Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
this is your argument, apparently your failed debating skills are working at a high level here.so an individual making $1M spends $1M a year by purchasing goods and services correct?
if this were true, Romney would have personally dumped nearly $14M in the economy last year.
Haha so now we're expected to utilize every single dollar?
Not to mention, we're not just talking about purchasing goods and services. We're talking about investing as well, which............wait for it.......................GROWS THE ECONOMY.
you argued that if those top income earners had more money is would grow the economy. i easily showed that this is untrue.
and if investing grew the economy, then why has the stock market grown from 6500 to 13,000 under Obama, yet unemployment still stands near 8%? investors have made a large amount of money in the last 4 years, why hasnt that translated in to jobs and a robust economy? taxes are already low and investment income is up. care to explain?
a middle class wage earner dumps 80-90% of their income into the economy. can you name what percentage of income the top 2% dumps back in?
such as all those Red states that receive more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?So, what will get us out of debt?
Do you propose cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and privatizing each?
What might be the effect of such a policy change?
I propose cutting all the ticks off of the government teat. The effect of such a policy will be prosperity and freedom.
How so? Do you understand the economic dynamic, or are you merely spouting unrelated and unsubstantiated righty rhetoric? (tip: the latter)
Well, Corky, let me try to explain it as simply as I can and not waste a ton of my time.
The governments "redistribution effect" has created a nation of consumers and borrows and not builders and savers. Adding to that dilemma is the fact that the government ALWAYS spends more than it receives. Then needing to borrow or "print" the currency up to meet its obligations. When this happens, as the poster I originally quoted shows, the purchasing power decreases substantially. Then the government turns around and needs to do one of it's three only means of acquiring revenue, again.....Borrow/"print"/Tax.
The process never ends, and only leads to the boiling point of every redistributive and fiat currency scheme.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
If the dollar was left in the private sector it would not be spent, saved or invested?
No one stuffs money in a mattress anymore you know.
If I invested the 60K a year I pay in taxes it would do more good for the economy than it does now.
Any one of the three, however, retained earnings seem to be what's happening more so, and to an alarming degree, currently. So most of the money the President proposes be taken in tax (then spent into the economy of course) is indeed, by and large, money sitting and doing little to benefit the economy as a whole.
Well, Corky, let me try to explain it as simply as I can and not waste a ton of my time.
The governments "redistribution effect" has created a nation of consumers and borrows and not builders and savers. Adding to that dilemma is the fact that the government ALWAYS spends more than it receives. Then needing to borrow or "print" the currency up to meet its obligations. When this happens, as the poster I originally quoted shows, the purchasing power decreases substantially. Then the government turns around and needs to do one of it's three only means of acquiring revenue, again.....Borrow/"print"/Tax.
The process never ends, and only leads to the boiling point of every redistributive and fiat currency scheme.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
The government and the federal reserve loosened credit requirements, not business and wall st. They did this because of the protectionist/favoritism policies they put in place that created a massive wealth gap in the nation. Along with monetary inflation that made middle income earnings no longer viable in the consumer/borrow built economy they created. All this created was another round of wealth confiscation via a real estate bubble/burst. And now you want them to do it again, presumably.
Oy vey.
so an individual making $1M spends $1M a year by purchasing goods and services correct?is it lost on you that this is what those individuals already do?
Yes, that's extremely lost on me, because it's not true. No one just SITS on 7 figures. In fact, besides trust fund babies, if you've got 7 figures it's because you put your money to work, not because you sat on it.
if this were true, Romney would have personally dumped nearly $14M in the economy last year.
And because banks are playing with their reserves instead of lending them, unemployment stays high because there's very little debt growth. And why they're able to pull off a modest looking CPI every month.this is your argument, apparently your failed debating skills are working at a high level here.Haha so now we're expected to utilize every single dollar?
Not to mention, we're not just talking about purchasing goods and services. We're talking about investing as well, which............wait for it.......................GROWS THE ECONOMY.
you argued that if those top income earners had more money is would grow the economy. i easily showed that this is untrue.
and if investing grew the economy, then why has the stock market grown from 6500 to 13,000 under Obama, yet unemployment still stands near 8%? investors have made a large amount of money in the last 4 years, why hasnt that translated in to jobs and a robust economy? taxes are already low and investment income is up. care to explain?
a middle class wage earner dumps 80-90% of their income into the economy. can you name what percentage of income the top 2% dumps back in?
