|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:58:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. Sorry, but I don't think we'll take your word that you know more than anyone. You're a moron with very little (feel free to find the pun) going for you. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
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: 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 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? oh. it's not. it's about twice as expensive what an idiot. \ 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. we already HAVE rationing. dont have a job? you're rationed. workng poor? you're rationed. young? rationed. etc etc what a moron Pretty obvious Obamacare was a knee jerk CF. and look at what the free market did. rousing success which is why you live in socialized canada |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:37:20 -0600, Canuck57
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. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
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) the only way we get expansion is with more money going to consumers, NOT to the richest 1%. the american right wants ONLY increases in capital for the already rich. and the wall street excesses of the bush years amounted to a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from the productive middle class to the non productive capital gains class. and the right wants to continue this. look at what the morons said in last night's debate....eliminate capital gains taxes on the wealthy...that's their ONLY economic program. it's a failure |
the success of the bush tax cuts
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. AKA govt spending. thanks. i already knew that |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
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. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:58:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, wrote: 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, uh huh. and we know that's true because you said it |
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
|
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
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
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. |
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? 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. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
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. Name 10 of them. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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. Name 10 of them. LOL! It's a joke... I won't hold my breath. -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... In article , says... 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. Name 10 of them. LOL! It's a joke... I won't hold my breath. http://stimuluswatch.org/index.php/project/by_state |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 13/06/2011 5:33 PM, 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. They already do in the USA for cash accounts. 40k/IRA get the full hit on withdrawal. Explain the "cash account" thing? I agree 401ks are a time bomb and I think we ain't seen nothin yet on those taxes. 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. Fast way to scare off investment. In todays market, 5 years is not even calculated. Too many changes coming for a commitment that long without some guarantees no one will or can make. A huge part of our problem is that businesses work in 90 day windows while out competition in China looks at decades at a time. For example, if you give me a 20 year tax rate guarantee for property and income tax that I like, I would buy a Florida property tomorrow morning. But with the debts out of control, I will hold off and decline thank you. No sense in moving to the taxed poor districts of USA. And Florida is one of the better places. There is no income tax in Florida and we have SOH limits on property taxes. That may actually be a bad thing because if we get a round of massive inflation, the local communities may go broke. They were certainly fat during the housing boom because the property taxes were pegged to the sale prices and they were fantasy. The smart communities like mine banked that excess money. although we did let the school board get out of control ($20k per student kind of out of control) I was wondering why the democrat pundit was pushing 401's as the "safest" way to go right now... "FREE MONEY" he said, "from your employer". I guess it makes sense now, then they can tax the crap out of you and your employer... :( -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:27:36 -0400, BAR wrote:
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. Name 10 of them. Look them up yourself. http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/ |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:32 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:01:51 -0400, iBoat wrote: In article , says... In article , says... 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. Name 10 of them. LOL! It's a joke... I won't hold my breath. http://stimuluswatch.org/index.php/project/by_state When I look at the ones around here they are the same projects that we would expect the government to kick in money into ... FROM OUR GAS TAXES. We are sending 38 cents a gallon off to DC and they dribble about half of it back to us. That is not stimulus, it is government as usual. Well, this is typical isn't it. Someone points to an actual fact-based site, and Greg ignores it in favor of rhetoric. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:56:52 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:27:36 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. Name 10 of them. The projects I see going on here have been on the master plan for decades. I haven't seen them even talking about a new project. And, now they have funding. Oh wait, that doesn't count in your small universe. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, BAR wrote:
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. Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still employed and paying taxes. The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net positive, esp. in the short term. |
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
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com