|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:01:51 -0400, wrote: In , says... In om, says... In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, 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. Government consumes wealth. Lucky you are getting much back at all. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 3:57 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, 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 And Obama signed the checks. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 9:09 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600, 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) Not really. Limiting government taxes is good. Can't keep raising taxes into perpetuity or you quickly become state debt-tax slaves. What is missing though is the removal of governments saddling debt into the system. That is, funding the excess with a credit card. That bypasses the intent of the limiting taxes and thus is fraud on the intent for people to maintain some economic freedom. The reality is, government is living beyond its means using debt fraud to fund it. Bottom line, they have to cut spending and start paying those debts. If that means tossing some politicially sacred cows and union ass to the pavement, start throwing. No reason why everybody has to suffer but for government. Do the socialist thing, share the pain not just the gain. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 9:32 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600, 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... :( As of last year I ceased contributing to tax deferred funds. As the fleabaggers look with envy and greed at those fat juicy taxable 401K/IRA (RRSP/LIRA for Canada). The idea is I want my money liquid and free to move fast without tax issues if the governments don't fix their fraud and misbehavior. Study of why Roman Empire fell is a good read, just government greed and corruption. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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 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. Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it. It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor. Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of government, business and people were relatively low compared to today. Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways and in fact had already started before WW II. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 12:33 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. Funny, the economy isn't seeing the money. It sits in a Saudi bank account. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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. That's very nice, if sincere. If Greg bites there might be 2 intelligent people talking at once here. When cannuck is one side that's impossible. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:43 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: 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... :( The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. That's the point... Get you to put as much of your savings into one account (to be taxed later, big time) and get your company to match the money going in... Then when they do hit you with taxes they get to tax all of your savings, basically twice as they collect on what the company put in too;) -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On 14/06/2011 10:02 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:01:51 -0400, wrote: In , says... In om, says... In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, 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. Government consumes wealth. Lucky you are getting much back at all. Well, if you look at the figures, California (with it's 6 figure lifeguards at the beach), Florida, New York, and wonder of wonders, Illinois got the most porkulous money... snerk -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 9:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, 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. Yep. Just raises costs, making USA less competitive. 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. Some big truth to that. Still goes on too in economic outflow of wealth. 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. Only way USA could win is a pre-emptive massive nuclear attach. Would result in Russia stepping in. Everyone a loser is USA's best scenario. Worst scenario, USA is a third world country as the currency collapses. Which is were it is headed. $10,000 a barrel? Think it is a joke? Study Zimbabwe. Can't print your way out of debt, but you can dilute your currency to a much lower value. 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. Yep, with nukes, it is he MAD principle. Imagine, China could field 3,000,000 troupes in BC and take over Canada as fast as their tanks could travel. Have a border skirmish with an economically decimated USA. Real problem here is China is bailing out the USA with its policies. It sees USA going down as bad for them. They in fact support the value of a USD. But I question how long they can prop up the value of a USD. In reality it needs to be massively devalued.... Which is why Obama opens up on China then quietly shuts up. China just might write off $2T of bad US debt and let USA take its chances with the valueless dollar. Would make oil for Chinese cheaper. Watch Chinese inflation, that is where the weak USD is driving the pressures. If the Chinese let the USD float down in value, the USA will see major inflation pressures. Bottom line, US economics is now owned by China. Far too much money expansion from the US Fed and government debt to stop it now. The reality hasn't set in, but China is already in many ways the #1 world economy. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 4:09 AM, 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. Keynes was an unemployed liberal economist looking for a job, so he told politicians what they wanted to here. 3 years of Keynes and just a load of debt to show for it. No results, just more bu11sh1t. I do actually think Keynews could work if enhanced to include the concept of a reserve fund. During fat times, no debt, governments hoards cash to have a solid reserve and avoid greed. Even cut government in good times. But the lack of a reserve is why Keynes is full of sh1t. You can't debt-spend your way out of a debt problem. Keynes does not properly even apply. Fact is, your not paying your bills with real money. Just paying with BS and a prayer, and sooner or later that bubble will pop. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 11:16 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:50:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:14:57 -0400, 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. If you did two things people would respect you more. 1) No whine and fleabagger chirp towards others. 2) If you don't know anything, shut up an listen. So how is our welfare mama doing today? Give us a laugh at least. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:36:06 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:43 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: 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... :( The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. 401Ks are taxed as regular income if you're over the line. Is this new? No. Taxes will go up. Some should consider converting to Roths. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:05:35 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 9:09 AM, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600, 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) Not really. Limiting government taxes is good. Can't keep raising taxes into perpetuity or you quickly become state debt-tax slaves. What is missing though is the removal of governments saddling debt into the system. That is, funding the excess with a credit card. That bypasses the intent of the limiting taxes and thus is fraud on the intent for people to maintain some economic freedom. The reality is, government is living beyond its means using debt fraud to fund it. Bottom line, they have to cut spending and start paying those debts. If that means tossing some politicially sacred cows and union ass to the pavement, start throwing. No reason why everybody has to suffer but for government. Do the socialist thing, share the pain not just the gain. Good grief... your stupid statements cannot be attributed to your eyesight problems. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:07 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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 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. Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it. It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor. Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of government, business and people were relatively low compared to today. Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways and in fact had already started before WW II. The US gov't was going broke during WWII. That's what the bond push was all about. For God's sake, look things up before you quack. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... In article , says... The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Tax-sheltered retirement income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed. Always was, is, always will be. It's expected that your income will be less when you retire. You might be able to use Roth IRA's to some extent if you think working vs. retirement yaxes will flip on you. Normally it doesn't work that way. Basically you've said if you're outside when it rains you'll get wet. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. Depends on income, but you have a point there. Low income workers could lose by saving. Here's the bright side. Low income worker don't have any ****ing money to save. What if everyone thinks the current tax on 401's is ok, tolerable so they pump them up, and then "somebody" decides to say, triple the tax on the 401's???? -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:22:44 -0400, wrote: In , 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. Knows more than you. You don't have much money. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 4:08 AM, wf3h 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? yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis -borrow and spend in bad times -pay back in good thanks. i already knew that Well what is really happenign is: -borrow and spend in good times -borrow more and spend in bad times Even a brain fart knows that isn't sustainable. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 6:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In , 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. Yep. Best one line explanation if have seen yet. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein So what drives DC, fleabagger and Obama insanity? -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 6:18 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , 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... I usually don't, but like jerking the fleabaggers chain perhaps too much. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 6/14/11 5:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 14/06/2011 6:18 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , 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... I usually don't, but like jerking the fleabaggers chain perhaps too much. I ignore most of Canuck's ignorance-based political/economic posts. I don't believe the fool has more than $100 at risk in investments. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 6:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600, 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 You whine about the evil rich people yet you have a Masters degree and you can't seem to break into the ranks of the rich. I seriously doubt wf3h has a degree of any kind, unless it is a Masters in Bu11sh1t and fleabaggerism. our economy today is the result of the richest 1% doing what's right for america Risk and reward. What are you willing to risk to receive the reward? Are you willing to invest all of your money? wf3h is too chickensh1t. Easier to whine and bitch. The limits of the cranium in his genetic mess. and proof of that is they're better than we are. that's why our economy is so strong The proof is that they are out working rather than posting to this newsgroup all day long, like you do. Hey, you can't get enough money in your successful years that your capital does the work for you. I spend 2 hours each morning doing the markets...self employed investor? I suspect a few of us in this group hit this category. -- 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 6/14/11 5:05 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... In , says... The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Tax-sheltered retirement income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed. Always was, is, always will be. It's expected that your income will be less when you retire. You might be able to use Roth IRA's to some extent if you think working vs. retirement yaxes will flip on you. Normally it doesn't work that way. Basically you've said if you're outside when it rains you'll get wet. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. Depends on income, but you have a point there. Low income workers could lose by saving. Here's the bright side. Low income worker don't have any ****ing money to save. What if everyone thinks the current tax on 401's is ok, tolerable so they pump them up, and then "somebody" decides to say, triple the tax on the 401's???? Why would that concern you? You spend you kid's college fund on motorbike parts. -- Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where personal insults are not allowed? http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 12:36 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:52:13 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wrote: then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger? Because government tax policies and import policies made it a lot more profitable to make things offshore and import them. That started in the 90s (GHW Bush/Clinton) Then you had the Clinton era deregulation that made the idea of money making money more attractive than actually making anything. Most of that Clinton era business boom was just an illusion (fraud, phony profits and irrational exuberance in the stock market) and the GW Bush boom was all based on borrowing money that didn't exist. The people who got rich were the ones who knew when to cash in before both bubbles popped. So, Greenspan was an oracle? Not really... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html Greenspan had it partially right but the cause was government and US Fed ponzi policies. Lending money at below market rates caused it. There hasn't been supply/demand in lending/borrowing for some time. The idea that government sets the rates IS the problem and the market was not allowed this correction. If it was the market driving, too much borrowing would be offset by a shortage of cash to lend and rates would go up. But the US Fed/Congress flooded the market with cheap undervalued money. Causing the market for debt to economy to inflate, and then someone wanted to be paid. Still is a problem too. Government needs to borrow real money and stop the devaluing money print NOW before a major currency run starts. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 2:43 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 14/06/2011 10:02 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:01:51 -0400, wrote: In , says... In om, says... In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, 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. Government consumes wealth. Lucky you are getting much back at all. Well, if you look at the figures, California (with it's 6 figure lifeguards at the beach), Florida, New York, and wonder of wonders, Illinois got the most porkulous money...snerk Isn't Illinois going through some corruption issues, yep, where Obama came from on his last just visiting? -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 2:42 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:43 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:56:30 -0600, 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... :( The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. That's the point... Get you to put as much of your savings into one account (to be taxed later, big time) and get your company to match the money going in... Then when they do hit you with taxes they get to tax all of your savings, basically twice as they collect on what the company put in too;) Not only that, the serices you get cost more because they have to pay taxes. Taxation as inflation. A real concept actually. How a 1% increase in taxes can cause 4% of inflation if the right circumstances exist. And they often do. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 3:05 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... In , says... The employer is not going to be taxed but I bet those people taking their 401k money out in the future will get their ass kicked on it. Tax-sheltered retirement income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed. Always was, is, always will be. It's expected that your income will be less when you retire. You might be able to use Roth IRA's to some extent if you think working vs. retirement yaxes will flip on you. Normally it doesn't work that way. Basically you've said if you're outside when it rains you'll get wet. Right now a worker would be paying a very minimal tax on this money but I bet those numbers will go up sharply as we try to dig our way out of crushing debt. Depends on income, but you have a point there. Low income workers could lose by saving. Here's the bright side. Low income worker don't have any ****ing money to save. What if everyone thinks the current tax on 401's is ok, tolerable so they pump them up, and then "somebody" decides to say, triple the tax on the 401's???? That is why I recommend a blended approach. Save inside and outside of the 401K/IRA. So if you have a good investment year with gains, you haul out less on the 401K. If you have a low year, haul out to the lower tax rates. That is, use the 401K to control your total taxable income. If you are low income low tax already, unless the employer matches it, you better of in a ROTH than 401K/IRA as you want only the high taxed dollars into the 401K/IRA. That is, get a 30% deduction in, and withdraw at 10% out. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 3:03 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:07 -0600, wrote: On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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 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. Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it. It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor. Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of government, business and people were relatively low compared to today. Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways and in fact had already started before WW II. The US gov't was going broke during WWII. That's what the bond push was all about. For God's sake, look things up before you quack. But that was for US weapons not forign weapons....look it up dough brain. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 2:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:50:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:14:57 -0400, 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. That's very nice, if sincere. If Greg bites there might be 2 intelligent people talking at once here. When cannuck is one side that's impossible. Why? Because I don't tolerate fleabagger whining, excuses, belly aching, smear, fear and feed their need for denial of reality? -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:01:26 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 13/06/2011 5:58 PM, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:04:16 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... 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. let's see how his facts stand up CSE's ruined the economy. they allowed banks to run themselves they were closed down after it became apparent banks could not regulate themselves...in 2006 after a 10 year run even canuck admits the dems had only taken office when the economy collapsed this is AFTER the GOP ran it for 6 years. and ran it into the ground AFTER deregulating the banks the right pushed deregulation the right pushed MASSIVE tax cuts that bankrupted the country the right started thw war in iraq that cost a trillion and yet he blames the dems who had no role in this whatsoever that's what the right does. lies. But Obama 2008, was too stupid to realize Reagan was right, government isn't the solution, government is the problem. HAHAHAHAHA let's see...we deregulated the banks how'd that work out?? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:10:16 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. and yet you think american healthcare is free. Hell, even our premiers in charge of health care prefer the USA. While it is nationalized, it is rationed, basic and long waits. let's see. 1 guy goes here for healthcare meanwhile milions dont have it in the US. guess he doesnt know that. 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. HAHAHAHA the best care? proof? well...none. none at all. life expectancy is higher in many countries like japan with socialized medicine but he has his fantasies and line? uh...how long do you wait in the US if you have no insurance? For Canada, health care tuned out to be a government tax grab. and yet it works in the US it's an insurance grab. govt medcial care is better AND cheaper than the free market |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:35:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 3:55 AM, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:37:20 -0600, wrote: 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 guess the moron doesnt realize federal taxes are at a 40 year low he's not too bright. he's right wing, which is another way of saying 'stupid' |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:51:52 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 3:56 AM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:59:52 -0400, wrote: 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. guess the right wing lying sack of **** doesnt know the GOP authored the deregulation of wall street and that they fight reregulation even today. that's why he has to issue a bald faced lie about the black president |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:46 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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.r what mythology the right spins. germany has a strongly unionized workforce and has a higher percentage of people in manufacturing and lower unemployment than the US right wingers are filled with bull**** |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:51:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: Funny. Capital provides jobs, I don't see UAW coughing up $500K per employee to buy equipment. It takes capital. really? let's see...capital gains taxes were reduced from 70% under reagan to 15% today how's that working out? all that money we gave the rich uh....did it lead to full employment? lots of middle class people have stable employment and good jobs like the right wing said we would? Key is stability, and the Obamanation is de-stabilizing fast. proof? oh. none. he's black so taht's proof enough. 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. the right thinks we should turn the country over to wall street because that's worked out so well in the past |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:40:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: Wise. Many don't realize taxation is like growing chives. and the US federal tax rate is at a 40 year low how's that working out? everyone have a job? You can see this in that government revenue has plummeted. Very dangerious, as no jobs is no revenue. And while you can debt an economy, smart money knows it is more future taxes and labour unrest. That scares off investors creating jobs making problems worse and not better. yep. we cut taxes on the rich and threw millions out of work. the right wing said that couldnt happen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com