PDA

View Full Version : Economic Ipecac



Qtec
06-15-2011, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you don't know what ipecac is, it's stuff that makes you vomit. These three news items came in one right after the other, and the combination had the same effect as a dose of the nasty stuff.

First, the chart above, courtesy of Talking Points Memo. It illustrates the share of corporate profits workers aren't getting. On the other hand, (and offered as the second item) the corporations are doing quite well, but of course, there are no jobs being created.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/labor%20share.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2011/03/percentage.png

Finally, we have US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahoe, who is arguably one of the most evil men to ever be in a position of power saying this to the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce:

“Major corporations are sitting on $2 trillion,” Donohue said, adding that they are cautious about investing those dollars because of <u>the uncertainty of new rules and regulations. “People are holding onto their money.” </u></div></div>

Which is total BS as we all know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What baloney. This notion that regulations are causing uncertainty <u>is another Big Lie that gets told routinely</u> to justify the efforts of corporations to sit on investment and expansion until they get their way. Turn blue, corporations, go ahead.

But Donohue didn't stop there. He took aim at the ultra-conservatives who think holding the debt ceiling hostage is a problem. However, I don't view what he said as something to celebrate. It's pretty sickening, actually.

Yes, it will be raised, Donohue answered, mainly because the country can not afford to not pay its bills. To those newly-elected representatives who say they aren’t going to raise the debt ceiling and will shut down government, Donohue said the U.S. Chamber has its own message: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“We’ll get rid of you.”</span>

He then went on to praise U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for his Congressional leadership.

“He’s growing into his shorts,” Donohue said. “He’s put on his big boy pants.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>That message -- the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"we'll get rid of you"</span> threat -- should turn the stomach of every American regardless of their political ideology.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>This notion that elected representatives must do the bidding of the US Chamber of Commerce and their contingents or they'll be "offed" politically is the most thuggish, overt exercise of corporatism in politics I've ever seen.</span></div></div>

Where in the USCON does it say that everything the US Govt does, HAS to benefit Wall St?

Doing something that would actually benefit the majority of Americans is off the table to these guys. That's just like throwing money away.

Q link (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/economic-ipecac)

LWW
06-15-2011, 04:41 AM
Your data shows what everyone else already knew ... the regime took care of the banksters and screwed the "little people" as leftist regimes always do.

And ... why are you still campaigning for a system that shifts more of the tax load onto the bottom 99% and off of the top 1% ... other than because the regime tells you to do this?

Qtec
06-15-2011, 04:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And ... why are you still campaigning for a system that shifts more of the tax load onto the bottom 99% and off of the top 1% </div></div>

That would be the GOP, not me. You have to up your dose of Meds.

Q

LWW
06-15-2011, 05:15 AM
Don't hate me because I actually read the crap you post ... as opposed to accetping the spoon fed analysis which the party feeps you.

Your own links show that since Reagan the top 1%'s share of the income tax has risen from not quite 20% to not quite 40%.

No matter how deeply you bury your own head up the regime's butt ... the truth will be there when you come up for air.

eg8r
06-15-2011, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that everything the US Govt does, HAS to benefit Wall St?
</div></div>When did you start caring what the USCON states? You don't just get to pick and choose when you want to abide by the USCON.

eg8r

LWW
06-15-2011, 05:58 AM
He refuses to notice that his chart shows things falling off the cliff once his beloved democrooks took control of gubmint ... after having risen dramatically when the democrooks were out of congressional power..

Qtec
06-15-2011, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that everything the US Govt does, HAS to benefit Wall St?
</div></div>When did you start caring what the USCON states? You don't just get to pick and choose when you want to abide by the USCON.

eg8r </div></div>

Republican's think they have that right.



Q

LWW
06-15-2011, 06:49 AM
What a tool.

Qtec
06-15-2011, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a tool. </div></div>


Which just confirms what everyone knows...you are a wingbat moron.


Q....|Folks ]I have to resort to strong language because the nutjob doesn't get it


Q !

LWW
06-15-2011, 07:09 AM
Then explain, in your own words, where I'm wrong.

And, not that you have the intellectua;l capacity to comprehend this, I'm using your own links.

Earlier in the week you were advocating a return to the old tax policies which had the top 1% paying just under 20% of the load instead of just under 40% of the load.

Today you are posting data showing that the MC share of wealth soared after the R's took congress ... which you amazingly attribute to the democrooks ... and then plummeting after the democrooks took back control of congress.

And then ... like the typical political pit poodle that you are ... you dare to suggest that I don't get it.

That is among the most precious things you have ever posted here.

Qtec
06-15-2011, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then explain, in your own words, where I'm wrong.</div></div>

You have yet to say anything of substance or relevance!

Q

Qtec
06-15-2011, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earlier in the week you were advocating a return to the old tax policies which had the top 1% paying just under 20% of the load instead of just under 40% of the load.
</div></div>

Yeah right????????????????..shown me.





Q............... ?

LWW
06-15-2011, 07:16 AM
Because you cannot comprehend anything with the party telling you what you think doesn't mean that everyone else is a bot like yourself.

Now, show me where your data says other than what I read it to say ... or retract it and back away with a shred of dignity remaining ... or continue to add more evidence to the pile regarding your political illiteracy.

eg8r
06-15-2011, 07:43 AM
Apparently you exercise it every single time you mention it. If a member of Congress voted for the HC bill then the USCON is not something care very much about.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2011, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where in the USCON does it say that everything the US Govt does, HAS to benefit Wall St?
</div></div>When did you start caring what the USCON states? You don't just get to pick and choose when you want to abide by the USCON.

eg8r </div></div>

Isn't that exactly what Republicans do when it comes to a woman's right to choose?

Gayle in MD
06-15-2011, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently you exercise it every single time you mention it. If a member of Congress voted for the HC bill then the USCON is not something care very much about.

eg8r </div></div>

There is nothing unconstitutional about the Affordable Health Care ACT.

The percentage of taxes that corporations are supposed to pay, do not reflect what they end up paying.

By the time they rack up their subsidies, and loopholes, their tax costs have gone way down, from what they are supposed to pay, in some cases, they pay nothing at all, or hide their money off shore.

Didn't you see the news about GE paying NOTHING?
Are you aware that they keep their profits off shore, annd hide them, whiile they are taking thheir subsidies from all of us, and then outsourcing our jobs?

It is corporate America, which has destroyed American jobs, and it isn't because of UNIONS, either, it is because they watn to take, and not give anything back.

Corporate Wealth goes up, and the percentage of GDP, from corporations crashes!

Do you really want a Free Market, a rising tide that that raises all boats, or do you want to live in a fascist country, where only the top wealthy accumulate wealth, and pay less than some other countries as a percentage of GDP?

When only wealthy investors move ahead financially, where does consumer spending come from????

Are we all supposed to live solely for Oil, Medical, Insurance, Energy and Big Pharma profits, with nothing left over, while the hedge funders make money by running up oil costs, and we give billions to corporations that hike up oil prices, only to sell our own oil, taken from our resources, to the highest bidder, while we subsidize them?

A free market, is not a market rigged to overlook fraud by wealthy insiders, hedgers and corruption.

G.

LWW
06-15-2011, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently you exercise it every single time you mention it. If a member of Congress voted for the HC bill then the USCON is not something care very much about.

eg8r </div></div>

There is nothing unconstitutional about the Affordable Health Care ACT.

G.

</div></div>

The legal system has not agreed with that assessment to date.

Gayle in MD
06-15-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a tool. </div></div>


Which just confirms what everyone knows...you are a wingbat moron.


Q....|Folks ]I have to resort to strong language because the nutjob doesn't get it


Q!

</div></div>

Believe me, we all understand. It is a commentary to the cause of America's downfall, the gross denial of the RW NUTJOBS.

Just looking at the Repiglican Candidates, prove it, or you could just tune into Fox any night of the week. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
06-15-2011, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is nothing unconstitutional about the Affordable Health Care ACT.
</div></div>There is nothing Constitutional about it. Plain and simple is a gross government "overstep".

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is nothing unconstitutional about the Affordable Health Care ACT.
</div></div>There is nothing Constitutional about it. Plain and simple is a gross government "overstep".

eg8r </div></div>

No it is not! Our Government oversees corruption.

When corruption is killing off the Middle Class, the Federal does, and should, step in to correct the problem.

No country can survive, with a consinuously declinging middle class.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are we all supposed to live solely for Oil, Medical, Insurance, Energy and Big Pharma profits, with nothing left over, while the hedge funders make money by running up oil costs, and we give billions to corporations that hike up oil prices, only to sell our own oil, taken from our resources, to the highest bidder, while we subsidize them?

A free market, is not a market rigged to overlook fraud by wealthy insiders, hedgers and corruption.

</div></div>

And BTW, the rightwing nutjobs, who seek to be the dictators of the whole country's personal, privagte lives, are the ones who pick and choose what they won't honor in our Constitution.


