Black people love Bill Clinton despite the fact that he married a racist

[stealthbomber]

Yeaaa boii

This nikka Obama's tryna fukk up my year-end bonus by pushing for more regulation on banks and taxing carried interest as regular income. fukk that shyt

oh so you a banker too?

Spoiler

fukk YO LIFE nikka

ITS MUFUGGAS LIKE YOU WHY OUR COUNTRY'S FALLING APART

YOU GREEDY, SLICK TALKING, TAKING MONEY OUTTA WORKING PEOPLES POCKETS, EATING CAVIAR AND WINE, PLAYING GAMES WITH OUR ECONOMY, STUPID fukk

DON'T LET ME CATCH ONE OF YOU MUFUGGAS SLIPPIN AT A RED LIGHT, ILL JACK YOUR BONUS AND YOUR BENZ bytch ASS nikka

let us know how the election works out for ya

 

[TheBigBopper]

oh so you a banker too?

Spoiler

fukk YO LIFE nikka

ITS MUFUGGAS LIKE YOU WHY OUR COUNTRY'S FALLING APART

YOU GREEDY, SLICK TALKING, TAKING MONEY OUTTA WORKING PEOPLES POCKETS, EATING CAVIAR AND WINE, PLAYING GAMES WITH OUR ECONOMY, STUPID fukk

DON'T LET ME CATCH ONE OF YOU MUFUGGAS SLIPPIN AT A RED LIGHT, ILL JACK YOUR BONUS AND YOUR BENZ bytch ASS nikka

let us know how the election works out for ya

nikkas gon hate

 

[Fredrick Thuglas]

I dapped this post but your avi with the red rags is confusing me.

just humor...notice how I made his last name THUGlas instead of DOUGlas. Because I made the last name THUGlas, I edited the picture to make him look like a thug...get it?

THUGlas...DOUGlas

doesn't take away from his accomplishments or how seriously I take race relations and the progress of black people.

 

[Broke Wave]

Dodd-Frank has already gone into effect, but at least Romney will make an attempt to repeal it. Even if he's elected and unsuccessfully pushes for a repeal, I think a Republican, Wall Street savvy president will restore confidence in business executives, leading to them putting all that cash sitting on their balance sheets to work. The more money being put to work, the more deals and trades being executed, which means more money in my pocket and ultimately more money in the pocket of the public at large.

Big business feels that Obama isn't on their side.

This is pretty obscene. Lets disseminate your two fallacious premises step by step.


1. "Wall Street savvy president will restore confidence in business executives, leading to them putting all that cash sitting on their balance sheets to work."

This is a common fallacy used by more intellectual Republican types, but it indicates a gross lack of economic knowledge, something I would expect a banker to have.

"Business Leader Confidence in a President" Unfortunately is not a market force, but something known as DEMAND is. When demand is low, the business leaders do not feel it is necessary to invest in their companies because they do not see a profitable outcome to that action.

IE : If it costs a certain amount for a business to invest to generate revenue and fill demand, the total cost of that investment must be lower than the projected new revenue it is set to obtain.

Each corporation has a different threshold for this equation, but who the President of the United states is as a PERSON, and where he came from is not an economic force.

2. "Big business feels that Obama isn't on their side"

This is a media meme that I usually ignore, but lets take it on.

What does it mean to be on the side of "Big Business"?

If by being on the side of big business, you mean not imposing any new regulations on the largest corporations, not perusing criminal action against the actual fraud on Wall Street, and corporations posting their highest profits ever under President Obama, then I believe he is on their side.

The reason why the big corporations have selected Romney as their water bearer is because of the tax cuts. Obama is a center-right type of president and he would love to cut corporate taxes and the top marginal tax rate, but he is hindered by the center-left Democratic party, and therefore there are no assurances he will do this.

Romney is not bound by these parameters, and will cut taxes even deeper and further than GWB.


Please don't vote on misconception, friend.

 

[TheBigBopper]

This is pretty obscene. Lets disseminate your two fallacious premises step by step.


1. "Wall Street savvy president will restore confidence in business executives, leading to them putting all that cash sitting on their balance sheets to work."

