No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

Excuse me, the stupidity you exude must be contagious, I must calm. Yeah dude, I got mad when you finally understood the whole point of the entire debate as if it were your own idea, then used it as a premise to rebuke outright with out actually saying anything to support it, and ignoring pages of arguments that TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DON'T WORK.

abandonconflict said:

Excuse me, the stupidity you exude must be contagious, I must calm. Yeah dude, I got mad when you finally understood the whole point of the entire debate as if it were your own idea, then used it as a premise to rebuke outright with out actually saying anything to support it, and ignoring pages of arguments that TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DON'T WORK.

Click to expand...

he's still waiting for trickle down to work and for his plant to green up.

There are few exceptions, such as medicine and even the attention of a med pro. In these, supply commands the market, unless Cannabis is legal. Cannabis has the potential to obviate demand for many drugs. That is a whole other thread though.

The Majority of the money in new taxation will come from the bottom 99% , not the top 1%.

abandonconflict said:

Demand IS capable of bringing supply back from the dead you nimwit.

Click to expand...

Demand is absolutely useless if products and services cannot be supplied to the consumer, you knuckle dragger.

beenthere said:

Demand is absolutely useless if products and services cannot be supplied to the consumer, you knuckle dragger.

Click to expand...

not exactly true. if coke isn't availabl, demand for pepsi will go up. the demand won't go away even if supply does, demand will just switch to the next best alternative.

abandonconflict said:

There are few exceptions, such as medicine and even the attention of a med pro. In these, supply commands the market, unless Cannabis is legal. Cannabis has the potential to obviate demand for many drugs. That is a whole other thread though.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

not exactly true. if coke isn't availabl, demand for pepsi will go up. the demand won't go away even if supply does, demand will just switch to the next best alternative.

Click to expand...

You are wrong again.
In a free market economy, supply is as dependent on demand, as demand is on supply. A perfect balance between the two creates a thriving economy. You are forgetting the fact that Pepsi is still a supplier, if Coke isn't available, Pepsi can and will monopolize the market, prices will skyrocket because of the lack of competitive suppliers, before long, Pepsi's gross sales will plummet and they will have priced themselves out of the market. Now, when Pepsi follows Coke and is no longer available, another "supplier" will step in and fill that market because demand alone cannot.

That's the beauty of the free market, competition keeps the relative market price in check, therefore keeping the balance of optimum sales and profits.

beenthere said:

You are wrong again.
In a free market economy, supply is as dependent on demand, as demand is on supply. A perfect balance between the two creates a thriving economy. You are forgetting the fact that Pepsi is still a supplier, if Coke isn't available, Pepsi can and will monopolize the market, prices will skyrocket because of the lack of competitive suppliers, before long, Pepsi's gross sales will plummet and they will have priced themselves out of the market. Now, when Pepsi follows Coke and is no longer available, another "supplier" will step in and fill that market because demand alone cannot.

That's the beauty of the free market, competition keeps the relative market price in check, therefore keeping the balance of optimum sales and profits.

Click to expand...

so you're saying if corn is no longer supplied tomorrow, people won't go out and demand corn seeds and garden rakes?

if gas is no longer supplied tomorrow, people won't go out and demand stoves and firewood?

pepsi and coke was the quickest one i could think of, i can go on all day.

beenthere said:

another "supplier" will step in and fill that market.

Click to expand...

This is correct.

UncleBuck said:

so you're saying if corn is no longer supplied tomorrow, people won't go out and demand corn seeds and garden rakes?

if gas is no longer supplied tomorrow, people won't go out and demand stoves and firewood?

pepsi and coke was the quickest one i could think of, i can go on all day.

Click to expand...

You're just not getting it, just about anyone can plant and grow corn, how many of us are capable of manufacturing cans and bottles of Coca Cola?

And how many workers will you employ with your corn seeds and rake, isn't this debate primarily about supply and demand, and the jobs it creates?

I'm sure you can go on all day, but it's going to be in circles!

And when the market demands something else, another supplier will come and satisfy the demand, because that is socioeconomic mobility.

beenthere said:

You're just not getting it, just about anyone can plant and grow corn, how many of us are capable of manufacturing cans and bottles of Coca Cola?

And how many workers will you employ with your corn seeds and rake, isn't this debate primarily about supply and demand, and the jobs it creates?

I'm sure you can go on all day, but it's going to be in circles!

Click to expand...

i'm making fun of your "people won't work hard without wealthy "job creators" to give them jobs" line of BS you love to spew.

abandonconflict said:

And when the market demands something else, another supplier will come and satisfy the demand, because that is socioeconomic mobility.

Click to expand...

You are correct about another supplier filling a changing demand, but that wouldn't define socio-economic mobility.
Socio-economic mobility is when people move up in social class.

beenthere said:

You are correct about another supplier filling a changing demand, but that wouldn't define socio-economic mobility.
Socio-economic mobility is when people move up in social class.

Click to expand...

which is less and less accessible as income inequality diverges to pre-great depression levels.

UncleBuck said:

i'm making fun of your "people won't work hard without wealthy "job creators" to give them jobs" line of BS you love to spew.

Click to expand...

You can make fun of it all you want, but it's a fact. In this economy, supply can only be achieved by capital, and only the rich have that capital. On the other hand, like I've always contended, supply can only exist when there is demand. Unfortunately, because of greed and power (corporatism), the uber wealthy have monopolized the free market and in turn monopolized wages.

And the only way to combat crony capitalism, is to get government out of the free market.
Most people will tell you that the power of government to regulate will protect us from out of control capitalism, when the fact is, only the large corporations can operate under those regulations. This is precisely how all of our mom and pop stores are all but history. If you don't think that the federal government is in bed with the corporate conglomerates, government is surly doing it's job in brain washing you into believing them.

beenthere said:

You can make fun of it all you want, but it's a fact. In this economy, supply can only be achieved by capital, and only the rich have that capital. On the other hand, like I've always contended, supply can only exist when there is demand. Unfortunately, because of greed and power (corporatism), the uber wealthy have monopolized the free market and in turn monopolized wages.

And the only way to combat crony capitalism, is to get government out of the free market.
Most people will tell you that the power of government to regulate will protect us from out of control capitalism, when the fact is, only the large corporations can operate under those regulations. This is precisely how all of our mom and pop stores are all but history. If you don't think that the federal government is in bed with the corporate conglomerates, government is surly doing it's job in brain washing you into believing them.

Click to expand...

absolutely backwards.

if you want to throw gasoline onto the crony capitalism fire, you don't get government out. that's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

no anti-trust laws? retarded. the monopoly example you gave earlier of a free market that corrects itself also harms way too many along the way and only works the way you describe it in a theoretical fantasy world.

a totally free market is the perfect way for those with power and wealth to exploit those without and suffer no consequences (pitch fork mobs aside?).

anyhoo, i wouldn't expect any better logic from a guy who still thinks that trickle down works despite 30 years of evidence to the contrary.

edit: and of course the government is in bed with corporations, but fixing it by getting the government out is the proverbial baby with the bath water i mentioned. fixing the corruption fixes the crony capitalism, and that is up to an educated electorate, which we clearly do not have.