Belgian_Draft 0 #26 August 22, 2010 QuoteQuote"Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right," QuoteRight about what, lucky? What claims did I make? Other than very carefully skirting the issue and writing a few PA's, your position is that the gov: I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns. So you advocate low spending and low taxing, unless we're talking about all social programs and the military, you believe taxes are too high and s/b next to nothing with no benefits to the needy, limited military, etc. Or you can keep playing hide-the-sausage and not completely stating how you feel while dropping big inuendos about tax cuts my friends. Maybe grow a set and actually place your position or just keep running; hell I don't care. QuoteYou are still assuming everybody is out to get you. Probably one of the more moronic things I've read. No one is out to get me, the morons of America aren't intelligent enough to read about taxation history to realize that low taxes are the cause of this mess. I said I believe in low spending and low taxes. You think MORE spending is the way to a brighter future? Hello, McFly...it was moronic people who spent far more than they took in that got us into this mess. But nobody here expects you to understand that concept. After all, it isn't 50% of your earnings that the government wants to take and as long as it remains such you really don't care how much the government spends.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #27 August 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right," QuoteRight about what, lucky? What claims did I make? Other than very carefully skirting the issue and writing a few PA's, your position is that the gov: I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns. So you advocate low spending and low taxing, unless we're talking about all social programs and the military, you believe taxes are too high and s/b next to nothing with no benefits to the needy, limited military, etc. Or you can keep playing hide-the-sausage and not completely stating how you feel while dropping big inuendos about tax cuts my friends. Maybe grow a set and actually place your position or just keep running; hell I don't care. QuoteYou are still assuming everybody is out to get you. Probably one of the more moronic things I've read. No one is out to get me, the morons of America aren't intelligent enough to read about taxation history to realize that low taxes are the cause of this mess. QuoteI said I believe in low spending and low taxes. You think MORE spending is the way to a brighter future? No, but when you have neccesary wars like WWII and others, taxing to pay for it isn't a choice. When you have runaway debt, taxing isn't an option. When you have an ailing nation, you must spend to make them healthy and provide guidlelines for medical costs. Clinton cut spending from previous presidenst and raised taxes, balancing the budget; GET OFF THE FENCE AND TELL ME IF YOU THINK HE DID WELL. QuoteHello, McFly...it was moronic people who spent far more than they took in that got us into this mess. Yes, like Reagan, GWB for the most part. Can you name others? They both took stable debt pictures and blew them up; agree? Who else can you place in that category? QuoteBut nobody here expects you to understand that concept. After all, it isn't 50% of your earnings that the government wants to take and as long as it remains such you really don't care how much the government spends. You really don't understand top tax brackets at all, do you? Very sad. High top brkts aren't meant to pull in 1/2 of what you earn, they're designed to send you running to tax shelters. They want you to buy houses, keeping the banking industry healthy, keeping the house-building industry going. They want to motivate business owners to reinvest in their businesses by buying more vehicles, having warehouses built and manned, hiring more employees, increasing the GDP; this is how teh gov gets rich, by earning via more economic activity, not by penalizing profit-takers, but they will do that if profit-takers insist. Taxes motivate people to act a certain way that is conducive to the betterment of society, once you drop the top tax rates, that incentive is gone and people act w/o concern for the bigger picture - the dream of the greedy right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #28 August 22, 2010 I understand them a lot better than you. You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #29 August 22, 2010 Quote I understand them a lot better than you. Right, you just refuse to put them to data, meaning; YOU ARE ADVOCATING AN IDEOLOGY, NOT PROVIDING EVIDENCE. Quote You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. Maybe quite a while ago, but not for some time. See, neo-cons like you have inflexible thinking and just dig in deeper and deeper to defend tired old ideas, refusing to grow, learn and change your thinking. I realize that what this country did when great was to have high taxes and generous legitimate wroteoffs; that is how I feel. I don't want frivalous writeoffs, but business expenses that are legit should stay. Quote People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Really? Then explain how long-term stable growth is higher under periods of high taxes. Profit-takers go crazy under periods of low taxes, they pull money and sit on it in times of concern, further exacerbating the mess. If they were to lose a large portion of it, they would be better off leaving it invested. Look at the mess GWB left, the market crashed from 14k to 6500 in what, a year or a little more? If taxes were higher they would have been more likely to leave it in. Smart guys like Warren Buffet threw a lot in as it passed downward thru 8k-8500 and he's rewarded for it. These are the real Americans, not scum who selfishly pulls it and says fuck America. You have yet to show me good times when taxes are low, just feed me ideology that claims these rich folks don't need the fear of taxation to invest, when they obviously do. Quote Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. I'm not, I was a fan of CLinton, the guy who cut spending. That's your claim that I like big spending. I like GHWB too, he did less improvement, but he also had a Republican electorate that shit when he raised taxes 3% and called it the largest tax increase in history. Quote No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. Wait, wait, wait, not so much data here, BD. See, this exemplifies your lack of any real argument or you would make one. You like spending cuts, he cut spending, why not show some love? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #30 August 22, 2010 I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #31 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #32 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. Don't give him the power to insult you. He uses the neo-con label to try and use the power of political correctness to silence opposition. In the end, using today's labels, I will take being called a neo-con as apposed to a progressive or liberal any day."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #33 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #34 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #35 August 22, 2010 Quotemost of the things you believe are pro neo-con How the fuck do you know what I believe and what I don't? Only a very small part of my beliefs have been made public here on this forum. It's a pretty simple concept, lucky. You want the government to provide things to people that they can't or won't provide for themselves and you want to tax the hell out of those who actually earn their money to pay for it. I, on the other hand, am in favor of minimal government intrusion and that includes stripping spending back on benefits so as to only provide to those who cannot provide for themselves as well as infrastructure and defense. Cut the spending. It is a very simple concept that you and your heroes in DC can't quite get a grasp on.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #36 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? dude, YOU call ME a neo-con is a compliment given your views. Same to your comment regarding President Reagan. Thank You You make me proud"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #37 August 22, 2010 What is even more funny and stupid about your claims is that most (from either party) did not support the bank bail outs. I didn't, most here didn't either so you strike out there. Second, your beloved Dem party voted for it (including Obama) in bigger numbers than the R's did. Foolish claim again exposed huhThen, the pres and the Dems doubled or even tripled down on spending to make things even worse, they lied about what HC really was, they pass bills to fund their union voting blocks pension funds and you think that allows you to take the high road? Well if you are smoking a big fat one I guess it does "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #38 August 22, 2010 QuoteThis is how I see it: - The rich make millions - Taxes are high, they must reinvest in order to keep it so they do - Many times the rich have virtually all of their capital tied up in investments, so they are only rich on paper and not in their account. So they reinvest, build new ventures, employ more people, etc. Since their money is tied up in assets, they must borrow to purchase, so they do and keep the banks solvent. They keep people employed via their investments. - Lower taxes and now the rich decide to pull their cash, pay what little they have to if anything that they can't writeoff. Now they buy everything with cash, but are often very cheap. They don't borrow money and the banks go insolvent and contract. The GDP falls as does unemployment rise. Wages fall and the rich do well, masses do like shit. - Now, keep taxes high and the rich must reinvest a lot of their gross earnings in order to keep them, they borrow money, employ people and actually become more rich but on paper thru investments. They actually care about the state of the nation since they are so vested into it. This worls well for everyone and historically is upheld via all kinds of evidence. This is the elaboration regarding underlying mechanisms I've asked you to make. So right off the bat, thanks for doing so. I've thrown some italics in there for the stuff I want to respond to. You're getting a bit of "rich creep" in your argument again as you've defined the rich previously as the top 5%, 10%, and even 20% of wealth holders. You may find that the creation of an additional top bracket or brackets would be necessary to make tax increases comparable to some of the historical examples you like to bring up. As it is, top bracket increases affect a lot more than the millionaires. (this is just an aside, and one I've made before, but call it my futile attempt to inject some consistency in definitions.) Borrowing to invest isn't tied to accessibility of profits as you suggest. You either keep profits invested or you take them. You don't write yourself a paycheck and then start a new company out of your personal checking account. If you want to get started or expand, you take a loan through the company (if interest rates allow it) and you go to it. Publicly traded companies make things even more dynamic as the more "profit taking" (paying dividends) you do, the more attractive the stock becomes to capital investors. How does one spend a lot of cash and yet do so cheaply? They either spend it or they don't, and as much as you like to picture rich people having cash fights, that's not what happens. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply the money ends up buying cheap imported goods, but protectionist tarrifs, etc. is an entirely different issue affecting where all consumer dollars end up, not just from rich folks. And until we address that, encouraging consumer spending using borrowed dollars as you do is a huge disaster waiting to happen. On a more general note, it should not be surprising that absurd changes to tax rates (up or down) will shock the behavior of the economy. That should, by no means, be used as an argument that the rate before or after the change was the "correct" one. This back and forth defibrillation is a crap approach, and we need to go back to treating taxes as a way to finance the government. You keep mentioning low taxes leading to debt and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about that, but that has nothing to do with using taxes to try and control the economy. The government can still temper the economic situation, but it needs to do so through interest rate adjustments, spending in the appropriate arenas, and managing trade imbalances with tariffs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hwt 0 #39 August 22, 2010 Why the economy grows in higher taxes?? Lucky face it you are a communist / socialist and i have already explained this to you but you insist that taxing people and big government is the answer. well my answer is .. government is not the answer to the problem but rather it is the problem.all big government will give you is bigger corruption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #40 August 23, 2010 That's what I just don't get about Lucky. He seems to despise everyone with power and wealth, but he expects someone with wealth and power to fix things and make everybody share and play nice. He doesn't trust people, but he thinks if you give enough power to a few, everything will be fine. Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #41 August 23, 2010 Quote Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet? Given his long established penchant for labeling others, I'm going to start referring to him as a neo-comm. Feel free to join me. This same level of economic sophistication worked wonders for the Soviets, the Chinese. Note how much better Beijing has been looking since they swung towards capitalism. Lucky, no one has to prove a counter claim that tax cuts are always good. The simple truth, which has been repeated to you over and over, is that the macro economics of our country are far more complicated than what our marginal tax rate is. You claim to be a college graduate - show some evidence of it. Saying that the boom in the 90s doesn't count because it was only because of the dot-com boom is really missing the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #27 August 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Come on, show us HOW you're right, not that you feel you are right," QuoteRight about what, lucky? What claims did I make? Other than very carefully skirting the issue and writing a few PA's, your position is that the gov: I believe a government should run lean and within it's means, not overindulgent and needing to take 30%, 40%, 50%, etc. of what a person works for and earns. So you advocate low spending and low taxing, unless we're talking about all social programs and the military, you believe taxes are too high and s/b next to nothing with no benefits to the needy, limited military, etc. Or you can keep playing hide-the-sausage and not completely stating how you feel while dropping big inuendos about tax cuts my friends. Maybe grow a set and actually place your position or just keep running; hell I don't care. QuoteYou are still assuming everybody is out to get you. Probably one of the more moronic things I've read. No one is out to get me, the morons of America aren't intelligent enough to read about taxation history to realize that low taxes are the cause of this mess. QuoteI said I believe in low spending and low taxes. You think MORE spending is the way to a brighter future? No, but when you have neccesary wars like WWII and others, taxing to pay for it isn't a choice. When you have runaway debt, taxing isn't an option. When you have an ailing nation, you must spend to make them healthy and provide guidlelines for medical costs. Clinton cut spending from previous presidenst and raised taxes, balancing the budget; GET OFF THE FENCE AND TELL ME IF YOU THINK HE DID WELL. QuoteHello, McFly...it was moronic people who spent far more than they took in that got us into this mess. Yes, like Reagan, GWB for the most part. Can you name others? They both took stable debt pictures and blew them up; agree? Who else can you place in that category? QuoteBut nobody here expects you to understand that concept. After all, it isn't 50% of your earnings that the government wants to take and as long as it remains such you really don't care how much the government spends. You really don't understand top tax brackets at all, do you? Very sad. High top brkts aren't meant to pull in 1/2 of what you earn, they're designed to send you running to tax shelters. They want you to buy houses, keeping the banking industry healthy, keeping the house-building industry going. They want to motivate business owners to reinvest in their businesses by buying more vehicles, having warehouses built and manned, hiring more employees, increasing the GDP; this is how teh gov gets rich, by earning via more economic activity, not by penalizing profit-takers, but they will do that if profit-takers insist. Taxes motivate people to act a certain way that is conducive to the betterment of society, once you drop the top tax rates, that incentive is gone and people act w/o concern for the bigger picture - the dream of the greedy right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #28 August 22, 2010 I understand them a lot better than you. You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #29 August 22, 2010 Quote I understand them a lot better than you. Right, you just refuse to put them to data, meaning; YOU ARE ADVOCATING AN IDEOLOGY, NOT PROVIDING EVIDENCE. Quote You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. Maybe quite a while ago, but not for some time. See, neo-cons like you have inflexible thinking and just dig in deeper and deeper to defend tired old ideas, refusing to grow, learn and change your thinking. I realize that what this country did when great was to have high taxes and generous legitimate wroteoffs; that is how I feel. I don't want frivalous writeoffs, but business expenses that are legit should stay. Quote People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Really? Then explain how long-term stable growth is higher under periods of high taxes. Profit-takers go crazy under periods of low taxes, they pull money and sit on it in times of concern, further exacerbating the mess. If they were to lose a large portion of it, they would be better off leaving it invested. Look at the mess GWB left, the market crashed from 14k to 6500 in what, a year or a little more? If taxes were higher they would have been more likely to leave it in. Smart guys like Warren Buffet threw a lot in as it passed downward thru 8k-8500 and he's rewarded for it. These are the real Americans, not scum who selfishly pulls it and says fuck America. You have yet to show me good times when taxes are low, just feed me ideology that claims these rich folks don't need the fear of taxation to invest, when they obviously do. Quote Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. I'm not, I was a fan of CLinton, the guy who cut spending. That's your claim that I like big spending. I like GHWB too, he did less improvement, but he also had a Republican electorate that shit when he raised taxes 3% and called it the largest tax increase in history. Quote No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. Wait, wait, wait, not so much data here, BD. See, this exemplifies your lack of any real argument or you would make one. You like spending cuts, he cut spending, why not show some love? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #30 August 22, 2010 I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #31 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #32 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. Don't give him the power to insult you. He uses the neo-con label to try and use the power of political correctness to silence opposition. In the end, using today's labels, I will take being called a neo-con as apposed to a progressive or liberal any day."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #33 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #34 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #35 August 22, 2010 Quotemost of the things you believe are pro neo-con How the fuck do you know what I believe and what I don't? Only a very small part of my beliefs have been made public here on this forum. It's a pretty simple concept, lucky. You want the government to provide things to people that they can't or won't provide for themselves and you want to tax the hell out of those who actually earn their money to pay for it. I, on the other hand, am in favor of minimal government intrusion and that includes stripping spending back on benefits so as to only provide to those who cannot provide for themselves as well as infrastructure and defense. Cut the spending. It is a very simple concept that you and your heroes in DC can't quite get a grasp on.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #36 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? dude, YOU call ME a neo-con is a compliment given your views. Same to your comment regarding President Reagan. Thank You You make me proud"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #37 August 22, 2010 What is even more funny and stupid about your claims is that most (from either party) did not support the bank bail outs. I didn't, most here didn't either so you strike out there. Second, your beloved Dem party voted for it (including Obama) in bigger numbers than the R's did. Foolish claim again exposed huhThen, the pres and the Dems doubled or even tripled down on spending to make things even worse, they lied about what HC really was, they pass bills to fund their union voting blocks pension funds and you think that allows you to take the high road? Well if you are smoking a big fat one I guess it does "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #38 August 22, 2010 QuoteThis is how I see it: - The rich make millions - Taxes are high, they must reinvest in order to keep it so they do - Many times the rich have virtually all of their capital tied up in investments, so they are only rich on paper and not in their account. So they reinvest, build new ventures, employ more people, etc. Since their money is tied up in assets, they must borrow to purchase, so they do and keep the banks solvent. They keep people employed via their investments. - Lower taxes and now the rich decide to pull their cash, pay what little they have to if anything that they can't writeoff. Now they buy everything with cash, but are often very cheap. They don't borrow money and the banks go insolvent and contract. The GDP falls as does unemployment rise. Wages fall and the rich do well, masses do like shit. - Now, keep taxes high and the rich must reinvest a lot of their gross earnings in order to keep them, they borrow money, employ people and actually become more rich but on paper thru investments. They actually care about the state of the nation since they are so vested into it. This worls well for everyone and historically is upheld via all kinds of evidence. This is the elaboration regarding underlying mechanisms I've asked you to make. So right off the bat, thanks for doing so. I've thrown some italics in there for the stuff I want to respond to. You're getting a bit of "rich creep" in your argument again as you've defined the rich previously as the top 5%, 10%, and even 20% of wealth holders. You may find that the creation of an additional top bracket or brackets would be necessary to make tax increases comparable to some of the historical examples you like to bring up. As it is, top bracket increases affect a lot more than the millionaires. (this is just an aside, and one I've made before, but call it my futile attempt to inject some consistency in definitions.) Borrowing to invest isn't tied to accessibility of profits as you suggest. You either keep profits invested or you take them. You don't write yourself a paycheck and then start a new company out of your personal checking account. If you want to get started or expand, you take a loan through the company (if interest rates allow it) and you go to it. Publicly traded companies make things even more dynamic as the more "profit taking" (paying dividends) you do, the more attractive the stock becomes to capital investors. How does one spend a lot of cash and yet do so cheaply? They either spend it or they don't, and as much as you like to picture rich people having cash fights, that's not what happens. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply the money ends up buying cheap imported goods, but protectionist tarrifs, etc. is an entirely different issue affecting where all consumer dollars end up, not just from rich folks. And until we address that, encouraging consumer spending using borrowed dollars as you do is a huge disaster waiting to happen. On a more general note, it should not be surprising that absurd changes to tax rates (up or down) will shock the behavior of the economy. That should, by no means, be used as an argument that the rate before or after the change was the "correct" one. This back and forth defibrillation is a crap approach, and we need to go back to treating taxes as a way to finance the government. You keep mentioning low taxes leading to debt and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about that, but that has nothing to do with using taxes to try and control the economy. The government can still temper the economic situation, but it needs to do so through interest rate adjustments, spending in the appropriate arenas, and managing trade imbalances with tariffs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hwt 0 #39 August 22, 2010 Why the economy grows in higher taxes?? Lucky face it you are a communist / socialist and i have already explained this to you but you insist that taxing people and big government is the answer. well my answer is .. government is not the answer to the problem but rather it is the problem.all big government will give you is bigger corruption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #40 August 23, 2010 That's what I just don't get about Lucky. He seems to despise everyone with power and wealth, but he expects someone with wealth and power to fix things and make everybody share and play nice. He doesn't trust people, but he thinks if you give enough power to a few, everything will be fine. Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #41 August 23, 2010 Quote Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet? Given his long established penchant for labeling others, I'm going to start referring to him as a neo-comm. Feel free to join me. This same level of economic sophistication worked wonders for the Soviets, the Chinese. Note how much better Beijing has been looking since they swung towards capitalism. Lucky, no one has to prove a counter claim that tax cuts are always good. The simple truth, which has been repeated to you over and over, is that the macro economics of our country are far more complicated than what our marginal tax rate is. You claim to be a college graduate - show some evidence of it. Saying that the boom in the 90s doesn't count because it was only because of the dot-com boom is really missing the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Belgian_Draft 0 #28 August 22, 2010 I understand them a lot better than you. You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 August 22, 2010 Quote I understand them a lot better than you. Right, you just refuse to put them to data, meaning; YOU ARE ADVOCATING AN IDEOLOGY, NOT PROVIDING EVIDENCE. Quote You make the claim that high taxes are important to send the top wage earners scrambling for the tax shelters, but at the same time you whine and bitch and moan and complain when they do and especially when congress doesn't slam the door shut on these tax shelters. Maybe quite a while ago, but not for some time. See, neo-cons like you have inflexible thinking and just dig in deeper and deeper to defend tired old ideas, refusing to grow, learn and change your thinking. I realize that what this country did when great was to have high taxes and generous legitimate wroteoffs; that is how I feel. I don't want frivalous writeoffs, but business expenses that are legit should stay. Quote People who make enough money to have extra laying around can do several things with it. They can keep it under a mattress, which does no good for anyone. They can keep it in a savings account, which gets them very little return, or they can put it in higher risk/higher potential return investments. It doesn't take the threat of the money being taken as taxes to get people to invest. Really? Then explain how long-term stable growth is higher under periods of high taxes. Profit-takers go crazy under periods of low taxes, they pull money and sit on it in times of concern, further exacerbating the mess. If they were to lose a large portion of it, they would be better off leaving it invested. Look at the mess GWB left, the market crashed from 14k to 6500 in what, a year or a little more? If taxes were higher they would have been more likely to leave it in. Smart guys like Warren Buffet threw a lot in as it passed downward thru 8k-8500 and he's rewarded for it. These are the real Americans, not scum who selfishly pulls it and says fuck America. You have yet to show me good times when taxes are low, just feed me ideology that claims these rich folks don't need the fear of taxation to invest, when they obviously do. Quote Since you are such a big supporter of huge government spending, Reagan and Bush should have been your heroes. I'm not, I was a fan of CLinton, the guy who cut spending. That's your claim that I like big spending. I like GHWB too, he did less improvement, but he also had a Republican electorate that shit when he raised taxes 3% and called it the largest tax increase in history. Quote No, I do not think Clinton did a good job. Wait, wait, wait, not so much data here, BD. See, this exemplifies your lack of any real argument or you would make one. You like spending cuts, he cut spending, why not show some love? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #30 August 22, 2010 I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 August 22, 2010 Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. Don't give him the power to insult you. He uses the neo-con label to try and use the power of political correctness to silence opposition. In the end, using today's labels, I will take being called a neo-con as apposed to a progressive or liberal any day."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #35 August 22, 2010 Quotemost of the things you believe are pro neo-con How the fuck do you know what I believe and what I don't? Only a very small part of my beliefs have been made public here on this forum. It's a pretty simple concept, lucky. You want the government to provide things to people that they can't or won't provide for themselves and you want to tax the hell out of those who actually earn their money to pay for it. I, on the other hand, am in favor of minimal government intrusion and that includes stripping spending back on benefits so as to only provide to those who cannot provide for themselves as well as infrastructure and defense. Cut the spending. It is a very simple concept that you and your heroes in DC can't quite get a grasp on.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 August 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I am not a neo-con and I take it as a PERSONAL INSULT. Get out of denial then, most of the things you believe are pro neo-con. Quote You have proven, once again, that you think everyone should agree with you 100% or they are a neo-con. Of course you think that, it beats actually rejecting the data. Quote I don't need to provide you with data to give you my opinion of Clinton. You asked if I thought he did a good job, I answered. No you don't, you can go on with outspoken, unsubstantiated opinions and that is the beauty of this country, but your denial that your a neo-con surfaces when you: - Defend tax cuts - Want spending cuts, esp social - Never denouce legislated Christianity - Never seem to denounce the war machine You choose your words carefully, and try not to put yourself anywhere too aggressively, but the places you put yourself and the subtle acquiescences make it clear you're a neo-con. Quote What excperience in business do you have that gives you any credability to determine if a tax deduction is legit? A CJ degree? Give me a break. That's subjective and obvious, but hiring a harem of whores isn't, business trips to legitimate destinations is. All teh 1/2 million dollar parties held by GWB's bank bailout recipients were not legitimate, maybe if they cost 1/0th of that they could be legitmate, so it's not just thetype of wrote off but the amount. It doesn't take teh Fed Res Chairman to determine if a deduction is BS, but I appreciate you further defending the rights of the RW fatcats to writeoff evry BS thing in their life while pulling profits and closing businesses. Sure, you're not a neo-con. So are you going to address the issues of this thread, tax cuts being beneficial for the country, or are you gonna keep running from them like all the other neo-cons? Quote Ya, but the multi million dollar union get always are ok with you. Is there an interpreter in the hosue? Quote So Reps in the house can start a bill to bail out unions pension funds (like the one in the house now for the teamsters) because they spend all the rank n file dues on huge parties and political crap You go boy Yes, your neo-con leaders should bail out banks, but not shaved union pension funds. And you claim not to be a neo-con?BTW, care to address the issues and data presented in the thread pertaining to tax cuts, tax increases and the subsequent events? dude, YOU call ME a neo-con is a compliment given your views. Same to your comment regarding President Reagan. Thank You You make me proud"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 August 22, 2010 What is even more funny and stupid about your claims is that most (from either party) did not support the bank bail outs. I didn't, most here didn't either so you strike out there. Second, your beloved Dem party voted for it (including Obama) in bigger numbers than the R's did. Foolish claim again exposed