Former 1st round draft pick stationed in IRAQ

[spursncowboys]

Thanks for that. It's Sunday and I'm too lazy to research the facts to shove down this idiots throat.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-54801777.html
Obama has surpassed all of Bushes 8 years of red ink. Also it was the Republican House and Congress that created the surplus, not Clinton and definitely not the Democrats. True Clinton signed the bill but it was the COnservatives that created it and left out most of the pork. The deficit had alot more to do with the stock market losing over 20 % of it's worth.
Even you communists should realize that if you buy 100 shares of gay-lube for $10/share and the price shoots down to $5/share that money is now gone. That is how Clinton had a surplus and Bush (300 days in office dealt with 9-11) had a deficit. However I will say that Bush increased Federal spending way too much, but that is an opinion and I have no facts just imo.
stockmarket charts from Clintons and Bush's presidency -
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/...-stock-market/

Bush inherited Clinton's recession - http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-80312

Economist say Recession started in 2000 (Wash Post) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[spursncowboys]

I'm stupid because of a differing opinion than yours? What do I want that I'm not willing to work for? You know me well enough to call me a pussy? Sounds like you're the one name calling without knowing the facts rather than debating, hypocrite.

I was creating a metaphor with you and the Mavs.
I think you are stupid because of the gossip you try to pawn off as your own thought. You rarely state truth and do not know what you are talking about. I think that is stupid. Plus you gang up on someone who served his country. SO you are stupid and have low morals.

[mavs>spurs2]

I was creating a metaphor with you and the Mavs.
I think you are stupid because of the gossip you try to pawn off as your own thought. You rarely state truth and do not know what you are talking about. I think that is stupid. Plus you gang up on someone who served his country. SO you are stupid and have low morals.

Good to know you found out all of these things about me during our time together on the internets. Go back to your fairytale land where America is the righteous leader of the free world and the neocons would never bully another country to set up an American presence in the region for profit.

[mavs>spurs2]

Oh and LOL at you thinking being a fan of a certain team reflects upon that person's intelligence

[mavs>spurs2]

Also it was the Republican House and Congress that created the surplus, not Clinton and definitely not the Democrats. True Clinton signed the bill but it was the COnservatives that created it and left out most of the pork.

The Repug's had a very very thin margin in the House during that time, but the president set the agenda. Don't try to claim someone else's work for the party you're loyal to. Ever since Reagan's administration, the Repug's have done nothing but send this country down hill. "Trickle down economics" and restructuring the tax code and stripping the treasury of revenue was the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention his immigration reform which allowed business owners to hire cheap labor which in turn drove down wages thus destroying the middle class. The Repug's are traditionally for the wealthy, but what are the wealthy going to do when there's no middle class to afford the products and services they market? Thing's are about to get a of a lot worse and we have shortsighted stupid people like yourself to blame. That's why the wealthy are starting to stash their money away in foreign currency because they realize that when the middle class, the backbone of america, all but disappears then it's going to come crashing down on everyone

[spursncowboys]

Good to know you found out all of these things about me during our time together on the internets. Go back to your fairytale land where America is the righteous leader of the free world and the neocons would never bully another country to set up an American presence in the region for profit.

If we aren't the leader of the free world, who is?
What profit have the neocons gotten? The fact is the "neocons" have a better grasp of foreign policy. How many times did we get attacked by terrorists before we attacked back with a Dem in the White House? What is wrong with opening up markets for America. A French philosopher said "Countries that do not trade goods will trade Armies". Since "bullying" countries like Japan, Germany, Iraq, they seem to enjoy a better lifestyle. What did we get for bullying them? a free-market trading partner. Land to bury our dead.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Also it was the Republican House and Congress that created the surplus, not Clinton and definitely not the Democrats. True Clinton signed the bill but it was the COnservatives that created it and left out most of the pork.

Were your parents siblings?

If the Republican House and Congress was so amazing and great at creating surpluses, why is it that when Bush took over, that same "Republican House and Congress" started creating deficits?

