|
OT Confiscatory taxation
"HK" wrote in message m... Eisboch wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. -------------------------------------- Bull****. "It's as if" is not "as it is". The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created, not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class. Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know. Kinda flies in the face of what you've accepted as your conventional wisdom, eh? The "middle class" is far worse off financially...where has its wealth gone? Into the pockets of the wealthy. Nonsense. The wealthy have increased their wealth at a rate faster than inflation. The middle class has not been able to do the same in many cases, although over-all the middle class is still better off today than the middle class of say, 30 or 40 years ago. But don't confuse the issue. The wealthy (other than crooks and thieves like Madoff) aren't taking money away from the middle class. They are creating new wealth. What is at odds with fairness is the ability to "get richer". The middle class should enjoy the same opportunities in terms of fairness. Some do so anyway and become wealthier. But the notion that those who acquired wealth did so by taking it from the middle class is just plain wrong. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. ------------------------------------ Who authorized that? Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:03 pm, John H wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 5:10 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: au contraire. the lack of unions has destroyed the US middle class. Can you provide a definition for the middle class? The Census Bureau doesn't define the middle class so there is no way to argue for or against the destruction of the middle class. the census bureau is not in charge of economics. the middle class generally is those making between 30,000 to 100,000. it's a reason why income inequality in the US is among the greatest in the world and wall street runs amuck with little oversight. What is income inequality? My definition of income inequality is those that get off there asses and work and those who are lazy *******s who don't want to work. IOW you don't follow economics. you don't know the richest 1% have had their incomes increase by over 200% in the last 10 years or so while the middle class stagnated. no wonder you love to **** the middle class. you dont even believe we should be able to earn a living wage. There is a road construction project going on at the end of my street. We have union labor at the construction project. As I am driving 2 miles down this road seeing 30 guys watching 5 or 6 guys actually working I am thinking about who at my company is going to get laid off today. Unions get no sympathy from me. and wall street destroyed the US economy. unions had no hand in that. Paying a union guy 95% of his salary to sit around and do nothing is destroying the US economy. The unions negotiating to prevent productivity improvements in US factories didn't help the economy either. and paying 5 guys at AIG a billion dollars to drive the stock market to 50% of its value has a siightly bigger effect on my income than the guys working on your road do again...you just can't think logically. it's the big wall street manager, the unregulated capitalist that's outlived his usefulness. If there is no big capitalist there there is no need for the union guy.. Unions can't exist without corporations. But, corporations can exist without unions. yeah and kings can exist without a middle class, too. seems you think feudalism was a great idea. bush had 8 years to do something besides make the rich richer. he didn't. Why do you Democrats keep harping about the past and previous administrations? Let's concentrate on what the current administration is doing to destroy the country and how we can stop it.- Hide quoted text - jesus h. christ on crutches....obama has been president for 60 days. are you rednecks so illiterate you think eight years of fascism mismanagement on the part of bush/cheney/exxon can be undone in 60 days? are you truly that irrational? When you take command of the ship you are responsible for the entire ship. and if you didn't build the ship you have to pilot it as best you can. obama inherited a sinking ship. No. Obama's 'inheritance' was pretty well established in October of last year. Now go back and see what the market has done since then. Also, look at what it's done any day following an Obama speech. Take the blinders off. You're almost as bad as HK. Obama lied, the economy died. -- you know, your economic illiteracy makes me weep for our country i'm a physical scientist. i collect and analyze data for a living. no scientist...none....would look at data as you propose. none. not a single one you do not select data to fit your preconceptions. you completely ignore the headlong slide caused by bush's economic policies over 8 years and instead focus on a 2% history. There is a scientist at NASA who, a paid government employee, who would not let his model, computer program, be reviewed. But, someone got a hold of the model and found out that this NASA scientist was stuffing variables and replacing data that did not conform to his desired outcome of the model. it's astonishing...remarkable...how deliberately stupid you can be....you're the stupidity equivalent of a nor'easter. Wow it took a physical scientist to come up with that one. Do you has have masters or a doctorate? If you don't you should because your talents are not being recognized as they should be by your peers. no wonder the GOP got destroyed. you voted for it. Lazy people who want to be taken care of by the government are destroying this country. You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 9:18*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. ------------------------------------ Who authorized that? business leaders did. they flew to washington in their private jets, and said they needed new $6000 umbrella stands because it's what they're used to. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
