Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Today's Chuckle... | General | |||
I got a chuckle out of this. | General | |||
A T'giving chuckle | General | |||
Chuckle of the Day | General | |||
Chuckle for a few ... | General |