Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[danielpalos]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

 

[Tehon]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

 

[danielpalos]

We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. End the practice of labor exploitation,.

why would you worry about labor exploitation and not owner exploitation??

 

[danielpalos]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-*******-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the ******* point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the ******* government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't ******* rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS.


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain and read a link

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

They performed so well, the government had to take them over.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

 

[JonKoch]

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-*******-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the ******* point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

 

[JonKoch]

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.


They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.


The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't ******* rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS.


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain and read a link

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

They performed so well, the government had to take them over.

DERP!

You mean thanks to Dubya/GOP's "home ownership society" Bankster ponzi scheme? Yep

Still WAY out performed the private sector

 

[JonKoch]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

 

[JonKoch]

https://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/****-that-shit.jpg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-*******-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the ******* point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

 

[JonKoch]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?

 

[JonKoch]

What you said:

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the ******* point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

 

[JonKoch]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Sorry MORON, the posters comment speaks for itself, he was talking JOBS EXPATRIATED.

To see an example of a LIE by you look HERE

Why else would he mean to stop deductions on expatriated workers Bubs? LMAOROG

 

[JonKoch]

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?

Bubba, HOW would firms be able to have a tax break in the USA if they weren't either working here OR based in the US and OUTSOURCING Gawd

WILL YOU EVER BE HONEST BUBS OR JUST CONTINUE TO BE AN ANKLE BITER???