Sho Nuff 720 Posted October 28, 2014 See Link to whining ...deflecting fools Ed and snuff will be by any minute to call worms out in his whiney bullchit I'm focking killing these guys today. Umm...you have been whining the whole time. Worms wasn't whining...he was making fun of what you do. You kill nothing...you just continue to show what a hack you are each and every day. And you have a nice little gang of hacks to rally with too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted October 28, 2014 you're supposed to be amused by here idiocy, even more so by the fools clapping and hooting to her idiocy. HTH We are more amused by your idiocy than "here's". And the only fools clapping and hooting are you and the other righty hacks. The "liberals" just keep making fun of you instead. You won't really find posters here that think much of Hillary chief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted October 28, 2014 We ? Someone is tilted back to back to back ola Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted October 28, 2014 We ? Someone is tilted back to back to back ola We... you know, the large group of people on this board that don't just fall in line with the Republican line of thinking. The same group that destroys every argument you make on these boards on a daily basis. And yes...you are tilting. Get back to crying about helmets and iphones...though, you looked foolish in those threads too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted October 28, 2014 Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr - Me and My Shad: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted October 28, 2014 I am more concerned that she has cankles that would distract even the most disciplined Secret Service agent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 3,121 Posted October 29, 2014 Just to double check, we all agree this was an absurd statement correct? These threads get off track so quickly it's hard to keep up.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted October 29, 2014 Just to double check, we all agree this was an absurd statement correct? These threads get off track so quickly it's hard to keep up.... Yep. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,795 Posted October 29, 2014 She seemed to either go off script, or have serious reservations saying, the part we are discussing. I wonder which. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted October 29, 2014 She seemed to either go off script, or have serious reservations saying, the part we are discussing. I wonder which. I'd guess she couldn't figure out how to word what she wanted to say... and chose poorly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted October 29, 2014 I guess she is trying to parrot Obama all the way to the White House. Would blackface be over the top? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mungwater 597 Posted October 29, 2014 I guess she is trying to parrot Obama all the way to the White House. Would blackface be over the top? She's already did that https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYdg3LYqJE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted October 29, 2014 Just to double check, we all agree this was an absurd statement correct? These threads get off track so quickly it's hard to keep up.... Yes, and you hope that it's just a flub and not a reflection of what she truly believes. Not because she's awesome or anything like that, but because there is a good chance that she'll be our next president and that would be a focked up belief for a president to carry. Stuff like this tends to get blown out of proportion. Did Mitt Romney really believe that 50% are on the government dole and would never vote for him anyways? Probably not, but he said it, so he has to own it. Same here with Hillary. If you're a fan, you hope it doesn't stick. AT least she came out and tried to explain what she meant and didn't double down on the stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,421 Posted October 29, 2014 I really don't think Hillary doesn't know that corporations / businesses employ people. I don't think Mitt really believes that 50% of Americans are takers, I think he was preying on the stupidity of people like the OP of this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted October 29, 2014 Romney was right, Hillary is wrong. Pretty simple really Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,699 Posted October 29, 2014 The problem is that trickle down does work and we have history to prove that. Look at the Reagan recovery compared to the Obama recovery. Reagan blows him away and Reagan was handed a much worse economy than Obama. Trickle down set us up for two decades of prosperity, growth and opportunity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted October 29, 2014 The problem is that trickle down does work and we have history to prove that. Someone needs to explain to Hillary that no matter how high or low minimum wage is, it's still dependent on trickle down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,699 Posted October 29, 2014 Someone needs to explain to Hillary that no matter how high or low minimum wage is, it's still dependent on trickle down. They raise the minimum wage and then complain when companies outsource these overpriced jobs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 29, 2014 The problem is that trickle down does work and we have history to prove that. Look at the Reagan recovery compared to the Obama recovery. Reagan blows him away and Reagan was handed a much worse economy than Obama. Trickle down set us up for two decades of prosperity, growth and opportunity. Corporate tax rates are the same today as when Reagan left office. Personnel tax rates on the rich are lower today than when Reagan was in office. Obama is utilizing trickle down economics more than Reagan and how is that working out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted October 29, 2014 The problem is that trickle down does work and we have history to prove that. Look at the Reagan recovery compared to the Obama recovery. Reagan blows him away and Reagan was handed a much worse economy than Obama. Trickle down set us up for two decades of prosperity, growth and opportunity. You might want to take a look at Kansas right now before you say stupid stuff like this. Trickle down is a massive fail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted October 29, 2014 Because politicians on both sides of the aisle give hundreds of hours of speeches and the other side sits around parsing all these clips looking for the 5-second sound bite that can be deliberately misinterpreted and then push those clips out there and count on the useful idiots in their party getting all fake outrage-y about it. HTH. This is mostly true and I agree, funny thing though, didn't see you saying this in all the McCain, Palin, Bush 'soundbite' threads though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,421 Posted October 29, 2014 This is mostly true and I agree, funny thing though, didn't see you saying this in all the McCain, Palin, Bush 'soundbite' threads though. That's probably because the Obummer! threads outnumber the reverse about 100 to 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mungwater 597 Posted October 29, 2014 You might want to take a look at Kansas right now before you say stupid stuff like this. Trickle down is a massive fail. "Last year, Kansas private GDP growth exceeded the nations and growth in high-tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey." http://m.wsj.com/articles/allysia-finley-why-kansas-drives-liberals-crazy-1414365649?mobile=y Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted October 29, 2014 "Last year, Kansas private GDP growth exceeded the nations and growth in high-tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey."http://m.wsj.com/articles/allysia-finley-why-kansas-drives-liberals-crazy-1414365649?mobile=y