Re: Cut taxes and boost the economy

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 30, 2015, 2:09:29 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 9:40 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Obama is right that a tax increase on the rich would not cost jobs

No, Obama is wrong about that. Tax hikes kill jobs: period.

deep

unread,

May 30, 2015, 3:02:25 PM5/30/15

to

Not if you use the money for critical infrastructure jobs.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 30, 2015, 3:05:02 PM5/30/15

to

Yes, even then, because the jobs that disappear in the private
for-profit economy exceed the number of make-work jobs for dummies
building useless "infrastructure" bullshit.

But of course, the soak-the-rich proggies don't want to use any
additional revenue for infrastructure, even if more is needed. What
they want to do is waste it on dole giveaways to deadbeats.

deep

unread,

May 30, 2015, 3:37:04 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:05:00 -0700, Rudy Canoza

<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 5/30/2015 12:02 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:09:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2015 9:40 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> Obama is right that a tax increase on the rich would not cost jobs
>>>
>>> No, Obama is wrong about that. Tax hikes kill jobs: period.
>>
>> Not if you use the money for critical infrastructure jobs.
>
>Yes, even then, because the jobs that disappear in the private
>for-profit economy exceed the number of make-work jobs for dummies
>building useless "infrastructure" bullshit.

Disappear in the economy? Where do you think the money goes? Into
a black hole?

>
>But of course, the soak-the-rich proggies don't want to use any
>additional revenue for infrastructure, even if more is needed.

Of course we do. Conservatives will cut taxes even if it means
bridges collapsing on commuters.

> What
>they want to do is waste it on dole giveaways to deadbeats.

Feeding kids you mean.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 30, 2015, 3:45:29 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:37:06 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:05:00 -0700, Rudy Canoza
><LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2015 12:02 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:09:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/30/2015 9:40 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> Obama is right that a tax increase on the rich would not cost jobs
>>>>
>>>> No, Obama is wrong about that. Tax hikes kill jobs: period.
>>>
>>> Not if you use the money for critical infrastructure jobs.
>>
>>Yes, even then, because the jobs that disappear in the private
>>for-profit economy exceed the number of make-work jobs for dummies
>>building useless "infrastructure" bullshit.
>
>Disappear in the economy? Where do you think the money goes? Into
>a black hole?

Isn't that what you claim when the "Super Rich" get their hands on it?

AC//DC

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:07:41 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 1:02 PM, deep wrote:
>> Tax hikes kill jobs: period.
> Not if you use the money for critical infrastructure jobs.

They aren't, ever.

That's why less than 4% of stimulus went to "shovel ready" jobs, you
fucking lying turdbucket!

Message has been deleted

AC//DC

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:12:01 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 1:37 PM, deep wrote:
> Where do you think the money goes? Into
> a black hole?

Yes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio

AC//DC

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:15:04 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 2:09 PM, Baxter wrote:
> And feeding k
BAXTURD's PETER METER
|=====|
| |
| 9 |
| | ,-%/%|
| 6 | _,-' \//%\
| | _,-' \%/|%
| 3 | / / ) __,-- /%\
| | \__/_,-'%(% ; %)%
| 0 | %\%, %\
|=====| '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
"I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:20:49 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:09:16 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:e84kma9ip0qq8vsv0...@4ax.com:

>And feeding kids means money to farmers.

LOL

Too funny. We already know you have no idea how an economy works,
Baxter.

deep

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:29:02 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:09:16 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:e84kma9ip0qq8vsv0...@4ax.com:
>

>And feeding kids means money to farmers.

And it means more healthy workers instead of people unable to work
needing medical care.

AC//DC

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:33:22 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 2:29 PM, deep wrote:
> And it means more healthy workers

Bullshit lie.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:48:47 PM5/30/15

to

Making the Quadrillionaire oligarchs even MORE powerful?

Message has been deleted

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 30, 2015, 5:07:41 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:54:04 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>news:7p4kmapl3rp9368jk...@4ax.com:

>As far as our economy goes, that's pretty much the case - the rich are
>NOT re-investing in the US, they're playing the stock market

[chuckle]

Oh. I didn't realize you don't know what the tock market is, Baxter.

Let me help school you.

DEFINITION OF 'STOCK MARKET'
The market in which shares of publicly held companies are issued and
traded either through exchanges or over-the-counter markets. Also
known as the equity market, the stock market is one of the most vital
components of a free-market economy, as it provides companies with
access to capital in exchange for giving investors a slice of
ownership in the company. The stock market makes it possible to grow
small initial sums of money into large ones, and to become wealthy
without taking the risk of starting a business or making the
sacrifices that often accompany a high-paying career.

>, and what
>little they're buying (like yachts)

I know, as a liberal, you think that yachts just magically appear when
ordered on Amazon, after being printed from space dust on the new
Koch Brothers Gazillionaire Toy Printer, but the rest of us know that
thousands of people are involved in the building of a yacht.

> is often from elsewhere in the world.
>Doesn't help our economy at all when a rich person buys a villa in
>Barcellona.