Abortion is legal in this country. The separation of church and state, which James Madison said should be perfect and complete, has been systematically removed, by the religious right wing, of the Repiglican party, and their gay bashing, homophobic, racist, sexist, misogynistic attitudes, prove it.

We are to have equal rights, under the law, not just for those in our country who the Repiglican RW Christian Coalition approves, or does not approve, according to their religious dogma...

The Repiglican Governors are the ones who are breaking with the Constitution, and trying to destroy our rights.

G.

LWW
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our Government oversees corruption.

G.
</div></div>

After all my years of hard work, you finally get it.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!</span>

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then explain, in your own words, where I'm wrong.

And, not that you have the intellectua;l capacity to comprehend this, I'm using your own links.

Earlier in the week you were advocating a return to the old tax policies which had the top 1% paying just under 20% of the load instead of just under 40% of the load.

Today you are posting data showing that the MC share of wealth soared after the R's took congress ... which you amazingly attribute to the democrooks ... and then plummeting after the democrooks took back control of congress.

And then ... like the typical political pit poodle that you are ... you dare to suggest that I don't get it.

That is among the most precious things you have ever posted here. </div></div>

Hard to tell if you just stir the sh!t or are actually weak-minded. Going with door number 1, Bob!

Putting the tax code back to where it was will result in the top 1% paying far more of the share of income tax than now, let alone then. Please.

LWW
06-15-2011, 12:19 PM
Would you care to go quote for quote to determine if Mr Madison's interpretation of the first amendment is closer to yours or to mine?

Trust me ... you are completely on the losing end of this.

Madison, and the founders believed that the state had no business forcing anyone to practice any particular fait ... nor prohibit them from practicing any particular faith ... in any place at any time.

Your belief system is that if someone practices their faith you have a right to force them to cease and desist from same in your presence.

LWW
06-15-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then explain, in your own words, where I'm wrong.

And, not that you have the intellectua;l capacity to comprehend this, I'm using your own links.

Earlier in the week you were advocating a return to the old tax policies which had the top 1% paying just under 20% of the load instead of just under 40% of the load.

Today you are posting data showing that the MC share of wealth soared after the R's took congress ... which you amazingly attribute to the democrooks ... and then plummeting after the democrooks took back control of congress.

And then ... like the typical political pit poodle that you are ... you dare to suggest that I don't get it.

That is among the most precious things you have ever posted here. </div></div>

Hard to tell if you just stir the sh!t or are actually weak-minded. Going with door number 1, Bob!

Putting the tax code back to where it was will result in the top 1% paying far more of the share of income tax than now, let alone then. Please. </div></div>

Care to document that?

LWW
06-15-2011, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Putting the tax code back to where it was will result in the top 1% paying far more of the share of income tax than now, let alone then. Please. </div></div>

After seeing the self flagellation you've went through denying the truth about the Bay of Pigs and the G-S employees working for the regime, and many more issues, I figured I'd save you the trouble.

This graph shows that the Reagan tax cuts raised the tax burden of the top 1%, top 5%, and top 10% while reducing the top 10% while reducing the burden of the bottom 50%:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif


According to SNOOPY'S LINK (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=355574#Post355574) the tax burden on the top 1% is now nearly 40% ... up from under 20% during the Carter debacle.

The figures explain themselves. You, like most leftists, with good intention ... but bad knowledge ... actually support a system that rewards the top 1%.

I'll grant you the benefit of a doubt that you don't mean to support such a warped plan ... but, support it you do.

Now, why would the democrooks do this? Research who the top 1% generally are and you will find your answer if it is truth that you seek.

New money entrepreneurs generally aren't top 1%'ers because they tend to plow everything back into their enterprise. Top 1%'ers are more likely to be third or fourth generation wealth and EZ money wealth such as show biz types.

Those are the types which tend to fund the democrook party.

Their dilemma is that they can't explain their motives the way I just did.

So, how do they do it?

They present an agenda that plays on emotion and eschews logic ... knowing that most folks will never investigate their bleeding heart bravo sierra.

Now, if you have read this far you have been exposed to the fact that the democrook tax policy is to shift the tax burden away from the top 1% to 10% and onto the middle class and working poor.

If you still support this regressive tax policy, you do so with your eyes open and as a willing tool.

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 01:05 PM
Ok, you win-- sorry, it should have been clear all along, DOOR TWO!!! WEAK-MINDED!!!

Share of taxes paid can only be fully understood with regard to SHARE OF INCOME RECEIVED.

