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

[The Rabbi]

Looks tiny.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

Bush lowered your taxes too.

Big fucking deal. Now we need money and the rich are saying they can't help so Rick Snyder is talking about raising OUR taxes.

This is why I don't like talking politics with right wing jackasses. They have an answer for everything, don't understand anything they are told and they argue in circular arguments. So you'll use this argument today, use 5 more arguments after and then eventually circle back around to the "they lowered your taxes too" argument, which I have already refuted 1000 fucking times. You guys are just dumb.

Dumb because you aren't rich enough to be benefitting from their policies.

Fact is, you can't get any more from us middle class people. I don't care what the rich are paying today. They need to roll back not only the Bush tax cuts but the Reagan ones as well.

Don't worry, we will. You can argue and obstruct as much as you want but eventually we're coming for that $. lol

Now we need money

Who is we? Why do "we" need money? How much do "we" need?

What he means is "we entitled slugs need your money." How much do they need? Whatever you've got.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Looks tiny.

What is someone holding a gun to your brothers head to keep the money? Why Don't your brother be like Jesus and give his money to his Employees? ,why Don't he donate it to the IRS? Why do liberals think you can Legistrate Morrality? Who decides what a person should make, the government ?

Finally pirates knew they had to share the loot otberwise they would end up dead, we have laws against that today.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

Bush lowered your taxes too.

Big fucking deal. Now we need money and the rich are saying they can't help so Rick Snyder is talking about raising OUR taxes.

This is why I don't like talking politics with right wing jackasses. They have an answer for everything, don't understand anything they are told and they argue in circular arguments. So you'll use this argument today, use 5 more arguments after and then eventually circle back around to the "they lowered your taxes too" argument, which I have already refuted 1000 fucking times. You guys are just dumb.

Dumb because you aren't rich enough to be benefitting from their policies.

Fact is, you can't get any more from us middle class people. I don't care what the rich are paying today. They need to roll back not only the Bush tax cuts but the Reagan ones as well.

Don't worry, we will. You can argue and obstruct as much as you want but eventually we're coming for that $. lol

Benefiting?

Wtf?

I am happy as hell...

Love my life, told everyone off and got a non stressful job and can sit back and enjoy.

Dont you losers get it?

 

[danielpalos]

Why is it the ONLY factor liberals consider is taxes when it comes to economic growth?
You dumb fucks always talk about post WWII and pretend like the only thing that's changed since then are the tax rates.

Ps. The op is a moron.

You may be missing the point about Taxes and economic growth; Commerce would not be burdened with our current warfare-State regime, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates under our form of Capitalism since public policy constitutes public Use, for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it the ONLY factor liberals consider is taxes when it comes to economic growth?
You dumb fucks always talk about post WWII and pretend like the only thing that's changed since then are the tax rates.

Ps. The op is a moron.

You may be missing the point about Taxes and economic growth; Commerce would not be burdened with our current warfare-State regime, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates under our form of Capitalism since public policy constitutes public Use, for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Yeah but a public office is a public trust, and the Golden Rule disproves what you write.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It don't take much to post a pic on here
Any one can do it Brian , my great dog

Now the dog I like.

At least you have a heart no balls to back up your claim though, that you think your richer then little ol' me and my dad is richer he lives over on the lake up yonder...

 

[sealybobo]

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

Looks tiny.

What is someone holding a gun to your brothers head to keep the money? Why Don't your brother be like Jesus and give his money to his Employees? ,why Don't he donate it to the IRS? Why do liberals think you can Legistrate Morrality? Who decides what a person should make, the government ?

Finally pirates knew they had to share the loot otberwise they would end up dead, we have laws against that today.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

Bush lowered your taxes too.

You cannot steal something that is not theirs.

Taxes are NOT government giving back money. The money belongs to the earner, not the government.

Wow...just wow.

Government needs money to operate. You fail to realize that the rich have taken over our government and changed the tax laws so that they work in their favor and hurt the rest of us. This is class warfare and they waged it on us.

The bankers/rich fucked us and you still don't know it happened. Even with all the Wallstreet firms and bankers and mortgage giants that got caught, you still don't get it??? And did we ever get our money back? FUCK NO. So even if Obama does punish the people who fucked us, are you ever going to see one dime of that money? FUCK NO.

