Why hasn't President Bush written one?
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
24 Mar 2007 01:42:07 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 24, 8:28 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 23, 6:59 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Under Reagan we witnessed the largest shift of wealth from
the working class slobs like you and me to the ultra wealthy
of any time in our history.
Oh I see, it's all about the politics of class envy. I've never been
especially fond of the emotion of envy. I try to avoid it.
No one talked about class envy except you stevie. This must be
an issue for you or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
The politics of class envy is a staple for the modern Democratic
Party.
If for no other reason than republicans have divided class
along economic lines and have decided to champion the cause
of the wealthy, the gluttonous, the pseudo-righteous. You're
a wanna-be wealthy elite Stephen (cause I don't think you have
the brains to be one already).
You know who your masters are.. now go serve them.
They encourage you dolts to be envious of your neighbor's large
walk-in-closet, for example. Personally, I don't have a problem with
the government allowing people to keep more of their own money,
because that means they have more money to spend on goods and services
(such as mine).
And by the way, revenue to the government INCREASED during Reagan's
terms in office. And the percentage paid by earners in the top income
brackets also increased.
If you repeat that often enough you start to believe it, even
though it's a lie.
The same thing happened when JFK cut top
marginal rates. It works every time (except in the feeble imaginations
of leftist dolts).
It all just 'trickles down' , right ? Wrong ! If the business
climate isn't conducive, all those huge tax give-aways to the
weathy, all that welfare for the rich, just sits in a bank
account somewhere because there's no incentive to put it back
into the economy.
I'm all for tax incentives for business, but they have to
be specific, targeted incentives that make business move in
predictable ways.. not just money giveaways.. Sheesh ! You
seem like an idiot Stephen ! You like giving away your hard-
earned money to some moron rich elite who doesn't need the
money ? Get a grip on reality man !
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
24 Mar 2007 01:48:42 PM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 10:42 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 24, 8:28 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 23, 6:59 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Under Reagan we witnessed the largest shift of wealth from
the working class slobs like you and me to the ultra wealthy
of any time in our history.
Oh I see, it's all about the politics of class envy. I've never been
especially fond of the emotion of envy. I try to avoid it.
No one talked about class envy except you stevie. This must be
an issue for you or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
The politics of class envy is a staple for the modern Democratic
Party.
If for no other reason than republicans have divided class
along economic lines and have decided to champion the cause
of the wealthy, the gluttonous, the pseudo-righteous. You're
a wanna-be wealthy elite Stephen (cause I don't think you have
the brains to be one already).
Well, you've just announced to the world, with this post, that you
don't have the brains to understand how money works.
You know who your masters are.. now go serve them.
I serve my customers. If that means I serve people who have more money
than I do, so be it. That's the way it works, dimbulb.
They encourage you dolts to be envious of your neighbor's large
walk-in-closet, for example. Personally, I don't have a problem with
the government allowing people to keep more of their own money,
because that means they have more money to spend on goods and services
(such as mine).
And by the way, revenue to the government INCREASED during Reagan's
terms in office. And the percentage paid by earners in the top income
brackets also increased.
If you repeat that often enough you start to believe it, even
though it's a lie.
It's not a lie, it's not an opinion, it's a hard cold fact.
The same thing happened when JFK cut top
marginal rates. It works every time (except in the feeble imaginations
of leftist dolts).
It all just 'trickles down' , right ? Wrong ! If the business
climate isn't conducive, all those huge tax give-aways to the
weathy, all that welfare for the rich, just sits in a bank
account somewhere because there's no incentive to put it back
into the economy.
And here is where you demonstrate your ignorance of how money works.
Even if people left their money sitting in a bank, what do you think
the bank does with it? Hide it in a vault? Really, you're absolutely
ridiculous.
I'm all for tax incentives for business, but they have to
be specific, targeted incentives that make business move in
predictable ways.. not just money giveaways.. Sheesh ! You
seem like an idiot Stephen ! You like giving away your hard-
earned money to some moron rich elite who doesn't need the
money ? Get a grip on reality man !
I should take my cue (to get a grip on reality) from someone who has
no clue how money works? And a liar to boot? Forget it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
24 Mar 2007 03:40:43 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The same thing happened when JFK cut top
marginal rates. It works every time (except in the feeble imaginations
of leftist dolts).
It all just 'trickles down' , right ? Wrong ! If the business
climate isn't conducive, all those huge tax give-aways to the
weathy, all that welfare for the rich, just sits in a bank
account somewhere because there's no incentive to put it back
into the economy.
And here is where you demonstrate your ignorance of how money works.
