Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[PredFan]

If Alan Grayson (D) Fl, had two working brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that he had just said what conservatives have been saying for decades:

"With the payroll tax break, workers get more in their paychecks each week. That money goes to the waitress, who gives it to the hair stylist, who gives it to the landlord. And the money goes round and round. Demand goes up, and with it, employment."


Alan Grayson stop protecting rich: GOP must stop protecting the rich - OrlandoSentinel.com

Too bad morons like him when he were in Congress fought the conservatives to keep tax rates high and keep more people unemployed. Do I think he's seen the light? Not a chance. It's simply a political hack democrat trying to sieze an opportunity to regain a seat that he was thrown out of with vigor. What an idiot.

 

[Dragon]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

 

[PredFan]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Ahh, I wondered why there were so many jobs available and the economy was so stellar, it's those tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy at work, is it?

 

[Jarhead]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

You left out the part where the mind set is the same as it pertains to spending money on ones company.

 

[bobcollum]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

They would spend if we get the extension on the Bush tax cuts too....oh wait, they did.

 

[PredFan]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Ahh, I wondered why there were so many jobs available and the economy was so stellar, it's those tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy at work, is it?

What tax cuts for corporations? The US has the 2nd or first highest corporate tax rate in the world.

 

[PredFan]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

They would spend if we get the extension on the Bush tax cuts too....oh wait, they did.

Those weren't tax cuts. It was a continuation of the current rates. But again, we are getting off track.

 

[Jarhead]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

They would spend if we get the extension on the Bush tax cuts too....oh wait, they did.

yeah.....I wonder how much more they would be spending if they didnt.
Or...how much less.

What I find amusing is we are starting to seem some upticks in the economy...and the left wants to give the stimulus of three years ago the credit..

But they dont even THINK about the confidence the people got when the Bush Tax Cuts were extended....or the payroll tax holiday.....

And that all happened within the last 10 months.

 

[Ernie S.]

The higher the income level, the less increased demand results from a tax cut. That's because the higher the income level, the lower a percentage of one's income is spent as opposed to invested. At the income levels where Republicans want to cut taxes, the effect is nil -- except on the federal budget deficit.

Well golly gee! What happens when someone invests money? Sam Walton did and created 2 million JOBS.

 

[Dragon]

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

I assume that the rich have all the spending money they need or want, and that if we cut taxes they will not spend MORE. And that's true.

Your second sentence is demonstrably false; it's been tried and it doesn't work. Businesses hire because there's a demand for the goods and services to be produced by hiring, not because money burns a hole in their pockets.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Your thread is a deflection. I offer a correction.

 

[PredFan]

Btw, as a Floridian, I'd like to again apologise for Alan Grayson ever having held a public office.

 

[Dragon]

Well golly gee! What happens when someone invests money? Sam Walton did and created 2 million JOBS.

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

 

[PredFan]

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

I assume that the rich have all the spending money they need or want, and that if we cut taxes they will not spend MORE. And that's true.

Your second sentence is demonstrably false; it's been tried and it doesn't work. Businesses hire because there's a demand for the goods and services to be produced by hiring, not because money burns a hole in their pockets.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Your thread is a deflection. I offer a correction.

No, you offer spin. Good luck with getting anyone to believe it. I'll no longer entertain it.

 

[Dragon]

No, you offer spin. Good luck with getting anyone to believe it. I'll no longer entertain it.

Spin is what you offer, misrepresenting Alan Grayson's statement as being identical to what Republicans say when it is not. I offer logic, evidence, and history.

And you have just confessed that you have no way to respond to this. As usual.

 

[Nic_Driver]

This is quite a twist on the facts. You assume that the rich won't spend, they will. Not only will they spend, if you cut corporate taxes they will invest in their corporation and hire.

I assume that the rich have all the spending money they need or want, and that if we cut taxes they will not spend MORE. And that's true.

Your second sentence is demonstrably false; it's been tried and it doesn't work. Businesses hire because there's a demand for the goods and services to be produced by hiring, not because money burns a hole in their pockets.

Nice deflection though, we are talking about Grayson touting the benefits of reducing taxes.

Your thread is a deflection. I offer a correction.

No, you offer spin. Good luck with getting anyone to believe it. I'll no longer entertain it.

Of course not...

 

[Jarhead]

Well golly gee! What happens when someone invests money? Sam Walton did and created 2 million JOBS.

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

He invested his money in an idea.

Uh...sort of what all business owners do.

I, for the life of me, dont get where you were going with that post.

It was nothing more than a "punt" if you ask me.

 

[rightwinger]

If Alan Grayson (D) Fl, had two working brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that he had just said what conservatives have been saying for decades:

"With the payroll tax break, workers get more in their paychecks each week. That money goes to the waitress, who gives it to the hair stylist, who gives it to the landlord. And the money goes round and round. Demand goes up, and with it, employment."


Alan Grayson stop protecting rich: GOP must stop protecting the rich - OrlandoSentinel.com

Too bad morons like him when he were in Congress fought the conservatives to keep tax rates high and keep more people unemployed. Do I think he's seen the light? Not a chance. It's simply a political hack democrat trying to sieze an opportunity to regain a seat that he was thrown out of with vigor. What an idiot.

Sounds like trickle down

What heresy

 

[Jarhead]

No, you offer spin. Good luck with getting anyone to believe it. I'll no longer entertain it.

Spin is what you offer, misrepresenting Alan Grayson's statement as being identical to what Republicans say when it is not. I offer logic, evidence, and history.

And you have just confessed that you have no way to respond to this. As usual.

How is it spin?

Grayson said "give a person more money, they will spend it"

This is true with a consumer and it is true with a person with an idea to start or grow a business.

 

[Dragon]

Well golly gee! What happens when someone invests money? Sam Walton did and created 2 million JOBS.

Sam Walton did that because there was a demand for cheap products available at one central location that had just about everything from groceries to electronics to clothing to household goods. He didn't do it just because he had money.

He invested his money in an idea.

Uh...sort of what all business owners do.

I, for the life of me, dont get where you were going with that post.

It was nothing more than a "punt" if you ask me.

Walton wouldn't have invested his money in that idea if he didn't think there was demand for it. And if he had thought so, but been wrong, his money would have been lost and there would be no such thing as Wal-Mart today.

The determining factor is always demand, not capital.