In fact you defend the bankers and mortgage giants who fucked us. You cry class warfare if we ask for our money back. You are the typical dumb ass American.

Holder Asks Lawyers to Pursue Bankers in Mortgage Fraud - Bloomberg Business

 

[sealybobo]

Looks tiny.

Who decides how much taxes my brother pays? Our government does. Unfortunately the rich purchased our government so now they don't pay their fair share.

The rich know they too need to share or they might end up dead. Revolutions happen when the rich in a country get too greedy.

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

Bush lowered your taxes too.

Big fucking deal. Now we need money and the rich are saying they can't help so Rick Snyder is talking about raising OUR taxes.

This is why I don't like talking politics with right wing jackasses. They have an answer for everything, don't understand anything they are told and they argue in circular arguments. So you'll use this argument today, use 5 more arguments after and then eventually circle back around to the "they lowered your taxes too" argument, which I have already refuted 1000 fucking times. You guys are just dumb.

Dumb because you aren't rich enough to be benefitting from their policies.

Fact is, you can't get any more from us middle class people. I don't care what the rich are paying today. They need to roll back not only the Bush tax cuts but the Reagan ones as well.

Don't worry, we will. You can argue and obstruct as much as you want but eventually we're coming for that $. lol

Now we need money

Who is we? Why do "we" need money? How much do "we" need?

I'd like to get what I lost in the stock market back when the banks fucked us. And since the value of my home went down $40K, I'd like that taken off what I fucking owe!

Bank of America fined 1.3B for bad mortgages

Bank of America fined $1.3B for bad mortgages

 

[sealybobo]

And BOA got off lucky!!! Why are these rich bankers getting any breaks at all? Why aren't they in jail?

Justice Dept. says Bank of America should be fined $2.1 billion for mortgage fraud

 

[sealybobo]

We should have taken every $ from every banking CEO and VP and put them in jail for a year and when they got out they can be bank tellers but nothing higher. They aren't qualified clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

So exactly how would you enforce a law where companies have to pay their employees more so they are no longer on the government dole? Answer....government would enforce that law.....so it seems your reason for having a law is to decrease government while the law actually increases government in a different area.
No gain....jut more government intervention.
So your idea fails.

Simple, in a nut shell and through propaganda and rhetoric manufactured for that legal purpose; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. For some on the left, that means employing socialism to merely Use capitalism for all of its worth through full employment of resources in any given market, as a bailout.

How does one use capitalism as a bailout? That makes no sense. It seems here you are admitting that socialism is a failure and needs to be bailed out by capitalism. The question remains, why have socialism at all?

In one alternative, we could use existing legal and physical infrastructure to bailout those who are unemployed, with unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

We already have unemployment insurance. How is that an "alternative?"

The supply side economics paradigm of better governance at lower cost suggests that we should solve for as many social dilemmas as possible at the same time. Thus, we should be solving for simple poverty to end the cost of our exorbitantly expensive War on Poverty, and correcting for the deleterious effects of capitalism's laissez-fare laziness regarding its, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Better government at lower cost isn't the supply side paradigm. The government has spent $1 trillion trying to end poverty for the last 60 years. What's your "simple" solution? Do you really think government can reduce unemployment to zero? The only government I know of to claim having achieved that is the USSR. Is that the model you endorse?

Not for the right, their version of supply side economics is to bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down. Some on the left believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost to simply to be more fiscally responsible and more fiscally sincere.

One solution is to use existing legal and physical infrastructure to solve a simple social dilemma on an at-will basis, not simply employ the paradigm of the right to merely create more government programs...blah...blah...blah, and then try to lower taxes on wealthiest in the name of "equality".

 

[Flash]

[


The republicans on here seem to promote gov dependence. Who does that leave to vote for?

I am not a Republican so I can't answer for them.

My idea is not to vote for any Progressive bad government.

Looks like you are going to continue to vote for bad government so you are part of the problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.

WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.

They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.

So exactly how would you enforce a law where companies have to pay their employees more so they are no longer on the government dole? Answer....government would enforce that law.....so it seems your reason for having a law is to decrease government while the law actually increases government in a different area.
No gain....jut more government intervention.
So your idea fails.

Simple, in a nut shell and through propaganda and rhetoric manufactured for that legal purpose; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. For some on the left, that means employing socialism to merely Use capitalism for all of its worth through full employment of resources in any given market, as a bailout.

