Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

     


    Best part:


    "The Internal Revenue Service reports that the top 1% earn 15% of society's income but pay 37% of all federal income taxes. The top 5%, with 27% of income, pay 64% of income taxes.


    Moreover, the tax shares of the wealthy have been rising steadily since 1980, when the top 1% paid 17% and the top 5% paid 35%."



    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/071114-708479-thomas-pikettys-idea-to-tax-the-rich-would-make-us-all-poorer.htm#ixzz37RPDEOZX
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    Some perspective:


    I thought if the rich got richer they'd save the economy?


    How's that working our for ya ....


     


    Sept. 10 (UPI) -- The richest 1 percent in the U.S. pulled in 19.3 percent of total household income in 2012 -- their largest share of total income in more than 100 years.


    The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans haven't had this large a share of the nation's wealth since 1927, when they claimed 18.7 percent.


    Since the recession officially ended in 2009, 95 percent of reported income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. During the economic expansion following the 2001 recession, it was 65 percent.


    In 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, while the remaining 99 percent saw their incomes increase by 1 percent.


    The top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings for 2012. The largest take previously was 46.3 percent in 1932.


    Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/09/10/Top-1-percent-claim-record-share-of-household-income/7821378843320/#ixzz37SDaJ9Hk" rel="nofollow">http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/09/10/Top-1-percent-claim-record-share-of-household-income/7821378843320/#ixzz37SDaJ9Hk

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    "The Internal Revenue Service reports that the top 1% earn 15% of society's income but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

     

     

     

    They also use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure in getting richer. So....keep it up, I guess

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Can I steal your pics for those who cry about income inequality? Thanks dude!

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    What an inane statement, that the wealthy "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

    What does that mean, exactly? Their limousines ruin the pavement on the roads built by the wonderful Government?

    Sounds just like Granny Warren's Marxist tirade about how the rich couldnt have done  it without the Nanny State's partnership....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What an inane statement, that the wealthy "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

    What does that mean, exactly? Their limousines ruin the pavement on the roads built by the wonderful Government?

    Sounds just like Granny Warren's Marxist tirade about how the rich couldnt have done  it without the Nanny State's partnership....

    [/QUOTE]

    The Marxists, er, I mean, liberals who post here will never see this.  Too much anger on the left.  Too much of it focused against success, too much of it focused on anger.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    "use a ton more of the nation's infrastructure" !

     

    What does that mean, exactly?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd invite you to think about it if there was any hope of success

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't build that.

    marxist idiot.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Job creators are not investing, they are doing stock buy backs instead.  Why? 

    The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive.  Better to buy back shares, which in turn raises the price of the stock.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...





    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?


    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.


    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.


    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.


    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.


     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    In response to high-road's comment:


    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?
    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."
    Well ... where are all the jobs?
    Where are all the 'rising boats'?
    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?
    Oh, I get it:
    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.
    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....



    Job creators are not investing, they are doing stock buy backs instead.  Why? 


    The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive.  Better to buy back shares, which in turn raises the price of the stock.

    So you're saying that rich people would rather hoard their money, with no appreciable benefit or return, rather than make an investment that would produce a return ... because taxes are "too damn high"?


    You're argument is that rich people don't want to be rich, they just want to be taxed less?


    You're saying that to the job creators, a return of 70% on an investment is worse than a 0% return on an investment?


    You do realize that a corporation, as much as you like to think of them as people, can't actually be it's own shareholder. Those shares that a company buys are absorbed by the corporation which means they have no value to the company ... other than as an expense.


    And why would a company need to prop up it's share price when the stcok market is at historic highs?


    And this is your argument in light of taxes being at historic lows ... and in spite of the fact that when taxes where 2-3 times higher, at 70-90%, the economy experienced the longest period of economic growth in it's history.


    To summarize ... all we have to do is ignore the basics of investing, recent tax history and the recent economic past .... for your theory to be believable.... Got it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?

     

     

    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.

     

    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.

     

    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.

     

    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...



    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?


    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.


    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.


    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.


    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.


     


    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.




    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.


    Which is it?


    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...



    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?

     

    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.

     

    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.

     

    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.

     

    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.

     

     

     

    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.

     

     

    Which is it?

     

    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't give a s h i t what 'wingnuts' say. Why would I? Again it's simple, no one is going to expand in a bad economy. Not sure why you're struggling to understand that concept.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    For the moment, the rich getting richer and no trickle down can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration of course.

    The trillions of dollars expended to keep the banks from failing and propping  up the economy goes to whom?? Banks, or "rich people". They get their hands on it first and they are the first to profit. Meanwhile, the rest of us have too much debt so we are trying to pay that off rather than consuming as much as normal.

