Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
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.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation. That job resides in Congress following
debate of the pros and cons. The POTUS establishes the general goal.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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*Â* 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?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy *is*
trickle-down economics.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
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.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation.Â* That job resides in Congress following
debate of the pros and cons.Â* The POTUS establishes the general goal.



Uh-huh.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:35:38 -0400, 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: 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****.

===

And just how exactly would you propose to stimulate the economy from
the bottom up? Free stuff?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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*Â* 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?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy *is*
trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer an
increase in government programs and hand outs?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
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.



It's not up to Trump (or any POTUS for that matter) to define every
detail of proposed legislation.Â* That job resides in Congress
following debate of the pros and cons.Â* The POTUS establishes the
general goal.



Uh-huh.

Glad you agree.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:40:52 -0400, 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: 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.

No, Greg's paragraph was about the luxury tax. Blowing it off as 'something entirely different' is
not a response to Greg's comment.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 07:40:52 -0400, 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: 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.

Why not? It was taxing the rich. It is just eliminating previous
trickle down and it was a disaster. That is why it was temporary.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 08:57:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy *is*
trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer an
increase in government programs and hand outs?

That is what we did in the US territories and the indian reservations.
They are disaster areas. The only indians who are successful are the
ones who contracted casino operators to come in and create an gambling
business with exclusive franchises from the government.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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*Â* 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?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy *is*
trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer an
increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich are
the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.