| 6/8/2017 6:59:17 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
Olaf_the_german
Houston, TX
50, joined Feb. 2017
|
"Waaaaaaaaa! We ran our Ponzi-scheme investments to the point of bankrupting ourselves and destroying our beloved capitalist system. We want trillions of dollars in bailouts! We are entitled! We don't want to have to work for a living like everyone else We are the entitled!" -- Capitalists
Did you start a commune yet?
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 6/8/2017 7:10:37 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
jer3552
Vale, OR
62, joined Oct. 2013
|
what would Jesus do
|
| 6/8/2017 7:11:50 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
Olaf_the_german
Houston, TX
50, joined Feb. 2017
|
Well we know what Jesus did...smelled of cheese and started a cult.
|
| 6/8/2017 7:17:46 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
jer3552
Vale, OR
62, joined Oct. 2013
|
he sure had those Romans nervous
|
| 6/8/2017 9:05:31 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
condor_0000
Tampa, FL
59, joined Feb. 2013
|
Did you start a commune yet?
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't have any counter-argument for this:
"Waaaaaaaaa! We ran our Ponzi-scheme investments to the point of bankrupting ourselves and destroying our beloved capitalist system. We want trillions of dollars in bailouts! We are entitled! We don't want to have to work for a living like everyone else We are the entitled!" -- Capitalists
Starting a commune is not my thing. My thing is that the productive members of society, the working-class, should hold state power instead of capitalist parasites. Such a movement is called "socialism."
"Workers of the world, unite!" -- Karl Marx
|
| 6/8/2017 10:29:30 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
enigmaathand
Leavittsburg, OH
36, joined Mar. 2013
online now!
|
Tax policy plays a major role in determining whether we run surpluses or deficits. Many factors probably contributed to the budget surpluses of the 1990s, but one of them was tax increases, which took the form of tax rate increases for the highest income taxpayers- Clinton tax raises on the rich (although rates stayed well below what they had been prior to the 1980s -Reagan lowered taxes for the rich. Think trickle down economics). Likewise, major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003- Bush lowered taxes for the rich were a major contributor to deficits over the last decade, and to today's debt - by some measures, even more so than the economic downturn.
The President writes the annual budgets, and Congress has to vote on passing them.
We know that O'Bailout had a Republican Congress for at least the last 2-4 years of his terms, and his spending dropped.
Now, looking at Clinton?
Republicans took control of BOTH houses of Congress, in 1994, and they retained control until 2000.
So, of course his spending going to be lower, because there were no Commiecrat majorities to hand out all our tax money to people that were too lazy to go get a job.
|
| 6/8/2017 10:31:53 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
enigmaathand
Leavittsburg, OH
36, joined Mar. 2013
online now!
|
And they got them with the so called "too big to fail" bullshit.
They gamble and lose and get bailed out.
You mean like what O'Bailout did for GM, Chrysler, and Ford?
(Ford was loaned subsidized money from the U.S. Department of Energy, instead of T.A.R.P. funds, but was still "bailed out" by our tax dollars)
|
| 6/8/2017 11:17:08 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
condor_0000
Tampa, FL
59, joined Feb. 2013
|
So, of course his spending going to be lower, because there were no Commiecrat majorities to hand out all our tax money to people that were too lazy to go get a job.
There's a name for people who are too lazy to go get a job. We call them "capitalists."
--------------
US bank bailout could cost $23.7 trillion
By Andre Damon
22 July 2009
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/07/tarp-j22.html
|
| 6/8/2017 11:17:58 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
Olaf_the_german
Houston, TX
50, joined Feb. 2017
|
There's a name for people who are too lazy to go get a job. We call them "n**gers."
Fixed.
|
| 6/8/2017 12:50:51 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
criminal_1
FPO, AP
98, joined Jan. 2017
|
You mean like what O'Bailout did for GM, Chrysler, and Ford?
