Rally to Restore Sanity / March to Keep Fear Alive

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

It’s the double standard that is pathetic.

When Dems rally, it’s community organizing, community activism, and “power going back to the people.” When Republicans rally, it’s racism, it’s the deep south, the Klan, xenophobic, sexism, and every other “anti-white crotchety old man” metaphor that can be thought of. People are getting sick and tired of it. [/quote]

Yeah! Double standard!

It’s like people are labeling based off of history and facts or something, that’s not fair at all. People are sick and tired of accurate portrayals.[/quote]

Oh for crying out loud! If you’re going to try that position at least check your facts man. Fuck’s sake…Ok, here we go: Deep South, Democrat controlled during segregation, Jim Crow Laws, the height of the Klan, and the civil rights movement. Republicans were largely involved with the civil rights movement. For fuck’s sake, the term “Solid South” itself refers to the almost exclusive Democratic Party control exerted over the south from 1877 to 1964-66. The nearly sole break of which was Missouri going to Teddy Roosevelt in 1904 in POTUS elections.

There is nothing accurate about that portrayal of Republican party rallies when looking at history.

62

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally.

It’s about restoring sanity to the newsmedia in america (cnn, fox, msnbc, all of em), it’s not as geared toward political activism. I’m not going to try to argue that stewart isn’t a democrat, but that’s sort of an ad hominem attack with respect to this rally. Just because he has a political slant (as most people do) doesn’t mean he can’t make a meaningful commentary on the state of the media.

While his attacks on fox are often motivated by what is being presented, they are just as often, if not more so, motivated by how things are presented. I think people miss the nature of his critique because all they want to do is point fingers at libs and conservatives and whine about who’s wrong and right.[/quote]

I think I understand your point. Just because Stewart is a democrat and has repeatedly belittled republican politicians, and every single conservative vaule that is known doesn’t mean that he’s going to turn this rally into any sort of anti-republican pro Obama thing. NO, of course not, not at all nope. On a side note, are that gullible, or just a partisan hack?
[/quote]

Does it bother you when Republicans have rallies? How about when people say the rallies aren’t political? Or are you just a partisan hack?
[/quote]

Did the point go flying over your head? I just want people to call a spade a spade. Simple huh? Anyone trying to claim Stewart is non-partisan is either a dumb kid, or a partisan hack. I hope that I’ve clarified this for you junior.

63

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally.

It’s about restoring sanity to the newsmedia in america (cnn, fox, msnbc, all of em), it’s not as geared toward political activism. I’m not going to try to argue that stewart isn’t a democrat, but that’s sort of an ad hominem attack with respect to this rally. Just because he has a political slant (as most people do) doesn’t mean he can’t make a meaningful commentary on the state of the media.

While his attacks on fox are often motivated by what is being presented, they are just as often, if not more so, motivated by how things are presented. I think people miss the nature of his critique because all they want to do is point fingers at libs and conservatives and whine about who’s wrong and right.[/quote]

I think I understand your point. Just because Stewart is a democrat and has repeatedly belittled republican politicians, and every single conservative vaule that is known doesn’t mean that he’s going to turn this rally into any sort of anti-republican pro Obama thing. NO, of course not, not at all nope. On a side note, are you that gullible, or just a partisan hack?
[/quote]

Every PWI thread should just begin with a stock post of yours so we can go ahead and get it out of the way and try to have a discussion. It’s too bad that you’re such a whiny bitch.[/quote]

I think I remember you, you’re the one who gets all teary eyed when someone says that your little Karl Marx leaning community organizer sucks as a President, yeah that’s you. Don’t like my posting style? Go away and you won’t have to read it. Problem solved.

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally.

It’s about restoring sanity to the newsmedia in america (cnn, fox, msnbc, all of em), it’s not as geared toward political activism. I’m not going to try to argue that stewart isn’t a democrat, but that’s sort of an ad hominem attack with respect to this rally. Just because he has a political slant (as most people do) doesn’t mean he can’t make a meaningful commentary on the state of the media.

While his attacks on fox are often motivated by what is being presented, they are just as often, if not more so, motivated by how things are presented. I think people miss the nature of his critique because all they want to do is point fingers at libs and conservatives and whine about who’s wrong and right.[/quote]

I think I understand your point. Just because Stewart is a democrat and has repeatedly belittled republican politicians, and every single conservative vaule that is known doesn’t mean that he’s going to turn this rally into any sort of anti-republican pro Obama thing. NO, of course not, not at all nope. On a side note, are you that gullible, or just a partisan hack?
[/quote]

Every PWI thread should just begin with a stock post of yours so we can go ahead and get it out of the way and try to have a discussion. It’s too bad that you’re such a whiny bitch.[/quote]

I think I remember you, you’re the one who gets all teary eyed when someone says that your little Karl Marx leaning community organizer sucks as a President, yeah that’s you. Don’t like my posting style? Go away and you won’t have to read it. Problem solved.

[/quote]

uh wut? the only other time I can imagine that I posted in the same thread as you is when I said I didn’t like Glenn Beck. Then someone got really pissed and started asking me why I called him a liar (which I didn’t) a threw out a bunch of unrelated attacks. I stupidly allowed people in that thread to get the better of me by actually responding to that garbage. Pretty sure you were waiting in the wings getting yourself all warmed up for a political circle jerk.

Your response is pretty laughable given that your advice would apply to none better than yourself. If you don’t like what I’ve posted don’t take the time to quote it, then reply to it, then quote and reply to it again. I didn’t jump in here with the goal of eliciting a response from you. I made, what any reasonable person would see, as a fairly benign post with my read on the rally. Who the fuck said anything about the president or karl marx (other than you)? I know you absolutely get of by posting on these forums, but you should never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.

I’d rather not perpetuate the pleasure you get from arguing on the internet, so back to the topic at hand. I’ll be interested to see what attendance can be garnered after only a little over a month of publicity.

65

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally. [/quote]

What?

Since when has Stewart been a member of the media? He’s a comedian.

66

Media

â??noun

  1. a pl. of medium.
  2. ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.
67

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

It’s the double standard that is pathetic.

When Dems rally, it’s community organizing, community activism, and “power going back to the people.” When Republicans rally, it’s racism, it’s the deep south, the Klan, xenophobic, sexism, and every other “anti-white crotchety old man” metaphor that can be thought of. People are getting sick and tired of it. [/quote]

Yeah! Double standard!

It’s like people are labeling based off of history and facts or something, that’s not fair at all. People are sick and tired of accurate portrayals.[/quote]

Oh for crying out loud! If you’re going to try that position at least check your facts man. Fuck’s sake…Ok, here we go: Deep South, Democrat controlled during segregation, Jim Crow Laws, the height of the Klan, and the civil rights movement. Republicans were largely involved with the civil rights movement. For fuck’s sake, the term “Solid South” itself refers to the almost exclusive Democratic Party control exerted over the south from 1877 to 1964-66. The nearly sole break of which was Missouri going to Teddy Roosevelt in 1904 in POTUS elections.

There is nothing accurate about that portrayal of Republican party rallies when looking at history.
[/quote]

LOL!!!

For fuck’s sake, you’re really going to sit there and speak on the democrats in the south during that period? “Democrats” who maintained a very conservative ideology and stance? Yeah, I guess you’re right, their title was technically “democrats”.

I guess it doesn’t matter that after the Civil Rights Movement these same “democrats” defected to the Republican party?

Check your facts.

68

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally.

It’s about restoring sanity to the newsmedia in america (cnn, fox, msnbc, all of em), it’s not as geared toward political activism. I’m not going to try to argue that stewart isn’t a democrat, but that’s sort of an ad hominem attack with respect to this rally. Just because he has a political slant (as most people do) doesn’t mean he can’t make a meaningful commentary on the state of the media.

