Tax the Rich?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Until something increases demand,

insane liberal illiteracy!! Farmers worked with their hands for a million years, when someone invented the plow demand was universal!!

The more Obozo taxes venture capital the fewer shots on goal venture capitalists can take and the fewer new plows or new ventures like Apple Intel and Google we'll have.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??

 

[Rshermr]

The Bush economy did quite well. Low unemployment, more revenue coming into the federal treasury. When democrats took over both the house and senate they were able to create a sudden crash in the economy that obama has been depressing ever since. The crash itself was engineered by democrats and took 30 years to reach full flower.

The crash was the liar loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act. Loans that were insured by AIG, when AIG went bankrupt, it could no longer insure the defaulted loans, and that is what started the whole thing.

Good try. If I am not wrong, W was president.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Bush economy did quite well. Low unemployment, more revenue coming into the federal treasury. When democrats took over both the house and senate they were able to create a sudden crash in the economy that obama has been depressing ever since. The crash itself was engineered by democrats and took 30 years to reach full flower.

The crash was the liar loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act. Loans that were insured by AIG, when AIG went bankrupt, it could no longer insure the defaulted loans, and that is what started the whole thing.

Good try. If I am not wrong, W was president.

Katzndogz is an unabashed liar (or has consumed too much right wing kool-aid).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs".

so do the poor create jobs?? Who???

 

[Againsheila]

A tax increase on the rich can't possibly raise anywhere near the amount of money needed to balance the budget, or even make a significant dent in the deficit (let alone the debt). The only thing it's likely to do is increase unemployment, and subsequently reduce revenue.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that conclusion. Could you walk me through how a tax increase on the wealthy will cause unemployment? Be careful now, if you argue that they will spend less, you just admitted that government stimulus works. If you argue that tax increases will reduce investment, you will have to explain the mechanism.

Easy question. Let's say I have 100 employees and I pay them each $2,000 a month salary. I get a tax increase that amounts to $120,000 a year. I can take that loss, or I can fire 5 employees and my profits stay the same. When I fire them, they receive no check, and they pay no taxes on that income they're no longer receiving. 5 people out of work and paying no income tax. Not only that, but they will go on unemployment and stay on unemployment until it runs out (they always do), and if we're lucky, they won't go on welfare and food stamps.

BS. I know lots of people, that when laid off, got another job and several that didn't get new jobs that still didn't apply for unemployment, myself included.

Why don't you come back when you actually know what you are talking about?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did.

Thank you for recognizing that I guess?

Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs".

They do, whether one has a problem with the GOP or not. Last time I checked, Bill Gates created a shit ton of jobs. I could provide a very long list of them that create jobs if you would like. It doesn't matter whose slogan it is. If one wants to talk about appropriate taxation to cover our spending, or addressing the spending as well for that matter, go to it, man. But denying that rich people create jobs seems a little silly.

Interesting that you would use Bill Gates as an example. He and his partner did what IBM was positioned to do and didn't. Microsoft created many many jobs because they had a good product and a good marketing plan before they were rich.

That said, many argue that small business is the engine of our economy. I infer that means small business creates jobs as does the government - local, state, federal and special districts. I don't see how anyone can conclude those rich people noted in the OP will create the number of jobs as will those I noted in this paragraph.

 

[kwc57]

Reading comp problem?

Not when it comes to the title of the thread.

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did. Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs". But more than that, great wealth is not under attack for had the wealthy (named in the article) not acted when they did they still would be very wealthy (self evident and worth stating).

I wonder how many jobs this guy has created?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not when it comes to the title of the thread.

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did. Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs". But more than that, great wealth is not under attack for had the wealthy (named in the article) not acted when they did they still would be very wealthy (self evident and worth stating).

I wonder how many jobs this guy has created?

View attachment 23032

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did.

Thank you for recognizing that I guess?

Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs".

They do, whether one has a problem with the GOP or not. Last time I checked, Bill Gates created a shit ton of jobs. I could provide a very long list of them that create jobs if you would like. It doesn't matter whose slogan it is. If one wants to talk about appropriate taxation to cover our spending, or addressing the spending as well for that matter, go to it, man. But denying that rich people create jobs seems a little silly.

Interesting that you would use Bill Gates as an example. He and his partner did what IBM was positioned to do and didn't. Microsoft created many many jobs because they had a good product and a good marketing plan before they were rich.

That said, many argue that small business is the engine of our economy. I infer that means small business creates jobs as does the government - local, state, federal and special districts. I don't see how anyone can conclude those rich people noted in the OP will create the number of jobs as will those I noted in this paragraph.

Bill Gates created jobs both before and while he was rich, both directly and indirectly. Remove his existence for any significant portion of his active business life at any point and you remove a good number of created jobs. Why would you even begin to try and dispute that?

Small businesses create jobs too, as does the government. I wouldn't dispute that. I'm just not sure what you are trying to counter.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

No Taxing the rich is CLASSISM. Those who make above a certain income should pay ZERO in taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The title is an open question, open to interpretation. Something you subsequently did. Of course my agenda was to question the GOP slogan, "the rich create jobs". But more than that, great wealth is not under attack for had the wealthy (named in the article) not acted when they did they still would be very wealthy (self evident and worth stating).

I wonder how many jobs this guy has created?

View attachment 23032

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I wonder how many jobs this guy has created?

