France is Fucked

[zeke]

Like you Rethugs care about what happens to France. You all hate the French.
Remember when there wasn't "French fries" in the WH dining room. Had to be "Freedom" fries. Weird.

Weird to act like you care if France fails when you have actively wished for that very same failure to occur.

And someone, what the hell does Detroit have to do with Paris?

 

[SniperFire]

Give up, swallow.


LOL

 

[Sallow]

Give up, swallow.


LOL

Well you almost made it.

But your raging homosexual hormones got the best of you..and now you wanna blow me.

No thanks.

But thanks for the offer..

Fag.

 

[Sallow]

By Michael D. LaFaive, published on Nov. 1, 1997

Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?

The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.'

Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.

 

[SniperFire]

[
Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.

But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman. Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.

But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.

Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?

We don't swallow that.

 

[Sallow]

[
Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.

But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman. Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.

But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.

Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?

We don't swallow that.

I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.

This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.

 

[SniperFire]

[
Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.

But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman. Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.

But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.

Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?

We don't swallow that.

I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.

This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.

You have simply decided to abandon your argument which stated the point I made was - i will quote you - 'bullshit', then?

Did cutting the top marginal tax rate on the rich EXPLODE Federal tax receipts to the treasury in each case persented, or did they not, asswipe?

 

[Sallow]

But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman. Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.

But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.

Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?

We don't swallow that.

I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.

This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.

You have simply decided to abandon your argument which stated the point I made was - i will quote you - 'bullshit', then?

Did cutting the top marginal tax rate on the rich EXPLODE Federal tax receipts to the treasury in each case persented, or did they not, asswipe?

Didn't abandon anything.

And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.

Cutting taxes has done nothing good for the economy..and what it has done is pool wealth into a very few hands. The rich don't invest their own money into projects..they invest other people's money. That's the first rule of getting rich..assume as little risk as possible.

 

[SniperFire]

Didn't abandon anything.

And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.

The tax cuts on the rich, in each instance presented, were done so to explode growth and lift the economy out of doledrums. In each instance this happened, and in each instance presented, Federal tax receipts EXPLODED well beyond what they were presently experiencing.


Are you such a partisan hack that you can't even acknowledge simple fact?

Is the fact that Federal tax receipts EXPLODED after each tax cut on the wealthy, as presented, 'bullshit' as you said, or are you wrong?

This is you big chance for credibility, swallow. Don't blow it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The wealthy French are leaving France, like the wealthy Greeks left Greece when it became confiscatory and liberal. France will be abandoned to the poor who can't leave and the muslims who will slaughter them. Of course the poor of France can always save their lives by converting.

 

[SniperFire]

The wealthy French are leaving France, like the wealthy Greeks left Greece when it became confiscatory and liberal. France will be abandoned to the poor who can't leave and the muslims who will slaughter them. Of course the poor of France can always save their lives by converting.

Sounds like Detroit.


And now California.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.

Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.

The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.

You are badly mistaken. US forces landing on Normandy on D-day numbered 73,000 men, on two beaches. The British landed 61,715. Canadians landed on the British beaches numbered 22,400.

Landings were not the only aspect of D-Day. If you factor in the British troops also involved in the air and sea assaults, the British were the largest single force. Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

So no, I am not badly mistaken.

How did that first expeditionary force work out for Great Britain? Does Dunkirk ring a bell ?

 

[zeke]

The rich don't invest their own money into projects..they invest other people's money. That's the first rule of getting rich..assume as little risk as possible.

Cracks me up. The asshole rethugs claim so much knowledge of the economy. But they never heard of the OPM idea. Which the rich have done forever. Other peoples money is what you take risks with. Ask the bankers on wall street if that works. It sure does. That is why they remained rich while the rest of us get poorer. They were not playing with their moeny.

 

[editec]

The FRENCH will be the deciders for what happens in France.

I realize this upsets many of you, but France really doesn't give a merde what a bunch of uninformed American morons think of it.

 

[JoeB131]

You are one nonsensical Lefty diatribe after another.

Each and every time taxes have been cut on the wealthy whom you envy and hate, tax revenues to the Federal Treasury INCREASED.

It happened when Coolidge did it. It happened when JFK did it. It happened when Reagan did it. It happened when Bush did it.

That politicians decided to OVERSPEND beyond the increased revenues generated by said tax cuts is another issue - one you have attempted to obfuscate and yet have miserable failed.

The thing was, when Coolidge and JFK did it, they raised revenues in other places. For instance, Coolidge cut income taxes but raised tariffs to protect American industries from competition. Reagan cut taxes, but then eliminated a lot of deductions, creating a net tax increase. (For instance, the deduction for credit card interest vanished.)

Bush only saw an "increase" in revenues because property values were inflated by a run-away real estate market. When it crashed, we all saw the result.

There's no credible economist who still thinks "Supply Side" works.

 

[Sallow]

Didn't abandon anything.

And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.

The tax cuts on the rich, in each instance presented, were done so to explode growth and lift the economy out of doledrums. In each instance this happened, and in each instance presented, Federal tax receipts EXPLODED well beyond what they were presently experiencing.


Are you such a partisan hack that you can't even acknowledge simple fact?

Is the fact that Federal tax receipts EXPLODED after each tax cut on the wealthy, as presented, 'bullshit' as you said, or are you wrong?

This is you big chance for credibility, swallow. Don't blow it.

Your gay tendencies aside..you haven't proved shit.

Sherlock. Um..Gay Sherlock.

 

[Ariux]

Just goes to show, the US should have stayed out of WWII, and certainly not helped France.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The people of Germany will not dig this at all. This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany. The European Union is in serious trouble.

 

[JoeB131]

The people of Germany will not dig this at all. This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany. The European Union is in serious trouble.

And again, that might not be a bad thing. The idea that you have an international currency that no one really controls the value of leads to all sorts of problems.

The problem with the EU is that it allowed a lot of countries in that never should have been allowed in because their economies were not even on the same level as the main players. It would be lke we allowed statehood to Mexico, and got them under the dollar, but they still had their own government and economic conditions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?

Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.

Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.

The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.

The U.S. contingent was the largest, i.e., if one considers the flags, rather than the allegiances. In other words, the total number of U.S. troops was approximately 73, 000. The British troops numbered approximately 61,715, and the Canadian troops approximately 21,400, though the latter, of course, were under the flag of the United Kingdom (83,115 total). These figures also include airborne troops: 15, 000 - U.S.; 7900 - U.K.

Estimations are going to vary as several thousands more of the two largest contingents (U.K. and U.S.) committed to the invasion did not land until latter. For example, a total of 40, 000 U.S. troops were supposed to land on Omaha Beach on D-Day.


D-Day, the Battle of Normandy

Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

34, 000 on Omaha Beach?
D-Day : Normandy 1944 - OMAHA BEACH : U.S. Troops

23, 000 on Utah Beach?
D-Day : Normandy 1944 - UTAH BEACH : U.S. Troops