Lucky...

Or reinvest it to write it off, that way growth continues; they do care about the growth of this nation, right?

Would you listen to this guy. Wants the government to take all the rich man's money and distribute it among the monetarily challenged and HE calls someone else a socialist. Too freakin' funny! I just want the rich to reinvest a lot of their profits. As fro me a socialist, nothing compared to CanuckintheUSA; he gets all the socialist goodies, yet sounds like one of you neo-cons.

As he hands his gov id over for free HC. Your balloon just burst bro, all this pro-capitalism / anti-socialism BS of yours just took a big shit. there's a rat in separate there's a rat in democrat there's a rat tight next to your big shi tea sandwich ! Yes and I would ask you to leave it alone. So would you like to defend our socialist Canadian brother or let him do it for himself?

As he hands his gov id over for free HC. Your balloon just burst bro, all this pro-capitalism / anti-socialism BS of yours just took a big shit.

The US economy and the Canadian economy are linked. We are each other's largest trading partners and we supply you with most of the natural resources you consume. You can't be that obtuse to think what goes on in the USA does not effect those of us who call Canuckistan home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States You should check your facts before making assertions: This list does not include the European Union (EU), which includes three (Germany, UK, France) of the above states in a single economic entity. As a single economy, the EU is the largest trading partner of the US with €204 billion worth of EU goods going to the US and €160 billion of US goods going to the EU as of 2009[update].[3]. But thx for butting into our politics as if you have a real claim here, denoucing socialized meds as you pump your gov med card for freebies. How can you denouce socialism when you are a Socialist?

IS that like the, "internets?" I see, so cut the 600B/yr military + all the >1T over the last 7 years on the ME wars? Or is that off the shelf? Funny thing is that since the GD when taxes are high and spending is generous, the economy has been generally well and we haven't run a debt at those times; some times cut the debt. We are a model, a model of disaster. We were the origin of the GD and now the Great Recession. The country has done the best under periods of high taxation, so perhaps you can make your fantasy truthful on paper rather than on theory. Taxing and spending are seperate actions. They come together at the final tally, sort of, but the two don't affect each other in the formative process. IOW's, when tax schedules are drawn up, other than rhetorically, spending isn't considered. And you will do well with the corporate neo-fascists that have run the debt so high and killed labor's rights.

I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day. by and large wealth is earned , almost without exception in this country poverty is earned ! Oh yea, by and large; then show data of how wealth is acquired: - Earned - Stolen - Gained by othr illegal means - Inherited - Gifted - Won in lotteries There are many ways wealth can be acquired, but in order to make your weak argumenbt valid, you must ask us to just accept that it is earned. As for poverty, we are products of our childhood and few deviate from that, it's a form of social conditioning. When I refer to the elitist, conservative model being sociopathic, I think you see why. The same party trying to chop every program designed to help people out of poverty stand there and say, "Gee, I dunno, they just want to be in poverty."

Love how yoyu leave off my assertion; shows your inherent dishonesty. The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed. Didn't want to remind others of this fact as you called me a dork? Then frop a PA for lack of anything intelligent to write, and of course drift off into a rage of semantics of terms. 250k earners are not the uber-rich, SDR or whatever you want to call them. The top 20% are the uber-sick-filthy rich, but in order to try to fabricate what appears as a cogent argument you need to try to bring in the average 250k earner. So again, explain how the top 20% are so victimized, so targeted for extortion when they have virtually all cash. Or.....just keep up your inane, lame dissection of, "uber-rich" which I fully expect.

Optimistic for easily predictable destruction.

I nominate this as rhetorical question of the day.

Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. we don't tax wealth directly , yet ! Sure we do, wealth, even with simple interest, which it never is, draws a few % interest, so that gain is taxed. You can try to make them mutually exclusive all you want and I'm sure you will.

Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States. During the so-called roaring 20's where taxes were even lower than under the fascist pig, the top .1% owned what the bottom 40% did.

