Republicans to Boehner: Stick it up your ass!

[Timshel]

Here's the thing, you want to "HELP" the middle class? You want to bring back economic prosperity for all? CUT the top marginal rates! ENCOURAGE the "rich people" to make as much fucking profit as they can! Because, I guarantee you, when they are making money, we are ALL making money! We ALL have jobs! The more "the rich" make, the more they NEED the "non-rich" to do the things they don't want to do, like polish the yacht, wash the Lear jet, give the old lady pedicures, etc., etc., etc., and it's endless prosperity for ALL!

YES, I am ALL for "benefiting the rich" because when they benefit, so do the rest of us. The more they make, the more tax revenues they pay, and the more money we have to spend on social entitlements and all the rest. This is much better for the middle class, and especially the poor, than this mindlessly stupid WAR ON THE RICH!

If the argument is that increasing consumption will grow the economy then obviously taxing away the wealth of the rich and spending it is optimal. That's not the argument for keeping their taxes low, though.

You are hopelessly stupid. Even the other Republicans here know it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Here's the thing, you want to "HELP" the middle class? You want to bring back economic prosperity for all? CUT the top marginal rates! ENCOURAGE the "rich people" to make as much fucking profit as they can! Because, I guarantee you, when they are making money, we are ALL making money! We ALL have jobs! The more "the rich" make, the more they NEED the "non-rich" to do the things they don't want to do, like polish the yacht, wash the Lear jet, give the old lady pedicures, etc., etc., etc., and it's endless prosperity for ALL!

YES, I am ALL for "benefiting the rich" because when they benefit, so do the rest of us. The more they make, the more tax revenues they pay, and the more money we have to spend on social entitlements and all the rest. This is much better for the middle class, and especially the poor, than this mindlessly stupid WAR ON THE RICH!

right...i guess the wealthy didn't get wealthy under clinton

please dixie. a few percentage more points on their taxes are not going to stop them from making wealth.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, you are a retard. In a zero sum game all gains of one participant equal all losses of other participants.

So you think economic prosperity comes about by giving the rich an advantage? Lol. God damn, you are fucking stupid!

I understand what "zero-sum game" means, that's why I chose the term. From the standpoint of economic prosperity, it is a zero-sum game to raise everyone's taxes. You have less to spend, the rich person has less to spend. The only differentiation is that rich people tend to spend on expansion of business and creating jobs, while you spend on consumer goods, but the result of both having less to spend, is a "zero-sum game" for economic prosperity.

Yes, I say give the "rich" an advantage and let them create economic prosperity by expanding businesses and creating jobs, and the result will be MORE tax revenue from them, and MORE jobs for us. NOT a "zero-sum game!"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

right...i guess the wealthy didn't get wealthy under clinton

please dixie. a few percentage more points on their taxes are not going to stop them from making wealth.

Newsflash: It's not 1992 anymore!

The more you burden them with taxation, the fewer jobs and prosperity they will create. This has ALWAYS been the case. We KNOW this is the case! Yet for whatever reason, certain people are so caught up in this selfish class warfare mentality, where you THINK the answer is, to continue heaping tax burden on the ONLY people who have the ability to create jobs and prosperity. It hasn't EVER worked, and it won't work now.

 

[Timshel]

I understand what "zero-sum game" means, that's why I chose the term. From the standpoint of economic prosperity, it is a zero-sum game to raise everyone's taxes. You have less to spend, the rich person has less to spend. The only differentiation is that rich people tend to spend on expansion of business and creating jobs, while you spend on consumer goods, but the result of both having less to spend, is a "zero-sum game" for economic prosperity.

Yes, I say give the "rich" an advantage and let them create economic prosperity by expanding businesses and creating jobs, and the result will be MORE tax revenue from them, and MORE jobs for us. NOT a "zero-sum game!"

Clearly you don't. Raising taxes on all is not a zero sum game. It creates losses for the people across the board. If you include the government and one assumes that the government spends less efficiently, as do most most free market advocates, then it results in losses. The government gains but less than the people lose.