While his attacks on fox are often motivated by what is being presented, they are just as often, if not more so, motivated by how things are presented. I think people miss the nature of his critique because all they want to do is point fingers at libs and conservatives and whine about who’s wrong and right.[/quote]

I think I understand your point. Just because Stewart is a democrat and has repeatedly belittled republican politicians, and every single conservative vaule that is known doesn’t mean that he’s going to turn this rally into any sort of anti-republican pro Obama thing. NO, of course not, not at all nope. On a side note, are you that gullible, or just a partisan hack?
[/quote]

Every PWI thread should just begin with a stock post of yours so we can go ahead and get it out of the way and try to have a discussion. It’s too bad that you’re such a whiny bitch.[/quote]

I think I remember you, you’re the one who gets all teary eyed when someone says that your little Karl Marx leaning community organizer sucks as a President, yeah that’s you. Don’t like my posting style? Go away and you won’t have to read it. Problem solved.

[/quote]

uh wut? the only other time I can imagine that I posted in the same thread as you is when I said I didn’t like Glenn Beck.[/quote]

Yeah I remember, you got all teary eyed because Beck took apart the Obama administration piece by piece. When you were challenged as to what exactly Beck was wrong about you stumbled around like a half drunk college kid on his first night away from home. You have not improved too much since then. You add nothing to the political threads but lots of laughs at your own expense. Thanks for one more.

69

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally. [/quote]

What?

Since when has Stewart been a member of the media? He’s a comedian.[/quote]

True, but let’s get it completely right. A comedian who attacks primarily republicans

70

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Let’s see…with 8 years of GWB we went from a surplus to a deficit by giving the top 1% or less of Americans a tax break[/quote]

The “Bush” tax cuts extended to all income earners, not just the “wealthiest 1%”.[/quote]

Your facts don’t belong here. Why do so many brain dead people complain about keeping their money and ignore when Congress wastes incredible sums?[/quote]

Youre right, his facts dont belong because, while technically true, misrepresents the overall picture.

Table 3:
Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
(reflects tax cuts enacted since 2001)

Income Class
Average tax cut
% increase in after-tax income
% share of tax cut

Middle 20 percent
$647
2.3%
8.9%

Top one percent
$34,992
5.3%
24.2%

Over $1 million
$123,592
6.4%
15.3%

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

[/quote]

Meh. I’d rather everyone look at this instead:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/egtrra_law.pdf

You’ll find that including the tax credit increases, phaseouts, and a bunch of other goodies aimed at lower-income taxpayers - the “Bush” tax cuts were quite generous to lower-income taxpayers. And don’t forget that those in the 10 and 15 percent brackets pay no tax on capital gains.[/quote]

Since you read that 114 page pdf why dont you cite wtf you are talking about?

10 and 15 percenters dont benefit from cap gains tax cuts because they own no capital, any cap gains tax cuts are toally a gift to high wealth brackets. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed than income.

You can spin anything, cant you?

71

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Let’s see…with 8 years of GWB we went from a surplus to a deficit by giving the top 1% or less of Americans a tax break[/quote]

The “Bush” tax cuts extended to all income earners, not just the “wealthiest 1%”.[/quote]

Your facts don’t belong here. Why do so many brain dead people complain about keeping their money and ignore when Congress wastes incredible sums?[/quote]

Youre right, his facts dont belong because, while technically true, misrepresents the overall picture.

Table 3:
Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
(reflects tax cuts enacted since 2001)

Income Class
Average tax cut
% increase in after-tax income
% share of tax cut

Middle 20 percent
$647
2.3%
8.9%

Top one percent
$34,992
5.3%
24.2%

Over $1 million
$123,592
6.4%
15.3%

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

[/quote]

Meh. I’d rather everyone look at this instead:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/egtrra_law.pdf

You’ll find that including the tax credit increases, phaseouts, and a bunch of other goodies aimed at lower-income taxpayers - the “Bush” tax cuts were quite generous to lower-income taxpayers. And don’t forget that those in the 10 and 15 percent brackets pay no tax on capital gains.[/quote]

Since you read that 114 page pdf why dont you cite wtf you are talking about?

