New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Simple question...

OldGaffer said:
Spoken like a true cultist. Ayn would be proud. Were Max Blanck and Isaac Harris some of your heroes in your youth? Incidentally 72% of the Forbes 400 got rich the old fashioned way, they inherited it. Check the stats for quintile mobility, have they been going up or down over the last 30 years? And where does the US rank in upward mobility?

Is America the "land of opportunity"? Not so much.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
Click to expand...



Sorry, but I never felt resentment or jealousy because someone else has more ...
 
The notion that libs do is a part of your indoctrination. The demon you believe in doesn't exist. It's made up. Try to get that. We're all in it together....or should be if we want to survive as a country.

I admire success. I also admire successful people who share by creating opportunity for others rather than shipping jobs overseas to serve the bottom line at the cost of their country's economy going in the toilet. We've been mesmerized by the convenience of utilizing slave labor. It has come back to bite us.
 
zzigzzag said:
The notion that libs do is a part of your indoctrination. The demon you believe in doesn't exist. It's made up. Try to get that. We're all in it together....or should be if we want to survive as a country.

I admire success. I also admire successful people who share by creating opportunity for others rather than shipping jobs overseas to serve the bottom line at the cost of their country's economy going in the toilet. We've been mesmerized by the convenience of utilizing slave labor. It has come back to bite us.
Click to expand...

Cultists just dont get it.
 
zzigzzag said:
The notion that libs do is a part of your indoctrination. The demon you believe in doesn't exist. It's made up. Try to get that. We're all in it together....or should be if we want to survive as a country.

I admire success. I also admire successful people who share by creating opportunity for others rather than shipping jobs overseas to serve the bottom line at the cost of their country's economy going in the toilet. We've been mesmerized by the convenience of utilizing slave labor. It has come back to bite us.
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll bite. What is your opinion of income equality? And, before you answer, think about the Liberal attitude of Romney earning $375,000 in a year for speaking fees. That seems to be a Liberal talking point ...
 
Pay attention . The talking point is that he said it's not a lot of money. It was his talking point. It didn't come from the left. I'll bet you $10,000 on that one.

If you don't understand my opinion of income equality, you haven't read my posts. Can't help you with that.
 
They work hard at not getting it. They're willing to sacrifice everything but their SS and Medicare to not get it.
 
zzigzzag said:
Pay attention . The talking point is that he said it's not a lot of money. It was his talking point. It didn't come from the left. I'll bet you $10,000 on that one.

If you don't understand my opinion of income equality, you haven't read my posts. Can't help you with that.
Click to expand...


Obviously, those who hired Romney to speak felt he was worth the fees. And, you're right, I follow very few threads and don't read all the posts. I'm too busy working and paying taxes ...
 
Are we allowed to say "Bush" here? Y'all had your way for eight years. We were lucky to survive it.

I'd sure love to see a con reference history to support their theories some day. Instead, they get mad if you mention that life didn't begin in January of '09. There are three reasons for that. Reagan, Bush and Bush. The debt Presidents.

That's why Newt tried to run on Clinton's record.
 
zzigzzag said:
Are we allowed to say "Bush" here? Y'all had your way for eight years. We were lucky to survive it.

I'd sure love to see a con reference history to support their theories some day. Instead, they get mad if you mention that life didn't begin in January of '09. There's are three reasons for that. Reagan, Bush and Bush. The debt Presidents.

That's why Newt tried to run on Clinton's record.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the posts where I have described Bush as a Kloset Keynesian and praised Clinton as the best supply side President we ever had...
 
"Obviously, those who hired Romney to speak felt he was worth the fees."

There's a sucker born every minute.
 
Lukey said:
You must have missed the posts where I have described Bush as a Kloset Keynesian and praised Clinton as the best supply side President we ever had...
Click to expand...

Clinton raised taxes and cut spending in a boom economy, he got the budget under control by vetoing the republican tax cuts that Bush approved. He cut Defense spending and worked with republicans to pass welfare reform. If you want to claim that is supply side economics, go for it.
 
Yep...a lot of starving poor in this country...

...government data show that most poor households do not suffer even from temporary food shortages. As Chart 7 shows, 92.5 percent of poor households assert that they always had “enough food to eat” during the previous four months, although 26 percent of these did not always have the foods that they would have preferred. Some 6 percent of poor households state that they “sometimes” did not have enough food, and 1.5 percent say they “often” did not have enough food.
Click to expand...


Wanna see how bad they've got it concerning other amenities, housing, and transportation?

Here ya go...Link

Yeah, the 99.5% really have it rough...
 
And yet, Obama has brough forth a new debt upon this nation, not seen before by any president in our history. If that is how you measure a president, then Obama has failed.
 
Ah, but didn't Clinton cut taxes in 1997? You know, right before our country experienced the great economic boom of the late 90s?

Here, maybe this will help job your memory...Link
 
OldGaffer said:
Clinton raised taxes and cut spending in a boom economy, he got the budget under control by vetoing the republican tax cuts that Bush approved. He cut Defense spending and worked with republicans to pass welfare reform. If you want to claim that is supply side economics, go for it.
Click to expand...

Spending = Taxes (current + deferred). Deficit spending is deferred taxation. It doesn't matter what you do with tax rates as much as it does what you do with spending. Raising taxes can be supply side if you cut spending more than you raise taxes. On the other hand, if you cut taxes and increase spending (like Bush did) - that ain't supply side.

Clinton raised taxes early on but also lowered the rates on investment income later on. And then he got the budget deficit under control (and damn near eliminated deferred taxation). The economy responded quite well. That's text book supply side!
 
Number_58 said:
Ah, but didn't Clinton cut taxes in 1997? You know, right before our country experienced the great economic boom of the late 90s?

Here, maybe this will help job your memory...Link
Click to expand...

Notice where those cuts were:

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
Created a new $500 child tax credit;
Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
Established education IRAs;
Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
Click to expand...

Small amounts of cuts, aimed primarily at the middle class, education, IRA, child exemption, a decent cut in cap gains rates, and a small increase in inheritance tax exemption.

Obama has followed the same strategy, small cuts aimed at the middle class. Thanks for the link, it makes the Democrats point.
 
So, you're going to say that all of those tax cuts were aimed at the middle class huh? Tell me how these are aimed at middle and lower class Americans...

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent
Click to expand...

Aren't people like you on here b*tching every day about Romney's tax rate? Buffett's tax rate? Who do you think proposed that lower tax rate?...if you said Bill Clinton, you're correct.

Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million
Click to expand...

How many of the middle and lower class families did you know in the 90s that had estates worth $600,000 to $1M? Yeah, I can see where that was aimed at the people earning in the $45,000 range during the 90s.

Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs
Click to expand...

"Increased the limits for deductible IRAs"? Tell us Gaff...which income class do you think benefited the most from that?

Sorry chief...looks to me like the majority of the actual cuts you listed were more beneficial to the wealthy...unless you can show me show the middle class made out better in the 90s due to these cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top