10 of 11
10
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 16 October 2013 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Looks like we may have to wait at least one more president to achieve entitlement reform.  Keep the train moving full speed ahead.  Later we’ll send out a team to build a bridge over the chasm we’re approaching.

Wooo,  you convinced me.  I’m signing up with the tea party right away. LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

Houston Chronicle retracts Cruz endorsement.
Pope Francis easing up on conservatism.
Good god!
Maybe we can set aside a couple of States in the US for all of the hold-outs.
We’ll call it “Stumpland”.
Entitlement reform?
The train is steady marching towards spending and tax reform.  Ie more taxes for the wealthy and less spending on War and Drugs!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 16 October 2013 11:32 AM
Write4U - 16 October 2013 02:52 AM

And you believe this is the time to address all your concerns?

I have many concerns apart from entitlement reform, yet entitlement reform is the only one I mentioned.  I’m not sure what you’re talking about.  The CBO says delaying reform exacerbates the problem.  Obama’s been talking about it for five years.  Hey, why not just talk about it for three more years and hope the next administration will do something about it?

And what does the president have to do with legislation?

Are you serious?

Presidents do not pass legislation, apart from signing it into law, but the executive branch can and does propose specific legislation and can its weight behind it.  Can you imagine if OFA started an ad campaign supporting entitlement reform (heh)?

But you just admitted Obama has been “talking about it for 5 years”. And what did congress do about it?

I always thought that the President lays out his vision and Congress debates the merits before submitting a Bill for the president to sign or veto.

That’s accurate, albeit oversimplified.  As pointed out above, the executive branch can certainly suggest specific legislation and ask Congress to vote on it.  And the executive branch can involve itself in negotiations designed to get the bill passed.  Remember how Joe Biden served as the key to breaking the tax reform impasse back near New Year’s?

Joe Biden was an “outside agent”, not part of the “administration?

As you stipulated the president has admitted from “time to time and pledge his willingness to address the problem.” I see nothing divisive about that wrong with that. Do you?

Hey, you left out the part about his insistence on raising taxes to solve the problem.  He’s holding retirement reform hostage or something, right?  Look, I’m sure you can find an “an” “but” or “or” coming out of the president’s mouth that isn’t divisive.  But why play that silly game?  The broad strokes of his management of is office state “Do it my way.”  In this thread, President Obama has his supporters claiming that he compromised by cutting the budget even though cutting the budget was supposedly one of the president’s own goals.  Clearly, the man’s a genius.

You think we can cut our way to a balanced budget?

Three cheers for your ability to keep dodging questions.  I also asked one about Obama himself spreading the notion that Congress aligned against him as he took office.  Obama’s smart.  But he can’t figure out McConnell made the statement two years into his presidency?  Let me spell it out for you.  It the was Great Divider doing what he does best:  dividing.

Yes just look what Obama has done to the Republican caucus, divide, divide….!!!?  I don’t see the Dems divided, do you?

The Democrats have many divisions, but not when it comes to the present situation in Congress.  As Obama has nothing to gain by dividing the Democrats, I don’t see any point to your comment.  If he wanted them divided I have little doubt he could do it.

So Obama is responsible for the division in the Repubs congress (who lost, but won’t admit it), but not the Dems, who seem to be very supportive of Obama’s vision? 

And to answer your question, I don’t give a hoot what you call it.

I didn’t ask any question about your opinion of what I call it.  Seems like the only questions of mine you’ll answer are ones I don’t ask.  Thanks.

And in your book there are just two options, Keynesian or Supply Side (trickle down)? How about a reasonable compromise? 
btw. Now the TEA party has come up with the notion that no matter what Obama does, he needs to be impeached?

But I have a gut feeling that if the vulgar amounts of money (billions)  now being spend on elections was applied to social programs and to provide jobs, the economy would do a lot better.

The only way to accomplish that end that is to give regularly to OFA.  wink

What is OFA?

But now it is my turn to insist you answer my question, instead of admitting that the republican caucus is in total disarray.

lol You’re precious.  I’ve provided an answer to each of your questions and you’ve answered none of mine.

I have answered the OP question and provided historical evidence (albeit with some incorrect dates) which clearly shows that regardless what system the republicans use, we always end up deeper in debt and leave it to dems to clean up the mess.