Where they buy villas is none of your damn business, you sick leftist
freak. I know you're like to keep your boot heel on the neck of your
Spanish brothers and deny them jobs, but can you fault someone to want
to get a good deal on some real estate, far from the stink of
socialism you're generating here?

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 30, 2015, 7:43:30 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 12:37 PM, deep wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:05:00 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2015 12:02 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:09:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/30/2015 9:40 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> Obama is right that a tax increase on the rich would not cost jobs
>>>>
>>>> No, Obama is wrong about that. Tax hikes kill jobs: period.
>>>
>>> Not if you use the money for critical infrastructure jobs.
>>
>> Yes, even then, because the jobs that disappear in the private
>> for-profit economy exceed the number of make-work jobs for dummies
>> building useless "infrastructure" bullshit.
>
> Disappear in the economy? Where do you think the money goes? Into
> a black hole?

The jobs that would have existed if people still had money to buy the
things they want. If they're paying more in taxes, they don't have as
much disposable income, and the reduction in their purchases leads
directly to job loss.

The money spent on bullshit "infrastructure" make-work projects doesn't
create as many jobs. Lots is lost to corruption, cronyism, unions, etc.

>>
>> But of course, the soak-the-rich proggies don't want to use any
>> additional revenue for infrastructure, even if more is needed.
>
> Of course we do.

No, you don't.

>> Whatthey want to do is waste it on dole giveaways to deadbeats.
>
> Feeding kids you mean.

No, giving money to deadbeats who ought to be feeding their own fucking
goddamned kids, or not having them.

But thanks for admitting that you are only fucking around about
"infrastructure", that what you really intend is to spend the money on
undeserving parasites.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 30, 2015, 7:44:44 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 1:09 PM, Baxter wrote:
> deep wrote in news:e84kma9ip0qq8vsv0...@4ax.com:
>

> And feeding kids means money to farmers.

No, it doesn't. Farmers are already sucking more than enough off the
government teat.

But thanks for admitting that you, too, were only bullshitting about
"infrastructure." That was just a stalking horse. What you really want
the extra money for is to shovel it out to deadbeats.

AC//DC

unread,

May 30, 2015, 7:52:31 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 2:54 PM, Baxter wrote:
> As far as our economy goes,

︰ones

unread,

May 30, 2015, 10:44:14 PM5/30/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:43:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>The jobs that would have existed if people still had money to buy the
>things they want. If they're paying more in taxes, they don't have as
>much disposable income, and the reduction in their purchases leads
>directly to job loss.
>
>The money spent on bullshit "infrastructure" make-work projects doesn't
>create as many jobs. Lots is lost to corruption, cronyism, unions, etc.

>No, you don't. No, giving money to deadbeats who ought to be feeding their

>own fucking goddamned kids, or not having them.
>
>But thanks for admitting that you are only fucking around about
>"infrastructure", that what you really intend is to spend the money on
>undeserving parasites.

What you're talking about, at least in your first paragraph, is known
as "supply side economics" (SSE) and it works much of the time; in
theory, it's a solid concept.

SSE does *not* work in an environment of deficit spending and, face
it, the Republicans are just as bad about deficit spending as the
Democrats. First, we balance the budget, *then* we discuss cutting
taxes; however, any cut in revenue *must* be matched dollar per dollar
by spending cuts. SSE will not work if we just go right on spending
like drunken sailors.

Jones

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 30, 2015, 11:23:01 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 7:44 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:43:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> The jobs that would have existed if people still had money to buy the
>> things they want. If they're paying more in taxes, they don't have as
>> much disposable income, and the reduction in their purchases leads
>> directly to job loss.
>>
>> The money spent on bullshit "infrastructure" make-work projects doesn't
>> create as many jobs. Lots is lost to corruption, cronyism, unions, etc.
>> No, you don't. No, giving money to deadbeats who ought to be feeding their
>> own fucking goddamned kids, or not having them.
>>
>> But thanks for admitting that you are only fucking around about
>> "infrastructure", that what you really intend is to spend the money on
>> undeserving parasites.
>
> What you're talking about, at least in your first paragraph, is known
> as "supply side economics" (SSE) and it works much of the time; in
> theory, it's a solid concept.
>
> SSE does *not* work in an environment of deficit spending and,

Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the economy
is usually going to create a deficit, and it *will* stimulate the economy.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:13:26 AM5/31/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:43:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza

You are truly a horrible human being, and to call you a human being is
being very kind. Kinder than you deserve.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:14:44 AM5/31/15

to

Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:51:58 AM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:ik2lma544hi8n2qni...@4ax.com...

Then why did Obama do the same thing, only more so?

Are you going to tell us that Obama's actions didn't stimulate the economy
because he cut taxes?

I suppose massive wasteful spending has stimulated the economy?

No?

Heck, has Obama done anything which you can show actually stimulated the
economy?

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:55:50 AM5/31/15

to

No.

But you admit that your bullshit about "infrastructure" was just a
smokescreen. You just want to waste money on deadbeats.

Thanks for playing.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:56:19 AM5/31/15

to

Factual. Yes.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:10:17 AM5/31/15

to

On 5/30/2015 8:44 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> SSE does*not* work in an environment of deficit spending a

Fuck you.