huhThen, the pres and the Dems doubled or even tripled down on spending to make things even worse, they lied about what HC really was, they pass bills to fund their union voting blocks pension funds and you think that allows you to take the high road? Well if you are smoking a big fat one I guess it does "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #38 August 22, 2010 QuoteThis is how I see it: - The rich make millions - Taxes are high, they must reinvest in order to keep it so they do - Many times the rich have virtually all of their capital tied up in investments, so they are only rich on paper and not in their account. So they reinvest, build new ventures, employ more people, etc. Since their money is tied up in assets, they must borrow to purchase, so they do and keep the banks solvent. They keep people employed via their investments. - Lower taxes and now the rich decide to pull their cash, pay what little they have to if anything that they can't writeoff. Now they buy everything with cash, but are often very cheap. They don't borrow money and the banks go insolvent and contract. The GDP falls as does unemployment rise. Wages fall and the rich do well, masses do like shit. - Now, keep taxes high and the rich must reinvest a lot of their gross earnings in order to keep them, they borrow money, employ people and actually become more rich but on paper thru investments. They actually care about the state of the nation since they are so vested into it. This worls well for everyone and historically is upheld via all kinds of evidence. This is the elaboration regarding underlying mechanisms I've asked you to make. So right off the bat, thanks for doing so. I've thrown some italics in there for the stuff I want to respond to. You're getting a bit of "rich creep" in your argument again as you've defined the rich previously as the top 5%, 10%, and even 20% of wealth holders. You may find that the creation of an additional top bracket or brackets would be necessary to make tax increases comparable to some of the historical examples you like to bring up. As it is, top bracket increases affect a lot more than the millionaires. (this is just an aside, and one I've made before, but call it my futile attempt to inject some consistency in definitions.) Borrowing to invest isn't tied to accessibility of profits as you suggest. You either keep profits invested or you take them. You don't write yourself a paycheck and then start a new company out of your personal checking account. If you want to get started or expand, you take a loan through the company (if interest rates allow it) and you go to it. Publicly traded companies make things even more dynamic as the more "profit taking" (paying dividends) you do, the more attractive the stock becomes to capital investors. How does one spend a lot of cash and yet do so cheaply? They either spend it or they don't, and as much as you like to picture rich people having cash fights, that's not what happens. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply the money ends up buying cheap imported goods, but protectionist tarrifs, etc. is an entirely different issue affecting where all consumer dollars end up, not just from rich folks. And until we address that, encouraging consumer spending using borrowed dollars as you do is a huge disaster waiting to happen. On a more general note, it should not be surprising that absurd changes to tax rates (up or down) will shock the behavior of the economy. That should, by no means, be used as an argument that the rate before or after the change was the "correct" one. This back and forth defibrillation is a crap approach, and we need to go back to treating taxes as a way to finance the government. You keep mentioning low taxes leading to debt and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about that, but that has nothing to do with using taxes to try and control the economy. The government can still temper the economic situation, but it needs to do so through interest rate adjustments, spending in the appropriate arenas, and managing trade imbalances with tariffs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #39 August 22, 2010 Why the economy grows in higher taxes?? Lucky face it you are a communist / socialist and i have already explained this to you but you insist that taxing people and big government is the answer. well my answer is .. government is not the answer to the problem but rather it is the problem.all big government will give you is bigger corruption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #40 August 23, 2010 That's what I just don't get about Lucky. He seems to despise everyone with power and wealth, but he expects someone with wealth and power to fix things and make everybody share and play nice. He doesn't trust people, but he thinks if you give enough power to a few, everything will be fine. Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 August 23, 2010 Quote Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet? Given his long established penchant for labeling others, I'm going to start referring to him as a neo-comm. Feel free to join me. This same level of economic sophistication worked wonders for the Soviets, the Chinese. Note how much better Beijing has been looking since they swung towards capitalism. Lucky, no one has to prove a counter claim that tax cuts are always good. The simple truth, which has been repeated to you over and over, is that the macro economics of our country are far more complicated than what our marginal tax rate is. You claim to be a college graduate - show some evidence of it. Saying that the boom in the 90s doesn't count because it was only because of the dot-com boom is really missing the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