You are nothing but stupid.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Clearly you don't. Raising taxes on all is not a zero sum game. It creates losses for the people across the board. If you include the government and one assumes that the government spends less efficiently, as do most most free market advocates, then it results in losses. The government gains but less than the people lose.

You are nothing but stupid.

I don't know what the hell you are trying to say or how you interpreted "economic prosperity", but you need to learn what the term actually means before you can begin to comprehend my statement.

If you were trying to get more old people to go to the movies, and you reduced ticket prices for ALL people, it would result in basically the same percentage of old people in relation to young people going, it's a "zero-sum game" in terms of getting more old people to go to the movies. I didn't say that more old people wouldn't go to the movies. In order to get more old people to go, in relation to young people, you would reduce the price of tickets for the old people, while keeping the price the same for the young.

You're the one who is struggling with intellect here.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Newsflash: It's not 1992 anymore!

The more you burden them with taxation, the fewer jobs and prosperity they will create. This has ALWAYS been the case. We KNOW this is the case! Yet for whatever reason, certain people are so caught up in this selfish class warfare mentality, where you THINK the answer is, to continue heaping tax burden on the ONLY people who have the ability to create jobs and prosperity. It hasn't EVER worked, and it won't work now.

you do realize clinton was not president in 1992....

 

[Timshel]

I don't know what the hell you are trying to say or how you interpreted "economic prosperity", but you need to learn what the term actually means before you can begin to comprehend my statement.

If you were trying to get more old people to go to the movies, and you reduced ticket prices for ALL people, it would result in basically the same percentage of old people in relation to young people going, it's a "zero-sum game" in terms of getting more old people to go to the movies. I didn't say that more old people wouldn't go to the movies. In order to get more old people to go, in relation to young people, you would reduce the price of tickets for the old people, while keeping the price the same for the young.

You're the one who is struggling with intellect here.

What do you think economic prosperity means, dummy?

No, that is not a zero sum game. A zero sum game would be like when you gamble your friends. The winners winnings are offset by the equal losses of the losers.

Or using your analogy, if the goal is to increase ticket sales but every promotion to attract the elderly also results in an equal decline in tickets sold to the young and vice versa then it is a zero sum game. Increases ticket sales across the board is growth, dumbass.

You are fucking stupid and don't know the first thing about economics.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you do realize clinton was not president in 1992....

Wasn't he elected in November of 1992?

What the fuck is your problem?

Does your old lady have to whop you in the head with a 2x4 every day or so, to get you back 'right' again?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What do you think economic prosperity means, dummy?

No, that is not a zero sum game. A zero sum game would be like when you gamble your friends. The winners winnings are offset by the equal losses of the losers.

Or using your analogy, if the goal is to increase ticket sales but every promotion to attract the elderly also results in an equal decline in tickets sold to the young and vice versa then it is a zero sum game. Increases ticket sales across the board is growth, dumbass.

You are fucking stupid and don't know the first thing about economics.

The term "zero-sum game" can be used in a variety of ways to describe any number of arguments. I'm sorry you are too ignorant to realize that, but it's really not my problem. Did you have some relevant point you'd like to make here, or are you just trolling tonight?

 

[Timshel]

The term "zero-sum game" can be used in a variety of ways to describe any number of arguments. I'm sorry you are too ignorant to realize that, but it's really not my problem. Did you have some relevant point you'd like to make here, or are you just trolling tonight?

You don't know what it means and misused it because you thought it made you sound smart.

 

[Timshel]

The term "zero-sum game" can be used in a variety of ways to describe any number of arguments. I'm sorry you are too ignorant to realize that, but it's really not my problem. Did you have some relevant point you'd like to make here, or are you just trolling tonight?

There also still remains the point that your defense of low taxes on the rich is terribly stupid.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't know what it means and misused it because you thought it made you sound smart.