Fuck YOUR deficits.

Drop damned dead!

2,887 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:11:50 AM5/31/15

to

And as Seattle has proved, infrastructure spending is poured into the
most expensive, least effective projects - assuming those projects
ever get finished.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:21:41 AM5/31/15

to

You need to DIE soon.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:22:02 AM5/31/15

to

STFU, traitor.

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 8:44:12 AM5/31/15

to

That is inconsistent with the findings of the original authors.
Please review the primary source document:

Wanniski, J. (1978.) Taxes, Revenues, and the 'Laffer Curve.' The
Public Interest 23(7) P 207.

For a more contemporary, post implementation, discussion, please see:

Laffer, A. (2004.) The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. The
Heritage Foundation available through:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

So, there you have two primary source authors who *both* argue
vehemently that, to be effective, the tax cuts must be matched by
spending cuts. Tax cuts alone actually harm the economy. If you will
recall, Bush (43) reduced taxes sharply in the middle of a war and we
all know the result a couple of years later... the ill-advised tax
cuts weren't the only factor in the '08 economic downturn; however,
they certainly contributed.

The ideas presented in supply side economics simply do not work in an
environment of deficit spending. I'm grossly over simplifying (this
is usenet,) but we must first balance the budget, *then* cut taxes
and, simultaneously, cut spending. Tax cuts that produce huge
deficits are effective only for getting 'baggers elected as people
tend to behave like cattle.

Jones

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 8:45:58 AM5/31/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:

>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.

Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!

Jones

Message has been deleted

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 9:38:37 AM5/31/15

to

On Sat, 30 May 2015 21:56:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom
instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting
taxes does NOT stimulate the economy. It assumes that the wealthy
will spend more money in the economy. They don't. The only way to
get money in the economy is in the hands of the people who will really
need it and spend it on things like food and clothes for their kids.

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 9:49:20 AM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:22:39 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns Baxter
<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>Oh, but don't you know, Rudy is smarter than even Einstein!

People tend to favor a "quick fix", one size fits all, solution to
very complicated problems. Economically, we did not get into our
present position over night; we have been running a significant
deficit every year since 1974. We will not repair over 40 years of
fiscal mismanagement with a simple tax cut. That's like a person who
is morbidly obese going to the doctor for some magic pill that will
restore him to health... yeah, he might find a doctor that will give
him the pills for a price; however, there's no magic in 'em.

Don't get me wrong, I favor tax cuts; however, we have to realize that
the money we want the government to spend on our behalf cannot exceed
the money we're willing to give it through our taxes and we have been
ignoring that simple little law of economics for a long time;
TANSTAAFL applies.

Jones

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 31, 2015, 9:58:26 AM5/31/15

to

ROFLMAO

A stupid lie, but a lie none the less. Added.

http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's LAND OF A THOUSAND LIES
OVER ONE THOUSAND DOCUMENTED
(That's 999 for Dudu)
Lies, Falsehoods,
Fabrications, Distortions,
and Deceptions!
Since July, 2011

WestBass@gov.com Nik West

unread,

May 31, 2015, 10:38:08 AM5/31/15

to

"Baxter" wrote in message news:mkf1uu$37t$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

︰ones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
news:eoulmaln1lr2hpv2o...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:22:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the
>>economy is usually going to create a deficit, and it *will* stimulate
>>the economy.
>
> That is inconsistent with the findings of the original authors.
> Please review the primary source document:
>

<snip>

Oh, but don't you know, Rudy is smarter than even Einstein!

####
And Baxter knows about Einstein , and what he paid in taxes?
Baxter doesn't even have the IQ of the fruit fly that buzzed around Albert's
fruit!

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:12:50 AM5/31/15

to

There was no tax cut in 2008. There was a gigantic "stimulus" a little
later, and you fucktard leftards claim it "worked." You can't have it
both ways, little cocksucker.

You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about. You never do.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:17:01 AM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 5:44 AM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:22:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the economy
>> is usually going to create a deficit, and it *will* stimulate the economy.
>
> That is inconsistent with the findings of the original authors.
> Please review the primary source document:
>
> Wanniski, J. (1978.) Taxes, Revenues, and the 'Laffer Curve.' The
> Public Interest 23(7) P 207.
>
> For a more contemporary, post implementation, discussion, please see:
>
> Laffer, A. (2004.) The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. The
> Heritage Foundation available through:
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

You didn't read that article. Stop lying.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:19:03 AM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 6:22 AM, Baxter wrote:
> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
> news:eoulmaln1lr2hpv2o...@4ax.com:
>

>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:22:58 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the
>>> economy is usually going to create a deficit, and it *will* stimulate
>>> the economy.
>>
>> That is inconsistent with the findings of the original authors.
>> Please review the primary source document:
>>

> <snip>
> Oh, but don't you know, Rudy is smarter than even Einstein!

I am when it comes to economics. First of all, Einstein never studied
it. Secondly, he's dead.

