What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[garbage can]

Let me know what sort of metric you'd like to see, and I'll provide it to you.

What you can do is save the bullshit and tell me why you dislike jobs that make expensive stuff.

 

[richard_daily]

What you can do is save the bullshit and tell me why you dislike jobs that make expensive stuff.

That's a typical wingnut non-answer. I had hope you'd give me something more substantial to be perfectly honest.

Here is what YOU'RE proposing...

Lowering taxes on the wealthy... What THAT does, is lower GDP, lower job creation, and lower wages...


Here is evidence to that effect. If you want to attempt to disprove it, let me know.

Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

 

[fuckwaffle]

That's a typical wingnut non-answer. I had hope you'd give me something more substantial to be perfectly honest.

Here is what YOU'RE proposing...

Lowering taxes on the wealthy... What THAT does, is lower GDP, lower job creation, and lower wages...


Here is evidence to that effect. If you want to attempt to disprove it, let me know.

Too bad it looks like each graph proves you wrong...at least up util the year 2000. The way the data is displayed might lead a numbskull to believe the title, but after further analysis you will see the rise in each of the categories presented.

Of course I could pull a merc and criticize the site you culled the graphs from as a left wing nut house bent on the domination of the world, but I wouldn't do that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Too bad it looks like each graph proves you wrong...at least up util the year 2000. The way the data is displayed might lead a numbskull to believe the title, but after further analysis you will see the rise in each of the categories presented.

Of course I could pull a merc and criticize the site you culled the graphs from as a left wing nut house bent on the domination of the world, but I wouldn't do that.

No, none of the graphs prove me wrong, because there is decades of data there.

Can you point to specific legislation that you're referring to in the year 2000 that would have raised any of those things? Because it sure as fuck isn't lowering the tax rate for the top tier.

Let me know.


And feel free to criticize the site... Let me know if you have a different set of numbers from somewhere.

 

[richard_daily]

So if you simply seized all of the wealth and property of the "wealthy," by what percentage would the GDP be raised?

You've got it backwards (as usual, my kris-cross grandpa jeans wearing friend).

Lowering the tax rate on the top tier is seizing the wealth of everyone else.

 

[garbage can]

That's a typical wingnut non-answer. I had hope you'd give me something more substantial to be perfectly honest.

*laughing*....

You're a failure at pretending you know what you're talking about.

Reread the last few posts, you're a fool.

I made a simple observation about *expensive stuff* creating jobs.

You fucked it all up with your foolishness.

Edit...........what "non-answer?

 

[richard_daily]

*laughing*....

You're a failure at pretending you know what you're talking about.

Reread the last few posts, you're a fool.

I made a simple observation about *expensive stuff* creating jobs.

You fucked it all up with your foolishness.

Yes, and taking a shit also creates jobs.


Neither is an effective strategy for job creation.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

No it isn't. You have it all wrong. Lower all taxes and revenues increase. .

And, as I've posted, this isn't an effective means of creating jobs.

So basically, all it does is help to further promote income and wealth inequity.

In any case government cannot borrow 43 cents out of every dollar they spend. You cannot raise taxes enough to cover that kind irresponsible spending.

You have to lower spending AND raise taxes. Every independent non-partisan group has indicated this. You can stick your head in the sand if you'd like, it doesn't make your false, Grover Norquist soaked reality any more factual.

 

[mercury14]

No it isn't. You have it all wrong. Lower all taxes and revenues increase.

Except they don't increase enough to offset the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

There should be no lost revenue. When your income is cut do you go out and start spending money you don't have? Do you cut your spending instead?

When your income is cut do you stop paying the mortgage or eating or do you go into debt?

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

You're the dumbest idiot here, hope you know that. If you sufficiently cut spending to start with, you don't need to raise taxes. Nobody who has a clue advocates raising taxes in a recession. Borrowing 43% of every dollar you spend is UNSUSTAINABLE. You cannot raise taxes enough to balance the books without killing the United States of America as we know it. I know this is what you want, but you'll have to leave your blood in the street before that happens, dreamer.

Correction, nobody who has a clue advocates cutting spending as a means of getting out of a recession.

What's unsustainable is running a deficit, which the right wing pays lip service to, but never actually does anything about.

There was a budget surplus not too long ago. Guess how we got there? By raising taxes.

It also created jobs, and did more for the economy than the flawed and failed system you're attempting to argue for.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

You're an idiot. A balanced budget is a political shell game. We've had a national debt exceeding the government's ability to pay or to tax as long as I've been alive.

So you're in favor of deficit spending then?


Make up your mind, grandpa...

 

[Sean]

You're an idiot. A balanced budget is a political shell game. We've had a national debt exceeding the government's ability to pay or to tax as long as I've been alive.

Really? I thought Abe Lincoln balanced the budget.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I would pay the bills first, before deciding to spend money I didn't have. There's always bankruptcy for those who's debts exceed their income. One way or the other there is a reckoning. Do you walk over to the neighbors house and ask him to pay your bills when you get behind?

Would you declare bankruptcy and take the pains that come with that before asking for a loan?

No I don't walk over to my neighbors and ask them to pay the bills. But I'm also not so rich that when I offer IOU's that people aren't tripping over themselves to take them because they know I'll pay and I'll pay more than they paid initially. How bout you, are you that guy that people trip over to loan money?

Because America is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Would I get a loan if it was apparent I didn't have the means to pay it back?

Outside of monthly utilities, cable, I don't owe anyone any money I can't write a check for in full right now.

We have the means to pay it back. But for the sake of argument, yes would you take a loan before declaring bankruptcy or not?

I didn't ask about your current status, I asked if you were to either lose your income stream or come across new expenses what would you do?

 

[richard_daily]

Don't be an idiot. The government has to pay it's bills, but it has to cut taxes, regulations, and spending to do it.

No. That premise is entirely false, just like your teeth.