No I actually used "net sum gain" when I first typed it, then I looked it up to make sure I used the right phrase. The point is still intact, but you've abandoned my point in favor of a myopic discussion on the proper use of a phrase. Whenever you raise taxes on everyone, it has no positive effect on economic prosperity. When you and everyone else wake up on Jan 1, and have to pay an extra $5 for the privilege to be an American, it doesn't do a thing for us economically. The government has more money, they spend more money, we pay more money. Zero-sum game.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There also still remains the point that your defense of low taxes on the rich is terribly stupid.

Not really, because all you need to do is look at the times in history where we've lowered the top marginal rate. Each time, it has resulted in an increase in economic prosperity, and subsequently, higher tax revenues in terms of GDP. Each time we've tried to increase top marginal rates, it has resulted in less economic prosperity and ultimately, less tax revenue.

Back in 2008, when Obama was running for president, he even said that this didn't matter, it wasn't about raising revenues, it was about wealth redistribution and what was "fair." So you people already know and understand your plan won't increase our tax revenues, but you want to do it anyway, because you just can't stand that "the rich" have more than you. That's really all this is about.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

There also still remains the point that your defense of low taxes on the rich is terribly stupid.

Well finally a minority libtards hate.......the rich

Why are you so jealous? Why do you hate the rich? Did a rich person take your puppy?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Not really, because all you need to do is look at the times in history where we've lowered the top marginal rate. Each time, it has resulted in an increase in economic prosperity, and subsequently, higher tax revenues in terms of GDP. Each time we've tried to increase top marginal rates, it has resulted in less economic prosperity and ultimately, less tax revenue.

Back in 2008, when Obama was running for president, he even said that this didn't matter, it wasn't about raising revenues, it was about wealth redistribution and what was "fair." So you people already know and understand your plan won't increase our tax revenues, but you want to do it anyway, because you just can't stand that "the rich" have more than you. That's really all this is about.

I believe that this is the reason the GOP is losing the tax debate. The argument should be predicated on a defense of freedom and private property rights

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe that this is the reason the GOP is losing the tax debate. The argument should be predicated on a defense of freedom and private property rights

But how do you do that when you have the leading Republican in the House, willing to surrender the point to the Democrats?

It does not matter if it's $150k... $200k... $250k... or $1mil, taxing those incomes at a higher rate will produce less tax revenue in the end, and their point is not to raise tax revenues, but to "redistribute wealth." There is not a compromise on this principle, you either believe in freedom and liberty, or you believe in wealth redistribution, and it has not a damn thing to do with increasing revenues.

If we were seriously looking for some way to generate more tax revenue, then we'd be talking about a tax cut for top marginal rates, and broadening the tax base, so we have more tax payers. That would generate more revenue. That would generate economic prosperity and create jobs. But we're stuck where we're at because people are jealous and stupid.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I was listening to local left-leaning talk radio guy who said Nancy Pelosi was on board with Boehner on the "Plan B" or raise taxes on those making above $1 million/yr. This article said there would be unanimous opposition from Democrats. Anyone know if Pelosi changed her position or did our local radio guy just have it wrong?

I'd say he's about as full of shit as Dixie......or me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So does everyone else's taxes, so it's zero-sum game. There will also be massive spending cuts, and almost certain recession. In case none of you pinheads have noticed, the "rich people" generally do better in a recession than the middle class and poor. You see, they have this thing called "wealth" and don't have to do without like others. So you'll have your tax increases on "the rich" like you wanted, and we'll see how things go then.

No it's not. I'm willing to make a sacrifice to settle our debt issue, get spending in check, reduce the size of our military, modernize entitlements, etc, etc. In the short term going over the fiscal cliff has short term fiscal consequences that will hurt many of the short term but benefit them in the long term. Politically though it will have calamitous consequences for Republicans as most of the public will blame them. Bye Bye tea baggers.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't hate the military, btw. I generally hate how they are used, though.

I think a lot of conservatives need to read what George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower has to say about standing armies and the military industrial complex. Hopefully it won't excape their notice that they were two of the greatest Military leaders in our nations history.