the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.


and that, ladies and gents, is the essence of right wing ideology

our economy today is the result of the richest 1% doing what's right
for america

and proof of that is they're better than we are. that's why our
economy is so strong

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:24:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:
while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.


Nope. About 1/2 of the wealthiest inherited it. And, many of those who
earned it, gave a lot of it to their kids to buy things like homes.

the US has less social mobility than sweden.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:43 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600,
wrote:

On 12/06/2011 10:37 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:15:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011
yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

Because they are not SHEEP, like you.

and how's that work out for america? those richest 1% making all that
money

did it make us stronger?

go ahead, right winger. tell us what a benefit it was to america

we'll wait

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 6/14/2011 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

Greg isn't hiding.I see all of his posts. Check your filters.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:33:44 -0400, wrote:


That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

let's get one thing straight

we dont need more INVESTMENT

we need more CONSUMPTION.

although investment is a form of consumption, ONLY MIDDLE CLASS
CONSUMPTION can pull us out of the depression

and wall street is NOT gonna let that happen

You can't get consumption without jobs and the only way we get that is
by expansion. It is clear the stimulus money just went into rich
people's pockets and not much actually got invested in expanded
industry. (thanks for a "no stimulus" stimulus bill)

There are plenty of stim projects underway, even if you don't believe
it or think they're working. They are working. We need more of them.

I have seen sidewalks to nowhere, and roads being rebuilt that don't
need it... One of the "shovel ready" projects added islands and pretty
plants to the middle of a road here, basically splitting the business,
all of the businesses on the far side, are going under, the gas station
is already gone...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:34:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:29 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:06:27 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 7:40 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

'years ago'

means when the right controlled the bull****. now that it's shown the
right is bankrupt you guys complain about the prize

go figure

You are delusional...

Good part about cutting government welfare, is wf3h will be gone when
the electricity is disconnected for non-payment.

let's see...canuck hates socialized medicine in the US. says w'ere
headed for disaster

where does he live?t

canada. what does canada have?

oh. socialized medicine....

shall we compare costs to see how SOCIALIZED medicine compares to FREE
MARKET medicine?? guess which is cheaper?

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00...a62f970c-popup

Just know how screwed up it left Canada and Obamacare is just a huge tax
grab. Dumbsh1t Obama doesn't seem to get it.

And dumbsh1ts like you don't either. Want to double your taxes and add
rationing and long waits? Then you should move to Canada. But wait,
you can't get into Canada. US insured care is far superior to Canada's
HC in many ways.

Pretty obvious Obamacare was a knee jerk CF.

Well, heck... you know about knee jerk Cluster F*cks! You're an
expert. You are a NJCF.

Harry, you are slipping.. As folks ignore you more and more, you will
get more and more vulgar, and btw, when do we get a new sockpuppet, plum
and paul are getting boring, just like you?

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

I know more than you, your just a piece of trailer trash pretending to
know much more than you actually do. We can see your ignorance.

Canuk.. Really, don't you know you are dealing with Harry here... Why
would you address this kind of attack, just ignore it like Greg does, it
really ****es harry off to be ignored...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:57:36 -0400, BAR wrote:

I did hear one idea on capital gains that sounded interesting. Tie the
tax discount more closely to how long the investment was held.
You wouldn't get the full tax break until it was held 5 years and make
it a higher percentage ending at the regular income rate at 1 or 2
years.
That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

The more the money moves through the economy the better off the economy
is. If I have to wait 5 years to get the full tax benefit then the money
becomes stagnant and it doesn't help any one.



The idea of the stock market has historically been a way for people to
inject capital into industries and the money is supposed to be made by
operating that industry. The stock holder gets paid in dividends from
the profits of that industry. When it degraded to the idea of money
simply making money, the model breaks down and you get bubble/bust
stock cycles. It also does nothing to provide jobs for anyone but the
guys who empty the shredder baskets at the hedge funds to hide their
frauds.

The problem is that the 5 year and 10 year business plans went out the
window we quarterly results were the measure of a company's success.

Also, most companies do not pay dividends once they become profitable.
They rely upon the appreciation of their stock price to attract
investors who are purchasing shares that insiders are selling or
secondary and tertiary offerings. Why pay a dividend when I can offer 10
million shares to the public and keep all of my operating profits.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

It is funny that when some try to tell us that the only way to make
money is to spend money. Yet it just never seems to work with
governments. They more the spend the more debt they create for everyone.