Do high taxes cause an economic boom?
AZDuffman
If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
Bret Cahill
We know low taxes + high interest rates cause stagflation, i.e., Jimmy
Carter.
Low interest rates + high taxes cause a low inflation high growth.
That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
> If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
As median income approaches the average mean income of $65/hour then
the median income earner who now takes home $21,000/year will soon be
taking home $84,000/year and paying 34% in taxes instead of 15%.
Hey, you're right! Excellent idea! Level incomes and the only people
who won't be living better are GOP strategists who will no longer get
paid for bottom fishing creationists, nutters, racists, neocons and
other rightarded wackadoodles.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
They clearly did just after WW2.
Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
AZDuffman
> > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> We know low taxes + high interest rates cause stagflation, i.e., Jimmy
> Carter.
Except taxes weren't low under Carter, Reagan in fact cut them and
caused a boom.
> Low interest rates + high taxes cause a low inflation high growth.
> That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
No, Gingrich controlling spending plus a breakthru in technology
caused a boom.
> > If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> > no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> > top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
>
> As median income approaches the average mean income of $65/hour then
> the median income earner who now takes home $21,000/year will soon be
> taking home $84,000/year and paying 34% in taxes instead of 15%.
>
> Hey, you're right! Excellent idea! Level incomes and the only people
> who won't be living better are GOP strategists who will no longer get
> paid for bottom fishing creationists, nutters, racists, neocons and
> other rightarded wackadoodles.
Who said anything about leveling incomes and who mentioned the GOP?
You are full of hate for whatever reason. But not me, I'm just saying
if people think high taxes are good then why not raise them on the
people paying least and make it more fair.
Bret Cahill
> They clearly did just after WW2.
> Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation then the Fed jacks up
interest rates which causes a recession.
There is no free lunch on liberty. Taxes are the price of freedom
including free markets and a vibrant economy.
As Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of despotism are immediate
while the advantages of freedom only come after liberty is old.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > We know low taxes + high interest rates cause stagflation, i.e., Jimmy
> > Carter.
>
> Except taxes weren't low under Carter,
Taxes were too low and interest rates were too high which is what
caused the stagflation.
> Reagan in fact cut them and
and caused the "WIlL wORk for FoOD gOd bLeSs" 12% unemployment
economy.
> caused a boom.
They why was the Gipster always saying "stay the course?"
Why did a _majority_ agree that the country was on the wrong track in
the Gipster's second term?
Why did Jimmy Carter's approval rating pass the Gipsters before 1990?
> > Low interest rates + high taxes cause a low inflation high growth.
> > That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
> No, Gingrich controlling spending
Newt handed fiscal policy over Clinton.
> plus a breakthru in technology
Funny how these all the economy pumping "breakthroughs in technology"
just happen to happen just after a Democrat president passes tax hikes
on the rich.
On the other hand maybe it should be expected.
After all, 90% of the intellectual property in the U. S. comes from
just 6 heavily Democratic cities representing less than 10% of the
total population.
The top 4 cities are in the 3 bluest of the blue states.
> caused a boom.
> > > If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> > > no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> > > top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
> > As median income approaches the average mean income of $65/hour then
> > the median income earner who now takes home $21,000/year will soon be
> > taking home $84,000/year and paying 34% in taxes instead of 15%.
>
> > Hey, you're right! Excellent idea! Level incomes and the only people
> > who won't be living better are GOP strategists who will no longer get
> > paid for bottom fishing creationists, nutters, racists, neocons and
> > other rightarded wackadoodles.
>
> Who said anything about leveling incomes
IMB CEO Louis Gerstner. In 1999 he told the Repugliar Congress they
should not even think about trying to fight the "leveling of wealth."
The Repugliars ignored him and instead drank Rove's jingoistic
koolaid:
"Either you support the troops [and the president's tax cuts on the
rich] or you're a Saddam lover."
> and who mentioned the GOP?
Aren't Repugliars the ones trying to fight equality with tax cuts on
the rich?
> You are full of hate for whatever reason.
You're projecting again ust like when Repugliars try to suggest that
only the ones saying racism is still an issue are racists themselves
or that those who support public health care are nazis.
You must have a larnin' disability of you think you can get somewhere
by lying and obfuscating in the info age.
> But not me,
You're projecting.
> I'm just saying
> if people think high taxes are good then why not raise them on the
> people paying least and make it more fair.
Progressive tax rates date back to ancient Greece. As the "celebrated
Montesquieu" pointed out, progressive taxation was "fair thou not
proportionable."
Maybe you need to stop listening to hate radio and hate Faux Noise and
read some political calasics.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
>>> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>> They clearly did just after WW2.
>> Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
> Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation
Nope, there arent enough of them to do that.
The reason for taxing the rich is equity, not inflation.
> then the Fed jacks up interest rates which causes a recession.
Doesnt if the interest rates are raised appropriately.
Australia did that fine.
> There is no free lunch on liberty.
Liberty is a wank.
> Taxes are the price of freedom including free markets and a vibrant economy.
Even you should be able to manage a more viable troll than that pathetic effort.
Try harder, child.
> As Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of despotism are immediate
> while the advantages of freedom only come after liberty is old.
He was just a stupid frog.
AZDuffman
> > > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
> > They clearly did just after WW2.
> > Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
>
> Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation then the Fed jacks up
> interest rates which causes a recession.
>
> There is no free lunch on liberty. Taxes are the price of freedom
> including free markets and a vibrant economy.
Yes, the Boston Tea Party and all that happend after in 1776 was
because people thought we weren't paying enough taxes! And unfree
countries have lower or no taxes, right?
Liberals, if we didn't have them we wouldn't know how smart
conservates really are!
Bret Cahill
> >> They clearly did just after WW2.
> >> Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
> > Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation
> Nope, there arent enough of them to do that.
Enough of what?
Where does all that money the central banks keep putting out go
anyway?
The poor?
> The reason for taxing the rich is equity, not inflation.
If a policy produces two desirable results, why not advocate both
desirable results?
> > then the Fed jacks up interest rates which causes a recession.
> Doesnt if the interest rates are raised appropriately.
Which causes a recession.
> Australia did that fine.
They might be living off of georesources.
I'm talking about a _sustainable_ economy.
> > There is no free lunch on liberty.
> Liberty is a wank.
"No liberty, no life."
-- Jefferson
> > Taxes are the price of freedom including free markets and a vibrant economy.
> Even you should be able to manage a more viable troll than that pathetic effort.
> Try harder, child.
I'm not looking for a trans cultural classic, just something that will
monkey wrench the Milton Friedmanite idiots.
> > As Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of despotism are immediate
> > while the advantages of freedom only come after liberty is old.
> He was just a stupid frog.
Have you read anything by him?
Every educated person will agree Tocqueville was brilliant and highly
educated.
The English were the first to translate French Enlightenment
philosophers into English.
Bret Cahill
"The English are fiercely attached to liberty."
-- Montesquieu
"The English are not philosophers."
-- Nietzsche
Econotron
news:e8edf9e1-98e3-4de7...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 11:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> We know low taxes + high interest rates cause stagflation, i.e., Jimmy
> Carter.
Except taxes weren't low under Carter, Reagan in fact cut them and
caused a boom.
> Low interest rates + high taxes cause a low inflation high growth.
> That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
No, Gingrich controlling spending plus a breakthru in technology
caused a boom.
[snip]
===================================================================
Also should be mentioned a deep recession of the early nineties, accompanied
by the bad debt's destruction, rapid assets deflation, business
restructuring with no government bailouts, and the Fed's unwillingness to
lower interest rates. That all took just a few years to clear, and
positioned the economy for the consequent boom.
e.
Jerry Okamura
The more money you have to spend, the more freedom you have. The less money
you have to spend, the less freedom you have. The more money you have, the
less dependent on someone else you are. The less money you have the more
dependent you are on someone else. When government takes your hard earned
money from you, they want you to be more dependent on them. If you are more
dependent on the government, the less likely you will be to vote against
your own self interest. The more dependent you are on government to take
care of you, the more control they have over your life.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:860862d4-d57a-4597...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
> > > They clearly did just after WW2.
> > > Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
> > Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation then the Fed jacks up
> > interest rates which causes a recession.
> > There is no free lunch on liberty. Taxes are the price of freedom
> > including free markets and a vibrant economy.
> Yes, the Boston Tea Party and all that happend after in 1776 was
> because people thought we weren't paying enough taxes!
The American Revolutionaries were against taxation _without_
representation.
They were fighting for taxation _with_ representation -- what we have
today.
George III was the "private sector" of their day.
The modern day teabaggers want to undo the work of the revolutionary
Americans and have the "private sector" handle everything.
> And unfree
> countries have lower or no taxes, right?
Do they pay taxes in mid east despotisms?
North Korea?
Pre French Revolution European aristocracies?
If you would quite watching hate cable TV and hate AM radio and read
what the framers read, i.e., _Spirit of Laws_, you would know that
taxation and freedom are entirely correlative.
> Liberals, if we didn't have them we wouldn't know how smart
> conservates really are!
And we know rightards are dog crap stoopid as well as bat crap crazy.
Bret Cahill
Patriot Games
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>Taxes were too low and interest rates were too high which is what
>caused the stagflation.
Oops! CAUGHT LYING, again...
Stagflation is an economic situation in which inflation and economic
stagnation occur simultaneously and remain unchecked for a significant
period of time.
Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation
occurs. First, stagflation can result when an economy is slowed by an
unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil in
an oil importing country, which tends to raise prices at the same time
that it slows the economy by making production less profitable. This
type of stagflation presents a policy dilemma because most actions to
assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice
versa. Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from
inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can
cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply,
and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of
goods markets and labor markets. Together, these factors can cause
stagflation; equally, either can, if taken to such an extreme that it
must be reversed. Both types of explanations are offered in analyses
of the global stagflation of the 1970s: it began with a huge rise in
oil prices, but then continued as central banks used excessively
stimulative monetary policy to counteract the resulting recession,
causing a runaway wage-price spiral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
Rod Speed
>>>>> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>>>> They clearly did just after WW2.