Even if people left their money sitting in a bank, what do you think
the bank does with it? Hide it in a vault? Really, you're absolutely
ridiculous.
You really think banks loan out all the money they get on deposit ?
Here is where you are demonstrating YOUR ignorance of how money
works. Banks might WISH they could loan it all out, but they
won't do it if the business climate isn't conducive to it.. they'll
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
Once again, we have the situation where all those tax money
welfare giveaways to the wealthy aren't doing the economy one
bit of good. Sorry stevie, you're confused about how the money
game and tax game works. So called 'supply side' economics is
really just 'voodoo economics'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
24 Mar 2007 04:59:38 PM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 12:40 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The same thing happened when JFK cut top
marginal rates. It works every time (except in the feeble imaginations
of leftist dolts).
It all just 'trickles down' , right ? Wrong ! If the business
climate isn't conducive, all those huge tax give-aways to the
weathy, all that welfare for the rich, just sits in a bank
account somewhere because there's no incentive to put it back
into the economy.
And here is where you demonstrate your ignorance of how money works.
Even if people left their money sitting in a bank, what do you think
the bank does with it? Hide it in a vault? Really, you're absolutely
ridiculous.
You really think banks loan out all the money they get on deposit ?
Here is where you are demonstrating YOUR ignorance of how money
works. Banks might WISH they could loan it all out, but they
won't do it if the business climate isn't conducive to it..
First of all, I don't believe most people leave their money sitting in
a bank account. There are far more efficient ways to invest money. And
secondly, if the economy is growing because more people have more
money to invest, the banks will also find ways to invest their
deposits.
they'll
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy. And all of that money going to work
causes increased activity in the economy, which increases revenue to
the government anyway.
Once again, we have the situation where all those tax money
welfare giveaways to the wealthy aren't doing the economy one
bit of good.
I think it's amazing that you view a person being allowed to keep his
own money as equating to welfare. Can you explain that thinking?
Sorry stevie, you're confused about how the money
game and tax game works. So called 'supply side' economics is
really just 'voodoo economics'.
Not if you've actually experienced it. When people have more of their
own money to spend or invest, they'll spend or invest it. And that's
good for the economy, which (because of increased activity) is then
good for revenue to the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
25 Mar 2007 05:29:17 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington. We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' .. there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
25 Mar 2007 08:08:16 PM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities? Really,
are you actually this dense? And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact" to
me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 04:20:18 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities? Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact" to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 04:43:22 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities? Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact" to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives. One really wonders
why he'd bother to be concerned about some fucker in office, or whether
some shitty lil' war was won or lost, believing in the prophetic God's
Word that tells believers there's no way to stop almost total destruction
and mass death ahead. Then Jesus will return and for a 1000 years the lion
will lie down with the lamb. So...why be concerned about all this *****
now?? What a crock...
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 11:07:24 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities? Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact" to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 02:31:25 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174925244.083579.293330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy.
I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money
works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
Semantical convolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 06:22:20 PM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174925244.083579.293330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy.
I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money
works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
Semantical convolution.
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
27 Mar 2007 06:06:51 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174951340.749269.130210@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174925244.083579.293330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll
put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much
higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the
economy.
I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money
works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing
securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for
the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that
"fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
Semantical convolution.
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
Well, blow me down!! ROFL! You mean liberals, uh, like yourself, support
this war and Bush's policies? Are you, by any chance, a *liberal* outta'
Utah?
Sheeesh...biggest pile of stinking ***** I've seen from you in some time.
=))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 11:40:14 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174925244.083579.293330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll
put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much
higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the
economy.
I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money
works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing
securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for
the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that
"fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
Semantical convolution.
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
Oh, a 'liberal' who apologizes for GWB. How nice.
With friends like you, who needs enemies, eh ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
27 Mar 2007 08:01:52 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 8:40 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 26, 11:31 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174925244.083579.293330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Dr. Bipolar"
<doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com> wrote:
"Perseid" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF21F444E0Crrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll
put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much
higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the
economy.
I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money
works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing
securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for
the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that
"fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
He's too busy fighting *WW III* against liberals here way before the
actual biblically-predicted thing (supposedly) arrives.
No, Docko, I like liberals. It's leftists like you and most of the
other fringies posting here that I enjoy arguing with.
Semantical convolution.
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
Oh, a 'liberal' who apologizes for GWB. How nice.
With friends like you, who needs enemies, eh ?