True, but it's incredibly naive to think income means a wage-based paycheck. Corporate income is also income. Wealth, not income, earns tons of cash with interest, dividends, etc. That makes wealth more essential than income. That's moot / irrelevant. The people who don't pay taxes also don't have shit to spend, so you're not even yet arguing in circles, but I'm sure you will. Or because they realize at times like this, with a little understanding of history, either deficit spend or crank taxes up; the former works more quickly. I bet many of the people who walked put down 10k, 20k or more. You're speculating and the obvious fact you're ignoring is that the false appreciation followed by the real adjustment is what made them walk, not some blind guess on your part that they all or most put zero down.

The top 20% holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash and assets, seems to me the uber-rich are getting off cheap, you say their not; illustrate that by way of these numbers. I can show you evidence if needed.

.....could there be a dumber show?

That's fucked. At ASU there was a young girl student dragged by a POS who was trying to snag her purse that was on her shoulder as he slowly drove by. She died and they didn't get caught. Happy dreams to those MFers even if they never get caught. I bet that stuff becomes intollerable to live with in future years.

Going from your website: Well, because it never happened. The last year the total federal debt declined was in 1957. It was actually 1969 as taxes were raised in 67-68 then chopped under Nixon, but the debt fell in 1969. But the debt fell in the 1950's for 3 years in Eisenhower's terms, taxes were at 91% top brkt then. Seems like since FDR that eevery time taxes were high, the debt fell' taxes low, the debt rose. As such, when we were told the so-called surpluses from 1998 through 2001 went to pay down the debt, nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Office of Management and Budget, we showed a combined unified surplus of $559 billion in that four year period. Yet the gross federal debt rose by $394 billion. Yes, Clinton inherited an average of 250b/yr debt increase for the previous 12 years, the debt increase fell every year until his last year where it increased 33B. Of course if he had taken the budget surplus of 236B and paid the debt down, he could have actually been on record as having paid down the debt. Instead he thought he would leave it for for your hero and he did and that boob just gave it away. So it depends how you look at it and it's really semantic, but overall Clinton did amazing things with the fiscal state of this nation. I'd like to see some supporting evidence otherwise, but I am talking to skipbelt, so I won't hold my breath. As it's been almost ten years since Clinton left the White House, and Democrats along with their media minions love to talk about the so-called surpluses during that administration, why is it the former President has never been asked about this budgetary oddity? There was a 236B surplus, no so-called about it. What budgetary oddity? Remember your hero saying, "The government has your money with this surplus, the government's job isn't to hold your money so I'm giving it back." Remember? That was the surplus. So some support for your very unscientific reasoning.

And that's what I've said for a while. I guess he had 2 things against him: 1) He was from the Whig Party 2) He was too stupid to wear a jacket on his inaguration, which was, at that time, the longest ever inauguration speech.

I say we flog them all now that you've broken the conspiracy; good work. Explain how Bill lets every redneck POS go off on me left and right, then complete your theory.

Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread. Thanks for the semantic ideologue (ideological) input, have a nice day. I'm speaking normally, not aberationally. BTW, ifteh word usage gets too complicated, use less ornate language. Indeed. BTW.... from merriam-webster: "aberationally The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above." Might want to take your own advice. Yep, aberrational is a word, Aberrationally is a Bush word.

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day. Hate to break it to you, but it's not the RW folks making the denigrating remarks in the thread. Thanks for the semantic ideologue (ideological) input, have a nice day. I'm speaking normally, not aberationally. BTW, ifteh word usage gets too complicated, use less ornate language.

Might come as a shocker to you,but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they carry the same conservative stigma even tho all trannies aren't homosexuals and vice versa, they are the same abomination to Jebus as per the RW fundy nuts. Get the obvious correlation? Thx for the semantic input, have a nice day.

A link is ignored by Lucky for two reasons. It shows logic Against his position, it has anything to do with a conservative opinion. You may consider that those are two in the same . . . but he ignores the left media when id disagrees with hime too. You two have a lot in common regarding links. skipbelt did not post any links in this thread.

I searched this entire thread and didn't see you post any links, are you saying you've posted 2 links total since you've been here? That's about right. If you want, find that thread and post a link to that thread in this one and I will address it if I haven't already. But you did not post any links in this thread.

So how would the 'elite' control which cell phone service I choose? Or which house I buy? I find your statement funny because it inferers that the 'elite' control my decision as a consumer. The means of production isn't the same as the means of specific products of consumption. You're looking at a major theme as a microcosm; it doesn't work like that.