The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm not listening to Pelosi in the least. I'm listening to every economist in the world. You might try not politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics, and learn something.

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

You say these things as they were factual.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy increases gov't income.

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

[Riot]

Cannon Shell You say these things as they were factual.

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

Another of Chucks' whacky sidetrack straw men. You change the subject then insult other posters. I wasn't talking about how to generate government dollars. Duh. You fail to grasp the subject you jumped into.

The discussion was about the immediate benefit of unemployment dollars on the economy - and thus why it's so necessary to extend benefits for the unemployed when joblessness is so high and the recession is so slow.

Of course I think a stronger economy is better generator of government revenues that raising tax rates. Duh. We have to get to the stronger economy. Cutting off unemployment checks to millions is the opposite of that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.



Another of Chucks' whacky sidetrack straw men. You change the subject then insult other posters. I wasn't talking about how to generate government dollars. Duh. You fail to grasp the subject you jumped into.

The discussion was about the immediate benefit of unemployment dollars on the economy - and thus why it's so necessary to extend benefits for the unemployed when joblessness is so high and the recession is so slow.

Of course I think a stronger economy is better generator of government revenues that raising tax rates. Duh. We have to get to the stronger economy. Cutting off unemployment checks to millions is the opposite of that.

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

Raising taxes is hardly the path to a stronger economy yet you continue to advocate that.

You seem to think that the govt should extend unemployment benefits endlessly, now not because of moral reasons but because of its economic benefits? This is similar to your argument that food stamps are a fine source of economic stimulus as well.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

And your debate style of insulting other posters while not providing any evidence whatsoever to back your own positions is laughable.

A guy who doesn't think unemployment dollars immediately helps the economy probably not ought to be lecturing others on "understanding basic economic fundamentals"

Why don't you find one that supports that rare position? Look in the WSJ.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

And your debate style of insulting other posters while not providing any evidence whatsoever to back your own positions is laughable.

A guy who doesn't think unemployment dollars immediately helps the economy probably not ought to be lecturing others on "understanding basic economic fundamentals"

Why don't you find one that supports that rare position? Look in the WSJ.

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

i didn't see any from you either. i saw where the suggestion was made where something was 'beyond your ken', but you didn't post that. i'll have to go back and see who made that post....