How the ex-DNC chair ruined Clinton’s chance at 2020

Superfreak said:
1) Again... you can say you are taxing them at 28 or 39 or 74%... it doesn't matter if the deductions and loopholes allow them to get their effective tax rates to 17-20%. Which the current tax code does. The drop from 28% Cap gains tax to 20% was the largest giveaway to the rich.
Click to expand...

What do you not understand about the same deductions being higher taxes with a base rate of 38% than 28%? Why do you think EVERY Republican (maybe one exception) voted against his budget? If the taxes are the same, why so opposed?

2) No, it was the cap gains tax cut that provided the extra revenue in part. Not the tax increase that did little to change the effective tax rate.
Click to expand...

So, why don't you say what the effective rate was for the 1% in the years before and after the tax increase? You clearly have those numbers at hand since you just made that claim, right? The cap gains tax was LOWERED.

3) I said the growth in the economy began in 1982. It did. Reagan had growth rates in excess of 3% every year after that. That positive GDP growth continued into the Bush years (until the short recession) and into the Clinton years. Because you are not capable of comprehending what you read, you alter my comments to something they are not. I did not say the rate of growth went up every year for Reagan... it didn't. Neither did it for Clinton. But every year since 1982 until Reagan left office, we had positive GDP growth. That is a GROWING economy. If you don't understand economics, just say so and quit wasting my time. [/quote]

You're the one wasting my time. Click the button Look at the growth rate before 1981, and the growth rate after 1981. Which is higher? Know what happened to all that missing growth? Look at the skyrocketing wealth of the top few.

http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554717cc988330147e220e3c3970b-pi

4) AGAIN... the totals added to the debt are what I stated. You are conflating deficit with debt. Learn what words mean before using them.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. I used the words correctly, you can't understand the words and so you post this garbage.

No wonder you couldn't answer a simple question that included the deficit and the debt.
 
cawacko said:
What Republican low growth? I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. You're trying to weave a story with the numbers to fit your desired result but it's not that simple.

It's a straw man pure and simple to say anyone (at least in this discussion) wants zero taxes. No one has argued for that. But look at current unemployment and growth across Europe compared to the U.S. You want a more European model and we see the troubles they have. (Now if you want to get into the roles the central banks have played recently in each location I'll listen.)
Click to expand...

Europe has additional challenges and burdens the US does not, so that any conclusion based on a simple comparison is invalid. But look at the Scandanavian countries for higher tax rates and good growth.

There's something basic you're not understanding. Having massive wealth hoarded by a few leads to the wealth being less productive than in the hands of more entrepreneurs and consumers.
 
Craig234 said:
What do you not understand about the same deductions being higher taxes with a base rate of 38% than 28%? Why do you think EVERY Republican (maybe one exception) voted against his budget? If the taxes are the same, why so opposed?



So, why don't you say what the effective rate was for the 1% in the years before and after the tax increase? You clearly have those numbers at hand since you just made that claim, right? The cap gains tax was LOWERED.

3) I said the growth in the economy began in 1982. It did. Reagan had growth rates in excess of 3% every year after that. That positive GDP growth continued into the Bush years (until the short recession) and into the Clinton years. Because you are not capable of comprehending what you read, you alter my comments to something they are not. I did not say the rate of growth went up every year for Reagan... it didn't. Neither did it for Clinton. But every year since 1982 until Reagan left office, we had positive GDP growth. That is a GROWING economy. If you don't understand economics, just say so and quit wasting my time.

You're the one wasting my time. Click the button Look at the growth rate before 1981, and the growth rate after 1981. Which is higher? Know what happened to all that missing growth? Look at the skyrocketing wealth of the top few.

http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554717cc988330147e220e3c3970b-pi



You're an idiot. I used the words correctly, you can't understand the words and so you post this garbage.

No wonder you couldn't answer a simple question that included the deficit and the debt.
Click to expand...

1) What do you not understand about the reduction in Cap gains having a far greater impact than the increase in tax brackets?

2) https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp How about YOU look at the actual data. GDP growth in 79 was 3.2%, in 80 it was -0.2, 81 was 2.6, 82 was -1.9. Then the boom began in 83. With the exception of 90/91 under Bush, GDP growth was in excess of 3% every year.

3) No, you are not using the terms correctly, which is why your 'question' was incoherent.
 
archives said:
"And," who cares, it was last year, she lost the election, history, has zero bearing on anything occurring today, well, unless you are a conservative, seems hating Hillary, as antiquated as it is, is the only thing that defines conservatism
Click to expand...

So whenever you guys bring up Russia can we say “it was last year, he won blah blah blah”?
 
PraiseKek said:
No it's not:

History Edit

See also: History of retirement
Widows' funds were among the first pension type arrangement to appear, for example Duke Ernest the Pious of Gotha in Germany, founded a widows' fund for clergy in 1645 and another for teachers in 1662.[22] 'Various schemes of provision for ministers' widows were then established throughout Europe at about the start of the eighteenth century, some based on a single premium others based on yearly premiums to be distributed as benefits in the same year.'[23]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension
Click to expand...

idiot
 
I wrote a detailed post explaining the issues to superfreak yet again and realized it's a waste of time and am not bothering to post it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top