I'm neither your friend nor your enemy. I'm a poster on usenet who
happens to be a JFK/Scoop Jackson/Joe Lieberman Democrat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
28 Mar 2007 06:49:05 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
Oh, a 'liberal' who apologizes for GWB. How nice.
With friends like you, who needs enemies, eh ?
I'm neither your friend nor your enemy. I'm a poster on usenet who
happens to be a JFK/Scoop Jackson/Joe Lieberman Democrat.
The Bush monkeys have made themselves defacto enemies of
the state. Are you an Iraq war supporting enemy of the state
stevie ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
28 Mar 2007 09:30:25 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99013B2CE7A9Errfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Not at all. There is a huge difference between liberals and
leftists.
I know, because I'm a liberal -- but I'm not a leftist.
Oh, a 'liberal' who apologizes for GWB. How nice.
With friends like you, who needs enemies, eh ?
I'm neither your friend nor your enemy. I'm a poster on usenet who
happens to be a JFK/Scoop Jackson/Joe Lieberman Democrat.
ROFL!!! :))~ Okay, I now declare myself to be a 'progressive liberal
leftist' .... a new cateogory I've created to encompass my spectrum of
politicalism. heeheehee...based on
Carter/Kucinich/Sheehan...heeheeheehee....
The Bush monkeys have made themselves defacto enemies of
the state. Are you an Iraq war supporting enemy of the state
stevie ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
26 Mar 2007 10:53:15 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 1:20 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
You're looking at this upside down and backwards. Money belongs to the
people who earn it before it belongs to the government. How do you
consider allowing someone to keep his own money to be "giving away"
Federal revenue? It must be your leftist socialist mentality that all
money belongs to the government, and though its benevolence it allows
us to keep some of it.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
What do you think they do, hide it under their mattress?
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
I've already explained it to you ad naseum, and you're so stuck in
your socialist mentality that you just don't seem to be able to
understand the nature of free enterprise.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities? Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
If the price goes up, it's because there is a demand for those
securities. That's a good thing, because that means the corporation
must be doing something right. And if there is a buyer, that means
there is a seller. And what do you think the seller does with the
money he receives? Hide it under his mattress?
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact" to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
You mean the 1983 Social Security act? That was a bipartisan
commission that came up with that idea. Reagan signed that bipartisan
act out of political necessity, because to do otherwise would have
meant a crisis for Social Security. But that had nothing to do with
the 1981 tax cut for which you have criticized him, which included a
reduction in *income tax rates* for ALL brackets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
27 Mar 2007 12:04:16 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 26, 1:20 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
You're looking at this upside down and backwards. Money belongs to the
people who earn it before it belongs to the government.
Really ? Why does the government get to take our money then,
if it's really our money ? The fact is, it's NOT our money.
PART of the product of our labor belongs to the various
governmental authorities, it belongs to the collective and
not to us as individuals. The sooner you get THIS in your
thick skull, the sooner you will be healed.
How do you
consider allowing someone to keep his own money to be "giving away"
Federal revenue? It must be your leftist socialist mentality that all
money belongs to the government, and though its benevolence it allows
us to keep some of it.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
What do you think they do, hide it under their mattress?
That's what you'd do, hoard money, cause that's the kind of
guy you are.
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
and you're so stuck in
your socialist mentality that you just don't seem to be able to
understand the nature of free enterprise.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
If the price goes up, it's because there is a demand for those
securities. That's a good thing, because that means the corporation
must be doing something right. And if there is a buyer, that means
there is a seller. And what do you think the seller does with the
money he receives? Hide it under his mattress?
ooooh, buyers and sellers... I'm so enlightened now ! You still
have to explain how those tax money give-aways get back into
the economy as a business investment. Clearly buying or selling
an EXISTING security doesn't affect business investment, so
you need to connect these dots or I have to assume 'Slippery
Supply-Side Economics' is nothing more than 'Voodoo Economics'.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
You mean the 1983 Social Security act? That was a bipartisan
commission that came up with that idea. Reagan signed that bipartisan
act out of political necessity, because to do otherwise would have
meant a crisis for Social Security. But that had nothing to do with
the 1981 tax cut for which you have criticized him, which included a
reduction in *income tax rates* for ALL brackets.
Indeed, payroll taxes were increased in this law, so
*Effective* tax rates INCREASED for lower and middle income
earners. Thank you very much, my point is made. Reagan RAISED
taxes for the lower and middle income earners (that means you
Stevie) , and at the same time he plunged our country into
debt that will take 100 years to pay off. Essentially, Reagan
took a dump on you and the next 4 generations of your family.
