GG Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Soup lines! HA! Good one! The wealthy go from rich to penniless! I'm not talking about the rich, you simpleton. It's the unskilled and uneducated who won't be able to land a job because the rich won't be hiring. Can't anyone think beyond one square?
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I always find it funny that people who have absolutely no mental or physical ability to get past a certain earning level are quick to piss on people who do rather than look inward on how to improve their income and situation. The Obama administration was made for people like you. Let the class war begin. Seems to me that by declaring invalid those folks less wealthy than you, YOU'RE the one who shot the first bullet in the class war, old balls.
drnykterstein Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 The 2% Illusion from WSJ "Top stories in Opinion" uhm ... ya
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I'm not talking about the rich, you simpleton. It's the unskilled and uneducated who won't be able to land a job because the rich won't be hiring. Can't anyone think beyond one square? That would be the case, you twit (I can call names too), if other measures weren't being taken to boost job availability.
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 That would be the case, you twit (I can call names too), if other measures weren't being taken to boost job availability. Such as what?
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Soup lines! HA! Good one! The wealthy go from rich to penniless! Just out of curiosity; what do YOU think happens to the wealthy (and by wealthy, we're referring to the $250K/year and up crowd as defined by this administration) when you take away more of their wealth? Do you think they sneak into the garage and make more money? That would be the case, you twit (I can call names too), if other measures weren't being taken to boost job availability. And where do you think most of those jobs are going to come from? The government? You want everyone to have a government job?
drnykterstein Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/oep/3310382528/
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Just out of curiosity; what do YOU think happens to the wealthy (and by wealthy, we're referring to the $250K/year and up crowd as defined by this administration) when you take away more of their wealth? Do you think they sneak into the garage and make more money? And where do you think most of those jobs are going to come from? The government? You want everyone to have a government job? What do YOU think happens when you give people less money better access to it? What about the VAST VAST VAST majority of Americans who WILL have more money in their pockets. 90% of the jobs intended to be created by the stimulus package are in the private sector.
PastaJoe Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I always find it funny that people who have absolutely no mental or physical ability to get past a certain earning level are quick to piss on people who do rather than look inward on how to improve their income and situation. The Obama administration was made for people like you. Let the class war begin. The class war has been going on for years, and the wealthy have been winning while the middle class has been losing. The wealthy did just fine at the Clinton era tax levels.
bills_fan Posted February 26, 2009 Author Posted February 26, 2009 The irony of ironies, the people who will most likely be impacted by the proposal live in CA, MA, NJ & NY. Welcome to the start of a lost decade. Ooops, make that two lost decades....wow! piece de resistance
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Yeah because there was no job growth or entrepreneurs or small businesses created or investments or millionaires and billionaires created during the mid to late 90s when these were the same rates. The rich really suffered then.
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Yeah because there was no job growth or entrepreneurs or small businesses created or investments or millionaires and billionaires created during the mid to late 90s when these were the same rates. The rich really suffered then. Yeah? So? But! Uh...my friends, husband and wife, both lawyers, who will be hit by this tax will have to fire all their, they won't be able to afford their...uuh...EVERYONE WHO MAKES 250K or more has employees that they'll have to fire! They have stores they'll stop shopping at that'll fire their employees...uh...um...uh...YOU just don't get it...um...uh....SOCIALIST!
Kingfish Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Just out of curiosity; what do YOU think happens to the wealthy (and by wealthy, we're referring to the $250K/year and up crowd as defined by this administration) when you take away more of their wealth? Do you think they sneak into the garage and make more money? You mean like those terrible Eisenhower years?
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 What do YOU think happens when you give people less money better access to it? What about the VAST VAST VAST majority of Americans who WILL have more money in their pockets. Gee, I wonder what happens when you give free money to people whose only requirements to receive the money is that they remain poor and lazy. I'm sure that has success written all over it. 90% of the jobs intended to be created by the stimulus package are in the private sector. Where'd you pull that stat from? Assuming you know this to be true, precisely how many jobs are 90% of the jobs that will be created by the stimulus package? Show me specifically which part of the package will accomplish this. Maybe that extra eight bucks you'll get every week? But...let's assume that this is true...are you sure you're referring the same private sector that's about to have to pay out the ass to fund this? You think you can TAKE MORE MONEY from people earning more than $250K and year -- the people who create jobs in the private sector -- and expect them to actually CREATE more jobs Man, did I need THAT laugh today.
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Yeah because there was no job growth or entrepreneurs or small businesses created or investments or millionaires and billionaires created during the mid to late 90s when these were the same rates. The rich really suffered then. Au contraire, conservative Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate which fueled the dot com euphoria, which later turned into the housing euphoria. You also had much higher investor confidence and bankers were knocking on the entrepreneurs' doors offering free money. Yup, that's exactly like the picture today.
blzrul Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I love how everyone is spazzed out of a budget summary when the actual budget won't be delivered until April. I love how everyone assumes it's all written in stone. Haven't any of you ever bought a car? I would love to sell you one, you probably walk onto the lot and pack sticker without negotiating....
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Gee, I wonder what happens when you give free money to people whose only requirements to receive the money is that they remain poor and lazy. I'm sure that has success written all over it. Where'd you pull that stat from? Assuming you know this to be true, precisely how many jobs are 90% of the jobs that will be created by the stimulus package? Show me specifically which part of the package will accomplish this. Maybe that extra eight bucks you'll get every week? But...let's assume that this is true...are you sure you're referring the same private sector that's about to have to pay out the ass to fund this? You think you can TAKE MORE MONEY from people earning more than $250K and year -- the people who create jobs in the private sector -- and expect them to actually CREATE more jobs Man, did I need THAT laugh today. You need to get it out of your head that not wealthy = poor, lazy, and stupid. I heard it straight from the president's lips but two nights ago.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Au contraire, conservative Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate which fueled the dot com euphoria, which later turned into the housing euphoria. You also had much higher investor confidence and bankers were knocking on the entrepreneurs' doors offering free money. Yup, that's exactly like the picture today. Doesn't Obama want to put the capital gains rate to the exact same rate that Clinton lowered it to? The point is that the rates are not ridiculously high, or recently unprecedented, nor are they huge increases, nor will they stop businesses from growing or expanding, nor will they stop entrepreneurs from coming up with new ideas and if those ideas are good, finding some funding for them. Granted, it's not going to start to happen tomorrow, but in a year or so when the economy starts to rebound, these rates are not going to prohibit anything from growing.
bills_fan Posted February 26, 2009 Author Posted February 26, 2009 Doesn't Obama want to put the capital gains rate to the exact same rate that Clinton lowered it to? The point is that the rates are not ridiculously high, or recently unprecedented, nor are they huge increases, nor will they stop businesses from growing or expanding, nor will they stop entrepreneurs from coming up with new ideas and if those ideas are good, finding some funding for them. Granted, it's not going to start to happen tomorrow, but in a year or so when the economy starts to rebound, these rates are not going to prohibit anything from growing. Funny!! 2012 at the earliest (and thats my best late-90s optimist talking).
Recommended Posts