No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

Johnny Retro

Well-Known Member
Is this how you "own" debates on economics? LMAO
abondonconflict is very simple minded and rarely posts anything of merit. when hes not busy searching for meme's on google images, hes busy riding UB's dick from thread to thread. its actually quite amusing to see his failed attempts at arguing economics
 

beenthere

New Member
abondonconflict is very simple minded and rarely posts anything of merit. when hes not busy searching for meme's on google images, hes busy riding UB's dick from thread to thread. its actually quite amusing to see his failed attempts at arguing economics
Neither one of them know jackshit about basic economics, it's a matter of which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Precisely. Clinton is to be lauded for having reversed the spendthrift ways of (shock!) the previous three terms under Republicans. Bushbaby promptly squandered that bit of leverage. cn
I just want to interject something here that has not been mentioned and I know that everybody wants to be accurate and factual. Didn't Clinton have a republican controlled congress? I believe it was the first time in like 40 years that the GOP took control.
 

tranka32

Active Member
I stopped reading after page 4 so excuse me if I am off topic. I am a member of one of the largest and greatest socialist organizations of all time. Oh and did I mention that my health care is free? Can you guess my affiliation? The United States Armed Forces... Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't watch the far left or the far right for profit media. Remember they are business entities who pander for ratings and commercial sponsorship.
 

beenthere

New Member
My point is, Bill Clinton cut taxes on the "rich" in order to stimulate the economy!
No, get your facts straight, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2%
Kinda foolish to jump into a debate touting facts when you have no clue what you're talking about. Clinton cut capital gains taxes from 28% to 20% and gave tax breaks and incentives to businesses. This is the same tax Obama wants to raise so the "rich" will "pay their fair share" he calls his new tax plan the "Buffett rule", do your homework chief!
what in the hell are you blathering about?

Butthurt that I pointed out how you need to get facts straight?

Facts straight huh, dude, a third grader could follow this. LOL
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
taxes should go up for the wealthy for the quite simple reason that income inequality is driving us towards a fascist plutocracy at an alarming rate.
 

Ringsixty

Well-Known Member
The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment, which the chairman of the GOP-led House oversight committee said is being done for “clearly political purposes.”
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made the assertion during a hearing on how the administration counts so-called green jobs and the Labor Department’s recent change to how reporters can access key unemployment reports and other information.
The Labor Department "has jeopardized the integrity of employment data in some cases for clearly political reasons," he said.
Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs – a major initiative for President Obama.
“It’s about politics. It’s always been about politics,” said Issa, R-Calif. “If you work at the Salvation Army, that’s a green job.”
When Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin balked on what qualifies as a green job under the agency definition, Issa responded, “Just answer the question.”
“Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels -- is that a green job?” Issa asked.
“Yes,” replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and “the guy who puts gas in a school bus” are all defined as green jobs.
Hush...no one is to know this little secret...Shhhhhhh !
Wait don't worry...their are all sheep with blinders on.
 

beenthere

New Member
taxes should go up for the wealthy for the quite simple reason that income inequality is driving us towards a fascist plutocracy at an alarming rate.

Think about what you just said Bucky, if taxes are raised on the wealthy, that revenue is confiscated by the federal government.
Now tell me how money that is redistributed in the form of entitlements will equate to income equality, will your income go up?
.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Think about what you just said Bucky, if taxes are raised on the wealthy, that revenue is confiscated by the federal government.
Now tell me how money that is redistributed in the form of entitlements will equate to income equality, will your income go up?
.
your question is retarded and irrelevant so i'm just going to ignore it. i'll address it tangentially by noting that if you're worried about "redistribution", you should be with me since the redistribution we are witnessing is all upward. if we tax those at the top at a higher rate, we creep closer to reasonable levels of income inequality even if we don't redistribute it to the middle class.

think about this though. the last time we had income inequality at these levels and a business man as president, the great depression happened. so i think the income inequality issue is one worthy of serious debate and not to be shouted down by cold war warriors like you who love to scream about socialism and communism at every turn.
 

beenthere

New Member
your question is retarded and irrelevant so i'm just going to ignore it. i'll address it tangentially by noting that if you're worried about "redistribution", you should be with me since the redistribution we are witnessing is all upward. if we tax those at the top at a higher rate, we creep closer to reasonable levels of income inequality even if we don't redistribute it to the middle class.

think about this though. the last time we had income inequality at these levels and a business man as president, the great depression happened. so i think the income inequality issue is one worthy of serious debate and not to be shouted down by cold war warriors like you who love to scream about socialism and communism at every turn.
Obviously my question was a bit deep for you, but you did manage to show your true colors. Even if higher taxes on the wealthy won't help the working class, it will however serve as retribution.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Obviously my question was a bit deep for you, but you did manage to show your true colors. Even if higher taxes on the wealthy won't help the working class, it will however serve as retribution.
there ya go, start crying class warfare.

it's not retribution, it's about not letting history repeat itself. it's about preserving this nation. it's about balancing the power. it;s about preventing oligarchy.

moar focks nuze pls.
 
Top