The guy that won't show his taxes wants to "fix" ours???

Right said:
Wrong answer. The poor suffered under The Obama because he lorded over the worst economic "recovery" in US history.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it's the right answer. You are clearly an ideologue who is trying to change the facts to attack Obama. For example, the recovery would have been stronger had Obama's plan been passed - Republicans blocked it, then criticized their result.
 
Craig234 said:
No, actually, it's the right answer. You are clearly an ideologue who is trying to change the facts to attack Obama. For example, the recovery would have been stronger had Obama's plan been passed - Republicans blocked it, then criticized their result.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the wrong answer. You are clearly an ideologue who is trying to change the facts to support The Obama.The recovery would have been shittier if The Obama had his way.
 
cawacko said:
Actually in many places in the country we are back in a housing bubble. And my whole reference to QE and asset bubbles was to the stock market and housing. We are reliving what we just went through.
Click to expand...

We are headed to another crash it seems - but the point I was making was that the rich recovered a lot more and faster, making it a wealth transfer. For the first years 100% or close to it of the recover went to the top few.
 
Craig234 said:
We are headed to another crash it seems - but the point I was making was that the rich recovered a lot more and faster, making it a wealth transfer. For the first years 100% or close to it of the recover went to the top few.
Click to expand...

I guess I wouldn't really call it a transfer in that it's not a zero sum game. A lot of wealth was lost then a lot of wealth was created post crash. Yes, it largely went to people at the top.
 
who cares about his taxes, he's rich, he followed the rules and paid as little taxes as possible, like anyone would.
get over it already

NEXT
 
Craig234 said:
Facts what do you not understand? Let's start with the first statement, the rich are at record levels of inequality.

Are you capable of looking at a picture and seeing that one number is bigger?

Can you be that rational at least? Then here's a picture:

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/uswealth/SaezZucman2014Fig1.png
Click to expand...

Since when have we, as Americans told people how much money they should have , could have, can have, or want to have.

Have you lost your fu@kin mind?
don't answer that, it's rhetoric
 
Obama refused to show his college transcripts, yet he pushed and signed an education reform bill.


obamadesk02242015getty.jpg



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/262781-obama-signs-education-reform-bill


Did a single liberal whine that "the guy that won't show his college transcripts wants to fix our education"?

No - they did not.

Hypocrites.
 
Right said:
Actually, it's the wrong answer. You are clearly an ideologue who is trying to change the facts to support The Obama.The recovery would have been shittier if The Obama had his way.
Click to expand...

You're gong from ideologue to dishonest ideologue.

In 1993, after 12 years of Republicans with Reagan/Bush, Clinton became president. He proposed a budget with different priorities, including a tax hike on the rich.

EVERY Republican leader - politician or pundit - predicted doom for the economy if it passed. Inflation would spike up, unemployment would shoot way up, growth would plummet, etc. Not one Republican voted for it.

Let's ask a simple question: do you agree with Clinton or all the Republicans about that budget's effects, and why?
 
cawacko said:
I guess I wouldn't really call it a transfer in that it's not a zero sum game. A lot of wealth was lost then a lot of wealth was created post crash. Yes, it largely went to people at the top.
Click to expand...

You're right that it's not zero sum and that's part of the issue - but since the part that IS zero sum was hugely distributed to the top, that the bulk of the overall change shifted wealth to the top from below, it's an accurate description.
 
Getin the ring said:
Since when have we, as Americans told people how much money they should have , could have, can have, or want to have.

Have you lost your fu@kin mind?
don't answer that, it's rhetoric
Click to expand...

Well, you answered my question - no, you are unable to be rational about simple points, like which number is bigger. Instead you just post a pic of Obama in cultural garb, spewing your hate and remaining an ignorant ideologue.
 
Craig234 said:
You're right that it's not zero sum and that's part of the issue - but since the part that IS zero sum was hugely distributed to the top, that the bulk of the overall change shifted wealth to the top from below, it's an accurate description.
Click to expand...

We can thank Bernanke and Yellen as many are doing today for those results.
 
Craig234 said:
You're gong from ideologue to dishonest ideologue.

In 1993, after 12 years of Republicans with Reagan/Bush, Clinton became president. He proposed a budget with different priorities, including a tax hike on the rich.

EVERY Republican leader - politician or pundit - predicted doom for the economy if it passed. Inflation would spike up, unemployment would shoot way up, growth would plummet, etc. Not one Republican voted for it.

Let's ask a simple question: do you agree with Clinton or all the Republicans about that budget's effects, and why?
Click to expand...

and Clinton gave away the largest tax REDUCTION TO THE RICH. He cut the CAP gains tax from top rate of 28% to 20%. The higher you go up the scale, the more the income they derive from investments... not salary.
 
Althea said:
That hasn't changed in decades, but the reason trump couldn't allow us to see his corporate taxes, is because we would see who his creditors are.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the IRS and Mueller are not party to that information?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top