[spursncowboys]

The Repug's had a very very thin margin in the House during that time, but the president set the agenda. Don't try to claim someone else's work for the party you're loyal to. Ever since Reagan's administration, the Repug's have done nothing but send this country down hill. "Trickle down economics" and restructuring the tax code and stripping the treasury of revenue was the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention his immigration reform which allowed business owners to hire cheap labor which in turn drove down wages thus destroying the middle class. The Repug's are traditionally for the wealthy, but what are the wealthy going to do when there's no middle class to afford the products and services they market? Thing's are about to get a of a lot worse and we have shortsighted stupid people like yourself to blame. That's why the wealthy are starting to stash their money away in foreign currency because they realize that when the middle class, the backbone of america, all but disappears then it's going to come crashing down on everyone

Nothing you said makes sense.
When did trickle-up economics work?
Milton Friedman's Trickle-down theory is a good working economic plan. IMO.
It was the Republican Revolution with their Contract with America that balanced the budget.
Leave it to a commie to bring in class war fare. The Republicans are for the rich. wah wah wah. I am no where near rich but feel that they are over taxed. I do not think that our founding fathers would have wanted the top 25% income earners to pay 86% of all federal income taxes. "b and c deciding that a should pay for d" -m. bradley. I believe that the people who earn their money should be able to keep as much as possible. If you wanted to help the middle class, have your commie brothers stop taxing. The taxes are passed on to the consumer. You want more middle class jobs get rid of the minimum wage. Let each company compete for their workforce. The better incentives the better choice out of the workforce. Also get rid of cartels (owner working together) and unions(workers working together).

[spursncowboys]

Were your parents siblings?

If the Republican House and Congress was so amazing and great at creating surpluses, why is it that when Bush took over, that same "Republican House and Congress" started creating deficits?

Its like explaining to the Lakers that raping is bad...they just don't get it.

Dot-com bubble pop. We start our recession. Bush is inaugurated. Stocks lose value. NASDAQ stocks plummet. When stocks lose value that money disappears...gone...no more. If you read some of my links you would have seen this and not wasting my time you michael moore twin. "were your parents siblings" Seriously? That's what you came in with? Did I dumb it down to your level? Actually the Senate's 50th Republican changed to Democrat to give the Dems the majority in the Senate. So when Bush came in, with no w keys on any keyboard, or furniture, or transition teams thanx to the Clintons, the house was run by the republicans but not the senate. YOu got it? Re

[mavs>spurs2]

Nothing you said makes sense.
When did trickle-up economics work?
Milton Friedman's Trickle-down theory is a good working economic plan. IMO.
It was the Republican Revolution with their Contract with America that balanced the budget.
Leave it to a commie to bring in class war fare. The Republicans are for the rich. wah wah wah. I am no where near rich but feel that they are over taxed. I do not think that our founding fathers would have wanted the top 25% income earners to pay 86% of all federal income taxes. "b and c deciding that a should pay for d" -m. bradley. I believe that the people who earn their money should be able to keep as much as possible. If you wanted to help the middle class, have your commie brothers stop taxing. The taxes are passed on to the consumer. You want more middle class jobs get rid of the minimum wage. Let each company compete for their workforce. The better incentives the better choice out of the workforce. Also get rid of cartels (owner working together) and unions(workers working together).

Trickle down economics DIDN'T work dumbass, that was my point. It's a terrible plan because greedy people at the top hold on to too much of the money and it never makes it all the way down to the bottom.

And the rich pay too much taxes? This is astounding. Of course the wealthy account for the majority of the taxes. There are too many people barely able to make a living at all that their taxes don't account for much. For example, If me, you, and Bill Gates sat down at the table, the average income would be in the hundreds of millions. But this only counts for the people receiving a paycheck with witholdings because the tax situation is tricky. Yes, there's a progressive tax system, but if you're a rich business owner there's too many legal loopholes that you don't have to pay hardly ANY tax. Some of the wealthiest people in America don't have to pay jack .

[spursncowboys]

Didn't I tell you the military were full of these clowns. You're giving him way too much credit though, because inbred people are much more intelligent

Just like cowardly liberals. Cannot debate logic. Have to discredit and name call. cannot forget shouting over too. While you es read my posts in your mother's basement, your are probably shouting "yes we can".
Socialist Party in germany is Nazi

[mavs>spurs2]

Just like cowardly liberals. Cannot debate logic. Have to discredit and name call. cannot forget shouting over too. While you es read my posts in your mother's basement, your are probably shouting "yes we can".
Socialist Party in germany is Nazi

You called me a pussy, said that I'm not willing to work for what I want, stupid, and made all kinds of other false allegations. Pot, meet kettle. You're the one discrediting and name calling.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I do not think that our founding fathers would have wanted the top 25% income earners to pay 86% of all federal income taxes.

