Jump to content

Wacky Socialist Bill Gross


TPS

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine...

 

Since any additional revenue would not make a dent in our deficit, did you ask yourself what was the point of Mr Gross's statement ?

 

Resentment with the (fellow) rich ? . . . . . . . . .

 

fairness ?. . . . . . . .

 

shared misery ?

 

 

perhaps you shouldn't discount the wacky socialist term too quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You unrepentant hack...

 

Speak to Mr. Gross' vested interests, what with his fund being the single largest holder of US sovereign debt.

oh, I thought that was China.

Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really?

 

 

 

Since any additional revenue would not make a dent in our deficit, did you ask yourself what was the point of Mr Gross's statement ?

 

Resentment with the (fellow) rich ? . . . . . . . . .

 

fairness ?. . . . . . . .

 

shared misery ?

 

 

perhaps you shouldn't discount the wacky socialist term too quickly.

if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, I thought that was China.

Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really?

 

if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it?

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

any other odd conclusions to be answered ?

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a lot easier to advocate higher taxes once you've reached the pinnacle, and you have your five estates on five continents, and you have the estate plan all set up. I wonder what his tax outlook was when PIMCO was just a regular fund?

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't.

 

And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says?

 

Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video):

http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html

 

He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

Edited by TPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't.

 

And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says?

 

Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video):

http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html

 

He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

 

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't.

 

And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says?

 

Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video):

http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html

 

He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

Weren't you one of the ones who argued vehemently against repealing the payroll tax reduction because it put several hundreds of dollars in everyone's take home pay - well, at least those with jobs and receiving 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? The argument was it stimulated the economy. Then, when it WAS repealed in spite of B.O.'s "promise" that no one's tax burden would be increased by a single dime the mantra became - well, it wasn't that important anyway and "everybody" knew it had to be repealed (to properly fund worker's SS benefits).

Yeah, just another argument of convenience that was discarded like a used condom after heavy use during an election cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't.

 

And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says?

 

Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video):

http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html

 

He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

When the government shows they can live within their means, we can talk about giving them more money to spend. Until then, no sale. It's really that simple. We don't have a revenue problem at any level of government. We have a spending problem. Your solution to the heroin epidemic is to give the addicts even more junk. Pure friggin' genius, that. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the government shows they can live within their means, we can talk about giving them more money to spend. Until then, no sale. It's really that simple. We don't have a revenue problem at any level of government. We have a spending problem. Your solution to the heroin epidemic is to give the addicts even more junk. Pure friggin' genius, that. <_<

 

But Nancy Pelosi said we have cut to the bare bones.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/09/pelosi-the-cupboard-is-bare-173214.html

 

I disagree

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/us-spending-400000-to-help-preserve-mexican-male-prostitutes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't.

 

And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says?

 

Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video):

http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html

 

He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

I know this much: less tax money taken from me means more money for me. you don't have to be an accountatnt or an economist to know that the mounting national debt is due to the feds overspending, not because they aren't taxing us enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this much: less tax money taken from me means more money for me. you don't have to be an accountatnt or an economist to know that the mounting national debt is due to the feds overspending, not because they aren't taxing us enough.

Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top.

 

As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying.

 

Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine.

 

3rd: I knew you couldn't get it.

Edited by TPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top.

 

As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying.

 

Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine.

 

3rd: I knew you couldn't get it.

People keeping what they've earned is a terribly colored description of a "give away", which assumes an absolute lack of property rights. And no, social security is no longer in surplus, it's payed out more than it's taken in for several years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top.

 

As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying.

 

Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine.

 

3rd: I knew you couldn't get it.

 

Maybe you should explain it for those of us who have long ago pegged you as just a pompous ass, all in on theory rather than practicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...