On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to
give it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile
benefited from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20%
benefited - and most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes -
because they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the
fact that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked
or invested to obtain it.

What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle
class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot.

What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have
radically different views on parity.

Evidently so.


Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier
products and services, how do you figure?

If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.

Another tinkle down economist heard from.

Have you heard it doesn't work?

No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and
companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best.

I'm a small business owner

You don't sound like one.

That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like.

and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy
recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and individuals
who need to stay afloat.

Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are
most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people
making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign.

That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who
leave the value in the company at the end of the year.

Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be
able to hire more employees? or fewer?

If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you
think that's going to make a difference for me?

What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business
owners are among the top 1%?

As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top 1%"
that you seem to have a raging hard-on for.

The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts. They didn't need
them. As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million
middle class taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight
back into the economy, not into savings.

You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever.

And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush
cuts you're bitching about.

Did I say they were? Trickle down has been around since Regan's
supply siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and
it's bull**** now.

I doesn't trickle down.

The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need
more money.

Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose
their homes and livelyhoods.

Get a ****ing clue.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:19:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded
to give it to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile
benefited from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20%
benefited - and most of them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile
of earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes -
because they pay more in taxes than anyone else.

And they need the money more than anyone else.

It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the
fact that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or
risked or invested to obtain it.

What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the
middle class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their
lot.

What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have
radically different views on parity.

Evidently so.


Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy
thier products and services, how do you figure?

If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.

Another tinkle down economist heard from.

Have you heard it doesn't work?

No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs,
and companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best.

I'm a small business owner

You don't sound like one.

That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like.

and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy recovers. I'm all in
favor of helping small business and individuals who need to stay
afloat.

Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are
most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people
making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign.

That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who leave
the value in the company at the end of the year.

And many - or most - aren't. And one year of $250K isn't "wealthy"
everywhere.




Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you
be able to hire more employees? or fewer?

If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you think
that's going to make a difference for me?

Sure - if you need $45000 in the bank to justify a hire and you have
$41000. What about $50K of your $2500000 in gross earnings?



What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business
owners are among the top 1%?

As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top
1%" that you seem to have a raging hard-on for.

The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts.

First, having less confiscated from you isn't "taking". And again,
you're either an idiot or dishonest if you're comparing absolute dollars.

Should it have been an across-the-board cut *except* for the rich? The
top 1% pays a third of tax receipts.

They didn't need them.

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.



As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million middle class
taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight back into the
economy, not into savings.

And it would have disappeared afer that. A one-time shot does nothing; a
rate reduction increases investment.



You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever.


Says the ignoramus who thinks that leaving those who create, those who
hire, and those who invest with less money won't decrease those behaviors.

You're the one who "doesn't get" the obvious.



And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the
Bush cuts you're bitching about.

Did I say they were?

When you brought it up in context of the Bush tax cuts, then yes, you
did.


Trickle down has been around since Regan's supply
siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and it's
bull**** now.

Whenever the phrase originated, its effects predate it. That lower
taxes increase consumption, investment, and employment is not "bull****".



I doesn't trickle down.

The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need
more money.

"don't steal more from them" doesn't equal "they don't need more".



Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose their
homes and livelyhoods.

Get a ****ing clue.

People losing their homes are people who bet their "livelyhoods" (get a
dictionary) and bit off more than they could chew. That's not the fault
of 'the rich'.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

You greedy sons of bitches that never learned to share are the
problem. Voting against your own interests with the fantasy that
you'll be taxed at an extraordinary rate someday.

Not gonna happen silly ass.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:39:59 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

Right, the guy who produces something and pays for all the rest of you is
the idiot. Hey, wait a second ...





We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

No, you ****ing don't. I pay far more than I use. Far, far, far more.




Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

Spoken like a true collectivist.




You greedy sons of bitches that never learned to share are the problem.

Again I'm rendered nearly speechless after paying six figures' worth of
tax (that's *just* income tax and *just* federal) and being called
"greedy".


Voting against your own interests with the fantasy that you'll be taxed
at an extraordinary rate someday.

I'm taxed at an extraordinary rate *today*. And no politician I've seen
represents *my* interests.


My problem with your party's dimwitted sophomore-dorm-bull-session-
redistributionism isn't primarily one of self-interest. If the pols
steal a few grand more from me, I'll be annoyed but I'll live.

It's the idea - embodied by your angry insistence that you're entitled to
what I earn - that there's a bottomless pit of treasure to take from,
that dampening the incentive to produce will somehow not decrease
production. The idea that it's justified to ratchet up spending
regardless of the economy - to jack up taxes when times are good, spend
it like a drunk sailor on programs which insanely grow on autopilot, then
being surprised every time when a waning economy means decreasing
revenue, then tying another bad of cement to the horse and - *more*
surprise when the horse doesn't speed up.

Your ideology isn't fueled by pragmatism, or economic reality. It's
fueled by anger, envy, and what I can only assume is a very sense of self-
worth and fear that you'll never amount to anything.


Not gonna happen silly ass.

Right, because you know.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:21:53 -0400, Zombywoof
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:39:59 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

Problem is, it isn't equal. However, I can see you making the case
now for those who aren't worth anything, to not have to pay anything.

Problem is, your brain doesn't work well or you're just another greedy
*******.

Have a rotten life.

Plonk!

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:56:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:21:53 -0400, Zombywoof
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:39:59 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

Problem is, it isn't equal. However, I can see you making the case
now for those who aren't worth anything, to not have to pay anything.

Problem is, your brain doesn't work well or you're just another greedy
*******.

Have a rotten life.

Plonk!

Boy, you told him. I'll bet he's crying because you 'plonked' him.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:19:23 -0700, jps puked:

Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be
able to hire more employees? or fewer?

If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you
think that's going to make a difference for me?

It would for me.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?