Hmmmm

[TxHoops]

 

 

[77]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

watch his most righteous rant lot of truth being spoken!

[LumRaiderFan]

Results from the lab...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Anyone knows that liberal fiscal policies are a disaster.

Also, anyone that believes higher taxes are good MUST believe that the gov is better at spending money than the private sector.

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Results from the lab...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Anyone knows that liberal fiscal policies are a disaster.

Also, anyone that believes higher taxes are good MUST believe that the gov is better at spending money than the private sector.

More recent results from the lab from a solid financial source.  Ball don't lie...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

More recent results from the lab from a solid financial source.  Ball don't lie...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Yep, no doubt they make a lot of money in California...so does the US.

Revenue isn't the problem...spending is.

The money being made is through the efforts of the hard working private industry...not the gov and it's liberal policies.

The debt can be claimed by the liberal policies.

So do you agree in higher taxes that take more from private citizens to redistribute it how gov sees fit? 

 

[TxHoops]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yep, no doubt they make a lot of money in California...so does the US.

Revenue isn't the problem...spending is.

The money being made is through the efforts of the hard working private industry...not the gov and it's liberal policies.

The debt can be claimed by the liberal policies.

So do you agree in higher taxes that take more from private citizens to redistribute it how gov sees fit? 

 

The current administration (all Dems) and legislators (both Dem majorities) have governed to reduce the debt and deficit.  Their once disastrous economy has also significantly rebounded.  I assume your argument is that is in spite of their leaders, not because of it?  I doubt very seriously your argument would be the same if the state was under other leadership...

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yep, no doubt they make a lot of money in California...so does the US.

Revenue isn't the problem...spending is.

The money being made is through the efforts of the hard working private industry...not the gov and it's liberal policies.

The debt can be claimed by the liberal policies.

So do you agree in higher taxes that take more from private citizens to redistribute it how gov sees fit? 

 

Sorry, I missed your question.  Economically, you and I probably agree on more than you think.  I am for responsible governmental spending and financial accountability.  I am also very much in favor of a sliding scale taxation where the the wealthiest pay a far greater percentage than the poor.  And I am for that despite the fact a flat tax would very much benefit me and my family personally. 

[stevenash]

22 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Sorry, I missed your question.  Economically, you and I probably agree on more than you think.  I am for responsible governmental spending and financial accountability.  I am also very much in favor of a sliding scale taxation where the the wealthiest pay a far greater percentage than the poor.  And I am for that despite the fact a flat tax would very much benefit me and my family personally. 

Since 29% of American households have a zero federal tax liability, it suggests to me that the emboldened is already in force.

[stevenash]

26 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

The current administration (all Dems) and legislators (both Dem majorities) have governed to reduce the debt and deficit.  Their once disastrous economy has also significantly rebounded.  I assume your argument is that is in spite of their leaders, not because of it?  I doubt very seriously your argument would be the same if the state was under other leadership...

I wish to add that much of what was accomplished was due to the fact that, financially, California was in danger of falling off the cliff a few years ago, and would further suggest that the markets forced the legislators to do things they otherwise would not have.   I will still tell you that, without a doubt, those that produce can redeploy their profits far more productively/profitably than the government can.   One need look no further than Detroit or Chicago to come to that conclusion.  Need I tell you which party has had full control of those cities for many years?

[stevenash]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

16 minutes ago, stevenash said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Beat me to it...Bill Maher proving once again, he's a moron.

[stevenash]

Bill Maher?  Certainly someone I would want to consult when it comes to financial matters!!!!!!!

[stevenash]

It is not difficult to create a business, private, government, otherwise and state how large it is.   The debt portion of said business, if managed improperly, will seal the fate of the business unless you can find "lenders" or "taxpayers" that are willing to throw good money after bad which will, to a certain extent, postpone the consequences.  I believe Greece has been " rescued" several times to no avail.

[TxHoops]

Sooo, basically nothing I stated or posted was incorrect.  Thank you all for playing

[TxHoops]

It's not light reading but here is a report from the IMF after an economic study.  Interesting findings for you "trickle-down economics" guys.  Swear it's like watching Bart Simpson burn his finger on the stove, over and over...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[stevenash]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

It's not light reading but here is a report from the IMF after an economic study.  Interesting findings for you "trickle-down economics" guys.  Swear it's like watching Bart Simpson burn his finger on the stove, over and over...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Please very very assured that I can post an article in response to every one that you can find. And  Mr. Maher simply cherry picked some dates that made his point.  Its no different than Mr. Obama claiming credit for all the jobs and paltry economic growth since he took over at the bottom of the recession.  The 'unenlightened" will not know ( or acknowledge) that there has NEVER been a recession or economic slowdown from which we didnt recover, regardless of who was in office.  Therefore, much of the "spike the football celebration" is due to the cyclicality of the economy as opposed to who is in charge.  As for the "economic study", I will tell you I do not have the same faith that you have in the "academic elite"  I guess what I am telling you is that I am very confident Steve Jobs or BIll Gates would be a far safer bet to successfully run a business than Jeremy Siegel  would..  This can be further illustrated by the dismal failure of Long Term Capital Management that had several Nobel Laureates operating it. If other Wall Street Banks had not rescued it, it would have caused a crisis of huge proportion.  From my perspective, we will NEVER create a situation where everyone  has equal income.  If I am wrong, please name the country that currently is successfully operating in that manner.  I further submit that, since there is little if any accountability in government, you simply cant keep forking over more and more of your money under the theory that they will "make things more fair".  Since you know me personally, perhaps you will believe me when I tell you that I moved to Texas by borrowing $300 from a bank up north that my father had to co-sign. I also had to pay back all that I had borrowed for college.  I began my work career as a service writer at a car dealership at a rate that was pretty close to  minimum wage.  I was the lowest paid guy on the totem pole.  But if I had believed that the deck was automatically stacked against me, I wouldnt have made any career progress by  working harder and seeking opportunity. Despite bumps along the way and near insolvlency a couple of times, all worked out.  The point I am trying to make is that this was done WITHOUT government "compassion" aka intervention.  Mrs. Clinton today, advocated "federal guidelines" for encounters such as what happened in Minnesota and Louisiana.  If that gains traction, we will simply create another government agency, thus adding to the bureaucracy, and will further hamstring our law enforcement officers  more than they have already become.   How will we pay for it?  My bet is it will be a tax on those who are "not paying their fair share".   

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Please very very assured that I can post an article in response to every one that you can find. And  Mr. Maher simply cherry picked some dates that made his point.  Its no different than Mr. Obama claiming credit for all the jobs and paltry economic growth since he took over at the bottom of the recession.  The 'unenlightened" will not know ( or acknowledge) that there has NEVER been a recession or economic slowdown from which we didnt recover, regardless of who was in office.  Therefore, much of the "spike the football celebration" is due to the cyclicality of the economy as opposed to who is in charge.  As for the "economic study", I will tell you I do not have the same faith that you have in the "academic elite"  I guess what I am telling you is that I am very confident Steve Jobs or BIll Gates would be a far safer bet to successfully run a business than Jeremy Siegel  would..  This can be further illustrated by the dismal failure of Long Term Capital Management that had several Nobel Laureates operating it. If other Wall Street Banks had not rescued it, it would have caused a crisis of huge proportion.  From my perspective, we will NEVER create a situation where everyone  has equal income.  If I am wrong, please name the country that currently is successfully operating in that manner.  I further submit that, since there is little if any accountability in government, you simply cant keep forking over more and more of your money under the theory that they will "make things more fair".  Since you know me personally, perhaps you will believe me when I tell you that I moved to Texas by borrowing $300 from a bank up north that my father had to co-sign. I also had to pay back all that I had borrowed for college.  I began my work career as a service writer at a car dealership at a rate that was pretty close to  minimum wage.  I was the lowest paid guy on the totem pole.  But if I had believed that the deck was automatically stacked against me, I wouldnt have made any career progress by  working harder and seeking opportunity. Despite bumps along the way and near insolvlency a couple of times, all worked out.  The point I am trying to make is that this was done WITHOUT government "compassion" aka intervention.  Mrs. Clinton today, advocated "federal guidelines" for encounters such as what happened in Minnesota and Louisiana.  If that gains traction, we will simply create another government agency, thus adding to the bureaucracy, and will further hamstring our law enforcement officers  more than they have already become.   How will we pay for it?  My bet is it will be a tax on those who are "not paying their fair share".   

I also have confidence in Bill Gates (as well as the late Steve Jobs).  Very smart men who, along with Warren Buffett, are among the wealthiest men in the history of this country.  And I would hope you would concede that they are all more business savvy than you or me. Know what else they have in common? 

All Democrats   However could that be???

[TxHoops]

By the way, I didn't know that about your move down south.  Very commendable indeed. 

[stevenash]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I also have confidence in Bill Gates (as well as the late Steve Jobs).  Very smart men who, along with Warren Buffett, are among the wealthiest men in the history of this country.  And I would hope you would concede that they are all more business savvy than you or me. Know what else they have in common? 

All Democrats   However could that be???

Its a bit of a stretch to suggest/imply that their business acumen is somehow related to their political affiliation.  If you wish to play tit for tat on that theory, I am going to win.  I have known for many years of their poltical affiliations yet it did not stop me from making that post and I anticipated your response.

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Its a bit of a stretch to suggest/imply that their business acumen is somehow related to their political affiliation.  If you wish to play tit for tat on that theory, I am going to win.  I have known for many years of their poltical affiliations yet it did not stop me from making that post and I anticipated your response.

I will wait on 2 things:

1.) an answer to my original question

2.) you to produce the name of a wealthier individual than Gates or Buffett on the right. 

 

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Its a bit of a stretch to suggest/imply that their business acumen is somehow related to their political affiliation.  If you wish to play tit for tat on that theory, I am going to win.  I have known for many years of their poltical affiliations yet it did not stop me from making that post and I anticipated your response.

I actually thought you probably did.  Thank you for the Steve Nash-like assist

[stevenash]

Which question is the original one?  Nobody in this country wealthier than Gates.  And he has mostly the stock market ( something that doesnt have  government influence) for that.    Are you telling me that, since  the wealthiest man in America is a democrat, that the Democrat approach to running the business of this country is  superior?

[stevenash]

2 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I actually thought you probably did.  Thank you for the Steve Nash-like assist

Not a problem.  Especially when the counter point it produced has little bearing on the issue.

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Which question is the original one?  Nobody in this country wealthier than Gates.  And he has mostly the stock market ( something that doesnt have  government influence) for that.    Are you telling me that, since  the wealthiest man in America is a democrat, that the Democrat approach to running the business of this country is  superior?

Close.  How could Gates, Buffett, and Jobs all be Democrats since we are all "libtards" and "morons"?  (I am NOT quoting you there by the way.)

[TxHoops]

16 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Which question is the original one?  Nobody in this country wealthier than Gates.  And he has mostly the stock market ( something that doesnt have  government influence) for that.    Are you telling me that, since  the wealthiest man in America is a democrat, that the Democrat approach to running the business of this country is  superior?

No, I am saying it sure is ironic if you all are as correct as you think you are.  But are you actually saying you believe there is no government influence on the stock market?  Surely that was a typo or misstatement.  I KNOW you aren't that naive.