    Then look at what is happening with college loans. Who gets saddled with the loans to pay off Big Education? People with no money to pay the tuition. Who has the money to pay $250K for tuition? Rich people. What happens then? Their kids graduate debt free ready to leap ahead of those saddled with debt. The rich get richer.

    Then you ought to examine how the banksters got away with their fraudulent loans without going to jail as opposed to what happened to the Savings and Loan scandal where over 1000 people went to jail. Ask yourself who is being rewarded for taking huge risks without having to face personal - or even corporate - risk? The 1%ers you hate so much. And what organization can't lexist without the "too-big-to-fail" banks to sell their debt?? That would be the spendthrift Obama Administration. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:



    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


     


    [QUOTE]


     



    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...




    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?


     


    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.


     


    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.


     


    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.


     


    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.


     


     


     


    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.


     


     




    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.


     


     


    Which is it?


     


    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.


    [/QUOTE]

    I don't give a s h i t what 'wingnuts' say. Why would I? Again it's simple, no one is going to expand in a bad economy. Not sure why you're struggling to understand that concept.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    How can corporate profits be at historic highs if no one is buying goods?


    How can the stock market be at historic highs if the economy is so bad?


    I'm 'struggling to understand' because you just keep repeating the same thing while ignoring the facts.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?

    We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

    Where are all the 'rising boats'?

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:

    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So what ever happened to all the benefits the Obama Government stimulus and welfare spending  was supposed to rain down on society? Obama and the Dems have been in charge since way back in 2009, and the economic recovery is pathetic. THye got their trillion dollar stimulus and doubled food stamps, and raised taxes on the rich....

     

    We've all heard the moonbat speil: "Stimulate the economy by doubling food stamps"

     

    Well ... where are all the jobs?

     

    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow, , enriching everyone?

     

    Oh, I get it:

     

    When the moonbat s embrace the 'Government can redistribute income , pick winners and losers and stimulate the private sector economy’ theory   it's not economics ... it's more of a 'take the taxpayers money and hire more public sector unionized layabout liberal bureaucrats, and create more Government dependent Democrats ' type of theory.

     

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    Gee - I wonder why R2 is using just Federal Income Taxes and not Federal Taxes. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...



    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?

     

    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.

     

    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.

     

    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.

     

    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.

     

     

     

    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.

     

     

    Which is it?

     

    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't give a s h i t what 'wingnuts' say. Why would I? Again it's simple, no one is going to expand in a bad economy. Not sure why you're struggling to understand that concept.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can corporate profits be at historic highs if no one is buying goods?

    How can the stock market be at historic highs if the economy is so bad?

    You just keep repeating the same thing while ignoring the facts.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's easy....wages are at a 65 year LOW. Corporates tax rates are also at record lows. Any other questions?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:



    In response to high-road's comment:


    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."
    Well ... where are all the jobs?Where are all the 'rising boats'?
    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?
    Oh, I get it:
    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.
    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....


    So what ever happened to all the benefits the Obama Government stimulus and welfare spending  was supposed to rain down on society? Obama and the Dems have been in charge since way back in 2009, and the economic recovery is pathetic. THye got their trillion dollar stimulus and doubled food stamps, and raised taxes on the rich....


    We've all heard the moonbat speil: "Stimulate the economy by doubling food stamps"


    Well ... where are all the jobs?


    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow, , enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:


    When the moonbat s embrace the 'Government can redistribute income , pick winners and losers and stimulate the private sector economy’ theory   it's not economics ... it's more of a 'take the taxpayers money and hire more public sector unionized layabout liberal bureaucrats, and create more Government dependent Democrats ' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....



    Don't look know but the stimulus reversed an 800,000+/month job loss into 150,000/month job gains immediately after it was enacted. A stimulus doesn't get much better than that.  You can't just deny the facts and ignore the reality and think history will somehow bend to your alternate version of events.


    By the end of Obama's first term, the economy had added more jobs than the entire 8yr baby-Bush term:


    2001 - 2009 = 1 million jobs added


    2009 - 2013 = 1.5 million jobs added


    2013 - 6/2014 = 3.5 million jobs added


    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms


     


     


    And both nominal and effective tax rates for all taxpayers are lower now than they were during the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern US history in the 1990's. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...



    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?

     

    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.

     

    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.

     

    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.

     

    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.

     

     

     

    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.

     

     

    Which is it?

