"Palestinian" guide for jounalists, what words and definitions to use...

[AnOrangeCat]

Conservatives understand that "basic principle" quite well

No they do not. Supply Side Economics, aka trickle down economics, is the failed idea that if you create a bunch of inventory (supply) that it will generate demand that didn't otherwise exist. That is false and why despite massive tax cuts, personal savings rates decrease as household debt increases. What do you think is the cause of that if it isn't a complete misunderstanding of very basic economic principles? Not theory, principles.

Tax cuts are sold as putting more money into the hands of consumers because they know how to spend it best. But the data shows that isn't the case. When there are tax cuts, household debt increases because funding for essential services gets cut so that consumers have to pay more for things like education, health care, and energy. So all the money they are spending on those things is money not being spent in the consumer economy where it creates wealth and jobs, and are forced to take on debt

since they are the majority of those involved in wealth creation.

"Involved in wealth creation", how? What do you mean?

Pseudo-liberals and Leftist like you actually don't understand which is why few of you are in wealth creating free enterprise/business, why you don't understand and hate profits, and why you are focused more on wealth distribution, actually re-distribution since you steal from the productive and give to the non-productive, yourselves part of that deadwood.

Conservatives love to take credit for when businesses do well, but hate to take credit for when they don't. Typically, businesses do not do well under Conservative leadership. No metrics back you up. Just this ambiguous sense of stewardship by doing nothing. That has not worked out. You have not delivered on the promises you've made. All Conservatives have done is make things worse.

Job growth under Conservatives is lower, deficits are higher, debt grows faster, GDP growth is slower, market growth is slower or non-existent, and household debt levels are high.

That is 100% because Conservative policies always fail.

Always.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Clinton produced a "surplus" by cutting Defense/Military part of budget drastically. Which meant that the next President would have to cover that damage done and then some excess to get our Defense/Military back to where it should have been had Clinton allowed for routine maintain, replace, and renew of equipment.

Why would the military have to be "built back up"? Not for any national security purposes since we've done wars of choice, not necessity. Defense spending also doesn't generate wealth, though it does generate jobs. But those jobs produce things that aren't used domestically thus not contributing to wealth creation, which I thought was your goal.

Obama nearly doubled the National Debt and that is the more meaningful number since it is consequence of Deficit.

Right, because Bush destroyed the economy and we needed to save it. And saving the auto companies resulted in a profit for the US government. Every single dollar was paid back with interest. That saved thousands of jobs. Conservatives would have let the auto companies die so that we only had foreign imports.

Just the opposite of your delusion. Every time a "liberal"/Democrat is POTUS our economy suffers because most of them have no grasp on how to create wealth, since they have little to no experience doing such.

Incorrect. Our economy does not suffer when there are Democratic Presidents and you can look at GDP growth rates and compare them to see for yourself:

U.S. GDP Growth Rate | Historical Chart & Data

Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2010 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the...

www.macrotrends.net

You are starting to confirm you are in the same league of ignorance and incompetence.

You people always say this when you fail to articulate clear points.

You did it when we talked about health care. You said you understood Medicare but you didn't and don't. You posture really well, but there is no substance. I know that sounds harsh, but you need to hear it.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

The rich not only DO PAY their taxes but they also pay the majority of the government's income from personal taxes.

No they don't. They might pay a larger share of taxes, but they do not pay the same effective rate. That declines when Conservatives are in charge, which is why Conservatives always, always, always produce deficits and debt. Always. No exceptions.

They are not getting a free ride, those in the lower income bracket who pay little to no taxes are the ones getting free ride, or more than they put in, courtesy of the "rich".

They are definitely getting a free ride which is why their wealth has grown astronomically since 2000.

The "rich" are also the ones who invest into businesses that provide jobs, and other ventures that will grow/create more wealth to expand the economy.

Demand creates jobs, not supply. And the "investment" creates wealth for the rich, but not for anyone else.

I see you are just another idiot commie minion parroting the party pravda and hence no longer worth wasting my time and effort on.
Chao ...

Again with the projection. It's fairly obvious you are in over your head here since everything you're saying has no substance.

 

[Stryder50]

Ah but having a deficit is different from growing one.

