HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Seriously, they need to g...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:52 PM

Seriously, they need to give it up. Who do they think is buying this crap?!

64 replies, 8039 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Seriously, they need to give it up. Who do they think is buying this crap?! (Original post)
Playinghardball Dec 2012 OP
99Forever Dec 2012 #1
2naSalit Dec 2012 #22
99Forever Dec 2012 #25
2naSalit Dec 2012 #30
99Forever Dec 2012 #32
2naSalit Dec 2012 #34
12AngryBorneoWildmen Dec 2012 #50
Rhiannon12866 Dec 2012 #43
Chemisse Dec 2012 #49
Rhiannon12866 Dec 2012 #62
2naSalit Dec 2012 #54
Rhiannon12866 Dec 2012 #61
DreamGypsy Dec 2012 #31
Andy823 Dec 2012 #2
sendero Dec 2012 #46
Mr. Mojo Risen Dec 2012 #3
GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #4
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #5
freshwest Dec 2012 #9
Cresent City Kid Dec 2012 #64
teewrex Dec 2012 #6
L0oniX Dec 2012 #7
Eddie Francis Dec 2012 #8
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #16
sellitman Dec 2012 #55
grantcart Dec 2012 #10
randome Dec 2012 #11
SamHarris2012 Dec 2012 #12
jmowreader Dec 2012 #13
Mariana Dec 2012 #24
jmowreader Dec 2012 #33
Mariana Dec 2012 #37
jmowreader Dec 2012 #38
Mariana Dec 2012 #39
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #40
jmowreader Dec 2012 #41
SamHarris2012 Dec 2012 #57
jmowreader Dec 2012 #60
sendero Dec 2012 #47
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #14
Beartracks Dec 2012 #15
hfojvt Dec 2012 #17
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #18
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #21
tblue37 Dec 2012 #56
yends21012 Dec 2012 #19
Flatpicker Dec 2012 #20
rickyhall Dec 2012 #23
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #28
mfcorey1 Dec 2012 #26
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #27
Initech Dec 2012 #29
2naSalit Dec 2012 #35
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #36
jmowreader Dec 2012 #42
KansDem Dec 2012 #44
Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #45
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #59
tomtharp Dec 2012 #48
Rain Mcloud Dec 2012 #51
broadcaster75201 Dec 2012 #52
Beartracks Dec 2012 #53
wtmusic Dec 2012 #58
butterfly77 Dec 2012 #63

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:58 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 07:11 PM

22. Your signature line...

not to be picky or anything but you do know that the song was written by Kris Kristofferson, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #22)


Response to 99Forever (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:12 PM

30. Geeze...

I was just curious. I didn't mean to start an argument which is why I made it a question. Maybe you meant it to be humorous and I just didn't get. It's hard to know how to as a question here.

And what does ESAD mean???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:17 PM

32. Perhaps...

... intimating a lack of knowledge on another person you have never met, isn't the best way to "ask them a question."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:53 PM

34. Perhaps...

guess it didn't work out that way did it? Geeze. Sorry if you are so thin skinned that you can't entertain a question... the citation is incorrect, I wondered if you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:49 AM

50. John Lennon Would Not Abide,

Dude. (your seismic defensiveness)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:43 AM

49. Oh! No wonder it was hidden.

Rather an extreme reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:37 AM

62. That's what I thought!

And I got into the habit of looking up things I don't know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:01 PM

54. Well

That that was just a bit over the top for a simple question... And thanks for the definition. I don't do texting and Twitter or FB or any of that so I'm not totally informed when acronyms of that sort arise. It took me a long time to figure out what NSFW meant!

Sorry I ruffled his wet fur so badly but I was just asking... imagine what the response might have been if I hadn't included the disclaimer and question mark... yikes.



