The Obama debates

[VA Cowboy]

Noone is arguing that there is a correlation. That's a false equivocation that is only played by people who want taxes even lower for "job creators".

But all things being equal, those that can afford to pay a larger share should as we try to come out of this deficit and balance the budget. That would go a long way towards creating an environment where people can have confidence in investing in America.

lol

Those people are already shouldering the burden. But yeah, let's just "redistribute" the wealth even more. And I'd really love to see proof there's a correlation between how making those already shouldering the burden pay more will create an environment of confidence to invest. What would have a more likely effect on confidence to invest is not punishing the job creators more going forward.

 

[superpunk]

I mean it is no longer a mans responsibility to feed or pay for medical for his children, that is somebody else's responsibility.

Again with these boogeymen?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[superpunk]

lol

Those people are already shouldering the burden. But yeah, let's just "redistribute" the wealth even more. And I'd really love to see proof there's a correlation between how making those already shouldering the burden pay more will create an environment of confidence to invest. What would have a more likely effect on confidence to invest is not punishing the job creators more going forward.

Let me know when you develop the world's first Confidence-O-Meter and I'll talk to my military connects to fund your study.

 

[superpunk]

lower taxes would create jobs

Prove it. I'm still waiting.

 

[jeebus]

Again with these boogeymen?

Give me a fucking break.

It is not a bogey man. It was just said in this thread. Medical care should not be for those who pay for it.

 

[jeebus]

Prove it. I'm still waiting.

Lower my taxes and my work force would increase 25%

I am still waiting for an opportunity to prove it, 45% income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, and property tax are killing me.

 

[superpunk]

It is not a bogey man. It was just said in this thread. Medical care should not be for those who pay for it.

That's not what you said.

In reality it's still everyone's responsibility to feed and care for their children, but those who can't for whatever reason shouldn't be hung out to dry.

 

[VA Cowboy]

Let me know when you develop the world's first Confidence-O-Meter and I'll talk to my military connects to fund your study.

Seeing how you're the one touting this fantasy confidence level I figured you already had one of these nifty meters.

 

[superpunk]

It is not a bogey man. It was just said in this thread. Medical care should not be for those who pay for it.

Would anecdotal evidence still be worthless though?

 

[VA Cowboy]

"But, but they can afford it."

Typical liberal bullshat. I'm sure some of the nearly 50% that don't pay any income tax could afford to pay a little too. Fact is the one's paying the taxes already shoulder the bulk of the burden. Taking more away from them to fund the libs social programs isn't solving squat.

 

[jeebus]

Would anecdotal evidence still be worthless though?

I don't know, anecdotal about evidence about what?

You claim it is a boogeyman, but it is in this thread and I am sure I can find in your posts as well if I took the time to look

 

[jeebus]

That's not what you said.

In reality it's still everyone's responsibility to feed and care for their children, but those who can't for whatever reason shouldn't be hung out to dry.

So it is your responsibility for as long as you choose, then it is someone else's responsibility? That is not a responsibility (at least it is not the first time I used the word, the second time definitely is).

 

[superpunk]

It's a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Say you manufacture plantards. Times are tough and you're staying afloat, but barely. So the government lowers taxes and suddenly you're in the green by a mile. What conservatives seem to believe is, even if demand for plantards stays exactly the same, if you have more money you are just going to magnanimously create more jobs with it. You're going to hire more people, flood the market with more plantards all in the name of rescuing the economy. You're a "job creator". It's your goddam responsibility.

In reality that's fucking retarded. You're going to buy a Mercedes, and unless demand increases you're going to keep your work force at exactly the same size and pocket the extra cash for future endeavors or just to bolster your personal wealth.

Now, even if we kept the tax rate the same, if we can drive the demand for plantards up then you are going to create more jobs, regardless of your tax rate. Because your profits will go up regardless, and you NEED to hire more people to meet demand. A good way to do that would be to give the general public, the largest sector of citizens, more money to purchase things with. More jobs are created to meet demand, more taxes are paid on sales and income, everything is better.

Republicans want to create a world where the "job creators" WANT to create more jobs. Even if they never do. Democrats want to create a world where "job creators" NEED to create more jobs.

 

[superpunk]

So it is your responsibility for as long as you choose, then it is someone else's responsibility? That is not a responsibility (at least it is not the first time I used the word, the second time definitely is).

Right. Poor people are choosing to be poor.

 

[jeebus]

So businesses get tax right offs for health insurance, why don't individuals? Businesses get the power of collective bargaining. Why shouldn't indivuals? Set up insurance collectives or unions.

Those two things alone would. Bring down the cost of insurance 60-70%, but fvck that. The rich should pay!!! Who else is going to take care of my daughter!! I don't want the government to set up a situation where I can take care of myself, the piece of sh1t rich should pay for it.

 

[jeebus]

Right. Poor people are choosing to be poor.

I watched a 30 year old educated man cry in his beer about only making 30k a year: I mentioned to him that he only works 6 hours a day and his boss would be glad to have full time. Then I mentioned that who thinks they are going to get wealthy working one job for wages. If he wants money work full time, save, and find a second job to invest in.

So yea, that guy is poor because he choose to be, or because the loser mentality you always advocate infected him.

 

[superpunk]

I love worthless anecdotal evidence.

I knew this poor guy one time...

 

[superpunk]

http://www.junkland.net/2012/01/8-myths-about-welfare-queens-debunked.html

read and learn - or don't and continue to be terrified of the bogeymen welfare queens who are draining our resources.

3. Myth: Moms on welfare take up a huge amount of the national budget. Actually, each year, about 20% of the national budget goes to defense, and another 20% to Social Security. Less than 1/3 of the $3.7 trillion dollar 2012 federal budget went to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers TANF and other programs. Of the HHS’s 2012 budget, 54% went to Medicare, 30% to Medicaid, 14% to other programs, and 2%, or about $17 billion, to TANF. Meanwhile, $13 billion was budgeted in 2012 for TARP- yet another welfare handout to bankers that nearly matches that of TANF recipients. Speaking of welfare handouts for bankers, it’s worth noting that it would take about 42 years for our nation’s 1.9 million TANF recipients to equal the $700 billion dollar handout given to Wall Street in 2008.

 

[jeebus]

I love worthless anecdotal evidence.

I knew this poor guy one time...

It's all worthless to you.

Did you know uneducated people work 5 hours a week less than educated people? Nothing anecdotal about that. People with more money flat out work more.

 

[bkeavs]

It's a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Say you manufacture plantards. Times are tough and you're staying afloat, but barely. So the government lowers taxes and suddenly you're in the green by a mile. What conservatives seem to believe is, even if demand for plantards stays exactly the same, if you have more money you are just going to magnanimously create more jobs with it. You're going to hire more people, flood the market with more plantards all in the name of rescuing the economy. You're a "job creator". It's your goddam responsibility.

In reality that's fucking retarded. You're going to buy a Mercedes, and unless demand increases you're going to keep your work force at exactly the same size and pocket the extra cash for future endeavors or just to bolster your personal wealth.

Now, even if we kept the tax rate the same, if we can drive the demand for plantards up then you are going to create more jobs, regardless of your tax rate. Because your profits will go up regardless, and you NEED to hire more people to meet demand. A good way to do that would be to give the general public, the largest sector of citizens, more money to purchase things with. More jobs are created to meet demand, more taxes are paid on sales and income, everything is better.

Republicans want to create a world where the "job creators" WANT to create more jobs. Even if they never do. Democrats want to create a world where "job creators" NEED to create more jobs.

Good Stuff