That Short Straw Was Really Short

A new KELO poll has Jay "Short Straw" Williams getting steamrolled by John Thune in the Senate race, 65% - 27% with 8% still in need of a GPS.

In the Hawks vs Noem House race, Paula Hawks is getting spanked by Noem 59% - 35% with 6% still wandering in the weeds.

Jeebus, what a kick in the gut for the Democratics.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:A new KELO poll has Jay "Short Straw" Williams getting steamrolled by John Thune in the Senate race, 65% - 27% with 8% still in need of a GPS.

In the Hawks vs Noem House race, Paula Hawks is getting spanked by Noem 59% - 35% with 6% still wandering in the weeds.

Jeebus, what a kick in the gut for the Democratics.

To add a little context,  these are the same people who will vote for Trump.  Now who's wandering in the weeds?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:A new KELO poll has Jay "Short Straw" Williams getting steamrolled by John Thune in the Senate race, 65% - 27% with 8% still in need of a GPS.

In the Hawks vs Noem House race, Paula Hawks is getting spanked by Noem 59% - 35% with 6% still wandering in the weeds.

Jeebus, what a kick in the gut for the Democratics.

To add a little context,  these are the same people who will vote for Trump.  Now who's wandering in the weeds?

I will proudly vote for Donald Trump...

He hasn't accepted money from foreign countries for political favors
He hasn't allowed four brave Americans to be murdered while he ignored the plea for greater security
He didn't help formulate Obama Care
He understands the role of Supreme Court Justices
He hasn't enabled a known sexual predator

Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growrh rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

You just making shist up now?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growrh rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

You just making shist up now?

It was during a radio interview.  http://ksoo.com/kristi-noem-claims-that-lower-taxes-is-the-answer/

I asked for Gomezz to comment.  He started the thread.  And he has the chops in economics to address Noem's claim.  You - not so much.

You really need to pay less attention to the female form and hairstyle of your Repub darlings and pay more attention to the stuff they believe and say.  But she is just the way guys like you and Trump like them - 10-20 years younger, trophy-wife beautiful and dumb as a box of rocks.

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember, Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So? Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top. How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with? Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

I guess you could say that.  Nearly half of those dead beats are the elderly. They certainly don't deserve a break. Another almost third are either working poor or taking deductions for children. F them. I'm sure you never got deductions for kids.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

I guess you could say that.  Nearly half of those dead beats are the elderly.  Another almost third are either working poor or taking deductions for children.

So the deadbeat elderly never paid their fair share of taxes? Do all those billions of dollars in FICA taxes paid at the same rate as Warren Buffett mean nothing? For those who find themselves solely dependent on SS, are the FDR and Democrats promises to take care of them in their old age meaningless? For those retirees (like my wife) who are now taking distributions from their IRAs/401Ks that they are still paying taxes on aren't paying their fair share? Once again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance. I've stepped on dog turds that had more brains than you.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

I guess you could say that.  Nearly half of those dead beats are the elderly.  Another almost third are either working poor or taking deductions for children.

So the deadbeat elderly never paid their fair share of taxes? Do all those billions of dollars in FICA taxes paid at the same rate as Warren Buffett mean nothing? For those who find themselves solely dependent on SS, are the FDR and Democrats promises to take care of them in their old age meaningless? For those retirees (like my wife) who are now taking distributions from their IRAs/401Ks  that they are still paying taxes on aren't paying their fair share? Once again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance. I've stepped on dog turds that had more brains than you.

All great questions. But why are you asking me? Darth was the one complaining.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

I guess you could say that.  Nearly half of those dead beats are the elderly.  Another almost third are either working poor or taking deductions for children.

So the deadbeat elderly never paid their fair share of taxes? Do all those billions of dollars in FICA taxes paid at the same rate as Warren Buffett mean nothing? For those who find themselves solely dependent on SS, are the FDR and Democrats promises to take care of them in their old age meaningless? For those retirees (like my wife) who are now taking distributions from their IRAs/401Ks  that they are still paying taxes on aren't paying their fair share? Once again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance. I've stepped on dog turds that had more brains than you.

All great questions.  But why are you asking me?  Darth was the one complaining.

You're the one, not Darth, who is calling retired people deadbeats even though many are still paying taxes on deferred income. Hell I'm even retired (just not taking SS) and probably pay more taxes on my investment income than you do in your dreams.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Gomezz
I saw elsewhere that Noem made some comment about tax reform stimulating a growth rate greater than 9% annually.  What do you think about that ?

Noem was talking about Speaker Ryan's plan. From what I've read it sounds ambitious but not improbable. Remember,  Obamacare was audacious and has been proven improbable. So?  Why not swing for the fences?

GDP is misunderstood by most people. The calculation of GDP is:  

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

By simplifying the tax code we remove inefficiencies (deadweight loss) putting not only more money in the hands of consumers but also in the hands of business. Hell even Keynesians know that raising taxes in a recession or slow growth economy will only serve to further depress the economy.

What Ryan seems to be suggesting is that rather than implement ineffectual stimulus programs and/or targeted tax cuts we should unleash business by reducing taxation on capital (capital gains tax reduction), reducing taxes on pass through business's and by simplifying the tax brackets putting more money into consumers hands.  

The Democrats in this state seem obsessed with proving how ignorant Noem is by her not possessing a college degree (which she has since achieved) and her leaving the Ag Committee for Ways and Means proving that she threw the farmers under the bus and is over her head with vacuous statements made about tax policy which were in fact only reiterated House leadership legislative proposals.  

Awww Gomerr,  we always know we can count on you for meaningless terms and definitions when you have nothing pertinent to say.  Or like in this case where the subject is indefensible.

There's a difference between ambition and flat out exaggeration, regardless the definition of GDP.    The only one capable of that type of growth is socialist China, and I doubt socialism is part if their plan. First off, I didn't see Noem's list of program cuts to offset her decreased tax revenue.  Secondly, surely people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on,  but the same can't necessarily said for this closer to the top.  How many of the people at the bottom are paying taxes to begin with?  Also there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth.

She's a liar.

You're a walking contradiction Fcukstik. On one hand you claim "people at the bottom or toward the middle of the spectrum will likely spend every extra penny they can get their hands on" and then on the other you claim that "there's no evidence anywhere that would suggest people would use a tax break in a way that would spur economic growth." Which is it?

As I said, the people at the bottom aren't likely paying taxes anyways and therefore wouldn't be effected by a tax break, so both statements are true.

Maybe its time the bottom feeders pay their fair share...isn't that what the demonrats say all the time?

I guess you could say that.  Nearly half of those dead beats are the elderly.  Another almost third are either working poor or taking deductions for children.

So the deadbeat elderly never paid their fair share of taxes? Do all those billions of dollars in FICA taxes paid at the same rate as Warren Buffett mean nothing? For those who find themselves solely dependent on SS, are the FDR and Democrats promises to take care of them in their old age meaningless? For those retirees (like my wife) who are now taking distributions from their IRAs/401Ks  that they are still paying taxes on aren't paying their fair share? Once again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance. I've stepped on dog turds that had more brains than you.

All great questions.  But why are you asking me?  Darth was the one complaining.

You're the one, not Darth, who is calling retired people deadbeats even though many are still paying taxes on deferred income. Hell I'm even retired (just not taking SS) and probably pay more taxes on my investment income than you do in your dreams.

No, he was implying, along with every other conservative, that people who don't pay taxes are deadbeats. I was merely pointing out to him who he was referring to.

Here's a really good article explaining the deadbeats who don't pay taxes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/%3f0p19

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
You're the one, not Darth, who is calling retired people deadbeats even though many are still paying taxes on deferred income. Hell I'm even retired (just not taking SS) and probably pay more taxes on my investment income than you do in your dreams.

Oh Gomezz, comparing the size of your tax bill to Dr. Jones' ?  Why not compare the size of something meaningful ?  Like the size of your hands ?

Makes you wonder who has the largest Jackie Robinson model baseball bat doesn't it?

Jammer wrote:Makes you wonder who has the largest Jackie Robinson model baseball bat doesn't it?

I feel pity for her bat...

Darth Cheney wrote:

Jammer wrote:Makes you wonder who has the largest Jackie Robinson model baseball bat doesn't it?

I feel pity for her bat...

How about the elderly (retirees) that don't pay taxes? Do you feel pitty for them?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Jammer wrote:Makes you wonder who has the largest Jackie Robinson model baseball bat doesn't it?

I feel pity for her bat...

How about the elderly (retirees) that don't pay taxes? Do you feel pitty for them?

If your asking me whether everyone earning income should pay taxes regardless of their race, income level, or age the answer is yes. Furthermore everyone should pay the same tax rate as a percentage of their income. The problem the liberals have created is nearly half of this country living off the government, paying nothing into the system, and constantly demand the "rich" pay more so they can live better. We are heading for a complete economic collapse with 20 trillion in debt and 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I know you are not intelligent enough to understand what I wrote so just grunt a few times.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Jammer wrote:Makes you wonder who has the largest Jackie Robinson model baseball bat doesn't it?

I feel pity for her bat...

How about the elderly (retirees) that don't pay taxes?  Do you feel pitty for them?

If your asking me whether everyone earning income should pay taxes regardless of their race, income level, or age the answer is yes. Furthermore everyone should pay the same tax rate as a percentage of their income. The problem the liberals have created is nearly half of this country living off the government, paying nothing into the system, and constantly demand the "rich" pay more so they can live better. We are heading for a complete economic collapse with 20 trillion in debt and 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I know you are not intelligent enough to understand what I wrote so just grunt a few times.

Half of the people you are referring to are the elderly, again, what do you have to say about them?  They are after all included in the infamous 47% figure that is often quoted by conservatives.

You should seriously the article I linked. Judging from your posts you are severely misinformed.

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's a really good article explaining the deadbeats who don't pay taxes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/%3f0p19G=e?client=ms-android-verizon

Stoopid paywall won't let me. Besides, who reads the Washington Post anyways? Fcukstik does by the looks of it. Of course comprehension of the subject matter is the real question one should ask about Fcukstik.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's a really good article explaining the deadbeats who don't pay taxes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/%3f0p19G=e?client=ms-android-verizon

Stoopid paywall won't let me. Besides, who reads the Washington Post anyways? Fcukstik does by the looks of it. Of course comprehension of the subject matter is the real question one should ask about Fcukstik.

Paywall? BS. I don't subscribe. Try it again.