And if you look at the data, you see the deficit go down during Democratic Presidents.

During Clinton, the deficit was erased. How was it erased?



Right, he cut spending. it just wasn't the spending you wanted to cut. Also, CLinton raised taxes in 1993 and Republicans then spent the next 7 years trying to erase them. They did manage to get one tax cut through, the tax cut on Capital gains, but the bad news about that is that it prompted the dotcom recession thanks to increased volatility, proving once again that Conservative policies never succeed:

This paper presents an empirical investigation of the effect of changes in capital gains tax rate on stock return volatility. We focus on two observable cross-sectional variations in the extent to which changes in capital gains tax rate affect return volatility — unrealized capital gains and dividend distributions. For both cross-sectional variations, we predict that the more stock returns are expected to be subject to capital gains taxation, the greater the increase in return volatility following a capital gains tax rate reduction. Consistent with these predictions, after passage of the 1978 and 1997 capital gain tax rate reductions, we find larger increases in the return volatility for more appreciated stocks than for less appreciated stocks and larger increases in the return volatility for non-dividend-paying stocks than for dividend-paying stocks, after controlling for an extensive set of firm characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, domestic and foreign stock market performances.



The Conservatives did not take Richard Clarke seriously when he warned of al Qaeda attack in January 2001. Clinton's National Security team presented the Conservatives with detailed analysis of al Qaeda and their capabilities. Conservatives did not take it seriously because they never do and their policies always fail. Bush got that August 2001 PDB memo warning of an imminent al Qaeda attack, but didn't take it seriously.

9/11 was an intelligence failure, not a military one. The size of the army and the bases around the world had no bearing on 9/11 because 9/11 was a terrorist attack. But if you want to draw that connection, you can look at Bin Laden's Fatwa in the 1990's that was explicitly about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. The jihad is literally "Declaration of Jihad against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holiest Sites." Those bases weren't the ones Clinton closed.



Bush literally said during his campaign that "A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged. And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Clinton's final budget had a surplus of $236.2b. Bush's first budget reduced that surplus down to $128.2b and then the next year it was -$157.8b. Proving once again that Conservative policies always fail. Always. That deficit was thanks to the first round of tax cuts that went into effect in 2001. By 2003, when the rest of the tax cuts started, the deficit grew to -$377.6b and from there, Conservatives set 4 record deficits in 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009. Then Obama reduced the deficit from $1.4T in 2009 down to $584.6B in 2016.



Classic projection. You have absolutely no idea what you're saying.

Danger posed by al Qaeda and Bin Laden were known during the 90's, Clinton's reign, and largely downplayed and mishandled the few times faint efforts to deal with.

Point about military degradation under Clinton wasn't about preventing the attack of 9/11 but of the shortfalls in capacity to deal with the sources afterward.

 

[Stryder50]

No they do not. Supply Side Economics, aka trickle down economics, is the failed idea that if you create a bunch of inventory (supply) that it will generate demand that didn't otherwise exist. That is false and why despite massive tax cuts, personal savings rates decrease as household debt increases. What do you think is the cause of that if it isn't a complete misunderstanding of very basic economic principles? Not theory, principles.

View attachment 1268409

Tax cuts are sold as putting more money into the hands of consumers because they know how to spend it best. But the data shows that isn't the case. When there are tax cuts, household debt increases because funding for essential services gets cut so that consumers have to pay more for things like education, health care, and energy. So all the money they are spending on those things is money not being spent in the consumer economy where it creates wealth and jobs, and are forced to take on debt


"Involved in wealth creation", how? What do you mean?



Conservatives love to take credit for when businesses do well, but hate to take credit for when they don't. Typically, businesses do not do well under Conservative leadership. No metrics back you up. Just this ambiguous sense of stewardship by doing nothing. That has not worked out. You have not delivered on the promises you've made. All Conservatives have done is make things worse.

Job growth under Conservatives is lower, deficits are higher, debt grows faster, GDP growth is slower, market growth is slower or non-existent, and household debt levels are high.

That is 100% because Conservative policies always fail.

Always.

Wealth creation is providing goods and/or services that have market value, i.e. others are willing to trade their goods and/or services for what you offer.