This is a common fallacy used by more intellectual Republican types, but it indicates a gross lack of economic knowledge, something I would expect a banker to have.

"Business Leader Confidence in a President" Unfortunately is not a market force, but something known as DEMAND is. When demand is low, the business leaders do not feel it is necessary to invest in their companies because they do not see a profitable outcome to that action.

IE : If it costs a certain amount for a business to invest to generate revenue and fill demand, the total cost of that investment must be lower than the projected new revenue it is set to obtain.

Each corporation has a different threshold for this equation, but who the President of the United states is as a PERSON, and where he came from is not an economic force.

2. "Big business feels that Obama isn't on their side"

This is a media meme that I usually ignore, but lets take it on.

What does it mean to be on the side of "Big Business"?

If by being on the side of big business, you mean not imposing any new regulations on the largest corporations, not perusing criminal action against the actual fraud on Wall Street, and corporations posting their highest profits ever under President Obama, then I believe he is on their side.

The reason why the big corporations have selected Romney as their water bearer is because of the tax cuts. Obama is a center-right type of president and he would love to cut corporate taxes and the top marginal tax rate, but he is hindered by the center-left Democratic party, and therefore there are no assurances he will do this.

Romney is not bound by these parameters, and will cut taxes even deeper and further than GWB.


Please don't vote on misconception, friend.

Demand exists for good and services exists, but admittedly isn't at the level at which businesses are willing to risk capital to endeavor in new projects. A president who will enact more favorable tax policy for large corporations lowers overall risk of investment because companies will be able to recoup a larger percentage of their profit, enabling bigger returns on investment.

 

[Broke Wave]

Demand exists for good and services exists, but admittedly isn't at the level at which businesses are willing to risk capital to endeavor in new projects. A president who will enact more favorable tax policy for large corporations lowers overall risk of investment because companies will be able to recoup a larger percentage of their profit, enabling bigger returns on investment.

This is poor economic policy, because when you start lowering taxes to dangerous levels, you start subsidizing failure. When you start lowering the risk of investment, this is what is known as a subsidy, friend.

If a business makes 100 dollars a year, and we say 25 dollars is pure corporate profit to be paid to the executives, 50 dollars is operating costs, and 25 dollars is taxes (I wish), when we start lowering taxes from a stimulative level to a subsidizing level, the 25 dollars will NOT increase the revenue of the business, and will simply go to corporate profit. So you will see instead of 25 dollars going to corporate profit, 40 dollars will go to corporate profit.


America has been lowering taxes for 30 years, and all this has done is concentrate the wealth at the top, because executives are getting all this extra money from the tax code that they wouldn't have had before. More and More tax cuts without any contracts is not going to stimulate the economy friend, it eventually leads to a race to the bottom with regards to tax rates.

 

[TheBigBopper]

This is poor economic policy, because when you start lowering taxes to dangerous levels, you start subsidizing failure. When you start lowering the risk of investment, this is what is known as a subsidy, friend.

If a business makes 100 dollars a year, and we say 25 dollars is pure corporate profit to be paid to the executives, 50 dollars is operating costs, and 25 dollars is taxes (I wish), when we start lowering taxes from a stimulative level to a subsidizing level, the 25 dollars will NOT increase the revenue of the business, and will simply go to corporate profit. So you will see instead of 25 dollars going to corporate profit, 40 dollars will go to corporate profit.


America has been lowering taxes for 30 years, and all this has done is concentrate the wealth at the top, because executives are getting all this extra money from the tax code that they wouldn't have had before. More and More tax cuts without any contracts is not going to stimulate the economy friend, it eventually leads to a race to the bottom with regards to tax rates.

Shareholders will demand corporations to either give them dividends with the extra money or put the money to work. You've already seen it happen with Apple. Lower corporate tax in tandem with a higher tax on dividends to discourage companies from simply giving out cash to shareholders should increase capital investment. Romney damn sure wouldn't call for a higher dividend tax, but at least we'd get halfway there with him in office. Lower corporate tax will ultimately result in larger tax revenue because businesses will have more capital to reinvest.

 

[Fmju]

Im an independent but there's nothing wrong with believing in the republican party. It's just those stupid racist cacs that run it now.

 

[shopthatwrecks]

The educated felon god

learned my lesson when washington mutual went under n chase got it..

i fukked with washington mutual they had the best rates for cds at the time at my branch for like 3.8 for 36months..

when i found out they was changin over..i was iffy...n i spoke to somebody at chase...n i asked em..will my rates at wamu change when it crosses over...

dude said no..only thing changin was the name...wrong...

rates dropped to 0.50

then all the hidden fees came in..

all tthe small perks was gone..chunk them bytches the duece...consulted with my folks..pops got in darth vader mode....luke u finally came to the dark side n shyt..lol..

aint turned my back sense..

 

[Broke Wave]

Shareholders will demand corporations to either give them dividends with the extra money or put the money to work. You've already seen it happen with Apple. Lower corporate tax in tandem with a higher tax on dividends to discourage companies from simply giving out cash to shareholders should increase capital investment. Romney damn sure wouldn't call for a higher dividend tax, but at least we'd get halfway there with him in office. Lower corporate tax will ultimately result in larger tax revenue because businesses will have more capital to reinvest.

My friend you are pre-supposing your argument on something that is simple not true, with regards to the bolded.

Taxes have been cut steadily for the last 30 years and there has been no correlation to this decrease in taxes and larger tax revenues. Lower corporate tax, as I previously stated, only subsidies less actually profitable endeavors.

Shareholders are rarely in a position to demand anything from companies in 2012, lets be realistic here.

This is no longer a matter of experimental or theoretical economics, but rather an exercise in fact checking and research on the empirical evidence which suggests one conclusion or the other. It's futile for us to argue about the economic output of a corporate tax cut as if it were opinion, when the CBO has already done this study time and time again, and it leads to the same conclusion.

Corporate tax cuts DO NOT WORK as stimulus.

learned my lesson when washington mutual went under n chase got it..

i fukked with washington mutual they had the best rates for cds at the time at my branch for like 3.8 for 36months..

when i found out they was changin over..i was iffy...n i spoke to somebody at chase...n i asked em..will my rates at wamu change when it crosses over...

dude said no..only thing changin was the name...wrong...

rates dropped to 0.50

then all the hidden fees came in..

all tthe small perks was gone..chunk them bytches the duece...consulted with my folks..pops got in darth vader mode....luke u finally came to the dark side n shyt..lol..

aint turned my back sense..

JP Morgan Chase is a safe bet for not going under... but any time you choose a credit union over a big bank, you win breh

 

[Tom]

who gives a fuk, idiots make the same damn threads


more black babies and babies in general need to be aborted, the crime rate will go down and the young whore mothers will have a chance to finish school and be productive members of society

 

[shopthatwrecks]

My friend you are pre-supposing your argument on something that is simple not true, with regards to the bolded.

Taxes have been cut steadily for the last 30 years and there has been no correlation to this decrease in taxes and larger tax revenues. Lower corporate tax, as I previously stated, only subsidies less actually profitable endeavors.

Shareholders are rarely in a position to demand anything from companies in 2012, lets be realistic here.

This is no longer a matter of experimental or theoretical economics, but rather an exercise in fact checking and research on the empirical evidence which suggests one conclusion or the other. It's futile for us to argue about the economic output of a corporate tax cut as if it were opinion, when the CBO has already done this study time and time again, and it leads to the same conclusion.

Corporate tax cuts DO NOT WORK as stimulus.




JP Morgan Chase is a safe bet for not going under... but any time you choose a credit union over a big bank, you win breh

yeah figured that out when i purchased a audi...n went thru the credit union n the numbers had finance department at the dealership like

they took that lL....

 

[The Nigerian]

who gives a fuk, idiots make the same damn threads


more black babies and babies in general need to be aborted, the crime rate will go down and the young whore mothers will have a chance to finish school and be productive members of society

No need to phrase it like that, breh.

 

[BrothaZay]

who gives a fuk, idiots make the same damn threads


more black babies and babies in general need to be aborted, the crime rate will go down and the young whore mothers will have a chance to finish school and be productive members of society

I used to defend you, but you're truly a WOAT poster.

 

[Nemesis]

fukk bill clinton...

Bill clinton to Ted kennedy about Obama:
"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,"