So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor...

[Contumacious]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

 

[Billy000]

Here's mine because I'm more mature than you:

How the Job Creators REALLY Spend Their Money Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

You're an idiot.

Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.

With the possible exception of cash, how can you think any of those is hoarding?

I guess I could ask again for you to provide a source that proves "the wealthy are hoarding most of their money",
but you'd just fail, miserably, again.

That's easy to prove. The top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

 

[Billy000]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're an idiot.

Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.

With the possible exception of cash, how can you think any of those is hoarding?

I guess I could ask again for you to provide a source that proves "the wealthy are hoarding most of their money",
but you'd just fail, miserably, again.

That's easy to prove. The top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

poor billy is 100% dependent on talking points from his links. Ask him to think on his own and he runs away with his liberal tail between his legs!

 

[Billy000]

That's easy to prove. The top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

poor billy is 100% dependent on talking points from his links. Ask him to think on his own and he runs away with his liberal tail between his legs!

Just admit you've lost the debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're an idiot.

Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held in unincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.

With the possible exception of cash, how can you think any of those is hoarding?

I guess I could ask again for you to provide a source that proves "the wealthy are hoarding most of their money",
but you'd just fail, miserably, again.

That's easy to prove. The top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

I know she isn't an expert, because I've read many of her silly articles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

 

[zeke]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Amazes me that people like you are to stupid to understand that those products that were produced and reflected in our GDP, were made to be........get ready for it...........consumed in some way, shape or form.

Why in the **** else do you think manufactures produce ANYTHING if those products were not being consumed?

And no matter how stupid you are, our economy (about 70%) is based on consumer spending. Government spending makes up the rest.

"Consuming isn't producing" Isn't that cute.

And producing something with out it ever being consumed is what you would call "smart business practices".
Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Amazes me that people like you are to stupid to understand that those products that were produced and reflected in our GDP, were made to be........get ready for it...........consumed in some way, shape or form.

Why in the **** else do you think manufactures produce ANYTHING if those products were not being consumed?

And no matter how stupid you are, our economy (about 70%) is based on consumer spending. Government spending makes up the rest.

"Consuming isn't producing" Isn't that cute.

And producing something with out it ever being consumed is what you would call "smart business practices".
Right?

And if you drive the producers out of business, you can hand out all the welfare and unemployment checks you want, they won't increase DOMESTIC PRODUCTION, you idiot.

 

[zeke]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Amazes me that people like you are to stupid to understand that those products that were produced and reflected in our GDP, were made to be........get ready for it...........consumed in some way, shape or form.

Why in the **** else do you think manufactures produce ANYTHING if those products were not being consumed?

And no matter how stupid you are, our economy (about 70%) is based on consumer spending. Government spending makes up the rest.

"Consuming isn't producing" Isn't that cute.

And producing something with out it ever being consumed is what you would call "smart business practices".
Right?

And if you drive the producers out of business, you can hand out all the welfare and unemployment checks you want, they won't increase DOMESTIC PRODUCTION, you idiot.

You really think that consumer demand doesn't drive the economy. And that someone is driving the producers out of business.

I hate to tell you this but a lack of ******* demand for a companies goods or services is the reason companies go out of business. Good god.

YOU know why there is a lack of demand? Lack of jobs. There has been tremendous job loss over the past few years. Especially job loss in the good paying manufacturing fields. Something you support I am sure. Outsourcing they call it.

So if we ship out the good paying middle class jobs, keep the low paying service sector jobs, you still think a company is going to expand hiring and producing for a demand that is not there? Ain't happening. I don't care how much money the ultra rich have, they won't waste it building business's when there is no demand for the business's goods or service's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Amazes me that people like you are to stupid to understand that those products that were produced and reflected in our GDP, were made to be........get ready for it...........consumed in some way, shape or form.

Why in the **** else do you think manufactures produce ANYTHING if those products were not being consumed?

And no matter how stupid you are, our economy (about 70%) is based on consumer spending. Government spending makes up the rest.

"Consuming isn't producing" Isn't that cute.

And producing something with out it ever being consumed is what you would call "smart business practices".
Right?

And if you drive the producers out of business, you can hand out all the welfare and unemployment checks you want, they won't increase DOMESTIC PRODUCTION, you idiot.

You really think that consumer demand doesn't drive the economy. And that someone is driving the producers out of business.

I hate to tell you this but a lack of ******* demand for a companies goods or services is the reason companies go out of business. Good god.

YOU know why there is a lack of demand? Lack of jobs. There has been tremendous job loss over the past few years. Especially job loss in the good paying manufacturing fields. Something you support I am sure. Outsourcing they call it.

So if we ship out the good paying middle class jobs, keep the low paying service sector jobs, you still think a company is going to expand hiring and producing for a demand that is not there? Ain't happening. I don't care how much money the ultra rich have, they won't waste it building business's when there is no demand for the business's goods or service's.

Let's pretend Obama drove coal producers out of business and we used additional imported oil to generate electricity. How much extra welfare spending would we need to make up the difference?

 

[Billy000]

That's easy to prove. The top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

I know she isn't an expert, because I've read many of her silly articles.

You and I both know you didn't read anything else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The nation doesn't have wealth, the people do.
And they didn't become wealthy by "hoarding most of their money", idjit.

Reasons for U.S. Income Inequality

By Kimberly Amadeo
US Economy Expert

Kimberly is many things, starting with funny.
One thing she isn't, is a US Economy Expert.

Thanks, I'm enjoying the random links that don't prove your claim.
Why don't you cut and paste the part that you feel helps your case, while still including the link.
It will save time when I mock you.

