|
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 9:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wrote: 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. funny that countreis with strong unions have the strongest manufacturing. 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. HAHAHAH guess he forgot the keynesian dictim if you owe the bank $1000 you have a problem if you owe $1 million, the bank has a problem 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. really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years you're just too stupid to know that 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. the chinese hold about 5% of US debt so tell me again how they rule us |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 4:09 AM, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:33:29 -0700, wrote: 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. HAHAHAHA he was rich! what a moron! 3 years of Keynes and just a load of debt to show for it. No results, just more bu11sh1t. HAHAHAHA you apparently never heard of 1929! we DIDNT do what keynes recommended how'd that work out?? ROFLMAO! You can't debt-spend your way out of a debt problem sure you can. the US did it in 1939 when we started spending on ww2 idiot you're so ****ing stupid they have to put you on a ventilator because you forget how to breath, right winger |
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: 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. actually what we did is transfer a massive amount of wealth to the already rich and yes, borrow and spend does work. in fact it's how the 29 depression ended. what wrecked us is wall street taking money and turning into a non productive liquidity trap |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:06:44 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 4:08 AM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote: 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 yep. the right cut taxes and borrowed to finance the rich guess what happened? Even a brain fart knows that isn't sustainable yep. and yet the right wing says we should continue |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. well you're right wing and kind of stupid, (a redundancy), so let me educate you -in teh US, the biggest predictor of income level is your father's income -the US has the lowest social mobility of any country in the OECD except the UK -the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN -a college educated person from the LOWEST QUINTILE has LESS of a chance of breaking into the TOP quintile than a NON college educated person whose parents are already in teh top quintile and yet you right wing MORONS still believe the amercan dream BULL**** 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? HAHAHAH he beleives that wall street EARNED the money they stole! 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. really? uh....how did wall street WORK to earn the money they stole you right wing moron? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:24:03 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 6:26 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... 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. hey if it enables you to sleep at night, go for it! 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. ah, the fairy tales of the right. wall street works hard! they're rich not because of greed but because they're smart!! HAHAHAHAHA 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. no one gives a **** about you and your little readers digest history |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 13/06/2011 10:52 PM, 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. And the only politician to call it right on, Ron Paul. you should have been a standup comedian. the kluxer has no more understanding of economics than he does of his love affair with the KKK |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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. Governments do not generate wealth. The only thing governments are good at with respect to money is waste, fraud and corruption. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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 spending has been going on for about 100 years. It needs to stop. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/06/2011 9:41 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:09:25 -0400, wrote: 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. funny that countreis with strong unions have the strongest manufacturing. 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. HAHAHAH guess he forgot the keynesian dictim if you owe the bank $1000 you have a problem if you owe $1 million, the bank has a problem 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. really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years you're just too stupid to know that 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. the chinese hold about 5% of US debt so tell me again how they rule us You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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. They are finally building the ICC in Maryland. From I-270 at Gaithersburg to I-95 in Laural. It only took 40 some odd years to get past all of the planning, lawsuits and bull****. They opened the first section for two weeks for free. They had 30,000 cars a day using the road. Then they turned on the automated toll, E-Z Pass, and the number of cars dropped to less than 9,000 a day and has stayed there. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:24:20 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years you're just too stupid to know that 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. the chinese hold about 5% of US debt so tell me again how they rule us You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us. gee. the answer is obvious they dont rule us |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:40:50 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. well you're right wing and kind of stupid, (a redundancy), so let me educate you -in teh US, the biggest predictor of income level is your father's income When my father retired in 1984 as an O-5 in the US Navy, as a graduate of the USNA and holding a MS from the US Navy PG School, I was earning the same as he was. I was 25 years old and had no degree from anywhere. why does the right wing think their little bull**** stories have anything to o with reality? have you ****ers looked out a window lately? really? -the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN Again what is social mobility? if you dont know what it is and are truly too stupid to google it then you're right wing -a college educated person from the LOWEST QUINTILE has LESS of a chance of breaking into the TOP quintile than a NON college educated person whose parents are already in teh top quintile You sure are hung up on this social mobility thing. AKA the 'american dream' ever hear of it, right wnger? and yet you right wing MORONS still believe the amercan dream BULL**** I think you have a warped view of success. They guy who used to live next door to me started out as a process server. He was a very good process server. He then went into commercial real-estate. He is now and executive vice president at an international commercial real-estate corporation. He is also on the board of directors for a national charitable organization. He has also met with, meaing actually talked with for more than 20 minutes each, about 15 leaders of countries around the world. more reader's digest bull**** Risk and reward. What are you willing to risk to receive the reward? Are you willing to invest all of your money? HAHAHAH he beleives that wall street EARNED the money they stole! Did you lose money on a stock deal some time in the past? You sure do have a hard-on for wall street. HAHAHAHAH aint that a shame! how's wall street doing for us? the US doing OK you really are stupid, arent you? and PROUD of it!! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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? So, you believe that because someone lived in a place they are responsible for that place ever after. Typical moronic comment. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:36 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: 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. I think they are going to try to discourage people from cashing out their 401ks to try to save the stock market. That usually happens in the tax code. I highly doubt that would fly. As I've said, 401k's have always been sold as taxable as ordinary income. Changing those rules would **** people off more than Ryan's Medicare destruction plan. There is a big problem coming when 83 million boomers do start pulling that much money out of the market and there is not the excess income coming along behind them to replace it. It is just another example of the demographic problem that is going to threaten our whole pension model. The only one we are really acknowledging is SS but all of the pay as you go programs are threatened the same way. I think you overstate the entire boomer deal. I've seen there were only 76 million boomers ever born. They span 16-18 years, so don't hit entitlements at once. Many are already dead and never hit entitlements. As some come into entitlements, others go to St. Peter. Boomer life expectancy is about 69 years. So the idea that they all live into their 80's and 90's is a myth. As far as pulling money out of Wall Street, some. But a lot will still be there when they kick off. Hardly anybody with savings dies broke. Tax policy is far more likely to hit inheritors and so keep equities uncashed. 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. These days the closest thing to a pension people have is the 401k Stop right there. The closest thing MOST people have to a pension in the the U.S. is SS. You still don't understand that. I don't have figures, but a wild guess is less than half of current workers even have money in a 401k, and far fewer significant money. 100% of them have SS, with some special exceptions. and if your employer will match, you should save all he matches. I would not be shocked to see legislation that requires a certain level of 401k savings ... for the same reason mentioned above, to replace some of that boomer money that is coming out of the equities. I would be shocked at forced 401k contributions. Wouldn't be shocked by the revolution that follows. What you're saying is the government would force worker taxation be paid directly to Wall Strett fat cats. In your dreams. He's just in the Chicken Little crowd. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:16:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. Bozo... we're talking about gov't spending. Gov't spent. The economy recovered. I know it's a difficult concept for someone of your low intellect... |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on? Look it up. Two people posted the link. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:18:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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? Tolerate? You can't help yourself. You reply with whining to every post you don't agree with... same nonsense over and over. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:56:39 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. You should take your own advice. Then, people would think you were just mildly retarded. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:05:05 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. Whatever knuckle brain... you're the one who's bragging all the time. That usually indicates insecurity. Keep doing it. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:19:49 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. Governments do not generate wealth. The only thing governments are good at with respect to money is waste, fraud and corruption. Wealth isn't the issue. It's the middle class who are getting screwed and they're not interested in wealth. They're interested in short term survival. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:10:04 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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? Then, why do you keep digging? The hole is just getting bigger. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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 spending has been going on for about 100 years. It needs to stop. Tomorrow... and screw the middle class who are going to get hurt. No need to actually fix the problems, just screw over people. Typical right-wing greedy asshole. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:32:07 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. Thus, Greenspan screwed up. Try reading for comprehension next time. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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?? Greg has filled your stories full of holes on this one several times.. Give it up... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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 You keep changing your story.. you really don't have a leg to stand on do you? -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