You committed /argumentum ad verecundiam/ *again*, and you got your ass
kicked for it.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:20:06 AM5/31/15

to

https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/4557131838_e482a77b84.jpg

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:48:27 AM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:12:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Why do you lie about things you are so easily proven wrong on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And I didn't say the tax cut was in 2008 bitch. I said that's when
the economy crashed.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:51:16 AM5/31/15

to

No one said there hadn't been tax cuts earlier, bitch.

> And I didn't say the tax cut was in 2008

Yes, you did. Bitch.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:05:32 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:13 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Liar. Back in the bozo bin for you Georgie Porgie. When you off
yourself don't forget which end the bullet comes out of.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:07:01 PM5/31/15

to

No.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:13:45 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 09:48:29 -0600, deep wrote:

>Why do you lie about things you are so easily proven wrong on?

Indeed.

mr_antone

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:32:50 PM5/31/15

to

Want to boost the economy, give everyone making < 50k per year a
raise.

mr_antone

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:37:32 PM5/31/15

to

You're going to throw someone in the bozo bin for LYING?

Have a heart, man! If that was a common practice NOBODY would be
responding to your posts.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:38:54 PM5/31/15

to

Where is that going to come from? Just gonna print some more money? Or
are you going to steal it from someone?

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:09:33 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 6:44 AM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> If you will
> recall, Bush (43) reduced taxes sharply in the middle of a war and we
> all know the result a couple of years later...

You fucking ignoramus!

The tax cuts had NOTHING to do with credit default swaps.

You are so stupid it defies probability.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:12:22 PM5/31/15

to

Of course you'd make a specious linkage where none exists.

It is a hallmark of your partisan nature and consummate stupidity.

Hint - google "credit default swaps", you blithering idiot.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:16:51 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 7:22 AM, Baxter wrote:
> <snip>
> Oh,
BAXTURD's PETER METER
|=====|
| |
| 9 |
| | ,-%/%|
| 6 | _,-' \//%\
| | _,-' \%/|%
| 3 | / / ) __,-- /%\
| | \__/_,-'%(% ; %)%
| 0 | %\%, %\
|=====| '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
"I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:19:06 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 7:38 AM, deep wrote:
>>>> Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the economy

>>>> >>>is usually going to create a deficit, and it*will* stimulate the economy.

>>> >>
>>> >>Of course that is
>> >
>> >Factual. Yes.
> Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom
> instead of a total bust is 2008.

Another MORON who conflates tax revenues with credit default swaps.

Damn you libitards are so fucking STUPID!

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:20:34 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 7:49 AM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I favor tax cuts

You're a liar, an idiot, and a fool.

You don't have the brains to favor anything, let alone a single economic
component.

You're as dull as the night is long.

Al Czervik

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:23:00 PM5/31/15

to

2006 economy v. 2015 economy? 2006 was much better.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:25:43 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 9:48 AM, deep wrote:
> And I didn't say the tax cut was in 2008 bitch. I said that's when
> the economy crashed.

The "tax cut" had ZERO to do with credit default swaps, you ignorant
fuckwit!

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:26:43 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 10:05 AM, deep wrote:
>> No one said there hadn't been tax cuts earlier, bitch.
>> >
>>> >>And I didn't say the tax cut was in 2008
>> >
>> >Yes, you did. Bitch.
> Liar. Back in the bozo

Shut your ignorant piehole before I backfill it with a truckload of cement.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:27:41 PM5/31/15

to

You insipid little hairdresser poof, shut your insolent cakehole and
fuck off out of here forever!

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:28:24 PM5/31/15

to

That insolent little poofter is going to give Warren Buffett a perm and
pick his pockets, duh.

RD Sandman

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:34:18 PM5/31/15

to

ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>
>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that

>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>

> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>

> Jones
>
>

Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
in 2009 and added one of his own.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:53:25 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:jj3mmad35an3e3a3h...@4ax.com...

> instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting

> taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.

So we can blame Obama for the poor economy under his administration to the
continuation of, and increase of the Bush era tax cuts, along with the tax
relief checks under Obama, and the other tax cuts he engaged in?

Wow, seems Obama is no better than Bush was according to you.

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:54:36 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:l8bmma52tvrn552p4...@4ax.com...

And Obama doing the same thing....ruined our economy. Right?

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:55:09 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:n8cmmad88v5a5v5bd...@4ax.com...

Dudu hates being proven wrong.

WestBass@gov.com Nik West

unread,

May 31, 2015, 2:18:49 PM5/31/15

to

"AC//DC" wrote in message news:mkfg69$kuh$1...@dont-email.me...

####
Oh , like even you could even physically confront that limp wristed, leftist
twit.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 2:53:27 PM5/31/15

to

Bet me?

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:10:31 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 07:38:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:

>Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom

>instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting

>taxes does NOT stimulate the economy. It assumes that the wealthy
>will spend more money in the economy. They don't. The only way to
>get money in the economy is in the hands of the people who will really
>need it and spend it on things like food and clothes for their kids.

Actually, it does *tend* to stimulate the economy *if* the economy is
basically solid when it's enacted. It's like an individual on an
exercise regimen. It's a generally positive idea; however, it can
also be disasterous if the person is 300 pounds over weight and tries
to run ten miles in the morning.