(Ford was loaned subsidized money from the U.S. Department of Energy, instead of T.A.R.P. funds, but was still "bailed out" by our tax dollars)
Ford was not bailed.
Yes they took a loan at low cost like any competitive company might do, but they had already borrowed what they needed to survive the coming recession.
Reagan cut taxes for the rich. Fact.
Bush cut taxes for the rich. Fact.
Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Fact. And the deficit went down.
[Edited 6/8/2017 12:51:57 PM ]
|
| 6/8/2017 12:59:50 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
itzatrapp
Al Hufuf
Saudi Arabia
41, joined May. 2017
|
Oh, no... crimy. Say it isn't so!! Cimy's a Demy. 
|
| 6/8/2017 1:19:48 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
criminal_1
FPO, AP
98, joined Jan. 2017
|
I don't like either of them.
I do know I don't like trickle down economics.
|
| 6/8/2017 1:24:03 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
enigmaathand
Leavittsburg, OH
36, joined Mar. 2013
online now!
|
Ford was not bailed.
Yes they took a loan at low cost like any competitive company might do, but they had already borrowed what they needed to survive the coming recession.
Reagan cut taxes for the rich. Fact.
Bush cut taxes for the rich. Fact.
Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Fact. And the deficit went down.
The tax rates are factored into the federal budget and the IRS. FACT!
Congress was controlled by REPUBLICANS for 6, of Clinton's 8 years. FACT!
Bush Jr. had COMMIECRATS controlling the Senate, and Republicans controlling the House. FACT!
It is easier to get 66 votes in a body of 100 people, than it is to get 290 votes out of 435.
So, you want to talk about surpluses and deficits? Thank your Republicans.
Bill Clinton also signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, in 1994(Something that Congress could NOT do, without the President, because that is how our system of 'checks and balances' works in the government), which cost the automotive industry over 675,000 JOBS. FACT!
So, want to talk recession and unemployment, thank your Commiecrats.
|
| 6/8/2017 1:25:54 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
enigmaathand
Leavittsburg, OH
36, joined Mar. 2013
online now!
|
There's a name for people who are too lazy to go get a job. We call them "Democrats."
--------------
US bank bailout could cost $23.7 trillion
By Andre Damon
22 July 2009
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/07/tarp-j22.html
Fixed that for you.
|
| 6/8/2017 1:32:48 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
criminal_1
FPO, AP
98, joined Jan. 2017
|
Tax policy plays a major role in determining whether we run surpluses or deficits. Many factors probably contributed to the budget surpluses of the 1990s, but one of them was tax increases, which took the form of tax rate increases for the highest income taxpayers- Clinton tax raises on the rich (although rates stayed well below what they had been prior to the 1980s -Reagan lowered taxes for the rich. Think trickle down economics). Likewise, major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003- Bush lowered taxes for the rich were a major contributor to deficits over the last decade, and to today's debt - by some measures, even more so than the economic downturn.
The chart doesn't lie.
The deficit went down under Clinton despite the fact the Repubs were hounding his every move for eight years.
|
| 6/8/2017 11:03:37 PM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
enigmaathand
Leavittsburg, OH
36, joined Mar. 2013
online now!
|
The chart doesn't lie.
The deficit went down under Clinton despite the fact the Repubs were hounding his every move for eight years.
So how did Bush wind up increasing the deficit, when his spending was nearly identical to Clinton's?
|
| 6/9/2017 1:50:49 AM |
And here we go. Again. "They" never learn or that is their plan. | Page 2 |
|
condor_0000
Tampa, FL
59, joined Feb. 2013
|
So how did Bush wind up increasing the deficit, when his spending was nearly identical to Clinton's?
This is why the right-wing is always wanting more tax cuts for the super-rich. They all apparently just quickly forget about the last big public-till handout to the super-rich.
---------------
The politics of plunder:
Congress adopts Bush tax cut for the wealthy
By Patrick Martin
28 May 2003
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/05/tax1-m28.html
|