View attachment 23032

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

please explain why stupid or admit as a liberal you lack IQ to do so. Thanks

 

[Wry Catcher]

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

please explain why stupid or admit as a liberal you lack IQ to do so. Thanks

Its stupidity is self evident; if you need help understanding that you have no call to question anyone's IQ.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

please explain why stupid or admit as a liberal you lack IQ to do so. Thanks

Its stupidity is self evident; if you need help understanding that you have no call to question anyone's IQ.

translation: As a typical liberal I lack the IQ to do so!!! Everything was self-evident to the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin and Mao too!!

Ever wonder why our liberals to whom truth was self-evident spied for a gave Stalin the bomb??

 

[S.J.]

Why don't you come back when you actually know what you are talking about?

Why don't you come back when you learn how to debate?

 

[Koios]

We all know throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is government is much better than letting people keep their own money.

Actually you don't know that; and yet, it's dead bang fucking on.

Here's a primmer:

1. Government is not a black hole where money is sucked in never to come out. Only the abject retards (aka Righties) would think that. It's spent, assuredly, if government taxes the Dollars. Instead of me buying gum, for example, government buys a stamp and mails something. The money goes in, and in a better way if you print envelopes at your company, or a worse way if you're in the gum business. But in the economy (all of us) the difference is moot. The bux went in and moved up the value chain, same as you or I spending it.

2. It get's even better, thanks to REDISTRIBUTION!!! Yep, that word the abject retards hate, and also do not understand. Not move money from one to another. Redistribute it back through the economy, letting is work its magic on its way back UP!!! the value chain (something economists call: high monetary velocity). Great way to get the economy rosy for us all, using money (since we tax the wealthy) that's stagnated. Bear in mind, wealth is wealth, which we only tax if some goes to benefactors in the big pay day since rich Uncle Frank kicked the bucket. The folks who just got the windfall are taxed on that income (new money coming in). Ditto when Uncle Frank is still pumping blood. We only tax his new money coming in (income tax; not wealth tax). And Uncle Frank being so wealthy, spends but a tiny fraction of his income. It's VERY, VERY low monetary velocity.

3. Who wins when high incomes are redistributed? Workers, vis a vis, more jobs resulting from the money moving at the higher monetary velocity points. Maybe, if unemployment is low, and the job market forces some higher pay, the individual worker might see a tiny percentage more. But the big winners are the stockholders, business onwers and the rich -- whose incomes go from really rich to really, really richer. They scale to the success of their companies. Jane, in the mailroom does not. Most likely, she gets to meet a new coworker, since things are picking up in the mailroom, now that business is growing again.

So those we tax most, benefit even more, and the vortex starts sucking up, and not down, as it does when we tax less (have less redistirbution.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

please explain why stupid or admit as a liberal you lack IQ to do so. Thanks

Its stupidity is self evident; if you need help understanding that you have no call to question anyone's IQ.

translation: As a typical liberal I lack the IQ to do so!!! Everything was self-evident to the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin and Mao too!!

I suggest you copy and post the above sentence into a journal or other source you might keep. Some day, when you grow up and have tested your opinions you will realize how silly you behaved in Dec. 2012.

Ever wonder why our liberals to whom truth was self-evident spied for a gave Stalin the bomb??

Slow down and think before you post; your typos suggest you became emotional and flummoxed when I suggested your post was stupid. Sorry, it was and remains so.

What factor(s) cause you to characterize (the Rosenbergs, Fuchs, Hall, Gold and Greenglass) as liberals? What evidence do you have that they were? What defined a liberal in 1950?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Its stupidity is self evident; if you need help understanding that you have no call to question anyone's IQ.

translation: As a typical liberal I lack the IQ to do so!!! Everything was self-evident to the great 20th Century liberals, Hitler Stalin and Mao too!!

I suggest you copy and post the above sentence into a journal or other source you might keep. Some day, when you grow up and have tested your opinions you will realize how silly you behaved in Dec. 2012.

Ever wonder why our liberals to whom truth was self-evident spied for a gave Stalin the bomb??

Slow down and think before you post; your typos suggest you became emotional and flummoxed when I suggested your post was stupid. Sorry, it was and remains so.

What factor(s) cause you to characterize (the Rosenbergs, Fuchs, Hall, Gold and Greenglass) as liberals? What evidence do you have that they were? What defined a liberal in 1950?

Edward has left the house.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Slow down and think before you post; your typos suggest you became emotional and flummoxed when I suggested your post was stupid. Sorry, it was and remains so.

you said conservatism was stupid, I said say why or admit to being a typical liberal, you said it was self-evident as if to demonstrate your low IQ, I said truth was self-evident to your 20th Century friends, Hitler Stalin and Mao too. You closed by again saying conservatism wa stupid but again as a low IQ liberal did not even realize it was important to have a reason.

What factor(s) cause you to characterize (the Rosenbergs, Fuchs, Hall, Gold and Greenglass) as liberals? What evidence do you have that they were? What defined a liberal in 1950?

THe Vinona decripts showed that Rosenberg was codenamed "liberal" by the KGB. Oleg Klugian said he looked among the liberals in Washington when he needed new spies. Alger Hiss and Henry Wallace, typical New Deal libturds, it turned out were spies for Stalin. Obozo had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of the only open communist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders.

 

[kwc57]

I wonder how many jobs this guy has created?

View attachment 23032

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

Poor people don't create jobs. Obama defines the wealthy as those with over $250k. So tell us, who are the job creators? Who owns businesses? Who hires people? It isn't the guy flipping burgers or the guy sleeping on the street. If $250k is the 2% who stole the wealth from the "people", then they are your job creators. But feel free to school us on who the true job creators are.