How does one use capitalism as a bailout? That makes no sense. It seems here you are admitting that socialism is a failure and needs to be bailed out by capitalism. The question remains, why have socialism at all?

In one alternative, we could use existing legal and physical infrastructure to bailout those who are unemployed, with unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

We already have unemployment insurance. How is that an "alternative?"

The supply side economics paradigm of better governance at lower cost suggests that we should solve for as many social dilemmas as possible at the same time. Thus, we should be solving for simple poverty to end the cost of our exorbitantly expensive War on Poverty, and correcting for the deleterious effects of capitalism's laissez-fare laziness regarding its, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Better government at lower cost isn't the supply side paradigm. The government has spent $1 trillion trying to end poverty for the last 60 years. What's your "simple" solution? Do you really think government can reduce unemployment to zero? The only government I know of to claim having achieved that is the USSR. Is that the model you endorse?

You may just need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Brain357]

[


The republicans on here seem to promote gov dependence. Who does that leave to vote for?

I am not a Republican so I can't answer for them.

My idea is not to vote for any Progressive bad government.

Looks like you are going to continue to vote for bad government so you are part of the problem.

Ok so nobody good to vote for.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you want to by electing democrats to steal from your brother, why? Do you want your brother poor like you and miserable as you?

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

If raising taxes is stealing from them then bush lowering their taxes was stealing from us.

Bush lowered your taxes too.

Big fucking deal. Now we need money and the rich are saying they can't help so Rick Snyder is talking about raising OUR taxes.

This is why I don't like talking politics with right wing jackasses. They have an answer for everything, don't understand anything they are told and they argue in circular arguments. So you'll use this argument today, use 5 more arguments after and then eventually circle back around to the "they lowered your taxes too" argument, which I have already refuted 1000 fucking times. You guys are just dumb.

Dumb because you aren't rich enough to be benefitting from their policies.

Fact is, you can't get any more from us middle class people. I don't care what the rich are paying today. They need to roll back not only the Bush tax cuts but the Reagan ones as well.

Don't worry, we will. You can argue and obstruct as much as you want but eventually we're coming for that $. lol

Now we need money

Who is we? Why do "we" need money? How much do "we" need?

I'd like to get what I lost in the stock market back when the banks fucked us. And since the value of my home went down $40K, I'd like that taken off what I fucking owe!

Bank of America fined 1.3B for bad mortgages

Bank of America fined $1.3B for bad mortgages

When the value goes up will you return the money?

 

[Staidhup]

The very premise of this thread is based on misleading interpretation of economic foundation data devoid of important underlying circumstances that were the driving force behind the original hypothesis. One should be careful when generalizing without first investigating the circumstances of cause and effect.

 

[danielpalos]

The very premise of this thread is based on misleading interpretation of economic foundation data devoid of important underlying circumstances that were the driving force behind the original hypothesis. One should be careful when generalizing without first investigating the circumstances of cause and effect.

Not at all, some on the left believe Taxes levied in money are a form of market recognizable metric in any political-economy with any Institution of money based markets--such as that of the US. Wartime tax rates for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, may preclude such repugnant policies public to our Commerce Clause, and give the wealthiest an excuse to insist their public servants merely and simply, purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

[The Rabbi]

The very premise of this thread is based on misleading interpretation of economic foundation data devoid of important underlying circumstances that were the driving force behind the original hypothesis. One should be careful when generalizing without first investigating the circumstances of cause and effect.

Not at all, some on the left believe Taxes levied in money are a form of market recognizable metric in any political-economy with any Institution of money based markets--such as that of the US. Wartime tax rates for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, may preclude such repugnant policies public to our Commerce Clause, and give the wealthiest an excuse to insist their public servants merely and simply, purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.

The monetization of the debt provides a glass ceiling that multi nationals can use as a "pass thru." Looked at strictly from an ROI perspective your comment fails managerial input.

 

[Preacher]

I have always wondered how one who is not a 1%er becomes a defender and apologist for the 1%.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have always wondered how one who is not a 1%er becomes a defender and apologist for the 1%.

Your sig line indicates you are way too stupid to understand the answer.

 

[Preacher]

I have always wondered how one who is not a 1%er becomes a defender and apologist for the 1%.

Your sig line indicates you are way too stupid to understand the answer.

So you have no real answer just more republican and 1% rhetoric from faux news.