It won't work in the US until we control the deficit and get onto a
sound fiscal footing. In general, cutting taxes is positive to a
point; the other side of that is that we *must* also cut spending at
the same time or it's a waste of time and can actually harm the
economy.

Jones

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:15:58 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:10 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> It won't work in the US until we control the deficit and get onto a
> sound fiscal footing.

Any excuse to keep spending right?

You degenerate fucking hippy.

http://products.unit70.com/ProductImages/thumb/ShovelFace.jpg

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:20:21 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:16:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>You didn't read that article. Stop lying.

Laffer tends to be a bit simplistic in that he is an advocate of the
"flat tax" and preaches that as the panecea for all economic ills. I
recall in the '80s how he was a big proponent of government-run
lotteries and how *wonderful* these were.

But most economists accept that SSE is a solid theory and that it
tends to work. The simple fact is TANSTAAFL; you never get something
for nothing. We didn't get into debt this deeply overnight or even in
a year... or a decade, for that matter. There is no magic pill that
will fix it.

The books always balance at the end of the day and it's late for us;
we must act to eliminate the deficit spending we're doing every year
and this will not be easy... essentially, we're morbidly obese and
need to get serious about our diet... tomorrow, of course; that's what
they all say! Or I'll get a lap band... or take diet pills... you
know how it goes.

Jones

PS: I never use the term "liar" and find it offensive.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:24:44 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:20 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> PS: I never use the term "liar" and find it offensive.

STFU you hippy liar.

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:25:43 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:19:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>> Oh, but don't you know, Rudy is smarter than even Einstein!
>
>I am when it comes to economics. First of all, Einstein never studied
>it. Secondly, he's dead.
>
>You committed /argumentum ad verecundiam/ *again*, and you got your ass
>kicked for it.

uuuh... huh? Let's see, that one is also known as the "appeal to
authority" is it not?

I shall now demolish your argument by employing the logical technique
of the reductio ad absurdum:

YOU FUCKING IDIOT! THAT'S AN ABSURD THING TO SAY!

QED (That's more Latin... it means that I just proved something.)

Jones

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:27:34 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>in 2009 and added one of his own.

Well, yes he did. Obama will not go down in history as the most
economically savvy president... not even the second most!

Jones

︰ones

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:29:29 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:22:59 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Al Czervik
<Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:

>2006 economy v. 2015 economy? 2006 was much better.

I doubt that statement. That's like saying you were better off as you
passed the third floor on your way down to the sudden stop.

Jones

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:30:19 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:25 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> QED (That's more Latin... it means that I just proved something.)

Yes, you proved you are an uneducated ideologue.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:30:58 PM5/31/15

to

You are an ignorant fool.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 3:31:53 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:29 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:22:59 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Al Czervik
> <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2006 economy v. 2015 economy? 2006 was much better.
>
> I doubt that statement.

But you're well known to be a moron, so who cares.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:09:48 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:

>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>
>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>
>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>
>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>in 2009 and added one of his own.

Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama. Obama
pulled the troops out of Iraq and cut the mission in Afghanistan back
to a bare minimum required for national security. You have Bush,
and nobody but Bush to blame on the instability in the region.

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:11:13 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:09 PM, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@

>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>> cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>> in 2009 and added one of his own.
>
> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama. Obama
> pulled the troops out of Iraq

After Bush had already started drawing down the troops...

> and cut the mission in Afghanistan

Before Afghanistan was ready.

Obama = fuckup.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:22:46 PM5/31/15

to

Ain't gonna happen. What they are going to do is crash the economy
and wipe out the dollar so everybody's savings becomes worthless. That
way all the monies owed by the corporations to the small investor in
the form of investments will be wiped out. Of course the wealthy
insiders will have already moved all their money into secure offshore
banks and tax shelters. The government will collapse because tax
revenues will drop to almost zero and there will be no more financing
on additional debt. The result will be a fascist police state with
martial law. Race wars will thin the population. And that's exactly
what the oligarchy wants. And that's what they will get. But then
I'm an optimist. It probably will be a whole lot worse.

>
>Jones

Rudy Canoza

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:25:22 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 1:22 PM, deep wrote:

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:10:30 -0500, ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 07:38:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom
>>> instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting
>>> taxes does NOT stimulate the economy. It assumes that the wealthy
>>> will spend more money in the economy. They don't. The only way to
>>> get money in the economy is in the hands of the people who will really
>>> need it and spend it on things like food and clothes for their kids.
>>
>> Actually, it does *tend* to stimulate the economy *if* the economy is
>> basically solid when it's enacted. It's like an individual on an
>> exercise regimen. It's a generally positive idea; however, it can
>> also be disasterous if the person is 300 pounds over weight and tries
>> to run ten miles in the morning.
>>
>> It won't work in the US until we control the deficit and get onto a
>> sound fiscal footing. In general, cutting taxes is positive to a
>> point; the other side of that is that we *must* also cut spending at
>> the same time or it's a waste of time and can actually harm the
>> economy.
>
> Ain't gonna happen. What they are going to do is crash the economy
> and wipe out the dollar so everybody's savings becomes worthless.