Calif Bill wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 3:51 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote: thunder wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote: Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again? I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until they can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and sell the parts. Let them start over. We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest recipient of money from AIG. You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for President. well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for 8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it? get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system of the US. Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters. and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by unions, would strengthen the US economy. it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer. The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the to the nearest bankruptcy court. and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman at bedtime? You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000 toilets to run the economy?- they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you just come from? They been running it longer than 8 years. Was under Clinton's watch where the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted it. Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such peril. What happened to the greatest monetary mind of our time, Mr Rubin? It seems that he has literally disappeared form public view since Citigroup took a nose dive towards insolvency? I guess faith in him, Mr Rubin, was misplaced. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... there's no question you have your mom read you milton friedman at bedtime. the problem is, his free market mythology has no relation to the real world at all --------------------------------- My mother didn't and still doesn't have a clue who Milton Friedman is. If you think over 200 years of a free market economy has nothing to do with the real world, you better check and make sure you are still consuming oxygen. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 9:18 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. ------------------------------------ Who authorized that? business leaders did. they flew to washington in their private jets, and said they needed new $6000 umbrella stands because it's what they're used to. ---------------------------------------------- Right. No argument. But, who gave them the money? Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:53 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans. -------------------------------------- Bull****. "It's as if" is not "as it is". The rich got richer because the world got richer. funny the middle class got left out. productivity improved. more wealth was created. and the wealthiest took it all for themselves. The guy who used to live next door to me started out as a process server. No college degree, no special training. Just a go getter type of guy. His next job was selling commercial real estate. He didn't sit around bemoaning his lack of education waiting for someone to give him a job or tell him what to do. He went out and worked for hard and now lives in a multi-million dollar home and at the age of 47 doesn't have to work a day for the rest of his life if he doesn't want to. He started out life in the lower middle class and is not in the top 1%. Wealth was created, not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class. Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know. you mean other than looking at the evidence? gee. i don't know. the rich got richer. the middle class did not. how strange of me to think the rich got richer and the middle class did not... You don't seem to understand that not all people have the mental and intellectual capacity to ascend to the top of their field or any field. I think this is your particular affliction. This is not a bad thing it just needs to be understood and accepted. How many Michael Jordan's have there been and will there be? No one has come along to take Albert Einsteins place. BTW, Some of the "facts" that are throw around are also simply not true. In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1% controls 80% of the nation's wealth". the INCREASE in the amount of wealth held by the richest 1% over the past 20 years in the US was incredible. hogs at the trough. now they want the middle class to make up the difference they just lost in the bonfire they made of the economy. Jealousy rearing its ugly head? Bad career choice on your part? Stop blaming others for your inadequacies and failures. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 9:39*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: -- you know, your economic illiteracy makes me weep for our country i'm *a physical scientist. i collect and analyze data for a living. no scientist...none....would look at data as you propose. none. not a single one you do not select data to fit your preconceptions. you completely ignore the headlong slide caused by bush's economic policies over 8 years and instead focus on a 2% history. There is a scientist at NASA who, a paid government employee, who would not let his model, computer program, be reviewed. But, someone got a hold of the model and found out that this NASA scientist was stuffing variables and replacing data that did not conform to his desired outcome of the model. IOW he was getting ready for a job as a republican economic analyst. it's astonishing...remarkable...how deliberately stupid you can be....you're the stupidity equivalent of a nor'easter. Wow *it took a physical scientist to come up with that one. Do you has have masters or a doctorate? If you don't you should because your talents are not being recognized as they should be by your peers. IOW you have no response to the idiotic notion that 2% of history represents all of history.... no wonder the GOP got destroyed. you voted for it. Lazy people who want to be taken care of by the government are destroying this country. IOW the GOP is trying to continue to do to the country what they did for the last 30 years. You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA.- you might tell us where a totally free market ever yielded anything except an oligopoly like we have now where the middle class pays for everything and the rich simply expect it as their due. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder wrote: This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic This all started with tax reform legislation passed by Congress in 1986. Reagan was president and the Democrats had control of congress. Up until then individuals could deduct things like interest paid on car loans and credit cards. The tax reform bill eventually (first year it reduced it to 65%) did away with these deductions, so people started getting 2nd mortgages or "home equity lines of credit" to purchase big ticket items because the interest paid was still deductable. It's ironic that the tax reform bill of 1986, passed despite Reagan's opposition to it, is now under "revision" by the Obama administration. They are proposing the equivalent of tax credits if you buy a new car in an effort to stimulate the economy. Eisboch ...and they call us a socialist country! Up here, the average citizen can't deduct interest from your tax return for interest paid on a home, or any other possession.. unless you are showing that poperty/vehicle as a business expense. If you have an office in your home and can show income derived from it's use..you can deduct the fraction of your expenses based on the percentage of square footage that office represents. As for the vehicle, you have to estimate how much of the mileage is business related and claim expenses on that ratio. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. The credo of turds like BAR is simple: "I've got mine, so **** you." It's that sort of thinking that is destroying this country. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
BAR wrote:
Jealousy rearing its ugly head? Bad career choice on your part? Stop blaming others for your inadequacies and failures. The best cure for your insensitivity and arrogance...a pink slip from your employer. Might give you a bit of humanity. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... you might tell us where a totally free market ever yielded anything except an oligopoly like we have now where the middle class pays for everything and the rich simply expect it as their due. ------------------------------ Wow. It's no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand-basket. Oh, well. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. My standard of living wasn't very good back in 1977 when I left military service. But, I had a family and mouths to feed. I admit, my standard of living has improved significantly. It only took 32 years. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder wrote: This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic This all started with tax reform legislation passed by Congress in 1986. Reagan was president and the Democrats had control of congress. Up until then individuals could deduct things like interest paid on car loans and credit cards. The tax reform bill eventually (first year it reduced it to 65%) did away with these deductions, so people started getting 2nd mortgages or "home equity lines of credit" to purchase big ticket items because the interest paid was still deductable. It's ironic that the tax reform bill of 1986, passed despite Reagan's opposition to it, is now under "revision" by the Obama administration. They are proposing the equivalent of tax credits if you buy a new car in an effort to stimulate the economy. Eisboch ..and they call us a socialist country! Up here, the average citizen can't deduct interest from your tax return for interest paid on a home, or any other possession.. unless you are showing that poperty/vehicle as a business expense. If you have an office in your home and can show income derived from it's use..you can deduct the fraction of your expenses based on the percentage of square footage that office represents. As for the vehicle, you have to estimate how much of the mileage is business related and claim expenses on that ratio. Pretty much the same here except interest paid on a home mortgage (prime residence only)qualifies for a tax deduction. You can claim interest paid for a second home mortgage or qualifying boat loan (and maybe an RV .... not sure) only if you don't have a mortgage on your prime residence that you are claiming a deduction for. Car loan and credit card interest deductions were phased out. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:16:05 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: What I am disputing is that they increased their wealth by "taking" it from the middle class. That just isn't the case. It's new wealth. It is not something lost by the middle class. You'll totally ignoring that the country and most of it's population is deeply in debt. Why do you call that "wealth"? I just don't get why people think that selling this country to overseas interests by offshoring its manufacturing and scientific development infrastructure is "creating wealth." Sure, CEO's execs, and the top 3% of income-"earners" are wealthy, with actual positive net worth. Then there is some significant portion of the others who have their heads above water or are doing well because they have been frugal in their spending and savings. But they are also indebted when considering their future tax obligations to pay off the money to the U.S T-notes China has bought up to support the destruction of America. The **** is hitting the fan with climbing unemployment, and widespread and unprecedented home foreclosures. You still call this "creating wealth"? My feeling is that political and business leadership has sold this country a bill of goods regarding how to value "wealth", and you have taken it hook, line and sinker. The "system" that was sold is now broken, because it was always BS, the main BS term being "wealth creation." In reality it was "debt creation." Now the debt is coming due. General wealth comes from productive work and balancing books with realistic debits/credits, not financial manipulation and cooking books to ignore debt. The latter enriches the scam artists, no doubt, but in the end screws the productive. Now "standard of living" is a different matter, and we have generally done well with that. Due in large part to debt and global cheap labor, and taking the path to where we are. I don't know how those in financial trouble feel about "standard of living" and what their numbers are, or their level of dissatisfaction. But they will be the loudly squeaking wheels in the foreseeable future. I expect big changes in the definition of "wealth creation." And a new look at how 401k money allowed Wall Street to become corrupt. Still haven't seen my 401k view expressed anywhere else. Maybe because I'm a genius. Or maybe because I'm just wrong. --Vic |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 9:45 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... there's no question you have your mom read you milton friedman at bedtime. the problem is, his free market mythology has no relation to the real world at all --------------------------------- My mother didn't and still doesn't have a clue who Milton Friedman is. If you think over 200 years of a free market economy has nothing to do with the real world, you better check and make sure you are still consuming oxygen. and if you think privatizing profit while socializing risk is a recipe for success, why not move to mexico. the income distribution there is about the only country where it's worse than the US. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 9:47*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 9:18 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. ------------------------------------ Who authorized that? business leaders did. they flew to washington in their private jets, and said they needed new $6000 umbrella stands because it's what they're used to. ---------------------------------------------- Right. *No argument. * But, who gave them the money? Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - the same people who wrote the rules that have crippled the middle class....the best politicians money can buy...been that way for 30 years. at this point what are our options? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:16:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: What I am disputing is that they increased their wealth by "taking" it from the middle class. That just isn't the case. It's new wealth. It is not something lost by the middle class. You'll totally ignoring that the country and most of it's population is deeply in debt. Why do you call that "wealth"? I just don't get why people think that selling this country to overseas interests by offshoring its manufacturing and scientific development infrastructure is "creating wealth." Sure, CEO's execs, and the top 3% of income-"earners" are wealthy, with actual positive net worth. Then there is some significant portion of the others who have their heads above water or are doing well because they have been frugal in their spending and savings. But they are also indebted when considering their future tax obligations to pay off the money to the U.S T-notes China has bought up to support the destruction of America. The **** is hitting the fan with climbing unemployment, and widespread and unprecedented home foreclosures. You still call this "creating wealth"? My feeling is that political and business leadership has sold this country a bill of goods regarding how to value "wealth", and you have taken it hook, line and sinker. The "system" that was sold is now broken, because it was always BS, the main BS term being "wealth creation." In reality it was "debt creation." Now the debt is coming due. General wealth comes from productive work and balancing books with realistic debits/credits, not financial manipulation and cooking books to ignore debt. The latter enriches the scam artists, no doubt, but in the end screws the productive. Now "standard of living" is a different matter, and we have generally done well with that. Due in large part to debt and global cheap labor, and taking the path to where we are. I don't know how those in financial trouble feel about "standard of living" and what their numbers are, or their level of dissatisfaction. But they will be the loudly squeaking wheels in the foreseeable future. I expect big changes in the definition of "wealth creation." And a new look at how 401k money allowed Wall Street to become corrupt. Still haven't seen my 401k view expressed anywhere else. Maybe because I'm a genius. Or maybe because I'm just wrong. --Vic I don't disagree with anything you said except it has nothing to do with the subject, ie. the "rich" getting richer by taking from the middle class. The goal of accumulating personal wealth to whatever degree is not bad as long as it's done legally and without being at the expense of others. This country was founded on the concept of free markets, competition and minimal government intervention. The Constitution is written around these concepts. It worked well for many years producing the strongest economic nation on earth with a relatively good standard of living for most. Ellis Island and other immigration locations have records of millions of people who left their homelands to pursue opportunities here. Still going on. What screws it up is greed in big business (often in response to stockholder expectations, BTW) and intervention by an increasingly corrupt government, residing mainly in Congress. There's a role for government to play .... making sure the playing field is fair by regulations and/or actions to enforce laws. But when the government officials are as greedy as the big businesses, all bets are off. Some people just don't like the truth. The problems we have now originated in lending practices that should never have been put in place. Government did that. Banks and Wall Street tried to take advantage of it. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 9:47 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 9:18 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote: The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal arch-enemy .... business. and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle class. ------------------------------------ Who authorized that? business leaders did. they flew to washington in their private jets, and said they needed new $6000 umbrella stands because it's what they're used to. ---------------------------------------------- Right. No argument. But, who gave them the money? Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - the same people who wrote the rules that have crippled the middle class....the best politicians money can buy...been that way for 30 years. at this point what are our options? ---------------------------------- Voting booth. But, as long as the pols promise a pot of gold in every garage, they will be elected. Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 22, 10:44*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... you might tell us where a totally free market ever yielded anything except an oligopoly like we have now where the middle class pays for everything and the rich simply expect it as their due. ------------------------------ Wow. It's no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand-basket. Oh, well. Eisboch you're right. i forgot to credit the free market masters of the universe on wall street |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:52:04 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Don White" wrote in message .. . "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder wrote: This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic This all started with tax reform legislation passed by Congress in 1986. Reagan was president and the Democrats had control of congress. Up until then individuals could deduct things like interest paid on car loans and credit cards. The tax reform bill eventually (first year it reduced it to 65%) did away with these deductions, so people started getting 2nd mortgages or "home equity lines of credit" to purchase big ticket items because the interest paid was still deductable. It's ironic that the tax reform bill of 1986, passed despite Reagan's opposition to it, is now under "revision" by the Obama administration. They are proposing the equivalent of tax credits if you buy a new car in an effort to stimulate the economy. Eisboch ..and they call us a socialist country! Up here, the average citizen can't deduct interest from your tax return for interest paid on a home, or any other possession.. unless you are showing that poperty/vehicle as a business expense. If you have an office in your home and can show income derived from it's use..you can deduct the fraction of your expenses based on the percentage of square footage that office represents. As for the vehicle, you have to estimate how much of the mileage is business related and claim expenses on that ratio. Pretty much the same here except interest paid on a home mortgage (prime residence only)qualifies for a tax deduction. You can claim interest paid for a second home mortgage or qualifying boat loan (and maybe an RV .... not sure) only if you don't have a mortgage on your prime residence that you are claiming a deduction for. Car loan and credit card interest deductions were phased out. Eisboch I think you've got that wrong. It may be that the AMT rules require the lack of a mortgage on your main home, but generally you can deduct mortgage interest for both your main and second home, which may be a boat or an RV meeting the criteria. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html -- John H "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:13:44 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0500, thunder wrote: This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks. Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault. It was *our* fault. Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. --Vic This all started with tax reform legislation passed by Congress in 1986. Reagan was president and the Democrats had control of congress. Up until then individuals could deduct things like interest paid on car loans and credit cards. The tax reform bill eventually (first year it reduced it to 65%) did away with these deductions, so people started getting 2nd mortgages or "home equity lines of credit" to purchase big ticket items because the interest paid was still deductable. It's ironic that the tax reform bill of 1986, passed despite Reagan's opposition to it, is now under "revision" by the Obama administration. They are proposing the equivalent of tax credits if you buy a new car in an effort to stimulate the economy. Eisboch ..and they call us a socialist country! Up here, the average citizen can't deduct interest from your tax return for interest paid on a home, or any other possession.. unless you are showing that poperty/vehicle as a business expense. If you have an office in your home and can show income derived from it's use..you can deduct the fraction of your expenses based on the percentage of square footage that office represents. As for the vehicle, you have to estimate how much of the mileage is business related and claim expenses on that ratio. The more socialist, the higher the tax requirement and the fewer the deductions. I'm sure the liberals here would like to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and spend the money on bigger government. -- John H "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:44:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: I don't disagree with anything you said except it has nothing to do with the subject, ie. the "rich" getting richer by taking from the middle class. We're not connecting here. What I said directly relates to the widening gap between the "rich" and "middle class." The offshoring of jobs and science is directly related to Wall Street's (and the corps that trade there) pushing cost cutting to pump share value. With no thought to government indebtedness due to balance of trade deficits, or consumer debt, or the future strength of America. The winners are the "rich" and the losers are the "middle class." You may not call that one taking from the other, but that's the end result. And widely published wealth statistics bear that out. I don't buy into "political" arguments when non-disputed facts are available. The goal of accumulating personal wealth to whatever degree