Wealth distribution in the US

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

He is still having difficulty because TARP may have made a profit. It contradicts what extremist politicians have been preaching for years. A bridge loan called TARP may have literally saved the American economy ... and earned a profit. It may have been one of the better investments that Republican made. (So why did those same extremists blame the Democrats? Or will they now take credit for creating TARP?)

I was following Shaws lead (see congreeshores) and was channeling Themercenary. I believe even he thought it was funny.

Both parties passed the initial TARP. Virtually EVERYONE was on board at that time.
But you just go ahead an keep posting your unnecessary and unrelated partisan, extremist attacks. Its so new and refreshing.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Both parties passed the initial TARP. Virtually EVERYONE was on board at that time.

But the republicans are blaming Obama for "the deficit caused by bailouts" in many political ads.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But the republicans are blaming Obama for "the deficit caused by bailouts" in many political ads.

Then they should grow a friggin pair and call the R's out on it.
However, I think they R's are referring to subsequent bailouts. Whatever works better for them - some things never change.

[Shawnee123]

Regarding humor or tongue-in-cheek: never follow my lead. It's not worked for me so far.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Regarding humor or tongue-in-cheek: never follow my lead. It's not worked for me so far.

Especially when you post your snarky bullshit comments to a humorous reply to one of your own posts.
Perhaps a "we were just kidding" tw would have been a better alternative than being a bitch. Just sayin'. <no smilie>

[TheMercenary]

This explains it fairly well....

The irony in this drama is that the money at stake is, in the larger scheme, trivial. Raising taxes on the top 2% of households, as Mr Obama proposes, would bring in $34 billion next year: enough to cover nine days’ worth of the deficit. Indeed, the problem with the tax debate is not that Democrats and Republicans disagree, but that they mostly agree. Democrats think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes; the Republicans say 100% should not.

Taxes this year will come to less than 15% of GDP, the lowest share since 1950. The two reasons for this are the recession, which has left a diminished tax base, and the legacy of broad-based tax cuts in 1997, 2001, 2003 and 2009. Taxes are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP in 2020 if all the tax cuts are extended; raising rates on the rich would lift the ratio to only 20% (see chart). That is nowhere near enough to pay for federal spending, estimated at 24% of GDP in 2020. “Citizens could be forgiven for forgetting that there is any connection between spending and taxes,” says Len Burman, a tax expert at Syracuse University.

http://www.economist.com/node/170434...TOKEN=35979115

[HungLikeJesus]

When did DanaC become daviddwilson? (See post 15.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

When did DanaC become daviddwilson? (See post 15.)

[Shawnee123]

Why do people keep doing that? They sign up just to repeat a Dwellar's post? It's been happening off and on...very strange!

[Undertoad]

What that is --

The spammers are upping their game... tremendously. They have now reached the point where they attempt to resemble real people.

This one is from Vietnam.

[Shawnee123]

Luckily, Miss Dana can never be duplicated: she's one of a kind, and she doesn't spam us.

[Spexxvet]

O'DONNELL: But what I'm proposing is to give these tax -- to make sure that the tax cults for our Delawareans do not expire this January. You have said that you will stop the tax cuts for the so-called rich. What you fail to realize is the so-called rich are the small business owner, the dry-cleaner down the street, the pizza shop owner who makes $300,000 before they pay their four employees, before they feed their own family...

The tax on a proprietorship or partnership is calculated after expenses are deducted. Is she lying, stupid, or both?

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's the result of being coached in rhetoric, without understanding the reasoning. It's easy to be wrong, but she can do it with a straight face.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's the result of being coached in rhetoric, without understanding the reasoning. It's easy to be wrong, but she can do it with a straight face.

That is the purpose and point. Many will believe her only due to presentation. Many will simply ignore that facts and numbers. She looks honest. Therefore she must be telling the truth.

Christian Colleges require courses that teach how to 'present'. How to move facial features makes some people 'appear' to be honest. Presentation rather than facts are only important to those most easily manipulated by lies.

Why was George Jr so successful? He entered a town, remembered everyone's name, and appeared to be so honest. He was a master of 'presentation'. And was a mental midget. George Jr was the perfect front man. So is Palin. And so is O'Donnell. Many only see the presentation – then believe what they are told to believe.

So many only 'feel' what is true rather than 'learn' what is true. 'Presentation' rather than 'knowledge or honesty' is important. Even explains why 4,400 Americans were killed in Iraq for no purpose.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by tw

Christian Colleges require courses that teach how to 'present'.

Huh? You mean like a public speaking class?