Money is a means to measure wealth and circumvent~simplify barter.

"When there are tax cuts, household debt increases because funding for essential services gets cut so that consumers have to pay more for things like education, health care, and energy."

First you fail to realize that if those are funded through taxes, the consumers are paying the middleman of government to further mismanage those market items.

Inflation in costs for "health care" took a huge leap under Obama's "Obama-care" boon to the insurance companies, at a price paid for by the consumers/taxpayers/patients.

"Energy" costs have risen largely due to Leftist/'Liberal' agenda and legislation that has wasted tax dollar$ and consumer co$t$ on unreliable solar and wind, while also reducing other forms of electrical generation. Also the Left/Liberals have pushed for vehicle electrification which increases Demand for electricity while the above mentioned actions have reduced Supply.

Largest job growth under Left/'Liberals' is in guv'mint jobs which are not wealth creation but wealth redistribution at costs of more guv'mint Deficit&Debt along with more tax funding needs and inflation.

Clearly, most to all Left/'Liberal' policies fail, @ 100%, nearly always. And then increase co$t$ when they have to be rectified.

 

[Stryder50]

Why would the military have to be "built back up"? Not for any national security purposes since we've done wars of choice, not necessity. Defense spending also doesn't generate wealth, though it does generate jobs. But those jobs produce things that aren't used domestically thus not contributing to wealth creation, which I thought was your goal.


Right, because Bush destroyed the economy and we needed to save it. And saving the auto companies resulted in a profit for the US government. Every single dollar was paid back with interest. That saved thousands of jobs. Conservatives would have let the auto companies die so that we only had foreign imports.


Incorrect. Our economy does not suffer when there are Democratic Presidents and you can look at GDP growth rates and compare them to see for yourself:

U.S. GDP Growth Rate | Historical Chart & Data

Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2010 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the...

www.macrotrends.net

You people always say this when you fail to articulate clear points.

You did it when we talked about health care. You said you understood Medicare but you didn't and don't. You posture really well, but there is no substance. I know that sounds harsh, but you need to hear it.

GDP includes guv'mint spending as if redistribution = creation.
2020 decline from 2019 was during Obama's term.
2021 decline from 2020 reflects the economic slowdown and shutdowns, most at Democrat Governors demands due to COVID.
2022 increase over 2021 reflects reopening of economy that was shutdown during "COVID".

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Danger posed by al Qaeda and Bin Laden were known during the 90's, Clinton's reign, and largely downplayed and mishandled the few times faint efforts to deal with.

Incorrect.

If you read Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, you find that there were half a dozen attempts to get the Bush Administration to take the threat of al Qaeda seriously.

It's not Clinton's fault that Conservatives never take things seriously because they aren't serious people.

Point about military degradation under Clinton wasn't about preventing the attack of 9/11 but of the shortfalls in capacity to deal with the sources afterward.

Wars of choice, not necessity.

 

[Stryder50]

No they don't. They might pay a larger share of taxes, but they do not pay the same effective rate. That declines when Conservatives are in charge, which is why Conservatives always, always, always produce deficits and debt. Always. No exceptions.


They are definitely getting a free ride which is why their wealth has grown astronomically since 2000.


Demand creates jobs, not supply. And the "investment" creates wealth for the rich, but not for anyone else.


Again with the projection. It's fairly obvious you are in over your head here since everything you're saying has no substance.

Total amount paid trumps percentage;

How Much Does Each U.S. Wealth Bracket Pay in Income Taxes?​

" In reality, tax liability is split along steep income lines. The top 1% of earners paid an eye-popping $561,523 on average, while the bottom 50% paid just $822.