So when the top 25% is what gets 90+% of the income, they shouldn't be responsible for 90+% of the income taxes? The tax responsibility should be distributed in such a way that it further damages the middle class and widens the gap between rich and poor?

[mavs>spurs2]

So when the top 25% is what gets 90+% of the income, they shouldn't be responsible for 90+% of the income taxes? The tax responsibility should be distributed in such a way that it further damages the middle class and widens the gap between rich and poor?

Exactly. Don't let him muddy the water and confuse you with bull . You're exactly right on this

[mogrovejo]

So when the top 25% is what gets 90+% of the income, they shouldn't be responsible for 90+% of the income taxes? The tax responsibility should be distributed in such a way that it further damages the middle class and widens the gap between rich and poor?

Do you understand the economic consequences of that reasoning? You can have those who get 90% of the income paying 99% of the income taxes. But what will happen is that 90% of the income will very quickly decrease. You're just making people equally poor. If you tax those of higher income, they'll just move to other countries, or invest less, therefore creating less jobs and wealth, or just work less, because you're giving them a disincentive to wealth creation.

[mavs>spurs2]

Do you understand the economic consequences of that reasoning? You can have those who get 90% of the income paying 99% of the income taxes. But what will happen is that 90% of the income will very quickly decrease. You're just making people equally poor. If you tax those of higher income, they'll just move to other countries, or invest less, therefore creating less jobs and wealth, or just work less, because you're giving them a disincentive to wealth creation.

Yeah those business owners and CEO's are working sooooo hard chillin out on their yaht's and playing golf. Get a grip. It's the upper upper working class like doctors, people who are well to do but work hard for their money and receive a paycheck like you and I who deserve a break. Not the business owners making millions a year. Yes rich people should have to pay taxes like everyone else. If a guy making 250,000 a year has to pay his fair share of taxes he's still not "equally poor" as the janitor making 20k a year.

[mogrovejo]

Yeah those business owners and CEO's are working sooooo hard chillin out on their yaht's and playing golf. Get a grip. It's the upper upper working class like doctors, people who are well to do but work hard for their money and receive a paycheck like you and I who deserve a break. Not the business owners making millions a year. Yes rich people should have to pay taxes like everyone else. If a guy making 250,000 a year has to pay his fair share of taxes he's still not "equally poor" as the janitor making 20k a year.

The problem is that consumers are the ones paying those taxes. Do you think that in a globalized world you can decrease the net salary of high-end executives? They'll either look for jobs elsewhere or they'll just increase their gross-salary. Taxing companies or their workers doesn't work, because they just trade those costs to the consumer. The only consequence of that is to make the products manufacture and the services provided by companies in America to be more expensive, leading to jobs cuts, eventual bankrupts, more jobs lost, etc.

[Brazil]

This thread belongs to the political forum. BB fan discussions can be biaised or funny or stupid, political discussions in nba forum have always 0 interest.

[mogrovejo]

I'll give you an example. Imagine one says "heck, Steve Jobs and his associates are making an obscene amount of money with their gadgets, let's get 90% of that, they'll still have enough money to have a better life than 99% of us."

What would happen? Steve Jobs would probably delocalize Apple to outside the US and you'd lose the jobs they provide and all the taxes. Or he'd increase the price of his products to keep his return on investment stable. So Apple buyers would be paying that (more probably they'd stop buying Apple products, leading to the company dissapearing, the loss of jobs, the loss of taxes, etc.).

In an open economy, you can't have very high marginal tax rates at the higher end. You have to be fiscally compe ive or you just won't have the companies and the riches to tax.

[polysylab1k]

You sir are impervious to actuality or real events. The Dot-com bubble bursted in Mar 2000. Then on Sept 12, 2001 we started the depression. It was because of Bush's free-market solutions that kept our country growing and creating jobs.
It makes sense you are a Mavs fan. You are stupid, you want things but aren't willing to work for them, and you 'shout-over' or mock instead of debating. It will never change that you and lakaluva are pussies.

no, oppositely it was the so-re ed ing free-market that pushed the auto makers into bankruptcy, and the same fate also kissed some banks. Bush was the stupid ass that overlooked the signs insinuated by the blooming inflation and increasing unemployment. Instead of doing something to flourish the broken economy, I mean the ing economy has been broken since before that mutha er took office, that simpleton sent troops after troops and burnt tons of dollars on wars. Practically it shouldn't have cost so much to mollify Taliban and Sadam's empire. Those idiots were just earnest to give some works to land-troops, though those works coulda been done pretty well by airforce as in Kosovo.