is not bad as long as it's done legally and without being at the expense of others. This country was founded on the concept of free markets, competition and minimal government intervention. The Constitution is written around these concepts. It worked well for many years producing the strongest economic nation on earth with a relatively good standard of living for most. Ellis Island and other immigration locations have records of millions of people who left their homelands to pursue opportunities here. Still going on. All fine and dandy except when one examines "at the expense of others." That "expense" is what's under discussion. What screws it up is greed in big business (often in response to stockholder expectations, BTW) and intervention by an increasingly corrupt government, residing mainly in Congress. There's a role for government to play .... making sure the playing field is fair by regulations and/or actions to enforce laws. But when the government officials are as greedy as the big businesses, all bets are off. Yep. Some people just don't like the truth. The problems we have now originated in lending practices that should never have been put in place. Government did that. Banks and Wall Street tried to take advantage of it. It began with 401k money distorting the true value of share prices and enabling corruption, because "Now everybody can be rich!" The real impetus for the bad loans came from Wall Street's need to pump up more "wealth creation" with mortgage derivatives. Wall Street has been running the government for decades now. Still is with Geithner. You'll see many revelations about Goldman Sachs in the near future. The reason Geithner can't get Treasury assistants is that all of Wall Street is dirty with ill-gained wealth. Every joker he wants to hire is worth $50-100 million with multiple houses around the world. Real money. While the rest of the country is under water. Nobody can pass the smell test, just as he didn't. I don't see anybody here arguing against American free enterprise. But we haven't had that in years. Because we haven't had leaders who understood that Wall Street values and America's values can't co-exist for long. Basically we've had a Wall Street politburo directing government actions to coincide with global financial "values." We need a revolution to get back to American values. Those make us stronger, not deeper in debt. --Vic |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:52:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Pretty much the same here except interest paid on a home mortgage (prime residence only)qualifies for a tax deduction. You can claim interest paid for a second home mortgage or qualifying boat loan (and maybe an RV .... not sure) only if you don't have a mortgage on your prime residence that you are claiming a deduction for. Car loan and credit card interest deductions were phased out. Eisboch I think you've got that wrong. It may be that the AMT rules require the lack of a mortgage on your main home, but generally you can deduct mortgage interest for both your main and second home, which may be a boat or an RV meeting the criteria. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html -- Your right. I must have been thinking about claiming the Homestead thing or something. You can deduct interest paid on a first and second house, or a first house and boat or RV if they have the required sleeping quarters and living basics. http://www.excelcredit.com/tax_deductible.htm Eisboch |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"John H" wrote in message ... The more socialist, the higher the tax requirement and the fewer the deductions. I'm sure the liberals here would like to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and spend the money on bigger government. -- John H Or maybe health care and drug programs for your declining years. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. Richard did not come from wealth from what I read. He worked hard, took chances and scored. Took a lot of years. I worked and paid my way through university. Took 10 years. I worked overtime, bought a business that my buddy and I ran that for years while still keeping our other jobs. I am comfortable, maybe not as comfortable as Eisboch, but he worked hard. You, on the other hand, were a 40 hour a week if that Crown Employee. Did not gamble a lot of your money and assets on running a business or growing a business. Did not work 60-80 hours a week working. My nephew, works a couple days a week, did not finish college, and complains of no money. No work ethic. A major problem in the poor in this country. Why work hard when society will give you the equivalent of about $18k a year, including medical. And you can work side jobs for cash. Why we have 4 and 5 generation welfare families. An about 60% high school drop out rate in areas of the country. Lots of families live on less than $50k a year. But they do not buy expensive cars, or even new economy cars. They live in 1100 ' sq houses, and not McMansions. They live within their means. Too many want the life style of the rich and famous without the work required. Some are there because of circumstances. A bad illness in the family, etc. But those are a minority. Most are there because of a bad work ethic. Even the lower IQ people hold a lot of decent paying jobs. They can not be an electrical engineer, but they can clerk at a department store, take money at the 7/11, etc. Why do we see so many immigrants running grocery stores, donut shops, nail salons, and other hard, time consuming business endevors. Because they have a work ethic. Plus they do not overspend. Live within their means. You leased a truck 3 years ago. Now bought a Rav4. How much a year has those vehicles cost you? I just bought a new Vensa for the wife. Nice car by the way. $38k sticker. Replacing a 1996 car with 145k miles. What is my cost of vehicles per year? |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. Richard did not come from wealth from what I read. He worked hard, took chances and scored. Took a lot of years. I worked and paid my way through university. Took 10 years. I worked overtime, bought a business that my buddy and I ran that