Fuckwit Scheisskopf sure doesn't have much confidence in Obama, does he?

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:28:03 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:4hqmma5fm950h2c2k...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>>in 2009 and added one of his own.
>
> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.

Really? Bush signed the extension under Obama and increased it as well?

Amazing, since he wasn't in office then. Obama was.

> Obama
> pulled the troops out of Iraq and cut the mission in Afghanistan back
> to a bare minimum required for national security.

Which was nothing more than Bush's plan.....of course, things had changed
and Obama's own military advisers were warning him against doing so, and now
he's lost the war that Bush had won.

Of course, he also started fights with other countries, ramped up the war in
Pakistani, indeed he's not stopping fighting or picking fights with people
since he got into office.

But I suppose that's all Bush's fail since Obama is now CiC.

> You have Bush,
> and nobody but Bush to blame on the instability in the region.

Sure, we do, it started under Clinton and now Obama is doing his own part to
perpetuate the instability.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:29:09 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 2:09 PM, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@

>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>> cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>> in 2009 and added one of his own.
>
> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/bush-tax-cuts-explained-facts-costs-tax-rates-charts

By 2003, it was clear that the economic benefits from lower rates were
not materializing fast enough because the rate reductions were phasing
in too slowly. So President Bush and Congress agreed to speed up those
rate reductions and reduce the bias against investment by lowering rates
on capital gains and dividends and phasing out the estate tax (better
known as the “death tax”).[2]
It was at that point that the beneficial effects from these policies
began to take hold and the economy began to exhibit stronger growth.
Tax Policy with an Expiration Date
The Bush tax cuts were always meant to be permanent improvements to the
tax code. Instead, they came with a 10-year expiration date, because
Congress passed them through an arcane budget process known as
“reconciliation” that later became famous for allowing Obamacare to
become law.
The original expiration date was the end of 2010. Then, President Obama
and Congress cut a deal to extend almost all of the Bush tax cuts for
two more years. (The phase-out of the death tax was left out of the
deal.) It was that extension that largely led to the morass known as the
“fiscal cliff” that the nation just suffered through.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:34:33 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 2:22 PM, deep wrote:

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:10:30 -0500, ¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 07:38:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom
>>> instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting
>>> taxes does NOT stimulate the economy. It assumes that the wealthy
>>> will spend more money in the economy. They don't. The only way to
>>> get money in the economy is in the hands of the people who will really
>>> need it and spend it on things like food and clothes for their kids.
>>
>> Actually, it does *tend* to stimulate the economy *if* the economy is
>> basically solid when it's enacted. It's like an individual on an
>> exercise regimen. It's a generally positive idea; however, it can
>> also be disasterous if the person is 300 pounds over weight and tries
>> to run ten miles in the morning.
>>
>> It won't work in the US until we control the deficit and get onto a
>> sound fiscal footing. In general, cutting taxes is positive to a
>> point; the other side of that is that we *must* also cut spending at
>> the same time or it's a waste of time and can actually harm the
>> economy.
>
> Ain't gonna happen. What they are going to do is crash the economy

Obama?

Yes, he'd like to.

> and wipe out the dollar

The dollar is very strong, stop lying.

> so everybody's savings becomes worthless.

Right...

> That way all the monies owed by the corporations to the small investor in
> the form of investments will be wiped out.

Wow, you're totally insane.

> Of course the wealthy
> insiders will have already moved all their money into secure offshore
> banks and tax shelters.

Where it will do them no good if they can not spend it.

> The government will collapse because tax
> revenues will drop to almost zero and there will be no more financing
> on additional debt.

Chicken Little much?

> The result will be a fascist police state with
> martial law.

And you will be tracked down and made into jerky.

> Race wars will thin the population.

Says the racist.

> And that's exactly what the oligarchy wants.

Why?

It wouldn't be safe for them either, you idjit.

> And that's what they will get. But then
> I'm an optimist. It probably will be a whole lot worse.

Your neighbors are going to make you into jerky, trust me.

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:39:58 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:27:44 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"deep" wrote in message news:4hqmma5fm950h2c2k...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>>
>>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>>
>>>> Jones
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>>>in 2009 and added one of his own.
>>
>> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.
>
>Really? Bush signed the extension under Obama and increased it as well?
>
>Amazing, since he wasn't in office then. Obama was.
>

If you weren't a complete idiot you would know that a total, sudden
pullout of all troops would have resulted in a blood bath and you
people would have been shitting yourselves with rage at Obama. He
did the only thing possilbe under the circumstances. But still you
pathetic lying assholes have to try to blame Obama for things that
happened well before he became President.

Again, you people have nobody to blame for Bush for the instability in
the region. But that's what conservatives wanted. Big, big money
selling billion dollar jets to people who can barely afford to buy
food.

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:40:24 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:upqmmahmqchij1775...@4ax.com...

Sounds about like what Liberal Socialism will result in....

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:40:58 PM5/31/15

to

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:mkfql9$3fp$1...@dont-email.me...

Na, he's just telling us what would happen when Hillary gets in which he
claims is a given.