How do you know she isn't? You sure as hell aren't an expert. What room do you have to talk?

I know she isn't an expert, because I've read many of her silly articles.

You and I both know you didn't read anything else.

She's an idiot, like you. I see why you like her.

 

[Billy000]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses. It astounds me you RWs are too dumb to understand that.

"Consuming isn't producing"

Gee no shit. Companies aren't going to produce unless we are consuming.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses. It astounds me you RWs are too dumb to understand that.

"Consuming isn't producing"

Gee no shit. Companies aren't going to produce unless we are consuming.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses.

Or, heaven forbid, we could cut government spending.

 

[Billy000]

..
So republicans now that you know that cutting taxes for the wealthy has proven to be a poor
economic stimulator,t

It is NOT enough to cut taxes .. the government must reduce spending. Bush II spend gazillions invading AfPak and Iraq.

Reducing tax AND AND expenditures is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS an excellent economic stimulator......ALWAYS.

It is far from excellent for the investment class. This is a consumption based economy. Tax cuts are better served on the middle class which is the heart and soul of our economy. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. Investment accounts for 30% of the economy. That is why tax cuts for them do very little. The money they do save is typically kept, not invested. Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

70% of our economy is consumer spending.

I've always hated that silly stupid stat.
Our GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
Consuming isn't producing. Sorry.

Also, for every dollar lost in revenue, there is only .59 cents in economic growth.

This is why I love tax cuts.
For every dollar that Americans get to keep of their own money, GDP grows by 59 cents.
Only an idiot, or a liberal, but then I repeat myself, would favor tax hikes.

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses. It astounds me you RWs are too dumb to understand that.

"Consuming isn't producing"

Gee no shit. Companies aren't going to produce unless we are consuming.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses.

Or, heaven forbid, we could cut government spending.

You're right we do need to cut spending. Defense spending. Both Bush and Obama have spent trillions on it. It, besides tax cuts, is the main reason why our debt is so high. You republican hypocrites however, don't want to cut it.

 

[Listening]

From when he took office until now it seems the economy is slowly making its way back. But that fact you choose to ignore.
The proof is there for anyone that is not a biased person
Keep up the good work of being a denier.

Shitbag....Obama hasn't helped the economy, he has slowed it and even damaged some sectors.

Red states are leading the economic surge despite Obama's attacks on fossil fuel companies and other non-liberal companies.

More people are out of work under Obama than in our entire history.

Most jobs created today are part-time because companies can't afford to provide FTE healthcare any more thanks to Obamacare.

Stupid **** scum like you come here to show off your stupidity.

...economic stimulator, where is your proof that any rightwing economic stimulator is effective? When will you just admit you have been wrong all along?

Bush's pathetic job growth and the recent Kansas experiment is more than enough proof.

Demand side economic is the heart of Obama's stimulus package. It alone supports close to 3 million private jobs still existing today. A total of 10.3 million jobs were created since Obama came to office.

Republican Lie Dies as the Obama Economy Hits 48 Straight Months of Job Growth

Economies recover with or without the leadership of morons like Obama. He had nothing to do with with that 48 months of job growth.

You don't wipe as many jobs as got wiped out at the end of Bush's administration and not see many of them come back, especially when they were more due to a constipated credit system.

But you keep your head up Obama's skirt...I'm sure you like it there.

 

[Iceweasel]

Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the govenment needs to borrow to pay the expenses. It astounds me you RWs are too dumb to understand that.

You are astounded because you're a moron. The government can, and should, borrow and spend less. Libs eliminate that from the equation as if the spending were inevitable. Plus, they can't fathom how confiscating people's earnings could influence their spending.

 

[1776]

I watch certain shows on FOXNews then see what CNN is babbling about but have sources that you will never be allowed to see.

Let's just say I knew Obama was lying about the fall of Islamic terrorism, Iraq being secure after the pullout, etc while liberal scum like you just eat the bullshit fed to you via NPR, PBS, msnbc and kook websites.

Shitbag....Obama hasn't helped the economy, he has slowed it and even damaged some sectors.

Red states are leading the economic surge despite Obama's attacks on fossil fuel companies and other non-liberal companies.

More people are out of work under Obama than in our entire history.

Most jobs created today are part-time because companies can't afford to provide FTE healthcare any more thanks to Obamacare.

Stupid **** scum like you come here to show off your stupidity.

...economic stimulator, where is your proof that any rightwing economic stimulator is effective? When will you just admit you have been wrong all along?

Bush's pathetic job growth and the recent Kansas experiment is more than enough proof.

Demand side economic is the heart of Obama's stimulus package. It alone supports close to 3 million private jobs still existing today. A total of 10.3 million jobs were created since Obama came to office.

Republican Lie Dies as the Obama Economy Hits 48 Straight Months of Job Growth

What's your go-to website for news?

 

[The Rabbi]

There are much more effective ways to boost growth.

so name a more effective way than supply side tax cuts!! Are you an economist or a liberal blowhard?

Demand side economics like Obama's stimulus package. See millions of people lost their jobs against their will so Obama extended unemployment benefits. This put money in the pockets of people would otherwise not be spending money. They spent the extra money immediately on food, clothing and shelter. This stimulus to demand boosted economic growth.

The stimulus was the worst economic program in history since FDR's New Deal. It has produced 2% growth, a record low. It has kept millions out of the workforce. And it has busted the budget.
If that's your idea of success I'd hate to see what you consider failure.

Anotehr Billy Triple Wank fail thread.