Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

colaguy wrote:

2seaoat wrote: It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts,

Yes, and that fact establishes nothing.   The science of economics is not static.  It is dynamic.   The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt.  The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.

That's a lot of flowery speech, but it sounds as if you are still in favor of increasing federal income taxes on the wealthy. I wonder what the effect would be.  I'm not in that income category, but I would be hard-pressed to take a tax increase lying down.  I'd be searching high and low to avoid paying any more than I already am.  That includes packing up and moving.  So, the end result might be a reduction in tax revenue because many of the wealthy chose to take their income producing selves elsewhere. That used to be a drastic step to take - but year by year it sounds less and less unpatriotic to do so.  I'm not placing the blame for this on the current occupant of the WH, but he certainly has not instilled pride, unity, and love of country in his tenure.

The fallacy in your argument is that the wealthy are "job creators".  Some people with wealth do indeed create jobs, but why bother to start a company that produces in the US when the cost of labor is so much less in the 3rd world.  Labor + Materials = Capital

If you own the means of production, you can exploit labor, no matter what country you're doing business in.  Do you think these people want to live in a 3rd world country?  No, they just want to exploit the lower cost of labor...and sometimes materials.  It's all about the bottom line.  Corporations in the US used to be held to a standard of doing good for the country.  That is no longer the case.  

Who have you ever worked for that was poor?

2seaoat wrote:PLEASE share with us all the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS who rely solely on one minimum wage worker.

If you cannot, or refuse, it means you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are LYING...AGAIN.

Again...nothing but childish stirring of the pot.


I do not have the answer to your question , and await your answer.  I am an employer and have been for over 30 years.  If there are any employers on this forum, to the last one they will agree you get what you pay, and people cannot support families with minimum wage, and need to be supplemented by taxpayers in the form of food stamps and housing subsidies.  That extra 30% in both my businesses does not impact my bottom line.....AT ALL.  I have been fortunate to retain employees, but the reality is the job market is heating up and there is starting to be better paying jobs which are taking the more skilled  and reliable workers.   So I will await you answering your question so you can help me understand why it is relevant.  Good employees make money for a business, and they need to be paid.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.

And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.

PkrBum - Master of participation points

You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president

Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.

Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.

HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:

Year...........Deficit

2013 680,276,000,000

2012 1,089,193,000,000

2011 1,296,791,000,000

2010 1,294,204,000,000

2009 1,415,724,000,000

2008 454,798,000,000

2007 161,527,000,000

2006 248,197,000,000

2005 318,746,000,000

2004 412,845,000,000

2003 377,139,000,000

2002 157,791,000,000

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.

OBVIOUSLY you are not aware of it or you hope to bury the truth.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi never allowed the 2009 Bush Budget come up for a vote.  That budget had a deficit of LESS than $500 BILLION and was sharply criticized by Democrats as being outrageous.

Semi-retired President Obama, as you know, signed the 2009 Budget in March of 2009.

Markle wrote:This, as you well know is a LIE.  NOT surprising.
"Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?"

You even resort to using non-words in you lie.

Forecasts of massive inflation were and are predicated on the wrong assumption that this administration would actually QUIT printing worthless money at some point in time.  It continues today.

Please explain how DEFLATION is a good thing.  

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Markle has Boards on the ropes ...boards is staggered trying to shake it off, Markle is going in for the knock out, Boards is shaking his head backing away...."DING" saved by the bell....

Markle wrote:Who pays corporate taxes again?

2seaoat wrote:Good to see you are finally fessing up to the facts of life and economics.

You admit that regarding Minimum Wage, you have no clue.

You also admit that there is no need for a minimum wage.

If you don't know why it is relevant, then you are proving you are you are happy to post whatever is fed to you by the DailyKOS and go with it.

Thank you!


No thank you......I tell a story to my granddaughters about the two sisters(they are really into frozen) who have three big beds in a small cottage in the woods.