Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

 

[JonKoch]

LMAOROG

Barrypuppetcare has been an epic fail and leftards have whined, bitched, moaned, griped and complain that the neocons didn't help them.....how ******* funny is that? The neocons were not needed to pass this 2,700 plus pages of pork-filled legislation of tens of thousands of rules and regulations. No sweat off of my ass. I didn't participate in it nor did I comply with Barrypuppetcare mandates nor would I ever. **** you and your little commie agenda. Come at me with some facts and data instead of a meme. The repub neocons can kiss my ass just like the fabian socialist leftists. I got out from under the UCC game and reclaimed my estate/birthright. The "benefits" offered versus what they were stealing from me made it a very easy decision....of course you have no idea about what I am talking about or what a "secured party creditor" entails. You are a "DEMCRAT"!!! All about the collective and sucking off the efforts of others for the (snicker) "greater good"....which is just a fancy way of saying you need a nanny and that "gubermint" is your god......how ******* pathetic. Hopefully your gonads will eventually drop but I kinda doubt it,

Any time you think you have got the "game" to take me on in a debate....step up to the plate and I will add your cyber pelt along to the others I have hanging....bet me and lose.


(snicker)

.

Game? Bubs, I don't deal with sociopaths!


All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben Franklin



DAMN LIBERTARIAN LOONS WHO "BELIEVE " IN MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES!

No, you and your fellow commies avoid debating because it's obvious what you are......useful idiots.

Since you have no clue about how the financial system by a foreign owned central bank created this and how your beloved "gubermint" is a corporate entity that has caused wage slavery and poverty, of course you would believe that we need "MORE gubermint", more taxes, more fees, more entitlements and subsidies. Idiots like you can never get enough "gubermint" or enough of other people's income.

Bubba, you wing nut anti feders are a funny bunch not letting REALITY into your world views.

 

[JonKoch]

YET AS THE CBO LINK SHOWS, ONLY $154 BILLION WAS SPENT IN F/Y 2009. GO FIGURE MORON

the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.

The CBO is wrong, idiot.
They spent $247 billion by December 2008.
They had to borrow $247 billion to do it.

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP???? LMAOROG

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.
Obama's Spending: 'Inferno' or Not? - FactCheck.org



TOTAL OUTLAYS (Billions of dollars)
TARP FY 2009 - TARP $154

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


To be sure, some of that is attributable to Bush. But most of TARP is turning a profit, funneling money back into the treasury; the actual net cost of TARP in FY2009 was $154 billion, but $108 billion is expected to be returned to the treasury in FY2010.
A Visual History of U.S. Government Deficits



IT RETURNED $108 BILLION IN FY 2010 BUBS


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP????

Yes.

CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.

They're using "subsidy cost" instead of money spent.
We should do that with defense spending.
We can pretend the USS Gerald R. Ford, $13 billion price tag, only cost $3 billion, because it was an asset purchase. LOL!

But most of TARP is turning a profit

Yes, TARP was profitable. And the payment of that profit and the return of the original investment made Obama's spending spree look smaller.

Bubba, you are just a right wing liar undeterred by FACTS AND DATA!

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in new debt and the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII.

The American people were so impressed with his success, they gave the Republicans control of the House, Senate and the Presidency and 33 governorships.

Thanks Obama!

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies that Obama had to rescue and keep US out of GOP great depression 2.0

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House? Yep, and Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too
Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too

 

[JonKoch]

Sure. It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, capital Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law.

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line. Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?

No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

 

[JonKoch]

It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.

The CBO is wrong, idiot.
They spent $247 billion by December 2008.
They had to borrow $247 billion to do it.

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP???? LMAOROG

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.
Obama's Spending: 'Inferno' or Not? - FactCheck.org



TOTAL OUTLAYS (Billions of dollars)
TARP FY 2009 - TARP $154

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


To be sure, some of that is attributable to Bush. But most of TARP is turning a profit, funneling money back into the treasury; the actual net cost of TARP in FY2009 was $154 billion, but $108 billion is expected to be returned to the treasury in FY2010.
A Visual History of U.S. Government Deficits



IT RETURNED $108 BILLION IN FY 2010 BUBS


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP????

Yes.

CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.

They're using "subsidy cost" instead of money spent.
We should do that with defense spending.
We can pretend the USS Gerald R. Ford, $13 billion price tag, only cost $3 billion, because it was an asset purchase. LOL!

But most of TARP is turning a profit

Yes, TARP was profitable. And the payment of that profit and the return of the original investment made Obama's spending spree look smaller.

Bubba, you are just a right wing liar undeterred by FACTS AND DATA!

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in new debt and the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII.

The American people were so impressed with his success, they gave the Republicans control of the House, Senate and the Presidency and 33 governorships.

Thanks Obama!

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies that Obama had to rescue and keep US out of GOP great depression 2.0

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House? Yep, and Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too
Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya

Poor Obama, president for 8 years, not responsible for a thing.

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House?

Gerrymandering? That thing you can only do if you control the state government? LOL!

Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

And they only hold 48 seats? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie

You mean before he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Have you figured out yet how much he raised SS tax rates?

Or are you still as dumb as a ******* stump?

don't think ANYONE believes 100% works

Why don't you explain why 100% doesn't work? The stoner needs an econ lesson.

And thanks for the bar chart, I knew the 1% paid higher rates than the 99%.

 

[JonKoch]

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP???? LMAOROG

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.
Obama's Spending: 'Inferno' or Not? - FactCheck.org



TOTAL OUTLAYS (Billions of dollars)
TARP FY 2009 - TARP $154

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


To be sure, some of that is attributable to Bush. But most of TARP is turning a profit, funneling money back into the treasury; the actual net cost of TARP in FY2009 was $154 billion, but $108 billion is expected to be returned to the treasury in FY2010.
A Visual History of U.S. Government Deficits



IT RETURNED $108 BILLION IN FY 2010 BUBS


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP????

Yes.

CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.

They're using "subsidy cost" instead of money spent.
We should do that with defense spending.
We can pretend the USS Gerald R. Ford, $13 billion price tag, only cost $3 billion, because it was an asset purchase. LOL!

But most of TARP is turning a profit

Yes, TARP was profitable. And the payment of that profit and the return of the original investment made Obama's spending spree look smaller.

Bubba, you are just a right wing liar undeterred by FACTS AND DATA!

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in new debt and the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII.

The American people were so impressed with his success, they gave the Republicans control of the House, Senate and the Presidency and 33 governorships.

Thanks Obama!

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies that Obama had to rescue and keep US out of GOP great depression 2.0

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House? Yep, and Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too
Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya

Poor Obama, president for 8 years, not responsible for a thing.

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House?

Gerrymandering? That thing you can only do if you control the state government? LOL!

Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

And they only hold 48 seats? LOL!

JANUARY 17, 2013

“The rationale was straightforward,” reads the memo. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

 

[JonKoch]

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

Weird, lowest effective "tax burden" on those "job creators in 80+ years and ALL they create are crappy jobs say right wingers?

 

[JonKoch]

That is your claim, right winger.

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are circulating capital under our form of Capitalism?

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie

You mean before he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Have you figured out yet how much he raised SS tax rates?

Or are you still as dumb as a ******* stump?

don't think ANYONE believes 100% works

Why don't you explain why 100% doesn't work? The stoner needs an econ lesson.

And thanks for the bar chart, I knew the 1% paid higher rates than the 99%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP????

Yes.

CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.

They're using "subsidy cost" instead of money spent.
We should do that with defense spending.
We can pretend the USS Gerald R. Ford, $13 billion price tag, only cost $3 billion, because it was an asset purchase. LOL!

But most of TARP is turning a profit

Yes, TARP was profitable. And the payment of that profit and the return of the original investment made Obama's spending spree look smaller.

Bubba, you are just a right wing liar undeterred by FACTS AND DATA!

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in new debt and the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII.

The American people were so impressed with his success, they gave the Republicans control of the House, Senate and the Presidency and 33 governorships.

Thanks Obama!

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies that Obama had to rescue and keep US out of GOP great depression 2.0

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House? Yep, and Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too
Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too

New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya

Poor Obama, president for 8 years, not responsible for a thing.

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House?

Gerrymandering? That thing you can only do if you control the state government? LOL!

Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too

And they only hold 48 seats? LOL!

JANUARY 17, 2013

“The rationale was straightforward,” reads the memo. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

Yup. You can't gerrymander unless you control the state government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers. Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming. That brings on starvation.

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

Weird, lowest effective "tax burden" on those "job creators in 80+ years and ALL they create are crappy jobs say right wingers?

Weird, Obama raised taxes on those mean rich guys and his recovery still sucked.
His $9.3 trillion in new debt still nearly doubled the debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can it not produce a positive multiplier,

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

if more people are circulating capital

The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie

You mean before he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Have you figured out yet how much he raised SS tax rates?

Or are you still as dumb as a ******* stump?

don't think ANYONE believes 100% works

Why don't you explain why 100% doesn't work? The stoner needs an econ lesson.

And thanks for the bar chart, I knew the 1% paid higher rates than the 99%.

Yup, Bill and Hillary got rich fooling clowns like you.

 

[JonKoch]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Least of all idiots like you.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot

How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie

You mean before he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Have you figured out yet how much he raised SS tax rates?

Or are you still as dumb as a ******* stump?

don't think ANYONE believes 100% works

Why don't you explain why 100% doesn't work? The stoner needs an econ lesson.

And thanks for the bar chart, I knew the 1% paid higher rates than the 99%.

Yup, Bill and Hillary got rich fooling clowns like you.

 

[JonKoch]

Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.

Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?

Irony is ironic.

Weird, lowest effective "tax burden" on those "job creators in 80+ years and ALL they create are crappy jobs say right wingers?

Weird, Obama raised taxes on those mean rich guys and his recovery still sucked.
His $9.3 trillion in new debt still nearly doubled the debt.

Recovery? After 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies???

Weird Bubba?