Since the share of income received has grown, as a guess, likely 4-fold, that these guys and gals now pay a 2x percentage of share of taxes paid is not only very understandable (except to you, I mean), but an obvious indicator that they have received disproportional benefit from the new tax schedules, as again, most knew was the case ahead of time.

That is, you have a nonsense talking point that you either grossly misunderstand (door two), or which you willfully misrepresent (door one).

LWW
06-15-2011, 02:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN - SPIN -SPIN

</div></div>

LWW
06-15-2011, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share of taxes paid can only be fully understood with regard to SHARE OF INCOME RECEIVED.</div></div>

And this is the problem with you ... you cannot discuss anything honestly.

Percent of taxes paid is percant of taxes paid.

You claimed the old system would have the top 1% paying more of the load, and I claimed it would result in the opposite.

I made my case using the regime's sites and the left's sources.

You couldn't deal with the truth so you come up with some cock and bull redefinition of what the subject is.

What a nit.

And FWIW, even using your redefinition of things ... you would be wrong again, except even more so.

By Snoopy's link ... the top 1% control 28% of income, but pay 40% of the total income tax. That means they are overtaxed by about 40 %. For the leftist brainwashed that's 40/28=1.42585142857.

Under your scenario, the top 1% would still control 28% but pay 18.5% of the total. This would have them undertaxed by a third.

How can this be?

Easy. The old system had far more loopholes and when faced with confiscatory tax rates people move money into less productive, but tax favored, ventures ... they move it into the underground economy ... they move it offshore.

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Putting the tax code back to where it was will result in the top 1% paying far more of the share of income tax than now, let alone then. Please. </div></div>

After seeing the self flagellation you've went through denying the truth about the Bay of Pigs and the G-S employees working for the regime, and many more issues, I figured I'd save you the trouble.

This graph shows that the Reagan tax cuts raised the tax burden of the top 1%, top 5%, and top 10% while reducing the top 10% while reducing the burden of the bottom 50%:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif


According to SNOOPY'S LINK (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=355574#Post355574) the tax burden on the top 1% is now nearly 40% ... up from under 20% during the Carter debacle.

The figures explain themselves. You, like most leftists, with good intention ... but bad knowledge ... actually support a system that rewards the top 1%.

I'll grant you the benefit of a doubt that you don't mean to support such a warped plan ... but, support it you do.

Now, why would the democrooks do this? Research who the top 1% generally are and you will find your answer if it is truth that you seek.

New money entrepreneurs generally aren't top 1%'ers because they tend to plow everything back into their enterprise. Top 1%'ers are more likely to be third or fourth generation wealth and EZ money wealth such as show biz types.

Those are the types which tend to fund the democrook party.

Their dilemma is that they can't explain their motives the way I just did.

So, how do they do it?

They present an agenda that plays on emotion and eschews logic ... knowing that most folks will never investigate their bleeding heart bravo sierra.

Now, if you have read this far you have been exposed to the fact that the democrook tax policy is to shift the tax burden away from the top 1% to 10% and onto the middle class and working poor.

If you still support this regressive tax policy, you do so with your eyes open and as a willing tool. </div></div>

Forgot to mention that Reagan's tax rate change regime was upped significantly twice during the time frame included in your chart.

So was it REAGAN'S policies, or the two tax increases called 'the largest ever in world history,' the Bush the wiser and Clinton top rate hikes, that led to the result you've described as due to Reagan?

And where in the chart is shown the result of the tax regime we are now in, after the two Bush the lesser rounds of tax cuts?

Do you have to work hard to put out such falsities, or does it come natural to you?

Qtec
06-16-2011, 12:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Share of taxes paid can only be fully understood with regard to SHARE OF INCOME RECEIVED.
</div></div>

Well spotted S. LOL

Its not rocket science but it seems that this basic fact eludes him.

Q

Qtec
06-16-2011, 12:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this is the problem with you ... you cannot discuss anything honestly. </div></div>

O.M.G! link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMs9feeSknk) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Here's one for you.

Q. How can you get an income tax cut in 2003 but still pay more income tax in 2004?

Q

LWW
06-16-2011, 03:46 AM
If you were capable of independent thought, you would realize the answer.

Qtec
06-16-2011, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you were capable of independent thought, you would realize the answer. </div></div>

I know the answer, so do you. You just won't say it.
Q

LWW
06-16-2011, 06:01 AM
You don't even know the question ... you have parroted it on command is all.

Stretch
06-16-2011, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't even know the question ... you have parroted it on command is all. </div></div>

DUCK! St.

LWW
06-16-2011, 06:08 AM
Don't be afraid ... the truth won't hurt you.