Remember that time when we had a balanced budget and a thriving economy. Bush didn't like that.

Posted by stinenavy on 8/29/2012 12:39:00 AM (view original):
Remember that time when we had a balanced budget and a thriving economy. Bush didn't like that.

Clinton did some great things. His reaching over the aisle to fix welfare and keep things on the upswing was great.

Bush had to face the 9/11 catastrophe and still kept everything going.

Posted by opie100 on 8/29/2012 12:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/29/2012 12:08:00 AM (view original):
Stop with the rhetoric and answer the questions. You sound like someone who has never run a business and has no concept of economics. I would love to see your attempt at redistribution math.

What makes you think that an extra 5-10% of tax on their profits would cause a company to give up on growing? How does that make any sense to you? Did you know that many companies actually take advantage of higher taxes by reinvesting in their business to reduce tax liability?

And for the record, I'm not an Obama fan. I just think his lack of understanding of the economy is less dangerous than the wealthy's attempt to widen the income gap.

I was pretty sure you weren't going to offer data behind Obama's redistribution plan that made sense.  Don't ask me to do it either - it doesn't work.

We are in a recession.  We need to create incentives to grow.  This isn't a game of see how much you can take from job creators before they "give up growing."  It is how do we incentivize investment to get the economy out of the crapper. 

And you still haven't answered a question.....just more talking points.  You're clearly out of your depth.  Interesting that I'm willing to admit that I'm not enough of an economist to give exact numbers on redistribution, yet you seem to be able to say without a doubt that it doesn't work.

Here's some more questions based on your misinformation that you won't be able to answer:

Why do business owners need incentives to make more money in a recession?

How does "incentivizing investment get the economy out of the crapper"?

Posted by opie100 on 8/29/2012 12:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/29/2012 12:08:00 AM (view original):
Stop with the rhetoric and answer the questions. You sound like someone who has never run a business and has no concept of economics. I would love to see your attempt at redistribution math.

What makes you think that an extra 5-10% of tax on their profits would cause a company to give up on growing? How does that make any sense to you? Did you know that many companies actually take advantage of higher taxes by reinvesting in their business to reduce tax liability?

And for the record, I'm not an Obama fan. I just think his lack of understanding of the economy is less dangerous than the wealthy's attempt to widen the income gap.

I was pretty sure you weren't going to offer data behind Obama's redistribution plan that made sense.  Don't ask me to do it either - it doesn't work.

We are in a recession.  We need to create incentives to grow.  This isn't a game of see how much you can take from job creators before they "give up growing."  It is how do we incentivize investment to get the economy out of the crapper. 

opie...then why are many corporations experiencing record profits and sitting on piles of cash?

Posted by stinenavy on 8/29/2012 12:39:00 AM (view original):
Remember that time when we had a balanced budget and a thriving economy. Bush didn't like that.

Remember when we had a budget and an ok economy?  Obama didn't like that.

Are you saying that the economy was "ok" when Obama took office?

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/28/2012 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Increase taxes on the wealthiest and put more money in the hands of the people who spend.  Basic economics.

Funniest entry in quite a while.

If you think so.  But that likely means that you don't really understand economics.

Reach people don't spend.  They don't invest.  They put their money under their mattress and laugh at the little guy!

You're brilliant.

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 9:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 9:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/28/2012 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Increase taxes on the wealthiest and put more money in the hands of the people who spend.  Basic economics.

Funniest entry in quite a while.

If you think so.  But that likely means that you don't really understand economics.

You keep misspelling socialism.  Please don't forget about the part demonstrating how raising taxes creates more jobs somehow.

Ok, I'll try to keep this simple for you because it's really pretty complicated for someone that doesn't understand economics:

Take $1,000,000.00 from the wealthy.  Give it to the Upper Lower Class and Lower Middle class, who spend just about 100% of everything they get.  Now, do this on a larger scale and you have some pretty good economic activity and job creation, because small businesses create jobs when people buy their ****.....not when they get a tax break.

Thank you for laying this out for us - revealing.  So how much is going to be taken from the "wealthy" when this is done on a "larger scale" - and then how many in the  "upper lower class" and "lower middle class" are going to get the goodie bags?  Also, how many of the "middle middle class" are anticipated to decrease their income to make sure they qualify?