On second thought, and edit, I think I'd rather not try to imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:35 AM

61. I didn't know, either, so I looked it up...

I agree that it was a totally over-the-top reaction to what you posted and certainly not civil behavior here. It kinda shocked me, actually, but I'm guessing he figured nobody would know what it meant. Welcome to DU! The rest of us are glad you joined us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:16 PM

31. Really.

Me and Bobby McGee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Me and Bobby McGee" is a song written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster, originally performed by Roger Miller. Others performed the song later, including Kristofferson himself, and Janis Joplin who topped the U.S. singles chart with the song in 1971 after her death, making the song the second posthumous number-one single in U.S. chart history after "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:59 PM

2. Well...

There is a minority of totally brain dead tea baggers who might be still buying into this BS, but that's about it. Of course the republicans in congress have to keep saying this crap, I mean it's the right wing talking points that never change!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:14 AM

46. They've been selling the BIG LIE...

... for 30 years now and they are not about to give it up.

What they don't get is that it is not working so well any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:01 PM

3. Got any other ideas?

How else to you sell the republican program? The good old standby's like abortion, minorities, and gays simply aren't working anymore. At least with trickle down they can rephrase and repackage the whole idea and hope no one notices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:04 PM

4. Seriously?

How many v oted for RoMney?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:04 PM

5. It is becoming more of a threat than a statement of economic theory. Yes, we

no longer believe in trickle down, if indeed we ever did. In fact it was always a cruel misnomer cynically thrown out there by these assholes. Crumbs they said, you will benefit from our crumbs. Or as saint r0nnie would have it, you will be anointed by the trickle of our urine.

No. We never believed it as valid economic theory. But now it is coming as a veiled threat. The message is clear - "raise taxes on the rich and we will hurt you".

It is all coming into focus. The ridiculous demands for cuts in social security, medicare/medicaid, stimulus spending, food stamps etc. etc. are all shots aimed directly at the people. Cuts that will amount to a drop in the bucket as far as deficit reduction. Cuts that will hurt people who need the help just because the republicans need some leverage to fight raising taxes on the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:21 PM

9. +1,000 to what you said. Unfortunately, media won't say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:31 AM

64. Well put, I've always viewed it as a threat

It is repeated over and over as an inevitable consequence, raise taxes on the rich and they'll have less to invest ergo they'll invest less. Crazy idea: What if they invested the same amount despite the 3% increase in the marginal rate and just simply have slightly less money? The "Job Creators" have had 10 years of Bush tax cuts plus 2 bonus years to do all this job creating.

I have my own mantra, money doesn't come from the rich, it goes to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:08 PM

6. Hey Rethugs, 1984 wasn't supposed to be a how to manual

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:08 PM

7. Epic asscarrot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:16 PM

8. Repeat ad nauseum

It's typical Repub position and belief: repeat it often enough and the Stupids will buy it.

They are sleazy liars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Francis (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:51 PM

16. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eddie Francis (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:09 PM

55. Welcome

You just hear about this place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:24 PM

10. People from Utah?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:26 PM

11. Just as the Russian Communists couldn't see how much they had screwed themselves.

The GOP is weakened but still holding onto the remnants of power. When they fall completely, it will be swift, just as it was for the USSR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:31 PM

12. The job creation math doesn't add up either

 

First of all, a lot of people making over 250K don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people. Second of all, the math doesn't add up to creating jobs. A little over 3% of households make over 250K a year (to include single folks making over 125K a year). Again, a lot of those folks don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people.

Lets say I am a small business owner hauling in 300K a year in AGI or profit. Let's say I get a tax break of 10%. So now I am hauling in 330K a year in AGI or profit.

What will I do with that extra 30K? Hire someone? Invest? Why the heck would I hire someone just to pay them 50K when I'm only making an extra 30K? I'm actually losing money on the deal. And why would I invest if there is no demand?

Point being this...the rich get richer because the return on tax breaks has diminished. The well has run dry or is extremely muddy. A tax cut now will only go into their pocket and not to creating jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamHarris2012 (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:43 PM

13. Your numbers don't add up either

Under the current tax regime, $300,000 in profit would cause $105,000 in tax liability.

Cut taxes 10 percent (from 35 to 31.5 percent) and your taxes drop to $94,500. If you can't hire a $50,000 employee for $30,000 in tax savings you definitely can't hire one for $10,500.

