the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:33:29 -0700, 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.

yep, the right keeps confirming that LIBERALS have the right ideas.
LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcs, not right wing bull****, makes an economy
grow.

yet the right wants to continue its bizarre faith based economics.

There was a lot more complexity to the investment in WWII.

We were investing our money in an enterprise to destroy all of our
competition ... literally.

We built the bombs that laid waste to the industrial capacity of
virtually all of our competition while the rest of the western world
paid us to build them more bombs.

That is not likely to happen today. The industrial capacity has left
the country. If for some strange reason we reenacted WWII today, China
would win, simply because they have the industrial capacity to build
all the weapons to arm their 100 million man army and still export
weapons for the rest of the world.

Nukes have made that an unlikely prospect tho. That is why we have had
to declare wars, for no particular reason, on backward countries who
can't really fight back. Our idea of the WWII prosperity today is the
million dollars a man we **** away in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is
really not providing much employment and we are doing more damage to
our own economy than we are to the rest of the world.

WWII analogies simply do not apply.

Which is correct up to a point. Yet, you used this argument to bolster
your position against stim funding.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:50:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:14:57 -0400, Jay wrote:

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.

I am just not engaging Plume. I got tired of every debate ending up in
an insult when she ran out of things to say

You got tired of have no facts. You started the insults, but you're
not going to admit it. Did I call you a moron or an asshole? Did I
claim you have a small ding dong? No. What was this terrible insult?
Oh, I think it was "you're delusional if you think...."

How terrible. You must have a very thin skin. I apologize.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:22:44 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

It's funny that you don't know anything about how an economy works.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

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?


yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

That is national suicide and we are seeing it occur right in front of
our eyes.

We have borrowed and spent our self to near insolvency.


This is a long term problem, not a short term problem. Get real.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 13/06/2011 5:58 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:04:16 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

no wonder you dont care about 'popularity' contests

Still more bull****. The democrats have had majorities in the three
corners of washington for the last 40 years.... So, you are still full
of ****..

really? 22 years of GOP presidents in the last 30 is a majority?

gee. who could have imagined!

Please look back and see who controlled congress during those terms.
Rarely did the repubs even hold two sides of the triangle, never all
three like the dems have done several times... You don't get it I know,
cause if you did, you would even call me more names.

again, who controlled the presidency

the dems rarely controlled BOTH houses of congress like the GOP did
for 6 years under bush

and look what they did with it.

bankrupted the country.

Funny, you get the facts wrong and blame the wrong group.

2006 congress had senate and congress democrats, they sat in January
2007, just when unemployment started rising. Later that year
congressional money for nothing scared a liquidity crisis. Democrats
ignored it and it lead to Sept 2008.

But Obama 2008, was too stupid to realize Reagan was right, government
isn't the solution, government is the problem.

You just said democrats did it. I agree.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 3:53 AM, wf3h wrote:

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 medical care in the US is free, right? we spend less of a
proportion of our GDP on medical care than canada, right? our
healthcare is cheaper and more affordable than canada's right?

Nothing is free. That is a fleabag fantasy. The question is who and
how it is paid for.

Hell, even our premiers in charge of health care prefer the USA. While
it is nationalized, it is rationed, basic and long waits.

http://www.darkdaily.com/newfoundlan...-in-canada-224

What politicians say and do is most often different, but when their
lives are on the line the truth comes out.

oh. it's not. it's about twice as expensive

Yep, an no line ups and the best care. We have no choice, government
took it away from in hyper-taxation.

Added benefit, when Americans trave your covered. When Canadians travel
they are not, you have to pay many thousands extra to top up the
Canadian crap serices to be at par with the US.

For Canada, health care tuned out to be a government tax grab.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 3:55 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:37:20 -0600,
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:30 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:04:16 -0600,
wrote:

how they doing? what cuts have they made?

oh. none.

Jury is on on this, are they going to expand the debt past $14.5 trillion?

there is no choice. it's already been spent. it's just admitting it
has to be paid for


If I were the GOP, I would let 75% of the government shut down for 3
months. And only expand it a bit forcing the issue, debt spend less now
or be off work every 3 months.

they did that once before. they almost disappeared in the next
election.

So? Sometimes you have to do the RIGHT thing and not the GRREDY
fleabagger thing.

uh huh. more faith based economics.

But one thing they all got wrong, I strongly believe a woman owns her
own womb. Pro lifers, bunch of fanatics. Sad these zealots can't let
that go. But a small question.

yep. the prolife movement is just another big govt nanny program.

Don't worry, I am just bantering. I realize that DC and other debtor
governments at all levels have basically dug themselves a hole that none
have the guts to get out of. The only thing that will turn it around is
an eventual total collapse of government like Greece and beyond.

When people start refusing to pay taxes, it will start with civic and
state debt. State after state can't borrow, bankrupt, strikes, a mess.
At some point the currency will become hyper-inflationary and
governments will weaken by the force of economic reality. This has
already started.

It would take one very strong leadership to turn around USA Titanic at
this point.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 13/06/2011 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:57:36 -0400, 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.

Funny. Capital provides jobs, I don't see UAW coughing up $500K per
employee to buy equipment. It takes capital.

And capital is just like people, it doesn't go to work for nothing.
Dividends, interests or appreciation must well exceed taxation and
inflation or you don't invest.

I let tons of cash sitting around doing nothing before I invest in a
money losing mutt in a depreciating economy with higher taxes and greed
looking to screw me. I need to see the return or no invest.

For the savvy, boom and bust is good. But agree in that the personal
record amount money I made on it should not have occurred. In a stable
econmy, I should get a 5-8% yeild and not a 30%/yr windfall compounded
two years in a row. But ponzi government/bank fraud makes economic
stability impossible and is the cause of it.

Key is stability, and the Obamanation is de-stabilizing fast.
Debt-corruption economics isn't working because government isn't the
solution, government is the problem. And it isn't just DC, it is state
side and even civic.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 3:56 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:59:52 -0400, wrote:

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

and yet the whole program of the right is to continue to deregulate
this ponzi scheme to transfer MORE money to the least productive
members of our society.

You mean the left, leftie fleabag Obama is signing the checks...willingly.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

the success of the bush tax cuts
 

On 14/06/2011 6:19 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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

For lethargic companies yes. For others, they look 5 years down the
road and see tax liabilities and possible losses, so they move offshore.
Hip thing to do now is move offshore, more tax friendly place.

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 only reason to own a low or no dividend stock is if you believe
there will be a big capital gain. Otherwise dump the turkey as it isn't
worth the risk.

In a perfect stable world a stock should appreciate enough to cover
taxes and inflation. And dividens should be the reward for investing.
But few stocks are really like this.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.