What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

Hello cawacko,

Flash, you have the patience of jobe my man

You should know.

I've seen Frank and or evince foaming at the mouth to call you all the vulgar things they can think of; as you patiently ignore all of that and blithely comment precisely on subject, narrowing in like a laser beam on whatever angle you can find to support your position.

We usually disagree, but I respect your civil discourse.
 
Hello Frank,

America arguably was at its most prosperous when taxes on the rich were highest.

America's wealth was more equitably distributed when taxes on the rich were highest.

The wealthy were still VERY WEALTHY

Yup. Riding around in luxury cars, eating and drinking only the finest, buying up expensive art, wearing pricey jewelry, yachting, living in extravagance. Running companies. Hiring Americans, Creating jobs,,, DESPITE the higher taxes...

...but the normal family was sustainable by just one adult working. The earnings of the "breadwinner" provided food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, schooling, transportation, some entertainment...and savings.

And usually with a company pension for retirement.

Now we often have the chief breadwinner working more than one job...and have both parents working...and families are having much more trouble making ends meet. Lots and lots of families are one catastrophe away from dire straits.


And after years of tax cuts, and years of rising federal debt, they figure what the country needs is more tax cuts for the rich. AND THEIR SYCOPHANTS BUY IT!
 
Hello cawacko,



You should know.

I've seen Frank and or evince foaming at the mouth to call you all the vulgar things they can think of; as you patiently ignore all of that and blithely comment precisely on subject, narrowing in like a laser beam on whatever angle you can find to support your position.

We usually disagree, but I respect your civil discourse.

Thank you sir. Lord knows there have been too many times where I said things I later regretted or responded to people in a way I was disappointed with myself in. However I do try.
 
Hello cawacko,

Thank you sir.

You're welcome.

Lord knows there have been too many times where I said things I later regretted or responded to people in a way I was disappointed with myself in. However I do try.

That's my thinking. (without the 'Lord' part - I don't really think there is one.)

It's not like this stuff goes away. You say something here, and it could be widely available for years. I'd like to say things I can stand behind with a clear conscience after the test of time.

Anyone can blurt. Thoughtless posts are not something I'm interested in creating a history of making.
 
Hello cawacko,



You should know.

I've seen Frank and or evince foaming at the mouth to call you all the vulgar things they can think of; as you patiently ignore all of that and blithely comment precisely on subject, narrowing in like a laser beam on whatever angle you can find to support your position.

We usually disagree, but I respect your civil discourse.

You gotta be fucking kidding me, dude.

You would consider someone deliberately omitting exculpatory information from their argument as "civil discourse"?

You would consider someone telling half the story and then appealing to authority as "civil discourse"?

You would consider someone acting in bad faith "civil discourse"?

Seems like your standards need to be re-examined.
 
So in the 1950's, the "America Great Again" time you all cherish, was actually not a great time because there were high taxes on the rich? That's your position?

taxes were high, blacks were treated badly.....demmycrats were racist dickheads.......why would pretend we cherished the 50s.......we didn't even have rock and roll yet.....
 
taxes were high, blacks were treated badly.....demmycrats were racist dickheads.......why would pretend we cherished the 50s.......we didn't even have rock and roll yet.....

So when was the time "America was great" that you want to make again?

Unless you're now saying that was just a slogan and you don't really want to make America great, you're just supporting Trump because you're a racist charlatan.
 
Was it not a good place in the 1950's when the top rate was 90%?

Were there no rich people in 1955?

No, there were no rich people in 1955. You assholes and your class envy. You really want to go back to double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates? That's what we had before Reagan made those cuts!
 
So when was the time "America was great" that you want to make again?

Unless you're now saying that was just a slogan and you don't really want to make America great, you're just supporting Trump because you're a racist charlatan.

When people like you didn't live in this country.
 
No, there were no rich people in 1955. You assholes and your class envy. You really want to go back to double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates? That's what we had before Reagan made those cuts!

It's wonderful how the bum-suckers manage to convince themselves that any criticism of their thieving masters is 'envy'! :)
 
You assholes and your class envy.

Your'e just some fucking Russian troll, aren't you? Be honest. I can tell when you're lying.


You really want to go back to double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates?

Do I want to go back to inflation?

What?

Inflation exists regardless.

Do I want to go back to interest rates?

What?

Interest rates exist regardless.

It was Conservative policy that tanked the economy 11 years ago, so why the fuck should we go back to that?


That's what we had before Reagan made those cuts!

Carter created more jobs on average in his 4 years than Reagan did in his 8.

Also, Reagan tripled the deficit and then his economy collapsed with the S&L crisis which, before Bush's bailout, was the largest taxpayer bailout in history.
 
It's wonderful how the bum-suckers manage to convince themselves that any criticism of their thieving masters is 'envy'! :)

Thing is, none of the people on these boards defending them are wealthy.

They're just reflexively defending policy because otherwise they'd have to admit they got duped and that would ruin the facade they've created for themselves where their judgment is impeccable, their instincts solid, and their character strong.
 
Back
Top