10 and 15 percenters dont benefit from cap gains tax cuts because they own no capital, any cap gains tax cuts are toally a gift to high wealth brackets. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed than income.

You can spin anything, cant you?[/quote]

How is posting the source material “spin”?

You just seem like you want to be angry about something. Just post what’s really on your mind and get it over with.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally. [/quote]

What?

Since when has Stewart been a member of the media? He’s a comedian.[/quote]

True, but let’s get it completely right. A comedian who attacks primarily republicans
[/quote]

How often do you watch the Daily Show? I just watched him skewer Obama the other night.

73

My challenge to you ZEB, and everyone else, is to watch this event when it does happen. I watched Glenn Beck’s rally, and I’m not a fan of his. I did so because if I was going to comment on it, I wanted to know what had taken place. I posted on these forums with my honest opinion of it in a way that I don’t think was inflammatory. Also, ZEB, how do I add nothing by giving a legitimate opinion? That’s an unwarranted comment. As far as I’m concerned all you’ve done is lob some baseless attacks that are a result of your inability to disentangle someone’s political leanings from their actual comments. You don’t seem to have any idea what a discourse is. You can fall back on your age/education rhetoric, but it’s hackneyed. Who is really the one not contributing here?

Until this event happens, let’s not dismiss it based on what we believe it will entail. I had the respect to do so with Beck’s.

EDIT:

My other challenge to everyone is to actually post an avatar of their physique. This is, after all, testosterone nation. And if you’re not here first and foremost to improve yourself and your training then GTFO.

74

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
As fun as it is to argue about why the tea party/liberals is/are retarded/awesome, i don’t think that’s the primary issue of stewart’s rally. He himself has said that he’s not a politician and can’t expect to make significant political changes. However, he argues that because he’s a member of the media, that’s where he can legitimately expect to have an impact. That’s what is at the core of his rally. [/quote]

What?

Since when has Stewart been a member of the media? He’s a comedian.[/quote]

True, but let’s get it completely right. A comedian who attacks primarily republicans
[/quote]

How often do you watch the Daily Show? I just watched him skewer Obama the other night.
[/quote]

To show how rare that was it was highlighted on one of the national news programs. The headline was something like “Obama’s popularity sinks so low that even John Stewart made fun of him, once.”

75

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
My challenge to you ZEB, and everyone else, is to watch this event when it does happen. I watched Glenn Beck’s rally, and I’m not a fan of his. I did so because if I was going to comment on it, I wanted to know what had taken place.[/quote]

I get more than enough John Stewart as I click through the stations and have to see him for .10 seconds. I’ve seen him in the past when he was actually funny. That was before he became a stooge for the democratic party.

Whether you are inflammatory or not is irrelevant. What is important is what you are saying. For example I’m still waiting for you to answer my question from the Beck thread. You throw things out without much thought and then you can’t defend them. Posts are not judged on how inflammatory they are, but instead what fact, or insight that they can bring.

Well, I think you just answered that one, didn’t you?

I “fall back” on my age and experience. That’s a real shame isn’t it? Age and experience are good things to have. I wish our left leaning President had more of both we might not be in the mess that we’re currently in.

I see, so you’d like to step in crap before you actually believe that your shoe will smell after doing so. That is what I mean about lack of experience. When Glenn Beck had his rally you can bet that it wasn’t going to be anything that favored Obama. And I assure you that the Stewart rally will indeed leave big sloppy wet marks all over Obama’s ass. Or haven’t you noticed that Stewart is continually knocking republicans? This doesn’t take a whole lot of experience to notice. People like Stewart (and Beck too for that matter) have political agendas. They make vast fortunes pushing those agendas. Stewart will now depart from this agenda why? Come on now, I know you’re young but just stop and think for a minute.

