Not true, Baller. Companies such as DuPont and other multinationals did take care of their employees at one time.

 

Right now jobs are more important than the deficit. Nevertheless, we must never forget that the deficit problem was caused by the Republican dogma that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases. For some Republicans it is a lie, because they know better. They hope to use the increase in the national debt to cut popular middle class entitlements. Nevertheless, most rank and file Republicans continue to believe, despite 31 years of contrary evidence, that tax cuts are a panacea.

 

why is that, clarise? is it because they don't agree with you, or is it just a convenient way to disregard their opinions? here's a better question for you:
the "Bus tax cuts" have been in place for over a decade now. during that time frame, the economy's gone into a tail spin. so, if tax breaks to the rich are supposed to boost the economy, why is it that it hasn't happened?

 

Are you fucking retarded?

Dupont is a local company! If you're going to use an example, don't use a company that anybody in my area knows much better than you ever will.

Everything I said in that post was true. If you were from the East Coast/Rust Belt instead of Arizona then you might know that. Every single thing ANY fucking employee has was not given to employees but fought for. Period.

 

What an excellent response but I would add one correction. Congress does not continuously vote themselves big pay raises. Occasionally they sneak one in I agree. But they don't need pay raises when they can make millions off insider trading, campaign contributions, institutes and book deals.

But if you're trying to also agree with Will Rogers; "America has the best politicians money can buy," I'm in total agreement with that as well.

 

I can't say Will Rogers is wrong, that's for sure.

 

Shut up until you know what you're talking about you wigger douche retard.

"Here's a list of DuPont operating locations throughout the world. Where possible we have included addresses and principal products manufactured at each location."

http://www2.dupont.com/corp/en-us/our-company/global-directory.html

 

Never been a wigger in my life, you stupid little girl.

You're fucking going online onto websites and thinking that contradicts somebody who knows former Dupont employees, who has read all about all of the different negative aspects of that company, has seen them close up factories when the workers didn't like the conditions they were working in, has seen much more of the true Dupont than a stupid outsider like you ever will.

The only fucking retard here is you, sweetheart. Unlike you, I very much know exactly what I'm talking about.

You've got some fucking nerve trying to educate me on a local company.

 

Did you just tell me to fuck you in the ass?

 

lol Pretty quick there, Baller. Rather impressive. :excited:

 

I think you'd find I'm not very quick at all

 

Fabulous input here brain child,,,tax cuts were the sole creation for the great depression,,is that what you are saying???


Substantial cuts in high marginal income tax rates in the Coolidge years certainly helped the economy and may have ameliorated the price effect of Fed policy. Tax reductions spurred investment and real economic growth, which in turn yielded a burst of technological advancement and entrepreneurial discoveries of cheaper ways to produce goods. This explosion in productivity undoubtedly helped to keep prices lower than they would have otherwise been.




Regarding Fed policy, free-market economists who differ on the extent of the Fed’s monetary expansion of the early and mid-1920s are of one view about what happened next: The central bank presided over a dramatic contraction of the money supply that began late in the decade. The federal government’s responses to the resulting recession took a bad situation and made it far, far worse.


By 1928, the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates and choking off the money supply. For example, its discount rate (the rate the Fed charges member banks for loans) was increased four times, from 3.5 percent to 6 percent, between January 1928 and August 1929.



The central bank took further deflationary action by aggressively selling government securities for months after the stock market crashed. For the next three years, the money supply shrank by 30 percent. As prices then tumbled throughout the economy, the Fed’s higher interest rate policy boosted real (inflation-adjusted) rates dramatically.


So if you can understand this simple single reason for the Great Depression, among a few other actual reasons, rather than the modern fairy tale of ''Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery'', then you have learned well my child,,BUT,,by your pathetic response to me,, indicates that you are part of the brain dead chosen..

 

Way to put words in my mouth, dipshit.

Oh, and.... you're wrong. As usual.

 

Since the second world war Tax revenue has been roughly 18% of GDP regardless of what the top rate of tax was. Both raising the top rate of tax, and lowering it has shown to have only small effects on the total amount of tax revenue. Tax revenue is a function of economic growth, not tax rates.

As for the effects of the top rate of tax on economic growth, there are too many confounds to consider to draw any solid conclusions on causality.

 

the GDP is based on the ability of the people to purchase which drive need for a product
not the supply of a product that supplies need
i do not need an i-phone 5
i do not need designer clothing
i need food, a home, water, and the basis of life

i do not need a japaneese car and have never owned one and never will
i do not support multinational companies because they take the revenues from american workers and bank it overseas to avoid taxation while those that provide the labor are left to die

 

In 1943 the top tax rate was 88 percent. In 1944 it was 94 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

In 1943 total income tax revenue was $6,505 million. In 1944 that grew to $19,705 million.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

These income tax revenue figures are not adjusted for inflation. Income tax revenue usually grows from one year to the next because of inflation and economic growth. Nevertheless, it nearly always grows more when the top tax rate increases than when it is reduced.

 

When I did an internet search for the first sentence of your post I got 410 hits;

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=..._pw.r_qf.&fp=b540e39e7100bd1a&biw=663&bih=521

If you are unable to write your own arguments, at least credit those you copy and paste from from the internet.

Also, you have still not answered my rebuttal of what you copied and pasted from the Heritage Foundation:

I compose my own arguments, using the internet to document factual assertions. You seem incapable of that. You also seem incapable of evaluating evidence. If an argument appeals to you emotionally you assume it must be true. You believe what you want to believe.

 

dl he cannot pose his own arguements as is he cannot even stand to answer the most simple question

aces did you recieve an income tax refund or not???????????????


and now giving that even paul ryan is turning on him what leg can mitty stand on?
the GOP? they think hes an idiot too


so squak away parrots and i will kill every arguement you have with real facts and logic