>>>> Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
>>> Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation
>> Nope, there arent enough of them to do that.
> Enough of what?
The rich, stupid.
> Where does all that money the central banks keep putting out go anyway?
Into the economy, stupid.
> The poor?
Quite a bit of it does, via welfare.
>> The reason for taxing the rich is equity, not inflation.
> If a policy produces two desirable results,
Yours doesnt, because there arent enough of the rich to raise much tax from.
If you start slugging them too aggressively, they
will just avoid producing what you tax, income.
And if you are stupid enough to try taking their assets away, they
will just shift it out of the country and that will fuck the economy.
> why not advocate both desirable results?
Yours isnt very desirable. If you increase the tax on the rich, you wont
get much extra tax revenue because its so easy for them to avoid the tax
>>> then the Fed jacks up interest rates which causes a recession.
>> Doesnt if the interest rates are raised appropriately.
> Which causes a recession.
Nope.
>> Australia did that fine.
> They might be living off of georesources.
Nope.
> I'm talking about a _sustainable_ economy.
Australia's economy is even more _sustainable_ than the US's is.
They ended up with no net federal govt debt just before you clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN. Didnt
even get a recession at all as a result of the GFC. The unemployment
rate went up a little, but is nowhere near what it is in the US, try half.
AND its had a positive balance of trade in its favor with Japan, China,
India and Korea for decades now in the case of Japan.
>>> There is no free lunch on liberty.
>> Liberty is a wank.
> "No liberty, no life."
> -- Jefferson
Thats the fool/hypocrite that proclaimed that slavery
was completely immoral and owned slaves anyway.
And plenty of places like Australia have more liberty than the
US does currently anyway, essentially because it managed
its economy a hell of a lot better than you clowns did, and that
means the GFC was just a yawn, and that there is no possibility
what so ever of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem
or even having to do without unemployment benefit if you are
unemployed for years thru no fault of your own etc etc etc.
Which might just explain why so many yanks move
to Australia and why fuck all move to america.
>>> Taxes are the price of freedom including free markets and a vibrant economy.
>> Even you should be able to manage a more viable troll than that pathetic effort.
>> Try harder, child.
> I'm not looking for a trans cultural classic, just something
> that will monkey wrench the Milton Friedmanite idiots.
It doesnt even manage that.
>>> As Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of despotism are immediate
>>> while the advantages of freedom only come after liberty is old.
>> He was just a stupid frog.
> Have you read anything by him?
Yep.
> Every educated person will agree Tocqueville was brilliant and highly educated.
Just a stupid frog.
> The English were the first to translate French Enlightenment philosophers into English.
But were never stupid enough to have a revolution.
> "The English are fiercely attached to liberty."
Pigs arse they were. They banned one of the xtian cults and made church attendance compulsory.
> -- Montesquieu
Just another stupid frog aristo.
> "The English are not philosophers."
> -- Nietzsche
Just another stupid kraut.
AZDuffman
> The American Revolutionaries were against taxation _without_
> representation.
>
> They were fighting for taxation _with_ representation -- what we have
> today.
They were not for high taxes at any time. I suppose you missed
history class the day they taught about Shay's Rebellion. Americans
have never liked high taxes, except for greedy, cheap liberals like
you who want hiogh taxes on people other than themselves.
> The modern day teabaggers want to undo the work of the revolutionary
> Americans and have the "private sector" handle everything.
The Tea Patriots are against government control exept when no other
choice and know the private sector does it better. The Tea Patriots
will hopefully save this country before Obama and the Dumbocrats
destroy what fredom we still have.
> > And unfree
> > countries have lower or no taxes, right?
>
> Do they pay taxes in mid east despotisms?
Yup
> North Korea?
Yup
> Pre French Revolution European aristocracies?
Part of the reason for the French Revolution was because of high taxes
and a bad economy after several wars and out of control spending by
the Bourbons.
liberal2
Ummmm, perhaps (perhaps? Ain't no "perhaps" about it; after all you're
a reichtard) you lack the functioning neurons to understand the bottom
50% pay little to no taxes because they are already lowering their
stand of living...just to stay alive. The top 5% have 95+% of all true
*DISPOSABLE* income (income not needed to provide food, shelter,
medical, clothing, education, etc.).
If you could grasp the concept of "Velocity of Money" (the number of
times a dollar cycles through the economy per year) you'd understand
that when the bottom 95% have extra money, the economy booms. One way
to do this is a high tax on disposable income, which cuts the deficit
(hopefully to zero) and thus lowers interest rates (which helps
farmers keep food prices down). But the government must then use its
extra funds to cut the cost of living to average citizens (energy R&D,
medical services, good roads so cars aren't shook into scrap metal,
things like that). See how these ideas reinforce one another?
AZDuffman
I understand the term. But you don't understand how marginal income
affects available funds to invest. So instead of sending a check to
the Treasury, a wealthy person will buy a car, open a store, or pay to
have their lawn mowed. THIS is what creates wealth. There is not a
connection between high deficits and high interest rates. If we want
to cut the deficit the first thing to do is abandon Obamacare and
other wasteful programs that are not government's job.
My point is liberal cranks seem to think taking money from people will
boom the economy,so why not take from the bottom 50% since the top 50%
are giving far more disposable income already?
Rod Speed
> Since the bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes,
Another pig ignorant lie. Most of them pay fuel taxes,
sales taxes, property taxes, albeit indirectly in their
rent, car registration taxes, FICA etc etc etc.
Econotron
news:p8gjf5p6eokl8g57h...@4ax.com...
e.
Rod Speed
> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote
>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote
>> Oops! CAUGHT LYING, again...
Only by pig ignorant fools.
Michael Gordge
> One way
> to do this is a high tax on disposable income, which cuts the deficit...
Oh so ewe saying, to give the lower 50% more money then all the state
has to do is to increase the tax on those engaged in production,
thereby adding to the cost of the production of all goods and services
which they provide, goods and services that the poor need to purchase
in order to survive, and somehow with that dopey leftist buck passing
merry-go-round process the deficit somehow just vanishes into thin
air?
Fuck ewe are sooo clever man, have ewe ever considered running for
state governor? Ewe would surely have to be a 1,000 light years ahead
in the intelliegnt stakes than your current one, ewe fucking dumb
brain dead commie cunt.
MG
Michael Gordge
Ewe fucking stupid cunt, the poor customers pay all the fucking tax,
because if they didn't there would be no production. Fuck ewe sheeple
are stupid, wake the fuck up. Tax is a cost of business what is ALWAYS
met by the customer, no matter what his financial state is.
MG
liberal2
> On Nov 10, 2:54 pm, liberal2 <liberalhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:06 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> > > If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> > > no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> > > top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
>
> > Ummmm, perhaps (perhaps? Ain't no "perhaps" about it; after all you're
> > a reichtard) you lack the functioning neurons to understand the bottom
> > 50% pay little to no taxes because they are already lowering their
> > stand of living...just to stay alive. The top 5% have 95+% of all true
> > *DISPOSABLE* income (income not needed to provide food, shelter,
> > medical, clothing, education, etc.).
>
> > If you could grasp the concept of "Velocity of Money" (the number of
> > times a dollar cycles through the economy per year) you'd understand
> > that when the bottom 95% have extra money, the economy booms. One way
> > to do this is a high tax on disposable income, which cuts the deficit
> > (hopefully to zero) and thus lowers interest rates (which helps
> > farmers keep food prices down). But the government must then use its
> > extra funds to cut the cost of living to average citizens (energy R&D,
> > medical services, good roads so cars aren't shook into scrap metal,
> > things like that). See how these ideas reinforce one another?
>
> I understand the term. But you don't understand how marginal income
> affects available funds to invest.
Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during the
fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then down to 70%?
Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down from
70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
(David P.)
> Bret Cahill wrote
>
> > The English were first to translate French Enlightenment
> > philosophers into English.
>
> But were never stupid enough to have a revolution.
Sure they did....in America!
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Sure they did....in America!
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys.
Fred Weiss
> The American Revolutionaries were against taxation _without_
> representation.
>
> They were fighting for taxation _with_ representation -- what we have
> today.
Total non-sequitur, typical of Brat.
In fact there is a long, sometimes even bloody, history of tax revolts
in American history, going right on up to the present day.
For example, an extraordinarily mediocre Republican was able to easily
defeat the high tax (and avowed Marxist) governor of NJ, even though
Corzine poured millions of his own money into the campaign, vastly
outspending his opponent.
Fred Weiss
AZDuffman
> > I understand the term. But you don't understand how marginal income
> > affects available funds to invest.
>
> Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during the
> fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then down to 70%?
There was far less money for investment then, which helped cause the
decline of American Business in the 70s until Reagan saved the day for
the USA.
> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down from
> 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
Reagan cut all taxes and got us to the point today where "the poor"
pay no income tax and many get an EIC refund of thousands--a handout.
You could stand a little economic reality.
tooly
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:00:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>
Cahill rationalizes whatever he wants, the worst kind of liar...one
who believes in what he spews. God help us.
Paul Volcker was courageous as he decided to support the dollar to
curb inflation with high interest rates. Carter expanded the money
supply by 13% and it took 21% FED interest rates [the rates given to
banks; the consumer would experience higher] to reel back in that
13%. But the more important thing is that it instilled confidence in
the investor...and THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN JOB CREATION.
Something Obama and company apparently do not have a clue!!!
INVESTMENT "IS" THE CREATION OF JOBS.
Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
[save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
So, that's the three ways to climb out of a recession. First, protect
the dollar so that investors remain confident. Second, stimulate new
investment to create new jobs by giving that NEXT tax dollar to those
who can create new industry [this idea of giving it to the rich is
just plain baloney; it is emotionalist populism that has no root to
reality to the hilt].
Finally, INNOVATE; create new technology. Oh...but that's a function
of investment isn't it; R&D is a product of companies want to expand,
not batten down the hatches to weather storms. Shiiiit...and this a
time when we could really use a whole bunch of venture capitalism to
create/develop new energy alternatives. Oh, yea, we'll just let the
government do it. Bull.
So, how is Obama doing on these. First, he is destroying the dollar
by expanding the money supply a whopping 120%. No one in their right
mind will want to invest in America now [and foreign investment has
been a key sustainer of US growth]. 120%..wow; one would have to be
total nincumpoop...or, and I hate to say it, have hidden agendas
[perhaps, you know, all them marxist professors he 'saught out'].
On tax cuts to those who can create jobs, Obama and company are just
like our friend Mr. Cahill...they HATE the capitalist under some sort
marxist 'social justice' bullcrap and see as evil monging rapers of
the land and oppressors of the common folk or some such...and so they
are doing everything in their power to destroy them, not help them
create new industry [jobs]. Cap and trade, Health care reform,
trillion dollar spending sprees and deficit totals...yea, taxes are a
coming...and on the supposed rich, those, again, who might be
responsible for new investment. It is like Obama has declared war on
capitalism itself. He is making investors, consumers, creditors...all
of it, shrink up into their turtle shells all seeing oncoming doom and
a storm coming. It's that gawdacious spending...120% expansion!!!!
These supposed FDR-like stimulus projects are 'temporary'...non-
sustainable, because once government stimulus goes away, so do the
jobs [exactly the same workfare programs that FDR used to prolong the
Great Depression]. You know, building bridges, repairing roads..that
sort of thingy.
On all fronts, Obama is doing exactly the opposite to bring this
economy back around. In fact, he is dangerously doing things that are
not only going to prolong the recession and may even create a
depression, but he may just destroy our way of life altogether [if the
dollar collapses as some believe; like me]. 120% people. My god...
120%. That's over ten times the largest expansion of our money supply
ever seen in our history [which was under Carter who, again, only
expanded it 13%].
We need to get our heads out of our asses and get these 'enemies of
the state' out of office so we can have some possiblity of saving our
way of life from total ruin.
Rod Speed
> liberal2 <liberalhe...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> I understand the term. But you don't understand how
>>> marginal income affects available funds to invest.
>> Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during the
>> fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then down to 70%?
> There was far less money for investment then, which
> helped cause the decline of American Business in the 70s
Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
> until Reagan saved the day for the USA.
Like hell he ever did with american business.
>> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down
>> from 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
> How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
Most obviously when what is paid to that other group is slashed, fool.
> Reagan cut all taxes and got us to the point today where "the poor" pay
> no income tax and many get an EIC refund of thousands--a handout.
And is unique in the modern first world where unemployment
benefits cut out after a while even if you still dont have a job.
> You could stand a little economic reality.
You need a hell of a lot of it.
AZDuffman
> > until Reagan saved the day for the USA.
>
> Like hell he ever did with american business.
Sure he did. Plenty of businesses boomed in the 1980s.
> >> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down
> >> from 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
> > How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
>
> Most obviously when what is paid to that other group is slashed, fool.
Nothing has been slashed, in fact spending keeps going up. Try again
and try withouyt calling names like a 5 year old.
> > Reagan cut all taxes and got us to the point today where "the poor" pay
> > no income tax and many get an EIC refund of thousands--a handout.
>
> And is unique in the modern first world where unemployment
> benefits cut out after a while even if you still dont have a job.
If you pay people to not work they will keep not working, thus the
reason to cut off unemployment. A good thing.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Says YOU?
hahahahahahahahah!!!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> I understand the term. But you don't understand how
>>>>> marginal income affects available funds to invest.
>>>> Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during the
>>>> fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then down to 70%?
>>> There was far less money for investment then, which
>>> helped cause the decline of American Business in the 70s
>> Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
>>> until Reagan saved the day for the USA.
>> Like hell he ever did with american business.
> Sure he did. Plenty of businesses boomed in the 1980s.
Pity about the stagflation, fool.
The 80s was when the car industry got exported to Japan, electronics in spades, fool.
>>>> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down
>>>> from 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
>>> How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
>> Most obviously when what is paid to that other group is slashed, fool.
> Nothing has been slashed,
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> in fact spending keeps going up.
Try telling that to those who have their unemployment benefit slashed, fool.
>>> Reagan cut all taxes and got us to the point today where "the poor"
>>> pay no income tax and many get an EIC refund of thousands--a handout.
>> And is unique in the modern first world where unemployment
>> benefits cut out after a while even if you still dont have a job.
> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
> thus the reason to cut off unemployment. A good thing.
Pity about what that does to consumer purchasing power, fool.
John Stafford
<80ddba21-b57d-49b0...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
AZDuffman <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
Not in my area. People live to work. Where do you live?
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote
>> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
Wrong when the work pays a lot better than what is paid when you arent working.
> Not in my area. People live to work. Where do you live?
Some welfare ghetto.
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> AZDuffman wrote
> >>> liberal2 <liberalhe...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> I understand the term. But you don't understand how
> >>>>> marginal income affects available funds to invest.
> >>>> Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during the
> >>>> fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then down to 70%?
> >>> There was far less money for investment then, which
> >>> helped cause the decline of American Business in the 70s
> >> Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
> >>> until Reagan saved the day for the USA.
> >> Like hell he ever did with american business.
> > Sure he did. Plenty of businesses boomed in the 1980s.
>
> Pity about the stagflation, fool.
>
> The 80s was when the car industry got exported to Japan, electronics in spades, fool.
Actually in the 1980s Japanese car companies started building here.
Add in success of companies like APple, Microsoft, Intel, and many
others.
Your problem is you just want to post a one-line reply ending in
"fool."
> >>>> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down
> >>>> from 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
> >>> How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
> >> Most obviously when what is paid to that other group is slashed, fool.
> > Nothing has been slashed,
>
> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
>
> > in fact spending keeps going up.
>
> Try telling that to those who have their unemployment benefit slashed, fool.
Who has had their unemployment benefits slashed? In fact the
proposals have been made to extend from 26 weeks. You really should
try to do something besides find a reason to call names like a 5 year
old.
<balance of name calling snipped>
AZDuffman
> John Stafford wrote
>
> > AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
>
> Wrong when the work pays a lot better than what is paid when you arent working.
>
> > Not in my area. People live to work. Where do you live?
>
> Some welfare ghetto.
Sorry to hear you live in a welfare ghetto, Rod. Though it might
explain your lack of ability to make any educated statements.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>> liberal2 <liberalhe...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> I understand the term. But you don't understand how
>>>>>>> marginal income affects available funds to invest.
>>>>>> Silly child, where did the money for investment come from during
>>>>>> the fifties and sixties when the marginal rate was 90%, then
>>>>>> down to 70%?
>>>>> There was far less money for investment then, which
>>>>> helped cause the decline of American Business in the 70s
>>>> Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
>>>>> until Reagan saved the day for the USA.
>>>> Like hell he ever did with american business.
>>> Sure he did. Plenty of businesses boomed in the 1980s.
>> Pity about the stagflation, fool.
>> The 80s was when the car industry got exported to Japan, electronics in spades, fool.
> Actually in the 1980s Japanese car companies started building here.
For entirely different reasons.
> Add in success of companies like APple, Microsoft, Intel, and many others.
Which all ended up doing their manufacturing out of the country, fool.
>>>>>> Your godling Reagan screws the pooch when he cut the rate down
>>>>>> from 70% and cut deductions. You could stand a little economic history.
>>>>> How, exactly, does cutting taxes for one group hurt another group.
>>>> Most obviously when what is paid to that other group is slashed, fool.
>>> Nothing has been slashed,
>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
>>> in fact spending keeps going up.
>> Try telling that to those who have their unemployment benefit slashed, fool.
> Who has had their unemployment benefits slashed?
Those without a job for too long, fool.
> In fact the proposals have been made to extend from 26 weeks.
Pity Raygun slashed it to that, fool.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Stafford wrote
>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
>> Wrong when the work pays a lot better than what is paid when you arent working.
>>> Not in my area. People live to work. Where do you live?
>> Some welfare ghetto.
> Sorry to hear you live in a welfare ghetto, Rod.
Even a fool like you should have noticed who he asked that question of, fool.
AZDuffman
you are the one who answered you live in some welfare ghetto. Don't
blame me for where you live.
AZDuffman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reagan didn't slash anything. If he did you need to prove otherwise.
And saying "fool" is not proving. Citing a sourdce is proving.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> John Stafford wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> If you pay people to not work they will keep not working,
>>>> Wrong when the work pays a lot better than what is paid when you arent working.
>>>>> Not in my area. People live to work. Where do you live?
>>>> Some welfare ghetto.
>>> Sorry to hear you live in a welfare ghetto, Rod.
>> Even a fool like you should have noticed who he asked that question of, fool.
> you are the one who answered you live in some welfare ghetto.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are a pathological liar, fool.
Rod Speed
>> For entirely different reasons.
>>>>> Nothing has been slashed,
> Reagan didn't slash anything.
Another bare faced lie, fool.
Les Cargill
> On Nov 10, 2:40 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:00:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>
> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
> JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
> [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
> computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>
??? 1980-82, and 1990-1991. At least two recessions. And productivity is
skyrocketing right now.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
miles
> ??? 1980-82,
1980? What was the unemployment, interest rates, inflation etc. that
Reagan took over? All of them were double digit.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Cahill is crackpot, a busted and exposed liar, and now nothing more
than a bottom-feeding troll.
>Paul Volcker was courageous as he decided to support the dollar to
>curb inflation with high interest rates. Carter expanded the money
>supply by 13% and it took 21% FED interest rates [the rates given to
>banks; the consumer would experience higher] to reel back in that
>13%. But the more important thing is that it instilled confidence in
>the investor...and THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN JOB CREATION.
>Something Obama and company apparently do not have a clue!
Confidence comes in different flavors but when the Market tanked over
a Trillion left and ONLY confidence can bring it back.
>INVESTMENT "IS" THE CREATION OF JOBS.
That and venture capital. Today VC is all but gone...
>Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
>JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
>[save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
>computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>So, that's the three ways to climb out of a recession. First, protect
>the dollar so that investors remain confident.
Too late... Maybe after the 2010 Elections IF we can toss out enough
DemocRATs, but I'm not looking for improvement until after 2012.
>Second, stimulate new
>investment to create new jobs by giving that NEXT tax dollar to those
>who can create new industry
Buckwheat and his Chicago Crime Syndicate have exactly the opposite
plan...
>Finally, INNOVATE; create new technology. Oh...but that's a function
>of investment isn't it; R&D is a product of companies want to expand,
>not batten down the hatches to weather storms. Shiiiit...and this a
>time when we could really use a whole bunch of venture capitalism to
>create/develop new energy alternatives. Oh, yea, we'll just let the
>government do it. Bull.
Gov't COULD do it, we proved that during the Apollo Program, but it
takes special people, a lot of 'em, and they need to feel they are on
a Quest, and once the Gov't gets 'em started the Gov't needs to get
out of their way.
Unfortunately its too late for new technology. We need nuclear energy
and we need it ten years ago.
>So, how is Obama doing on these. First, he is destroying the dollar
>by expanding the money supply a whopping 120%. No one in their right
>mind will want to invest in America now [and foreign investment has
>been a key sustainer of US growth]. 120%..wow; one would have to be
>total nincumpoop...or, and I hate to say it, have hidden agendas
>[perhaps, you know, all them marxist professors he 'saught out'].
Is his hidden agenda really all that hidden? I think its pretty
obvious where he wants to take things...
>On tax cuts to those who can create jobs, Obama and company are just
>like our friend Mr. Cahill...they HATE the capitalist under some sort
>marxist 'social justice' bullcrap and see as evil monging rapers of
>the land and oppressors of the common folk or some such...and so they
>are doing everything in their power to destroy them, not help them
>create new industry [jobs].
Yep, that's the agenda. Eliminate rich people. Close the gap between
the top and the bottom. Sort of a Star Trek childish vision of a
fantasy.
>Cap and trade, Health care reform,
>trillion dollar spending sprees and deficit totals...yea, taxes are a
>coming...and on the supposed rich, those, again, who might be
>responsible for new investment. It is like Obama has declared war on
>capitalism itself.
He SAID he was gonna do exactly that. He SAID (remember the famous
Joe The Plumber Moment?) he was gonna "spread it around."
We should NOT be surprised that he is doing EXACTLY what he said he
would do!
>He is making investors, consumers, creditors...all
>of it, shrink up into their turtle shells all seeing oncoming doom and
>a storm coming. It's that gawdacious spending...120% expansion!!!!
And what happens when "rich people" can't fund job creation? The
gov't has to. So NOW we know WHY he so desperately wants to OWN
banks. If the Gov't is the ONLY SOURCE of money and banks are the
ONLY SOURCE of funding that money then the Gov't has TOTAL control of
what industries get supported, what and how many jobs are available,
in what States, etc.
When the State OWNS the means of production that's Communism.
When the State CONTROLS the means of production that's Socialism.
>These supposed FDR-like stimulus projects are 'temporary'...non-
>sustainable, because once government stimulus goes away, so do the
>jobs [exactly the same workfare programs that FDR used to prolong the
>Great Depression]. You know, building bridges, repairing roads..that
>sort of thingy.
However, we KNOW where the Porkulus money is going. Partly for States
to hire state-employees, increasing gov't AND increasing the tax
requirements AFTER Porkulus stops funding those jobs. And partly for
shovel-ready jobs. Who does those shovel-ready jobs? Illegal
aliens...
I'm convinced Porkulus was design to employ illegal aliens so when
Buckwheat brings up Amnesty the hit on Welfare will be reduced...
>We need to get our heads out of our asses and get these 'enemies of
>the state' out of office so we can have some possiblity of saving our
>way of life from total ruin.
What you and I see as "total ruin" the Socialist DemocRATs see as
Utopia.
We need a REVOLT in this country.
Patriot Games
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>And productivity is skyrocketing right now.
BWahahahahhahaah!!!!
Let's use an example.
What is the percent of increase between 0.3% and 0.9%?
HOLY SHIT!!! That's SKYROCKETING!!!
That's a 200% INCREASE!!!!!
Meanwhile, its STILL ZERO POINT NINE.
Hahahahahahhahahaha!!!
Here's a hint for you: To be a successful LIAR you'll have to do MUCH
BETTER than that...
liberal2
> On Nov 10, 2:17 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > The American Revolutionaries were against taxation _without_
> > representation.
>
> > They were fighting for taxation _with_ representation -- what we have
> > today.
>
> history class the day they taught about Shay's Rebellion. Americans
> have never liked high taxes, except for greedy, cheap liberals like
> you who want hiogh taxes on people other than themselves.
>
> > The modern day teabaggers want to undo the work of the revolutionary
> > Americans and have the "private sector" handle everything.
>
> The Tea Patriots are against government control exept when no other
> choice and know the private sector does it better. The Tea Patriots
> will hopefully save this country before Obama and the Dumbocrats
> destroy what fredom we still have.
>
> > > And unfree
> > > countries have lower or no taxes, right?
>
> > Do they pay taxes in mid east despotisms?
>
> Yup
>
> > North Korea?
>
> Yup
>
> > Pre French Revolution European aristocracies?
>
> Part of the reason for the French Revolution was because of high taxes
> and a bad economy after several wars and out of control spending by
> the Bourbons.
>
> Liberals, if we didn't have them we wouldn't know how smart
> conservates really are!
Actually no. From the Encyclopedia Britannia:
The causes were:
1) Citizens were dying (starvation, harvests were bad).
2) The government had gone broke financing the American Revolution
and, therefore, could not help the dying.
3) The average citizen has no wy to improve his standard of living
(class stratification).
Taxes were high, on the poor, because entities like the catholic
church were exempt from taxation, and (IIRC) so was the nobility. The
poor were the only group which, legally, could be taxed.
liberal2
Don't forget the Savings&Loan debacle that Reagan created.
liberal2
True. But energy prices quintupled (starting in Nixon's second term),
the economy took a long time to adjust. And no one learned the lesson,
as witness the recent $150/barrel crude price, until the Wall Street
meltdown,and is now back up to $80/barrel.
In 1980, Reagan laughed at Carter's call for conservation and
alternative energy research. In 2000, Cheney declared it the natural
right of Americans to drive an 8 mpg SUV.
In 1987, the year the Stock Market tanked.
In summary, you don't know what you're talking about.
AZDuffman
Reagan ran a Savings and Loan? REALLY? How could he do that and
still be POTUS?
You liberals are funny-- you say Reagan and Bush were too dumb others
ran the place, yet they are at fault for EVERYTHING from the Yankees
winning the WS to Hurricane Katrina.
AZDuffman
Uh, did you read what I said above?
> 3) The average citizen has no wy to improve his standard of living
> (class stratification).
>
> Taxes were high, on the poor, because entities like the catholic
> church were exempt from taxation, and (IIRC) so was the nobility. The
> poor were the only group which, legally, could be taxed
Uh, did you read what I said above?
Michael Gordge
> When the State OWNS the means of production that's Communism.
>
> When the State CONTROLS the means of production that's Socialism.
And when the state controls the people who do the production that's
conservativism.
Socialism leads to communism conservatism leads to fascism.
Socialism socialism conservatism fascism, differ only in the degrees
of control over the human individual, they all require and demand
sacrifice of the human individual's liberty for their very own
different and utterly bogus glory.
MG
AZDuffman
> On Nov 13, 5:05 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>
> > When the State OWNS the means of production that's Communism.
>
> > When the State CONTROLS the means of production that's Socialism.
>
> And when the state controls the people who do the production that's
> conservativism.
no, when the state controls the people who do the production that's
liberalism.
Conservatism is when you have the most freedom. Liberalism is the
road to socialism which is a road to facism.
Michael Gordge
> no, when the state controls the people who do the production that's
> liberalism.
Crap, liberalism is just another name for socialism, control over the
human individual.
> Conservatism is when you have the most freedom.
Utter crap, there is no such thing as "the most freedom" existing as
anything but a nasal whining nauseating chant of conservative geeks.
Fact, freedom has no boundaries free is free A is A, either someone is
free or they are bound shackled held as slaves and sacrificial
animals.
Moral issues controling the choices of peaceful human individuals,
such as alcohol prohibition, marriage laws, the dopey drug laws, are
all directly out of the conservative / fascist fucking bible / hand-
book.
> Liberalism is the
> road to socialism which is a road to facism.
Wrong, when the state controls the choices of peaceful human
individuals that is conservatism. and socialism leads to communism not
fascism and non of that matters a fying fuck because conservatism
socialism fascism communism and the nauseating chant liberalism ALL
demand sacrifice of the human individual's liberty for utterly bogus
glories.
MG
Rod Speed
>>>> Bret Cahill wrote
>>> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...
>>> and yes, JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted
>>> until 9-11 [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time
>>> was computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>> ??? 1980-82, and 1990-1991. At least two recessions.
>> And productivity is skyrocketing right now.
> Don't forget the Savings&Loan debacle
Yes.
> that Reagan created.
Nope.
Les Cargill
Try 9.5% for Q3.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/11/zomfg-wtf-95-third-quarter-productivity-growth-number.html
Hope that helps.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
That kinda started under Carter. It was very closely
coupled with the Oil Boom. Niall Ferguson goes
over this in "The Ascent of Money". Oil boom was
over by late 1983, and much of that loss of flows
hurt the S&L balances sheets badly.
ObCoincidence: my next door neighbor once (mid
90s) was in on the Danny Faulkner thing. He came
away with nothing.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Nov 12, 3:21 pm, liberal2 <liberalhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 8:50 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> tooly wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 2:40 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:00:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>>> <snip>
>>>> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
>>>> JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
>>>> [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
>>>> computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>>> ??? 1980-82, and 1990-1991. At least two recessions. And productivity is
>>> skyrocketing right now.
>>> <snip>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>> Don't forget the Savings&Loan debacle that Reagan created.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Reagan ran a Savings and Loan? REALLY? How could he do that and
> still be POTUS?
>
Wasn't Reagan - it was Jimmy Stewart.
> You liberals are funny-- you say Reagan and Bush were too dumb others
> ran the place, yet they are at fault for EVERYTHING from the Yankees
> winning the WS to Hurricane Katrina.
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
>
> That and venture capital. Today VC is all but gone...
>
But what is interesting is how it went. Around 2002,
you could still get funding, but the VC guys would
lard up the run rate of the firm with cronies.
And then it got worse.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
And there were a hell of a lot more than just the poor and the nobility too.
Rod Speed
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote
>>> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote
And during WW2 in spades.
> but it takes special people, a lot of 'em,
Not necessarily.
> and they need to feel they are on a Quest,
Nope.
> and once the Gov't gets 'em started the Gov't needs to get out of their way.
Nope, WW2 worked fine without that.
> Unfortunately its too late for new technology.
Nope, most obviously with thorium nukes.
> We need nuclear energy
Yes.
> and we need it ten years ago.
Nope, now will do fine. Particularly instead of the other stupid approaches to CO2.
>> So, how is Obama doing on these. First, he is destroying the dollar
>> by expanding the money supply a whopping 120%. No one in their right
>> mind will want to invest in America now [and foreign investment has
>> been a key sustainer of US growth]. 120%..wow; one would have to be
>> total nincumpoop...or, and I hate to say it, have hidden agendas
>> [perhaps, you know, all them marxist professors he 'saught out'].
> Is his hidden agenda really all that hidden?
Corse it isnt.
> I think its pretty obvious where he wants to take things...
Corse it is.
>> On tax cuts to those who can create jobs, Obama and company are just
>> like our friend Mr. Cahill...they HATE the capitalist under some sort
>> marxist 'social justice' bullcrap and see as evil monging rapers of
>> the land and oppressors of the common folk or some such...and so they
>> are doing everything in their power to destroy them, not help them
>> create new industry [jobs].
> Yep, that's the agenda.
Nope.
> Eliminate rich people.
He aint that stupid.
> Close the gap between the top and the bottom.
Doesnt require the elimination of rich people.
> Sort of a Star Trek childish vision of a fantasy.
Yours is.
>> Cap and trade, Health care reform,
>> trillion dollar spending sprees and deficit totals...yea, taxes are a
>> coming...and on the supposed rich, those, again, who might be
>> responsible for new investment. It is like Obama has declared war on
>> capitalism itself.
> He SAID he was gonna do exactly that.
You're lying now.
> He SAID (remember the famous Joe The Plumber Moment?) he was gonna "spread it around."
Different matter entirely.
> We should NOT be surprised that he is doing EXACTLY what he said he would do!
He doesnt get any say on that, Congress does.
>> He is making investors, consumers, creditors...all
>> of it, shrink up into their turtle shells all seeing oncoming doom
>> and a storm coming. It's that gawdacious spending...120%
>> expansion!!!!
> And what happens when "rich people" can't fund job creation?
No economy needs them to do that.
> The gov't has to.
Wrong.
> So NOW we know WHY he so desperately wants to OWN banks.
Not for long he doesnt.
> If the Gov't is the ONLY SOURCE of money
Just another of your silly little fantasys.
> and banks are the ONLY SOURCE of funding that money
In spades.
> then the Gov't has TOTAL control of what industries get supported,
> what and how many jobs are available, in what States, etc.
In spades.
> When the State OWNS the means of production that's Communism.
> When the State CONTROLS the means of production that's Socialism.
Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
>> These supposed FDR-like stimulus projects are 'temporary'...non-
>> sustainable, because once government stimulus goes away, so do the
>> jobs [exactly the same workfare programs that FDR used to prolong the
>> Great Depression]. You know, building bridges, repairing roads..that
>> sort of thingy.
> However, we KNOW where the Porkulus money is going.
Nope.
> Partly for States to hire state-employees, increasing gov't AND increasing
> the tax requirements AFTER Porkulus stops funding those jobs.
Just another of your lies.
> And partly for shovel-ready jobs. Who does those shovel-ready jobs? Illegal aliens...
Only some of them.
> I'm convinced Porkulus was design to employ illegal aliens so when
> Buckwheat brings up Amnesty the hit on Welfare will be reduced...
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
>> We need to get our heads out of our asses and get these 'enemies of
>> the state' out of office so we can have some possiblity of saving our
>> way of life from total ruin.
> What you and I see as "total ruin" the Socialist DemocRATs see as Utopia.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
> We need a REVOLT in this country.
Didnt even get that during the great depression, fool.
Darnc
> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
> JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
> [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
> computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
Reagan wanted you to see the surface and ignore what's going on
underneath, and you happily obliged.
The prosperity you claim to see on the surface did not take into
account many fundamental changes underneath, which started the decline
of this nation. Reagan adopt the "borrow to spend" strategy to make up
for shortfall due to tax cut and excessive government spending.
When he left office, the national deficit was doubled. The balance
between capitalism and socialism was broken under his leadership. Many
critical regulations were either reduced or rejected. Companies cut
workers and outsource them to boost profit. High pay jobs were
replaced by low-pay service sector jobs. The rich got most of the tax
cut and the bottom half were left with very little to share. The
strength of this nation is reduced to such extend that it has no
choice but relying on debt to produce fake prosperity.
AZDuffman
> On Nov 11, 8:47 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
> > JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
> > [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
> > computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>
> Reagan wanted you to see the surface and ignore what's going on
> underneath, and you happily obliged.
>
> The prosperity you claim to see on the surface did not take into
> account many fundamental changes underneath, which started the decline
> of this nation. Reagan adopt the "borrow to spend" strategy to make up
> for shortfall due to tax cut and excessive government spending.
There was no shortafall due to the tax cut. Revenue increased greatly
when Reagan was in office. The shortfall was due to the failure of
democrats to control spending.
> When he left office, the national deficit was doubled. The balance
> between capitalism and socialism was broken under his leadership. Many
> critical regulations were either reduced or rejected. Companies cut
> workers and outsource them to boost profit. High pay jobs were
> replaced by low-pay service sector jobs. The rich got most of the tax
> cut and the bottom half were left with very little to share. The
> strength of this nation is reduced to such extend that it has no
> choice but relying on debt to produce fake prosperity.
There were far more jobs when Reagan left office than when he came in
and they were NOT all lower paying. What happened was there was a
beter conection between qualification and pay. A computer programmer
would be "service sector" yet be well paid. What happened was lots
overpaid, less skilled work dissapeared.
At US Steel, for example, was finally forced to compete they no longer
paid $30,000 per year for the janitor just because it was "union
scale."
Anyways, what is wrong with cutting workers to boost profit? This is
perfectly normal and any company that doesn't do so is doing a
disservice to their shareholders.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 12, 10:24 pm, Darnc <darnc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 8:47 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and
>> > yes, JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until
>> > 9-11 [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
>> > computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>>
>> Reagan wanted you to see the surface and ignore what's going on
>> underneath, and you happily obliged.
>>
>> The prosperity you claim to see on the surface did not take into
>> account many fundamental changes underneath, which started the decline
>> of this nation. Reagan adopt the "borrow to spend" strategy to make up
>> for shortfall due to tax cut and excessive government spending.
>
> There was no shortafall due to the tax cut. Revenue increased greatly
> when Reagan was in office. The shortfall was due to the failure of
> democrats to control spending.
Here's the picture you lying sack of Republican pig shit:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
Please note that from 1981 through 1983 the slope of tax revenue flattens
and actually recedes. The _NORMAL_ course of events is increased
revenues as population and the economy grow. But that course of events
was interrupted by the OIL PRICES and the FED and the economy faltered.
This was NOT the fault of Reagan, nor can he claim to have stopped the
inflation monster. But the slope of tax receipt DOES NOT CHANGE in a
positive direction and remains below that which would have been had
absent the FED and OPEC induced recession and PROBABLY below that which
would have been realized absent the tax cuts. We also note that spending
was moderately increased to provide the tax receipts that did materialize.
But there was no wild increase in the spending compared to the slope of
previous or post Reagan years. Here again, government spending grows
with population.
>> When he left office, the national deficit was doubled. The balance
>> between capitalism and socialism was broken under his leadership. Many
>> critical regulations were either reduced or rejected. Companies cut
>> workers and outsource them to boost profit. High pay jobs were replaced
>> by low-pay service sector jobs. The rich got most of the tax cut and
>> the bottom half were left with very little to share. The strength of
>> this nation is reduced to such extend that it has no choice but relying
>> on debt to produce fake prosperity.
>
> There were far more jobs when Reagan left office than when he came in
> and they were NOT all lower paying. What happened was there was a beter
> conection between qualification and pay. A computer programmer would be
> "service sector" yet be well paid. What happened was lots overpaid,
> less skilled work dissapeared.
There were far more people when Reagan left office. Wages saw their
worst decline since the depression. Leaving aside the early Volcker
disaster, the unemployment rate averaged 6.5% and was headed up when
Reagan left. And the employment that existed was accomplished on
borrowed money.
> At US Steel, for example, was finally forced to compete they no longer
> paid $30,000 per year for the janitor just because it was "union scale."
>
> Anyways, what is wrong with cutting workers to boost profit? This is
> perfectly normal and any company that doesn't do so is doing a
> disservice to their shareholders.
Well piss on their shareholders, asshole. So long as the organization AND
THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE isn't LOSING value then all is well.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Well at least there is a recognition from you of the part that the oil
played in the health of the economy.
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman wrote
>> Darnc <darnc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>>> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...
>>>> and yes, JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted
>>>> until 9-11 [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
>>>> computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>>> Reagan wanted you to see the surface and ignore what's going on
>>> underneath, and you happily obliged.
>>> The prosperity you claim to see on the surface did not take into
>>> account many fundamental changes underneath, which started the
>>> decline of this nation. Reagan adopt the "borrow to spend" strategy
>>> to make up for shortfall due to tax cut and excessive government spending.
>> There was no shortafall due to the tax cut. Revenue increased
>> greatly when Reagan was in office. The shortfall was due to the
>> failure of democrats to control spending.
> Here's the picture you lying sack of Republican pig shit:
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
> Please note that from 1981 through 1983 the slope of tax revenue
> flattens and actually recedes. The _NORMAL_ course of events is
> increased revenues as population and the economy grow.
How odd that it didnt after WW2.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html
> But that course of events was interrupted by the OIL PRICES
> and the FED and the economy faltered. This was NOT the fault
> of Reagan, nor can he claim to have stopped the inflation monster.
> But the slope of tax receipt DOES NOT CHANGE in a positive
> direction and remains below that which would have been had
> absent the FED and OPEC induced recession and PROBABLY
> below that which would have been realized absent the tax cuts.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Les Cargill
I've never denied it. I saw it personally. Indeed, I've said here
on multiple occasions - Carter was going after water fees due
the government. That prompted the Central Valley farmers to strongly
support Reagan.
The embargo was to "punish" the US for supporting Israel, around
the 1967 War.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not stocks of oil
should be held as collective goods. The problem with that is that
the set membership of the collective is arbitrary, and that incentives
for private owners to properly exploit the resource are better.
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
The war did not end until August of 1945. As tax receipts are ALWAYS
affected by government spending the tax proceeds for 1945 were much
higher than 1946 following the war.
1946 - 39296
1950 - 39433
1955 - 65451
1960 - 92492
1965 - 116817
1970 - 192807
1975 - 279090
1890 - 517112
1985 - 734088
1990 - 1032094
1946 through 1950 are the anomaly in an otherwise increasing set. It
probably had something to do with moving from a war economy to a peace
economy.
--
Rod Speed
>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwit pig ignorant failed truckers ?
> As tax receipts are ALWAYS affected by government spending the
> tax proceeds for 1945 were much higher than 1946 following the war.
> 1946 - 39296
> 1950 - 39433
Pity there is no significant increase there.
> 1955 - 65451
> 1960 - 92492
> 1965 - 116817
> 1970 - 192807
> 1975 - 279090
> 1890 - 517112
> 1985 - 734088
> 1990 - 1032094
> 1946 through 1950 are the anomaly in an otherwise increasing set.
But blow a fucking great hole in that stupid claim of yours.
> It probably had something to do with moving from a war economy to a peace economy.
Or your stupid claim is just plain wrong. Pity about what happened in the 20s.
Joe
> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
Perhaps the real problem is the concentration of wealth in the top 5%
was never greater in 2007 since 1928, so we should learn from history
that America is a much stronger country when it has a stronger middle
class like it was in the 1950's and 1960's when there was a high
marginal tax rate and higher capital gain tax rates. It is also a red
herring to say that 50% pay virtually no taxes when they pay social
security, property tax, sales taxes etc to the point that Warren
Buffetts secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren because she
works for a living and Warren gets special capital gains treatment on
his gains. I don't think that is fair or is an incentive for those
who work for a living that you are rewarded by the tax system for
being a passive investor. I would change the tax laws to have a lower
personal income tax rates offset by higher capital gains taxes, death
tax, and perhaps a national sales tax.
Joe
> On Nov 10, 11:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> > Carter.
>
> Except taxes weren't low under Carter, Reagan in fact cut them and
> caused a boom.
But America paid the price with higher deficits that led to an ugly
recession and the defeat of the first Bush.
>
> > Low interest rates + high taxes cause a low inflation high growth.
> > That was the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.
>
> No, Gingrich controlling spending plus a breakthru in technology
> caused a boom.
You are a bit of a hypocrate here aren't you, you give credit to
Reagan for cutting taxes when he had a democratic congress, but don't
give credit to Clinton when he raised taxes and had a republican
congress. It was Clinton who limited welfare and cut defense and
balance the budget. Dumbya Bush on the other hand gave out huge tax
cuts to the rich creating huge deficits and spending on unecessary
wars and we will pay the price for a long time. By the way there was
more venture capital investment than ever before so I don't agree with
your theory that brekthru technology was unique to Clinton.
>
> > > If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> > > no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the
> > > top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
>
> > As median income approaches the average mean income of $65/hour then
> > the median income earner who now takes home $21,000/year will soon be
> > taking home $84,000/year and paying 34% in taxes instead of 15%.
>
> > Hey, you're right! Excellent idea! Level incomes and the only people
> > who won't be living better are GOP strategists who will no longer get
> > paid for bottom fishing creationists, nutters, racists, neocons and
> > other rightarded wackadoodles.
>
> Who said anything about leveling incomes and who mentioned the GOP?
> You are full of hate for whatever reason. But not me, I'm just saying
> if people think high taxes are good then why not raise them on the
> people paying least and make it more fair.
America is not a poor country but when it comes to paying their fair
share of tax, too many rich cry poverty. I think there should be a
tax on wealth so everyone pays their fair share.
Joe
> On Nov 10, 12:36 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
> > > Corse tax cuts have also produced an economic boom too.
>
> > Tax cuts on the rich eventually cause inflation then the Fed jacks up
> > interest rates which causes a recession.
>
> > There is no free lunch on liberty. Taxes are the price of freedom
> > including free markets and a vibrant economy.
>
> Yes, the Boston Tea Party and all that happend after in 1776 was
> because people thought we weren't paying enough taxes! And unfree
> countries have lower or no taxes, right?
Actually that was not the case it was more a matter of taxation
without representation. America currently has a democratic government
where the majority can decide who and how much to tax.
Joe
> On Nov 10, 2:40 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:00:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>
> curb inflation with high interest rates. Carter expanded the money
> supply by 13% and it took 21% FED interest rates [the rates given to
> banks; the consumer would experience higher] to reel back in that
> 13%. But the more important thing is that it instilled confidence in
> the investor...and THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN JOB CREATION.
> INVESTMENT "IS" THE CREATION OF JOBS.
Well duh,when you have high inflaiton and full employment the
appropriate measure is to raise interest rates and reduce money
supply. Times are different now, low infltion and high unemployment
just like the great depression which was exaserbated by keeping money
supply down and interest rates high.
>
> Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
> JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
> [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
> computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
Reagan was the biggest phony of all time. True he cut taxes, but
government spending exceeded inflation and large deficits were the
outcome of his presidency which lead to a depression which cost Bush 1
the election. I give Volker most of the credit for turning around the
economy, not Reagan.
>
> So, that's the three ways to climb out of a recession. First, protect
> the dollar so that investors remain confident. Second, stimulate new
> investment to create new jobs by giving that NEXT tax dollar to those
> who can create new industry [this idea of giving it to the rich is
> just plain baloney; it is emotionalist populism that has no root to
> reality to the hilt].
You obviously haven't studied the history of the great depression like
Bernacke has. The proper response to a weak economy is to increase
money supply and lower interest rates at the risk of inflation. What
you also missed is the week $US dollar will lead to an export boom and
increase competetiveness of American companies which will lead to a
jobs boom. Investors in the stock market are doing quite well even
though the $US dollar is weeker.
>
> Finally, INNOVATE; create new technology. Oh...but that's a function
> of investment isn't it; R&D is a product of companies want to expand,
> not batten down the hatches to weather storms. Shiiiit...and this a
> time when we could really use a whole bunch of venture capitalism to
> create/develop new energy alternatives. Oh, yea, we'll just let the
> government do it. Bull.
I totally agree with you on R&D but to put your entire faith in the
hands of VC's who are looking for short term gains is short sighted.
So there is a place for government to do fundamental research in
cancer, alternative energy, where the risk return level and time lage
for return to great for most VC's
>
> So, how is Obama doing on these. First, he is destroying the dollar
> by expanding the money supply a whopping 120%. No one in their right
> mind will want to invest in America now [and foreign investment has
> been a key sustainer of US growth]. 120%..wow; one would have to be
> total nincumpoop...or, and I hate to say it, have hidden agendas
> [perhaps, you know, all them marxist professors he 'saught out'].
Obama is doing a great job of getting the US economy out of what could
have been a depression. Obviously you haven't studied the great
depression, now is not the time to decrease money supply and the stock
market, company earnings, and GDP are exceeding all forecast.
>
> On tax cuts to those who can create jobs, Obama and company are just
> like our friend Mr. Cahill...they HATE the capitalist under some sort
> marxist 'social justice' bullcrap and see as evil monging rapers of
> the land and oppressors of the common folk or some such...and so they
> are doing everything in their power to destroy them, not help them
> create new industry [jobs]. Cap and trade, Health care reform,
> trillion dollar spending sprees and deficit totals...yea, taxes are a
> coming...and on the supposed rich, those, again, who might be
> responsible for new investment. It is like Obama has declared war on
> capitalism itself. He is making investors, consumers, creditors...all
> of it, shrink up into their turtle shells all seeing oncoming doom and
> a storm coming. It's that gawdacious spending...120% expansion!!!!
Actually it was neoconservatism that brought the US to the brink of
another depression. Get that through your head, Bush's tax cuts for
the rich did not work, only created long term deficits and lack of
regulation of the private sector led to this disaster. You have alot
of blind faith in the CEO's of Citicorp, Lehman Brothers, Bear
Stearns, AIG, GM, Chrysler, Big Pharmecuticals, Insurance companies to
operate in an unregulated environment to watch out for the best
interest of America, but I don't. These people are greedy individuals
who are solely looking out for themselves, not the country.
>
> These supposed FDR-like stimulus projects are 'temporary'...non-
> sustainable, because once government stimulus goes away, so do the
> jobs [exactly the same workfare programs that FDR used to prolong the
> Great Depression]. You know, building bridges, repairing roads..that
> sort of thingy.
>
> On all fronts, Obama is doing exactly the opposite to bring this
> economy back around. In fact, he is dangerously doing things that are
> not only going to prolong the recession and may even create a
> depression, but he may just destroy our way of life altogether [if the
> dollar collapses as some believe; like me]. 120% people. My god...
> 120%. That's over ten times the largest expansion of our money supply
> ever seen in our history [which was under Carter who, again, only
> expanded it 13%].
>
> We need to get our heads out of our asses and get these 'enemies of
> the state' out of office so we can have some possiblity of saving our
> way of life from total ruin.
It is time for you to get your head out of your rear and put your
money where your mouth is. If you truly believe what you wrote than
why aren't you selling short the stock market? If you are right you
will be a very rich man, if you are wrong you will be in the
poorhouse. I have done quite well investing in the stock market since
Obama took office. He is doing all the right things and unlike you,
his advisors have actually studied the great depression and know now
is not the time to reduce money supply. So how about it are you going
to put your money where your mouth is and sell short?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joe
> On Nov 12, 10:24 pm, Darnc <darnc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:47 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Reagan's tax cuts eventually stimulated that NEW INVESTMENT...and yes,
> > > JOBS!!!...and we were sent on a growth spurt that lasted until 9-11
> > > [save for one quarter]. Another big factor in the time was
> > > computerization that was stimulating increased productivity.
>
> > Reagan wanted you to see the surface and ignore what's going on
> > underneath, and you happily obliged.
>
> > The prosperity you claim to see on the surface did not take into
> > account many fundamental changes underneath, which started the decline
> > of this nation. Reagan adopt the "borrow to spend" strategy to make up
> > for shortfall due to tax cut and excessive government spending.
>
> There was no shortafall due to the tax cut. Revenue increased greatly
> when Reagan was in office. The shortfall was due to the failure of
> democrats to control spending.
No the shortfall was due to Reagans lack of control over spending, he
spent huge amounts on wasteful military projects at the same time
there was no welfare reform until Clinton came into office. Reagan
was a phony who created huge deficits that caused a major recession
under Bush 1, similar to what Bush2 did.
>
> > When he left office, the national deficit was doubled. The balance
> > between capitalism and socialism was broken under his leadership. Many
> > critical regulations were either reduced or rejected. Companies cut
> > workers and outsource them to boost profit. High pay jobs were
> > replaced by low-pay service sector jobs. The rich got most of the tax
> > cut and the bottom half were left with very little to share. The
> > strength of this nation is reduced to such extend that it has no
> > choice but relying on debt to produce fake prosperity.
>
> There were far more jobs when Reagan left office than when he came in
> and they were NOT all lower paying. What happened was there was a
> beter conection between qualification and pay. A computer programmer
> would be "service sector" yet be well paid. What happened was lots
> overpaid, less skilled work dissapeared.
>
> At US Steel, for example, was finally forced to compete they no longer
> paid $30,000 per year for the janitor just because it was "union
> scale."
>
> Anyways, what is wrong with cutting workers to boost profit? This is
> perfectly normal and any company that doesn't do so is doing a
> disservice to their shareholders.
Of course what you fail to mention is far more jobs were created under
Clinton than Reagan. By eliminating the support for minimum wages,
Reagan destroyed the middle class and as a result under Dumbya Bush
there was the highest concentration of wealth among the top 5% since
1928 as sign of a 3rd world type economy.
Rod Speed
The middle class never ever gets anything like the minimum wage
and someone must have bought all those McMansions, so the
real middle class cant have been anything like destroyed.
> and as a result under Dumbya Bush there was the highest concentration
> of wealth among the top 5% since 1928 as sign of a 3rd world type economy.
You wouldnt know what a real 3rd world economy was if one bit you on your lard arse.
ZerkonXXXX
> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>
> If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay virtually
> no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34% just like the top
> rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to
the US Census. Are you saying all below this pay "virtually no taxes"?
AZDuffman
> Well piss on their shareholders, asshole. So long as the organization AND
> THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE isn't LOSING value then all is well.
With an attitude like that it is a wonder you can hold any job.
AZDuffman
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
He cant, he keeps getting the bums rush from every single one.
Rod Speed
> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>>> If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay
>>> virtually no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34%
>>> just like the top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
>> In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according
>> to the US Census. Are you saying all below this pay "virtually no taxes"?
> Here are the IRS numbers:
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irs_screen_grab.guest.html
There's much more taxation than just what the IRS collects, you silly little pathological liar.
AZDuffman
The typical liberal answer, however most taxes people pay to the feds
are income taxes so it is relevalt.
Really, Rod, move to Boise and help them fix their jagodd shortage.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>> Do high taxes cause an "economic boom?"
>>>>> If they do, our problem is solved. Since the bottom 50% pay
>>>>> virtually no taxes, all we need to do is raise their rate to 34%
>>>>> just like the top rate and wait for the boom to come, correct?
>>>> In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according
>>>> to the US Census. Are you saying all below this pay "virtually no taxes"?
>>> Here are the IRS numbers:
>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irs_screen_grab.guest.html
>> There's much more taxation than just what the IRS collects, you silly little pathological liar.
> The typical liberal answer,
More of your name calling.
> however most taxes people pay to the feds are income taxes
Irrelevant to your original lie about taxes.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
ornamentalmind
they are different things entirely and, are not intuitive when it
comes to quick analysis. Also such different reporting methodologies
require different considerations as to what the proper distribution of
tax burden should be and is.
Michael Coburn
I am retired, moron. I do not need a job because I worked all my life
and invested very wisely. I invested in my country by serving in the
military so I have VA health care. I invested 15.3% of my income (I was
a proprietorship for 30 years) in Social Security and Medicare (turns out
I do not need the Medicare part). And I bought a home over that period
and now live in an area away from high tax metro. That was the plan and
it worked out OK.
You are a typical rich bitch butt sucker.
The federal government is not a business. It exists to provide for the
general welfare. That does not mean the welfare of the poor or the
rich. It means "in general". I _EARNED_ what I have.
Michael Gordge
>
> There's much more taxation than just what the IRS collects,
Prove it.
MG
Day Brown
> One issue when conflating �tax *share*� and �tax *percent*� is that
> they are different things entirely and, are not intuitive when it
> comes to quick analysis. Also such different reporting methodologies
> require different considerations as to what the proper distribution of
> tax burden should be and is.
hands of the masses so that they believe they have some investment in
the system to protect.
If the tax on them is too high, then they become debtors who no longer
have any investments and noting to loose in revolution except the
abolishment of their personal debts and everything to gain in the
seizure of the assets of the rich.
From Machiavelli we see the oligarchs always corrupt republics. Then
they move the taxes from the rich to all lower classes. Of course, it
dont take long before they are all broke, and since you cant get blood
from a turnip, the government runs out of money. Since it cannot tax the
rich, it BORROWS the money from them.
This works until some creditor sees the tax base will no longer service
the debt much less pay it off, and thus refuses to lend more. Which
starts a fiscal panic. The revolution produces a demagogue who arises
from the masses and seizes the assets of the rich to gratify the taste
for revenge on the part of the lower classes.
But revenge, while it tastes sweet, is not nutritious, so the social
leeches among the lower classes starve out first. Darwin shows how only
the most fit survive, who then join together for mutual defense, and as
a result start the next generation of republics.
Of course the rich, rather than easing the taxes on lower classes and
paying off the government debt, merely hires mercenaries to guard their
assets. But one reason the rich are rich is that they always get to do
things on the cheap, and think they can do this in the same way. So-
they do not pay enuf guards enuf money, so the latter always join with
the lower classes when the looting begins.
Day Brown
they pay, and tried to hide everything all the lower classes pay.
Inasmuch as they own the media, they've been fairly successful; but now
with the Internet, anyone who discovers how things work can get the real
news out to those whose minds are not blinded by partisan group think.
For them, this is a golden opportunity which some take by keeping their
mouths shut about what they figured out, and how to profit from the
neurotic denial of political/economic partisans.
Whatever the real truth is does not fit within the mindframe of either
conservative or liberal thinking.
Patriot Games
<lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:50:08 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> And productivity is skyrocketing right now.
>> Let's use an example.
>> What is the percent of increase between 0.3% and 0.9%?
>> HOLY SHIT!!! That's SKYROCKETING!!!
>> That's a 200% INCREASE!!!!!
>> Meanwhile, its STILL ZERO POINT NINE.
>> Hahahahahahhahahaha!!!
>> Here's a hint for you: To be a successful LIAR you'll have to do MUCH
>> BETTER than that...
>Try 9.5% for Q3.
>http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/11/zomfg-wtf-95-third-quarter-productivity-growth-number.html
>Hope that helps.
It helps prove you didn't like getting caught being a fool in
public...
Productivity Month #1 = 0.200%
Productivity Month #2 = 0.219%
Percent of Increase = 9.49%
Meanwhile Productivity WAS STILL ONLY 0.219%
Are you still having trouble with basic math?
Patriot Games
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 5:05�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> When the State OWNS the means of production that's Communism.
>> When the State CONTROLS the means of production that's Socialism.
>And when the state...
From: Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.171.90.96
124.171.90.96 = Adelaide, Australia.
Patriot Games
><snip>
>> That and venture capital. Today VC is all but gone...
>But what is interesting is how it went. Around 2002,
>you could still get funding, but the VC guys would
>lard up the run rate of the firm with cronies.
Is there a better way to keep an eye on your money?
>And then it got worse.
Yeah, Buckwheat happenned.
Patriot Games
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the opportunity to SHIT IN YOUR OPEN MOUTH in public:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:59:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Poetic Justice wrote:
>>>> Obama claimed that the Emperor Hirohito signed the document when
>>>> Japan surrendered....
>And Obama never ever said that he signed it personally.
Oops! Foreign Faggot 'Little' Rod Speed caught LYING, again...
Obama Says Emperor Hirohito Signed Japanese Surrender
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7scgN-37E&feature=player_embedded
Patriot Games
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the opportunity to SHIT IN YOUR OPEN MOUTH in public:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:47:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>phil scott wrote
>> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Whatsa matter rightards?
>>>> You were being IGNORED.
>>> But that doesn't answer the question:
>>> What happened to the ol' rightard "yeeehaaa?"
>> the handwritting is on he wall...
>Nope.
>> states going bankrupt or on the verge,
>Pure fantasy.
Oops! Caught LYING, again...
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/10/1003_budget_shortfall/1.htm
19 States That Can't Pay for Themselves
The data is based on a study by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities released at the end of September and shows the states that
have seen the biggest shortfalls in tax revenue in their fiscal 2009
budgets.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/
Summary:
States -
Blue: 48%
Red: 26%
Purple: 26%
Gap -
Blue: 34,746,000,000 74%
Purple: 8,785,000,000 19%
Red: 3,374,000,000 7%
========================
BLUE States
California: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 22% BLUE
Gap: $22.2 billion
New York: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 9.8% BLUE
Gap: $5.5 billion
New Jersey: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 7.7% BLUE
Gap: $2.5 billion
Illinois: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 6.3% BLUE
Gap: $1.8 billion
Maryland: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 7.2% BLUE
Gap: $1.1 billion
Wisconsin: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 4.6% BLUE
Gap: $527 million
Michigan: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 4.8% BLUE
Gap: $472 million
Rhode Island: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 13.1% BLUE
Gap: $430 million
Delaware: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 6% BLUE
Gap: $217 million
RED States
Arizona: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 19.9% RED
Gap: $2 billion
Georgia: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 8.7% RED
Gap: $1.8 billion
Alabama: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 9.5% RED
Gap: $784 million
South Carolina: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 5.7% RED
Gap: $390 million
New Hampshire: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 6.4% RED
Gap: $200 million
PURPLE States
Florida: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 19.9% PURPLE
Gap: $5.1 billion
Nevada: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 16% PURPLE
Gap: $1.2 billion
Virginia: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 7.1% PURPLE
Gap: $1.2 billion
Minnesota: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 5.4% PURPLE
Gap: $935 million
Iowa: Budget gap (as a % of the total budget): 5.5% PURPLE
Gap: $350 million
Patriot Games
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the opportunity to SHIT IN YOUR OPEN MOUTH in public:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:47:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>phil scott wrote
>> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Whatsa matter rightards?
>>>> You were being IGNORED.
>>> But that doesn't answer the question:
>>> What happened to the ol' rightard "yeeehaaa?"
>> the handwritting is on he wall...
>Nope.
>> states going bankrupt or on the verge,
>Pure fantasy.
>> the issue of manufacturing moved to china is finally sinking in,
>Anyone with even half a clue has noticed that manufacturing
>is only a tiny part of any modern first world economy.
>> he issue of the banks bailed out as forclosures
>> and unemployment are still at ballistic levels...
>You're lying now. The unemployment rate isnt even in double digits.
Oops! The Homo has been caught LYING, again...
Unemployment Rates, seasonally adjusted
Alabama - 10.1%(p) in Jun 2009
California - 11.6%(p) in Jun 2009
D.C. - 10.9%(p) in Jun 2009
Florida - 10.6%(p) in Jun 2009
Georgia - 10.1%(p) in Jun 2009
Illinois - 10.3%(p) in Jun 2009
Indiana - 10.7%(p) in Jun 2009
Kentucky - 10.9%(p) in Jun 2009
Michigan - 15.2%(p) in Jun 2009
Nevada - 12.0%(p) in Jun 2009
North Carolina - 11.0%(p) in Jun 2009
Ohio - 11.1%(p) in Jun 2009
Oregon - 12.2%(p) in Jun 2009
Rhode Island - 12.4%(p) in Jun 2009
South Carolina - 12.1%(p) in Jun 2009
Tennessee - 10.8%(p) in Jun 2009
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
Rod Speed
> ornamentalmind wrote
>> One issue when conflating �tax *share*� and �tax *percent*� is that they are different things entirely and, are not
>> intuitive when it comes to quick analysis. Also such different reporting methodologies require different
>> considerations as to what the proper distribution of tax burden should be and is.
> The proper distribution is whatever it takes to leave enuf money in the hands of the masses so that they believe they
> have some investment in the system to protect.
Thats not what 'the masses' care about.
And when the US federal system ends up with the bottom
50% paying little federal tax, its clearly not possible to
leave 'the masses' with even more money in their hands.
> If the tax on them is too high, then they become debtors who no longer have any investments
'the masses' never have all that much in the way
of 'investments' except in social security etc.
> and noting to loose in revolution
We dont see revolution in ANY of the great democracys and that is ensured by other means.
> except the abolishment of their personal debts and everything to gain in the seizure of the assets of the rich.
Its a nice theory, but the modern reality is that they have plenty
of benefits of govt like welfare and social security and medicare
and medcaid etc that they care about a lot more than 'investments'
> From Machiavelli we see the oligarchs always corrupt republics.
And then the world moved on and we worked out how to control oligarchs.
> Then they move the taxes from the rich to all lower classes.
Clearly hasnt happened in the US where the bottom 50% pay little in the way of federal taxes.
Even state sales taxes which are certainly paid by the 'lower classes' arent
high enough to be a significant problem for those 'lower classes' money wise.
> Of course, it dont take long before they are all broke, and since you cant get blood from a turnip, the government
> runs out of money.
If it wasnt for the GFC and Iraq and Afghanistan, none
of the great democracys would be running out of money.
Australia ended up with no nett federal govt debt whatever just before the
GFC and it was stupid enough to get involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Since it cannot tax the rich, it BORROWS the money from them.
It actually borrows from the chinese. Fuck all of the
rich are stupid enough to bother with US Treasurys.
> This works until some creditor sees the tax base will no longer
> service the debt much less pay it off, and thus refuses to lend more.
Wont happen while ever china depends on the US economy being viable for their exports.
> Which starts a fiscal panic. The revolution produces a demagogue who arises from the masses and seizes the assets of
> the rich to gratify the taste for revenge on the part of the lower classes.
How odd that we never saw anything like that in the great depression in the great democracys.
It didnt even happen in germany.
Its a nice theory, pity about the real world.
> But revenge, while it tastes sweet, is not nutritious, so the social leeches among the lower classes starve out first.
> Darwin shows how only the most fit survive,
In fact its actually the socially very unfit that breed like flys in the real world.
> who then join together for mutual defense, and as a result start the next generation of republics.
How odd that we never saw anything like that in the great depression in the great democracys.
Its a nice theory, pity about the real world.
> Of course the rich, rather than easing the taxes on lower classes and paying off the government debt, merely hires
> mercenaries to guard their assets.
How odd that we never saw anything like that in the great depression in the great democracys.
Its a nice theory, pity about the real world.
> But one reason the rich are rich is that they always get to do things on the cheap, and think they can do this in the
> same
> way. So- they do not pay enuf guards enuf money, so the latter always join with the lower classes when the looting
> begins.
How odd that we never saw anything like that in the great depression in the great democracys.
Its just another of your pathetic little drug crazed cripple fantasys.
Rod Speed
> Michael Gordge wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> There's much more taxation than just what the IRS collects,
>> Prove it.
> The oligarchs have always tried to make everyone aware of everything
> they pay, and tried to hide everything all the lower classes pay.
They clearly didnt try hard enough when the sales taxes that
the lower classes are much more visible than the income taxes
that the top 50% end up paying and the bottom 50% dont.
Its a nice theory, pity about the real world.
> Inasmuch as they own the media, they've been fairly successful;
Nope, nothing they can do about the net, stupid.
> but now with the Internet, anyone who discovers how things work can get the real news out to those whose minds are not
> blinded by partisan group think.
Corse you arent anything like that last yourself, eh ?
> For them, this is a golden opportunity which some take by keeping
> their mouths shut about what they figured out, and how to profit from the neurotic denial of political/economic
> partisans.
> Whatever the real truth is does not fit within the mindframe of either conservative or liberal thinking.
You wouldnt know what the real truth was if it bit you on your cripple arse.
You're so stupid that you havent got a fucking clue about how the real world works.
Michael Gordge
> From:..............................
Whats your point you fucking useless envy ridden commie dirtbag?
MG
Les Cargill
Are you okay? You're... blithering. I'm a wee
bit concerned here.
Absolute productivity cannot be expressed as a percentage
or scalar ratio. It has top units, and bottom units,
and those units cannot be the same thing.
> Are you still having trouble with basic math?
I'm not the one having the difficulty here....The English
statement "productivity is skyrocketing" clearly refers to
the rate of change. That rate of change is 9.5%, an atypically
high figure.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:53:05 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:47:15 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
>> <snip>
>>> That and venture capital. Today VC is all but gone...
>> But what is interesting is how it went. Around 2002,
>> you could still get funding, but the VC guys would
>> lard up the run rate of the firm with cronies.
>
> Is there a better way to keep an eye on your money?
>
That is what they said it was for. But returning to 2002-2003,
they didn'tfund anything except crap like wireless ( or even
dialup ) ISPs and stuff that eventually became... Facebook.
Yuck.
>> And then it got worse.
>
> Yeah, Buckwheat happenned.
The world just goes by you in a blur, doesn't it?
--
Les Cargill
Patriot Games
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 1:51�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.171.90.96
>124.171.90.96 = Adelaide, Australia.
I just wanted to let everyone know that another Aussie Asshole had
joined the Newsgroup offering his services as a Human Urinal...
hahahahahahaha!!!
Patriot Games
wrote:
>I totally agree with you on R&D but to put your entire faith in the
>hands of VC's who are looking for short term gains is short sighted.
>So there is a place for government to do fundamental research in
>cancer, alternative energy, where the risk return level and time lage
>for return to great for most VC's
The gov't can't do fundamental research without the funding from taxes
which come from consumers and primarily small and medium business
which is where the VC thrives.
>Obama is doing a great job of getting the US economy out of what could
>have been a depression.
Bullshit. He's done nothing.
>Bush's tax cuts for the rich did not work
The Bush tax cuts were for everybody.
Yes, they did work. They helped to quickly level off from the
mini-Clinton Recession. At the time that wasn't a really big deal but
it became a big deal after 9/11.
>only created long term deficits
No, tax cuts don't create deficits, OVERSPENDING creates deficits.
>and lack of regulation of the private sector led to this disaster.
Rapidly rising gasoline prices last year started it and the DemocRAT
Congress has done NOTHING to correct that.
>These people are greedy individuals who are solely looking out for themselves
AND their shareholders.
>not the country.
That isn't their job, that's Congress' job...
>I have done quite well investing in the stock market since
>Obama took office.
Prove it...