Capital gains tax... should it be eliminated?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: loki8481
isn't that based on the inflated deficit projections?

The federal deficit in the budget year that just ended fell to a four- year low of $247.7 billion... The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005

The best gauge of the true size of the federal government's deficit spending over the last year is to take the national debt on the last work day (Sept. 29) of fiscal 2006 -- $8,506,973,899,215.23 -- and subtract the national debt at the end of fiscal 2005 -- $7,932,709,661,723.50. The result -- $579,264,237,491.73, or $579 billion for short -- accurately reflects just how much deeper in debt the government has gone in the last 12 months. That's $326 billion more than the president's figure.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patr...se/opinion/1160690119169100.xml&coll=1

(random google news article search)

could be wrong... I'll be honest, I dropped out of an econ elective class in high school and took a psychology elective instead when I was finally forced to take econ in college, I slid by with a C-. lol. my lowest grade in all 4 years of college.

That's the national debt, that will always go up with deficits.

EDIT: I see what your saying now. Don't know...

Smoke and mirrors. The Bush administration insists on excluding certain expenditures from their much-ballyhooed "deficit" number, e.g., Iraq costs. This lets them claim to be digging us into a hole more slowly than they actually are. That's one of the reasons why their claims of reduing the deficit are more propaganda than substance.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

As blatant a lie as imaginable! It is the entire estate that is taxed, not the inheritance! The event which drives the tax is the death.

I'm sure you believe your own propaganda.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

As blatant a lie as imaginable! It is the entire estate that is taxed, not the inheritance! The event which drives the tax is the death.

I'm sure you believe your own propaganda.

I find it highly amusing that the same people who look down their noses at poor people because they didn't work hard enough or smart enough are the same people who cry bloody murder when they percieve that they might end up in the same boat.

 

[BDawg]

Capital Gains is not double taxation. It's a tax on profits you've made. You don't get taxed on the already taxed capital you invest.

If you invest $100 and make $50 profit, you pay the tax on the $50 profit when you choose to cash out.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

As blatant a lie as imaginable! It is the entire estate that is taxed, not the inheritance! The event which drives the tax is the death.

I'm sure you believe your own propaganda.

Huh? It's the inheritance that's taxed, which is good for society for preventing the rise of dynasties.

There were no dynasties in America until the gilded age - then you saw Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Gettys, and so on. Then, no new dynasties rose starting with FDR.

These dynasties become able to dominate the political system, which is bad for society.

Wealth is no longer earned by merit, but by blood. The inheritance tax on the very wealthy allows reducing taxes for all other Americans, helping the economy.

The democrats want to raise the cap on the tax above $2 million; republicans refuse and want to abolish it and shift the taxes to the general public tax base.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

As blatant a lie as imaginable! It is the entire estate that is taxed, not the inheritance! The event which drives the tax is the death.

I'm sure you believe your own propaganda.

Huh? It's the inheritance that's taxed, which is good for society for preventing the rise of dynasties.

There were no dynasties in America until the gilded age - then you saw Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Gettys, and so on. Then, no new dynasties rose starting with FDR.

These dynasties become able to dominate the political system, which is bad for society.

Wealth is no longer earned by merit, but by blood. The inheritance tax on the very wealthy allows reducing taxes for all other Americans, helping the economy.

The democrats want to raise the cap on the tax above $2 million; republicans refuse and want to abolish it and shift the taxes to the general public tax base.

You are right, nobody has risen to the level of a rockefeller or the wealth except maybe Bill Gates, Paul Allen, the guy who runs Oracle, and anybody else who is on the top 100 richest people in America.

The idea the death tax somehow keeps wealth from congregating is hilarious. The death tax accounts for about 30 billion a year in taxes(~1%) The govt see's more increase in an upturn from income tax than the death tax can even dream of providing.

It is another wedge issue politicians like to toss around to get the drones all in a frenzy.

 

[piasabird]

I have a different take on this topic. I think that capital gains tax should not apply to people unless their gross income is over a certain Level.