Who said it has to be in the form of goodie bags?  It can simply be tax cuts.  Do you know anyone that says "My tax bracket is too high, I need to find a lower paying job"?  

Come on, this is basic economics.

You do not even realize that almost half of wage earners do not pay fed income tax.  You cannot cut taxes for someone who doesn't ******* pay taxes.

Posted by The Taint on 8/28/2012 9:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/28/2012 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Increase taxes on the wealthiest and put more money in the hands of the people who spend.  Basic economics.

Funniest entry in quite a while.

If you think so.  But that likely means that you don't really understand economics.

You keep misspelling socialism.  Please don't forget about the part demonstrating how raising taxes creates more jobs somehow.

Prove to me that cutting taxes creates jobs...I will show you more examples of tax cuts being ineffectual than you will of tax cuts creating jobs.  Care to wager a 100 dollar gift card on it?

Reagan.  Do you want my address so you can send me that gift card?

PS:  Now go ahead Dems, claim that Reagan increased taxes after he lowered them.  He did, but his overall rates throughout his presidency were far lower than under Carter.  So he lowered taxes.

Posted by occsid on 8/28/2012 10:51:00 PM (view original):

We do not have a money problem, we have a spending problem.  And that problem comes down to two programs: medicare and SS.

Posted by stinenavy on 8/29/2012 12:39:00 AM (view original):
Remember that time when we had a balanced budget and a thriving economy. Bush didn't like that.

Obama likes it less.

The U.S. budget deficit for this year is already over $1trillion.  You could literally confiscate the wealth of the "rich" and you don't come close to that number.  But sure, keep living in your fantasy world of tax cuts causing this, and tax increases solving it.

We are spending too much money.  That is the problem.

PS: Oh yes, and that cutting defense will solve it.  That is also one of my favorites, for two reasons: (1) defense is miniscule compared to the problem that is medicare and SS; and (2) the Dems love Govt jobs, and there you have the biggest Govt employer, but you want to gut it.

I literally cannot believe how ******* stupid liberals are.  It is amazing.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/29/2012 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 8/28/2012 9:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/28/2012 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Increase taxes on the wealthiest and put more money in the hands of the people who spend.  Basic economics.

Funniest entry in quite a while.

If you think so.  But that likely means that you don't really understand economics.

You keep misspelling socialism.  Please don't forget about the part demonstrating how raising taxes creates more jobs somehow.

Prove to me that cutting taxes creates jobs...I will show you more examples of tax cuts being ineffectual than you will of tax cuts creating jobs.  Care to wager a 100 dollar gift card on it?

Reagan.  Do you want my address so you can send me that gift card?

PS:  Now go ahead Dems, claim that Reagan increased taxes after he lowered them.  He did, but his overall rates throughout his presidency were far lower than under Carter.  So he lowered taxes.

Haha. You want that bet?

And yes Reagan raising taxes after lowering them counts.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/29/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 9:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 9:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 8/28/2012 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 8/28/2012 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 8/28/2012 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Increase taxes on the wealthiest and put more money in the hands of the people who spend.  Basic economics.

Funniest entry in quite a while.

If you think so.  But that likely means that you don't really understand economics.

You keep misspelling socialism.  Please don't forget about the part demonstrating how raising taxes creates more jobs somehow.

Ok, I'll try to keep this simple for you because it's really pretty complicated for someone that doesn't understand economics:

Take $1,000,000.00 from the wealthy.  Give it to the Upper Lower Class and Lower Middle class, who spend just about 100% of everything they get.  Now, do this on a larger scale and you have some pretty good economic activity and job creation, because small businesses create jobs when people buy their ****.....not when they get a tax break.

Thank you for laying this out for us - revealing.  So how much is going to be taken from the "wealthy" when this is done on a "larger scale" - and then how many in the  "upper lower class" and "lower middle class" are going to get the goodie bags?  Also, how many of the "middle middle class" are anticipated to decrease their income to make sure they qualify?

Who said it has to be in the form of goodie bags?  It can simply be tax cuts.  Do you know anyone that says "My tax bracket is too high, I need to find a lower paying job"?  

Come on, this is basic economics.

You do not even realize that almost half of wage earners do not pay fed income tax.  You cannot cut taxes for someone who doesn't ******* pay taxes.

Do you want to bet that you're wrong about this?  That's the problem with people that get all their info from talking points....no ability to think laterally.