But I'm sorry, you really LIKE the guy (even though he assured
your own economic slavery). I'll try to say nicer things
about him in the future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
27 Mar 2007 08:12:43 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 9:04 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 26, 1:20 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 25, 2:29 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
put it into something safe like government debt... they'll put
it into anything that will give them the highest return. Of
course, this even assumes the banks get all the money.. much
of it goes straight into brokerage instruments.. mostly debt,
possibly equities, although investors will demand a much higher
return to take the kind of risk that equities involve.
And all of that is putting the money to work within the economy. I
much prefer to see money that would have been diverted to
Washington
going to work in the economy.
As would I.. but we were never talking about money being
diverted to Washington.
What do you think tax money is?
What do YOU think we were talking about ?
For the mentally challenged I'll provide some insight. We were
discussing the difference between just 'giving away' huge
amounts of Federal revenue versus having some control over
where and how that revenue was used in the private sector.
You're looking at this upside down and backwards. Money belongs to the
people who earn it before it belongs to the government.
Really ? Why does the government get to take our money then,
if it's really our money ?
Because the people of the United States decided several decades ago to
amend the Constitution to make the income tax constitutional.
The fact is, it's NOT our money.
Yes it is. We allow the government to take *some* of our money. But
it's definitely our money until April 15.
PART of the product of our labor belongs to the various
governmental authorities, it belongs to the collective and
not to us as individuals.
Wrong. You don't realize that the money deducted from your paycheck is
still your money until you file? And any refund you get is just your
own money being returned to you (interest free)?
The sooner you get THIS in your
thick skull, the sooner you will be healed.
I'm not interested in being instructed in your socialist "collective"
mentality.
How do you
consider allowing someone to keep his own money to be "giving away"
Federal revenue? It must be your leftist socialist mentality that all
money belongs to the government, and though its benevolence it allows
us to keep some of it.
We were talkig about welfare for the
rich, tax money giveaways to the top 5% of wealth holders
versus targeted tax incentives to ensure those tax breaks
go back into the economy.
You still haven't explained how allowing someone to keep his own
money
somehow equates to welfare. Please explain that thinking.
You haven't answered the question about how giving Federal
revenue to the rich elite somehow becomes productive capital
in the economy (they don't spend all the money they're given).
What do you think they do, hide it under their mattress?
That's what you'd do, hoard money, cause that's the kind of
guy you are.
I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think I'd hide
money under my mattress (such an unproductive use of money).
Until you can show me the link between a tax freebee giveaway
and that same money going back into the economy as working
capital, I'll have to assume 'Supply Side Economics' is just
'Voodoo Economics' ..
That's because you're an ignoramous when it comes to how money works.
You just don't like being shown that you're wrong, so your only
talking point is to call people names. I really like those
1-liners too .. they really demonstrate in-depth knowledge.
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
Since I am a JFK (tax cutting & strong defense) Democrat, I already
believed what I believe long before any Bush became president.
and you're so stuck in
your socialist mentality that you just don't seem to be able to
understand the nature of free enterprise.
there simply is not always any incentive
for that tax giveaway money to be used productively as business
capital.. most often it just ends up purchasing existing securities
(debt or equity) which does little more than drive the price of
those securities up.
What do you think happens to the money invested in securities?
Really,
are you actually this dense?
Enlighten me stevie. The money never gets used. If the securities
already exist, then the only effect of buying the securities is
to drive prices of those securities up.
If the price goes up, it's because there is a demand for those
securities. That's a good thing, because that means the corporation
must be doing something right. And if there is a buyer, that means
there is a seller. And what do you think the seller does with the
money he receives? Hide it under his mattress?
ooooh, buyers and sellers... I'm so enlightened now ! You still
have to explain how those tax money give-aways get back into
the economy as a business investment. Clearly buying or selling
an EXISTING security doesn't affect business investment, so
you need to connect these dots or I have to assume 'Slippery
Supply-Side Economics' is nothing more than 'Voodoo Economics'.
You're stuck in a "static economy" mentality. You can't imagine that
the economy might actually grow. That corporations might sell
additional shares as they grow. That new money brought into the
economy might trigger new investment in new business ventures. Oh
well, stay stuck. The economy needs worker bees like you. Just keep
paying your taxes.
You're full of grand claims but when it comes to actual
thought you're coming up short.
And by the way, I still haven't seen your
documentation that the 1981 tax cuts caused a tax increase for the
lowest bracket. Have you forgotten I asked you to prove that "fact"
to
me?
Already provided it in another thread. You missed that too ?
You need to stop staying up so late. Your thinking is clouded.
