longweekend58 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 5:20pm:


Sorry, Longy, are you disagreeing with something?

Please explain. We’re all friends here, you know.

Is Joe Hockey a lefty twat too?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 2:12pm:

That is just you shooting of your mouth.

Got any links or argument to back up your big mouth? Hint: consider the concept of discretionary income. I awaited with bated breath, bwahahahahahahahaha!

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 1:02pm:

Swan and Gillard had no chance because of the way Rudd handled the Henry report:sat on it for 18 months then a few weeks before the election announced a 40% superprofits tax? Recipe for failure!

The MRRT was popular tho.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 5:58pm:

I better not say what I think of Longy, Andrea would ban me for 100 years.

St George of the Garden wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 6:06pm:


based on your efforts so far on here and the almost unbelievable ignorance and depth of stupidity you demonstrate, I doubt you could even articulate it properly.

You could actually top SOB for stupidest poster ever and most people would consider that almost impossible.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 6:05pm:


Yes, Longy, the Savings and Loans crisis followed by the 1987 stock market crash and its subsequent recession are stellar results.

The truth, however, is that Reagan did not dramatically lower taxes or red tape - nor did his successor, George H W Bush, who was ousted after one term for not delivering on his promised tax cuts.

It was left to Clinton to deliver a surplus, only to be followed by George W Bush, who gave it all away in tax cuts to the rich while continuing to spend big.

The legacy of what is known as Reaganomics is the current level of US debt and the highest wealth inequality in American history. It’s such a problem, the rich themselves are demanding to be taxed more, with billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet screaming out for change.

And not because they’re nice, but because they sell things and employ people. Poverty and wealth inequality are not good for business. All that money going to the top 1% is dollars taken out of the market for goods and services. In the US, that 1% owns 40% of the wealth.

By comparison, the bottom 80% own just 7%.

As a mathematician, of course, you know all this, you’re just too polite to say.

You don’t want to hurt poor people’s feelings.

Bam wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 5:47pm:


Amusing photo Bam but I can use the same image to demonstrate trickle down economics in our ochlocratic taxation system.



The vast majority of tax is paid by the top 25% of taxpayers.  It funds the welfare handouts to the socalled poor.  The top 25% of taxpayers pay for the lion's share of the individual's cost of govt.

The more successful the top 25% are the more tax is stolen by the ochlocrats.

PLAINLY the downtrodden benefit from trickle down.

If you don't agree then deduct the 67% of personal income tax the top 25% pay and try and fund your budget....

Swagman wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 8:51pm:


Be careful, Swagman, you’ll have Longy on your case for dodgy maths in a sec.

Where does your 25% figure actually come from?