California is a sorry excuse for a state

[59 Dano]

Are you another idiot?????? Just double checking.

Some people were on the edge as to who they would vote for, and reading some fake story about Clinton could have easily been enough to sway their vote.

Good. Let's meet 'em.

Except for complete fools( and maybe you?????) no one's vote is based on any single bit of info. If someone is on the fence, it only takes a little push to send them over. It would be impossible to show you who changed votes based on the Russian trolls, and you should be able to understand that fact. Asking for proof makes you look too dumb to know that there is no proof available. Prove that you don't watch kiddie porn. I bet you can't.

If you can't quantify the alleged effect of this, why should I believe it was enough to flip an election?

There was one facebook story about Clinton running a pedophile ring, and one repub idiot Trump supporter went so far as to bring a gun to a pizza parlor to rescue non-existent victims. That could have been Russian trolls, you have no way to prove otherwise. That idiot's mind was clearly influenced by something on facebook, so are you are too ignorant to think that other minds were changed by something they read?????

Quantify it.

 

[dmac1]

And here we are, with unemployment at 4.1%.



Guy, you're the one arguing that high taxes are required for a strong economy despite over 35 years of evidence to the contrary.

Do you think that the economy for the working man has been good for the last 35 years, with real wages stagnant, and manufacturing leaving the USA???? A high stock market and low unemployment rate have NOT increased income for anyone but those at the top. You should know that without me telling you.

 

[dmac1]

Wasn't the Facebook advertising estimated at $125k? That's not even a drop inside a drop in the bucket. Clinton campaign spent close to a billion. What was so ineffective about her message that you think average people would be swayed by baloney but didn't believe her? Could it be they just didn't trust her? And there was plenty available to average people to decide whether she was trustworthy or not without silly stories about child sex rings.

The ten thousand votes in 3 states were not even a drop in a drop in the bucket either, but were enough to change who became president.

 

[vantexan]

The ten thousand votes in 3 states were not even a drop in a drop in the bucket either, but were enough to change who became president.

And of course you think all those hard working union Democrats were swayed by idiocy on Facebook.

 

[59 Dano]

Do you think that the economy for the working man has been good for the last 35 years, with real wages stagnant, and manufacturing leaving the USA???? A high stock market and low unemployment rate have NOT increased income for anyone but those at the top. You should know that without me telling you.

Let me guess, you think we can tax this nation into DOUBLE SUPER PROSPERITY!

 

[dmac1]

Interesting. Answer me this.

I work for $1000/week. I'm taxed at 25%. I get $750 and the government gets $250. My tax rate is raised to 80%.

How much do I get and how much does the government get after that tax increase?

Who suggested raising YOUR rate to 80%????? You have nothing to offer society by taking more of your income. You are a peon. Those making a million a year could live just as well with a few thousand less and greatly help the country. After all, they have benefited greatly from the country.

 

[dmac1]

Let me guess, you think we can tax this nation into DOUBLE SUPER PROSPERITY!

It worked throughout the 50s and 60s.

 

[59 Dano]

Who suggested raising YOUR rate to 80%????? You have nothing to offer society by taking more of your income. You are a peon. Those making a million a year could live just as well with a few thousand less and greatly help the country. After all, they have benefited greatly from the country.

The post was aimed at IWBF, who says there's no such thing as economic logic.

You are a pure partisan hack who is economically illiterate.

 

[dmac1]

And of course you think all those hard working union Democrats were swayed by idiocy on Facebook.

Seeing as how they completely forgot that the democratic party saved the auto industry and millions of jobs, yes I do think that a lot of those blue collar voters who voted for Trump were easily swayed, perhaps by Russian trolls, even if second hand.

 

[dmac1]

The post was aimed at IWBF, who says there's no such thing as economic logic.

You are a pure partisan hack who is economically illiterate.

Good argument against the fact that the economy prospered and grew much faster under higher tax rates years ago. Until you come up with a cogent counter-argument, it appears that you don't even reach the level of hack.