76

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Let’s see…with 8 years of GWB we went from a surplus to a deficit by giving the top 1% or less of Americans a tax break[/quote]

The “Bush” tax cuts extended to all income earners, not just the “wealthiest 1%”.[/quote]

Your facts don’t belong here. Why do so many brain dead people complain about keeping their money and ignore when Congress wastes incredible sums?[/quote]

Youre right, his facts dont belong because, while technically true, misrepresents the overall picture.

Table 3:
Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
(reflects tax cuts enacted since 2001)

Income Class
Average tax cut
% increase in after-tax income
% share of tax cut

Middle 20 percent
$647
2.3%
8.9%

Top one percent
$34,992
5.3%
24.2%

Over $1 million
$123,592
6.4%
15.3%

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

[/quote]

Meh. I’d rather everyone look at this instead:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/egtrra_law.pdf

You’ll find that including the tax credit increases, phaseouts, and a bunch of other goodies aimed at lower-income taxpayers - the “Bush” tax cuts were quite generous to lower-income taxpayers. And don’t forget that those in the 10 and 15 percent brackets pay no tax on capital gains.[/quote]

Since you read that 114 page pdf why dont you cite wtf you are talking about?

10 and 15 percenters dont benefit from cap gains tax cuts because they own no capital, any cap gains tax cuts are toally a gift to high wealth brackets. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed than income.

You can spin anything, cant you?[/quote]

How is posting the source material “spin”?

You just seem like you want to be angry about something. Just post what’s really on your mind and get it over with.[/quote]

Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.

Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.

The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.

77

[quote]milktruck wrote:

Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.

Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.

The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]

You really can’t make time over the next few days to educate yourself?

And Reagan’s tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and a doubling of the tax revenue, perhaps learning the Laffer curve would be time well spent too.

P.S. No one gives a shit about you being a grad student.

78

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.

Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.

The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]

You really can’t make time over the next few days to educate yourself?

And Reagan’s tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and a doubling of the tax revenue, perhaps learning the Laffer curve would be time well spent too.

P.S. No one gives a shit about you being a grad student.[/quote]
Reagan’s tax cuts shifted the US from being the world’s largest creditor to being the largest debtor nation. That’s what happens when you let an actor be president.

79

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.

Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.

The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]

You really can’t make time over the next few days to educate yourself?

And Reagan’s tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and a doubling of the tax revenue, perhaps learning the Laffer curve would be time well spent too.

P.S. No one gives a shit about you being a grad student.[/quote]

Im here to educate YOU, buddy. Dont kid yourself. You need to think a little harder about the relevance of the laffer curve in real life. Its a freaking 2 variable economic “model”.

80

[quote]milktruck wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:

Yeah I am angry the political class is completely captured and destroying the middle class and any semblance of social mobility through regressive taxation. Thought it was obvious.

Posting a 114 page document without citing where the point is is meaningless. I have a professional job and Im a full time grad student, do me the favor I did you and post your stats, I dont have time to read that shit and I dont believe you did anyways. If everything Ive read is wrong and somehow the Bush tax cuts werent a Regan throwback trickle down farce to pander to the wealthiest americans, Id like to know I have been misled.

The spin was your cap gains comment. The poor benefit by not getting taxed on profitable sales of assets they dont have? That is not an advantage.[/quote]

You really can’t make time over the next few days to educate yourself?

And Reagan’s tax cuts helped create 20 million jobs and a doubling of the tax revenue, perhaps learning the Laffer curve would be time well spent too.

P.S. No one gives a shit about you being a grad student.[/quote]

Im here to educate YOU, buddy. Dont kid yourself. You need to think a little harder about the relevance of the laffer curve in real life. Its a freaking 2 variable economic “model”.[/quote]

You educate me when you say that Reagan’s tax cut was somehow a gift to the rich? I can do without your education.

I will take my learning from ludwig von mises.