People save all of their lives for retirement and then they get hit with this Capital Gains Tax when they try to take out their money. So if their income is say $30,000.00 a year then they have to pay this rediculous tax when they are barely able to pay their bills. Typically this is hurting grandparents whose only joy in life is spending their retirement money on their grandchildren.

This can hurt the average joe even more than the Billionaire. It is the Billionaire that doesnt need to cash in stock. It is easier to reinvest it and take the tax shelter and borrow money off of the capital which might be cheaper than paying the tax.

This is how Buffett made his billions.

 

[Genx87]

This can hurt the average joe even more than the Billionaire. It is the Billionaire that doesnt need to cash in stock. It is easier to reinvest it and take the tax shelter and borrow money off of the capital which might be cheaper than paying the tax.

Taxes always hurt the middle class the most.

One thing the congress has done since Bush took office is raise the cap on Roth IRA's. I believe the cap for contribution is now 4K this year, rising over the next few years upto I believe 6K. The previous cap was 2K.

They should go a bit further and raise the cap on people eligible for this retirement account. Currently the cap is I believe 110K household income. Meaning if your household makes 110K a year or more, you are not allowed to contribute to a Roth. They should bump that upto about 150K and move it with inflation.

 

[Craig234]

You are right, nobody has risen to the level of a rockefeller or the wealth except maybe Bill Gates, Paul Allen, the guy who runs Oracle, and anybody else who is on the top 100 richest people in America.

The idea the death tax somehow keeps wealth from congregating is hilarious. The death tax accounts for about 30 billion a year in taxes(~1%) The govt see's more increase in an upturn from income tax than the death tax can even dream of providing.

You're wrong.

You fail to understand the word dynasty. Dynasty is about generations of a family. All the examples you named are men who earned the money themselves - the types who I'm *protecting* by opposing dynasties. When dynasties have the wealth and power, the self-made men you listed are less able to get a chance, and society loses out as the merit of people is replaced by blood.

If you want a better analogy, it's the Walton family - the kids now have about 5 of the top 10 spots on the wealthy list *even with the inheritance tax in place*, and they're fighting hard to get rid of the tax, so the next generation of Waltons can continue the Walton dynasty. Is that better for society, with the taxes transferred to the public and the wealth and power kept in the family rather than earned by merit in society? No.

Go read Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers on the topic; they saw the issue more clearly than the right wing today.

Repealing the estate tax would cost the nation nearly a trillion dollars in tax revenue over a decade. Yet the average effective inheritance tax rate is just 17%.

Under the sort of modest reform the democrats support, 99.7% would not pay the tax, and only 50 farms and small businesses nationally would owe any tax.

Link to an article on the Estate Tax

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Are you saying, that its impossible for some people to get rich by working hard and making smart choices?

Not at all. I am saying that there are a ton of external factors that influence one's success, and that just because one is hard working and smart does not mean that he/she will meet any success.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Capital Gains is not double taxation. It's a tax on profits you've made. You don't get taxed on the already taxed capital you invest.

If you invest $100 and make $50 profit, you pay the tax on the $50 profit when you choose to cash out.

Your asertion is only true in a (fictional) world that is void of inflation.

In reality there two components which comprise the so-called gain: actual asset appreciation (e.g., demand increases faster than supply) and inflation.

Some countries actually calculate the inflationay amount and apply that in determing the "real" gain. I'e., they adjust the dollar amounts of either slae or purchase to arrive at a amount which does not include any inflationary effects (which are not gain). The adjusted gain is then to tax at a regular rates.

The USA is "lazy" and uses a simplified system of lower rates on LT cap gains to supposidly correct for this inflationary effect.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Your asertion is only true in a (fictional) world that is void of inflation.

Yours is the fictional world, where inflation is a 'tax'.

Admittedly, the government *can* use inflation as a sort of tax, but that's another issue than saying all inflation is a tax.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

Hi John,

Since its founding, much of the history of the USA has been inextricably bound with concepts of taxation.

Our theories of taxation are in many cases quite different form the rest of the Western world for specific purposes. One of these is the so called "death tax".

Many European countries have had extremely high rates of taxation and low inherentence taxes. This was seen by us in the uSA as preventing working people from rising into the wealthy class, and by virture of their low inheretence tax perpetuating the existing class of wealthy and priviledged (who were often useless unproducted individuals).

By contrast, the USA had chosen lower income tax rates to allow the working class to enjoy their hard earned wealth. But then chose a high inheretence tax to prevent the creation of a "privilegde" class. If your childern are creative and productive, they will be able to enjoy it.

Over the past two decades much of these differences have disappeared. The UK actually had a rate higher than 100% (in the late 70's or early 80's I believe) and many of their high income earners like Elton John moved here to avoid them. (this would not work for a citizen because we employ different theories of taxation especially in the area of international tax)

The death tax has good intentions. It merely needs reform. Too many uber-wealthy have been able to avoid it after arcane loop holes were legislated into existance for soley their benefit, and too many farmers are hammered by rules that require the land to be valued at its highest and best use.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: her209
A big reason cited by those who are in favor of eliminating the capital gains tax say that its double taxation.

Is this the case or is it fud?

It is only double taxation if the entire so-called gain is attributed to inflation. In which case, yes it is a form of double taxtaion in that your after-tax dollars (capital) are being taxed again. This would be similar to taxing you on any of your money you withdrawl from your checking accounting. It ain't income.

In effect, these people are saying the reduced rates afforded LT cap gains do not adequately account for inflation. Probrably not true for LT cap gains with a relatively short holding period (1 or 2 years). But if you've held the asset for 20 yrs you may be experiencing some double taxation if the asset did not otherwise appreciate considerabley.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Your asertion is only true in a (fictional) world that is void of inflation.

Yours is the fictional world, where inflation is a 'tax'.

Admittedly, the government *can* use inflation as a sort of tax, but that's another issue than saying all inflation is a tax.

WTF kind of psych babble rubbish are you spouting?

I haven't equated inflation with tax.

I'm saying if you do not adjust for inflation, you can have so-called "income" tax applied to the inflationary effects on your assets monetary value.

Fern

 

[marincounty]

Interesting how Republicans are always claiming they want to reduce taxes so that people can keep more of their money. Cutting dividend and capital gains taxes largely benefits the rich, as they tend to get more of their money from investments. It does nothing for most poor, with no capital gains or dividends.
If you really want to help the poor and middle classes, reduce the tax on earned income.
Or how about returning the credit card interest deduction?
It is a fairness issue when the idle rich can shelter their income and pay almost no tax, and the poor have to pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes.
I've always said the Republicans could remain the majority party for years-if they would only pass a major tax cut for the middle class. But, thank god, their greed prevents this from ever happening.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Interesting how Republicans are always claiming they want to reduce taxes so that people can keep more of their money. Cutting dividend and capital gains taxes largely benefits the rich, as they tend to get more of their money from investments. It does nothing for most poor, with no capital gains or dividends.
If you really want to help the poor and middle classes, reduce the tax on earned income.
Or how about returning the credit card interest deduction?
It is a fairness issue when the idle rich can shelter their income and pay almost no tax, and the poor have to pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes.
I've always said the Republicans could remain the majority party for years-if they would only pass a major tax cut for the middle class. But, thank god, their greed prevents this from ever happening.

I strongly agree with about cutting taxes on earned income. I have read that most people pay more in social security tax that in actual income tax. Most people are employees. And the many electricians, carpenters and other tradesmen are often self-employed, so they pay twice as much SS tax. As a tax CPA my experience supports this - SS is higher than income tax.

Income tax is subject to reduction by a number of deductions such as personal exemptions, standard deduction, home mortgage interest, etc. SS tax has no such deductions. So, even if its rate is lower, its "base" is so high the SS tax exceeds the income for the majority of taxpayers.

Its time to stop the illusion that SS is akin to some sort of retirement plan. You'll only get back what you pay in etc etc. It's really the US version of a European social net, many people who have never paid in are given benefits etc.

SS tax should spread across ALL forms of income, whether interest or dividend etc.

I, however, must disagree that cutting dividend & cap gain tax rates do not benefit those who are NOT rich. All retirement plans for us non-rich are invested mostly in stocks. The reduction of these rates serves to pressure their market value upwards. This benefits our plans.

Assets are really valued on an "after tax" basis.

Fern

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: marincounty
Interesting how Republicans are always claiming they want to reduce taxes so that people can keep more of their money. Cutting dividend and capital gains taxes largely benefits the rich, as they tend to get more of their money from investments. It does nothing for most poor, with no capital gains or dividends.
If you really want to help the poor and middle classes, reduce the tax on earned income.
Or how about returning the credit card interest deduction?
It is a fairness issue when the idle rich can shelter their income and pay almost no tax, and the poor have to pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes.
I've always said the Republicans could remain the majority party for years-if they would only pass a major tax cut for the middle class. But, thank god, their greed prevents this from ever happening.

I strongly agree with about cutting taxes on earned income. I have read that most people pay more in social security tax that in actual income tax. Most people are employees. And the many electricians, carpenters and other tradesmen are often self-employed, so they pay twice as much SS tax. As a tax CPA my experience supports this - SS is higher than income tax.

Income tax is subject to reduction by a number of deductions such as personal exemptions, standard deduction, home mortgage interest, etc. SS tax has no such deductions. So, even if its rate is lower, its "base" is so high the SS tax exceeds the income for the majority of taxpayers.

Its time to stop the illusion that SS is akin to some sort of retirement plan. You'll only get back what you pay in etc etc. It's really the US version of a European social net, many people who have never paid in are given benefits etc.

SS tax should spread across ALL forms of income, whether interest or dividend etc.

I, however, must disagree that cutting dividend & cap gain tax rates do not benefit those who are NOT rich. All retirement plans for us non-rich are invested mostly in stocks. The reduction of these rates serves to pressure their market value upwards. This benefits our plans.

Assets are really valued on an "after tax" basis.

Fern

Many of us non-rich have no retirement plan, and are counting on ss. I do like your idea of a ss tax on all forms of income, and maybe reducing the ss tax rate accordingly.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You are right, nobody has risen to the level of a rockefeller or the wealth except maybe Bill Gates, Paul Allen, the guy who runs Oracle, and anybody else who is on the top 100 richest people in America.

The idea the death tax somehow keeps wealth from congregating is hilarious. The death tax accounts for about 30 billion a year in taxes(~1%) The govt see's more increase in an upturn from income tax than the death tax can even dream of providing.

You're wrong.

You fail to understand the word dynasty. Dynasty is about generations of a family. All the examples you named are men who earned the money themselves - the types who I'm *protecting* by opposing dynasties. When dynasties have the wealth and power, the self-made men you listed are less able to get a chance, and society loses out as the merit of people is replaced by blood.

If you want a better analogy, it's the Walton family - the kids now have about 5 of the top 10 spots on the wealthy list *even with the inheritance tax in place*, and they're fighting hard to get rid of the tax, so the next generation of Waltons can continue the Walton dynasty. Is that better for society, with the taxes transferred to the public and the wealth and power kept in the family rather than earned by merit in society? No.

Go read Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers on the topic; they saw the issue more clearly than the right wing today.

Repealing the estate tax would cost the nation nearly a trillion dollars in tax revenue over a decade. Yet the average effective inheritance tax rate is just 17%.

Under the sort of modest reform the democrats support, 99.7% would not pay the tax, and only 50 farms and small businesses nationally would owe any tax.

Link to an article on the Estate Tax

Craig, about all this talk of "dynasties" Look at the top 25 of Forbes 400 richest Americans, only 3 of them (the Mars family) could be considered a family dynasty. ALL of the rest made most of their incomes during their life times.
Yes there are 5 members of the Walton clan on this list, but Walmart did not explode the way it has untill the 80s, only 20 years ago. Look at the ages of the Walton clan on the list, there were all over 30 by then. The Waltons are not some multi generational dynasty ala the Ford's or Duponts. Forbes 400

BTW: Who cares how much money the Walton familay has, the earned it honestly and fairly. Just because they are rich doesn't give us or the government the right to rush in and take their money in the name of fairness.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So, bowfinger you are of the belief that the mere act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets?

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that is needed.

I already answered your question: "More misdirection. It's not the death that's taxed, it's the windfall inheritance. "Death tax" is pure propaganda."

I'll note you've yet again evaded almost every point I raised, and continue to spread the same willful disinformation. Run, PJ, run.

I ask a simple yes or no question and I get a bunch of BS. I don't even mention anything about a "death tax" or anything else. Who is doing the misdirection here?

A simple yes or no, do you believe that the act of dying should be reason enough for the government to take as much as 40% of your assets??? YES or NO?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some facts on the 2003 capital gains tax cuts.

In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!

In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

Now bowfinger, you seem to have an aversion to facts and figure since you post a lot of hot air, but never seem to back up any of your statements with facts in figures. [You, sir, are a blatant liar. Just for the record.]

If as you say:

The available evidence strongly suggests that tax cuts reduce tax revenues, no matter how many times you want to cry otherwise.

All you have to do is find some data to back up your argument.
Since I seem to be the most hated person on ATPN I am sure you and all your friends would love to prove me wrong, so please, give it a try.

Source of info for my post.
2003 Projections
The Budget and Economic outlook published in 2003 on page 82 of PDF
Actual revenue
Budget and Economic Outlook page 112 of PDF

Ps. Please keep any attempt to prove me wrong focused on capital-gains taxes since that is the subject at hand.

Such a shameful display of dishonesty. I've already refuted your misdirection in another thread, a thread you immediately ran from rather than acknowledge your deception. If you truly want to defend your claims, go back and do it there. I'm not going to waste everyone's time hashing though all the facts again, especially since you'll ignore them anyway. Run, PJ, run.

If it is "Such a shameful display of dishonesty' as you say then why don't you post the figures to back you up and prove me wrong?
Post a link to this thread if you wish.

The only one who seems to be running here is you, all you have to do is post the "facts" and I look like a total idiot, but you can not even do that. All you can do is blow a bunch of hot air and try to misdirect the discussion with your "another thread" story.
Keep trying to deflect the question, but I am sure it is clear to everyone on this thread that you are not capable of posting ANY evidence to back up ANY of your claims.

Four posts on this thread and you have not provided ONE fact to back up anything you claim. Try bringing some facts backed up with links for a change.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how about we talk about tax cuts when we're not trillions of dollars in the red?

Go read about the Laffer curve.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, about all this talk of "dynasties" Look at the top 25 of Forbes 400 richest Americans, only 3 of them (the Mars family) could be considered a family dynasty. ALL of the rest made most of their incomes during their life times.

Thanks for proving my point for me - we now have the inheritance tax, and it is helping to increase meritocracy and decrease dynasties.

The republicans want to get rid of the inheritance tax, and then we would see the return of dynasties as wealth and power are tied up for generations in families and opportunity is denied to others, which would deprive society of the most efficient use of the nation's wealth.

I don't get it - I point out the contrast of how without the inheritance tax we had dynasties and with it, we did not, and you guys rush to prove my point with examples.

I think what we have is too few people who know the history of how the old dynasties hurt the nation.

We need people to learn how things were in the gilded age with the economic system the republicans want now.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Some facts on the 2003 capital gains tax cuts.

In January of 2003 the CBO estimated that the capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two year total of $125 billion.

The tax cuts went into effect in 2004.

The actual liabilities for capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005. For a two year total of $151 billion.

Notice that the actual total was $26 billion MORE than what had been expected!

In other words, the cut in tax RATES ended up giving us more revenue.

Now bowfinger, you seem to have an aversion to facts and figure since you post a lot of hot air, but never seem to back up any of your statements with facts in figures. [You, sir, are a blatant liar. Just for the record.]

If as you say:

The available evidence strongly suggests that tax cuts reduce tax revenues, no matter how many times you want to cry otherwise.

All you have to do is find some data to back up your argument.
Since I seem to be the most hated person on ATPN I am sure you and all your friends would love to prove me wrong, so please, give it a try.

Source of info for my post.
2003 Projections
The Budget and Economic outlook published in 2003 on page 82 of PDF
Actual revenue
Budget and Economic Outlook page 112 of PDF

Ps. Please keep any attempt to prove me wrong focused on capital-gains taxes since that is the subject at hand.

Such a shameful display of dishonesty. I've already refuted your misdirection in another thread, a thread you immediately ran from rather than acknowledge your deception. If you truly want to defend your claims, go back and do it there. I'm not going to waste everyone's time hashing though all the facts again, especially since you'll ignore them anyway. Run, PJ, run.

If it is "Such a shameful display of dishonesty' as you say then why don't you post the figures to back you up and prove me wrong?

Why? What did I already say? "I'm not going to waste everyone's time hashing though all the facts again, especially since you'll ignore them anyway."

You know this gets a bit boring, you constantly asking questions I've already answered. Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension.

Post a link to this thread if you wish.

Too lazy to look for them, huh? OK, here and here. Oops. Time for you to move your misdirection to yet another new thread.

The only one who seems to be running here is you, all you have to do is post the "facts" and I look like a total idiot, but you can not even do that. All you can do is blow a bunch of hot air and try to misdirect the discussion with your "another thread" story.

I swear you sound more and more like Sir Chicken every day. He used to sputter and bluster about blowing hot air when he got cornered too.

Keep trying to deflect the question, but I am sure it is clear to everyone on this thread that you are not capable of posting ANY evidence to back up ANY of your claims.

Oh, I think the reason you're getting so shrill is you know just the opposite is true. You're getting busted left and right. Your credibility is plummeting faster than Baghdad Bob's (no coincidence since you're both in the same business).

Four posts on this thread and you have not provided ONE fact to back up anything you claim. Try bringing some facts backed up with links for a change.

ROFL!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why? What did I already say? "I'm not going to waste everyone's time hashing though all the facts again, especially since you'll ignore them anyway."

You have never posted any facts!!!!! All you do is try to make claims about other links.

Post some facts with links to prove your point of view. Otherwise I am tired of wasting my time with you.

Ps. Glad to see others have noticed your inability to back any of your statements up with facts.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
Nothing says roaring like record governmental revenues. Deficit is being paid down substantially faster than expected. Unemployment is very low, interest rates are low, and despite 12 million souls evading taxation (and killing Social Security), everything is booming. Imagine if those freeloaders actually PAID TAXES like the rest of us...

I think you need a reality check. Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth. You don't "pay down" deficits, you pay down debt. The federal debt continues to skyrocket. Unemployment statistics are artificially low, ignoring the millions of people who have been forced to accept part-time or lower-quality, lower-paying jobs, and those who were employed, would like to work again, but have given up on actually finding employment. Interest rates are hardly low, though they're not bad. Finally, while it's great that the Dow is up, wages remain stagnant, meaning this "recovery" is real for investors, not so real for working stiffs.

Until you provide proof, you're just blowing smoke.

No, I'm stating fact. Anything specific you're able to challenge, or is shouting "La la la la la." with your fingers in your ears the total depth of your intellectual ability?

Of course you didn't state any facts, just make claims without offering ANY evidence to back up your claims.

I looked back at every post you made in both of the threads you link to and you do not post ONE fact backed up by ONE link to prove anything you say. You just throw out a bunch of crap and never offer anything to back up your claims.