Discussion:
Hey Moronic Democrats!
(too old to reply)
Tracey12
2010-12-06 13:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dumb Democrat,

A tax increase is not a tax cut.

If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.

Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.

Americans are not stupid. YOU ARE! We realized you are just dying to
increase our taxes, but now you know you can't and you freaking morons
are on TV shaking your heads and about to cry. UP YOURS!
wy
2010-12-06 13:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?

So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Tracey12
2010-12-06 14:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.

Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
Alias
2010-12-06 14:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
--
Alias
George Kerby
2010-12-06 15:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.

Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.

Carry on, troll...
Mike Smith
2010-12-06 16:42:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:25:24 -0600, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.
Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.
Carry on, troll...
Which troll is this? Piugboy or the other one?

Mike Smith
George Kerby
2010-12-06 17:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:25:24 -0600, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.
Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.
Carry on, troll...
Which troll is this? Piugboy or the other one?
Mike Smith
The other one, according to the headers.
First Post
2010-12-06 21:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.

And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.

And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
Tracey12
2010-12-06 22:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
wy
2010-12-06 22:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done
You mean all this?

http://obamaachievements.org/list

 and try to blame GW for things

You mean all this?

http://www.opednews.com/wade_080404_bush_signature_achievements.htm
Post by Tracey12
obama
is doing exponentially more.
You mean all this?

http://obamaachievements.org/list
First Post
2010-12-06 23:10:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap. I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them. Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound. So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound. So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
WR
2010-12-07 04:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done  and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap.  I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them.  Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound.  So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound.  So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
What ideology is that? The only ideologues I hear are nutcases like
Rand Paul or Glenn Beck.
Mike Smith
2010-12-07 12:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done  and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap.  I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them.  Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound.  So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound.  So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
What ideology is that? The only ideologues I hear are nutcases like
Rand Paul or Glenn Beck.
Your ignorance is not our problem. But we do have fun ridiculing it.

Mike Smith
Y***@Jurgis.net
2010-12-06 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:51:47 -0600, First Post
Post by First Post
Post by Alias
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.
Ti's true. REagan raised the debt about 30% (over what it was when he
came in)

Bush 1 raised it another 12%

Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms

Bush RAISED the debt 57% (over what it was when he took over)

Obama was forced to raise it (about) 12% (so far)
Post by First Post
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
Inflation cannot dispel the massive debt bush caused

The 2nd WW was not a "democratic war" it was not an elective---we were
attacked.

The Korean war was a UN war---the US carrying the major fighting

The Vietnam war was an extension of Post WW2 foriegn policy to
"contain" the spread of communism----which has always been a
REPUBLICAN policy.

The Afghanistan occurred as a result of an attack on our soil---making
it not correct to call it a "republican war"---(same principle as WW2)

BUsh launched the Iraq war by lying.
John Black
2010-12-07 02:57:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@Jurgis.net
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms. Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts". Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...

John Black
WR
2010-12-07 04:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House. GW Bush quickly ruined all that with
hugh tax cuts for the wealthy and by engaging in useless wars without
raising taxes to pay for them. All of that was very good for his
friends, and for Dick Cheney, though. Bush and Cheney were traitors
who lied the country into a war to benefit themselves and their
friends.
John Black
2010-12-07 05:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House.
You are clueless. Clinton lucked into a brief surplus due to the dot.com
*bubble* which burst spectactularly in mid 2000. That led to a big
recession which in turn led to the return of deficits which would have
existed no matter who was president, even had it been Clinton. Bush's tax
cuts are what ended the recession and led to many years of economic growth.
Obama and company are finally acknowledging that by extending the tax cuts,
and even lowering other taxes as we speak in an attept to improve the
economy after proving (again) that government "stimulus" and attacks on
business fail to actually stimulate the economy or create jobs.

John Black
Mike Smith
2010-12-07 12:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House. GW Bush quickly ruined all that with
hugh tax cuts for the wealthy and by engaging in useless wars without
raising taxes to pay for them. All of that was very good for his
friends, and for Dick Cheney, though. Bush and Cheney were traitors
who lied the country into a war to benefit themselves and their
friends.
Do you enjoy your little fantasies about what happened in the 1990s?
Each and every one of your above statements are fallacious.

Thanks for posting proof that you are one stupid individual.

Mike Smith
Slackjaw
2010-12-11 13:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Until Obama...

wy
2010-12-06 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend? That's a
novel kind of math.
The PHANTOM
2010-12-06 15:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend?  That's a
novel kind of math.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
HUH??


http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-06 18:14:22 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. =A0Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. =A0Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. =A0Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. =A0And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. =A0And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! =A0You didn't have t=
he
Post by Tracey12
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. =A0They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah. =A0Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. =A0The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend? That's a
novel kind of math.
** Neo-con math is different.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Y***@Jurgis.net
2010-12-06 18:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:02:35 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
WHy is it a "good thing" if the top 10% get 80% of the money---and
you're paying for it to keep your 20%??
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-06 18:12:13 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
** They were fooled and they still don't know it.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
First Post
2010-12-06 21:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
The left wing politicians need to learn how to stop spending every
damned dime they can get a hold of and stop borrowing billions from
other countries for shit that can't be covered by the budget in the
first place.
Post by wy
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Do they put something in the water in Canada to make you idiots so
stupid?
If you don't have a clue as to how economics work then you should keep
your idiotic opinions to yourself unless you want to continue to look
like a complete imbecile.
The government not taking income away from citizens does not cost
anything. The government spending much more than it can take in does
cost. In the last two years Obama has spent several trillion dollars
that wasn't there for him to blow in the first place so the deficit
lies in the laps of him and the democrats that voted to ramrod
bullshit stimulus and healthcare bills through that no one wanted.
Speaking of which, you don't have am problem at all with the trillions
that the idiot in chief gave to all those big wealthy bankers do you
hypocrite? It's perfectly fine in your stupid eyes to just hand over
a few billion to bankers that ended up not needing it in the first
place but an unpardonable sin to simply not take more away from
someone to feed the eternally hungry bureaucratic government so it can
give itself fat pay raises and fund pork projects. And speaking of
pay raises, you also don;t have a problem with the president freezing
the payroll of the bottom tiers of federal employees while still
allowing the top pay scales for the "management" to go untouched.
So your hypocrituical ass doesn't give a shit about the working class.
And after all of that debt Obama has incurred he hasn't saved any
fucking jobs nor created any new ones and it hasn't boosted the
economy one iota as you fools and him claimed it would.
Keep ranting all you want about tax cuts but the current issue is
about a tax increase, not cuts.
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
More idiocy from the economically ignorant canuck. What else can be
expected?
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-07 11:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
• nobody -- and therein is the problem.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Patrick
2010-12-07 17:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
. nobody -- and therein is the problem.
When you stop a tax increase, you are not
cutting taxes....... Sheesh!
Slackjaw
2010-12-11 13:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have
the funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
What "lobsided" reasoning.
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
2010-12-06 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid. YOU ARE! We realized you are just dying to
increase our taxes, but now you know you can't and you freaking morons
are on TV shaking your heads and about to cry. UP YOURS!
Your taxes would remain the same on the first 250K. There is not a fucking
chance in hell that you would be in the bracket for a tax increase.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...