Now even the Speaker of the House has to get approval from 40 idiots before he can even bring a bill to the floor, which is the job of the Speaker.  Are you accusing Obama for engineering that divisive disaster also or is it the republican caucus who has no clue what they are about to do and claiming that their strategy is going to provide jobs and lower the national debt?  Utter madness!!!!!

Utter madness?  Are you answering your question for me?

Yes, the Republicans nearly drove a country of 300,000,000 into default and have caused the loss of billions of dollars and 800,000 joobs, thereby increasing the national debt yet a little more. And you want those idiots to run the country?

Your question consists of a false dilemma.  I’m not claiming Obama is responsible for dividing the Republicans on the “government shutdown” issue.  Maybe he’s somehow responsible, but that would be a deep “inside baseball” issue.  The Republican’s have/had multiple ideas about what to do and failed to achieve unity in pursuing the goal.  Looks like we may have to wait at least one more president to achieve entitlement reform.  Keep the train moving full speed ahead.  Later we’ll send out a team to build a bridge over the chasm we’re approaching.

So Obama is practicing “deep inside baseball”.  Interesting observation, being that Bush was a “baseball man” who ran his major league baseball team into the ground also.

And talking about bridges, it is the republican caucus that opposed economic stimulus and voted against building bridges and infrastructure, so that we may engage in commerce, while providing thousands of good paying jobs.

By the way, do you think Reaganomics was Keynesian, supply-side or what?

I answered that question, which apparently you missed. But I’ll repeat it for clarity.

Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

Every time I hear the term “supply side” I see a kid sitting for hours behind a little lemonade stand trying to sell lemonade to cars whizzing past at 30 mph.  Supplies don’t mean a thing when there are no customers who can afford all those supplies because they have no money to spend. 
Let’s start with stimulating the economy by the Keynesian rule that “government may be actively involved in stimulus when “needed”, using American labor to rebuild America, instead of tax cuts for the rich which may end up in an off shore tax free account or investment in foreign countries (shipping jobs out of the US).

The TEA party wants to practice Darwinian economics and that is not what we stand for. Or do you believe that “give us your poor huddled masses” means a cheap source of (practically) slave labor.

[ Edited: 16 October 2013 04:55 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4461
Joined  2008-08-14

You know what else came barreling along right beside Reganomics don’t you Write?
The Politicized Evangelical movement. Lot of damage!  Lotta damage done!
Of course you have to give all of those sheeple something to hope for as you are steadily tipping the scales against
the Middle Class and Poor.
What a One Two Punch!

It’s wearing off now though.
If you ask me that is what the Tea Party movement is.  I’m certain it is.
30 years ago most of these Tea Partiers were young guys and they were drinking the Kool-Aid of the Reganomics movement.
The Reagan Democrats, the new conservatives etc etc…
Now it’s taken them 30 years to see where all that led to….nothing!
They got their rants along the way about gays and guns and abortion and regulations(which have absolutely nothing to do with them).
They thought they were gonna get more.  They thought their children would be inheriting a better country. LOL

Now 10% of the population controls 85% of the wealth and the Tea Partiers(and their new adherent suckers) are all bald and fat and frumpy.
Of course they still have been trained to focus their frustration on Race and Unions and Progressivism. They just can’t focus their frustrations.
Of course not.  They were stupid then, they are stupid now.  They watched as the jobs steadily left the country.
And when their jobs steadily left the country they were cleverly trained to hate all of their fellow laborers who still had good jobs.
Rather than inquire about where the jobs were going, they sated their stupid frustrations on the folks who still had good jobs. Union jobs often.

Just like the shutdown, stupid people would rather drag you down into the hole they are in, than pick themselves up and fight.

That’s the Tea Party Movement in a nutshell!  Confused idiots who never understood they were being swindled, and now 30 years later they are mad about
it, but don’t know what happened!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 16 October 2013 04:15 PM

But you just admitted Obama has been “talking about it for 5 years”. And what did congress do about it?

Passed the Ryan budget plan, which the Senate declined to take up (along with avoiding passing its own budget between 2009 and 2013).

Don’t you ever get sick of asking questions without answering them in return?

That’s accurate, albeit oversimplified.  As pointed out above, the executive branch can certainly suggest specific legislation and ask Congress to vote on it.  And the executive branch can involve itself in negotiations designed to get the bill passed.  Remember how Joe Biden served as the key to breaking the tax reform impasse back near New Year’s?

