Page 41 of 63 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #401
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    lol. It's amusing how you rejected Reagan's supply side economics.

    Still pretending that government can't create wealth eh?
    You don't even know what supply side economics are, do you? It's hillarious that you threw that in there as some sorta rebuttal to my argument!...

    Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

    Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #402
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The prop owner is only ahead if he gets the increase in value in cash. Otherwise, he isn't ahead a damn thing. He still has to shell out cash to pay the property taxes, which is going to come from a different liquidity source than the value of his property. An increase in value isn't going to produce liquid, it will only produce equity. You can't pay taxes with equity.
    No, he is ahead, period. He may not stay ahead, depending on the future of his property value, but he is ahead, he has more assets, has more wealth, due to the actions of the government. Liquidity has nothing to do with this, and is just your attempt to move the goalpost.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #403
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The prop owner is only ahead if he gets the increase in value in cash. Otherwise, he isn't ahead a damn thing. He still has to shell out cash to pay the property taxes, which is going to come from a different liquidity source than the value of his property. An increase in value isn't going to produce liquid, it will only produce equity. You can't pay taxes with equity.
    Flawed logic: claiming government cannot fund its operation without taxing its citizens (dependence) can work against you. Can business operate in a profitable manner without the active presence of the US government? You know... roads, power, water, defense, judicial systems etc...??? Your classic chicken or the egg scenario.... Great argument
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #404
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You don't even know what supply side economics are, do you? It's hillarious that you threw that in there as some sorta rebuttal to my argument!...
    Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

    Supply side economics seeks to increase economic activity and therefore revenue by reducing taxes and growing the tax base.

    From your own link:

    In 1981, Robert Mundell told Ronald Reagan that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates and lowering tax rates on capital gains, national output would increase so much that tax revenues would also increase. Mundell claimed that the economic expansion would also mop up excess liquidity and bring inflation back under control. After the tax cuts were implemented, nominal revenues quickly returned to - and ultimately surpassed - previous levels. While revenues dropped as a share of GDP, supply-siders note they intended for this fall to happen, since cutting tax rates would preclude a rise in taxes collected relative to national income.
    Expansion of tax base to increase revenue without raising taxes. Which you argued was delusional.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #405
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    No it hasn't. All that you've stated is merely a transfer of wealth. Merely because you are paid more (or at all) next year does not equate to wealth being created.
    It's only a transfer of wealth if that increase in salary was created by a government entitlement. Otherwise, I've earned more money because either my company can afford to pay me more, because they are making more profit, or because I made them more money and they are cutting me in on their profit increase.



    That may be more of your fault in taking advantage of it more then anything else.
    Take advantage of what? A government handout?



    Say what? Paper gains are still gains. By your reasoning, someone holding gold who sees his gold investment rise in market value 1,000% is not ahead because his gains are not realized.
    When you're going to get a loan, or you're selling out, yeah paper gains are great. If you're paying taxes on those gains, then they suck ass. That's why some wonderful person invented, "depreciation". Depreciation is our friend...



    Actually you can. Heard of a home equity loan?
    We're talking about property taxes, not loans. You know the difference, yes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #406
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No, he is ahead, period. He may not stay ahead, depending on the future of his property value, but he is ahead, he has more assets, has more wealth, due to the actions of the government. Liquidity has nothing to do with this, and is just your attempt to move the goalpost.
    Have you ever owned property?

    Liquidity has everything to do with it. Typically, liquidity is called, "profit", and is everything!
    Last edited by apdst; 12-13-09 at 09:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #407
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

    Supply side economics seeks to increase economic activity and therefore revenue by reducing taxes and growing the tax base.

    From your own link:



    Expansion of tax base to increase revenue without raising taxes. Which you argued was delusional.
    I find it trully amazing that some Libbos would bring in tax cuts to counter my argument...
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #408
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Flawed logic: claiming government cannot fund its operation without taxing its citizens (dependence) can work against you. Can business operate in a profitable manner without the active presence of the US government? You know... roads, power, water, defense, judicial systems etc...??? Your classic chicken or the egg scenario.... Great argument
    What kind of work do you do?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #409
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What kind of work do you do?
    Does it have anything to do with this thread?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #410
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Have you ever owned property?

    Liquidity has everything to do with it. Typically, liquidity is called, "profit", and is everything!
    No, it's not.

    Definition of liquid assets

    Definition of profit
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 41 of 63 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •