have been dealing with taxes and regulations every since there were businesses, nothing new. And investment only works when there is a very strong possibility of sales. There has to be some positive signs before anyone is going to invest $Millions. Businesses do NOT invest unless there is a reasonable possibility that their investment will generate a profit.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Ah, but before anyone is going to invest in "supply", there has to be a demand,

Save your fingers Sonny. You are trying to educate the most stupid motherfucker posting here. And that's saying a lot. But the rabbit has had this topic explained to him by so many people that the only conclusion to reach is that the stupid fucking rabbit is to dumb to learn. He's a rabbit. And a willfully stupid one at that.

Thanks for the heads-up. Much appreciated.