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

[Toro]

Of course obama is pulling the wool over his sheep's eyes, they say, yeah tax them rich people..Like that will DO ANYTHING to tackle the problems he has now HELP CREATE

The top 10% have 90% of the wealth. I find it hard to believe that raising taxes on them won't solve our problems.

When the rich paid their fair share, we had balanced budgets.

"Fair share?"

Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax, up from a quarter 20-30 years ago. You can blame both parties for that, but you still wouldn't balance the budget if you tripled the total tax take of the 1%.

 

[martybegan]

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.

There is a big gap between creating and running a water system used by a municipality, and raising taxes on people to allow other people to live on the dole.

Its amazing the aristotilian logic employed by alot of the progressives on this board.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

I "reckon", you're not very bright. And attempt to look so as a compensation.

 

[Koios]

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.

I "reckon", you're not very bright. And attempt to look so as a compensation.

Well goody for you.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Ewwwwwwwwww!!!!!

Love that smell.



Being a lib means you're smarter than you are, and you're not a racist bigotted homophobe.

If they fell for Obama's BS then they can't be smart.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Your version of the "redistributive effect" is not accepted by any economists except Marxist economists. In other words, it's not accepted by any economists period.

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.

The claim that spending your money doesn't have an economic impact is too stupid for words to describe.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Trickle down" is just a left-wing pejorative meaning "the free market." It has always worked and it always will work. the laws of economics don't change.

 

[Koios]

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.

"Trickle down" is just a left-wing pejorative meaning "the free market." It has always worked and it always will work. the laws of economics don't change.

Nope. Just the Reagan Administration's attempt to help all ya'll simpletons get your pea brains around Supply Side pseudo econ.

Worked like a charm. Ya'll gobbled it up and are deep throating it still, even if running like Negroes from a Tea Party meetup from what ya'll called it previously.

 

[Koios]

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.

Your version of the "redistributive effect" is not accepted by any economists except Marxist economists. In other words, it's not accepted by any economists period.

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.

The claim that spending your money doesn't have an economic impact is too stupid for words to describe.

Gotcha. How so exactly?

 

[regent]

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?

Well it was a big topic at one time. I mean adding flouride to water was put forth as a communist plot. Adding flouride to the water made our brains so weak, it became quite simple to turn regular Americans into communists.
The fear worked pretty well and lasted for some years and was coupled with the McCarthy period.
Did Americans fall for it, the usual group accepted it lock stock and barrel. Would Americans accept it today, I'll be some would, in fact, I'll bet some still believe it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Flouride is toxic. A communist plot though?

 

[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?

Well it was a big topic at one time. I mean adding flouride to water was put forth as a communist plot. Adding flouride to the water made our brains so weak, it became quite simple to turn regular Americans into communists.
The fear worked pretty well and lasted for some years and was coupled with the McCarthy period.
Did Americans fall for it, the usual group accepted it lock stock and barrel. Would Americans accept it today, I'll be some would, in fact, I'll bet some still believe it.

Makes perfect sense. Meanwhile, outta here. Gotta get me some tinfoil; looks like rain's a comin'

 

[Staidhup]

The top 10% have 90% of the wealth. I find it hard to believe that raising taxes on them won't solve our problems.

When the rich paid their fair share, we had balanced budgets.

lol, you should tell all your RICH Democrats you vote for to DONATE all their millions to help the the country..Instead you want to stick it the people in it

typical Democrat

I want all the wealthy to pay their fair share, thanks. Because the country works better when they do.

Fair Share? A very interesting concept, however, within the context of which you type it translates to someone else pay so you can sit on yer lazy ass. But lets take a look at the concept of fair; do 10% of those rich people send their children to public school, no, do they use public transportation, no, do they depend on public assistance to feed their children or family, no, do they apply for unemployment, no, do they live without adequate health care coverage, no, do they engage in philanthropy, yes, do they invest in the market and create jobs, yes, do they depend on the government for anything, no. So is it fair that a small percentage of the population assume the largest tax burden? is that what you consider fair? They don't consume the largest share of government entitlements and handouts so how is that fair? I truly wish I was rich, but can't see how that will happen with your vision of taxation becoming a reality. As a small business owner I know the true meaning of what you consider as fair, to be honest I don't know why I waste my time, but then again I would have to depend on someone else and was not raised to be a parasite.