     

    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't give a s h i t what 'wingnuts' say. Why would I? Again it's simple, no one is going to expand in a bad economy. Not sure why you're struggling to understand that concept.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can corporate profits be at historic highs if no one is buying goods?

    How can the stock market be at historic highs if the economy is so bad?

    You just keep repeating the same thing while ignoring the facts.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's easy....wages are at a 65 year LOW. Corporates tax rates are also at record lows. Any other questions?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    According to these 2 charts, both avg hourly and weekly earnings have been rising steadily for the past 5 yrs.

    http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings" rel="nofollow">http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings

    http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_weekly_earnings

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Shocking people are gun shy about investing in expanding their business during a bad economy...



    So 'trickle down' only works in good economies?

     

    That's pretty stupid, and contrary to it's proponents arguments.

     

    Why would anyone need incentives in a good economy, that's what leads to 'bubbles'.

     

    The wingnuts say that cutting taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth, especially in a downturn. It's their standard answer to any sort of stimulus program.

     

    Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest level in generations, the wealthy hold a larger share of the pie than anytime since the 1920's - 30's .... and yet there's no trickle down effect.

     

     

     

    If no one is buying goods because of a bad economy then why on earth would someone EXPAND their business? They should expand when no one is buying anything??? Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Either you don't understand the theory of 'trickle down' economics ... especially as proffered by the wingnuts ... or you think the wingnut theory is garbage.

     

     

    Which is it?

     

    And clearly someone must be buying goods because corporate profits are at all time highs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't give a s h i t what 'wingnuts' say. Why would I? Again it's simple, no one is going to expand in a bad economy. Not sure why you're struggling to understand that concept.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can corporate profits be at historic highs if no one is buying goods?

    How can the stock market be at historic highs if the economy is so bad?

    You just keep repeating the same thing while ignoring the facts.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's easy....wages are at a 65 year LOW. Corporates tax rates are also at record lows. Any other questions?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    According to these 2 charts, both avg hourly and weekly earnings have been rising steadily for the past 5 yrs.

    http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings" rel="nofollow">http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings" rel="nofollow">http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings

    http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_weekly_earnings" rel="nofollow">http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_weekly_earnings

    [/QUOTE]

    Clearly I made it up...sigh....

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    In response to high-road's comment:

     


    So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."
    Well ... where are all the jobs?Where are all the 'rising boats'?
    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?
    Oh, I get it:
    When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.
    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....


    So what ever happened to all the benefits the Obama Government stimulus and welfare spending  was supposed to rain down on society? Obama and the Dems have been in charge since way back in 2009, and the economic recovery is pathetic. THye got their trillion dollar stimulus and doubled food stamps, and raised taxes on the rich....


    We've all heard the moonbat speil: "Stimulate the economy by doubling food stamps"


    Well ... where are all the jobs?


    Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow, , enriching everyone?

    Oh, I get it:


    When the moonbat s embrace the 'Government can redistribute income , pick winners and losers and stimulate the private sector economy’ theory   it's not economics ... it's more of a 'take the taxpayers money and hire more public sector unionized layabout liberal bureaucrats, and create more Government dependent Democrats ' type of theory.

    And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....

     

    Don't look know but the stimulus reversed an 800,000+/month job loss into 150,000/month job gains immediately after it was enacted. A stimulus doesn't get much better than that.  You can't just deny the facts and ignore the reality and think history will somehow bend to your alternate version of events.

     

    By the end of Obama's first term, the economy had added more jobs than the entire 8yr baby-Bush term:

     

    2001 - 2009 = 1 million jobs added

     

    2009 - 2013 = 1.5 million jobs added

     

    2013 - 6/2014 = 3.5 million jobs added

     

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls" rel="nofollow">http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

     

     

     

     

     

    And both nominal and effective tax rates for all taxpayers are lower now than they were during the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern US history in the 1990's. 

    [/QUOTE]

    What you choose to ignore is the cyclical nature of the private sector economy. All recessions end. The private economy would have risen on its own, faster and more robust, without the parasitic Federal Government's massive wasteful stimulus, which hurt the economic recovery..

    Proof is, the Obama non-recovery since 2009 is the worst by far, the worst economic recovery since WW2. Also has the lowest percentage of people in the workforce since the 70s, when many women stayed at home...more and more are out on phony SSI disability, or getting a fat public sector pension, or collecting a Government  welfare check...that is Obama's legacy...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    When did "democrats" raise the capital gains tax?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Obamacare and regulation is that to which I refer.  Try thinking instead of reacting.

    when your options are to: bank your money at a half a percent interest, pay a huge penalty to put the money to work, or simply buy back stock, the choice is simple.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share