Jump to content

12 Scary Debt Facts for 2012


erynthered

Recommended Posts

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...