OT Confiscatory taxation
 

"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. What are
your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

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.

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

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.

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...


clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.



Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office.
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is
really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal
arch-enemy .... business.

Eisboch

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

"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

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

"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.

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".

Eisboch

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

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.

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...


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.

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

On Mar 22, 6:21*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...



clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" *spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office..
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. * The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. * This is
really creative economics at it's best. * It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to
sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are.


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.

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

wf3h wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...



clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.
Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office.
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is
really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to
sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are.

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.


Once again, I believe the large players in the financial services
industries -stocks, bonds, banks, insurance companies, et cetera- need
to be very closely regulated by public agencies AND they all need to be
rated regularly by organizations like A.M. Best. The recent debacles in
financial services prove there is no reason to trust their financial
reports or the reports of their outside auditors.

We also need to bust up the big national banks. Too much of our economy
is tied up in the hands of too few. We really cannot afford to have
banks "too big to be allowed to fail." These huge financial services
companies provide no needed public service attributable to their size,
compared to the risk to us they impose.

And credit swap derivatives? Crikey.

OT Confiscatory taxation
 

On Mar 22, 8:11*am, HK wrote:


And credit swap derivatives? Crikey.-

and we thought creationism was ignorance...CDS make creationism look
live the harvard law review