Like Goebbels said, lie big and often and people will believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:46 PM

24. How did you figure $105,000 tax on $300,000? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:35 PM

33. You said $300,000 profits, correct?

A company that generates $300,000 in taxable profit is probably making between $10 and $30 million in receipts, so it's probably not an LLC or S-corp but a C-corp...which pays a flat 35 percent on profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:49 PM

37. OK, thanks.

I know very little about how businesses are taxed, and I was just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:21 PM

38. Simple guide to how businesses are taxed

A business takes in monies from its customers. That's what it's there for.

A lot of expensive equipment can be "depreciated" - it loses its value over time. There are several depreciation schedules that you can use to figure out how much of that you can deduct from your taxable income. You do that. Eventually your equipment depreciates out and you can't deduct it anymore; to keep this deduction going you have to buy new equipment...which is one of the main reasons they time-limit the deduction.

Then you add up everything you paid to make the money you are going to send some of to the government. Deduct all of that from your taxable income. (Salaries are one of the things you can deduct.)

Whatever you have left is taxable, and there are two ways you can do it.

If you are running a limited liability company or a Subchapter S corporation (Google is your friend), the company does not pay taxes. Instead, the money the company makes is taxed on the owners' personal tax returns and reported on Schedule C. Since it's personal tax, the same brackets we wage serfs use apply.

If you are running a Subchapter C corporation, which is for large corporations but can be used for small ones, tax is paid at a flat 35 percent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:41 PM

39. Oh, wow. Thanks again. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:05 AM

40. A couple of things ...

As you said, a lot of equipment can be "depreciated" and loses it's value over time. This makes sense, if I have a car that is older it requires less insurance than a newer car (or at least, it should). simply because it requires more maintenance. Further, it ensures that I use newer equipment rather than older equipment which would probably be more dangerous. Again, this would lower my insurance rates as well as my tax deduction. And, seriously, as a Business Owner concerned about cost I will find my Insurance Costs much higher and of more importance than Taxes.

Bottom line, if you are paying the full 35% then you need to fire your accountant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:22 AM

41. Good points all

I think the biggest reason for cutting off depreciation deductions is the encouragement to buy new equipment that it creates, hence boosting the economy. If John's Trucking trades in 100 old tractors for new ones every year (we'll say they have 500 power units, and trade them in every five years), the truck manufacturer benefits, the dealer benefits, the bank benefits, the environment benefits, the drivers benefit and because new trucks get better mileage than old ones, plus have less wrong with them for the cops to write tickets over, John's Trucking benefits.

The only people for whom taxes are the most important thing are Republican pundits and teabaggers; taxes are certainly important in that any decent businessman will figure out some way to get out of paying any if it's even remotely possible to do it, but they're not the primary motivator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:17 PM

57. actually, your numbers don't add up either

 

Under the current tax regime, $300,000 in profit would cause $105,000 in tax liability.


Tax Rate: 100,000 to 335,000

$22,250 + $200,000(.39) = $100,250

My point was sound. 97% of Americans don't make that much. A lot of those folks who do make that much don't employ anyone. They work for people who employ people. Cutting taxes anymore is unsustainable. The well has run dry as it pertains to job creation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamHarris2012 (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:11 PM

60. Both numbers add up

Your way is for LLCs and S corps, whose taxes are paid at personal tax rates.

I think it would be kinda rare for an LLC to throw off $300,000 in taxable profits (because of tax loopholes like salaries, utilities and materials, most businesses make far more than they pay tax on) so with these guys I automatically think, subchapter C, 35 percent flat rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamHarris2012 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:19 AM

47. No business hires or fires based on taxes..

... and there isn't one reputable economist who would claim they do.

Businesses hire for ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, when they can leverage the cost of another employee into PROFITS.

The only way they can do that is if there is DEMAND for their product or service.

These facts are simple, indisputable and they fly in the face of the ridiculous assertions by the right wing that taxes have anything to do with job creation.

(Other than the other fact that taxes collected cannot be used to purchase goods (creating demand), hence keeping taxes for lower income/middle class where they are).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:44 PM

14. What kills their arguement is how executive pay is so astronomical today

When you look at where executive pay is compared to the regular employee pay, the divide is massive and getting larger. What trickles down is insignificant when so much is moving upward.