It's my belief that the stock market's inflation the last few years is directly related to the inflation of bank reserves.
This isn't retail investors boosting the markets, it's large banking institutions. Which is probably why their balance sheets look so great now.
i guess, AL, AK, MS, TN, KY, AK and LA are all S.O.L. damn GOP leachessuch as all those Red states that receive more in federal tax dollars than they pay into the system?
so you propose to limit what a state receives to that which it gives? sounds like a plan to me.. that would work for leeches too I think.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
Nothing you post is a fact. Rich people invest a larger percentage of their money, so redistributing it to leaches like you reduces savings. It doesn't increase them.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
The government and the federal reserve loosened credit requirements, not business and wall st. They did this because of the protectionist/favoritism policies they put in place that created a massive wealth gap in the nation. Along with monetary inflation that made middle income earnings no longer viable in the consumer/borrow built economy they created. All this created was another round of wealth confiscation via a real estate bubble/burst. And now you want them to do it again, presumably.
Oy vey.
Who in the government and Fed? Where did they come from, and what business interests were being served.
Do you know, or care to speculate?
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
Nothing you post is a fact. Rich people invest a larger percentage of their money, so redistributing it to leaches like you reduces savings. It doesn't increase them.
Then disprove it. Stop whining and bitch-slap it if you can. Bring it.
The rich pay beyond their fair share now.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?
If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.
this is your argument, apparently your failed debating skills are working at a high level here.so an individual making $1M spends $1M a year by purchasing goods and services correct?
if this were true, Romney would have personally dumped nearly $14M in the economy last year.
Haha so now we're expected to utilize every single dollar?
Not to mention, we're not just talking about purchasing goods and services. We're talking about investing as well, which............wait for it.......................GROWS THE ECONOMY.
you argued that if those top income earners had more money is would grow the economy. i easily showed that this is untrue.
and if investing grew the economy, then why has the stock market grown from 6500 to 13,000 under Obama, yet unemployment still stands near 8%? investors have made a large amount of money in the last 4 years, why hasnt that translated in to jobs and a robust economy? taxes are already low and investment income is up. care to explain?
a middle class wage earner dumps 80-90% of their income into the economy. can you name what percentage of income the top 2% dumps back in?
Nothing you post is a fact. Rich people invest a larger percentage of their money, so redistributing it to leaches like you reduces savings. It doesn't increase them.
Then disprove it. Stop whining and bitch-slap it if you can. Bring it.
When I was little my parents taught me that "you cannot fix an economic problem by throwing money at it." That's something you should investigate.
Once again you're exactly wrong. The loss of middle class wealth, via insufficient redistributive effect in tax policy is driving typical Americans to deplete savings, and purchase more on credit. And business interests and Wall Street knew that, so to raise consumption they loosened credit requirements. Fact. Go look.
Nothing you post is a fact. Rich people invest a larger percentage of their money, so redistributing it to leaches like you reduces savings. It doesn't increase them.
Then disprove it. Stop whining and bitch-slap it if you can. Bring it.
The rich pay beyond their fair share now.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?
If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.
Nothing you post is a fact. Rich people invest a larger percentage of their money, so redistributing it to leaches like you reduces savings. It doesn't increase them.
Then disprove it. Stop whining and bitch-slap it if you can. Bring it.
I just did, turd. The fact that you don't understand that only shows what an economic ignoramus you are.
The rich pay beyond their fair share now.If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.
No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.
The rich pay beyond their fair share now.
No argument. But we do not tax based on fairness. We tax based on economic need and benefit to the economy, or should, anyway.
Then why are we bickering so long over a tax hike for the rich that doesn't economically, or fiscally benefit anyone? Fair or not, this whole tax the rich bullshit accomplishes nothing for either the deficit, debt or consumer/borrow economy.
It's a meme. It's absurd.