Joe Biden was an “outside agent”, not part of the “administration?”

Joe Biden isn’t Barack Obama, if that’s what you’re trying to say.  Obama gets no credit for compromising because as soon as the compromise was reached (Republicans conceding on higher tax revenue), Obama returned instantly to the same rhetoric he used prior to the deal, insisting that he wouldn’t allow budget cuts without higher revenues.  He just got higher revenues and pretended otherwise.

You think we can cut our way to a balanced budget?

Of course, in principle.  The only holdup is politicians who don’t want special interest groups to dump them come the next election.

So Obama is responsible for the division in the Repubs congress (who lost, but won’t admit it), but not the Dems, who seem to be very supportive of Obama’s vision?

Apparently you need to re-read what I wrote.  And then ask a better question (and consider answering a question for once).

And to answer your question, I don’t give a hoot what you call it.

And in your book there are just two options, Keynesian or Supply Side (trickle down)? How about a reasonable compromise?

Naturally you’re free to suggest a reasonable compromise when you answer the question.  You could say something like “Oh, hey, I guess “Reaganomics” in practice was a little bit supply-side but quite a bit Keynesian at the same time.”  And that would really be something, because it would represent an attempt to answer one of my questions.
 

btw. Now the TEA party has come up with the notion that no matter what Obama does, he needs to be impeached?

The Tea Party?  Don’t you mean Noam Chomsky?

I’m certain that the tea party only wants Obama impeached for something he did, not “no matter what Obama does.”  Same with Chomsky, when it comes to that.

The only way to accomplish that end that is to give regularly to OFA.  wink

What is OFA?

Organizing for Action.  It used to be Barack Obama’s campaign organization, but since he won’t be campaigning for office any longer it’s applied for tax-exempt status so that it can engage in non-partisan activities not primarily political in nature.  They need your money badly so that they can get rid of money in politics or something.

But now it is my turn to insist you answer my question, instead of admitting that the republican caucus is in total disarray.

lol You’re precious.  I’ve provided an answer to each of your questions and you’ve answered none of mine.

I have answered the OP question and provided historical evidence (albeit with some incorrect dates) which clearly shows that regardless what system the republicans use, we always end up deeper in debt and leave it to dems to clean up the mess.

That’s nonsense.  It’s almost like you have no idea how much Clinton’s budgets benefited from the lower defense spending that was permitted by the fall of the Soviet Union.  You’ve gone right back to making things up in hopes that you’ll end up, by luck, with some sort of valid point.  The Republican Congress dragged Clinton into welfare reform and other measures.  Clinton get some credit because he governed in a real sense as a centrist (Clinton actually had welfare reform as part of his original set of campaign promises).

Utter madness?  Are you answering your question for me?

Yes, the Republicans nearly drove a country of 300,000,000 into default and have caused the loss of billions of dollars and 800,000 joobs, thereby increasing the national debt yet a little more. And you want those idiots to run the country?

It’s silly to insist that I answer your question and then presume to give my answer for me.

If the Republicans govern, then Obamacare gets defunded or delayed (or repealed) with no shutdown at all.  Is that difficult to understand?  It always takes two to have a standoff like this one.

So Obama is practicing “deep inside baseball”.  Interesting observation, being that Bush was a “baseball man” who ran his major league baseball team into the ground also.

Again, apparently you would benefit from re-reading my answer.

And talking about bridges, it is the republican caucus that opposed economic stimulus and voted against building bridges and infrastructure, so that we may engage in commerce, while providing thousands of good paying jobs.

If the bill had consisted of true Keynesian short-term stimulus (including infrastructure projects) and tax cuts, Republicans would have supported it.  The bill included tax cuts and poorly-selected infrastructure projects, many of which would not get underway for a long period of time.  That’s not how Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work.  It was the Frankenstein hodgepodge with the exorbitant price tag (right on the heels of a debt-busting set of bank bailouts) that gave rise to conservative opposition.  Eleven Democrats in the House joined the Republicans in opposing it.  Again, we see the pattern of passing bills with the least amount of compromise necessary to get the bill done (that’s divisive).

I answered that question, which apparently you missed. But I’ll repeat it for clarity.

Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

Quoting Wikipedia isn’t much of an answer to the question, especially after you had earlier finished accusing Reagan of running up huge debt via government spending.  And that’s exactly why I’m pressing you on the question.  Your statements make it look like you don’t have much clue what you’re talking about with respect to economics.  I try to give you benefit of the doubt and encourage you to explain yourself and instead I get this version of evasion where you provide a Wiki link.

Every time I hear the term “supply side” I see a kid sitting for hours behind a little lemonade stand trying to sell lemonade to cars whizzing past at 30 mph.  Supplies don’t mean a thing when there are no customers who can afford all those supplies because they have no money to spend.

Great, that gives us a place to start.  If the lemonade looks really good, could that perhaps prompt the passing motorists (how do they pay for their gasoline, btw?) to do something that will enable them to buy lemonade?
 

Let’s start with stimulating the economy by the Keynesian rule that “government may be actively involved in stimulus when “needed”, using American labor to rebuild America, instead of tax cuts for the rich which may end up in an off shore tax free account or investment in foreign countries (shipping jobs out of the US).

So ... the government will give people jobs ... and later the people will pay back the money the government spent on their jobs through taxes or something?  Sounds like a recipe for ever-increasing debt.  How does that system allow for ever achieving a positive balance on the ledger?  Or is it simply akin to the scam of getting a credit card, charging that to its limit, then getting another credit card to pay the first, a third credit card to pay the second and so on?  Explain how the government can employ lemonade stand workers without somehow profiting off the lemonade after accounting for the wages it pays.

The TEA party wants to practice Darwinian economics and that is not what we stand for. Or do you believe that “give us your poor huddled masses” means a cheap source of (practically) slave labor.

I think you’re just making stuff up again.

[ Edited: 17 October 2013 11:11 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26

Well, I do know that this stunt by the TEA party has cost the economy about 24 billion dollars. Way to go!

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 16 October 2013 10:08 PM

Well, I do know that this stunt by the TEA party has cost the economy about 24 billion dollars. Way to go!

Again, just making stuff up, no doubt according to the way things look to you on the surface.

Where does the government money come from?  The government can tax it, or borrow it (printing it’s the same as borrowing).  Of course, if it borrows the money then somebody has to repay it later (assuming no default), most likely with interest.  So, you say the economy loses out on $24 billion.  Did you calculate the fate of the money of not borrowed or not taxed from the private sector?  Were you careful to plug a spending figure into some dubious Keynesian formula that would compute for you the short-term economic stimulus effect (and naturally ignore long-term effect because, like, who cares about long-term effects anyway?)?

This is a bit like arguing with traffic—one bumper-sticker slogan after another.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 October 2013 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 16 October 2013 10:25 PM
Write4U - 16 October 2013 10:08 PM

Well, I do know that this stunt by the TEA party has cost the economy about 24 billion dollars. Way to go!

Again, just making stuff up, no doubt according to the way things look to you on the surface.

Where does the government money come from?  The government can tax it, or borrow it (printing it’s the same as borrowing).  Of course, if it borrows the money then somebody has to repay it later (assuming no default), most likely with interest.  So, you say the economy loses out on $24 billion.  Did you calculate the fate of the money of not borrowed or not taxed from the private sector?  Were you careful to plug a spending figure into some dubious Keynesian formula that would compute for you the short-term economic stimulus effect (and naturally ignore long-term effect because, like, who cares about long-term effects anyway?)?

This is a bit like arguing with traffic—one bumper-sticker slogan after another.

Read closer, I said it cost the nation’s economy about 24 billion0 (as per S&P). The cost to government about 2 billion (in revenue).

Smart governance or madness for something that could have been accomplished easily without that cost to the nation?

[ Edited: 16 October 2013 11:56 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2013 12:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 16 October 2013 11:53 PM
Bryan - 16 October 2013 10:25 PM
Write4U - 16 October 2013 10:08 PM

Well, I do know that this stunt by the TEA party has cost the economy about 24 billion dollars. Way to go!

Again, just making stuff up, no doubt according to the way things look to you on the surface.

Where does the government money come from?  The government can tax it, or borrow it (printing it’s the same as borrowing).  Of course, if it borrows the money then somebody has to repay it later (assuming no default), most likely with interest.  So, you say the economy loses out on $24 billion.  Did you calculate the fate of the money of not borrowed or not taxed from the private sector?  Were you careful to plug a spending figure into some dubious Keynesian formula that would compute for you the short-term economic stimulus effect (and naturally ignore long-term effect because, like, who cares about long-term effects anyway?)?

This is a bit like arguing with traffic—one bumper-sticker slogan after another.

Read closer,


LMAO

Really.  Read closer, he says.

I said it cost the nation’s economy about 24 billion0 (as per S&P).

You said $24 billion (same thing I said) and you said not a peep about S&P.  Standard & Poor will do the typical Keynesian modeling.

The cost to government about 2 billion (in revenue).

And a closer read would have made that clear, you think?  You’re unbelievable.

Smart governance or madness for something that could have been accomplished easily without that cost to the nation?

...and another false dilemma.  The Democratic leadership has not given us smart governance.  You can reach that conclusion by ignoring evidence and favoring your own ideology.  Again, you’re not giving an argument.  You’re just ticking off talking points.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2013 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26

OK, but I’m right.  wink

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2013 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 17 October 2013 06:02 AM

OK, but I’m right.  wink

It’s quite a talent to be wrong in so many particulars yet correct in your broader argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2013 06:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 17 October 2013 11:10 AM
Write4U - 17 October 2013 06:02 AM

OK, but I’m right.  wink

It’s quite a talent to be wrong in so many particulars yet correct in your broader argument.

Because the broader argument depends on its broader content, not any particular date of who said what.
Reaganomics (by any other name) does not work.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2013 05:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26

And here is a little tidbit about the champion of smaller government and lower taxes and arch enemy of ACA., Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz Failed To Disclose Ties To Caribbean Holding Company
An old college friendship led to financial entanglement with a Jamaican private equity firm and a British Virgin Islands holding company. Neither was disclosed during his 2012 campaign.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/18/ted-cruz-failed-to-disclose-ties-to-jamaican-holding-company/#ixzz2i7eI6rmd
The legally required disclosures arise from an apparently dormant business relationship, according to documents reviewed by TIME. When his wife, Heidi Nelson Cruz, served in George W. Bush’s Treasury Department in 2003, Ted Cruz went to considerable lengths to disclose his positions to the government, and to divest himself of his Caribbean holdings. But there was one exception.

Cruz says he does not know the current state of the private equity firm. Cruz says he has not had any relationship with the private equity firm in a decade, is no longer a director or a shareholder, and never received any remuneration other than the $25,000 and the promissory note.

Cruz says he severed his ties with the company when his wife went to work at the Treasury Department during the administration of George W. Bush. “I sold my interest in it years ago,” he says. He provided TIME with a letter from an official at the Office of Government Ethics certifying his divestiture from three blocks of shares in two separate firms. The letter allowed Cruz to defer taxes on the capital gains from his initial $6,000 investment when he rolled the cash profits into another investment, Cruz says. Eventually, he says, he paid capital gains on the profits, using a $6,000 basis for the calculation.

Cruz says he failed to include the promissory note among his assets on his first financial disclosure in July 2012 when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate because he had forgotten about it. “In 2011, there was an inadvertent omission of this promissory note, and after a conversation with my college roommate I remembered it,” Cruz says. Cruz’s initial filing was made in the heat of his campaign. He was fined $200 for filing the document late.
Cruz did so in his Oct. 1 amendment, but that filing also contained errors, misnaming the holding company, incorrectly saying it was domiciled in Jamaica, and giving the wrong date for the promissory note. In the filing, Cruz, a former lawyer and magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, lists a wide variety of assets held jointly with his wife, including mutual funds and blue chip stocks totaling between $1.5 million and $4 million. Heidi Nelson Cruz is now an executive at Goldman Sachs[/b].

(highlights by me)
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/18/ted-cruz-failed-to-disclose-ties-to-jamaican-holding-company/?hpt=hp_t2

I wonder how this “particular” was so conveniently forgotten.

Now compare that to this example of “trickle down economy”,
https://www.upworthy.com/the-dirty-little-secret-that-fast-food-companies-dont-want-you-to-know?c=upw1

I wonder where these workers obtain health insurance?

[ Edited: 18 October 2013 06:06 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Write4U - 16 October 2013 10:08 PM

Well, I do know that this stunt by the TEA party has cost the economy about 24 billion dollars. Way to go!

They don’t care what anything costs as long as it isn’t called a tax.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Unfortunately, it was just the opposite.  Taxes are levied to provide services for the citizens.  This 24 billion drained funds so it means that a great many services that could have been provided will not.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 11
10
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››