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:44:45 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:33smma13m3ehrtp13...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:27:44 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" wrote in message news:4hqmma5fm950h2c2k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
>>>>news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jones
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended
>>>>it
>>>>in 2009 and added one of his own.
>>>
>>> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.
>>
>>Really? Bush signed the extension under Obama and increased it as well?
>>
>>Amazing, since he wasn't in office then. Obama was.
>>
> If you weren't a complete idiot you would know that a total, sudden
> pullout of all troops would have resulted in a blood bath

And yet that is what Obama PROMISED the American people. Now you're telling
us that Bush was smarter than Obama because he realized that couldn't be
done?

>and you
> people would have been shitting yourselves with rage at Obama.

No, just pointing out how he lied.....and you swallowed it.

> He
> did the only thing possilbe under the circumstances.

Then why did he lie about what was possible?

> But still you
> pathetic lying assholes have to try to blame Obama for things that
> happened well before he became President.

Really? So the tax cut extension and expanded under Obama actually took
place under Bush?

So why did Obama sign the legislation?

Did you see how I headed off your attempt to change the subject?

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:49:47 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 2:39 PM, deep wrote:
> Again, you people have nobody to blame for Bush for the instability in
> the region.

Bullshit!

There was instability eons before Bush even existed.

You fucking moron.

RD Sandman

unread,

May 31, 2015, 5:13:27 PM5/31/15

to

deep wrote in news:4hqmma5fm950h2c2k...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in
>>news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended
>>it in 2009 and added one of his own.
>
> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.

I didn't. I simply told what happened. The subject was the taxcuts
which Obama extended and added one of his own.

Obama
> pulled the troops out of Iraq

Yes, he did.....on Bush's scehedule that was set up by the surge.

and cut the mission in Afghanistan back
> to a bare minimum required for national security.

No, he didn't. He escalated in Afghanistan declaring it to be the "right
war".

You have Bush,
> and nobody but Bush to blame on the instability in the region.

I would agree if you told the truth, however......

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

deep

unread,

May 31, 2015, 5:16:07 PM5/31/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:40:04 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"deep" wrote in message news:upqmmahmqchij1775...@4ax.com...

Sounds like you are still a clueless fuck who doesn't even comprehend
who is pulling your strings.

AC//DC

unread,

May 31, 2015, 6:19:57 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 3:16 PM, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:40:04 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "deep" wrote in message news:upqmmahmqchij1775...@4ax.com...

I am, I admit it.

Now dance boy, dance.

Scout

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:17:23 PM5/31/15

to

"deep" wrote in message news:pfummalulglico3dq...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:40:04 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" wrote in message news:upqmmahmqchij1775...@4ax.com...

IOW, you can't contest my observation.

Al Czervik

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:57:10 PM5/31/15

to

It's like saying now in 2015 you're twice as likely to be out of a job
and on food stamps.

Just Wondering

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 4:52:41 AM6/1/15

to

On 5/31/2015 7:38 AM, deep wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 21:56:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2015 9:14 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:22:58 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/30/2015 7:44 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:43:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The jobs that would have existed if people still had money to buy the
>>>>>> things they want. If they're paying more in taxes, they don't have as
>>>>>> much disposable income, and the reduction in their purchases leads
>>>>>> directly to job loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The money spent on bullshit "infrastructure" make-work projects doesn't
>>>>>> create as many jobs. Lots is lost to corruption, cronyism, unions, etc.
>>>>>> No, you don't. No, giving money to deadbeats who ought to be feeding their
>>>>>> own fucking goddamned kids, or not having them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But thanks for admitting that you are only fucking around about
>>>>>> "infrastructure", that what you really intend is to spend the money on
>>>>>> undeserving parasites.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you're talking about, at least in your first paragraph, is known
>>>>> as "supply side economics" (SSE) and it works much of the time; in
>>>>> theory, it's a solid concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> SSE does *not* work in an environment of deficit spending and,
>>>>
>>>> Stop it. A tax cut during a recession in order to stimulate the economy
>>>> is usually going to create a deficit, and it *will* stimulate the economy.
>>>
>>> Of course that is
>>
>> Factual. Yes.

>
> Obviously it doesn't otherwise we would have had a major economic boom
> instead of a total bust is 2008. That is PROOF POSITIVE cutting
> taxes does NOT stimulate the economy. It assumes that the wealthy
> will spend more money in the economy. They don't. The only way to
> get money in the economy is in the hands of the people who will really
> need it and spend it on things like food and clothes for their kids.
>

The wealthy don't store their wealth in their mattresses. They put it
into income-generating things like stocks and bonds. That money gets
used to build stuff, which means it gets used to pay wages to people who
build stuff. If the government takes it as taxes, the most that can
happen is that it's now the government rather than private industry who
pays the wages of people who build stuff. And you have bureaucrats with
no skin in the game deciding where the money goes, which leads to
inefficiencies in how that money is used. The best you can hope for is
a zero-sum game, and even that isn't likely.