 

[bripat9643]

"Trickle down" is just a left-wing pejorative meaning "the free market." It has always worked and it always will work. the laws of economics don't change.

Nope. Just the Reagan Administration's attempt to help all ya'll simpletons get your pea brains around Supply Side pseudo econ.

Worked like a charm. Ya'll gobbled it up and are deep throating it still, even if running like Negroes from a Tea Party meetup from what ya'll called it previously.

Nope.

See how easy it is to respond to your . . . er . . "logic?"

 

[bripat9643]

The claim that spending your money doesn't have an economic impact is too stupid for words to describe.

Gotcha. How so exactly?

What part of "too stupid for words to describe" didn't you understand?

 

[Koios]

The claim that spending your money doesn't have an economic impact is too stupid for words to describe.

Gotcha. How so exactly?

What part of "too stupid for words to describe" didn't you understand?

None of it. But I held out hope that perhaps explaining your thinking, when urged, was not beyond your ability.

Thanks for claifying. It seems my hopes were in vain.

 

[Koios]

"Trickle down" is just a left-wing pejorative meaning "the free market." It has always worked and it always will work. the laws of economics don't change.

Nope. Just the Reagan Administration's attempt to help all ya'll simpletons get your pea brains around Supply Side pseudo econ.

Worked like a charm. Ya'll gobbled it up and are deep throating it still, even if running like Negroes from a Tea Party meetup from what ya'll called it previously.

Nope.

See how easy it is to respond to your . . . er . . "logic?"

David Stockman, in the Reagan Admin, to be exact, pretty-much resurrected the phrase, bringing it into the broad American conscious, though it, trickle-down, is widely thought to have been authored by Will Rogers,

I quote:

"... the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." - David Stockman -- Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985).

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

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.

There is a big gap between creating and running a water system used by a municipality, and raising taxes on people to allow other people to live on the dole.

Its amazing the aristotilian logic employed by alot of the progressives on this board.

why does the conservative right assume that everyone who is not rich is on the dole? there any plenty of american who fall into the category of not having to pay federal income tax since they make too little. many of these people are hard working individuals or families who simply dont make enough money to fall outside their deductions. does this make them leeches? what about the elderly? what about disabled vets? what about the family of 4 living on a single income of $50k? it irritating to see the such generalization be made of half the people in the US. a college student making $25,000 a year and working his or her way through school pays no income tax. are they a leech? a teaching making a starting salary of $35,000 will pay no income tax. does that make them a leech?

do any of these people sit on their asses all day and get free money from the government? please explain this to everyone for me.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Nope. Just the Reagan Administration's attempt to help all ya'll simpletons get your pea brains around Supply Side pseudo econ.

Worked like a charm. Ya'll gobbled it up and are deep throating it still, even if running like Negroes from a Tea Party meetup from what ya'll called it previously.

Nope.

See how easy it is to respond to your . . . er . . "logic?"

David Stockman, in the Reagan Admin, to be exact, pretty-much resurrected the phrase, bringing it into the broad American conscious, though it, trickle-down, is widely thought to have been authored by Will Rogers,

I quote:

"... the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." - David Stockman -- Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985).

trickle down economics has been be called "voodoo economics" by GHWB.

 

[Koios]

Nope.

See how easy it is to respond to your . . . er . . "logic?"

David Stockman, in the Reagan Admin, to be exact, pretty-much resurrected the phrase, bringing it into the broad American conscious, though it, trickle-down, is widely thought to have been authored by Will Rogers,

I quote:

"... the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." - David Stockman -- Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985).

trickle down economics has been be called "voodoo economics" by the GHWB.

Indeed, but it was the 1980 primary and stuff is said to make the other guy seem stupid, until one is nominated, and they make up like queers in a SF bathhouse.