Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[Wyatt earp]

Why the flying fuck Would have Bush jr. Did his tax cuts

Dumb fucks

 

[kaz]

Unlike you I'm not big government

Self awareness isn't your bag...

Either the employer or the government have to do it. I prefer the employer. You communists prefer the gov.

So you raise the minimum wage, they get fired as Walmart hires better workers, and you have accomplished what for them exactly?

Really, they are going to find better workers for what is still very low pay? You are joking right?

No, but I know what I am talking about because I have owned several businesses and you don't becasue you pull it out of your ass.

Yeah, at the low end, a couple bucks an hour makes a huge difference who you can hire. Walmart hires the lowest of the low and give them a chance. And you blast them for that. But you are an authoritarian leftists, I am a liberal. You're a fish out of water when it comes to giving a shit about anyone but yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Progressives are shocked when they provide for people who make mistakes in life, and then MORE people keep making the same mistake.

When the government pays for a behavior, it encourages it.

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Progressives are shocked when they provide for people who make mistakes in life, and then MORE people keep making the same mistake.

When the government pays for a behavior, it encourages it.

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

 

[Wyatt earp]

I love this thread we have indoctrinated poor Ass liberals trying to tell people how to be poor/bankrupt and broke if they ran their successful companies there way.

It is so amusing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trickle up poor, the liberal way

 

[Brain357]

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

 

[Brain357]

And I am shocked that the Waltons are so greedy that they make billions and pay workers so little they are on welfare. I'm shocked that so many of you are communist and prefer the government pays the workers rather than the billionaire waltons.

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

 

[Wyatt earp]

And you couldn't even carey my tool belt

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s,

Bill Clinton raised taxes on everybody.

and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

George Bush cut taxes for everybody.
And crediting Clinton's higher taxes for the Internet Boom is something only a moron would do.
And there's Billy with the 000 IQ.

I love this shit, only a moron wouldn't have known we went into a mini recession in late 1999

We were in recession from March 2001-Nov 2001.
So what's your point, moron?

 

[Brain357]

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

Oh really? Are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Envy is and ugly thing, and you are full of it.

You are also full of bullshit, so you have that going for you as well.

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

Who said WalMart was going out of business?
They only fired the subsidized workers you were whining about.
Try again, pretend you have a brain this time.

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

 

[Brain357]

Envy is being a real fiscal conservative? I had no idea. Sorry I'm not a communist like you, but government dependence isn't good.

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

Who said WalMart was going out of business?
They only fired the subsidized workers you were whining about.
Try again, pretend you have a brain this time.

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

Who said WalMart was going out of business?
They only fired the subsidized workers you were whining about.
Try again, pretend you have a brain this time.

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

They'll replace the poor ones with unsubsidized ones.
Will government payments to the fired "subsidized" workers increase or decrease? Why?

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

 

[Brain357]

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Interesting claim. Let's test it.
WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them. Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

Who said WalMart was going out of business?
They only fired the subsidized workers you were whining about.
Try again, pretend you have a brain this time.

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

They'll replace the poor ones with unsubsidized ones.
Will government payments to the fired "subsidized" workers increase or decrease? Why?

Really how much will they be paying now? Where will they find these reacements?

 

[Wyatt earp]

if you were a fiscal conservative you would be talking about government spending and waste not what one company pays its unskilled workers

I am talking about spending, welfare moron. Gov would be spending less if they weren't subsidizing Walmart.

Lmao in what world is that?

God damn you liberals are total morons sometimes

You really aren't very smart.

Your not very rich or have balls

Oh really? Are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

what you want me to post pics now? Ok I will

 

[kaz]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

Yes they stay in business a real long time without the employees.

True but irrelevant. If they pay more, they can hire better workers. If you are happy with a $30 toaster and government passes a law that toasters can't be sold for less than $50, are you going to pay $50 for a $30 toaster that suits your needs or are you going to buy the best toaster you can get for $50 since you have to pay that?

You really are an idiot, you can't even grasp or respond to the point being made. You just keep repeating your strawman.

 

[Brain357]

WalMart fires all their "subsidized" workers tomorrow.
Would government payments to these workers increase or decrease? Why?

For one that wouldn't happen. And two, somebody would take the place of Walmart and hire them.

So none of these other companies are stepping forward and hiring those employees now for what Wal Mart pays them. However, if companies have to pay them more and they get fired by Wal Mart, the companies that won't pay them what WalMart pays them now will step in and pay them more than what WalMart pays them now.



Um...and you call yourself "brain?" You forgot to add "dead" didn't you?

Dnt act like the Waltons making billions is doing the poor a favor.

Strawman. No one said WalMart is going it to do them a favor. You fundamentally don't understand Capitalism. But let's compare.

Walmart: In the interest of themselves and their employees, they hire lots of low end workers that can't support themselves whether WalMart hires them or not, so at least they are partially supporting themselves.

You: Interfere in the market and make the arrogant choice over other people's lives to deny low end workers any employment so they can't support themselves at all and harm the economy by driving up the cost for an employer who was paying full market wages.

You make choices over other people's lives and pay nothing for that choice you stick it on WalMart and get lots of low end workers fired. Then you pat yourself smugly on the back for your generosity.

Sorry but for a few dollars more new people aren't going to be rushing to work at Walmart.