It Will Trickle Down?!!

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
So let's make those Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent?!!

129021008687645509.jpg

The only thing that will ever trickle down on you, is a warm stream of piss, that quickly turns cold and foul smelling!

zero-corp-taxes.jpg
 
There are no tax cuts for the rich. There are tax cuts for owners of small businesses, and people who can and will stimulate the economy with actual growth. Or we can deal another death blow to the economy and let them expire. It's not up to me, there is a Democrat congress, or haven't you noticed that?
 
There's also the issue of what I like to call the "Kill Granny Before 12/31/10" provision in the Bush tax cuts, where the death tax is returned to 50% again, after being reduced to 0% this year. Think about that, if your parent croaks and leaves you the family farm before 12/31... you got it made in the shade! But if he kicks it on New Year's Day, you'll have to sell the farm to pay the inheritance tax. Something rather demented about letting that expire.... but again, I am not running Congress! That would be (D)EMOCRATS...
 
Inheritance tax is such bullshit.

It only effects working people. The uberrich leave their children political connections to the fed cash window.
 
\Estate tax

AssHatZombie said:
Inheritance tax is such bullshit.

It only effects working people. The uberrich leave their children political connections to the fed cash window.
Click to expand...

Chalk up another win for George Steinbrenner: The Yankees owner saved his heirs a whopping $600 million in estate tax by dying in 2010??? Need to close this loop hole!
 
"Tax cuts for the rich" is a pure bullshit assessment. Typical of the Democrat Party to call something the opposite of what it is. Democrats' goal is simple: tax the shit out of folks who make lots of money (a relatively small population) and use that money to benefit folks who don't (a relatively large population). That way they get the larger population to vote for them.

All their talk about economic investments and social security and public education and health insurance yada yada yada means absolutely nothing to the Democrat Party leadership, except for ways to spend the largess to benefit their low earning constituency. And of course, to increase the power of their now entrenched bureaucracies.

Any position that the Democrat Party takes can be explained by pointing to this goal.
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Tax cuts for the rich" is a pure bullshit assessment. Typical of the Democrat Party to call something the opposite of what it is. Democrats' goal is simple: tax the shit out of folks who make lots of money (a relatively small population) and use that money to benefit folks who don't (a relatively large population). That way they get the larger population to vote for them.

All their talk about economic investments and social security and public education and health insurance yada yada yada means absolutely nothing to the Democrat Party leadership, except for ways to spend the largess to benefit their low earning constituency. And of course, to increase the power of their now entrenched bureaucracies.

Any position that the Democrat Party takes can be explained by pointing to this goal.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the Democrat Party.
 
Apparently "trickle down" theory only works if you give government money to companies in the form of Grants. Then the "winners" of the government grant lottery "hire more people" who in turn "buy stuff" which creates "more jobs" as people have to sell them "that stuff" which makes those people in turn "buy stuff"...

Notice how it works? Trickle down, democrat style only limits the amount of those in the first level. Tax cuts worked so well it gave us decades of growth, and the amazing growth 90s where we almost (for the first time since 1960) actually paid back a tiny bit of what we owe (and should pay before handing it to future generations)... only destroyed by building false "bubbles" in markets.

Now, we get the short-circuited version based on "grants" rather than tax cuts to those who hire people and there aren't enough at the first level to make the difference...
 
Damn Yankee said:
Sure there is; its the Party of Democrats: The Democrat Party. Do you call yourself a "Democratic"? Of course not; you're a fucking Democrat.
Click to expand...

In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200608160005

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM"]YouTube- Classic Movie Line #4[/ame]
 
I agree, calling it the Democrat Party is stupid and gramatically inept. Even the retard who founded the party, Andrew Jackson, knew that Democratic was the proper term.
 
We've got a lot of other names we could call you besides "Democrat!"

How about Moronic Idiots? Fucking Retards? Socialist Pinheads? Goofy Liberals? Commie Pinkos? Or, my all-time fave... Nattering Naybobs of Negativity!
 
Crashk said:
In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200608160005

YouTube- Classic Movie Line #4
Click to expand...

Wow MediaMatters. Is George Soros a getting sore anus that we're using the correct term to define his Party? Regardless, I agree: the Term "Democrat" is a noun. And the term "Democrat Party" is a compound noun. :)
 
The Republicans believe in abolishing welfare for one and only one reason: doing so would increase human suffering, and the thought of human beings suffering arouses them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top