for years while still keeping our other jobs. I am comfortable, maybe not as comfortable as Eisboch, but he worked hard. You, on the other hand, were a 40 hour a week if that Crown Employee. Did not gamble a lot of your money and assets on running a business or growing a business. Did not work 60-80 hours a week working. My nephew, works a couple days a week, did not finish college, and complains of no money. No work ethic. A major problem in the poor in this country. Why work hard when society will give you the equivalent of about $18k a year, including medical. And you can work side jobs for cash. Why we have 4 and 5 generation welfare families. An about 60% high school drop out rate in areas of the country. Lots of families live on less than $50k a year. But they do not buy expensive cars, or even new economy cars. They live in 1100 ' sq houses, and not McMansions. They live within their means. Too many want the life style of the rich and famous without the work required. Some are there because of circumstances. A bad illness in the family, etc. But those are a minority. Most are there because of a bad work ethic. Even the lower IQ people hold a lot of decent paying jobs. They can not be an electrical engineer, but they can clerk at a department store, take money at the 7/11, etc. Why do we see so many immigrants running grocery stores, donut shops, nail salons, and other hard, time consuming business endevors. Because they have a work ethic. Plus they do not overspend. Live within their means. You leased a truck 3 years ago. Now bought a Rav4. How much a year has those vehicles cost you? I just bought a new Vensa for the wife. Nice car by the way. $38k sticker. Replacing a 1996 car with 145k miles. What is my cost of vehicles per year? Drinking again Kalif Swill?? I was replying to..and referring to *BAR* with my comments. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 23, 12:21*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of.. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next *year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. *That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 23, 12:21 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. **** to you it is ignorance. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. Richard did not come from wealth from what I read. He worked hard, took chances and scored. Took a lot of years. I worked and paid my way through university. Took 10 years. I worked overtime, bought a business that my buddy and I ran that for years while still keeping our other jobs. I am comfortable, maybe not as comfortable as Eisboch, but he worked hard. You, on the other hand, were a 40 hour a week if that Crown Employee. Did not gamble a lot of your money and assets on running a business or growing a business. Did not work 60-80 hours a week working. My nephew, works a couple days a week, did not finish college, and complains of no money. No work ethic. A major problem in the poor in this country. Why work hard when society will give you the equivalent of about $18k a year, including medical. And you can work side jobs for cash. Why we have 4 and 5 generation welfare families. An about 60% high school drop out rate in areas of the country. Lots of families live on less than $50k a year. But they do not buy expensive cars, or even new economy cars. They live in 1100 ' sq houses, and not McMansions. They live within their means. Too many want the life style of the rich and famous without the work required. Some are there because of circumstances. A bad illness in the family, etc. But those are a minority. Most are there because of a bad work ethic. Even the lower IQ people hold a lot of decent paying jobs. They can not be an electrical engineer, but they can clerk at a department store, take money at the 7/11, etc. Why do we see so many immigrants running grocery stores, donut shops, nail salons, and other hard, time consuming business endevors. Because they have a work ethic. Plus they do not overspend. Live within their means. You leased a truck 3 years ago. Now bought a Rav4. How much a year has those vehicles cost you? I just bought a new Vensa for the wife. Nice car by the way. $38k sticker. Replacing a 1996 car with 145k miles. What is my cost of vehicles per year? Drinking again Kalif Swill?? I was replying to..and referring to *BAR* with my comments. I would have assumed you were drinking, but I think you are just stupid. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 23, 6:07*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 23, 12:21 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. **** to you it is ignorance.- IOW you've never taken an economics course... figures. that's why you believe the right wing lunacy |
OT Confiscatory taxation
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. Richard did not come from wealth from what I read. He worked hard, took chances and scored. Took a lot of years. I worked and paid my way through university. Took 10 years. I worked overtime, bought a business that my buddy and I ran that for years while still keeping our other jobs. I am comfortable, maybe not as comfortable as Eisboch, but he worked hard. You, on the other hand, were a 40 hour a week if that Crown Employee. Did not gamble a lot of your money and assets on running a business or growing a business. Did not work 60-80 hours a week working. My nephew, works a couple days a week, did not finish college, and complains of no money. No work ethic. A major problem in the poor in this country. Why work hard when society will give you the equivalent of about $18k a year, including medical. And you can work side jobs for cash. Why we have 4 and 5 generation welfare families. An about 60% high school drop out rate in areas of the country. Lots of families live on less than $50k a year. But they do not buy expensive cars, or even new economy cars. They live in 1100 ' sq houses, and not McMansions. They live within their means. Too many want the life style of the rich and famous without the work required. Some are there because of circumstances. A bad illness in the family, etc. But those are a minority. Most are there because of a bad work ethic. Even the lower IQ people hold a lot of decent paying jobs. They can not be an electrical engineer, but they can clerk at a department store, take money at the 7/11, etc. Why do we see so many immigrants running grocery stores, donut shops, nail salons, and other hard, time consuming business endevors. Because they have a work ethic. Plus they do not overspend. Live within their means. You leased a truck 3 years ago. Now bought a Rav4. How much a year has those vehicles cost you? I just bought a new Vensa for the wife. Nice car by the way. $38k sticker. Replacing a 1996 car with 145k miles. What is my cost of vehicles per year? Drinking again Kalif Swill?? I was replying to..and referring to *BAR* with my comments. I would have assumed you were drinking, but I think you are just stupid. Don't think...it's not your strong suit! |
