3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, that went right over your head. I would vote for JFK over Obama also. Unfortunately he isn't running this year. Reagan took over a weak economy and spent if deficit to kick start it. Obama did the same thing. If Romney or Santorum end up in the White House after this they'll do the same thing. As for Reagan's tax policy, the tax cuts were paid for with deficit spending. Bankrupting the Soviets? That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Looks like that went over your head too. I have three daughters by the way. Sorry to ruin your day. And since it looks like we're getting back on the grammar bandwagon, you might want to put spaces between sentences. Especially when you're trying to tell someone how stupid they are because they have poor spelling or grammar. Fascism has a pretty strong archetype behind it to turn around and say you only mean it in the general sense. When someone uses the word fascist the first thing that runs through your mind is Hitler isn't it? It would be kind of like calling someone a rooster sucking monkey f'r. Then turning around and saying you only meant it in the general sense. Please explain just what went over my head, as if you could ever state something that would go over my head. There is the possibility that I couldn't understand the incoherent ramblings of a imbecile though. Reagan spent in deficit? What does that mean? And btw, the only reason I said i'd vote for JFK today is that he would be the most conservative of all the candidates running (from either party).
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Corporate balance sheets are at an all time high because they're not investing in any capital improvements...things like infrastructure, or labor (why do you think the unemployment rate is 2% higher than it was during Bush's "jobless recovery"? Because no one wants to risk capital on expansion.( In other words...cash-rich corporate balance sheets are not necessarily a good thing, dumbass. Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! Please explain just what went over my head, You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb So, you can't explain what someone else stated went over my head but you felt compelled to stick your feeble mind into the discussion? You are a !@#$ing fool.
Taro T Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb What sort of return are the corporations getting on their cash? Compare that with their typical ROI? How is earning a fraction of what they would under normal circumstances a good thing? Due to the risk involved they aren't spending on expansion. Due to the risk involved they aren't releasing that money back to the shareholders as dividends. They're stuffing the mattress full of cash because they expect a high probability of needing that cash. How is that a good thing?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 What sort of return are the corporations getting on their cash? Compare that with their typical ROI? How is earning a fraction of what they would under normal circumstances a good thing? Due to the risk involved they aren't spending on expansion. Due to the risk involved they aren't releasing that money back to the shareholders as dividends. They're stuffing the mattress full of cash because they expect a high probability of needing that cash. How is that a good thing? How many assumptions can you make to twist and turn a single argument? So corporations are not earning that much? A fraction of what they should? Prove that please. And what are "normal circumstances"? European and Republican congressional debt shocks? Blaming Obama for corporations having too much money is just stupid
GG Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Don't feed the troll. No one is this stupid on his own.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 So, you can't explain what someone else stated went over my head but you felt compelled to stick your feeble mind into the discussion? You are a !@#$ing fool. What else can he say? I said it pretty clear. How else could I say it in a way that you would understand? Sorry, DIN is right here. You just don't get it. You're too dumb.
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 What else can he say? I said it pretty clear. How else could I say it in a way that you would understand? Sorry, DIN is right here. You just don't get it. You're too dumb. One more time. What do you mean by "Reagan spent in deficit"? How can you pay for tax cuts with deficit spending? What don't you get about Reagan bankrupting the Soviets? You compound your ignorance with obtuseness and then double down with your mutual admiration with Davey.
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb Cash being sat on isn't being used for capital investment. Fascism has a pretty strong archetype behind it to turn around and say you only mean it in the general sense. When someone uses the word fascist the first thing that runs through your mind is Hitler isn't it? No, the first thing that runs through my mind is Mussolini. The second thing that runs through my mind is the principles of nationalism and the Fuhrerprinzip. Hitler's a distant third. But that's probably because I'm actually edumacated. It would be kind of like calling someone a rooster sucking monkey f'r. Then turning around and saying you only meant it in the general sense. Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er.
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Cash being sat on isn't being used for capital investment. No, the first thing that runs through my mind is Mussolini. The second thing that runs through my mind is the principles of nationalism and the Fuhrerprinzip. Hitler's a distant third. But that's probably because I'm actually edumacated. Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er. Dave's a monkey?
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Dave's a monkey? Absolutely not. He's a monkey !@#$er.
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Absolutely not. He's a monkey !@#$er. So, he's a pitcher and not a catcher?
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 So, he's a pitcher and not a catcher? Depends on how well hung the monkey is I suppose.
Adam Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Depends on how well hung the monkey is I suppose. I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about.
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about. Got you all flustered and excited there Adam?
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about. It's PPP. All the discussions here might as well be about screwing or getting screwed by monkeys.
Adam Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Got you all flustered and excited there Adam? Yawn. Only if a roulette wheel and a hammer is involved.
Taro T Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 How many assumptions can you make to twist and turn a single argument? So corporations are not earning that much? A fraction of what they should? Prove that please. And what are "normal circumstances"? European and Republican congressional debt shocks? Blaming Obama for corporations having too much money is just stupid Holy cow, by choosing this as your response you are proving that you truly are a !@#$ing idiot (sorry Tom), an aspiring to be paid partisan hack, or more likely both.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er. I'm sure you mean that in the most general sense. Dave's a monkey? I just made a hand puppet out of 3rdnling! Look I'm DC Tom!
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I'm sure you mean that in the most general sense. I just made a hand puppet out of 3rdnling! Look I'm DC Tom! Have you made one post of any substance since you joined this board?
Recommended Posts