And the disparity doesn’t stop at dollar figures. When it comes to tax rates, the difference is even more striking. According to the IRS’s Statistical Tables by Tax Percentile, the average effective federal income tax rate for all Americans stood at 14.5%, but for the top 1%, it was 26.1% – seven times higher than the 3.7% rate paid by the bottom half of earners. "

Who Pays the Most Taxes in America? Breakdown by Income Level (2025) - North American Community Hub

The debate over who pays their “fair share” in America’s tax system is louder than ever, but IRS data from 2022, just released in early 2025, gives us a clear picture. The average U.S. taxpayer paid $13,890 in federal income taxes, but this average hides extreme disparities. In reality, tax...

nchstats.com

" 2. How much of federal income tax dollars the rich pay — the revenue share
Multiple independent summaries of IRS and Treasury data converge: the top 1 percent pay roughly 40 percent of federal individual income tax receipts, the top 5 percent about 60 percent, and the top 10 percent account for more than 60 percent of all federal taxes or roughly 72 percent of income taxes depending on definitions used >. These headline numbers describe concentration of dollars collected, not the percent of each rich person’s income remitted; they show that a small slice of taxpayers supplies a majority of income‑tax revenue ."

What Percentage Of Federal Taxes Do Rich Americans Pay

Executive summary The richest Americans pay a large and growing share of federal income tax dollars: recent federal data and analyses put the top 1 perce...

factually.co

The other consideration is that the "tax breaks" for the "rich" often include investment in the private~wealth creation sector which creates REAL jobs and makes better use of those fund$ than guv'mint mismanagement would have.

 

[Stryder50]

Incorrect.

If you read Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, you find that there were half a dozen attempts to get the Bush Administration to take the threat of al Qaeda seriously.

It's not Clinton's fault that Conservatives never take things seriously because they aren't serious people.



Wars of choice, not necessity.

Says the supporter of the USA's enemies, and a confirming Marxist presenting anti-USA pravda.

Wars in response to attacks against the USA globally.

Even today, few in the USA understand Islamic Jihad fully nor the need to eliminate such, for both USA and Global peace and security.

Have a good day - Komrade

BTW, your posts have been off topic and a diversion of this thread.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Wealth creation is providing goods and/or services that have market value, i.e. others are willing to trade their goods and/or services for what you offer.

Incorrect. Wealth creation is the accumulation of revenue from multiple sources, but what is important is those sources are not equal or shared evenly. Which is why the wealth of the 1% has grown exponentially while everyone else has gone into debt.

Money is a means to measure wealth and circumvent~simplify barter.

Right, but you're the ones who want a barter system. Like paying for health care with chickens. I haven't forgotten that, though you might have. Again, this is because Conservatives do not understand supply and demand. Demand is what creates jobs and wealth. You can't create artificial demand by cutting taxes and services, that works directly against growth.

"When there are tax cuts, household debt increases because funding for essential services gets cut so that consumers have to pay more for things like education, health care, and energy."

First you fail to realize that if those are funded through taxes, the consumers are paying the middleman of government to further mismanage those market items.

Whenever Conservatives refuse to accept responsibility for things, comes this petulant attitude that consumers are to blame for the failure of Conservatives to deliver on any of their promises. The silliest being that cutting tax revenue increases tax revenue. That's silly. And it's always the excuse.

Inflation in costs for "health care" took a huge leap under Obama's "Obama-care" boon to the insurance companies, at a price paid for by the consumers/taxpayers/patients.

No they didn't. That is false. Health insurance premiums rose at rates slower than prior to the ACA:

While health care costs have continued to increase since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, they’ve done so at a slower rate than in the years before the law was passed.

You notice how I always have an substantive answer for everything but you have answers for absolutely nothing? This is why. You do not do the work.

"Energy" costs have risen largely due to Leftist/'Liberal' agenda and legislation that has wasted tax dollar$ and consumer co$t$ on unreliable solar and wind, while also reducing other forms of electrical generation. Also the Left/Liberals have pushed for vehicle electrification which increases Demand for electricity while the above mentioned actions have reduced Supply.

Solar and wind power make up a larger share of energy generation in this country than coal does. More people get their energy from renewable sources & nuclear (which I am in favor of) than they do coal and fossil fuels.

The green energy initiatives have succeeded and created jobs while natural gas companies have gone bankrupt.

From Google AI: Over 600 North American oil and natural gas companies have filed for bankruptcy since 2015. This includes hundreds of producers and oilfield service firms that succumbed to fluctuating commodity prices, debt burdens, and pandemic-era demand shocks.

Nothing to do with government policies.

Largest job growth under Left/'Liberals' is in guv'mint jobs which are not wealth creation but wealth redistribution at costs of more guv'mint Deficit&Debt along with more tax funding needs and inflation.