You mean the 1983 Social Security act? That was a bipartisan
commission that came up with that idea. Reagan signed that bipartisan
act out of political necessity, because to do otherwise would have
meant a crisis for Social Security. But that had nothing to do with
the 1981 tax cut for which you have criticized him, which included a
reduction in *income tax rates* for ALL brackets.
Indeed, payroll taxes were increased in this law, so
*Effective* tax rates INCREASED for lower and middle income
earners. Thank you very much, my point is made. Reagan RAISED
taxes for the lower and middle income earners (that means you
Stevie) ,
As I explained, the Reagan tax cut was across the board. The
bipartisan Social Security Act of 1983 was forced on Reagan by a
bipartisan commission. That was not his idea, but he had no choice but
to sign it or risk a Social Security crises.
and at the same time he plunged our country into
debt that will take 100 years to pay off. Essentially, Reagan
took a dump on you and the next 4 generations of your family.
But I'm sorry, you really LIKE the guy (even though he assured
your own economic slavery). I'll try to say nicer things
about him in the future.
Why don't you tell me how much better things were before he became
president. I actually remember Jimmy Carter's economy, and it was the
worst economy I've ever experienced. High inflation, high interest
rates, low economic activity. Talk about feeling like someone had
taken a dump on me ... wow, that economy was absolutely terrible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
28 Mar 2007 06:46:55 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
Since I am a JFK (tax cutting & strong defense) Democrat, I already
believed what I believe long before any Bush became president.
You are a follower of Reagan Voodoo Economics. Here's what
Reagan's former budget director had to say about Reaganomics:
Ex-Reagan official charged in fraud case
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
NEW YORK -- David Stockman rose to prominence as former
President Reagan's budget director from 1981 to 1985,
grabbing attention early in his tenure when he told an
interviewer that he thought Reaganomics was a "Trojan horse"
for the rich and predicted huge budget deficits.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Reagan_Aide.html
You're a republican party parrot, stevie. Tax cuts for the
wealthy actually did create massive budget deficits, and
they did nothing more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
28 Mar 2007 09:18:38 AM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 3:46 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
Since I am a JFK (tax cutting & strong defense) Democrat, I already
believed what I believe long before any Bush became president.
You are a follower of Reagan Voodoo Economics. Here's what
Reagan's former budget director had to say about Reaganomics:
Ex-Reagan official charged in fraud case
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
NEW YORK -- David Stockman rose to prominence as former
President Reagan's budget director from 1981 to 1985,
grabbing attention early in his tenure when he told an
interviewer that he thought Reaganomics was a "Trojan horse"
for the rich and predicted huge budget deficits.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Reagan_Aide.html
You're a republican party parrot, stevie. Tax cuts for the
wealthy actually did create massive budget deficits, and
they did nothing more.
Wrong again. It is a hard cold fact that revenue to the government
went UP during Reagan's terms in office. The reason for the deficits
was massive spending. This is not opinion, randie, this is fact. If
you cared about the truth, you'd look it up. But I know it's more
important for you leftists to spout your lying propaganda. So be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
29 Mar 2007 03:17:22 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 28, 3:46 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
Since I am a JFK (tax cutting & strong defense) Democrat, I already
believed what I believe long before any Bush became president.
You are a follower of Reagan Voodoo Economics. Here's what
Reagan's former budget director had to say about Reaganomics:
Ex-Reagan official charged in fraud case
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
NEW YORK -- David Stockman rose to prominence as former
President Reagan's budget director from 1981 to 1985,
grabbing attention early in his tenure when he told an
interviewer that he thought Reaganomics was a "Trojan horse"
for the rich and predicted huge budget deficits.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Reagan_Aide.html
You're a republican party parrot, stevie. Tax cuts for the
wealthy actually did create massive budget deficits, and
they did nothing more.
Wrong again. It is a hard cold fact that revenue to the government
went UP during Reagan's terms in office. The reason for the deficits
was massive spending.
Since taxes are the only way a government can raise money, it
seems idiotic to simultaneously cut taxes and raise spending,
don't you think ? The spending increases in this case were
GINORMOUS. Only the republicans can't seem to balance their
budget.
This is not opinion, randie, this is fact. If
you cared about the truth, you'd look it up. But I know it's more
important for you leftists to spout your lying propaganda. So be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: So many leaders have written books.... |
29 Mar 2007 09:39:07 PM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 12:17 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 28, 3:46 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
I've already explained it to you ad naseum,
You haven't explained ANYTHING stevie ! You REPEAT what
the Bush monkeys say.
Since I am a JFK (tax cutting & strong defense) Democrat, I already
believed what I believe long | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