2,892 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 8:40:02 AM6/1/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:05:34 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:13 -0700, Rudy Canoza
><LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>On 5/31/2015 8:48 AM, deep wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:12:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza

>>>> There was no tax cut in 2008. There was a gigantic "stimulus" a little
>>>> later, and you fucktard leftards claim it "worked." You can't have it
>>>> both ways, little cocksucker.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about. You never do.
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about things you are so easily proven wrong on?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
>>
>>No one said there hadn't been tax cuts earlier, bitch.
>>
>>> And I didn't say the tax cut was in 2008
>>
>>Yes, you did. Bitch.
>
>Liar. Back in the bozo bin for you Georgie Porgie. When you off
>yourself don't forget which end the bullet comes out of.

You did say it. Denali ain't just a mountain in Alaska, bitch.

2,892 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 8:44:21 AM6/1/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:22:48 -0600, deep wrote:

Especially when the culling of the libtards begins.

2,892 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 8:48:31 AM6/1/15

to

ISIS is Obama's creation. They probably have his portrait on their
wall at HQ.

2,892 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 8:50:54 AM6/1/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:39:59 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:27:44 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" wrote in message news:4hqmma5fm950h2c2k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ĄJones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jones
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>>>>in 2009 and added one of his own.
>>>
>>> Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama.
>>
>>Really? Bush signed the extension under Obama and increased it as well?
>>
>>Amazing, since he wasn't in office then. Obama was.
>>
>If you weren't a complete idiot you would know that a total, sudden
>pullout of all troops would have resulted in a blood bath and you
>people would have been shitting yourselves with rage at Obama.

Which is exactly what we got. Obama ~is~ a fuckwit.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 10:09:12 AM6/1/15

to

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 05:48:31 -0700, "2,892 murdered in Obama's
organized communities" <ISISLi...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:09:50 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:34:17 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>

>>>¡Jones <fi...@fubar.com> wrote in news:lh0mmahemjug4ej94a93ghik4dp7g1n0ej@

>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:14:46 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Of course that is bullshit. George Bush proved once again that
>>>>>cutting taxes does NOT stimulate the economy.
>>>>
>>>> Heh! I'd say that the Bush (43) tax cuts in the middle of a hot war
>>>> certainly "stimulated" the economy... right into the tank!
>>>>
>>>> Jones
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, you mean the one that Obama thought was a good idea so he extended it
>>>in 2009 and added one of his own.
>>
>>Cut the crap and don't try to blame Bush's fuckup on Obama. Obama
>>pulled the troops out of Iraq and cut the mission in Afghanistan back
>>to a bare minimum required for national security. You have Bush,
>>and nobody but Bush to blame on the instability in the region.
>
>ISIS is Obama's creation. They probably have his portrait on their
>wall at HQ.

Obviously you haven't read "Dudu's Revised History Of The World,"
where the Middle East was peaceful and stable until the Dread Pirate
George become President.

Meanwhile, from the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/team-obama-shrugs-at-isis-victories.html
Obama’s New ISIS War Plan: Nothing
“This is a long fight, and it will be up to the next administration
to tackle.”

Just remember that the dates are a little confusing, because Dudu
starts from "Year Zero."

︰ones

unread,

Jun 2, 2015, 9:20:59 PM6/2/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 20:57:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Al Czervik
<Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's like saying now in 2015 you're twice as likely to be out of a job
>and on food stamps.

Oh, there are lots of variables to consider and I'm not into
simplistic answers to very complex problems.

I *think* what you mean is that in 2006 we had a Republican
administration and, in 2015, it's a Democratic show... that's
generally the discriminant; after that, it turns into a simple problem
of finding some numbers that tend to support your belief and that part
is usually pretty easy.

Jones

AC//DC

unread,

Jun 2, 2015, 9:28:26 PM6/2/15

to

On 6/2/2015 7:20 PM, fi...@fubar.com wrote:
> I*think* what you mean is

You do not 'think', you demagogue.

︰ones

unread,

Jun 2, 2015, 9:29:41 PM6/2/15

to

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:22:48 -0600, in talk.politics.guns deep wrote:

>Ain't gonna happen. What they are going to do is crash the economy
>and wipe out the dollar so everybody's savings becomes worthless. That
>way all the monies owed by the corporations to the small investor in
>the form of investments will be wiped out. Of course the wealthy
>insiders will have already moved all their money into secure offshore
>banks and tax shelters. The government will collapse because tax
>revenues will drop to almost zero and there will be no more financing
>on additional debt. The result will be a fascist police state with
>martial law. Race wars will thin the population. And that's exactly
>what the oligarchy wants. And that's what they will get. But then
>I'm an optimist. It probably will be a whole lot worse.

Yes, it probably won't happen. The 'baggers are only using the idea
of cutting spending to gain attention; if they ever got into a
position where they could actually *do* it, they'd back down. If I
actually believed that they had the balls to put their sermons into
practice, I'd vote for them. Heck, if someone said he or she would
cut spending by 5%, I'd call it a good start and vote for them... and
they'd be a one-termer because *every* government program feeds
somebody. Try taking on social security and see how long you keep
your job if you're a politician... and it was as popular with the
Republicans when it was enacted as the ACA is today, if that popular.

Jones