You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[mudwhistle]

Yeah. When the Republicans had control of the House and Senate and White House, they sure taught us all how to spend less than the government takes in. They were a model of fiscal responsibility.

Oh, wait...


.

In comparision to the recent Democrat controlled Congress they were.

Democrats found a way to spend that even the post WWII era couldn't compare to.

And they felt we needed more. All during the Bush years the Dems were clamoring for more and more spending and the GOP in almost every case did just that to keep from being called racists, accused of not taking care of the troops, uncaring mean-spirited tightwad obstructionists.

Cool story. Too bad its a complete fabrication.

.

Keep telling yourself that.

I guess it's too much to expect you to defend that.

Runaway.

 

[Koios]

I don't think it's possible to pay off the debt that quickly at all. But if you cut spending across the board (including entitlements), and heavily cut the military, you can balance a budget and begin to pay down the debt, instead of some half cocked nonsense of adding 80 billion annually to a trillion plus deficit.

So it was a bullshit retort? (tip: yes)

Yes, the same type of bullshit you feed this thread about higher marginal tax rates created economic growth. Or that 80 billion in additional revenues by stealing from "the rich" will impact the economy positively.

Then challenge it.

What is wrong, in the accepted (by economists, overwhelmingly) principle of redistributive effect, a vital component in tax policy, in ALL modern economies? Tear it apart, smart guy. Go hog fucking wild.

What is wrong with my contention that if I spend a buck, or it's taxed and government spends it, the impact on GDP is exactly nill. Show me, don't just say it, where that's wrong, using actuall math and not copy-pasting deficit / debt figures you found using Google. Real math, with calculations and shit. Have a ball.

That's a couple for now. Let's see how you do.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

After six pages of explanations and running in this circle and you think I'm going to waste time trying to fix stupid?



ROFLMAO

 

[regent]

Is supply side and trickle down no longer applicable to meeting our economic crisis? Seems they were the answer to all our economic problems, now no one even mentions them.

 

[g5000]

In the eight years before Bush II and Obama began spending like sailors in a whorehouse with a platinum credit card, we had a much smaller Defense budget, and higher taxes on everyone. Hell, we had a smaller budget all the way around!

In the same period, 25 million jobs were created.

And no elderly or poor people were dying in the streets.

And the economy was booming.

And the budget was balanced and even had a surplus to be used to pay down our debt.

God forbid we should return to those horrible days!


Both Democratic and Republican piss drinkers are being misled.

Higher taxes won't put our economy in jeopardy. The 90s proved that. The threat to our economy is staring you in the face, and it isn't higher taxes. Figure it out. You have some serious wool being pulled over your eyes.

Cutting spending won't put poor people in jeopardy. The 90s proved that. The poor are helped by creating jobs for them. Good jobs. Not piece of shit low skilled jobs that should be sent overseas to Third World countries where they belong.


Wakey wakey!

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Keep in mind history is simply a fantasy of liberal academics in the minds and stone cold hearts of the callous conservatives. They get their 'facts' from the Minister of Truth, Rush Limbaugh, and his fellow propagandists.

Rather than engage in a bit of introspective thought the supporters of the party of Norquist choose to express their bitterness by doubling down on a failed idea - that cutting taxes will bring on universal prosperity - and place blame everywhere but where it belongs.

Ask any conservative what the solution to our economic problems might be and the answer will ring forth loud and clear: "cut taxes, cut entitlements, cut spending and cut regulations". Yet they are short on details and can never explain why unemployment is high even though Bush cut taxes twice - the panacea for all that is wrong (or even right) with our economy.

Supply side economics is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is and remains a scam. One devised by the Republican Party to enrich the rich by privatizing everything. The way to do so was to cause the government to go broke. Starve the Beast and private industry will reap the benefits.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^ Glad I only read the first line of that drivel. What a waste.

 

[Koios]

After six pages of explanations and running in this circle and you think I'm going to waste time trying to fix stupid?



ROFLMAO

Seemingly not. But have my fingers crossed for you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. I'm not going to try to explain something you can not comprehend. It's a waste of my time. You just can not fix stupid. I've tried it on others here. It's an exercise in futility.

 

[mudwhistle]

Whatever happened to "We can't raise taxes in a weak economy".

The economy is weaker now than it was then.

First cut spending, then talk about tax increases.

The Dems just want to keep spending and put off the cuts.

Taxing the rich solves everything.

 

[martybegan]

Be proud of what you did. You taught the GOP that you don't want low taxes. You don't care if the Democrats raise your taxes and spend it faster than they can steal it from you. So I figure they're out to give you what you wanted.

How does it feel to teach those Republicans a lesson?

You can't teach people who think education is elite.

Education is not elite, its the attitude of progressives that they are the elite because they have some wishy washy degree from an Ivy League school or some hippie state school.

And you cant debate people who think they are smarter than anyone that disagrees with them. I'll put my Masters in ChemE up against your education any day of the week.

 

[martybegan]

No; I'm not. Where you're confused is by thinking politics is real. It's not. It's just politics. If passed, with the aid of political rhetoric, then what the economists suggested, goes into effect.

Does that help?

Then why just raise taxes for $80 billion for a $1,300 billion dollar yearly deficit? How is that supposed to help, economically.

And stop trying to sound smart, it isnt working.

Why indeed. Obviously some help is better than no help. Also, $80 B is a bit of righty nonsense, that ignores growth, and other effects of higher top marginal rates.

And indeed even $80 B is a bunch of money to be circulating through the economy, where it might not otherwise (why we tax the rich at a higher rate, in aggregate ... unless from Capital Income, which the $80 B pseudo-economic bullshit estimate also ignores.)

Merely one example: Romney, makes some coin in America, and 15% goes back in. Some buys a nice house, but most winds up offshore in Cayman Trusts. Gonzo. No longer here and moving around. Had we taxed that at 20% or 30% or better, 50%, then more of it would be back here moving around our economy and helping others achieve what Romney did, and he could still have the same house, cars, car elevators, etc, sionce he spends but a small percentage of what he makes, as opposed to middle class and government, who spend it all and then some, via borrowing.

And in truth, that's an uber micro example. Romney is rich, but far from the wealth of our top 0.01%.

You are still trying to sound smart, and it still isnt working.

and money paid to the government, while in the economy, is less effective in progressing the economny, due to the multiple levels of buracracy it has to go through, that adds nothing to the overall value of said money.

 

[mudwhistle]

Be proud of what you did. You taught the GOP that you don't want low taxes. You don't care if the Democrats raise your taxes and spend it faster than they can steal it from you. So I figure they're out to give you what you wanted.

How does it feel to teach those Republicans a lesson?

You can't teach people who think education is elite.

Education is not elite, its the attitude of progressives that they are the elite because they have some wishy washy degree from an Ivy League school or some hippie state school.

And you cant debate people who think they are smarter than anyone that disagrees with them. I'll put my Masters in ChemE up against your education any day of the week.

What'd you get the Masters in?

A BS in Chemical Engineering is impressive though.

 

[martybegan]

You can't teach people who think education is elite.

Education is not elite, its the attitude of progressives that they are the elite because they have some wishy washy degree from an Ivy League school or some hippie state school.

And you cant debate people who think they are smarter than anyone that disagrees with them. I'll put my Masters in ChemE up against your education any day of the week.

What'd you get the Masters in?

A BS in Chemical Engineering is impressive though.

Bachelors and Masters in Chemical Engineering. I work in design and construction of wastewater treatment plants, concentrating in Process control and Biological Nutirent Removal.

So if libs want to say all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment, they can go suck it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The economy is not weaker today then it was in January 2009. That's a fact. Starve the Beast is a reactionary plan of the Republican elite with a goal to privatize Social Security so Wall Street can gamble with our money. George W. Bush pushed for private accounts to benefit his base, not the average American, and might still, even after so many Americans watched their retirement accounts crash.

Repealing Obamacare as well as Medicare and Medicaid are plans of this power elite too. What better than to control a market which will always have customers. We all get sick and injured and the profits will be enormous.

I agree witn one thing only that moron above said, stupid cannot be fixed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nope. That's why reading your posts is such a waste of time. A response is asking for more stupid.

 

[Koios]

Education is not elite, its the attitude of progressives that they are the elite because they have some wishy washy degree from an Ivy League school or some hippie state school.

And you cant debate people who think they are smarter than anyone that disagrees with them. I'll put my Masters in ChemE up against your education any day of the week.

What'd you get the Masters in?

A BS in Chemical Engineering is impressive though.

Bachelors and Masters in Chemical Engineering. I work in design and construction of wastewater treatment plants, concentrating in Process control and Biological Nutirent Removal.

So if libs want to say all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment, they can go suck it.

How about if we get all libertarian and shit and then contend that guvmint water treatment is something Karl Marx would want?

Stupid?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What'd you get the Masters in?

A BS in Chemical Engineering is impressive though.

Bachelors and Masters in Chemical Engineering. I work in design and construction of wastewater treatment plants, concentrating in Process control and Biological Nutirent Removal.

So if libs want to say all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment, they can go suck it.

How about if we get all libertarian and shit and then contend that guvmint water treatment is something Karl Marx would want?

Stupid?

Yes, it's stupid. You obviously, like most of the inept LOLberals on this board, have not one clue what libertarians are about.

 

[Koios]

Bachelors and Masters in Chemical Engineering. I work in design and construction of wastewater treatment plants, concentrating in Process control and Biological Nutirent Removal.

So if libs want to say all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment, they can go suck it.

How about if we get all libertarian and shit and then contend that guvmint water treatment is something Karl Marx would want?

Stupid?

Yes, it's stupid. You obviously, like most of the inept LOLberals on this board, have not one clue what libertarians are about.

They like paying for needed services, ya reckon? Maybe a tax hike so guvmint can provide clean drinking water is better than lettin folks buy their own?

Yep. It's got Libertarian written all over it.

 

[martybegan]

What'd you get the Masters in?

A BS in Chemical Engineering is impressive though.

Bachelors and Masters in Chemical Engineering. I work in design and construction of wastewater treatment plants, concentrating in Process control and Biological Nutirent Removal.

So if libs want to say all conservatives are anti-science and anti-environment, they can go suck it.

How about if we get all libertarian and shit and then contend that guvmint water treatment is something Karl Marx would want?

Stupid?

Its something handled at the local level. And considering real air pollution and water pollution cross state borders, it can be something regulated at the federal level, like air travel and trucking.

Its not the AGW crowd, who dont even consider treatment, but instead run to the old game of more government control, and less freedom. (For the Planet!!!)

I have libertarian leanings. if something can be handled at the state level, handle it and pay for it at the state level.

Also you are thinking more "Big L" libertarians, who are like anarchists, only more organized.