On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:33:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


===

And the big US boat builders never really recovered. Too bad, we had
some good ones.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive. Why am I not surprised? My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 22:33:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.

$5 says you don't get an answer addressing the comment from Harry Krause.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 23:50:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive. Why am I not surprised? My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.


Because Harry Krause threw 'trickle-down economics' into the discussion, which now makes that the
subject of discussion. He's a slippery little booger!

On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive. Why am I not surprised? My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics, which is
an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations, does not work.
Creation of "more and better jobs" through an expanded economy is a good
thing, of course, but saying that trickle-down economics is going to
produce that is...bull****.

On 10/21/17 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you: Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.

On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth, as
he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work that way.


Funny. Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void of
details. Today you are spelling them all out.

On 10/22/17 8:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:40 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the
lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just
another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

The simplest example that this is bull**** would be the luxury tax.
It was supposed to soak the rich and give the money to the masses. The
reality was that the rich simply stopped buying those luxuries and the
people who built them were laid off. The tax was short lived.
Bush 41 started it, Bill Clinton got rid of it 2 years later.


That temporary luxury tax was not something that would fit into a
discussion of trickle-down economics. It was something entirely
different. The question is, would Trump's proposed massive cuts in tax
rates and reductions in deductibles create massive employment growth,
as he claims. Voodoo economics, as it is also called, does not work
that way.


Funny.Â* Yesterday you were complaining that Trump's tax plan was void of
details.Â* Today you are spelling them all out.


There are no details...just topic sentences, just as with his health
care nonsense.

On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics, which is
an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations, does not work.
Creation of "more and better jobs" through an expanded economy is a good
thing, of course, but saying that trickle-down economics is going to
produce that is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the economy of
tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing it as
having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?