Under the foolish policy of "freemarket", millions of foreign auto makers invaded inboard to sell their cars at dirty cheap prizes, which eventually led to the collapses of GM. GM cars shoulda sold cheaper but for the heavy taxes, which shoulda been set on the heads of foreign makers like toyota, honda, etc... Like lethal virus, those foreign auto makers were injected into American market and eventually, the branded big 2 got drowned. Reasonably the auto makers weren't killed by the virus but the government, for metaphor, the gunner is who should be charged of murder but not the gun.

[spursncowboys]

Movgrovjo has great points. Through out history, when a country lowers their taxes, they get more incoming taxes. Also CEOs, work alot. The average CEO never gets a day off and works 12 hours shifts.
The top 25% earned their monies. I don't think that 75 % of the population should be thinking of ideas of how to make their life better by taking the money from the other 25%. In a capitalist society why would you want to penalize the earner?
I agree that it was free markets that bankrupted GM and Chrysler. They didn't make a product that was good enough for the price they wanted. Actually, going by JD Power reviews they didn't make a good product. The banks had nothing to do with free market. Every single problem with the banks can be traced back to government intervention.

[Bukefal]

Exactly, this guy is good, but too good, he is stupid. Why give your life for something that isnt your place? Why give your life in a useless war, why give your life for economical reasons so some big shots can put money in their pockets and buy new bentleys? Is that worth dying for? Is that protectin your country? No, that's naive and stupidity, thats protecting the pockets and wallets of some rich people who cant stop thinking about money, aaah but well, thats what its all about in this world, money...

[spursncowboys]

Exactly, this guy is good, but too good, he is stupid. Why give your life for something that isnt your place? Why give your life in a useless war, why give your life for economical reasons so some big shots can put money in their pockets and buy new bentleys? Is that worth dying for? Is that protectin your country? No, that's naive and stupidity, thats protecting the pockets and wallets of some rich people who cant stop thinking about money, aaah but well, thats what its all about in this world, money...

You are a free lunch! Atleast in a free society, you don't have to fight. You can stay at home and be a coward. while others are fighting for your freedom you sit and enjoy the freedom to assemble. where you can sit and bad mouth the military. pussy. freedom of religion, speech, arms, assembly, are worth fighting for. Not one of those freedoms were gotten or kept by pussy sitting back not doing anything. It was awarded by men of action. The Washingtons, Churchills and Reagans of history. it is a shame you turn it into some class warfare. if you want that stuff so bad, go work for it and stop trying to take it from people who earned it. You are the posterchild for naive. I love your characterture of rich ppl. It is straight out of a communist poster. Why is it that every country we fight in war, kill their own people for speaking out and having a religion?
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

[Bukefal]

You are a free lunch! Atleast in a free society, you don't have to fight. You can stay at home and be a coward. while others are fighting for your freedom you sit and enjoy the freedom to assemble. where you can sit and bad mouth the military. pussy. freedom of religion, speech, arms, assembly, are worth fighting for. Not one of those freedoms were gotten or kept by pussy sitting back not doing anything. It was awarded by men of action. The Washingtons, Churchills and Reagans of history. it is a shame you turn it into some class warfare. if you want that stuff so bad, go work for it and stop trying to take it from people who earned it. You are the posterchild for naive. I love your characterture of rich ppl. It is straight out of a communist poster. Why is it that every country we fight in war, kill their own people for speaking out and having a religion?
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

Others fighting for your freedom?? Those others are fighting for economical reasons, for oil and gas, for money and power, so some big shots can fill their pockets and take more power, more and more and more, thats what they are dying for. And the soldiers are being used, they are dying for those big shots, mostly poor young guys without education, are being used to die for money and power - for nothing.

Of course those countries are not free, of course their people cannot speak out, thats true. But America did not start the war to end that, they say they did, but thats not the reason. dont cover your economic war up with saying that they are a treat to your freedom and safety, because we all know bush went in that war for economical reasons. stop being so naive.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Do you understand the economic consequences of that reasoning? You can have those who get 90% of the income paying 99% of the income taxes. But what will happen is that 90% of the income will very quickly decrease. You're just making people equally poor. If you tax those of higher income, they'll just move to other countries, or invest less, therefore creating less jobs and wealth, or just work less, because you're giving them a disincentive to wealth creation.

I really don't give a what some bandwagon Celtics fan from Europe has to say on the matter.