OT Confiscatory taxation
Calif Bill wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. I don't have two BMWs. I have a 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan, 2001 Ford F-150, and a 2009 Jeep Patriot. 15% of my income goes into a 401k before it ever hits my bank account, I don't have a retirement plan I have to fund my own. I put another large chunk of my after tax money into 529's for my daughters college educations. What's left over is what I have to live on. You try living with a wife who gives all of your money to charity and daughters who give what's left over of your money to various clothing vendors at the local mall. When I have talked about the money I earn I do so to let the Harry Krause know that even though he has his alleged "Ivy League" education that little old me with just a high school diploma can succeed in life with hard work and determination. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Mar 23, 12:21 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. **** to you it is ignorance.- IOW you've never taken an economics course... figures. that's why you believe the right wing lunacy What class do you need to take to know that increasing taxes depletes the available capital for private sector growth. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
On Mar 23, 8:18*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Mar 23, 6:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 23, 12:21 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ..... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. **** to you it is ignorance.- IOW you've never taken an economics course... figures. that's why you believe the right wing lunacy What class do you need to take to know that increasing taxes depletes the available capital for private sector growth.- which, of course, is wrong. this is as stupid as saying that entropy always increases. taxes can INCREASE capital if they are an investment in a 'common good' like a road, hospital or school |
OT Confiscatory taxation
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:18 pm, BAR wrote: wf3h wrote: On Mar 23, 6:07 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 23, 12:21 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ..... On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message bush was president for about 2800 days. obama's been president for 60. even you should be able to do the math. republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country. clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the budget. bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're paying the price Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the super rich, etc. He was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom that's called the 'economy'. it happens. Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big. And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7 years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so. and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'. What are your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?- keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its interest rate is now about zero. ************** The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.- Hide quoted text - to a keynesian, it's irrelevant. **** to you it is ignorance.- IOW you've never taken an economics course... figures. that's why you believe the right wing lunacy What class do you need to take to know that increasing taxes depletes the available capital for private sector growth.- which, of course, is wrong. this is as stupid as saying that entropy always increases. taxes can INCREASE capital if they are an investment in a 'common good' like a road, hospital or school Taxes are an expense. |
OT Confiscatory taxation
BAR wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... You claim to follow economics so please tell us a country where central planning and tight government control has brought the kind of prosperity that the USA has seen to this point. All I am looking for is the name of the country that is socialist or communist that has a higher standard of living than the USA. Maybe you feel you have a high standard of living..what with your two BMWs and excessive income ( as you boast about). What about all the American families that have to get by on less than $70K per year....or even $50K? I'm sure they don't feel their standard of living is all that great. I don't have two BMWs. I have a 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan, 2001 Ford F-150, and a 2009 Jeep Patriot. 15% of my income goes into a 401k before it ever hits my bank account, I don't have a retirement plan I have to fund my own. I put another large chunk of my after tax money into 529's for my daughters college educations. What's left over is what I have to live on. You try living with a wife who gives all of your money to charity and daughters who give what's left over of your money to various clothing vendors at the local mall. When I have talked about the money I earn I do so to let the Harry Krause know that even though he has his alleged "Ivy League" education that little old me with just a high school diploma can succeed in life with hard work and determination. I'm dutifully unimpressed with you and your money. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com