The Tea Party Movement
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
By "Look where it's gotten us," were you commenting on something other than the current economic meltdown?
*chortle*
As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget.
Clinton's tax hike was in 1993, before the economy took off again.
Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss.
Why would it do that?
Of course. No one takes you seriously anyhow.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
I am glad you provided great proof with all your arguments... Wait....
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Because a full black market system would turn into a bunch of bottom up individual ponzi schemes, instead of the consolidated top down one we have going right now, and subsequently all the profit/profiteers would leak out of the country to where the real efficient productive economies are? See: Albanian Capitalism.
This. I'd start in on where most of this is just a bunch of bull**** from an economics perspective, both rightish and leftist, but what's the point with discussing anything with a hit and run, one-line wonder buffoon that doesn't take himself serious enough to form a respectable argument?
The only thing I'll add was that punititive tax nonsense is toward the top as being one of the most uninformed comments I've ever read. I guess this dud wanted to take on the entire profession with that dopey groan.
One Brow just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. You could state that the sky is blue and he'd argue with you.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what money is...
I mean, if saying the word "labor" gets me branded as a commie (but everybody knows what I'm referring to), then where do we go to get down to the material fundamentals? Where do we start agreeing?
If nobody responds then I'm going to assume the silence is because "money" is a vortex where all your confusions go to "get solved"... I mean, to get shoved under the rug.
I mean, if saying the word "labor" gets me branded as a commie (but everybody knows what I'm referring to), then where do we go to get down to the material fundamentals? Where do we start agreeing?
If nobody responds then I'm going to assume the silence is because "money" is a vortex where all your confusions go to "get solved"... I mean, to get shoved under the rug.
Why do you insist on going down what you know is a rat hole? Why don't you put forth a definition that we can work with? Why do we have to start at your beginning, as if discussing Adam and Eve, the big bang, micelles, or whatever floats your boat?
Current money is a piece of paper validated via taxing power. Your turn.
Current money is a piece of paper validated via taxing power. Your turn.
DeliveryBoy
Active Member
Yes, there are in fact black people that identify with the John Birch Party. That doesn't mean they aren't severly outnumbered. The vast majority of the Teatards are white, just like the GOP. Deal with it.
I find it telling that you try to dispute the "white" claim before the "dumb" claim.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Tax cuts for the rich? When has this EVER been a good thing?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Interesting how even here, at the moment when I force your hand to a definition of one of the most FUNDAMENTAL variables in your calculus, you fail to mention labor.
Look, dude, I'm not going to get into this with you. You have some good points, I'll admit that, but you also seem to refuse to acknowledge that you are hiding in some serious abstractions. Most people do it. The fact that you take this as a "rat hole" and not a fundamental issue is alarming, IMO.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
When it created over 20 million jobs for Reagan and over 8 million for GWB. It is like only the real thing I thought Bush did right.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
too bad those jobs were overseas, eh?
TheMulletMutilator
Member
No actually they weren't. As far as Bush goes, unemployment was what, 5.5% throughout his 8 years? I wish it was that now.
You know what? Nobody likes your smart *** remarks. She obviously KNOWS what money is, she just wants to argue. You're a pea-brain *insert super smart-sounding burn here*. Go ahead, sweep THAT under the rug.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
#with pout via trout:
Don't make fun of my wifey and my mommy; you're soooo not cool to women. Oh, and here's a burn wherein I insinuate that you are an idiot and a woman. done.
Some people I strongly disagree with present knowledge, evidence, willingness to exchange ideas, and understanding that merits a "great proof", and in those discussions I happily do detailed research and present full arguments. Some posters present knowledge, bluster, the need to project their ideas without exhange, and misunderstanding that merely merits a note on the complete wrongheadedness of what they are saying, and in those discussions I am happy to provide the note.
Because if you ask any of the long-timers on this board, the one thing they'll all agree on is that I never produce multiple paragraphs on topics like economics, statistics, biology, politics, or anything else. Also, to be perfectly frank, you have never displayed sufficient knowledge, intelligence, nor comprehension to make an authoritative comment on what is nonsense, economically, and what is not; I find your opinion to be about on the level of a Rush Limbaugh. When you formulate a respectable economic argument, you'll get a respectable argument in return.
That you think you know the opinions of the "entire profession" of economists is highly amusing.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
Then there is you. Someone who enjoys insulting people rather than a civil discussion. For this you are going on my ignore. Bye bye.