 

[vantexan]

Do you think that the economy for the working man has been good for the last 35 years, with real wages stagnant, and manufacturing leaving the USA???? A high stock market and low unemployment rate have NOT increased income for anyone but those at the top. You should know that without me telling you.

That's because those at the top are going to make sure they get theirs. Create an environment, which the Republicans just did, that would make investment in this country profitable, and create opportunities for everyone. And it's up to everyone to seek those opportunities, not for Uncle Sugar to redistribute to them with no effort. Those seeking votes and dependency seem to favor the latter.

 

[vantexan]

Seeing as how they completely forgot that the democratic party saved the auto industry and millions of jobs, yes I do think that a lot of those blue collar voters who voted for Trump were easily swayed, perhaps by Russian trolls, even if second hand.

The Democrats didn't save the auto industry. They prolonged the life of a couple of American companies who under extreme conditions weren't competitive. Are we going to bail them out every time they get themselves in trouble?

 

[59 Dano]

It worked throughout the 50s and 60s.

Critics argued in the sixties that it was unsustainable because the mechanisms used to control unemployment would eventually create sustained levels of high inflation that would create further unemployment.

Then the seventies happened and they were proven right.

 

[59 Dano]

Good argument against the fact that the economy prospered and grew much faster under higher tax rates years ago. Until you come up with a cogent counter-argument, it appears that you don't even reach the level of hack.

Are you leaving out the fact that we had virtually no foreign competition at that time because you're not smart enough to realize that was the case or because you realize that *that was the primary reason for the economic stability during that period?

 

[Meat]

Are you leaving out the fact that we had virtually no foreign competition at that time because you're not smart enough to realize that was the case or because you realize that *that was the primary reason for the economic stability during that period?

Well, there is the more recent example of the Bush tax cuts, which were also sold to the American public as a job creating measure. It has been awhile since I’ve looked at the stats, but wasn’t that a decade of somewhere in the neighborhood of zero net job growth? Furthermore, it certainly doesn’t appear the cuts did much for your average household’s networth. I’m not sure why it would be different this time around. Didn’t AT&T already announce 2,000 layoffs?

 

[59 Dano]

Well, there is the more recent example of the Bush tax cuts, which were also sold to the American public as a job creating measure. It has been awhile since I’ve looked at the stats, but wasn’t that a decade of somewhere in the neighborhood of zero net job growth? Furthermore, it certainly doesn’t appear the cuts did much for your average household networth. I’m not sure why it would be different this time around.

The Reagan tax cuts reduced 16 brackets and a top marginal rate of 70% to 2 brackets with a top marginal rate of 28%. You'd like to compare that to the Bush cuts, which reduced rates by a couple of points?

Didn’t AT&T already announce 2,000 layoffs?

What about it?

 

[Fred's Myth]

It's always nice to be affirmed by receiving DI-LDO's red X.

 

[Meat]

The Reagan tax cuts reduced 16 brackets and a top marginal rate of 70% to 2 brackets with a top marginal rate of 28%. You'd like to compare that to the Bush cuts, which reduced rates by a couple of points?

Yet dedicated pensions started to disappear shortly after the Reagan cuts. Shouldn’t there have been a bidding war for employees? Wouldn’t that have included enticements such as dedicated pensions?

 

[59 Dano]

Yet dedicated pensions started to disappear shortly after the Reagan cuts. Shouldn’t there have been a bidding war for employees? Wouldn’t that have included enticements such as dedicated pensions?

No.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The Reagan tax cuts reduced 16 brackets and a top marginal rate of 70% to 2 brackets with a top marginal rate of 28%. You'd like to compare that to the Bush cuts, which reduced rates by a couple of points?

Says the guy making a ridiculous comparison of the Reagan tax reform to little Donnie's tax cuts.

The bush cuts that failed are far more relevant to the conversation. Reagan's tax reform isn't even relevant to this debate.

 

[59 Dano]

Says the guy making a ridiculous comparison of the Reagan tax reform to little Donnie's tax cuts.

I'm not comparing them.

The bush cuts that failed are far more relevant to the conversation. Ttku.

What did they fail to do? They reduced taxes.