Cool new photography website
suZanmi...@aim.com
HEMI-Powered
> Please check out this site:
>
> http://susiemilaniphoto.com
>
Isn't it usually more effective to have OTHERS say your site is
"cool"? To do so yourself is arrogant and presumptuous.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
alvey
>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.
Neil Harrington
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:yrymcm7c9p51$.ynqc4o8ytst9$.dlg@40tude.net...
It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as the
most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is best
which governs least."
This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their happiness and
well-being is best served by Big Daddy in Washington.
HEMI-Powered
>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US
> nowadays.
>
But, it soon WILL be! People like to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
"free" government services especially if they pay NO taxes as some
42% of ALL Americans do NOT pay today. At NO time in our history, and
certainly NOT during FDR's New Deal, did spending money bring us back
to prosperity. Worse still, when the government has to BORROW said
money, even more problems are created. But, if you're still not
convinced, look into what is in the $1.2 TRILLION stimulus package
(counting interest) and decide for yourself if it will or won't help
YOU.
Our country was ripe for a major change for a number of reasons, some
good, most bad. There is an unrealistic euphoria right now as to what
President Obama and the new Democratic super majority can do. I think
we can see by the number of stumbles the president has made in less
than 3 weeks that it is MUCH harder to govern than it is to campaign,
and people WILL be calling on him to deliver on some 570 promises he
made. How SPENDING money on social engineering will revive the
economy is beyond me.
I stand by Reagan's notion - BIG, Far Left Loon Government IS the
problem, and is NEVER the solution.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>> US nowadays.
>
> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
> "That government is best which governs least."
It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.
> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
> Washington.
>
Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes. Once the
tax cuts and wealth redistribution in whatever stimulus package is
eventually signed into law takes effect, it is estimated that OVER
52% of ALL Americans will pay NO tax at all. So, it should be
crystal clear to understand WHY so many people are beating the drum
for what is NOT an economic stimulus package at all, but simply a
Liberal social spending bill. Easy example: what in Hell does some
$200 MILLION for abortions in Europe have anything to do with OUR
economy, or the multiple MILLIONS slated for ACORN, a known radical
group that engages in voter fraud on a massive scale, or why are we
spending $600 MILLION for new cars for the Federal government in
some vain attempt to be more green, especially when the type of
cars the president wants do NOT even exist?! I could go on, but I
think people get the idea.
The reason that President Obama is in such a RUSH to jam this bill
through Congress is that he KNOWS that the American people will be
outraged once they learn what's in it, just as the people are
outraged about last year's TARP waste. As we speak, every day that
goes by, the number of people who OPPOSE the president and Nancy
Pelosi's attempt at Socialism rises but I'm sure we'll still go
down in flames.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
Ray Fischer
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
>I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.
It's also an out-of-context quote that misrepresents what Reagan was
actually saying. Of course, the full meaning runs contrary to the
rightard agenda so they don't include the rest.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our
problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been
tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be
managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is
superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one
among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has
the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and
out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek
must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher
price.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>
>>
>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.
>
>It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as the
>most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is best
>which governs least."
Because anarchy really is the best form of government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>> US nowadays.
>>
>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
>> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
>> "That government is best which governs least."
>
>It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.
>
>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
>> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
>> Washington.
>>
>Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes.
The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax rates are
reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay with, and the very
richest, who have the money to buy politicians and swat th gullible.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
You mean the gullible such as yourself?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
alvey
Get out those macro lenses boys! There's a stirred up hornet's nest to
snap.
John Passaneau
Daddy" isn't doing his job.
John Passaneau
Neil Harrington
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BAC858B5B3...@216.168.3.30...
> Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>> US nowadays.
>>
>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
>> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
>> "That government is best which governs least."
>
> It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.
It's been attributed to both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and some say
John Adams, but it appears to be actually Henry David Thoreau who originated
that exact line, in his essay "Civil Disobedience." He was agreeing with and
(perhaps unintentionally) paraphrasing a motto he read in a
literary/political magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
Ralph Waldo Emerson said something similar in his essay "Politics" -- "The
less government we have the better -- the fewer laws and the less confided
power."
>
>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
>> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
>> Washington.
>>
> Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes. Once the
> tax cuts and wealth redistribution in whatever stimulus package is
> eventually signed into law takes effect, it is estimated that OVER
> 52% of ALL Americans will pay NO tax at all. So, it should be
> crystal clear to understand WHY so many people are beating the drum
> for what is NOT an economic stimulus package at all, but simply a
> Liberal social spending bill. Easy example: what in Hell does some
> $200 MILLION for abortions in Europe have anything to do with OUR
> economy, or the multiple MILLIONS slated for ACORN, a known radical
> group that engages in voter fraud on a massive scale, or why are we
> spending $600 MILLION for new cars for the Federal government in
> some vain attempt to be more green, especially when the type of
> cars the president wants do NOT even exist?! I could go on, but I
> think people get the idea.
Just so. It is all those things and more. For example, $88.6 million for new
school construction in Milwaukee, which has a shrinking student enrollment,
15 empty schools NOW, and no plans for new construction.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/39233162.html?page=2&c=y
>
> The reason that President Obama is in such a RUSH to jam this bill
> through Congress is that he KNOWS that the American people will be
> outraged once they learn what's in it, just as the people are
> outraged about last year's TARP waste. As we speak, every day that
> goes by, the number of people who OPPOSE the president and Nancy
> Pelosi's attempt at Socialism rises but I'm sure we'll still go
> down in flames.
The American people are already learning about it and they don't like it.
According to the Rasmussen polls, public support for the so-called stimulus
package has fallen steadily and is now at 37%. Even Democrats support for it
has dropped from 74% to 64% just in the last week; it now has only 13%
Republican support and 27% among unaffiliated.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Those who believe its passage is likely are still a majority but also much
fewer in the past week, so there's at least a chance it can be stopped. I've
e-mailed my congresscritters in both houses today complaining about it. If
enough people do the same we might actually stop this enormous and
astronomically expensive hog farm.
Neil Harrington
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:498f2ed7$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates and pay far
more than their share of the taxes. "The gullible" are those who year after
year fall for the Democrats' well-worn but evidently still successful class
envy propaganda.
Look at our big corporations and all the jobs and wealth they create. That's
where "the very richest" are. Would you really want to see those major
corporations done away with and replaced by mom-and-pop stores or other
middle-class businesses? Think what that would do to the wealth of the
country.
Neil Harrington
"John Passaneau" <w3...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:gmnnk1$a402$1...@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu...
Or doing far too much of what he thinks is his job.
The origins of this economic mess lie in Clinton's expanding the Community
Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions to lend money to poor people
and minorities, many of whom were poor credit risks. This of course was one
of the reasons for the housing bubble -- lots more mortgages being written
for people who couldn't afford the houses they were buying (or didn't fully
understand the mortgages), buying more and more houses and driving prices
up. As long as prices kept going up the banks had little to worry about,
since even a default would probably not cost the lender anything.
Added to this were the activities of community "activist" groups, especially
ACORN, which used various methods to coerce local banks into making loans to
poor people. They would occupy bank lobbies and block teller drive-throughs,
protest in front of bank officers' homes, threaten legal action against the
banks, etc. And right in there helping ACORN was the "community organizer"
Barack Obama.
Once the housing bubble burst, as eventually bubbles always do, and prices
starting falling, the low-income poor-credit-risk "owners" who had bought
homes at 5% down or even nothing down, soon realized that they had no real
equity in their homes -- often still owed more principal than the homes were
worth. Then when payments went higher as variable-rate mortgages reset,
etc., they realized they could just walk away from their houses and leave
the banks holding the bag.
Note that since 2003, McCain and several other senators (but not a single
Democrat) warned about the enormous amounts of money in these very risky
loans and tried to get stricter regulation of them. They were blocked by the
Democrats at every turn. Barney Frank in particular kept insisting that the
Republicans were "making mountains out of molehills" and there was nothing
to worry about. That was his position right up to the beginning of the
financial collapse.
Rich
216.168.3.30:
> added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Please check out this site:
>>
>> http://susiemilaniphoto.com
>>
> Isn't it usually more effective to have OTHERS say your site is
> "cool"? To do so yourself is arrogant and presumptuous.
>
Don't you know? It's straight out of the self-promoting spam handbook.
Like,
"I just happened to run across this cool new site..."
Ray Fischer
>>>>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>>>> US nowadays.
>>>>
>>>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
>>>> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
>>>> "That government is best which governs least."
>>>
>>>It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.
>>>
>>>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
>>>> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
>>>> Washington.
>>>>
>>>Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes.
>>
>> The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax rates are
>> reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay with, and the very
>> richest, who have the money to buy politicians and swat th gullible.
>
>That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates
Not according to the IRS.
Richest americans' income doubled as tax rate slashed
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
Bloomberg News
Posted: 01/30/2009 08:21:06 PM PST
The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a
third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush
administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million,
new IRS data shows.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US
>>>> nowadays.
>>>
>>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as
>>> the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is
>>> best which governs least."
>>>
>>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their happiness and
>>> well-being is best served by Big Daddy in Washington.
>> The Current economic mess is a prim example of what happens when "Big
>> Daddy" isn't doing his job.
>
>Or doing far too much of what he thinks is his job.
>
>The origins of this economic mess lie in Clinton's expanding the Community
>Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions to lend money to poor people
>and minorities,
Rightard propaganda and a sleazy lie. In reality those subprime loans
were only a small part of all loans and have had little to do with the
current crisis.
The real cause of the current situation is Wall Street firms gambling
billions of dollar on a bubble and losing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
So quote the tax forms for us. The ones I have don't give any kind of
tax break for high income. There's something you're leaving out, but
then the Big Lie is really your thing, isn't it?
Ray Fischer
Tax returns are confidential, idiot. Are you claiming that the IRS is
lying?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Neil Ellwood
> Please check out this site:
>
> http://susiemilaniphoto.com
I did but have now recovered.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> The Current economic mess is a prim example of what happens
>> when "Big Daddy" isn't doing his job.
>
> Or doing far too much of what he thinks is his job.
>
> The origins of this economic mess lie in Clinton's expanding the
> Community Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions to lend
> money to poor people and minorities, many of whom were poor
> credit risks. This of course was one of the reasons for the
> housing bubble -- lots more mortgages being written for people
> who couldn't afford the houses they were buying (or didn't fully
> understand the mortgages), buying more and more houses and
> driving prices up. As long as prices kept going up the banks had
> little to worry about, since even a default would probably not
> cost the lender anything.
Yes, and essentially nothing was done to regulate or control this
even under George W. Bush who disagreed with government's role even
though the basic premise SEEMS to be a good one. Alan Greenspan,
appointed by Clinton I think, testified in 2003 and 2005 AGAINST
Fannie and Freddie expanding their reach into the sub-prime arena
and warned against the risk involved should there be a credit
crunch OR a housing price decline, both of which we NOW know
actually did happen.
> Added to this were the activities of community "activist"
> groups, especially ACORN, which used various methods to coerce
> local banks into making loans to poor people. They would occupy
> bank lobbies and block teller drive-throughs, protest in front
> of bank officers' homes, threaten legal action against the
> banks, etc. And right in there helping ACORN was the "community
> organizer" Barack Obama.
Right again.
> Once the housing bubble burst, as eventually bubbles always do,
> and prices starting falling, the low-income poor-credit-risk
> "owners" who had bought homes at 5% down or even nothing down,
> soon realized that they had no real equity in their homes --
> often still owed more principal than the homes were worth. Then
> when payments went higher as variable-rate mortgages reset,
> etc., they realized they could just walk away from their houses
> and leave the banks holding the bag.
Most sub-prime loans were a new genre, interest only, where the
principal NEVER gets paid back and the "home owner" is essentially
renting same as before. But this time, once mortgages went
underwater as prices declined below the borrowed amount, it was
only human nature for people to STOP paying and let the bank
foreclose.
> Note that since 2003, McCain and several other senators (but not
> a single Democrat) warned about the enormous amounts of money in
> these very risky loans and tried to get stricter regulation of
> them. They were blocked by the Democrats at every turn. Barney
> Frank in particular kept insisting that the Republicans were
> "making mountains out of molehills" and there was nothing to
> worry about. That was his position right up to the beginning of
> the financial collapse.
>
McCain had actually co-sponsored two bills in these years, both
with Democrats also co-sponsoring but they never reached the floor
of the Senate for debate and vote that I'm aware of.
Altruistic reasons aside, where was Congress in it's oversight
role? From 1994 to 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress yet
essentially NO House or Senate public hearings were held even
though both the Clinton and Bush White Houses KNEW there was
trouble brewing. But, if you've ever listened to Barney Frank or
Chris Dodd bloviate during floor debates, you KNOW how LITTLE they
intended to use their oversight powers. In fact, BOTH these guys
along with others like Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer, to name
just two of MANY, in fact CONTINUED to encourage expanding the sub-
prime market by even MORE governmental pressure on Fannie and
Freddie and even the major independent commercial banks, mortgage
companies, and other financial institutions.
In my view, there is PLENTY of blame to go around on BOTH sides of
the aisle but unfortunately for Bush and his Republican hopeful
candidate John McCain, the American people associated the problem
which reared it's ugly head only last September as a George Bush-
caused meltdown and pretty much, the American people were strongly
AGAINST the TARP bailouts, which we've seen have NOT worked.
Now that the Democrats have swept into power with super majorities
in both houses of Congress, it apparently is OK for President Obama
to be arrogant in proclaiming "I inherited this mess, but I won,
they lost, so we're going to do it my way", in essence saying there
ain't nothin' you can do to stop me from putting a massive SPENDING
bill into play. Gee, did ANY of these people listen to their own
oath of office?
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> The reason that President Obama is in such a RUSH to jam this
>> bill through Congress is that he KNOWS that the American people
>> will be outraged once they learn what's in it, just as the
>> people are outraged about last year's TARP waste. As we speak,
>> every day that goes by, the number of people who OPPOSE the
>> president and Nancy Pelosi's attempt at Socialism rises but I'm
>> sure we'll still go down in flames.
>
> The American people are already learning about it and they don't
> like it. According to the Rasmussen polls, public support for
> the so-called stimulus package has fallen steadily and is now at
> 37%. Even Democrats support for it has dropped from 74% to 64%
> just in the last week; it now has only 13% Republican support
> and 27% among unaffiliated. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
>
> Those who believe its passage is likely are still a majority but
> also much fewer in the past week, so there's at least a chance
> it can be stopped. I've e-mailed my congresscritters in both
> houses today complaining about it. If enough people do the same
> we might actually stop this enormous and astronomically
> expensive hog farm.
>
The main problem that those who oppose the so-called stimulus plan
supported by Obama and the Democrats is that the American people
have NO direct way to influence the thinking or votes of their
elected representatives except to barrage them with phone calls and
E-mails which appears to be happening but likely will have no
effect OR the Republicans attempting to stop the bill in the Senate
with a filibuster. The Red Team is reticent to do that right now
because the 53% who DID vote for the Blue Team would instantly
label them as obstructionists and the Obama Administration would
seize the opportunity to continue to hammer the Republicans as
devoid of new ideas. Yet, just the appointment of an Economic
Recovery Advisory Board is a sure sign that even the president
himself KNOWS this is a lost cause and is attempting to snow under
all objections. Look for some tough words in tonight's speech.
Let me repeat, going all the way back to FDR's New Deal, the first
real test of Keynesian Economics, there has NEVER been a successful
recovery from ANY economic downturn by trying to spend our way out,
especially when the country has seen it's national debt double in
just the last 8 years AND a major shift from Americans owning the
debt to foreign countries such as China, Japan, Iran, and others
owning most of our printed money. It is actually these people that
force Henry Paulson's hand last week as they threatened to dump our
T-bills on the open market which would have destroyed the dollar.
By way of comparison, the ENTIRE New Deal, in today's dollars
adjusted for inflation, is "only" $550B, barely over HALF just ONE
stimulus bill. If we could get MORE exposure of the details of the
questionable spending in this bill before the American people,
there would be a sufficient outcry to stop it, but ...
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>>Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes.
>>
>> The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax
>> rates are reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay
>> with, and the very richest, who have the money to buy
>> politicians and swat th gullible.
>
> That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates and
> pay far more than their share of the taxes. "The gullible" are
> those who year after year fall for the Democrats' well-worn but
> evidently still successful class envy propaganda.
You are entirely right, Neil. The top 1% of AGI taxpayers pay 40%
of the taxes, the bottom 38% - soon to rise to 52% - pay ZERO, thus
the middle class and upper middle class pay about half. Seems to me
that this is as fair as it gets, but one must consider one other
thing:
EVERY time government has raised marginal tax rates and/or cap gain
rates, the truly rich bail and seek tax shelters thus aggregate tax
revenues go DOWN, not up, which is patently counter-productive.
For those who drank the poison Kool-Aid of "I will provide tax cuts
for 95% of all Americans", it seems that NO ONE understands that
the president is including ALL Federal taxes paid by individuals,
including Social Security and Medicare in that, except that these
DO NOT COUNT! Thus refundable tax credits to the 38% who pay NO
true income taxes amounts to ordinary old-fashioned welfare
payments.
The best economists today say that a) the stimulus package will do
little or nothing within the next 2-3 years and all but b) WILL
cause interest rates AND inflation to rise dramatically starting in
about 2011 as all of our current debt and the NEW trillion dollar
debt needs to be re-financed. And, friends, all of this does NOT
include the NORMAL spending that a liberal administration is likely
to propose later. And, stopping the war in Iraq will NOT help as it
is off-budget spending AND is also financed by borrowing so that
ending the war even immediately saves NO money, it just slows down
the rise of the deficits.
> Look at our big corporations and all the jobs and wealth they
> create. That's where "the very richest" are. Would you really
> want to see those major corporations done away with and replaced
> by mom-and-pop stores or other middle-class businesses? Think
> what that would do to the wealth of the country.
>
I think we're seeing the first signs of the death knell of
capitalistic big corporations. Eventually, the idiotic notion of
limiting compensation to $500K/year will spread to more and more
corporations leading inevitibly to a brain drain.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
Cynicor
Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the RNC,
Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the history of
mankind has the government ever created a job."
I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
Cynicor
Maybe this graph will explain things better for those who want to
exclude the past eight years. Oh, and CRA-backed loans have had lower
rates of default than average.
HEMI-Powered
>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>> US nowadays.
>
> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the
> RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the
> history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>
> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>
Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT. FDR tried it and failed, as
did JFK and LBJ via the Great Society, even Clinton tried it, each
time getting bigger and bigger. BUSINESS creates jobs, get over it.
Government only creates make-work jobs which strangle the economy,
expand the deficit and trample on YOUR freedom.
But, since it is obvious that you are one of the Far Left Loons,
get out your 4-function calculator and try this one on, that is if
you don't suffer from acalculia:
The stimulus plan is about $800 BILLION and is reputed to create
(average) of 2,000,000 new jobs, if that. Which works out to about
$400 THOUSAND per every new job created. Do you in your wildest
imagination think that is OK?! Looking at the same $800B another
way, it is enough to give EVERY single taxpayer a $5,000 instant
rebate and every married couple filing jointly a $10,000 instant
rebate. Who do YOU think is better able to spend this amount, YOU
and your wife or the stupids in Washington?
I rest my case. Oh, and if you haven't already, I encourage you to
actually look for yourself as to what ludicrous things the $800B of
YOUR money will be squandered on. Easy example: some $200 MILLION
to fund abortions - in EUROPE! Spending ANY money to murder
innocent fetuses is so morally obscene as to defy imagintion, but
if the Europeans want to murder their future children, let them
fund it themselves!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
HEMI-Powered
>> The real cause of the current situation is Wall Street firms
>> gambling billions of dollar on a bubble and losing.
>
> Maybe this graph will explain things better for those who want
> to exclude the past eight years. Oh, and CRA-backed loans have
> had lower rates of default than average.
>
> http://trupin.smugmug.com/photos/470512519_UqJkL-X3.jpg
>
The BEST way I have seen the sub-prime problem described is when the
GREEDY (Wall Street), encouraged by the CORRUPT (Congress) meet up
with the STUPID (prospective homeowners with poor paying jobs). That
is a sure recipe for disaster! I see absolutely NO reason for the
American people to even be involved in encouraging home ownership and
even LESS reason to bail out the purveyors of risky loans OR the
people so stupid as to not read the contract they were signing to
determine they couldn't afford the house in the first place.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>>
> The BEST way I have seen the sub-prime problem described is when the
> GREEDY (Wall Street), encouraged by the CORRUPT (Congress) meet up
> with the STUPID (prospective homeowners with poor paying jobs). That
> is a sure recipe for disaster!
You get not only the Mark Twain award, but the P. T. Barnum award
too, for succinctly summing up the problem.
Doug McDonald
HEMI-Powered
an op-ed in my local newspaper. You seem to agree with me that this
is brilliant in it's simplicity. It's too bad that our elected
leaders - and I don't care what party you like - would think first of
the American people at large, second on their specific consituents,
and DEAD LAST their party and their own re-election.
Over my lifetime, I've seen a steady erosion in politicians doing a
reasonable job of representing their constituents to the point where
in the last few election cycles, the process has broken down
completely into partisan haggling with each side spending the vast
majority of their time spinning their side up and trying to demagogue
their opposition. In short, BOTH parties are obstructionist. I really
would like to see TRUE bi-partisanship sometime before I die, but I'm
not holding my breath.
Have a pleasant day!
Cynicor
> Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>> US nowadays.
>> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the
>> RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the
>> history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>>
>> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>>
> Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT.
So there are no such things as DOT road crews. Thanks for the clarification.
Neil Harrington
This is mainly a problem of communication. A large and growing number of
Americans already *want* obstructionism if that's what it will take to stop
this massive boondoggle, and this is somewhat surprising in light of the
fact that the leftist-"liberal" press has been steadfastly pro-Obama in all
things and unlikely to want to print or broadcast anything that might
interfere with his success. As more information about what this huge
monstrosity actually contains reaches the people, they will surely turn
increasingly against it. As you've said, this is why The Bama is desperate
to rush it through.
> Yet, just the appointment of an Economic
> Recovery Advisory Board is a sure sign that even the president
> himself KNOWS this is a lost cause and is attempting to snow under
> all objections. Look for some tough words in tonight's speech.
>
> Let me repeat, going all the way back to FDR's New Deal, the first
> real test of Keynesian Economics, there has NEVER been a successful
> recovery from ANY economic downturn by trying to spend our way out,
> especially when the country has seen it's national debt double in
> just the last 8 years AND a major shift from Americans owning the
> debt to foreign countries such as China, Japan, Iran, and others
> owning most of our printed money. It is actually these people that
> force Henry Paulson's hand last week as they threatened to dump our
> T-bills on the open market which would have destroyed the dollar.
>
> By way of comparison, the ENTIRE New Deal, in today's dollars
> adjusted for inflation, is "only" $550B, barely over HALF just ONE
> stimulus bill. If we could get MORE exposure of the details of the
> questionable spending in this bill before the American people,
> there would be a sufficient outcry to stop it, but ...
Yes. That's the problem, right there.
Neil Harrington
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>>>>> US nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
>>>>> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
>>>>> "That government is best which governs least."
>>>>
>>>>It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.
>>>>
>>>>> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
>>>>> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
>>>>> Washington.
>>>>>
>>>>Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes.
>>>
>>> The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax rates are
>>> reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay with, and the very
>>> richest, who have the money to buy politicians and swat th gullible.
>>
>>That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates
>
> Not according to the IRS.
>
> Richest americans' income doubled as tax rate slashed
Most people's income went up as the tax rate was slashed. Mine sure did, and
I'm not one of the "richest Americans." Tax cuts are great for business,
great for consumers, people buy more, corporations make more money, stocks
go up, dividends go up, and so on. Even the government makes more money --
as incomes go up, revenues go up.
>
> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
> Bloomberg News
> Posted: 01/30/2009 08:21:06 PM PST
>
> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a
> third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush
> administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million,
> new IRS data shows.
What did they actually *pay* in taxes? If your tax rate goes down and for
all the above reasons your income then goes way up, you will likely pay more
taxes. Tax *rate* is not the same as tax *liability*, do you not understand
that?
The part you've quoted is misleading, probably deliberately so, because the
writer is comparing apples and oranges. That may serve his agenda but it
isn't conveying information in an honest and useful form.
HEMI-Powered
>>> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of
>>> the RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in
>>> the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>>>
>>> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>>>
>> Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT.
>
> So there are no such things as DOT road crews. Thanks for the
> clarification.
>
I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There have
been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and maintenence
of existing roads is the responsibility of the state or local
governments. But, you are clearly picking fly shit off the back of
gnats if your assertion is that government is an efficient or
effective employer of people OR an entity that spends YOUR money
wisely.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
Neil Harrington
He's asking you to quote the tax *forms*, doofus, not tax *returns*.
Anyway, where is this "new IRS data" in its entirety? If "their average
income doubled to $263.3
million," what dollar change was there in their average taxes? You quote the
"average tax rate . . . fell" as a percentage but the "average income
doubled" as a dollar amount. Do you really not understand that that's
meaningless?
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>
>> The main problem that those who oppose the so-called stimulus
>> plan supported by Obama and the Democrats is that the American
>> people have NO direct way to influence the thinking or votes of
>> their elected representatives except to barrage them with phone
>> calls and E-mails which appears to be happening but likely will
>> have no effect OR the Republicans attempting to stop the bill
>> in the Senate with a filibuster. The Red Team is reticent to do
>> that right now because the 53% who DID vote for the Blue Team
>> would instantly label them as obstructionists and the Obama
>> Administration would seize the opportunity to continue to
>> hammer the Republicans as devoid of new ideas.
>
> This is mainly a problem of communication. A large and growing
> number of Americans already *want* obstructionism if that's what
> it will take to stop this massive boondoggle, and this is
> somewhat surprising in light of the fact that the
> leftist-"liberal" press has been steadfastly pro-Obama in all
> things and unlikely to want to print or broadcast anything that
> might interfere with his success. As more information about what
> this huge monstrosity actually contains reaches the people, they
> will surely turn increasingly against it. As you've said, this
> is why The Bama is desperate to rush it through.
>
I agree to a point. Polls have consistently shown that the American
people overall are right of center but they DO change ideologies
depending on the candidates and issues of particular elections, as
was the case in 2008. However, while I think that the vast majority
of Americans want FAIR and JUST spending of their money and want
proper oversight to prevent abuse, I doubt they actually want
obstructionist activities EXCEPT in the situation you cite - to try
to stop a boondoggle.
My point is that I would much prefer if the two parties BETTER
cooperated with each other in working FOR the American people. If
they would do just that, there would be LESS boondoggles. Then
again, one party is for a nanny state that wants to control every
aspect of our lives while the other is for self-reliance. Perhaps
that is too big a gap to bridge with ordinary logic.
>> Yet, just the appointment of an Economic
>> Recovery Advisory Board is a sure sign that even the president
>> himself KNOWS this is a lost cause and is attempting to snow
>> under all objections. Look for some tough words in tonight's
>> speech.
>>
>> Let me repeat, going all the way back to FDR's New Deal, the
>> first real test of Keynesian Economics, there has NEVER been a
>> successful recovery from ANY economic downturn by trying to
>> spend our way out, especially when the country has seen it's
>> national debt double in just the last 8 years AND a major shift
>> from Americans owning the debt to foreign countries such as
>> China, Japan, Iran, and others owning most of our printed
>> money. It is actually these people that force Henry Paulson's
>> hand last week as they threatened to dump our T-bills on the
>> open market which would have destroyed the dollar.
>>
>> By way of comparison, the ENTIRE New Deal, in today's dollars
>> adjusted for inflation, is "only" $550B, barely over HALF just
>> ONE stimulus bill. If we could get MORE exposure of the details
>> of the questionable spending in this bill before the American
>> people, there would be a sufficient outcry to stop it, but ...
>
> Yes. That's the problem, right there.
>
Which part? You quoted 3 different aspects of the current recovery
effort. Or, are you saying that a) Obama is lost in the woods
barely 3 weeks in as he learns the hard way that it is harder to
actually govern than it is to bloviate about how bad the other guy
was and b) you're agreeing that Keynesian Economics has always been
a failed theory and c) this stimulus bill - which is REALLY a
MASSIVE social engineering SPENDING bill - is truly TWICE as bad as
the ENTIRE New Deal, which spanned some 9 or so years?
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> Richest americans' income doubled as tax rate slashed
>
> Most people's income went up as the tax rate was slashed. Mine
> sure did, and I'm not one of the "richest Americans." Tax cuts
> are great for business, great for consumers, people buy more,
> corporations make more money, stocks go up, dividends go up, and
> so on. Even the government makes more money -- as incomes go
> up, revenues go up.
When there still were capital gains to be had, I benefited
considerably by the lowering of cap gains from 28-32% to only 15%
and benefitted even more through taxation of dividends that were
taxed at 15% as a return of capital. That is undeniable. Of course,
those either unable to figure out how to make money in the market
through being too poor or too stupid don't benefit, but these
people DO benefit from the VERY low marginal tax rates and large
exemptions and standard deduction for those in the bottom half of
the AGI distribution.
When marginal taxes have been raised in the past, as Clinton tried
and all Democrats before him at one time or another, not only did
aggregate IRS revenues go DOWN, but the percentage of the overall
tax burden for the "rich" went DOWN but for the poor went UP,
making a higher "soak the rich" tax actually less progressive,
i.e., more regressive, exactly the opposite of what the liberals
would have you believe. Their stock in trade is to spout a populist
line that people THINK will help them but really hurts them in the
end.
And, let us not forget that even people without their own private
stock portfolio or 401(k) portfolio likely are STILL in the market
by virtue of their company's pension manager's investments. So,
lowering corporate tax rates which are now the 2nd highest in the
entire world, helps the little guy AND helps business to reinvest
more of their revenue in turn creating more jobs.
>>
>> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
>> Bloomberg News
>> Posted: 01/30/2009 08:21:06 PM PST
>>
>> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell
>> by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of
>> the Bush administration and their average income doubled to
>> $263.3 million, new IRS data shows.
>
> What did they actually *pay* in taxes? If your tax rate goes
> down and for all the above reasons your income then goes way up,
> you will likely pay more taxes. Tax *rate* is not the same as
> tax *liability*, do you not understand that?
>
> The part you've quoted is misleading, probably deliberately so,
> because the writer is comparing apples and oranges. That may
> serve his agenda but it isn't conveying information in an honest
> and useful form.
>
Neil, I'm preaching to the choir with you as you have a very good
grasp of what this is all about. For those who don't know or REFUSE
to end their ignorance, take a look at this web site which shows
the entire situation of how AGI and total taxes paid as a percent
of the total works out:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
Neil Harrington
The communication part. As I said before, that's the problem. The more the
people *understand* how their money's being spent, mainly for pork,
political payback, and/or just to spend money, the more they will turn
against it.
The Bama smirks at the complaint that this is just a spending bill. He
claims, of course it's a spending bill; a stimulus bill is a spending bill.
In his mind they appear to be the same thing. So if for example more
hundreds of millions of dollars are shoveled out to ACORN, which one way or
another probably will happen, he thinks that is stimulus. Increasing tax
"refunds" to people who pay no taxes at all is stimulus, in his view. And so
on.
> You quoted 3 different aspects of the current recovery
> effort. Or, are you saying that a) Obama is lost in the woods
> barely 3 weeks in as he learns the hard way that it is harder to
> actually govern than it is to bloviate about how bad the other guy
> was
Yes, that too.
> and b) you're agreeing that Keynesian Economics has always been
> a failed theory
Not entirely, or not necessarily. I'm neither an attacker nor a defender of
Keynesian theory; frankly that isn't an area in which I can claim any
expertise.
> and c) this stimulus bill - which is REALLY a
> MASSIVE social engineering SPENDING bill - is truly TWICE as bad as
> the ENTIRE New Deal, which spanned some 9 or so years?
Yes.
Benlars
> (average) of 2,000,000 new jobs, if that. Which works out to about
> $400 THOUSAND per every new job created. Do you in your wildest
> imagination think that is OK?
This fallacious argument has been made before by people who forget the
investment aspect to the expenditure. For example the Hoover dam cost about
$165 million in the early 1930's which is about $2.6 BILLION in today's
dollars. At any given time, about 3,500 were employed on the project. Does
this mean the project created jobs at $750,000 each? Of course not. First
of all the jobs ran more than 1 year, but even taking that into account you
still come up with over $200,000 per job (in today's dollars). But that
calculation totally ignores the assest that was created - production of over
4.6 billion Kwh of electricity per year for decades, control of river
flooding, creation of a giant watersports recreation area, etc. We're not
spending $800 billion to just have people dig holes and then fill them in
again. Done right, after that $800 billion is spent we'll have some much
needed assests to use for years to come - passable roads and enough of them
to relieve congestion; a significant reduction in energy costs going to
foreign (mostly hostile) governments; better capability to educate our kids
so they can function in a very complex world; reduction in health care
costs, etc. With a little luck, those assets may return more to us than the
$800 billion we spent in the first place.
>>Looking at the same $800B another
> way, it is enough to give EVERY single taxpayer a $5,000 instant
> rebate and every married couple filing jointly a $10,000 instant
> rebate. Who do YOU think is better able to spend this amount, YOU
> and your wife or the stupids in Washington?
Given that my wife and I probably wouldn't spend it (we'd try to save it
instead) and that half of those that would spend it would send it right to
China (since half of everything you buy now seems to come from there) and
given that within a few years we'd still have to pay for those roads and
schools and energy independence projects, I don't have any problem letting
the government handle it this time as long as they're spending in the U. S.
on things we're going to need anyway. Will everything they spend it on be a
reasonable investment in our future quality of life? Certainly not. But if
the bulk of it is, then the remainder that isn't just has to be considered
as the water that slops over the edge of the bucket while you're frantically
running to put out the fire.
Neil Harrington
> Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>
>>> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
>>> Bloomberg News
>>> Posted: 01/30/2009 08:21:06 PM PST
>>>
>>> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell
>>> by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of
>>> the Bush administration and their average income doubled to
>>> $263.3 million, new IRS data shows.
>>
>> What did they actually *pay* in taxes? If your tax rate goes
>> down and for all the above reasons your income then goes way up,
>> you will likely pay more taxes. Tax *rate* is not the same as
>> tax *liability*, do you not understand that?
>>
>> The part you've quoted is misleading, probably deliberately so,
>> because the writer is comparing apples and oranges. That may
>> serve his agenda but it isn't conveying information in an honest
>> and useful form.
>>
> Neil, I'm preaching to the choir with you as you have a very good
> grasp of what this is all about. For those who don't know or REFUSE
> to end their ignorance, take a look at this web site which shows
> the entire situation of how AGI and total taxes paid as a percent
> of the total works out:
>
> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
That's an extremely useful page. Everyone should look at it, especially
those who think "the rich aren't paying enough taxes."
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> Which part?
>
> The communication part. As I said before, that's the problem.
> The more the people *understand* how their money's being spent,
> mainly for pork, political payback, and/or just to spend money,
> the more they will turn against it.
OK. I fully agree. The more the social engineering boondoggles are
exposed, the lower public approval ratings go, hence why the
president made one passioned plea in Elkhart, Indiana at noon and
will try the hard sell tonight at 8:00PM.
> The Bama smirks at the complaint that this is just a spending
> bill. He claims, of course it's a spending bill; a stimulus bill
> is a spending bill. In his mind they appear to be the same
> thing. So if for example more hundreds of millions of dollars
> are shoveled out to ACORN, which one way or another probably
> will happen, he thinks that is stimulus. Increasing tax
> "refunds" to people who pay no taxes at all is stimulus, in his
> view. And so on.
>
There ARE ways to stimulate an economy through spending, just FAR
fewer than the typical liberal would lead you to believe. Both of
us could cite example after example after example of the
nonsensical crap in this bill, but who here would listen?
>> and b) you're agreeing that Keynesian Economics has always been
>> a failed theory
>
> Not entirely, or not necessarily. I'm neither an attacker nor a
> defender of Keynesian theory; frankly that isn't an area in
> which I can claim any expertise.
I don't have a problem with Keynes per se, there IS something to be
said for MODEST government spending to both stimulate the economy
and accomplish worthwhile social goals, but MUCH more needs to be
aimed at the private sector along with prudent tax cuts, as has
worked so many times in the past even when done probably by a
liberal president such as JFK.
I am also not an economist nor a monetarist, but I am a thinker and
I CAN look back in history for comparisons to what was happening
then, what was tried to correct problems, and the success achieved.
>
Cheers!
Cynicor
> Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of
>>>> the RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in
>>>> the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>>>>
>>>> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>>>>
>>> Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT.
>> So there are no such things as DOT road crews. Thanks for the
>> clarification.
>>
> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There have
> been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and maintenence
> of existing roads is the responsibility of the state or local
> governments. But, you are clearly picking fly shit off the back of
> gnats if your assertion is that government is an efficient or
> effective employer of people OR an entity that spends YOUR money
> wisely.
So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the government
has never created a job.
Cynicor
> I agree to a point. Polls have consistently shown that the American
> people overall are right of center
This is completely untrue.
First of all, by definition the "American people overall" are center.
Now, the question is where the "center" is. Polls consistently show that
on most issues both domestic and international, that center aligns more
closely with the Democratic Party.
Neil Harrington
"Cynicor" <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote in message
news:4990af92$0$3222$607e...@cv.net...
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> I agree to a point. Polls have consistently shown that the American
>> people overall are right of center
>
> This is completely untrue.
>
> First of all, by definition the "American people overall" are center.
Well, no. It's not like IQ, in which the average is (or is supposed to be)
100. There is a political left and a political right, what lies between them
is along a continuum or spectrum, and there's nothing that says the average
has to be the center.
Think of it as if it were the visible spectrum, which runs from about 400 to
700 nm, so that 550 nm (yellowish green) is the center. If you increase the
blue end and reduce the red end (or vice versa) you will change the average
greatly and therefore the perceived color, but the center will still be the
same 550 nm.
> Now, the question is where the "center" is. Polls consistently show that
> on most issues both domestic and international, that center aligns more
> closely with the Democratic Party.
Not really. The left may become more popular at times because most of the
news and entertainment media are decidedly leftist, and they are powerful
and influential. But the Democratic Party is nowhere near the center and if
anything is getting farther away from it.
HEMI-Powered
>>>Looking at the same $800B another
>> way, it is enough to give EVERY single taxpayer a $5,000
>> instant rebate and every married couple filing jointly a
>> $10,000 instant rebate. Who do YOU think is better able to
>> spend this amount, YOU and your wife or the stupids in
>> Washington?
>
> Given that my wife and I probably wouldn't spend it (we'd try to
> save it instead) and that half of those that would spend it
> would send it right to China (since half of everything you buy
> now seems to come from there) and given that within a few years
> we'd still have to pay for those roads and schools and energy
> independence projects, I don't have any problem letting the
> government handle it this time as long as they're spending in
> the U. S. on things we're going to need anyway. Will everything
> they spend it on be a reasonable investment in our future
> quality of life? Certainly not. But if the bulk of it is, then
> the remainder that isn't just has to be considered as the water
> that slops over the edge of the bucket while you're frantically
> running to put out the fire.
>
If you and your wife spend the money, you generate demand which
helps the economy. OTOH, if you put the money in the bank, you
generate liquidity for the bank which helps the economy. So, BOTH
ways, YOU help the economy. The government NEVER helps the economy,
it only modifies the way the economy is moving on it's own but IF
the government MISmanages it's financial incentives, it CAN and
often HAS exacerbated an already serious problem.
Your argument is specious at best, including the part I snipped.
The government has NEVER been able to spend YOUR money better than
you can, if for no other reason than it WASTES a great deal of it
by the normal filtering process of the bureaucracy. But, even if
you believe it would help, HOW do YOU know what is or is NOT a
"good" thing to spend money on? e.g., is it a "good" thing to spend
some $3B on advanced battery research? Yes, that is good IF the
money will be spent here, but here's the rub: advanced battery
production as is necessary for cars and not small electronic
devices is an exceptionally CAPITAL intensive process and creates
only a FRACTION of the jobs of a typical manufacturing or retail
business investing the same amount.
People need to get over the notion that government is smarter than
the PEOPLE. It is NOT. Look for yourself what is in the stimulus
package, then report back here with what YOU think will actually
help. Hint: it AIN'T spending $6 BILLION building new HQ for
Federal agencies! it AIN'T spending $600 MILLION for hybrid cars
for the government - because they don't exist outside of Japan! Do
you really want YOUR tax dollars going to support Japan's economy
by buying Toyota Prius cars for YOUR elected officials?! Puleeze!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> Neil, I'm preaching to the choir with you as you have a very
>> good grasp of what this is all about. For those who don't know
>> or REFUSE to end their ignorance, take a look at this web site
>> which shows the entire situation of how AGI and total taxes
>> paid as a percent of the total works out:
>>
>> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>
> That's an extremely useful page. Everyone should look at it,
> especially those who think "the rich aren't paying enough
> taxes."
>
Yes, it is, and yes they should. I did a simple Google back during
the give and take of last year's election cycle to see for myself
WHO was right about taxes, the Democrats who claimed that the Bush
tax cuts favored only the rich, as defined by the TOP 5% of all
taxpayers or the middle class, who turn out to pay very little.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist or nuclear psychiatrist
to figure out that the top 5% ALREADY pay a disproportionately TOO
BIG a proportion of the tax load. I'm NOT suggesting changing the
current tax breakdown as I AM a proponent of a strongly PROgressive
tax code and NOT a REgressive one which causes the poor to have to
spend too much of their paycheck just feeding the bureaucrats.
Are you familiar with the teachings of David Walker, the former
Comptroller General of the United States under President Bush, who
resigned a couple years ago in disgust because he couldn't get
anyone to listen to his warnings about excessive SPENDING?
Walker now goes around lecturing about the coming fiscal nightmare
of Social Security and Medicare which he believes will show a $40
TRILLION shortfall by 2030 unless something is done. To illustrate
this, he PROVES that in inflation adjusted dollars and also
adjusting for the size of GDP throughout the last 75 years or so,
aggregate tax revenues have been fairly CONSTANT, rising and
falling only according to the normal business cycles, but still
very little, and also rising and falling as the politicians meddle
incorrectly with tax rates.
But, Walker PROVES that SPENDING as a PERCENT of GDP was almost
constant and was at least rising as a slow rate over the same 75
years since FDR, but about 2002 the SPENDING curve started up at a
VERY high slope. This coincides precisely with the deficit spending
for the War on Terror at precisely the same time that the economy
tanked following 9/11, which resulted in the longest recession and
longest bear market since the Great Depression. Thank God for the
Bush tax cuts else it'd be FAR worse.
Now for the terrifying part: the spending curve goes from steeply
up to fund the war suddenly goes almost straight UP beginning in
the period 2010-2020, which precisely coincides with the Baby
Boomers going on the Social Security and Medicare dole beginning in
2011. Within just a decade or two, the Federal deficit EXPLODES
into the $40 TRILLION range as I stated above.
So, Walker says that when that happens SS and MC will literally
melt down IF the government at the time does not 1) raise payroll
taxes for individuals and employers, 2) cut benefits across the
board, or 3) raise the retirement age to at least 72 from today's
65. OR ALL THREE! He is fearful mainly because every year we WAIT,
these three Hobson's Choice alternatives become all that much more
draconian.
One more time, people - Neil, I know you've already got this right
- with OVER 52% of ALL Americans paying NO IRS taxes at all under
the Obama plan, but those who CAN invest for our future paying
pretty much the ENTIRE load, WHY would the majority of our people
not want the "free" stuff government has to offer? Why the Hell
not, THEY don't have to pay for it! And, the reason that raising
taxes ALWAYS causes revenues to DROP is that the rich have an
uncanny ability to divert their money into tax shelters and/or move
it off-shore to avoid the taxes, which ITSELF is counter-productive
to helping our economy.
Liberals, look back to JFK who paid for HIS excellent social
programs not by raising marginal tax rates but by CUTTING them from
70% to 50%, later to 36% and under future presidents to only 28%.
Friends, we CANNOT spend our way out of this crisis!
HEMI-Powered
>> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There
>> have been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and
>> maintenence of existing roads is the responsibility of the
>> state or local governments. But, you are clearly picking fly
>> shit off the back of gnats if your assertion is that government
>> is an efficient or effective employer of people OR an entity
>> that spends YOUR money wisely.
>
> So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
Read my comment again, you missed the point entirely.
> I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the
> government has never created a job.
>
The hilarious part is that under the Obama plan, Federal
BUREAUCRACIES will increase employment by some 400,000, BUT those
people will SAP YOUR lifeblood and NOT fix the economy because NO
government can PRODUCE anything, it just moves it around. You people
that promote this sort of fiscal irresponsibility need to do a little
independent research and STOP drinking the poison Kool-Aid of
Socialism!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> I agree to a point. Polls have consistently shown that the
>>> American people overall are right of center
>>
>> This is completely untrue.
>>
>> First of all, by definition the "American people overall" are
>> center.
>
> Well, no. It's not like IQ, in which the average is (or is
> supposed to be) 100. There is a political left and a political
> right, what lies between them is along a continuum or spectrum,
> and there's nothing that says the average has to be the center.
You are EXACTLY right! This isn't a Gaussian Distribution Curve
where the mean and the mode are centered at 50%, it is a
distribution of VIEWS and OPINIONS on major foreign and domestic
policy issues, including tax policy, social initiatives, defense,
and so forth. Anyone who has made any study at all of probability
knows that a distribution of any finite sampling of an infinite
population CAN be highly skewed.
People do NOT change their core beliefs and values, such as
religious leanings, human rights, and the like over time. These
things are what make us WHAT we are. But, we CAN and DO change our
views on HOW we want our government to REACT to changes in domestic
and foreign policy issues. It is precisely this that causes people
to change their voting choices from time to time depending on what
they perceive are the REAL important issues of any particular
election cycle.
In last year's election, it was very clear that the American people
were fed up with the war in Iraq from both a money and human toll
basis and that might have turned the tide in the election if the
economy hadn't fallen over. It really did NOT matter WHO really
caused the sudden fiscal crisis, the captain on the bridge at the
time the Titanic hit the iceberg took the blame, plain and simple.
And, let us not forget that the American people were AGAINST the
TARP bailout by some 90%! Once they find out what is in the current
stimulus plan, it MAY backfire on those who are promoting it.
NOBODY wants an amount of money TWICE that spent by the New Deal or
many times what was spent fighting WWII squandered on just ONE big
push which NOBODY is sure will even work!
> Think of it as if it were the visible spectrum, which runs from
> about 400 to 700 nm, so that 550 nm (yellowish green) is the
> center. If you increase the blue end and reduce the red end (or
> vice versa) you will change the average greatly and therefore
> the perceived color, but the center will still be the same 550
> nm.
>
>> Now, the question is where the "center" is. Polls consistently
>> show that on most issues both domestic and international, that
>> center aligns more closely with the Democratic Party.
>
> Not really. The left may become more popular at times because
> most of the news and entertainment media are decidedly leftist,
> and they are powerful and influential. But the Democratic Party
> is nowhere near the center and if anything is getting farther
> away from it.
>
Even forgeting "the liberal bias of the press", in this election
cycle, the people really DID want CHANGE, but they wanted change
from "business as usual" and opaque government, and NOT change to
just a different kind of corruption and mismanagement. I'm not at
all ready to criticize the president or even Congress directly, it
is much too early for that.
What appears to have happened right now is that the Liberals who
were shut out of government for the last 8 years have tried to PUSH
their ENTIRE agenda in one huge pile of spending and are just
tripping over themselves to do it. This has NOTHING at all to do
with recovering from the recession, sadly.
I'll use just one example, advanced energy research. I think that
most Americans are in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign
oil and doing something responsible about global warming - IF they
can be assured it really is a problem. But, they will NEVER be in
favor of solutions that rob them of freedom of choice or raise
prices in a draconian manner. When you hear the president and Nancy
Pelosi trumpeting that they will regulate the car companies out of
existance, bankrupt the coal companies and raise electricity rates
by 4X to get people to change, they WILL vote with the pocketbooks.
Ray Fischer
Tax FORMS, idiot, don't indicate how much people have actually paid.
>Anyway, where is this "new IRS data" in its entirety?
Look it up for yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>> The middle class pays the highest tax rates. The lowest tax rates are
>>>> reserved to the poorest, who have the least to pay with, and the very
>>>> richest, who have the money to buy politicians and swat th gullible.
>>>
>>>That's nonsense. The very richest have the highest tax rates
>>
>> Not according to the IRS.
>>
>> Richest americans' income doubled as tax rate slashed
>
>Most people's income went up as the tax rate was slashed.
Another gullible idiot who doesn't know the difference between "went up"
and "doubled". You didn't even notice that your claim that the richest
pay the highest tax rates is complete crap.
>" Tax cuts are great for business,
I'm not a business.
>great for consumers,
Sucker.
> people buy more,
Over the past eight years people's income has remained flat. Tax cuts
to businesses have NOT helped average workers. If people buy more it
has been because they've been borrowing more.
> corporations make more money,
And pay their executives $20,000,000/year salaries.
> stocks
>go up,
Have they really? What planet are you presently living on?
> dividends go up,
Which benefits the wealthiest.
> and so on. Even the government makes more money --
>as incomes go up, revenues go up.
Rightard propaganda, thoroughly discredited. Taxes are cut and what
actually happens is that the US goes deeper in debt.
>> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
>> Bloomberg News
>> Posted: 01/30/2009 08:21:06 PM PST
>>
>> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a
>> third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush
>> administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million,
>> new IRS data shows.
>
>What did they actually *pay* in taxes?
Smirk. You're one of those gullible morons who thinks that YOU should
pay MORE in taxes so that the rich can pay less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Yes, yes, we know that you fascist bigots hate, hate, hate anything
liberal and sensible, even to the point that you'd rather see the
United States destroyed rather than accept that your ideology of greed
is disaster for 99% of the people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>>> US nowadays.
>>
>> Actually, Republicans have doubled down on this. The head of the
>> RNC, Michael Steele, actually said this last week: "Not in the
>> history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
>>
>> I mean, it's literally hilarious to hear someone say that.
>>
>Except that Steele is 100.000% RIGHT.
You rightards sure are stupid.
> FDR tried it and failed, as
How many people work for the federal government?
Hint: 2,500,000
Haw many millions more do work supplying the US, state, and local
governments?
Do your homework.
>Government only creates make-work jobs which strangle the economy,
>expand the deficit and trample on YOUR freedom.
Yeah, those highways and bridges and roads sure do slow down the
economy. Imagine how well we'd get along if we didn't have such
things and could spend our money elsewhere.
>But, since it is obvious that you are one of the Far Left Loons,
As opposed to you bigoted rightard idiots?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There
>>> have been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and
>>> maintenence of existing roads is the responsibility of the
>>> state or local governments. But, you are clearly picking fly
>>> shit off the back of gnats if your assertion is that government
>>> is an efficient or effective employer of people OR an entity
>>> that spends YOUR money wisely.
>>
>> So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
>
>Read my comment again, you missed the point entirely.
>
>> I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the
>> government has never created a job.
>>
>The hilarious part is that under the Obama plan, Federal
>BUREAUCRACIES will increase employment by some 400,000, BUT those
>people will SAP YOUR lifeblood and NOT fix the economy because NO
>government can PRODUCE anything,
You're full of shit.
FYI
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Benlars added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>>Looking at the same $800B another
>>> way, it is enough to give EVERY single taxpayer a $5,000
>>> instant rebate and every married couple filing jointly a
>>> $10,000 instant rebate. Who do YOU think is better able to
>>> spend this amount, YOU and your wife or the stupids in
>>> Washington?
>>
>> Given that my wife and I probably wouldn't spend it (we'd try to
>> save it instead) and that half of those that would spend it
>> would send it right to China (since half of everything you buy
>> now seems to come from there) and given that within a few years
>> we'd still have to pay for those roads and schools and energy
>> independence projects, I don't have any problem letting the
>> government handle it this time as long as they're spending in
>> the U. S. on things we're going to need anyway. Will everything
>> they spend it on be a reasonable investment in our future
>> quality of life? Certainly not. But if the bulk of it is, then
>> the remainder that isn't just has to be considered as the water
>> that slops over the edge of the bucket while you're frantically
>> running to put out the fire.
>>
>If you and your wife spend the money, you generate demand which
>helps the economy.
But f the government spend the money then no demand is generated?
> OTOH, if you put the money in the bank, you
>generate liquidity for the bank which helps the economy. So, BOTH
>ways, YOU help the economy. The government NEVER helps the economy,
You're an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Cynicor
I think we should all be worried about how water fluoridation is sapping
our purity of essence.
George Kerby
On 2/9/09 9:36 PM, in article 4990f650$0$1581$742e...@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
Are we having trouble communicating your feelings, Fish-Head?
Awwwwww!
I have an idea: Bring out your Inner Child and beat the living crap out of
it!!!
There.
Feel better?
I thought so...
George Kerby
On 2/10/09 5:27 AM, in article 499164a5$0$10205$607e...@cv.net, "Cynicor"
<truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote:
Fish-Rot also likes the Führer.
Douglas Johnson
>For those who drank the poison Kool-Aid of "I will provide tax cuts
>for 95% of all Americans", it seems that NO ONE understands that
>the president is including ALL Federal taxes paid by individuals,
>including Social Security and Medicare in that, except that these
>DO NOT COUNT!
Do not count on which scoreboard? They certainly count for the folks that pay
them. It is the most regressive federal tax we have. -- Doug
Neil Harrington
They show you what the RATES are, cretin. RATES are what you've been
babbling about.
>
>> Anyway, where is this "new IRS data" in its entirety?
>
> Look it up for yourself.
In other words, it's BS.
Neil Harrington
It's generated insofar as the government handouts are concerned, sure.
People who want money for nothing, or to waste on makework projects that
meet no real need, will get it. For example, the $88 million earmarked for
Milwaukee school construction, when Milwaukee has a DECLINING student
enrollment, FIFTEEN EMPTY schools, and no plans to actually build any more,
will go to the politicians to squander as they wish if that goes through.
That's quite a difference from the way a capitalistic system is supposed to
work: People (not the government) spend money for what they actually NEED or
want, demand for such products increases, companies producing and selling
them make more money, hire more employees to meet the demand, those people
in turn have more money to spend on things they need or want, and EVERYBODY
is better off -- not just a few politicians using working people's money to
buy votes.
.
>
>> OTOH, if you put the money in the bank, you
>> generate liquidity for the bank which helps the economy. So, BOTH
>> ways, YOU help the economy. The government NEVER helps the economy,
>
> You're an idiot.
Your understanding of economics, if printed out in full, in 16 languages, in
very large type, would fit in your left nostril.
Douglas Johnson
>That's quite a difference from the way a capitalistic system is supposed to
>work: People (not the government) spend money for what they actually NEED or
>want, demand for such products increases, companies producing and selling
>them make more money, hire more employees to meet the demand, those people
>in turn have more money to spend on things they need or want, and EVERYBODY
>is better off -- not just a few politicians using working people's money to
>buy votes.
So, if I understand correctly, you are saying the government should not spend
any money all? Or am I taking it too far? If so, where do we draw the line?
Thanks,
Doug
Ray Fischer
Neil Harrington
"Douglas Johnson" <po...@classtech.com> wrote in message
news:eah4p4dpj8cc7ns3m...@4ax.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>>That's quite a difference from the way a capitalistic system is supposed
>>to
>>work: People (not the government) spend money for what they actually NEED
>>or
>>want, demand for such products increases, companies producing and selling
>>them make more money, hire more employees to meet the demand, those people
>>in turn have more money to spend on things they need or want, and
>>EVERYBODY
>>is better off -- not just a few politicians using working people's money
>>to
>>buy votes.
>
> So, if I understand correctly, you are saying the government should not
> spend
> any money all?
No.
> Or am I taking it too far?
Yes.
> If so, where do we draw the line?
Way this side of where the line would be drawn now, if anyone could actually
draw such a line, which they cannot because no one seems to know what the
limits of government are now, if any even exist.
Ideally, the government's activities and authority would be very limited --
as they are, in fact, in the Constitution. Read the Constitution, all the
parts of it, and then read the Bill of Rights with special attention to the
Tenth Amendment.
Nothing in the Constitution says, for example, that the federal government
has the right to prevent a property owner from developing his property
because doing so might make a snail too nervous to have sex. The Tenth
Amendment says basically that any powers not specifically given to the
federal government in the Constitution are "reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
If that instruction were simply followed as written, the size, taxation,
spending and waste of the federal government would be a small fraction of
what it is now.
> Thanks,
> Doug
You're welcome.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> But f the government spend the money then no demand is
>> generated?
>
> It's generated insofar as the government handouts are concerned,
> sure. People who want money for nothing, or to waste on makework
> projects that meet no real need, will get it. For example, the
> $88 million earmarked for Milwaukee school construction, when
> Milwaukee has a DECLINING student enrollment, FIFTEEN EMPTY
> schools, and no plans to actually build any more, will go to the
> politicians to squander as they wish if that goes through.
>
> That's quite a difference from the way a capitalistic system is
> supposed to work: People (not the government) spend money for
> what they actually NEED or want, demand for such products
> increases, companies producing and selling them make more money,
> hire more employees to meet the demand, those people in turn
> have more money to spend on things they need or want, and
> EVERYBODY is better off -- not just a few politicians using
> working people's money to buy votes.
> .
NO government spending comes without onerous strings attached in an
attempt to dictate how it is to be spent, NO government spending
comes without bureaucratic bungling and waste, and NO government
spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
produces any REAL goods or services. Rather, governments work by
creating the illusion of a NEED, but ALWAYS come with a heavy
price. Moreover, as we are moving Left very fast in the United
States, the spectre of a strong nanny state is the first shot fired
in a war that will consume us with Socialism. This is BAD because
government can NEVER spend money nearly as efficiently or
effectively as private citizens and private sector businesses.
This nonsensical Democratic wish list masquerading as an econmomic
stimulus package is nothing more than political payback on a HUGE
scale. No, friends and neighbors, there isn't any real stimulus in
the stimulus bill, but there WILL be an actual DECLINE in GDP over
the next 10 years. Don't believe me, the CBO said it!
What makes all of this possible is the simple fact that today 38%
of all Americans pay NO income taxes so they couldn't care less,
and are highly likely to WANT to drink the poison Kool-Aid of
Socialism that promises "free" money and services for no work, and
no expense to them. People like to soak the rich but forget that
the IDEA is for MORE people to become wealthy and NOT to steal
their wealth and give it to the stupid and the lazy.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> If so, where do we draw the line?
>
> Way this side of where the line would be drawn now, if anyone
> could actually draw such a line, which they cannot because no
> one seems to know what the limits of government are now, if any
> even exist.
>
> Ideally, the government's activities and authority would be very
> limited -- as they are, in fact, in the Constitution. Read the
> Constitution, all the parts of it, and then read the Bill of
> Rights with special attention to the Tenth Amendment.
>
> Nothing in the Constitution says, for example, that the federal
> government has the right to prevent a property owner from
> developing his property because doing so might make a snail too
> nervous to have sex. The Tenth Amendment says basically that any
> powers not specifically given to the federal government in the
> Constitution are "reserved to the states respectively, or to the
> people."
>
> If that instruction were simply followed as written, the size,
> taxation, spending and waste of the federal government would be
> a small fraction of what it is now.
>
The CBO - Congressional Budget Office - says that the compromise
stimulus package will actually cause a DECLINE in GDP, not a rise.
It also says that the BULK of the near-term rise before the decline
starts isn't until 2011 by which time the economy will recover on
it's own. Rather, the CBO strongly suggests doing NO new spending
and ONLY tax cuts for EVERYONE, as this RAISES GDP across the next
10 years and is FAR cheaper for the government - read: taxpayers -
to pay for. The true cost of all of this will be HIGHER interest
rates and HIGHER inflation by 2012, which is a nice coincidence
since it is the year of the next time the American people get to
rethink their decision to move to Socialism and move BACK to
freedom, self-reliance, and world-class successful free enterprise.
Wake up, America!
Ray Fischer
>NO government spending comes without onerous strings attached in an
>attempt to dictate how it is to be spent,
Life would be so much better if we got rid of government and lived in
anarchy.
> NO government spending
>comes without bureaucratic bungling and waste,
No spending of ANY kind comes without waste.
> and NO government
>spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
>produces any REAL goods or services.
Stop lying, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Cynicor
> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>> NO government spending comes without onerous strings attached in an
>> attempt to dictate how it is to be spent,
>
> Life would be so much better if we got rid of government and lived in
> anarchy.
And reducing taxes actually creates more government revenue. So if we
cut taxes to zero, revenue will be infinite.
>> NO government spending
>> comes without bureaucratic bungling and waste,
>
> No spending of ANY kind comes without waste.
>
>> and NO government
>> spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
>> produces any REAL goods or services.
>
> Stop lying, asshole.
The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley Authority.
HEMI-Powered
>>> NO government spending comes without onerous strings attached
>>> in an attempt to dictate how it is to be spent,
>>
>> Life would be so much better if we got rid of government and
>> lived in anarchy.
WRONG
> And reducing taxes actually creates more government revenue. So
> if we cut taxes to zero, revenue will be infinite.
RIGHT. Even the liberal Democrat JFK knew that reducing taxes
increases revenues, but our previous Socialist president, FDR, made
the Depression last longer and be more severe by raising marginal
tax rates from 28% to 90% in several increments. Later on, LBJ made
the same mistake as did Bill Clinton. BUT, Clinton was smart enough
to learn from his mistake - with a little prodding from Newt
Gingrich after the 1994 mid-terms brought control of Congress back
to the Republicans. This tax cut and the rise of the dot.com
economy is what really allowed Clinton to create small budget
surpluses.
The issues is NOT taxation unless the current Administration
manages it's Marxist wealth redistribution scheme promoted during
the campaign, but it is SPENDING. As I've said before, the ENTIRE
New Deal when adjusted for inflation is only a bit more than HALF
of just one stimulus package. But, if we consider Bush's stimulus
tax rebates, TARP 1 and the proposed TARP 2 and the current
spending bill masquerading as a stimulus package, we will hav spent
some $4 TRILLION dollars in the space of just 5 months!
>>> NO government spending comes without bureaucratic bungling
>>> and waste,
>>
>> No spending of ANY kind comes without waste.
>>
>>> and NO government
>>> spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
>>> produces any REAL goods or services.
>>
> The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley Authority.
>
The TVA was NOT an example of stimulus spending any more than the
WPA was or the NRA that was struck down by the Supreme Court as
unconstitutional. Another New Deal initiative struck down was AAA,
which also produced NO stimulus. TVA was an example of solving a
REAL problem with governemtn funding, as were things like other
major dams, and NOT porkbarrel spending such as $2.6B for a
rediculous cap-and-trade prove-out program or literally BILLIONS
for social programs that the Democrats have waited 8 long years to
put forward.
--
HP, aka Jerry
“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when
you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job” –
Ronald Reagan
Cynicor
>
>> And reducing taxes actually creates more government revenue. So
>> if we cut taxes to zero, revenue will be infinite.
>
> RIGHT.
Well there you go. Can't argue with that!
>> The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley Authority.
>>
> The TVA was NOT an example of stimulus spending . . . TVA was an example of solving a
> REAL problem with governemtn funding,
Well, so is spending money on teachers, police, etc. Some of the stuff
that's been taken out of this too-small stimulus package. Unless you
contend that rising unemployment and an economy in crisis are not a
"real" problem.
However, also note that we are in agreement. The TVA solved a real
problem. It was solved by the government. The government can solve real
problems on a large scale and create jobs through spending.
HEMI-Powered
>>> And reducing taxes actually creates more government revenue.
>>> So if we cut taxes to zero, revenue will be infinite.
>>
>> RIGHT.
>
> Well there you go. Can't argue with that!
Sarcasm and yolk, son. But, it IS true that throughout the years
since the IRS got involved, MANY Democrat and Republican
Administrations have tried raising taxes in order to raise revenues
to reduce deficits or pay for something they wanted to add, such as
FDR's New Deal initiatives, later WWII, social programs including the
Interstate highway system, Medicare, LOTS of other things over the
decades. No matter who tries it, aggregate revenues have ALWAYS
fallen when taxes were raised and RISEN when taxes were reduced.
Primarily, this phenomenon is caused by marginal tax rates
encouraging tax shelters and moving money off-shore to bypass
taxation, but cap gains increases also contribute to the lost revenue
while at the same time killing the stock market since money is
removed from securities.
>>> The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley
>>> Authority.
>>>
>> The TVA was NOT an example of stimulus spending . . . TVA was
>> an example of solving a REAL problem with governemtn funding,
>
> Well, so is spending money on teachers, police, etc. Some of the
> stuff that's been taken out of this too-small stimulus package.
> Unless you contend that rising unemployment and an economy in
> crisis are not a "real" problem.
The Federal government has no, I repeat, NO business getting involved
in what you cite, and much more. It makes ZERO sense to confiscate
money at the Federal level from indivduals and business, throttle it
with inefficient bureaucratic bungling and corruption, then sending
it back to the states in an unequal manner, meaning many states get
LESS back than their citizens pay. FAR better to pay for police,
schools, and necessary LOCAL services LOCALLY. I don't even like
getting dinged for extra state income and sales taxes that are
UNequally given back to cities as school aid.
In short, PEOPLE are the most efficient and effective spenders of
their OWN money, government is the least. City programs should be
paid for by city taxes, state servives by state taxes, and ONLY real
Federal services by IRS taxes. What can be clearer or more fair than
that?!
I'm not going to answer your last question as I'm sure you won't
believe my answer. There is just NO WAY that some $4 TRILLION dollars
spent or about to be spent in just the last 5 months has a damn thing
to do with the economy. Even VP Joe Biden says there's a 30% chance
that TARP 2 and the stimulus package won't help at all.
Look back to the last 15-20 bear markets and recessions since the
1920s, leaving out the Great Depression. In ALL but ONE recession,
that one being the one that happened after 9/11, unemployement was to
prior levels, the economy measured by GDP had recovered, and the bear
stock market had recovered in JUST 18 months. The post-9/11 bear
market and recession took about twice that. So, given that the CBO
and OMB BOTH have scored the stimulus package as injecting money in
2009 as about 10%, with the majority in 2011 and 2012, by that time,
the economy will have recovered on it's own and it will become
obvious that we've pissed away $4 TRILLION.
Look at my current sig, then consider for yourself Reagan's other
CORRECT observation - "government is NOT the solution to our
problems, it IS our problem!". NO Administration has EVER been able
to spend it's way out of a recession. The ONLY thing that government
can do is to encourage new job creating business expansion.
One REALLY dumb-ass part of the stimulus package is some $80B, maybe
more I lost track, to be given back to the states to help them
balance their budgets. Gee, almost ALL states have a balanced budged
Constitution, so if they were so stupid as to get themselves into
trouble, WHY should the Federal goverment with YOUR money borrow to
help them? And, if unemployment or Medicaid needs a stimulus, WHY
can't the individual states do it.
Read the 10th Amendment to see why it is ALWAYS dead wrong for the
Feds to dabble in these areas:
"
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
THIS is what Reagan was talking about! And, I think our naive new
president is finding that it is much harder to actually govern than
to campaign.
BTW, take a good long look at the detail in the stimulus package, you
may be appalled, angered, and scared shitless to find out what WILL
happen to YOUR healtcare when little known provisions in the bill
that creates computerized medical records gets used to find out what
YOUR doctor is doing and establishing Socialist rationing for
expensive treatments, especially for our seniors.
And, if you haven't noticed, the 2010 census was pulled out of the
Commerce Dept where it has been for a century or more and given to
Rahm Emmanual, who says he will use statistical sampling and NOT an
actual nose count for the census. This is why Republican Judd Gregg
withdrew his name as the president's new Commerce Sec. designate. He
does NOT want to be associated with this fraud.
>
> However, also note that we are in agreement. The TVA solved a
> real problem. It was solved by the government. The government
> can solve real problems on a large scale and create jobs through
> spending.
>
The reason we agree is that there ARE examples out there where
government stepped in where private enterprise could not apply since
there was no profit motive. But these examples are few and far
between. But one more time, TVW was NOT a jobs creating expenditure,
it was to prevent outlandish annual flooding which killed people
ruined crops, and made millions of people homeless every year. Along
the way, it ALSO provided hydro-electric power that gave our red neck
friends the electric light bulb for the first time.
I would have little opposition for the stimulus package IF it
actually created jobs. I'll leave you to verify this for yourself,
but the Administration has already admitted it to be true. When Obama
speaks of jobs, what he is VERY careful to say is that "I will create
OR save 3 to 4 million jobs", so be wary of your government giving
you a gift. The implication is that 3 to 4 million jobs would be lost
without intervention, but cite me even ONE person in the
Administration or amoung 535 members of Congress that can guarantee
ANYTHING at all if we let them rape us, our children, and our
grandchildren of over a TRILLION counting interest on the new dept.
Douglas Johnson
>Look back to the last 15-20 bear markets and recessions since the
>1920s, leaving out the Great Depression. In ALL but ONE recession,
>that one being the one that happened after 9/11, unemployement was to
>prior levels, the economy measured by GDP had recovered, and the bear
>stock market had recovered in JUST 18 months.
Flat not true. In the 1973-75 recession, the Dow peaked at 1051 and did not
recover to that level until 1983. The unemployment rate reached a low of 4.6
percent in October of 73 and did not return to that level until January of 1997
(no typo). The real GDP (2000 dollars) peaked at an annualized $4,373 million
in the fourth quarter of 73 and did not return to that level until the fourth
quarter of 75.
In the 81-83 recession the real GDP peaked at an annualized $5,329 million in
third quarter of 81 and did not return to that level until third quarter of 83.
-- Doug
Ray Fischer
>Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>> NO government spending comes without onerous strings attached
>>>> in an attempt to dictate how it is to be spent,
>>>
>>> Life would be so much better if we got rid of government and
>>> lived in anarchy.
>
>WRONG
Since you say that government is inherently inefficient, wasteful,
and bureaucratic then obviously less government must be better, and no
government must be best.
>> And reducing taxes actually creates more government revenue. So
>> if we cut taxes to zero, revenue will be infinite.
>
>RIGHT. Even the liberal Democrat JFK knew that reducing taxes
>increases revenues,
Stop lying, rightard.
I mean, really! How stupid do you have to be to buy that idiocy?
Taking in less money means more money is taken in?!? No wonder the
rightards always cost the US trillions of dollars whenever they get
in power.
>>>> and NO government
>>>> spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
>>>> produces any REAL goods or services.
>>>
>> The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley Authority.
>>
>The TVA was NOT an example of stimulus spending any more than the
>WPA was or the NRA that was struck down by the Supreme Court as
The rightard changes the subject when he's shown to be wrong.
Nobody is surprised.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>
>>Look back to the last 15-20 bear markets and recessions since
>>the 1920s, leaving out the Great Depression. In ALL but ONE
>>recession, that one being the one that happened after 9/11,
>>unemployement was to prior levels, the economy measured by GDP
>>had recovered, and the bear stock market had recovered in JUST
>>18 months.
>
> Flat not true. In the 1973-75 recession, the Dow peaked at 1051
> and did not recover to that level until 1983. The unemployment
> rate reached a low of 4.6 percent in October of 73 and did not
> return to that level until January of 1997 (no typo). The real
> GDP (2000 dollars) peaked at an annualized $4,373 million in the
> fourth quarter of 73 and did not return to that level until the
> fourth quarter of 75.
You are just plain wrong. The Dow recovered within 18 months for the
last 18 bear markets prior to this one, except for the one in 2003.
I'm not going to debate the obvious any further.
> In the 81-83 recession the real GDP peaked at an annualized
> $5,329 million in third quarter of 81 and did not return to that
> level until third quarter of 83. -- Doug
>
--
HEMI-Powered
...
>>RIGHT. Even the liberal Democrat JFK knew that reducing taxes
>>increases revenues,
>
> Stop lying, rightard.
You are such an idiot! JFK reduced to the top marginal tax rate
from over 73% to under 40%, 36% I think. Past this, I will not
further attempt to reason with a fool nor a mordant misanthropic
miscreant such as you, Loon Ray.
I mean, really! How stupid do you have to be to buy that
> idiocy? Taking in less money means more money is taken in?!? No
> wonder the rightards always cost the US trillions of dollars
> whenever they get in power.
I think you have a severe case of alcalculia, Ray asshole. I did
n't say lower taxes, I said lower tax RATES results in HIGHER
revenues. You have consistently made the same idiotic error in
definition when attempting to dispute the truth Stephen Bishop lays
on you. YOUR maunder feckless bilge is so devoid of facts because
you simply cannot muster even a minimum of cognitive skills.
>>>>> and NO government
>>>>> spending truly stimulates anything as NO government spending
>>>>> produces any REAL goods or services.
>>>>
>>> The three words I would've used were Tennessee Valley
>>> Authority.
>>>
>>The TVA was NOT an example of stimulus spending any more than
>>the WPA was or the NRA that was struck down by the Supreme Court
>>as
>
> The rightard changes the subject when he's shown to be wrong.
>
> Nobody is surprised.
>
--
Ray Fischer
>Douglas Johnson
>> "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>>Look back to the last 15-20 bear markets and recessions since
>>>the 1920s, leaving out the Great Depression. In ALL but ONE
>>>recession, that one being the one that happened after 9/11,
>>>unemployement was to prior levels, the economy measured by GDP
>>>had recovered, and the bear stock market had recovered in JUST
>>>18 months.
>>
>> Flat not true. In the 1973-75 recession, the Dow peaked at 1051
>> and did not recover to that level until 1983. The unemployment
>> rate reached a low of 4.6 percent in October of 73 and did not
>> return to that level until January of 1997 (no typo). The real
>> GDP (2000 dollars) peaked at an annualized $4,373 million in the
>> fourth quarter of 73 and did not return to that level until the
>> fourth quarter of 75.
>
>You are just plain wrong.
You're on drugs.
In 1976 the DJIA was around 1000. It fell to the mid 700s by 1978 and
it wasn't until 1981 that it reached 1000 again.
>I'm not going to debate the obvious any further.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your cult's propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>>>RIGHT. Even the liberal Democrat JFK knew that reducing taxes
>>>increases revenues,
>>
>> Stop lying, rightard.
>
>You are such an idiot!
You are such a lying fanatic.
> JFK reduced to the top marginal tax rate
>from over 73% to under 40%, 36% I think.
And did revenue increase? Nope. The debt continued to rise.
From $305B in 1963 to $311B in 1964 to $317B in 1965.
> Past this, I will not
>further attempt to reason with a fool nor a mordant misanthropic
In short, you're going to run away like the irrational cultist that
you are.
> I mean, really! How stupid do you have to be to buy that
>> idiocy? Taking in less money means more money is taken in?!? No
>> wonder the rightards always cost the US trillions of dollars
>> whenever they get in power.
>
>I think you have a severe case of alcalculia, Ray asshole.
You're a lunatic who can't cope with reality.
> I did
>n't say lower taxes, I said lower tax RATES results in HIGHER
>revenues.
I wrote that you're an idiot cultist who denies clear facts.
And, lunatic, lower tax rates IS lower taxes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John McWilliams
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:19:20 -0600, SEMI-Sane wrote:
Get a room!
--
lsmft
John McWilliams
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:55:42 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Get a room!
>
> Either get a better and more original line than that tired old antique, or
> use your magic <plonk>er.
Nope. But you feel free. Also, learn about attributions.
> It will simplify things a lot for you.
Nah.
--
lsmft