Incorrect. Bush created more government jobs than he did private sector jobs and in fact, LOST private sector jobs over his 8 years. -460,000 private sector jobs were lost over his term. He is the only POTUS along with Hoover who left office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Again, you would know this if you bothered to do the work.

Clearly, most to all Left/'Liberal' policies fail, @ 100%, nearly always. And then increase co$t$ when they have to be rectified.

Not at all and you haven't been able to name a single one.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

GDP includes guv'mint spending as if redistribution = creation.

Government spending makes up about 17% of GDP and every government worker spends in the consumer market like everyone else. The cashier at Best Buy doesn't care where you got your money, they just care that you have it.

2020 decline from 2019 was during Obama's term.

Obama was not President in 2020, Trump was.

2021 decline from 2020 reflects the economic slowdown and shutdowns, most at Democrat Governors demands due to COVID.

Plenty of states didn't do the lockdowns, and had Trump ordered a nationwide lockdown for 1 month, COVID would not have spread and became a pandemic.

2022 increase over 2021 reflects reopening of economy that was shutdown during "COVID".

Trump was not President in 2021 or 2022, Biden was.

You got every single thing wrong in your post.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Total amount paid trumps percentage;

How Much Does Each U.S. Wealth Bracket Pay in Income Taxes?​

" In reality, tax liability is split along steep income lines. The top 1% of earners paid an eye-popping $561,523 on average, while the bottom 50% paid just $822.

And the disparity doesn’t stop at dollar figures. When it comes to tax rates, the difference is even more striking. According to the IRS’s Statistical Tables by Tax Percentile, the average effective federal income tax rate for all Americans stood at 14.5%, but for the top 1%, it was 26.1% – seven times higher than the 3.7% rate paid by the bottom half of earners. "

Who Pays the Most Taxes in America? Breakdown by Income Level (2025) - North American Community Hub

The debate over who pays their “fair share” in America’s tax system is louder than ever, but IRS data from 2022, just released in early 2025, gives us a clear picture. The average U.S. taxpayer paid $13,890 in federal income taxes, but this average hides extreme disparities. In reality, tax...

nchstats.com

" 2. How much of federal income tax dollars the rich pay — the revenue share
Multiple independent summaries of IRS and Treasury data converge: the top 1 percent pay roughly 40 percent of federal individual income tax receipts, the top 5 percent about 60 percent, and the top 10 percent account for more than 60 percent of all federal taxes or roughly 72 percent of income taxes depending on definitions used >. These headline numbers describe concentration of dollars collected, not the percent of each rich person’s income remitted; they show that a small slice of taxpayers supplies a majority of income‑tax revenue ."

What Percentage Of Federal Taxes Do Rich Americans Pay

Executive summary The richest Americans pay a large and growing share of federal income tax dollars: recent federal data and analyses put the top 1 perce...

factually.co

The other consideration is that the "tax breaks" for the "rich" often include investment in the private~wealth creation sector which creates REAL jobs and makes better use of those fund$ than guv'mint mismanagement would have.

Dude, in the post you responded to I said they may make up a larger share of tax revenue, but their effective rate has declined so much so to the point that their effective rate is lower than yours or mine. I know I'm no billionaire and I assume you aren't either.

So you're not even arguing my point, you're just Conservasplaining to me something I already told you.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Says the supporter of the USA's enemies, and a confirming Marxist presenting anti-USA pravda.

Are you insane? I am a very loud and proud supporter of Israel, not our enemies. Again, this is an example of no substance. It's just you using buzzwords to cover for your ignorance.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Wars in response to attacks against the USA globally.

Right, not out of necessity. We didn't invade Iraq because of attacks against us globally because Iraq had nothing to do with any of that. We invaded Afghanistan to get OBL and that should have been the scope of the mission, but Conservatives insisted on shoving democracy down the throats of people who don't want it.

Even today, few in the USA understand Islamic Jihad fully nor the need to eliminate such, for both USA and Global peace and security.

OK, but what gives you the indication I don't understand this? I think Islam is the biggest threat to the world. That's why I don't support a 2SS anymore.