http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2014/07/trickle-down-economics-vs-investing-in-the-economy-kansas-vs-california/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/13/when-it-comes-to-trickle-down-economics-everyones-got-a-right-to-their-own-opinion-but-not-their-own-facts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-brownbacks-reelection-race-is-case-study-in-republican-party-shift/2014/07/30/3192d86c-1420-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html There are a lot more... if you care to look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,699 Posted October 30, 2014 You might want to take a look at Kansas right now before you say stupid stuff like this. Trickle down is a massive fail. Check out the 1980s, that was trickle down. There isn't any tricledown anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 30, 2014 Check out the 1980s, that was trickle down. There isn't any tricledown anymore. The corporate tax rate in the 80's was 35%, it is 30% now. The rich had a tax rate of 50% in the mid to late 80's, today they have a rate of 39%. I don't know why you ignored my last post. Obama is using trickle down economics more than Reagan ever did. Reagan had higher tax rates, and for what it is worth I believe Reagan was correct in having the higher tax rates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted October 30, 2014 Check out the 1980s, that was trickle down. There isn't any tricledown anymore. True. The flow to to the top has increased, but the trickle leaking out for everyone else has dried up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted October 30, 2014 The corporate tax rate in the 80's was 35%, it is 30% now. The rich had a tax rate of 50% in the mid to late 80's, today they have a rate of 39%. I don't know why you ignore my last post. Obama is using trickle down economics more than Reagan ever did. Reagan had higher tax rates, and for what it is worth I believe Reagan was correct in having the higher tax rates. Because he has always ignored that which shows he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. And I agree with your last statement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,440 Posted October 30, 2014 Corporate tax rates are the same today as when Reagan left office. Personnel tax rates on the rich are lower today than when Reagan left office. Obama is utilizing trickle down economics more than Reagan and how is that working out? Obama quadruplified the size of gubmint? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 30, 2014 Obama quadruplified the size of gubmint? Yeah, he has been absolutely terrible. That is my point, trickle down economics has not helped. The common definition of trickle down economics is cutting taxes to corporations and the rich so that they spend money to improve the economy. Taxes on the rich and corporations are lower under Obama than Reagan. The economy was good under Reagan and bad now. Trickle down economics does not work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,699 Posted October 30, 2014 The corporate tax rate in the 80's was 35%, it is 30% now. The rich had a tax rate of 50% in the mid to late 80's, today they have a rate of 39%. I don't know why you ignored my last post. Obama is using trickle down economics more than Reagan ever did. Reagan had higher tax rates, and for what it is worth I believe Reagan was correct in having the higher tax rates. When Reagan took office corporate tax rates were 46% when he left they were 34%, today they are 35%.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf When Reagan took office the top income tax bracket was 70%, when he left office it was 28%, to day it is 39.6 after Obama raised this rate. http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthebest.com/l/73/1988 Reagan fought a Democratic congress for years for these tax breaks and the result was two decades of American prosperity. This is tricle down economics. Raising taxes on the rich is not. I would be interested in seeing your links. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,440 Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah, he has been absolutely terrible. That is my point, trickle down economics has not helped. The common definition of trickle down economics is cutting taxes to corporations and the rich so that they spend money to improve the economy. Taxes on the rich and corporations are lower under Obama than Reagan. The economy was good under Reagan and bad now. Trickle down economics does not work. Corporations spent money then. Now they hoard it. Why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 30, 2014 When Reagan took office corporate tax rates were 46% when he left they were 34%, today they are 35%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf When Reagan took office the top income tax bracket was 70%, when he left office it was 28%, to day it is 39.6 after Obama raised this rate. http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthebest.com/l/73/1988 Reagan fought a Democratic congress for years for these tax breaks and the result was two decades of American prosperity. This is tricle down economics. Raising taxes on the rich is not. I would be interested in seeing your links. Your links are good, they were the same numbers I was looking at. I didnt know you wanted to compare the economy after he left. The point I was making was during the recovery in the 80's there was a high tax rate, but that did not hinder the economy. There was a lower tax rate during Obama's "Recovery"(if you even want to call it that). How come the "recovery" went worse for Obama than it did during the Reagan presidency(not after he left)? Is there more to effect from other forces other than the tax rate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,620 Posted October 30, 2014 Corporations spent money then. Now they hoard it. Why? They are not. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/08/21/dispelling-the-myth-of-corporate-cash-hoarding/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted October 30, 2014 Check out the 1980s, that was trickle down. There isn't any tricledown anymore. Reagan's recovery had more to do with the advent of easy consumer credit, than it did with trickle down. HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,440 Posted October 30, 2014 Reagan's recovery had more to do with the advent of easy consumer credit, than it did with trickle down. HTH I'm willing to bet my marriage that you did much better in the 90's and early 00's than you are now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted October 30, 2014 I'm willing to bet my marriage that you did much better in the 90's and early 00's than you are now.Better file for divorce. And what does this have to do with Reagan's recovery? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,440 Posted October 30, 2014 Better file for divorce. And what does this have to do with Reagan's recovery? So you didn't kick ass business wise in the time frame I gave? Right. And now you're doing better? Rich people are spending the money they did then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted October 30, 2014 So you didn't kick ass business wise in the time frame I gave? Right. And now you're doing better? Rich people are spending the money they did then? In the late 90's I was an intern working for peanuts. In the early 00's I was working at a major design firm, but only making okay money. Now I have two businesses (one with the BF) and can afford to turn down work. I'd say I'm MUCH better off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,440 Posted October 30, 2014 In the late 90's I was an intern working for peanuts. In the early 00's I was working at a major design firm, but only making okay money. Now I have two businesses (one with the BF) and can afford to turn down work. I'd say I'm MUCH better off. Good for you! I'm broke because this economy sucks Fawking !!!! And every small business owner I know is going broke also! My competitors are asking why? Me: I don't know brother! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