We would not have many of the problems we have today if these corporations were not so overtaken by greed and would pay their workers a wage they can live on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 04:47 PM

15. OMG, Lee must really believe that, or else...

... he wouldn't actually make such moronic statements.

=============

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:13 PM

17. unfortunately many Americans still are buying it

that guy will be re-elected at least three times until he decides to retire. Most of the Republicans in the House will be re-elected, campaigning on trickle-down, in 2014, just like they were in 2012, 2010, 2008, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:13 PM

18. but trickle-down and recouping losses are two entirely different things

based on the motivation to hoard money.

Trickle-down doesn't work because once the wealthy get their money
they want to keep it and invest it to make more money.

When a business spends more money for any reason, the business feels
it is within it's rights to raise prices., lower worker salaries and benefits
in order to recoup any potential loss of earnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:47 PM

21. I don't think the average GOP voter even knows what trickle down means.

 

They are just not economically literate and equate economic (theory) to their households. Deficits are like credit card debt and therefor are very very bad. Even if you type your buns off explaining Keynesian theory it's just a waste of time. The average IQ in the USA is about 100 and for most GOP voters that is surly true, that is, average at best. People of intelligence are Democrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:02 PM

56. Actually, the average IQ *is* 100--because that is what the

metric is set up to be. In the same way that 32 degrees Farenheit is the freezing point of water--not "about," but exactly--the average IQ is set at 100.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:27 PM

19. What he meant to say was, "...the poorest rich people among us..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 05:46 PM

20. It's time

to kick trickle down economics to the curb.

Econ 101, Demand creates the need for Production which creates the need for More Jobs, which creates more demand.

To quote another piss poor Republican President, Anything else is "Voodoo Economics".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 07:26 PM

23. "raise taxes on the rich OR we will hurt you".

I like that better. Maybe the rich should ponder on the revolutions of 1789 & 1917.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickyhall (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:10 PM

28. Yep, there's some history for sure!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:07 PM

26. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:09 PM

27. Trickle-Down Economics: Shit floats to the top and trickles downhill! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:12 PM

29. Trickle down *IS* a crock of shit and now we're fighting back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:58 PM

35. I think it was initially designed

to drown the rest of we the "little" people in the trickled down shit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:05 PM

36. Grover is the only one they are worried about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:17 AM

42. If we used the correct term for it trickle-down would vanish...now

Trickle-down should be called GOP Wealth Redistribution. Because it is.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle love to refer to any tax, non-defense expenditure or social program as wealth redistribution and then, in the next breath, refer to a tax cut which is redistributive upwards as a job creating measure.

They love that term because it evokes Soviet totalitarianism. What would the pukes do when called on their shit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:37 AM

44. Trickle Down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:55 AM

45. According to the election results over 60 Million people vote GOP

 

proving America is a nation of not so bright people and racists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Resonance_Chamber (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:57 PM

59. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:18 AM

48. higher taxes promote growth ! ?

 

I have read that higher tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest profit into their equipment/personnel/infrastructure instead of paying it as tax. I am not a tax expert but makes basic sense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:10 AM

51. Raising taxes on the rich

 

will hurt the poorest,hardest.
Sure!
Cutting Social programs will enrich the richest among us the most too.
I am sure the Tea-Partiers are foaming at the mouth to have their benefits that they don't need reduced,so as to inflate their stocks and bonds.
Screw poor old lady Jankins down the street,she will just waste it on all those cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:21 AM

52. Easy answer

They are convincing JUST enough people to keep them in power.

This isn't about governing one iota. It's about power. And the sooner many on the Left realize that, the sooner conservatism will end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:23 AM

53. So, if a homeless person is begging by the gates of a mansion, I should...

... help them by giving money to the rich person in the mansion?

OK, thanks. Got it.

==================

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:21 PM

58. I've always thought trickle-up made a lot more sense

Give money first to the people who need it the most. They spend it on products and services, and the rich get richer.

Why should the wealthy get to set the timeline?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:52 AM

63. Kick..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread