you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the highest deficit of any Western country

[Nickname unavailable]

you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
cutting




http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/05/1287141/britain-doubles-down-on-failed-austerity-policies/

Britain Doubles Down On Failed Austerity Policies
By Zack Beauchamp on Dec 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Though the United Kingdom’s decision to slash government spending and
temporarily hike taxes in response to the Great Recession sent the
country tumbling into a double-dip recession, the Conservative
government announced on Wednesday that it would extend austerity
measures for an extra year. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne
informed Parliament that the government planned to end austerity in
2018 rather than 2017, claiming that “it’s taking time but the economy
is heading in the right direction” amidst what the New York Times
described as “heckling and laughter from some members of Parliament.”
Their derision might be because austerity has failed the United
Kingdom, much as it has failed the broader Eurozone and, on the state
level, severely held back the American recovery. An apples-to-apples
comparison between the U.K. approach and American stimulus suggests
that stimulus caused the U.S. to beat growth expectations and Britain
to lag behind them.
Broader European austerity caused its GDP to shrink over the past five
years while the U.S.’ grew by 2.9 percent. And had state governments
not implemented their own austerity plans in the form of slashing
government jobs, American growth would have been even more robust.
Moreover, austerity doesn’t even accomplish its stated goal of
reducing a government’s debt. The European experience proves that
austerity hurts growth more than it reduces government spending,
meaning it actually increases debt-to-GDP ratio. Indeed, as a chart by
the conservative UK Spectator shows, Britain now has the highest
deficit of any Western country despite its sever budget cutting:

If Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the rich sends the
U.S. tumbling over the fiscal cliff, our austerity measures will be
more severe than Europe’s.

[jim]

Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> cutting
>

Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
no compromise other than gridlock that will get
them out of the pickle.

[Eddie Haskell]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...

Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
will give them everything they want. Across the board tax hikes, the ability
to gut the military and to get to blame it all on republicans thanks to the
corrupt MSM / DNC cabal that's destroying America.

-Eddie Haskell

[Bret Cahill]

> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
accounts.

Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
poor.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > them out of the pickle.
>
> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
> will give them everything they want.

"Cliff" has two meanings here, a political cliff as well as an
economic cliff.

If Republicans continue to flip the bird at the super majority of
Americans who want tax hikes on the rich and send the super majority
over the economic cliff, the GOP then goes over the political cliff in
2014 -- as it should.

That's why Repugs desperately grabbed onto "sequestration." With
sequestration Republicans were indulging in the fantasy of ripping off
the majority and then trying to "squester" themselves from the
political blowback.

That, however, is as decadent as the fantasy of sequestering CO2 from
motor vehicles.


Bret Cahill

[Nickname unavailable]

i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go
down on the productive portion of our economy. otherwise we will end
up a walmart only economy.
the so-called cliff was really set up to rape whats left of americas
safety net, and finally "THE CONSERVATIVES" will have reached nirvana,
and done away with FDR'S new deal. i say lets go over the cliff so
that we do not end up like the u.k.
james galbriath wrote a good one on what we can do after we go over
the cliff.

[Nickname unavailable]

even a majority of republicans want tax hikes on the unproductive
wealthy.

[Nickname unavailable]

yep, we can slow down the manipulation of markets by wealth
unproductive parasites.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/6/2012 11:34 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
>>> its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
>>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>>> cutting
>>
>>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>>> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>>> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>>> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>>> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>>> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>>> them out of the pickle.
>>
>> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
>> will give them everything they want.
>
> "Cliff" has two meanings here, a political cliff as well as an
> economic cliff.
>
> If Republicans continue to flip the bird at the super majority of
> Americans who want tax hikes on the rich and send the super majority
> over the economic cliff, the GOP then goes over the political cliff in
> 2014 -- as it should.
>

Doing what the majority wants is NOT always the right thing to do....
but doing the right thing is the American thing to do.


The constitution flips off the Majority and protects the minority.


Politics is second to supporting the constitution and the right thing.


Taxes have never fixed anything, they simply cause more problems.


--
*Welcome to Socialism*
-Kum bay ya-







The NEW CONSTITUTION

Here… I did a find and replace of *United States*
to *Federal Government*

Article. I.
Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of
the *Federal Government* , which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in
each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
*Federal Government* , and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after
the first Meeting of the congress of the *Federal Government* , and
within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall
by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one
Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of
New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode-Island? and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five,
New-York? six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one,
Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five,
and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such
Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.

The Senate of the *Federal Government* shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and
each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.
The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth
Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the
Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary
Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
*Federal Government*, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the *Federal Government* shall be President
of the
Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro
tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise
the office of President of the *Federal Government* .

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the *Federal Government* is tried, the Chief Justice* *shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the *Federal Government* : but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such
Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by
Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall
constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn
from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of
absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House
may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two
thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to
time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment
require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on
any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be
entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of congress, shall, without the
Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
*Federal Government* . They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony
and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to
and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either
House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil office under the Authority of the
*Federal Government* , which shall have been created, or the Emoluments
whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person
holding any office under the *Federal Government* , shall be a
Member of
either House during his Continuance in office.
Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but *the Senate may propose or concur* with Amendments as
on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of
the *Federal Government* : If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he
shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall
have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent,
together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House,
it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses
shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each
House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,
unless the congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate
and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the *Federal
Government* ; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by
him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the
Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.

The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the *Federal Government* ; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the *Federal Government* ;

To borrow Money on the credit of the *Federal Government* ;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the *Federal Government* ;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the *Federal Government* ;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the *Federal Government* , reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the *Federal Government* , and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of
the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the *Federal Government* , or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to
the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound
to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in
another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the *Federal Government* : And
no Person holding any office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.
Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the
Use of the Treasury of the *Federal Government* ; and all such Laws shall
be subject to the Revision and Controul of the congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of war in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
*United States of America* . He shall hold his office during the
Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for
the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the congress: but
no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or
Profit under the *Federal Government* , shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot
for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the
same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the
Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the
Government of the *Federal Government* , directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number
of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But
in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the
greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day
on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same
throughout the *Federal Government* .

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
*Federal Government* , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
*Federal Government* .

In Case of the Removal of the President from office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the congress
may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or
Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what
Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act
accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from the *Federal Government* , or
any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the office of President of the *Federal
Government* , and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the *Federal Government* .”
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
*Federal Government* , and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the *Federal Government* ; he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the *Federal Government* , except in Cases
of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the
*Federal Government* , whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the congress
may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall
expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the congress Information of the State
of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he
shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions,
convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement
between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn
them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors
and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the
*Federal Government* .
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
*Federal Government* , shall be removed from office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the *Federal Government* shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which
shall not be diminished during their Continuance in office.
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the *Federal Government*, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which
the *Federal Government* shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two
or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another
State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the congress
shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the congress may by Law have
directed.
Section. 3.

Treason against the *Federal Government* , shall consist only in levying
war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but
no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand
of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered
up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due.
Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the congress.

The congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to
the *Federal Government* ; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the *Federal Government* , or of
any particular State.
Section. 4.

The *Federal Government* shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.

The congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the *Federal Government*
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the *Federal Government* which
shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the *Federal Government* , shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the *Federal Government* and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office
or public Trust under the *Federal Government* .
Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the Same.

The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines
of the first Page, the Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure
in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being
interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first
Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and
forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the
*United States of America* the Twelfth In witness whereof We have
hereunto subscribed our Names,

+——————————————————–+

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/6/2012 11:34 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
>>> its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
>>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>>> cutting
>>
>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>>
>> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>> them out of the pickle.
>
> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,

If the 1% are the only ones with an income that can be taxed, then they
are the only productive people and your statement is flawed.


Think of it as tax being paid is grading on a curve, so the people that
actually pay tax all get an "A" or they are said to be the productive
people. All the rest get a "C" except for the few that are in need of
total care and need us to give them a welfare check. They get an "F"

> and have to go
> down on the productive portion of our economy. otherwise we will end
> up a walmart only economy.

We are becoming a Cuban or Venezuelan economy.

> the so-called cliff was really set up to rape whats left of americas
> safety net, and finally "THE CONSERVATIVES" will have reached nirvana,
> and done away with FDR'S new deal.

That will hep save the private sector economy.

> i say lets go over the cliff so
> that we do not end up like the u.k.
> james galbriath wrote a good one on what we can do after we go over
> the cliff.

Cut the governments size by 50% and Obama's budget by 50% and that will
fix the problem.

--
*Welcome to Socialism*
-Kum bay ya-

That was the pertinent part for this question but here is the entire
Constitution for the DUMMY'S.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/6/2012 11:21 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
>>> its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
>>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>>> cutting
>>
>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
> accounts.

But the money is spent on Chinese produced stuff so it ends up in china
in the hands of other Nations rich.....

>
> Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
> poor.
>

Borrowing and printing and taxing to redistribute, creates inflation.

>
> Bret Cahill

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:d388a806-225b-4b6a...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

So what you are saying is that republicans should do the political thing and
fuck the country. Gee, no. That's the democrat's job.

Here, just take a look:

Hussein's "compromise" offer:

50 billion "stimulus" slush fund pay off to cronies and unions.

Capital gains tax hikes that will reduce revenues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8

Tax hikes that will slow growth and cost jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE

"Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
$250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

And when the fiscal cliff hits, don't bother Hussein. He'll be on vacation:

http://www.examiner.com/article/nation-mired-debt-obamas-set-to-take-another-4-million-hawaiian-vacation

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:pY3ws.552226$iq1.4...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

What he in essence is saying is that we should go along with fucking the
country because the MSM / DNC cabal has the majority of Americans brain
fucked. Amazing how they celebrate the success of their fascist MSM so they
can get to screw the country. Just amazing.

But why? Why can't they realize that when they succeed and get to fuck the
country they are fucking themselves? Do they like to fuck themselves? Is
liberalism a religion that requires boundless faith for which facts don't
matter?

Why are they so delighted to acquire a first class seat on the titanic? How
can they be so stupid as to think they are getting back at republicans by
hitting an iceberg and going down with the ship while the "rich" are mobile
and will merely man the life boats?

Why are they so damn corrupt and stupid?

"Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
$250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

-Eddie Haskell

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go

> down on the productive portion of our economy....

47% of American households already pay ZERO income taxes. How do you propose to lower their taxes?

[deep]

I think they should go back to the tax rate after WWII of 90% on the
wealthy. No loopholes. No deductions. So secreting to offshore tax
shelters. Use the money for infrastructure projects which will create
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then you create even more tax revenues
because people have jobs. And because the middle class will have
money then you create demand for more goods. More demand, more jobs.
More tax revenue. It ain't rocket science. But we are fighting
against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Liberals would create a TAX so the rich work for the poor as
slaves.... Like ObamaCare is a tax that creates slaves to work for
the Health Insurance companies and the government.


--



*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

MORE SOCIALIST LIES.

--



*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[Derek Smalls]

"max headroom" wrote in message news:k9qjmc$fbl$1...@dont-email.me...

<^^^

Use "DOODOO MATH!" :/
Have us pay THEM on the negative amount... after counting from Zero.

[deep]

Why? Tell me why it wouldn't work.

[Bret Cahill]

Are paid by the idle rich to rip off the 99%.

> should do the political thing and
> fuck the country.

That's what they are paid to do.

> Gee, no.

Gee yes.

> That's the democrat's job.

Democrats get their money from working stiffs, not the Koch Bros who
have a net worth more than Carlos Slim.


Bret Cahill

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:aee0c279-a37d-4f1c...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

> Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
> accounts.

Hahahahaha!!

Good one!

> Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
> poor.

Hahahahaha!!

Another good one!

Hey, now my turn:

Up is down.

Hahahahahah!!

Black is white.

Hahahhahaha!!

Round is square.

Hahahahah!!!

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:74691d03-fa2d-4674...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

This discussion is "whites only." So pull up your pants and take your nigger
shit elsewhere.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> them out of the pickle.

> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,

Your position is based on nigger envy and greed as opposed to sound economic
policy. You are incapable of that.

"Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
$250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

> and have to go
> down on the productive portion of our economy.

Goddamn, the bottom 47% couldn't pay any less, you lying sack of shit. You
even get money back for paying no income taxes.

Damn, you're a lying sack of worthless shit.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:t54ws.552227$iq1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 12/6/2012 11:34 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>>>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
>>>> its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
>>>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>>>> cutting
>>>
>>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>>> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>>> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>>> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>>> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>>> them out of the pickle.
>>
>> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
>> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>
>
> If the 1% are the only ones with an income that can be taxed, then they
> are the only productive people and your statement is flawed.

His statement is an envy driven lie.

-Eddie Haskell

[deep]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:17:29 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 12/6/2012 12:12 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>> news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
>>> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go
>>> down on the productive portion of our economy....
>>
>> 47% of American households already pay ZERO income taxes. How do you propose to lower their taxes?
>
>
>The Liberals would create a TAX so the rich work for the poor as
>slaves.... Like ObamaCare is a tax that creates slaves to work for
>the Health Insurance companies and the government.

You need to take advantage of some of that Obamacare and check
yourself into a mental health clinic.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:1a9cf98b-86fd-4e0e...@me7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Then why has the share of the income burden for rich gone up while for lower
class gone down under republicans?

Never mind. Your idiotic Marxist talking point has nothing to do with facts.

> should do the political thing and
> fuck the country.

> That's what they are paid to do.

Then why did we MAKE the Clinton presidency while you what the country to
lose a war for your crass political gain. Why is it that we are willing to
take on the chine politically to protect the country while you want to fuck
the country for your political gain yet again??

The facts that you don't give a shit about because you are a corrupt
democrats hill and want to fuck the country:

"Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
$250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

> Gee, no.

> Gee yes.

> That's the democrat's job.

> Democrats get their money from working stiffs, not the Koch Bros who
> have a net worth more than Carlos Slim.

Democrats get their money from the tax payer via massive "stimulus" and
union money laundering schemes like the NEA while education and the country
can go fuck itself.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:6jk1c8h07buo6637n...@4ax.com...

Europe and Japan had been decimated and we were the only game in town at the
time. What you progressives need to do is stop living in the now unworkable
past.

> No loopholes. No deductions. So secreting to offshore tax
> shelters. Use the money for infrastructure projects which will create
> hundreds of thousands of jobs.

No need. We already spent a trillion dollars on that. Why didn't it work?
Where's the money? Why do you want to steal more and drive us further in to
the debt that is crushing the economy and jobs?

> Then you create even more tax revenues
> because people have jobs.

That's only relevant with private sector jobs, and you want fewer of them.

"Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
$250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

> And because the middle class will have
> money then you create demand for more goods. More demand, more jobs.
> More tax revenue. It ain't rocket science. But we are fighting
> against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.

When is your "stimulus" going to work then? Do facts make any difference to
at all?

No. Liberalism is a religion that requires boundless faith. Time we ban it
from the public square before you destroy the country.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Xr4ws.552233$iq1.5...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

Exactly.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:o4l1c8p8b74613gn9...@4ax.com...

You're living it, and it didn't work, you blind religious dipshit.

And now we have to relive it because you people can't learn. That's because
liberalism is a religion just like I said.

Preface: 7 years after Hoover began what would become the New Deal,
unemployment stood at 17.2%, even after massive public works projects.

Not that you are capable of giving a shit..

"The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy was
the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which included
funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932."

"In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to
one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of
1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate
tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%."

"New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so
at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs
that Hoover started.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent
before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong
... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I
want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We
have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this
Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And
an enormous debt to boot!"

-Treasury secretary Henry Morganthau - May 1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.

"Tugwell subsequently served in FDR's administration for four years and was
one of the chief intellectual contributors to his New Deal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexford_Tugwell

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[Eddie Haskell]

"max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:k9qjmc$fbl$1...@dont-email.me...

They already did that with the "earned income tax credit."

-Eddie Haskell

[Nickname unavailable]

yep, all agreed. its easy, even IKE understood it.


Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that
constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger
and prevent another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies
know?)





http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23641.htm




What Recession?

As the Economy Crashed Around Them, 400 Richest Americans Lined Their
Pockets with $30 Billion

By Les Leopold

October 05, 2009 "Alternet' -- It's great to know that during the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the
400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30
billion. Well golly, that's only a 2 percent increase, much less than
the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2
percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your
401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher jobs
at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It's hard to
get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to imagine
that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of
the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were
high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining
wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent
another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies know?)
Had we kept those high progressive taxes in place, instead of removing
them, especially during the Reagan era, the Forbes 400 might each be
worth "only" $100 million instead of $3.9 billion each. So let's
imagine that the rest of their wealth, about $1.53 trillion, were
available for the public good.
What does $1.53 trillion buy?
It's more than enough to insure the uninsured for the next twenty
years or more.
It's more than enough to create a Manhattan Project to solve global
warming by developing renewable energy and a green, sustainable
manufacturing sector.
And here's my favorite: It's more than enough to endow every public
college and university in the country so that all of our children
could gain access to higher education for free, forever!
Instead, we embarked on a grand experiment to see what would happen if
we deregulated finance and changed the tax code so that millionaires
could turn into billionaires. And even after that experiment failed in
the most spectacular way, our system seems trapped into staying on the
same deregulated path.
Instead of free higher education, health care and a sustainable
economy, we got a fantasy finance boom and bust on Wall Street which
crashed the real economy. We have our 400 billionaires, and we have 29
million unemployed and underemployed Americans. We have an
infrastructure in shambles. We have an environment in crisis. We have
a health care system that would make Rube Goldberg proud. And we have
the worst income distribution since 1929.
I hazard to guess that each and every Forbes 400 member could get by
with a net worth of $100 million. I don't think that would kill their
entrepreneurial drive or harm our economy--in fact it would be a major
boon to the economy to step back from the edge of such massive
concentration of wealth. The real problem is getting there form here.
A wealth tax that kicks in when you become worth more than $100
million would be a good start. The Eisenhower tax rate on adjustable
gross income over $3 million a year would help as well.
And please let's not call it socialism, now that we've placed the
entire financial sector on welfare to the tune of over $13 trillion in
subsidies and guarantees. (By the way, the yearly budget outlays for
means tested programs for low income citizens is about $350 billion
per year. So Wall Street's welfare is about 37 times as large as
welfare for poor.)
So if narrowing the income/wealth gap isn't socialism, what is it?
It's the America that thrived in the 1950s and 1960s. It's the America
that created a middle-class and vowed never to let the financial
gamblers return us to another depression. It's an America that put its
people to work and built an infrastructure that was the envy of the
world.
Where's Dwight David Eisenhower when we need him?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in
several ways:
1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes
people build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick
windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of
short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and
running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.
2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people
take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a
fortune 
will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing
interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities.
When it takes owners and executives years to build up a fortune they
need solid companies that are around for a long time. This requires
the surrounding public infrastructure of roads, schools, police,
fire, 
courts, etc., to be in good shape to provide long-term support
for the 
enterprise. You also want your company to build a solid
reputation for 
serving its customers rather than cheapening the
product, pursuing 
quick-buck scams, cutting customer service, etc.
The current Wall 
Street/private equity business model of looting
companies, leaving 
behind an empty shell, unemployed workers and a
surrounding community 
in devastation will no longer be a viable
business strategy.
3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to
run 
scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave
behind 
the mess you make for others to fix. A high top tax rate
removes the 
incentive to lie, cheat and steal to grab every buck you
can as fast 
as you can. This reduces the temptation to be dishonest.
If you aren’t 
going to keep the whole dime, why risk doing the time?
When excessive, 
massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to
overwhelming greed 
and a resulting compromising of principles. Sort
of the definition of 
the decades since Reagan, no?
4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending – we spend
more on military than all other countries on earth combined – taxing
the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive
Reagan/Bush debt. This reduces and ultimately eliminates the share of
the budget that goes to pay interest. The United States now has to
pay 
a huge share of its budget just to cover the interest on the
borrowing 
that tax cuts made necessary. Paying off the debt would
remove this 
huge drag on our economy. (Never mind that Alan Greenspan
famously 
called for Bush’s tax cuts by saying it was dangerous to pay
off our 
debt – now that same Alan Greenspan says we need to cut
benefits to 
retired people because our debt is so high.)
5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure
that then cause the economy to explode for the better. Investing in
modern transit systems, smart grid, energy efficiency, fast internet
and other improvements leads to a huge payoff of increased prosperity
for all of us – especially for those at the top income levels.
Infrastructure improvement and maintenance is the “seed corn” of
economic growth. We have been eating that seed corn since Reagan’s
tax 
cuts.
6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools,
colleges and universities. Not only will this help our
competitiveness, but it will improve each of our lives and level of
happiness.
7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class. A
consumption-based economy does better when consumers have more to
spend. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, though I suspect so, but after
FDR raised top tax rates the economy grew dramatically. The 90% top
rate years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and the beginning of the
Kennedy years were the years when we built the middle class. And
remember, after Clinton raised top tax rates only modestly the
economy 
grew. How's it been doing since Bush's tax cuts for the rich?
A look 
at economic growth rate charts shows a steady decline in the
decades 
since top tax rates began to fall. Is it just a coincidence
that the 
economy booms after tax increases that provide revenue to
invest in 
new “seed corn,” and that the economy declines as we reduce
taxes?
8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable
increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people.
This 
recirculates money into the economy more productively than the
current 
system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping
for a 
resulting consumption of high-end goods. The wealthy can only
spend so 
muc h so more disposable income in the hands of regular
people is good 
for business. Any business owner will tell you they
want customers 
more than they want tax cuts. (Let’s wait until the
top one percent no 
longer owns most of everything before we talk
about whether there is 
an effect on investment.)
9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours,
low 
pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing
union 
organizers and schemes that call employees “contractors” will
no 
longer pay off as it does today. The era of extreme union-busting
came 
in at the same time as the tax cuts.
Krugman: The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the
American population in total income – an indicator that closely
tracks 
many other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90
years, 
as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel
Saez. [see 
link below]
10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us.
Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of
everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of
wealth.
11) It fights the political instability that results from
concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the
resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that
can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the
signs of a resurgence of these problems today.
12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in
equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the
hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it
to 
get even more.
13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked
hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and
regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in
common. It will increase its ability to provide all of us equally
with 
the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy.
14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause
those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn
Randians claim the very rich are the “producers” and all the rest of
us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their “work.” So it
will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by
taxing 
them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund
managers who 
brought in an average of $1 billion each last year – an
amount that 
would have paid for 658,000 teachers -- while the rest of
the country 
suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax
rate of 90% 
they would “only” take home $100 million or so each – in
a single 
year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it’s a win-
win.Taxes 
are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and
protections of 
modern society. Those benefits and protections are
what enable people 
to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some
back so others can 
prosper as well. Help us spread the word about
these important 
stories...Email to a friend
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041625/13-ways-90-percent-top...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's helpful for understanding things, but the supposed
"significance"
given the arbitrary 100% figure is entirely political clown theater.
Note the clown dance that comes out when we point out the post WWII
level and how it had no effect on the economy of the post war era and
the 50's into the 60's. (Of course back then the top marginal rate
was 
91%, corporate income tax was between 40 and 55%, and the
capital 
gains tax was above 25%.)
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-191...
Ah those great conservative days of the 50s!
When Ike said such things as "“Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the
hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true
sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of
iron.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security
unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you
would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is
a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these
things. 
Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an
occasional 
politician or business man from other areas. Their number
is 
negligible and they are stupid.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And: 
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition 
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military 
industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced 
power exists and will persist. We must never let
the weight of this 
combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should 
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry 
can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military 
machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that 
security and liberty may prosper
together.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Nickname unavailable]

and they got their money the old fashioned way, mom and dad worked
for stalin, then they inherited it.

tea baggers are such morons:comrade KOCH worked for stalin:stalin made
him rich:))))))))the family worked for the Bolsheviks in the late
1920s/early 30s:building refineries/training Communist engineers/
laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure




http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/


A People’s History of Koch Industries: How Stalin Funded the Tea Party
Movement
By Yasha Levine



“I would rather live under a bridge than live under socialism”
—tea bagger slogan

Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism
about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party
movement’s dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the
grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch
family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated
the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their
favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made
working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building
refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the
foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.
The comrades were good to the Kochs. Today Koch Industries has grown
into the second-largest private company in America. With an annual
revenue of $100 billion, the company was just $6.3 billion shy of
first place in 2008. Ownership is kept strictly in the family, with
the company being split roughly between right-wing brothers Charles
and David Koch, who are worth about $20 billion apiece and are
infamous as the largest sponsors of right-wing causes. They bankroll
scores of free-market and libertarian think tanks, institutes and
advocacy groups. Reason magazine, Heritage Foundation and Cato
Institute are just a few of Koch-backed free-market operations.
Greenpeace estimates that the Koch family shelled out $25 million from
2005 to 2008 funding the “climate denial machine,” which means they
outspent Exxon Mobile three to one.
I first learned about the Kochs in February 2009, when Mark Ames and I
were looking into the strange origins of the then-nascent Tea Party
movement. Our investigation led us again and again to a handful of
right-wing organizations and think tanks directly tied to the Kochs.
We were the first to connect the dots and debunk the Tea Party
movement’s “grassroots” front, exposing it as billionaire-backed
astroturf campaign run by free-market advocacy groups FreedomWorks and
Americans For Prosperity, both of which are closely linked to the Koch
brothers.

But the Tea Party movement—and Koch family’s obscene wealth—go back
more than half a century, all the way to grandpa Fredrick C. Koch, one
of the founding members of the far-rightwing John Birch Society which
was convinced that evil socialism was taking over America through
unions, colored people, Jews, homosexuals, the Kennedys and even
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
These days, the Kochs paint themselves as true-believer Libertarians
of the Austrian School. Charles Koch, the elder brother who runs the
family business in Wichita, Kansas, quotes the wisdom of proto-
libertarian “economist” Ludwig von Mises, but also sees himself as a
thinker in his own right. In 2007, Charles made his contribution to
the body of free-market thought with an economic theory he calls
Market-Based Management® (trademark protected, of course), which he
lays out in a book titled the Science of Success. A Forbes reviewer
seemed a bit disturbed by Charles’ overt socialist leanings, writing
that the “author professes an almost Marxist faith in the ‘fixed laws’
that ‘govern human well-being.’”
David Koch is the highbrow brother who lives in New York. He ran as
the Libertarian party candidate for vice-president in 1980 and says
that his dream is to “minimize the role of government, to maximize the
role of private economy and to maximize personal freedoms.” Apparently
everyone’s a free-market enthusiast at Koch Industries, including
their spokeswoman, who recently wrote a letter to the New York Times
stating that “it’s a historical fact that economic freedom best
fosters innovation, environmental protection and improved quality of
life in a society.” It might be true somewhere for someone, but not
for the Kochs—they owe it all to socialism and totalitarianism.

Here is a better historical fact, one that the Kochs don’t like to
repeat in public: the family’s initial wealth was not created by the
harsh, creative forces of unfettered capitalism, but by the grace of
the centrally-planned economy of the Soviet Union. This deserves
repeating: The Koch family, America’s biggest pushers of the free-
market Tea Party revolution, would not be the billionaires they are
today were it not for the whim of one of Stalin’s comrades.
The story of how the Koch family amassed its socialist wealth starts
at the turn of the 20th century with the birth of Fredrick C. Koch.
Fred was born in a tiny town in north Texas town to a Dutch immigrant
and newspaper publisher. The historical record is not clear about the
family’s wealth, but it appears that great-granddaddy Koch was not
hurting for cash, because Fred Koch turned out to be a smart kid and
was able to study at MIT and graduate with chemical engineering
degree. A few years later, in 1925, Fred started up the Winkler-Koch
Engineering Company with a former classmate, quickly developing and
patenting a novel process to refine gasoline from crude oil that had a
highe-yield than anything on the market. It was shaping up to be an
American success story, where anything was possible with a bit of
elbow grease and good ol’ ingenuity.
The sky was the limit—until the free market rained on Fred’s parade.
See, Fred was living through the Roaring Twenties, a time of big
business, heavy speculation and zero government regulation. Much like
today, cartels were free to form and free to fix—and so they did.
Sensing a threat to their royalty-revenue stream from Winkler-Koch’s
superior refining technology, the reigning oil cartel moved in to
teach the young Koch how the laissez-faire business model worked in
the real world.
“[W]hen he tried to market his invention, the major oil companies sued
him for patent infringement. Koch eventually won the lawsuits (after
15 years in court), but the controversy made it tough to attract many
US customers,” according to Hoover’s Company Records service. Just
like that, Winkler-Koch Engineering found itself squeezed out of the
American market. They had a superior product at a cheaper price, but
no one to sell it to.
Luckily, there was one market where opportunity beckoned—and
innovation was rewarded: the Soviet Union.
Stalin’s first Five Year Plan was just kicking into action a nation-
wide industrialization effort, and the Soviet planners needed smart,
industrious college grads like Fred Koch. The Soviet Union was
desperately trying to increase its oil refining capacity, so oil
engineers were especially in high demand—and well paid, too.
“We are the world’s greatest market, and we are prepared to order a
large amount of goods and pay for them,” Joseph Stalin told an
American journalist in 1932. Stalin wasn’t kidding. From 1926 to 1929,
the Soviet oil industry bought $20 million worth of equipment from
America. And Koch was about to get in on the action.
In 1929, after hosting a delegation of Soviet planners in Wichita,
Kansas, Winkler and Koch signed a $5 million contract to build 15
refineries in the Soviet Union. According to Oil of Russia, a Russian
oil industry trade magazine, the deal made Winkler–Koch into Comrade
Stalin’s Number One refinery builder. It provided equipment and
oversaw construction:
The first Winkler–Koch plants were set up in Tuapse in 1930. The
cracking unit operated commendably, and would in the future be the
type preferred by the heads of the Soviet Union’s petroleum industry
when purchasing new cracking equipment.
In 1931, two Winkler–Koch cracking units were launched in Baku,
another two in Batumi, and six at once in Grozny; the last had a
combined refining capacity of 900,000 tons per year. In 1932, a
Winkler–Koch unit commenced operations in Yaroslavl.
At the time, the Soviet Union’s oil industry was a total mess.
Equipment built by Western engineering firms was always breaking down
or didn’t work at all. Western engineers were constantly being accused
of espionage or sabotage, real or imagined, and booted out of the
country. Soviet workers suspected of colluding with the foreigners
were simply taken out back and shot. Winkler-Koch made sure they were
running a tight, effective operation. Unlike their Western
competitors, Koch pleased his Soviet clients by ensuring top quality
and helping the cause of socialism.

Koch lived up to the slogan: “Work hard enough for Comrade Stalin to
thank you!”
The Soviet oil planners were delighted with Koch’s refineries, which
“operated commendably, and would in the future be the type preferred
by the heads of the Soviet Union’s petroleum industry when purchasing
new cracking equipment.” The Communists were so impressed they kept
giving Winkler-Koch business and regularly sent Soviet engineers to
train in Wichita. It was a sign of growing mutual trust.
By the time he got out in 1933, Koch earned $500,000, which was a ton
of money for a kid fresh out of college. This nut of money served as
the foundation for the family’s future wealth, which Koch no doubt
started acquiring at rock-bottom prices. After all, 1933 was one of
the two worst years of the Great Depression—all assets were priced to
go at 90% off. In the end, the capitalist-hating socialists ended up
treating Koch fairly, way better than the monopolistic thrashing he
got from his native land. So you’d think he’d at least something good
to say about the Soviet Union when he got home?
Nope, not at all. He hated the Commies real bad. But for some reason
he kept it to himself until the late 1950s (possibly because he was
still doing work for the Soviet Union). Then, after coming back from a
trip to the Soviet Union in 1956, he flies off the handle. According
to a 1956 AP article, Fred Koch was among eleven prominent residents
of Wichita, Kansas, “left for Moscow by plane today in an effort to
convince the Russian people that Soviet propaganda about capitalists
is untrue.” Sounds like the perfect cover for a business trip.
It’s not clear what he was actually doing there. But whatever the
outcome—maybe he didn’t get the contract he was expecting or maybe he
got swindled out of some investment or maybe he plain ol’ hated the
thaw of post-Stalin Russia—Fred Koch came back a pissed-off anti-
Communist freak and joined up with the right-wing Bircher freak show.
He bankrolled a John Birch Society chapter in Wichita and attempted to
open a Bircher bookstore, which wasn’t too popular and had to close.
He warned of a massive Communist conspiracy to take control of
America, saying that the Reds were eroding American universities,
churches, political parties, the media and every branch of government.
“Maybe you don’t want to be controversial by getting mixed up in this
anti-communist battle,” Koch said in a speech to a Women’s Republican
Club in 1961. “But you won’t be very controversial lying in a ditch
with a bullet in your brain.” Strong words for a strong Stalin Queen—
must’ve rocked the stockings off the Bircher groupies.
In 1961, Koch published a pamphlet called “A Businessman Looks At
Communism,” in which he recounted his travels with a “hardcore
Communist” named Jerome Livshitz. It was from him Fred Koch had first
learned about the commie conspiracy to take over America:
The government detailed a little man by the name of Jerome Livshltz to
go around to our various installations with me. Livshitz had taken
part in the revolution of 1905, and had spent twelve years in the
U.S.A. as a revolutionary, most of the time in jails….
In the months I traveled with him he gave me a liberal education in
Communist techniques and methods. He told me how the Communists were
going to infiltrate the U.S.A. in the schools, universities, armed
forces and to use his words, “Make you rotten to the core.” I believe
that due to his American experience he was one of the original
architects of the Communist plan of subversion of the U.S.A.
My associate and I pulled him from under an overturned car in Tiflis,
and he was amazed. “Why did you save my life?” he said. “We are
enemies. I would not have saved you. Perhaps when the turn there, I
will spare your lives.” He told me that if his own mother stood in the
way of the revolution he would strangle her with his bare hands. This
is the mark of a hard-core Communist. They will do anything—anything.
Fred Koch’s paranoia continued to spiral out of control until his
thumper quit in 1967. But by that time his son, Charles G. Koch, had
already taken over control of the family business. He appropriated his
father’s Communist paranoia and made it the basis for the family’s
free-market business philosophy.
“Once, my father ran a business in the ex-Soviet Union, and all
engineers who worked with my father were imprisoned by Stalin later.
My father, who had experienced this, became an anti-communist and
thought the value of economical freedom and prosperity was more
important than ever before,” Charles said during an interview with a
Korean newspaper in 2008, leaving out the part how evil socialist cash
is the foundation of the Koch family’s wealth.
Once he took over, it was clear that Charles had big plans for Koch
Industries. He was going to push the limits of corporate growth by
plowing 90% of the company’s profits back into till and diversifying
to the max. It worked. The company expanded at an unreal rate: its
revenues increased from $100 million in 1966 to $100 billion in 2008—
that’s 1,000-fold growth!
Today, it operates thousands of miles of pipelines in the United
States, refines 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily, it buys and sells
the most asphalt in the nation, is among the top ten cattle producers,
and is among the 50 largest landowners. Koch Industries also plowed
hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing organizations like
Institute for Humane Studies, the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center
at George Mason University, the Bill of Rights Institute, the Reason
Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Federalist Society—
all of them promoting the usual billionaire-friendly ideas of the free
market, deregulation and smaller government.
If that expansion looks too fast to be legit, that’s because it was.
William Koch, the third brother who had a falling-out with Charles and
David back in the ’80s over Charles’ sociopathic management style,
appeared on “60 Minutes” in November 2000 to tell the world that Koch
Industries was a criminal enterprise: “It was – was my family company.
I was out of it,” he says. “But that’s what appalled me so much… I did
not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon
organized crime.”
Charles Koch’s racket was very simple, explained William. With its
extensive oil pipe network, Koch Industries’ role as an oil middleman–
it buys crude from someone’s well and sells it to a refinery–makes it
easy to steal millions of dollars worth of oil by skimming just a
little off the top of each transaction, or what they call “cheating
measurements” in the oil trade. According to William, wells located on
federal and Native American lands were the prime targets of the Koch
scam.
“What Koch was doing was taking all these measurements and then
falsifying them on the run sheets,” said Bill Koch. “If the dipstick
measured five feet 10 inches and one half inch, they would write down
five feet nine and one half inches.”
That may not sound like much, but Bill Koch said it added up. “Well,
that was the beauty of the scheme. Because if they’re buying oil from
50,000 different people, and they’re stealing two barrels from each
person. What does that add up to? One year, their data showed they
stole a million and a half barrels of oil.”
In 1999, William decided to take his brothers down. He sued Koch
Industries in civil court under the False Claims Act, which allows
whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the federal government.
William Koch accused the company of stealing hundreds of millions of
dollars in oil from federal lands.
The band of brothers settled the case two years later, with Charles
agreeing to pay $25 million in penalties to the federal government to
have the suit dismissed. It turned out to be a great deal for Charles
and David, considering that in the 1980s their “adjustments” allowed
Koch Industries to siphon off 300 million gallons of oil without
paying. It was pure profit–free money–to the tune of $230 million.
At the trial, 50 former Koch gaugers testified against the company,
some in video depositions. They said employees even had a term for
cheating on the measurements.
“We in the company referred to it as the Koch Method because it was a
system for cheating the producer out of oil,” said one of the gaugers,
Mark Wilson.
Ah, finally! We’ve stumbled upon the secret to the family’s success!
At the bottom of it all, the Koch Method that funds all the
libertarians is nothing but good old-fashioned plunder. Or, as Koch
hero Ludwig von Mises might say, “The Koch Method is just an unceasing
sequence of single scams.”

[Eddie Haskell]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:60a86ac2-1082-475e...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

Europe and Japan had been decimated and we were the only game in town.

Etch it into your forehead with an ice pick so your bone-nosed ass doesn't
forget this time.

-Eddie Haskell

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:34 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

you can always, and i mean always, count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
blame others, for what is on their own minds:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:38 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...

>
> > and have to go
> > down on the productive portion of our economy.
>
> Goddamn, the bottom 47% couldn't pay any less, you lying sack of shit. You
> even get money back for paying no income taxes.
>
> Damn, you're a lying sack of worthless shit.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

trickle down supply side charlatan economics just does not work.


Supply-side tax cutting policies have not led to the growth their
Republican proponents promised/The Bush tax cuts for instance were
followed by the weakest decade for economic expansion on
record:trickle down is a fairy tale laced with chicanery

http://thinkprogress.org/?mobile=nc


New Study Finds High-Income Tax Cuts Don’t Stimulate Economic Growth
By Travis Waldron posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 12, 2012 at
6:45 pm
Congressional Republicans and their party’s presidential nominee have
both pushed plans to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans in hopes
that such a move would stimulate the economy and aid the recovery from
the Great Recession. A new study, however, indicates that tax cuts for
the wealthiest earners fail to generate economic growth at the same
pace as tax cuts aimed at low- and middle-income earners.
The study, conducted by Owen M. Zidar, a former staff economist on
President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and a graduate student
at California-Berkeley, examined economic growth in the states with
the most high-income earners. Zidar reasoned that “states with a large
share of high income taxpayers should grow faster following a tax cut
for high income earners” if the tax cuts had the economic effect
conservatives claim.
What he found, though, is that the effect of tax cuts for the rich was
“insignificant statistically,” as Reuters’ David Cay Johnston
reported:
“Almost all of the stimulative effect of tax cuts,” Zidar found,
“results from tax cuts for the bottom 90%. A one percent of GDP tax
cut for the bottom 90% results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth
over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10% is
0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically.”
Zidar’s study provides more empirical backing to what the U.S. has
experienced over the last 30 years. Supply-side tax cutting policies
have not led to the growth their Republican proponents promised. The
Bush tax cuts, for instance, were followed by the weakest decade for
economic expansion on record.
Still, Republicans, some of whom admit that the Bush tax cuts didn’t
lead to the desired growth, are sticking to their ideology. Republican
presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposed a tax cut that is four times
larger than the Bush tax cuts; the GOP has fought efforts to allow the
high-income tax cuts expire at the end of the year, arguing that doing
so would dampen growth; and Republican governors across the country
have pushed tax cut packages aimed at the wealthy even as their states
struggle with budget shortfalls.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:51 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...

>
> > Gee, no.
> > Gee yes.
> > That's the democrat's job.
> > Democrats get their money from working stiffs, not the Koch Bros who
> > have a net worth more than Carlos Slim.
>
> Democrats get their money from the tax payer via massive "stimulus" and
> union money laundering schemes like the NEA while education and the country
> can go fuck itself.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the
highest earners are associated with savings/investment/productivity
growth:In fact the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy
are statistically associated with higher levels of growth

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth
By Robert Frank | CNBC – 4 hours ago

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic
growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income
gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.
A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan
research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence
over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are
associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are
statistically associated with higher levels of growth.

The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight
over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling
for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund
spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates
for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.

The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The
top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in
the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was
25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the
1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in
more than 65 years.

Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned
with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing
tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while
it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates,
the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.
"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably
significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive
effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a "slight
negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect
was considered statistically significant.
Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not
necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher
taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be
"coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for
that growth.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts
for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in
the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of
earners - not the one percent.

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around
4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent
by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the
0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.
The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income
accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that
"these relationships are statistically significant."
In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic
pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic
pie is sliced."

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:58 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...

>
> > And because the middle class will have
> > money then you create demand for more goods.  More demand, more jobs.
> > More tax revenue.  It ain't rocket science.  But we are fighting
> > against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.
>
> When is your "stimulus" going to work then? Do facts make any difference to
> at all?
>
> No. Liberalism is a religion that requires boundless faith. Time we ban it
> from the public square before you destroy the country.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

higher taxes even increase the amount of millionaires:blue states
45,415:red states 14,865:blue states have three quarters of the
nation's ultra-high net worth residents/lean blue:the list was made
simple for "CONSERVATIVES" to read
 i realize that even the most simplest of graphs are beyond the
comprehension skills of most "CONSERVATIVES". but please click on the
link for the list anyways, its a real simple list, its possible that
even some "CONSERVATIVES" could properly interpret it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/comes-multi-millionaires-blue-states-19...
When It Comes to Multi-millionaires, Blue States Dominate 
By Robert

Frank | CNBC – 4 hours ago

If the Democrats are waging class warfare, it's largely against their
own voters. 
New data from the research firm Wealth-X shows that the
bluest of blue 
states have far and away the largest number of
residents worth at 
least $30 million. 
California and New York have
the highest number of $30-million plus 
residents (known as ultra-high
net worths), with a total of 10,955 and 
8,595 respectively.
According to Wealth-X, blue states have three quarters of the
nation's 
ultra-high net worth residents. Granted, it's no surprise
that 
California and New York have the bulk of rich residents. Yet
even 
without those two, the blue states still lead with about 26,000
individuals, versus some 15,000 in the red states.
Leading the pack among red states is Texas, with 5,890 ultra-high net
worth residents. Georgia ranked second on the GOP side, with 1,110.
"The great irony that emerges from this UHNW market research is that
contrary to the popular conception that the ultra-wealthy are more
Republican leaning, the UHNW population for blue states is almost
four 
times that of red states," said David Friedman, president of
Wealth-X.
Below is the complete list of state populations of UHNW residents --
and voters. Wealth-X categorizes some swing states as either red or
blue, even though they vote nearly equally Democratic or Republican,
and tend to be counted as "purple."

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 12:03 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

> http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depress...

it is now respectable for ideology to trump evidence/for charlatans
to
be recognized as intellectuals/for self-promoting businessmen to be
accorded iconic status:The answer lies I believe in the domination of
the economic discourse by the ascendancy of conservative and
libertarian university Departments of Economics and think tanks; and
in the domination of the political machinery by conservative and
libertarian economists hired by Republican governments from the
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover
Institution, and the Cato Institute. This formidable political-
economic complex has recently added a wholly funded "grass roots"
movement -- the Tea Party -- to the mix.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-a-wilson/laissezfaire-is-whack_b_1...
Hugh A. Wilson 
Political Science professor, Adelphi University
Laissez-Faire Is Whack 
Posted: 10/02/2012 11:14 am
A specter is haunting America: the specter of laissez-faire
capitalism. Despite consistent evidence from the past four decades
that key economic sectors unmoored from regulation (investment
banking, commercial banking, energy, housing, among others) resulted
in short-term gains for the few, grievous harm for the many, and
severe damage to the public good, free-market fundamentalists keep
stoking the fires of laissez-faire anti-regulation policies. 
Even
more disturbing to many of us in the academic world is that the 
push
for laissez-faire "legitimacy" by its ideological advocates runs
counter to more than 230 years of historical evidence. 
Free-market
fundamentalists explain away the Savings and Loan scandal, 
Enron, the
tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the 2008 financial 
crisis as
bumps on the road to economic nirvana that would be more 
readily
achievable if government would just get out of the way of 
business.
They ignore the fact that these economic crises occurred 
because
government got out of the way of business. They occurred 
because
regulators were asleep, or captives of their respective 
industries.
How did we come to this pass, where it is now respectable for
ideology 
to trump evidence, for charlatans to be recognized as
intellectuals, 
and for self-promoting businessmen to be accorded
iconic status? The 
answer lies, I believe, in the domination of the
economic discourse by 
the ascendancy of conservative and libertarian
university Departments 
of Economics and think tanks; and in the
domination of the political 
machinery by conservative and libertarian
economists hired by 
Republican governments from the Heritage
Foundation, the American 
Enterprise Institute, the Hoover
Institution, and the Cato Institute. 
This formidable political-
economic complex has recently added a wholly 
funded "grass roots"
movement -- the Tea Party -- to the mix. 
To maintain this market-
centric-laissez-faire-political complex, the 
mandarins of this
architectural structure must create and maintain an 
"origin myth"
embedded in the founding of the American Republic and 
its most sacred
document, the Constitution, as a laissez-faire 
experiment fulfilling
Adam Smith's politico-economic strictures of the 
invisible hand and
rugged individualism. Accompanying this "origin 
myth" is a fictive
narrative that holds that the historic, continuing 
productive
monochromatic capitalist engine was derailed by class 
traitors like
Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. 
Roosevelt. For free-
market fundamentalists, the breach of the free- 
market dike of the
Constitution occurred from the proto-collectivist 
activities of the
Progressive Era and the collectivist policies of the 
hated New Deal
and was further aided and abetted by successive welfare 
state
initiatives by misguided Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and
Richard Nixon (housing subsidies, national highways, disability
insurance, environmental protection). 
The purpose and importance of
the "origin myth" and the fictive 
narrative is to defend an ideology
by dialing up a lost "golden age" 
and summoning its rightful heirs to
this legacy of a paradisical Eden, 
minus the Snake of collectivism,
of course. The problem with this 
formulation is that the years of the
Early Republic and subsequent 
American economic history is replete
with examples of governmental 
intervention in the economy. In short,
America has never experienced 
the Adam Smith-invisible hand-laissez-
faire economic policies embedded 
in the overheated minds and feverish
souls of the American right. 
An intensive analysis of pre-
Constitution state activities, the 
formation and powers of the United
States Constitution, and the 
economic activities of the first
national U.S. government tells us a 
drastically different story --
one of extensive governmental 
intervention in the economy. 
Prior to
the Constitution, the national government, i.e., Continental 
Congress
lacked fiscal power. Hence, governmental intervention in the 
economy
occurred at the state level. Virtually every state, 
constitutionally
or statutorily, sought to encourage or protect their 
"home
industries" through subsidies or through tariffs on similar
industries in other states seeking market share in their states.
State governments also set wages and prices, regulated hours of work,
controlled licensing of occupations, and ran state enterprises. Many
states also regularly favored debtors over creditors by altering the
length, terms, and payment modes of private contracts. In short,
states saw property not as sacred but as a state-regulated entity.
Luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Noah Webster
went 
so far as to declaim that states should utilize their
"regulatory 
power" to redistribute property to non-land-owning
citizens. There was 
also a chaotic internal interstate commerce
system which saw states 
like New York set tariffs on goods going or
coming from New Jersey or 
Connecticut. Virginia did the same with
goods coming or going through 
to North Carolina and Maryland. While
states were prohibited by the 
Articles of Confederation from making
treaties with foreign nations, 
they were free to individually set
import and export duties (a power 
denied to the Continental
Congress). 
Thus, states prior to the Constitution, exercised
widespread powers in 
intervening in the economic life of their
respective states. No 
laissez-faire here. 
The call for the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 
sprang largely from
economic factors: inability of the Continental 
Congress to finance
the American Revolution because states refused to 
provide their
required requisitions to fund the war; the Continental 
Congress' lack
of taxing and commercial powers; inability to pay off 
the public
debts resulting from the war; Shay's Rebellion in which 
debtors
sought to prevent the state of Massachusetts from imposing 
onerous
taxes on Western farmers and seizing of their land; the 
seeming bias
of other states towards debtors over creditors; the 
multiplicity &
mutability of state laws which sometimes created a 
volatile
investment climate. As James Madison commented in a letter to 
Thomas
Jefferson in March 1786: "Most of our political evils may be 
traced
to our commercial ones." 
In response to these concerns, the Framers
in Philadelphia created a 
supreme national government, granting it
substantial economic powers 
including the power to lay and collect
taxes, set tariffs on imports, 
control interstate and foreign
commerce, set excise taxes, and set 
taxes on slave importation. The
Constitution sets no restriction on 
what can be taxed! Neither does
the Constitution place restrictions on 
what kinds of imports can be
taxed. The Constitution places no limit 
on the commerce clause except
two: exports could not be taxed, and 
there must be uniform duties on
foreign goods entering all U.S. ports. 
Besides granting the national
government wide-ranging economic powers, 
the Constitution banned
states from interfering with private contracts 
but placed no such ban
on the national government. The Constitution 
prohibited state
governments from issuing paper money but placed no 
such limitation on
the national government. In short, the Constitution 
transferred
certain state economic powers to the national government, 
while
prohibiting other state economic powers. 
Adam Smith's economic ideas
exerted no influence on the pre- 
Constitution state governments. His
influence was also completely 
absent from the deliberations in the
1787 Constitutional Convention in 
Philadelphia or in the Constitution
itself. An analysis of the 
influential politico-economic thinkers of
the Early Republic years 
found Smith barely visible, outshone by
Montesquieu, Blackstone, and 
Locke. Indeed, Montesquieu, who was a
supporter of governmental 
intervention in the economy, was much in
fashion at the Constitutional 
Convention. 
During the first steps of
the new national government, laissez-faire 
was also absent. This was
never more evident than in the first 
substantive act passed by the
new Congress, the Tariff Act of 1789. 
The Act proposed three goals
for government tariffs: 1. collect 
revenues to run the government 2.
pay off the public debt 3. "the 
encouragement and protection of
manufactures." In short, one goal of 
the first government was
protective tariff legislation, carrying on 
the tradition of the pre-
Constitution state governments. 
The Congressional debate during the
first tariff bill saw virtually 
every state attempting to use the
legislation to protect their home 
industries from foreign
competition: New York wanted a high tariff on 
malt to protect its
liquor industry; Pennsylvania wanted a tax on 
steel to protect its
nascent industry; Virginia and South Carolina 
sought to protect its
hemp industry; New England Congresspersons 
wanted to protect its iron
industry by placing high tariffs on foreign 
nails, spikes, etc. And
so it went. Protectionism run rampant. 
Congress concentrated on
tariffs as revenue enhancers in subsequent 
annual bills -- but this
did not stop the first lobbyists from 
organizing around the various
industries and to annually lobby their 
representatives for protective
legislation in the areas of rope 
making, coal, iron, hat making,
etc. 
The second obvious intervention in the American economy by the
new 
national government in the Early Republic was the creation of the
Bank 
of America by the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander
Hamilton. 
The Bank, a public-private partnership, was chartered by
Congress in 
1791. It was a repository of government revenues; it
circulated loans 
to startup businesses; it controlled the money
supply; and to ensure 
the primacy of gold and silver it insisted that
commercial exchanges 
be carried out in specie rather than in fiat or
paper money. (Ron 
Paul's claim that the Constitution prohibits the
national government 
from issuing paper money is false. The
Constitution only prohibits 
states from doing so.) The Bank of
America, the national government's 
first Central Bank, sought a
policy of stable money to cement a 
relationship between capital and
government. 
The third and fourth major instances of governmental
intervention in 
the American economy during the Early Republic was
through the treaty 
making process. Two treaties stand out in this
regard: the 1783 Treaty 
of Paris between America and Britain, which
brought formal 
independence to the United States of America, and the
1795 Treaty of 
San Lorenzo with Spain. The Treaty of Paris secured
fishing rights for 
New England fisheries in the waters of
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, 
Labrador, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
navigation rights on the 
Mississippi River and the lowering of trade
barriers. 
The 1795 Treaty with Spain, coming as a result of political
pressure 
from business interests in Kentucky and Pennsylvania,
resulted in 
opening up Spanish controlled regions in the south and
west for 
population growth and trading opportunities. Most
importantly, for the 
national government's attempt to further
economic growth, American 
commercial ships were granted free
navigation rights on the 
Mississippi River and duty-free access to
the port of New Orleans. 
Government thus used the treaty-making
process to further the economic 
interests of various economic sectors
of the nation. No laissez-faire 
in evidence here. 
What is to be
done! Well, we must first challenge an academic-think 
tank complex
heavily funded by wealthy right-wing/conservative 
capitalists intent
on forging history. We can do this by creating a 
countervailing
alternative complex committed to historical accuracy. 
This would
necessitate funding by enlightened capitalists like Soros, 
Gates,
Buffet, and providing wide dissemination of objective research 
in
academic, political and popular arenas. We are not suggesting that
these enlightened capitalists eschew their advocacy in issue specific
solutions to African AIDS, world hunger, malaria, etc. Just that they
engage, as well, in the battle for America's mind and soul.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:cb66f8db-c055-4326...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Nice projection since thinkprogress is factoring the democrat's financial
crisis like the fascist socialist liar fucks that you all are. Why do you
hate the truth? Why are you such a fucking liar?

Damn niggers..

> http://thinkprogress.org/?mobile=nc

-Eddie Haskell

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 1:35 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES"  feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.

[Nickname unavailable]

Should not free market economists who urge people to live and die by
market forces also subject themselves to those same forces?:Tenured
Economists For a Free Market President



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-choate/economists-for-romney_b_1930726.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business


Pat Choate
Economist, Author and Ross Perot's Vice Presidential Running Mate in
1996




Tenured Economists For a Free Market President
Posted: 10/02/2012 5:00 pm

Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan has gained the enthusiastic
public endorsement of more than 600 professional economists, including
six Nobel laureates.
These economists particularly like that Governor Romney's plan would
(1) reduce marginal tax rates (2) control (reduce) the growth of
government spending to 20 percent of the GDP (3) reduce government
regulation (4) restructure Social Security and Medicare (5) use market
forces instead of federal bureaucracy to reduce the costs and improve
the quality of health care and (6) promote energy policies that
increase domestic production.
In sum, these economists endorse a return to the economic policies
employed by the administration of George W. Bush -- a lower tax rate
for the rich, privatizing the social safety network, and limited
federal regulation of the financial and energy sectors.
This public support of Governor Romney's candidacy, however, is
diminished by the fact that most of these economists are urging voters
to do as they say instead of doing as most of them have structured
their own lives. By my count, some 90 plus percent of these economists
work as academics, many in public universities, where many of them
have lifetime job tenure and well paying jobs from which it is almost
impossible to be fired. They have institution-provided health care and
generous pensions. At most universities, they have light workloads and
many opportunities to moonlight as consultants.
Should not free market economists who urge people to live and die by
market forces also subject themselves to those same forces?
Their endorsement would have been so more significant had each signer
simultaneously announced that they were surrendering their academic
job tenure and subjecting themselves to the market forces that they so
admire and so ardently want the federal government to impose on the
rest of America's workers.
If younger or poorer economists with comparable skills were willing to
teach for less pay and fewer benefits, then so be it. If academic
administrators could find equally qualified foreign economists willing
to work for less, then they should be in-sourced as replacements. If
401(k)s rather than defined benefit pensions are good enough for the
general work force, why not for academic economists? This would be the
market at work in academe. And where better to begin such a
stimulating process in academe than in free market economics
departments?
Fortunately, the election is still weeks away. These economists still
have time to make their private lives congruent with their public
endorsement of Governor Romney and share fully in the exciting economy
that they apparently believe that he would create as president.

[Bret Cahill]

What did you expect to happen after the idle rich rip off the 99% of
all their money?


Bret Cahill

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:a3e44763-3c66-4e01...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

They earned their money and wealth is CREATED, you economically illiterate
socialist maggot.

-Eddie Haskell

[Bret Cahill]

Wealth is created by dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question:

Does free speech precede each and every free trade.

? ? ?

After all, dodgin' 'n dodgin' questions all DeMint is going to do a
Koch funded Heritage. That and funnel Koch's bribe money to Justice
Thomas' wife.


Bret Cahill

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:24e142b2-a24f-4331...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Yawn..

I win again.

<snip>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAf4XbffcE

-Eddie Haskell

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Give them free medical care and free phones and free cars and free
houses......

[BeamMeUpScotty]

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rationing.htm
More government more rationing.




--



*Rumination*
#68 - The Leftists spend a lot of time perfuming that pig we call
Socialism, and the perfume never lasts till morning either.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/6/2012 12:23 PM, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:18:56 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

>> MORE SOCIALIST LIES.
>
> Why? Tell me why it wouldn't work.
>

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rationing.htm

Doing as you suggests creates a need for rationing as will ObamaCare
create medical rationing.


By making it mandatory and regulating it it limits the choices that will
lead to high prices that will lead to cap and trade price control and
price control always creates shortages...... and there is your rationing.

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>  i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> >>> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go
> >>> down on the productive portion of our economy....
>
> >> 47% of American households already pay ZERO income taxes. How do you
> >> propose to lower their taxes?
>
> > They already did that with the "earned income tax credit."
>
> > -Eddie Haskell
>
> Give them free medical care and free phones and free cars and free
> houses......

Whenever that other tire biter rebuffs you it reminds me of these
three dogs on a walk. Two dogs will be barking at me and the 3rd, a
fuzzy ball of fur, will start nipping at the tail of the bigger dog.

In fact, the entire GOP is now as comical as those 3 dogs.


Bret Cahill

[deep]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:40:29 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

Horseshit. Why rationing? It's just doing the same thing we are now.
It's just taxing the wealthy at a very high rate and putting the money
directly back into the economy. Now how about some valid criticism.

[deep]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:35:27 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM>
wrote:

So what? This has nothing to do with the world economy. This is OUR
economy. Money being injected directly into our economy so that there
will be an increase in demand for goods and services. That way
companies and expand and hire more people, putting even more back into
the economy.

>
>Etch it into your forehead with an ice pick so your bone-nosed ass doesn't
>forget this time.

Face it, you can't cope with the simple reality of the situtation.

>
>-Eddie Haskell
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That creates inflation and eventually rationing or in a little twist the
government pretends they are a mandate and subsidy rather than a
ration..... But the regulation tell you it's being rationed.

--



*Rumination*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[Eddie Haskell]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:c532c89a849ralcnr...@4ax.com...

Because there will be fewer and fewer doctors, facilities and medicine. Oh,
but we'll be the first in the world to break that rule, right socialist
religious worshiper?

> It's just doing the same thing we are now.
> It's just taxing the wealthy at a very high rate and putting the money
> directly back into the economy.

No, you brain dead idiot. Taxing the "rich" is too take money OUT of the
economy and give to the government to be wasted.

> Now how about some valid criticism.

You are stupid.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:u832c8h95v0gdp79v...@4ax.com...

And with less world competition back then. Don't play stupid with me. It
pisses me off.

> Money being injected directly into our economy so that there
> will be an increase in demand for goods and services.

Dah fuck? By taking MORE money OUT of the economy? You fuckers are deranged.
Literally derange., by a desperate need to believe that fucking people that
have earned more then you is noble. Well, it's not.

> That way
> companies and expand and hire more people, putting even more back into
> the economy.

See above, shit brain.

>>Etch it into your forehead with an ice pick so your bone-nosed ass doesn't
>>forget this time.
>
> Face it, you can't cope with the simple reality of the situtation.

And he caps it off with a dose of projection. Textbook. Beautifully done.

-Eddie Haskell

[Bret Cahill]

> >>  i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> >> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>

> > If the 1% are the only ones with an income that can be taxed, then they
> > are the only productive people and your statement is flawed.
>
> His statement is an envy driven lie.

At the current state of development of economics, politics and free
speech law, it's not really correct.

Not only must taxes go up on the unproductive 1%, i.e., the Koch
Bros., taxes must also go up on the productive 1%, i.e., Buffet,
Soros, the Patriotic Millionaires, as well.

This could change. One elegant example would be Henry George's
arguments on taxing land at full rental value. Land is _not_ the
product of human labor. Geo taxation might not be the the only tax
but it is certainly the _first_ tax. Geo taxation would rip a hole in
the idle rich like the Koch Bros while sparing the intellectual rich
like Buffet, Soros, and the Patriotic Millionaires.


Bret Cahill

[Eddie Haskell]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b61a8361-2fb3-46d7...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

> >> i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> >> the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>
> > If the 1% are the only ones with an income that can be taxed, then they
> > are the only productive people and your statement is flawed.
>
> His statement is an envy driven lie.

> At the current state of development of economics, politics and free
> speech law, it's not really correct.

> Not only must taxes go up on the unproductive 1%, i.e., the Koch
> Bros., taxes must also go up on the productive 1%, i.e., Buffet,
> Soros, the Patriotic Millionaires, as well.

> This could change. One elegant example would be Henry George's
> arguments on taxing land at full rental value. Land is _not_ the
> product of human labor.

The money to purchase it is and private property is the cornerstone of
American liberty, you anti-American greed driven socialist maggot.

-Eddie Haskell

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...
>
>
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
>> its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>> cutting
>>
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> them out of the pickle.

IOW, Kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with the new and
worse 'fiscal cliff'.

[jim]

That is correct, kicking the can down the road
is the smartest thing to do.

The reason Congress created the current
fiscal cliff back in August of 2011 was because they
kicked the can down the road rather than go
off an even bigger cliff back then. Things have been
improving. If they kick the can down the road until
the economy is at full employment at that point going
off the cliff won't be such a big deal.

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:u832c8h95v0gdp79v...@4ax.com...

How does taking money out of our private sector economy (where there is a
larger economic multiplier) putting it in the public sector economy (where
the multiplier is smaller) is going to "[put] even more back into the
economy"?

Further, do that long enough and suddenly you find yourself with a segment
of the economy utterly dependent on that government spending without which
they would largely go belly up resulting in severe economic upset through
that entire section of the economy.

Seems to me you plan is to rob Peter to pay Paul and generate and entire new
set of government tit suckers that depend massively on Paul's ability to
continue to rob Peter. So what happens when Peter takes action to end that?

Shall we blame the rich because they refuse to allow us to rob them blind?

Why should the rich pay a punitive tax rate simply because you want the
government to overspend?

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:aee0c279-a37d-4f1c...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

>> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
>> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
>> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>> > cutting
>>
>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>

> Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
> accounts.
>
> Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
> poor.

No, what it means is that the rich move their assets off shore before this
tax occurs, instead are greatly motivated to invest in foreign ventures
where they don't have to pay these taxes, and to keep that money out of the
US entirely so that no US taxes will be owed.

Oh, let me guess, next you will be bitching about how all these jobs are
being outsourced to foreign companies, and how the rich are no longer
investing in America.

So let me ask you a question. Let's say you live in State X, and State X
decides that you will have to pay 90% of your income to them next year.

Will you continue to live and work in State X, or will you move to State Y
and live and work there instead?

Somehow, I bet pretty much anyone would tend to move their primary residence
and source of incomes to the area with the lower tax rate.

See, as you increase tax rates the amount collected doesn't always increase.
Too much taxation can actually result in LESS tax revenue and can even
negatively impact the economy by making it unattractive to business,
investment, and so on.

After all. Why invest millions in starting a new business when you know
right off that 90% of the rewards will be stolen from you. You risk
everything and end up with a tiny reward. Hardly something that will
encourage an new American industrial age.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:38 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>
> news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nickname unavailable wrote:
>

> > > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn t even accomplish
> > > its stated goal of reducing a government s debt, u.k. now has the
> > > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > > cutting
>
> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>

> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > them out of the pickle.

> > i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> > the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>

> Your position is based on nigger envy and greed as opposed to sound economic
> policy. You are incapable of that.
>
> "Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
> in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
> all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more than
> $250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
> country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "
>
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...
>

> > and have to go

> > down on the productive portion of our economy.
>
> Goddamn, the bottom 47% couldn't pay any less, you lying sack of shit. You
> even get money back for paying no income taxes.
>
> Damn, you're a lying sack of worthless shit.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

lying with statistics again. it simply will not wash.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:12 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >  i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in

> > the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go
> > down on the productive portion of our economy....
>
> 47% of American households already pay ZERO income taxes. How do you propose to lower their taxes?

there were impoverished by wealthy unproductive parasites. we are
simply going to put them back to work.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 11:17 am, deep <d...@dudu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:39:17 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 6, 10:10 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> >> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...
>

> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> >> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
> >> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
> >> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> >> > cutting
>
> >> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> >> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> >> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
> >> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> >> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> >> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> >> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> >> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> >> > them out of the pickle.
>

> >> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
> >> will give them everything they want. Across the board tax hikes, the ability
> >> to gut the military and to get to blame it all on republicans thanks to the
> >> corrupt MSM / DNC cabal that's destroying America.
>
> >> -Eddie Haskell
>
> > even a majority of republicans want tax hikes on the unproductive
> >wealthy.
>
> I think they should go back to the tax rate after WWII of 90% on the
> wealthy.  No loopholes.  No deductions.  So secreting to offshore tax
> shelters.  Use the money for infrastructure projects which will create
> hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Then you create even more tax revenues
> because people have jobs.  And because the middle class will have
> money then you create demand for more goods.  More demand, more jobs.
> More tax revenue.  It ain't rocket science.  But we are fighting
> against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.

yep.

Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that
constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger
and prevent another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies
know?)





http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23641.htm




What Recession?

As the Economy Crashed Around Them, 400 Richest Americans Lined Their
Pockets with $30 Billion

By Les Leopold

October 05, 2009 "Alternet' -- It's great to know that during the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the
400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30
billion. Well golly, that's only a 2 percent increase, much less than
the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2
percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your
401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher jobs
at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It's hard to
get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to imagine
that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of
the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were
high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining
wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent
another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies know?)
Had we kept those high progressive taxes in place, instead of removing
them, especially during the Reagan era, the Forbes 400 might each be
worth "only" $100 million instead of $3.9 billion each. So let's
imagine that the rest of their wealth, about $1.53 trillion, were
available for the public good.
What does $1.53 trillion buy?
It's more than enough to insure the uninsured for the next twenty
years or more.
It's more than enough to create a Manhattan Project to solve global
warming by developing renewable energy and a green, sustainable
manufacturing sector.
And here's my favorite: It's more than enough to endow every public
college and university in the country so that all of our children
could gain access to higher education for free, forever!
Instead, we embarked on a grand experiment to see what would happen if
we deregulated finance and changed the tax code so that millionaires
could turn into billionaires. And even after that experiment failed in
the most spectacular way, our system seems trapped into staying on the
same deregulated path.
Instead of free higher education, health care and a sustainable
economy, we got a fantasy finance boom and bust on Wall Street which
crashed the real economy. We have our 400 billionaires, and we have 29
million unemployed and underemployed Americans. We have an
infrastructure in shambles. We have an environment in crisis. We have
a health care system that would make Rube Goldberg proud. And we have
the worst income distribution since 1929.
I hazard to guess that each and every Forbes 400 member could get by
with a net worth of $100 million. I don't think that would kill their
entrepreneurial drive or harm our economy--in fact it would be a major
boon to the economy to step back from the edge of such massive
concentration of wealth. The real problem is getting there form here.
A wealth tax that kicks in when you become worth more than $100
million would be a good start. The Eisenhower tax rate on adjustable
gross income over $3 million a year would help as well.
And please let's not call it socialism, now that we've placed the
entire financial sector on welfare to the tune of over $13 trillion in
subsidies and guarantees. (By the way, the yearly budget outlays for
means tested programs for low income citizens is about $350 billion
per year. So Wall Street's welfare is about 37 times as large as
welfare for poor.)
So if narrowing the income/wealth gap isn't socialism, what is it?
It's the America that thrived in the 1950s and 1960s. It's the America
that created a middle-class and vowed never to let the financial
gamblers return us to another depression. It's an America that put its
people to work and built an infrastructure that was the envy of the
world.
Where's Dwight David Eisenhower when we need him?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in
several ways:
1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes
people build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick
windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of
short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and
running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.
2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people
take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a
fortune 
will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing
interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities.
When it takes owners and executives years to build up a fortune they
need solid companies that are around for a long time. This requires
the surrounding public infrastructure of roads, schools, police,
fire, 
courts, etc., to be in good shape to provide long-term support
for the 
enterprise. You also want your company to build a solid
reputation for 
serving its customers rather than cheapening the
product, pursuing 
quick-buck scams, cutting customer service, etc.
The current Wall 
Street/private equity business model of looting
companies, leaving 
behind an empty shell, unemployed workers and a
surrounding community 
in devastation will no longer be a viable
business strategy.
3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to
run 
scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave
behind 
the mess you make for others to fix. A high top tax rate
removes the 
incentive to lie, cheat and steal to grab every buck you
can as fast 
as you can. This reduces the temptation to be dishonest.
If you aren’t 
going to keep the whole dime, why risk doing the time?
When excessive, 
massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to
overwhelming greed 
and a resulting compromising of principles. Sort
of the definition of 
the decades since Reagan, no?
4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending – we spend
more on military than all other countries on earth combined – taxing
the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive
Reagan/Bush debt. This reduces and ultimately eliminates the share of
the budget that goes to pay interest. The United States now has to
pay 
a huge share of its budget just to cover the interest on the
borrowing 
that tax cuts made necessary. Paying off the debt would
remove this 
huge drag on our economy. (Never mind that Alan Greenspan
famously 
called for Bush’s tax cuts by saying it was dangerous to pay
off our 
debt – now that same Alan Greenspan says we need to cut
benefits to 
retired people because our debt is so high.)
5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure
that then cause the economy to explode for the better. Investing in
modern transit systems, smart grid, energy efficiency, fast internet
and other improvements leads to a huge payoff of increased prosperity
for all of us – especially for those at the top income levels.
Infrastructure improvement and maintenance is the “seed corn” of
economic growth. We have been eating that seed corn since Reagan’s
tax 
cuts.
6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools,
colleges and universities. Not only will this help our
competitiveness, but it will improve each of our lives and level of
happiness.
7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class. A
consumption-based economy does better when consumers have more to
spend. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, though I suspect so, but after
FDR raised top tax rates the economy grew dramatically. The 90% top
rate years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and the beginning of the
Kennedy years were the years when we built the middle class. And
remember, after Clinton raised top tax rates only modestly the
economy 
grew. How's it been doing since Bush's tax cuts for the rich?
A look 
at economic growth rate charts shows a steady decline in the
decades 
since top tax rates began to fall. Is it just a coincidence
that the 
economy booms after tax increases that provide revenue to
invest in 
new “seed corn,” and that the economy declines as we reduce
taxes?
8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable
increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people.
This 
recirculates money into the economy more productively than the
current 
system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping
for a 
resulting consumption of high-end goods. The wealthy can only
spend so 
muc h so more disposable income in the hands of regular
people is good 
for business. Any business owner will tell you they
want customers 
more than they want tax cuts. (Let’s wait until the
top one percent no 
longer owns most of everything before we talk
about whether there is 
an effect on investment.)
9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours,
low 
pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing
union 
organizers and schemes that call employees “contractors” will
no 
longer pay off as it does today. The era of extreme union-busting
came 
in at the same time as the tax cuts.
Krugman: The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the
American population in total income – an indicator that closely
tracks 
many other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90
years, 
as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel
Saez. [see 
link below]
10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us.
Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of
everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of
wealth.
11) It fights the political instability that results from
concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the
resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that
can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the
signs of a resurgence of these problems today.
12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in
equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the
hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it
to 
get even more.
13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked
hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and
regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in
common. It will increase its ability to provide all of us equally
with 
the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy.
14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause
those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn
Randians claim the very rich are the “producers” and all the rest of
us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their “work.” So it
will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by
taxing 
them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund
managers who 
brought in an average of $1 billion each last year – an
amount that 
would have paid for 658,000 teachers -- while the rest of
the country 
suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax
rate of 90% 
they would “only” take home $100 million or so each – in
a single 
year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it’s a win-
win.Taxes 
are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and
protections of 
modern society. Those benefits and protections are
what enable people 
to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some
back so others can 
prosper as well. Help us spread the word about
these important 
stories...Email to a friend
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041625/13-ways-90-percent-top...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's helpful for understanding things, but the supposed
"significance"
given the arbitrary 100% figure is entirely political clown theater.
Note the clown dance that comes out when we point out the post WWII
level and how it had no effect on the economy of the post war era and
the 50's into the 60's. (Of course back then the top marginal rate
was 
91%, corporate income tax was between 40 and 55%, and the
capital 
gains tax was above 25%.)
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-191...
Ah those great conservative days of the 50s!
When Ike said such things as "“Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is
spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the
hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true
sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of
iron.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security
unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you
would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is
a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these
things. 
Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an
occasional 
politician or business man from other areas. Their number
is 
negligible and they are stupid.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And: 
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition 
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military 
industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced 
power exists and will persist. We must never let
the weight of this 
combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should 
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry 
can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military 
machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that 
security and liberty may prosper
together.” 
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 12:03 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>
> news:o4l1c8p8b74613gn9...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:18:56 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> >>MORE SOCIALIST LIES.
>
> > Why?  Tell me why it wouldn't work.
>

> You're living it, and it didn't work, you blind religious dipshit.
>
> And now we have to relive it because you people can't learn. That's because
> liberalism is a religion just like I said.
>
> Preface: 7 years after Hoover began what would become the New Deal,
> unemployment stood at 17.2%, even after massive public works projects.
>
> Not that you are capable of giving a shit..
>
> "The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy was
> the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which included
> funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction
> Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932."
>
> "In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to
> one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of
> 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate
> tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%."
>
> "New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so
> at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs
> that Hoover started.""
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
>
> "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent
> before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong
> ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I
> want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We
> have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this
> Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And
> an enormous debt to boot!"
>
> -Treasury secretary Henry Morganthau - May 1939
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.
>
> "Tugwell subsequently served in FDR's administration for four years and was
> one of the chief intellectual contributors to his New Deal."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexford_Tugwell
>
> http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depress...

yes FDR listened to some "CONSERVATIVE" cranks in his administration,
found out that they were dipshits, reversed course, embraced keynes
again, and turned america into a economic power house the likes the
world has never seen before, thanks lord keynes:)))))


i predicted it would be called the obama recession/depression. and it
looks like its already being called that. what a great leader, what
great advisors. driving the economy into the ground to try to appease
the fascists, sure does not seem to be working to well does it:)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-woolner/forgetting-keynes-lessons_b_918136.html


David Woolner
Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt
Institute



Forgetting Lessons of Keynes and FDR Brings On the 'Obama Recession'
Posted: 8/4/11 07:20 PM ET

When FDR ignored the Keynesian tenet that cutting spending in a
downturn spells disaster, he paid dearly. Obama is set to relearn this
lesson the hard way.
"The economic experiments of President Roosevelt may prove, I think,
to be of extraordinary importance in economic history, because for the
first time -- at least I cannot recall a comparable case --
theoretical advice is being taken by one of the rulers of the world as
the basis of large-scale action. The possibility of such a remarkable
event has arisen out of the utter and complete discredit of every
variety of orthodox advice. The state of mind in America which lies
behind this willingness to try unorthodox experiments arises out of an
economic situation desperate beyond precedent." ~John Maynard Keynes,
January 1934
Just under three quarters of a century ago, a group of conservative
economic advisers close to Franklin Roosevelt informed the President
that they were worried about the rapid rate of growth in the U.S.
economy. Since 1933, when FDR took over at the height of the Great
Depression, the economy had been expanding steadily, at an average
rate of 14 percent per year. Schooled as most of these advisors were
in the tenets of economic orthodoxy (which called for cuts in spending
during an economic downturn), and unsure of the effects of the
Keynesian-style deficit spending that the administration had been
engaged in under the terms of the early New Deal, the President was
advised to cut the budget, reduce deficit spending and tighten the
money supply as a means to stave off inflation. Heeding their word
(and no economist himself), FDR did just that.
The results were an unmitigated disaster.
Thanks to the Administration's decision to move away from the
increasingly Keynesian policies it had been following -- policies that
saw the unemployment rate fall from a high of 25% in 1933 to 14% by
1937 -- FDR launched one of the sharpest economic downturns in
American history -- the so-called "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38. In
just a few short months, the GDP declined by 13 percent; industrial
production by 33 percent; wages by 35 percent and an estimated four
million people lost their jobs. No fool, FDR quickly reversed himself
and went back to Congress to seek a massive stimulus bill to put
people back to work and repair the damage to the Depression-era
economy. Within three months growth had returned and the economy was
back on track.
FDR only met John Maynard Keynes once during the 1930s, and after
their 1934 meeting both men expressed a certain ambivalence about the
other (Keynes said FDR did not know much about economics and Roosevelt
said with all of his "numbers" Keynes struck him as more of a
mathematician than an economist). But the lessons FDR drew from the
1937-38 recession were clear: cutting federal spending and tightening
the money supply in the midst of a deep economic crisis were bad ideas
and from this point on his administration pursued economic policies
that can only be described as unabashedly Keynesian. FDR may never
have publicly embraced Keynes's theories, and in fact preferred to
call his subsequent use of massive government borrowing and spending
"compensatory fiscal policy," but the two concepts were virtually
identical.
Spurred along by this change of heart and by the growing demands to
increase defense spending to meet the challenges of World War II, the
federal government borrowed 100s of billions of dollars in the late
1930s and early 40s, while at the same time government expenditures --
i.e. stimulus -- reached record levels. By the time the United States
was fully engaged in the war, federal spending accounted for more than
half of the country's Gross National Product, business was booming and
the scourge of unemployment had all but disappeared.
And what were the long-term consequences of all of this borrowing and
spending? Economic chaos? A sovereign debt and default crisis? No,
what followed was more than three decades of postwar economic
expansion and the creation of perhaps the best paid and best educated
work-force America had ever seen.
The modern middle class was born.
In the past two years we have heard official after official claim that
they do not want to repeat "the mistakes of the Great Depression." Yet
the recent behavior of both the Obama Administration and senior
members of Congress belies this claim. Rather than fight for economic
policies that would stimulate the economy and put people back to work,
this Administration -- and even many senior democratic party officials
-- have chosen to ignore the lessons of the past. Instead of focusing
on jobs and growth -- the real crisis in our economy -- they have
embraced the sky-is-falling rhetoric of the Republican Party
extremists. These fear mongerers and obstructionists have convinced
millions of Americans and virtually the entire US media that the key
to economic recovery is to slash federal spending. The
Administration's championing of the 39 billion in cuts to the
2010-2011 budget and the recent debacle over the debt ceiling -- with
an agreement that does nothing to stimulate the economy -- are but two
sorry examples of this phenomenon.
In 1937 FDR paid a heavy political price for his decision to turn away
from Keynesian economics. The democrats lost seats in the 1938
election and FDR's ability to push through further fundamental reforms
in Congress was severely limited from this point forward. Worse still,
millions of Americas suffered from the sudden economic downturn that
came as a result of these ill-timed and unnecessary cut-backs.
President Obama sells the Budget Control Act of 2011 as a victory for
the American people; as an important "first step" in solving the
"deficit crisis." But he has missed a fundamental point: the most
effective way to reduce the federal deficit in the long-term is to
spur economic growth in the short-term. He also seems to have lost
sight of the fact that the real crisis we face is that roughly 26
million Americans are either under employed or out of work. This
national tragedy could be greatly alleviated by a return to the
Keynesian economic policies temporarily abandoned by Franklin
Roosevelt three quarters of a century ago. But neither the President
nor his colleagues in Congress appear to have the desire or political
will to resist the incessant Republican demands to cut spending no
matter what the cost to the American people.
It is sad to think that history may be repeating itself. But the
apparent decision of this administration to embrace cuts over spending
may soon lead the President down the same path that FDR took in 1937.
Only this time the "Obama recession" of 2011-2012 will most likely
cost the current president his job.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 1:35 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>

> news:60a86ac2-1082-475e...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

> > yep, all agreed. its easy, even IKE understood it.

> > Taxes were high back in the 1950s because
>

> Europe and Japan had been decimated and we were the only game in town.
>

> Etch it into your forehead with an ice pick so your bone-nosed ass doesn't
> forget this time.
>

> -Eddie Haskell

you mean there are a lot more tax havens now, and wealthy parasites
have at least 21 trillion dollars shoved into off shore accounts, that
is strangling the american economy into depression.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 1:43 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>

> news:cb66f8db-c055-4326...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 6, 11:38 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>

> >news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>

> > > Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > > > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn t even accomplish
> > > > its stated goal of reducing a government s debt, u.k. now has the
> > > > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > > > cutting
>
> > > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> > > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > > them out of the pickle.

> > > i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> > > the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>

> > Your position is based on nigger envy and greed as opposed to sound
> > economic
> > policy. You are incapable of that.
>
> > "Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
> > in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
> > all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more
> > than
> > $250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
> > country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "
>
> >http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...
>

> > > and have to go

> > > down on the productive portion of our economy.
>
> > Goddamn, the bottom 47% couldn't pay any less, you lying sack of shit. You
> > even get money back for paying no income taxes.
>
> > Damn, you're a lying sack of worthless shit.
>
> > -Eddie Haskell

> > trickle down supply side charlatan economics just does not work.
> > Supply-side tax cutting policies have not led to the growth their
> > Republican proponents promised/The Bush tax cuts for instance were
> > followed by the weakest decade for economic expansion on
> > record:trickle down is a fairy tale laced with chicanery
>
> Nice projection since thinkprogress is factoring the democrat's financial
> crisis like the fascist socialist liar fucks that you all are. Why do you
> hate the truth? Why are you such a fucking liar?
>
> Damn niggers..
>
> >http://thinkprogress.org/?mobile=nc
>
> -Eddie Haskell

you can always tell what is on the mind of "THE CONSERVATIVE", is
when they blame others for what is on their own minds.

stalin and mao starved millions to death.
hitler and musolinni crafted the useless eaters theory.
stalin and mao hated labor unions.
hitler and musolinni hated labor unions.
stalin and mao hated liberals.
hitler and musolinni hated liberals.
marx and rand hated big government, and wanted to destroy it.
stalin and mao thought that only the strong shall survive.
hitler and musolinni thought that only the strong shall survive.
all four hated homosexuals.
all four ran a show me your papers police state.
in stalins russia, as well as mao's china, almost all wealth and
power
ended up in the hands of a few.
its also happening in the west, where ever the conservatives and
rands
cranks theories are being employed.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 1:50 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

they earned it, you call working for stalin earning their money!!!!!!!

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 4:19 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

hoover dam.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 4:23 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

>
> news:u832c8h95v0gdp79v...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:35:27 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM>
> > wrote:
>

> >>"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

free trade does not work dummy. asia lives off of us like parasites.
its fun watching china trying to fake their way out of a lack of
demand. you must be getting paid not only by the stalinists koch, but
also the red chinese:))))

> > Money being injected directly into our economy so that there
> > will be an increase in demand for goods and services.
>
> Dah fuck? By taking MORE money OUT of the economy? You fuckers are deranged.
> Literally derange., by a desperate need to believe that fucking people that
> have earned more then you is noble. Well, it's not.
>

fox admitted today that the stimulus worked:)))))))

> > That way
> > companies and expand and hire more people, putting even more back into
> > the economy.
>
> See above, shit brain.
>

demand is wage driven.

> >>Etch it into your forehead with an ice pick so your bone-nosed ass doesn't
> >>forget this time.
>
> > Face it, you can't cope with the simple reality of the situtation.
>
> And he caps it off with a dose of projection. Textbook. Beautifully done.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

economics 101, tax breaks for wealthy parasites has failed now three
times in american history. there is absolutely no proof period that
they ever work.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 5:03 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

that is not the way that the majority of the founders saw it,

the majority of the founders were liberals, who crafted the
constitution of the united states with broad powers to legislate, tax,
regulate, tariff, negate state law, promote and provide for the
general welfare, mandate, to ensure domestic tranquility, and to To

make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this

Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 6:10 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

>
> news:u832c8h95v0gdp79v...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:35:27 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM>
> > wrote:
>

> >>"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

the unproductive wealthy have at least 21 trillion dollars sitting in
off shore accounts, strangling the american economy, and impoverishing
millions.

[deep]

Infrastructure jobs (critical need anyway) will inject money directly
back into the private sector.

>
>Further, do that long enough and suddenly you find yourself with a segment
>of the economy utterly dependent on that government spending without which
>they would largely go belly up resulting in severe economic upset through
>that entire section of the economy.

I see you are still an idiot. No shocker there.

>Seems to me you plan is to rob Peter to pay Paul and generate and entire new
>set of government tit suckers that depend massively on Paul's ability to
>continue to rob Peter. So what happens when Peter takes action to end that?
>
>Shall we blame the rich because they refuse to allow us to rob them blind?
>
>Why should the rich pay a punitive tax rate simply because you want the
>government to overspend?
>

It's the economy stupid. Now the rich have trillions sitting in
offshore tax free accounts doing nothing. Taxing the hell out of them
gets the money in the economy where people need it.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 6:17 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

>
> news:aee0c279-a37d-4f1c...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> >> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn t even accomplish
> >> > its stated goal of reducing a government s debt, u.k. now has the
> >> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> >> > cutting
>
> >> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> >> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> >> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> > Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
> > accounts.
>
> > Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
> > poor.
>
> No, what it means is that the rich move their assets off shore before this
> tax occurs, instead are greatly motivated to invest in foreign ventures
> where they don't have to pay these taxes, and to keep that money out of the
> US entirely so that no US taxes will be owed.
>

they already done that, as soon as their taxes were cut. there is no
proof period, that tax cuts for wealthy parasites increase investment
in america. i have posted to this thread empirical evidence to the
contrary, investments suffers under tax breaks for parasites.

> Oh, let me guess, next you will be bitching about how all these jobs are
> being outsourced to foreign companies, and how the rich are no longer
> investing in America.
>

as soon as the ink was dry under bush, that is exactly what they did.
bush rewarded them with even a second round of tax giveaways, and the
results, under bush, he had the worst, if not one of the worst job
creations in american history.

> So let me ask you a question. Let's say you live in State X, and State X
> decides that you will have to pay 90% of your income to them next year.
>

yet blue states have far, far more millionaires than red states, gee
they should be flocking to the hill billy red states.

> Will you continue to live and work in State X, or will you move to State Y
> and live and work there instead?
>

demand is wage driven, its why so many millionaires live in blue
states, and pay their taxes.

> Somehow, I bet pretty much anyone would tend to move their primary residence
> and source of incomes to the area with the lower tax rate.
>

then why are there so few millionaires living next door to your
trailer?

> See, as you increase tax rates the amount collected doesn't always increase.
> Too much taxation can actually result in LESS tax revenue and can even
> negatively impact the economy by making it unattractive to business,
> investment, and so on.
>

but we have never seen that in america, even under IKE.

> After all. Why invest millions in starting a new business when you know
> right off that 90% of the rewards will be stolen from you. You risk
> everything and end up with a tiny reward. Hardly something that will
> encourage an new American industrial age.

gee, the 1950's were pretty darned good.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Dec 6, 7:30 pm, deep <d...@dudu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:10:57 -0500, "Scout"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"deep" <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message

> >news:u832c8h95v0gdp79v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:35:27 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM>
> >> wrote:
>

> >>>"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

yep.

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:khh2c89h4ucggs9cd...@4ax.com...

Which will then be almost immediately removed by your increased taxation.

So tell me Dudu...what happens when you get a massive industry geared
towards infrastructure projects and suddenly you can't afford to fund them
anymore or it's decided that virtually all the infrastructure jobs have been
done.

How many millions of people are you going to kick out of work?

Where exactly do you think you're going to find that sort of money?

Do you even have any idea of what these infrastructure projects you're
talking about will cost?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why would they bring any back for you to tax the hell out of it?

You're as dumb as you sound.

If I won the Lottery tomorrow, I would push most of the money offshore
to get it out your reach.

--



*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why don't you create some wealth?

--



*Rumination*
#32 - Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their
freedoms.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why is an American with offshore money any different than an illegal
alien with offshore accounts that they send their paychecks back to?

--
*Welcome to Socialism*
-Kum bay ya-




That was the pertinent part for this question but here is the entire
Constitution for the DUMMY'S.





The NEW CONSTITUTION

Here… I did a find and replace of *United States*
to *Federal Government*

Article. I.
Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of
the *Federal Government* , which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in
each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
*Federal Government* , and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after
the first Meeting of the congress of the *Federal Government* , and
within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall
by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one
Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of
New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode-Island? and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five,
New-York? six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one,
Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five,
and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such
Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.

The Senate of the *Federal Government* shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and
each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.
The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth
Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the
Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary
Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
*Federal Government*, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the *Federal Government* shall be President
of the
Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro
tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise
the office of President of the *Federal Government* .

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the *Federal Government* is tried, the Chief Justice* *shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the *Federal Government* : but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such
Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by
Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall
constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn
from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of
absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House
may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two
thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to
time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment
require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on
any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be
entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of congress, shall, without the
Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
*Federal Government* . They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony
and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to
and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either
House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil office under the Authority of the
*Federal Government* , which shall have been created, or the Emoluments
whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person
holding any office under the *Federal Government* , shall be a
Member of
either House during his Continuance in office.
Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but *the Senate may propose or concur* with Amendments as
on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of
the *Federal Government* : If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he
shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall
have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent,
together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House,
it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses
shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each
House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,
unless the congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate
and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the *Federal
Government* ; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by
him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the
Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.

The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the *Federal Government* ; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the *Federal Government* ;

To borrow Money on the credit of the *Federal Government* ;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the *Federal Government* ;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the *Federal Government* ;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the *Federal Government* , reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the *Federal Government* , and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of
the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this

Constitution in the Government of the *Federal Government* , or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to
the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound
to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in
another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the *Federal Government* : And
no Person holding any office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.
Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the
Use of the Treasury of the *Federal Government* ; and all such Laws shall
be subject to the Revision and Controul of the congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of war in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
*United States of America* . He shall hold his office during the
Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for
the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the congress: but
no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or
Profit under the *Federal Government* , shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot
for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the
same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the
Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the
Government of the *Federal Government* , directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number
of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such
Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But
in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the
greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day
on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same
throughout the *Federal Government* .

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
*Federal Government* , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
*Federal Government* .

In Case of the Removal of the President from office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the congress
may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or
Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what
Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act
accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from the *Federal Government* , or
any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the office of President of the *Federal
Government* , and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the *Federal Government* .”
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
*Federal Government* , and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the *Federal Government* ; he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the *Federal Government* , except in Cases
of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the
*Federal Government* , whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the congress
may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall
expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the congress Information of the State
of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he
shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions,
convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement
between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn
them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors
and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the
*Federal Government* .
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
*Federal Government* , shall be removed from office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the *Federal Government* shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which
shall not be diminished during their Continuance in office.
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the *Federal Government*, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which
the *Federal Government* shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two
or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another
State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the congress
shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the congress may by Law have
directed.
Section. 3.

Treason against the *Federal Government* , shall consist only in levying
war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but
no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand
of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered
up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due.
Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the congress.

The congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to
the *Federal Government* ; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the *Federal Government* , or of
any particular State.
Section. 4.

The *Federal Government* shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.

The congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the *Federal Government*
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the *Federal Government* which
shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the *Federal Government* , shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the *Federal Government* and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office
or public Trust under the *Federal Government* .
Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the Same.

The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines
of the first Page, the Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure
in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being
interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first
Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and
forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the
*United States of America* the Twelfth In witness whereof We have
hereunto subscribed our Names,

+——————————————————–+

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/6/2012 8:18 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

Obama sent a few billion to a few Trillion to Egypt and to the
Palestinians and to so many places and you Socialists waste more than
that 21 trillion on ObamaCare and Green Energy and Green Cars and so you
have wasted 21 Trillion and that didn't cure anything did it?

--



*Rumination*
#43 - ObamaCare is slavery and that violates the 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,.... shall exist within the
United States...

[Bret Cahill]

> > >  i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> > > the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%, and have to go
> > > down on the productive portion of our economy....
>
> > 47% of American households already pay ZERO income taxes. How do you propose to lower their taxes?
>
>  there were impoverished by wealthy unproductive parasites. we are
> simply going to put them back to work.

All you do is talk back to the wanna be despots and and they start
screaming like the wicked witch of the West under Niagra Falls.

There must be some way to market this as good wholesome recreational
fun, maybe at a state fair, and make some real money!


Bret Cahill


"The sovereignty of the people and the freedom of the press are,
therefore, entirely correlative whereas censorship and universal
suffrage contradict each other and cannot long coexist in the
institutions of the same peaople."

-- Tocqueville

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:50C154D1...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

I noticed a couple of things about Unknown's claims.

1) How many of those wealthy he talks about are Americans who would even be
subject to the US tax codes.
2) Of those, how many are really "unproductive" and by what criteria is one
deemed "unproductive".
3) Does this idiot really think that imposing a 90% tax rate would suddenly
get those wealthy individuals to take the money out of those off shore
accounts and bring in within the taxing power of the US government.

Given 1, 2 and 3 above, I think you can see why Unknown isn't creating some
wealth. He wouldn't know how to do so.

Oh, and I note that he didn't produce ANY cites to support his assertion
that the "unproductive wealthy" have $21 Trillion dollars in cash just
sitting in bank accounts.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 6, 6:36 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Suddenly the conservative phrase of "regional stability" is no longer
the "in thing", how much money did paul bremer waste?

[deep]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:24:51 -0500, "Scout"

Then what? You think the government makes money disappear? It goes
into services and jobs. About a fifth of the country all work for the
public sector. That's money going the economy.

>
>So tell me Dudu...what happens when you get a massive industry geared
>towards infrastructure projects and suddenly you can't afford to fund them
>anymore or it's decided that virtually all the infrastructure jobs have been
>done.

If you agree to fund them, they will never stop having a need for
maintenance and upgrade.

>
>How many millions of people are you going to kick out of work?

How many millions will we be putting to work? So what you are saying
is don't create any jobs because someday they might go away. That
makes a load of sense... NOT.

>
>Where exactly do you think you're going to find that sort of money?

In the bank accounts of the ultra wealthy.

>
>Do you even have any idea of what these infrastructure projects you're
>talking about will cost?
>
>

Lots. And that's all money given to workers, contractors, and
materials suppliers. Which they will then pay their rent, make their
car payment, buy groceries, then if anything is left over go to Best
Buy and get a wide screen TV. Then the guys who work at Best Buy will
be able to keep their jobs. Then they can continue to make their car
payment....

get it yet?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 6, 7:11 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> messagenews:50C154D1...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

un-productive could mean so chicken to take risk that they would
rather let the little guy do the hard work.

[Oglethorpe]

"Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote in message
news:Er3ws.88729$NF1....@fed15.iad...

>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
> news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...
>
>
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>> you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>> double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
>> its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
>> highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>> cutting
>>
>
>> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
>> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>> them out of the pickle.
>
> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
> will give them everything they want. Across the board tax hikes, the
> ability to gut the military and to get to blame it all on republicans
> thanks to the corrupt MSM / DNC cabal that's destroying America.
>

I agree, with ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR along for the ride.

> -Eddie Haskell
>

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in
news:5pn2c8h8uagfhen4q...@4ax.com:

In some cases, yes.

It goes
> into services and jobs. About a fifth of the country all work for the
> public sector. That's money going the economy.

Actually, it is money that came from the economy. The public sector does
NOT generate any revenue. It is a cost.

>>So tell me Dudu...what happens when you get a massive industry geared
>>towards infrastructure projects and suddenly you can't afford to fund
>>them anymore or it's decided that virtually all the infrastructure
>>jobs have been done.
>
> If you agree to fund them, they will never stop having a need for
> maintenance and upgrade.

IOW, you feel that government should be continually spending private
sector money? That whenever a project is done, a new one should take its
place adding costs to our government?

>>How many millions of people are you going to kick out of work?
>
> How many millions will we be putting to work? So what you are saying
> is don't create any jobs because someday they might go away. That
> makes a load of sense... NOT.

What do you think should be done when the government runs out of money
which it will if it keeps spending more than it takes in.

>>Where exactly do you think you're going to find that sort of money?
>
> In the bank accounts of the ultra wealthy.

Damn, Dudu, expiring the tax cuts on the wealthy will generate about $80B
a year......not even a rounding error on Obama's deficits.

>>Do you even have any idea of what these infrastructure projects you're
>>talking about will cost?
>>
>>
> Lots.

And where do YOU think that money comes from?

And that's all money given to workers, contractors, and
> materials suppliers. Which they will then pay their rent, make their
> car payment, buy groceries, then if anything is left over go to Best
> Buy and get a wide screen TV. Then the guys who work at Best Buy will
> be able to keep their jobs. Then they can continue to make their car
> payment....
>
> get it yet?

And pay more and higher taxes to keep this scheme going? What will you
do when that money runs out?



--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?

[Oglethorpe]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:aee0c279-a37d-4f1c...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
accounts.

Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
poor.

That's a ;lie. tax hiles on the "rich" will cause lower tax revenues, lower
GDP, more unemployment.

[Oglethorpe]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:d388a806-225b-4b6a...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
>> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
>> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>> > cutting
>>
>> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

>> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>> > them out of the pickle.
>>
>> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because
>> it
>> will give them everything they want.
>

> "Cliff" has two meanings here, a political cliff as well as an
> economic cliff.
>
> If Republicans continue to flip the bird at the super majority of
> Americans

None exists.

[RD Sandman]

columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com>
wrote in
news:858e9a89-c349-4e68...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com:

Little guys have historically done all the hard work.

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> them out of the pickle.

i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,

There is no unproductibve 1%. Their money is what you borrow when you get a
loan.

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:a4c6976f-7fcd-4f7f...@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 6, 10:10 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>
> news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even accomplish
> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > cutting
>
> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > them out of the pickle.
>

> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because it
> will give them everything they want. Across the board tax hikes, the
> ability
> to gut the military and to get to blame it all on republicans thanks to
> the
> corrupt MSM / DNC cabal that's destroying America.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

even a majority of republicans want tax hikes on the unproductive
wealthy.

----

No; subch 'people exist.

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:74691d03-fa2d-4674...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 6, 10:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn’t even accomplish
> > > its stated goal of reducing a government’s debt, u.k. now has the
> > > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > > cutting
>
> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>

> Tax hikes on the rich keep the money in the U. S. and out of off shore
> accounts.
>
> Tax hikes on the rich also chokes off inflation, another tax on the
> poor.
>

> Bret Cahill

yep, we can slow down the manipulation of markets by wealth
unproductive parasites.

You're an OWSer, aren't you? You live in your parent's million dollar
mansion while pretending to be something you aren't.

[Oglethorpe]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:1a9cf98b-86fd-4e0e...@me7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> >> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> >> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even
> >> > accomplish
> >> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
> >> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> >> > cutting
>
> >> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> >> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> >> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.

> >> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> >> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> >> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> >> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> >> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> >> > them out of the pickle.
>
> >> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because
> >> it
> >> will give them everything they want.
>

> > "Cliff" has two meanings here, a political cliff as well as an
> > economic cliff.
>
> > If Republicans continue to flip the bird at the super majority of

> > Americans who want tax hikes on the rich and send the super majority
> > over the economic cliff, the GOP then goes over the political cliff in
> > 2014 -- as it should.
>
> > That's why Repugs desperately grabbed onto "sequestration." With
> > sequestration Republicans were indulging in the fantasy of ripping off
> > the majority and then trying to "squester" themselves from the
> > political blowback.
>
> > That, however, is as decadent as the fantasy of sequestering CO2 from
> > motor vehicles.
>
> So what you are saying is that republicans

Are paid by the idle rich to rip off the 99%.


---------------

NOPE. There is no such thing as a set in stone 1%. Two thirds of millinaires
and billionaires in Amereica began as poor or middle class and got where
they are in their own lifetimes. Gabby Douglas is a decamillionaire before
she's 16. You think her parents' were rich? How about Steve Jobs? How aboyut
those newly drafted sport team members who become instant millionairs every
year?

You a socialist OWS piece of shit.

[Oglethorpe]

"Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote in message

news:Y05ws.174505$lY5....@fed04.iad...

>
> "deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

> news:6jk1c8h07buo6637n...@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:39:17 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable

>> <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 6, 10:10 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
>>>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:v--dnRndE5uSEF3N...@bright.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>

>>>> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
>>>> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even
>>>> > accomplish
>>>> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
>>>> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
>>>> > cutting
>>>>
>>>> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
>>>> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
>>>> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>>>> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
>>>> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
>>>> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
>>>> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
>>>> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
>>>> > them out of the pickle.
>>>>
>>>> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff because
>>>> it

>>>> will give them everything they want. Across the board tax hikes, the
>>>> ability
>>>> to gut the military and to get to blame it all on republicans thanks to
>>>> the
>>>> corrupt MSM / DNC cabal that's destroying America.
>>>>
>>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>>

>>> even a majority of republicans want tax hikes on the unproductive
>>>wealthy.
>>
>> I think they should go back to the tax rate after WWII of 90% on the
>> wealthy.
>

> Europe and Japan had been decimated and we were the only game in town at
> the time. What you progressives need to do is stop living in the now
> unworkable past.

>
>> No loopholes. No deductions. So secreting to offshore tax
>> shelters. Use the money for infrastructure projects which will create
>> hundreds of thousands of jobs.
>

> No need. We already spent a trillion dollars on that. Why didn't it work?
> Where's the money? Why do you want to steal more and drive us further in
> to the debt that is crushing the economy and jobs?

>
>> Then you create even more tax revenues
>> because people have jobs.
>

> That's only relevant with private sector jobs, and you want fewer of them.

If I may: How do you get more tax revenues from paying people WITH tax
revenues? It just don't work that way.
>
> "Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
> in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
> all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more
> than
> $250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
> country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "
>
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain-down-the-road-20121116

>
>> And because the middle class will have
>> money then you create demand for more goods. More demand, more jobs.
>> More tax revenue. It ain't rocket science. But we are fighting
>> against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.
>

> When is your "stimulus" going to work then? Do facts make any difference
> to at all?
>
> No. Liberalism is a religion that requires boundless faith. Time we ban it
> from the public square before you destroy the country.
>

Know one of the first thing Ireland did about their economic meltdown? They
LOWERED their corporate income taxes to attact more businesses to Ireland.
More businesses means more jobs, means more people working and paying taxes,
means more tax revenues.

> -Eddie Haskell
>

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:60a86ac2-1082-475e...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 6, 11:17 am, deep <d...@dudu.org> wrote:

> wealthy. No loopholes. No deductions. So secreting to offshore tax

> shelters. Use the money for infrastructure projects which will create

> hundreds of thousands of jobs. Then you create even more tax revenues
> because people have jobs. And because the middle class will have

> money then you create demand for more goods. More demand, more jobs.
> More tax revenue. It ain't rocket science. But we are fighting
> against the unrelenting greed off the upper class. As always.

yep, all agreed. its easy, even IKE understood it.


Taxes were high back in the 1950s because

==============

Congress wouldn't allow Ike to cut them.

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:aed7ac29-f221-446a...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 6, 11:26 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > >> > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > >> > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn't even
> > >> > accomplish
> > >> > its stated goal of reducing a government's debt, u.k. now has the
> > >> > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > >> > cutting
>
> > >> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > >> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > >> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
> > >> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > >> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > >> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > >> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > >> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > >> > them out of the pickle.
>
> > >> Horse crap. Hussein and the democrats WANT to go over the cliff
> > >> because
> > >> it
> > >> will give them everything they want.
>

> > > "Cliff" has two meanings here, a political cliff as well as an
> > > economic cliff.
>
> > > If Republicans continue to flip the bird at the super majority of
> > > Americans who want tax hikes on the rich and send the super majority
> > > over the economic cliff, the GOP then goes over the political cliff in
> > > 2014 -- as it should.
>
> > > That's why Repugs desperately grabbed onto "sequestration." With
> > > sequestration Republicans were indulging in the fantasy of ripping off
> > > the majority and then trying to "squester" themselves from the
> > > political blowback.
>
> > > That, however, is as decadent as the fantasy of sequestering CO2 from
> > > motor vehicles.
>
> > So what you are saying is that republicans
>
> Are paid by the idle rich to rip off the 99%.
>

> > should do the political thing and
> > fuck the country.
>
> That's what they are paid to do.
>
> > Gee, no.
>
> Gee yes.
>
> > That's the democrat's job.
>
> Democrats get their money from working stiffs, not the Koch Bros who
> have a net worth more than Carlos Slim.
>
> Bret Cahill

and they got their money the old fashioned way, mom and dad worked
for stalin, then they inherited it.

--

You shouldn't tell lies.

[Oglethorpe]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:cb66f8db-c055-4326...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 11:38 am, "Eddie Haskell" <aW...@WERTHET.COM> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

>
> news:27041a6e-6fbf-4e0e...@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 6:18 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > you can always, and i mean always count on "THE CONSERVATIVE" to
> > > double down on their failed policies:austerity doesn t even accomplish
> > > its stated goal of reducing a government s debt, u.k. now has the
> > > highest deficit of any Western country despite its severe budget
> > > cutting
>
> > Obama and the Democrats are promoting austerity, also.
> > Their tax increases will have as much downward impact
> > on the economy as taking away money in spending cuts will.
>
> > Personally, I think it is all for show. All the spending
> > cuts and tax increases will be postponed until some time
> > down the road. Neither party actually wants their proposals
> > implemented followed by an economic slowdown. There is
> > no compromise other than gridlock that will get
> > them out of the pickle.

> > i agree the democrats are not to smart on these issues either, but in
> > the end, taxes have to rise on the un-productive 1%,
>

> Your position is based on nigger envy and greed as opposed to sound
> economic
> policy. You are incapable of that.

>
> "Continuing all the expiring tax cuts would boost GDP by about 1.5 percent
> in 2013 and result in about 1.8 million new jobs, the CBO says. Continuing
> all the tax cuts except for the high-end rates on couples earning more
> than
> $250,000 a year would pare that growth to about 1.25 percent and cost the
> country 200,000 jobs in 2013. "
>

> http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-case-for-kicking-the-pain...

>
> > and have to go
> > down on the productive portion of our economy.
>

> Goddamn, the bottom 47% couldn't pay any less, you lying sack of shit. You
> even get money back for paying no income taxes.
>
> Damn, you're a lying sack of worthless shit.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

trickle down supply side charlatan economics just does not work.


Supply-side tax cutting policies

---
are what made America gret. We've had our experiment with socialism. The
Pilgrims tried it. It failed.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 6, 8:27 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com>

Increasing liquidity is not in the hands of the little guys, in this
case the "hard work" is taking the risk in large magnitudes, something
the little guy cannot do. It time to bring the money back, with large
business increasing the percentage of u.s. small businesses they use
as suppliers and for services. Increasing liquidity will allow the
"little guys" the ability to market and make the purchases to handle
the increase in orders from the large business. Keeping money out of
the game because the risk it "too high" at the bottom of a business
cycle is just flat out wimpy, time to step up.

[Oglethorpe]

Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

There's no such thing as trickle down economics rtheory. It's a made up term
by moron socialist left fringers.

[deep]

Where's it go?

>
> It goes
>> into services and jobs. About a fifth of the country all work for the
>> public sector. That's money going the economy.
>
>Actually, it is money that came from the economy. The public sector does
>NOT generate any revenue. It is a cost.

Hydroelectric dams don't turn a profit?

>
>>>So tell me Dudu...what happens when you get a massive industry geared
>>>towards infrastructure projects and suddenly you can't afford to fund
>>>them anymore or it's decided that virtually all the infrastructure
>>>jobs have been done.
>>
>> If you agree to fund them, they will never stop having a need for
>> maintenance and upgrade.
>
>IOW, you feel that government should be continually spending private
>sector money? That whenever a project is done, a new one should take its
>place adding costs to our government?

You want to generate jobs don't you? I'm showing you how it can be
done.

>
>>>How many millions of people are you going to kick out of work?
>>
>> How many millions will we be putting to work? So what you are saying
>> is don't create any jobs because someday they might go away. That
>> makes a load of sense... NOT.
>
>What do you think should be done when the government runs out of money
>which it will if it keeps spending more than it takes in.

People getting these infrastructure jobs will be paying taxes. You
need to get revenues up to pay down the debt. The more high paying
jobs that are paying taxes are helping pay down the debt.

>
>>>Where exactly do you think you're going to find that sort of money?
>>
>> In the bank accounts of the ultra wealthy.
>
>Damn, Dudu, expiring the tax cuts on the wealthy will generate about $80B
>a year......not even a rounding error on Obama's deficits.

I'm talking about a 90% tax rate like we had at the end of WWII.
Please try to keep up.

>
>>>Do you even have any idea of what these infrastructure projects you're
>>>talking about will cost?
>>>
>>>
>> Lots.
>
>And where do YOU think that money comes from?

I'm talking about taking it from rich people.

>
> And that's all money given to workers, contractors, and
>> materials suppliers. Which they will then pay their rent, make their
>> car payment, buy groceries, then if anything is left over go to Best
>> Buy and get a wide screen TV. Then the guys who work at Best Buy will
>> be able to keep their jobs. Then they can continue to make their car
>> payment....
>>
>> get it yet?
>
>And pay more and higher taxes to keep this scheme going? What will you
>do when that money runs out?

Collect your next years taxes from the wealthy.