"wf3h" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:48 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 13/06/2011 10:52 PM, 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. And the only politician to call it right on, Ron Paul. you should have been a standup comedian. the kluxer has no more understanding of economics than he does of his love affair with the KKK Reply: Actually Ron Paul was the only one to call several economic disasters correctly of all the Pols. He seems to have a better understanding of Econ 101 than 95% of the rest of the politicians and most of the public also. He will not be President, but would make one hell of an advisor. Probably the best candidate and will also not get the nod, is Newt G. He was the one who balanced Clinton's budgets. The Contract with America was one of the best things that happened to WJC. His first 2 years were a spending orgy. Newt seems to be the only one who is concerned about overspending. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 4:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:10:16 -0600, 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. Never said it was. But you can change providers if one isn't servicing your needs. The results are much higher service levels than you see in Canada. You have more MRIs, you get surgery faster...less likely to die waiting. 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 He has money. But the point being he thought Florida would do him better. meanwhile milions dont have it in the US. For many it is about priorities. guess he doesnt know that. I do. I lived in a rental, neighbors told us their experience. Skipped HC for decades, going to Greece, Italy, Spain, China...every year some place new. Then he needed a bypass and they had to sell the house. They had the money. Don't get me wrong, I am not against universal health care. I just have a huge gripe on how it is implemented and run. Ends up being a greedy government tax grab if your not careful. And rationing sets in even though they don't talk about it. Even preferences, politicians first, then workers, the old folks get idle time. Here is an example: http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/06/08...stem-zwozdesky Just don't go for the Obama knee jerk tax grab and engineer the system including abuses by crooks including governemnt. 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? Lots. If health care is so great in Canada, why would a premier got to Florida? What better proof of that do you need. 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? No clue, I always was with aid up insurance. But agree here, if cocaine, heroin and/or booze is more important than your family, why waste resources on you? For Canada, health care tuned out to be a government tax grab. and yet it works Marginally. But the coverage is crap. Most people purchase additional coverage anyways. You have to, $2600/year in my case. Just to make up for what government does not cover. Like travel abroad. Private room so I don't share with 12 others. in the US it's an insurance grab. govt medcial care is better AND cheaper than the free market Doubt it. Just fleabagger bull****. Remember, I lived there for 10 years and used the system twice for myself. Busted rib and a case of fly fishing elbow, bursitis (sp?). Know of others, work buddy. US is consistently faster and in most cases better. The amount of leftie media propaganda and BS. Might want to call the Obama the Pied Piper of perals blind geed making people march to the tax-slaughter house. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 7:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:00:36 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: 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. I think they are going to try to discourage people from cashing out their 401ks to try to save the stock market. That usually happens in the tax code. I highly doubt that would fly. As I've said, 401k's have always been sold as taxable as ordinary income. Changing those rules would **** people off more than Ryan's Medicare destruction plan. There is a big problem coming when 83 million boomers do start pulling that much money out of the market and there is not the excess income coming along behind them to replace it. It is just another example of the demographic problem that is going to threaten our whole pension model. The only one we are really acknowledging is SS but all of the pay as you go programs are threatened the same way. I think you overstate the entire boomer deal. I've seen there were only 76 million boomers ever born. They span 16-18 years, so don't hit entitlements at once. Many are already dead and never hit entitlements. As some come into entitlements, others go to St. Peter. Boomer life expectancy is about 69 years. So the idea that they all live into their 80's and 90's is a myth. As far as pulling money out of Wall Street, some. But a lot will still be there when they kick off. Hardly anybody with savings dies broke. Tax policy is far more likely to hit inheritors and so keep equities uncashed. 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. These days the closest thing to a pension people have is the 401k Stop right there. The closest thing MOST people have to a pension in the the U.S. is SS. You still don't understand that. I don't have figures, but a wild guess is less than half of current workers even have money in a 401k, and far fewer significant money. 100% of them have SS, with some special exceptions. and if your employer will match, you should save all he matches. I would not be shocked to see legislation that requires a certain level of 401k savings ... for the same reason mentioned above, to replace some of that boomer money that is coming out of the equities. I would be shocked at forced 401k contributions. Wouldn't be shocked by the revolution that follows. What you're saying is the government would force worker taxation be paid directly to Wall Strett fat cats. In your dreams. But add in government bamboozled and skimmed SS over the years....not a pretty picture. Government borrows it into general spend at 1%, inflation conservative at 3%, that is a year over year 2% reduction in vlaue with the money sitting in SS. And over the years, that adds up big time as a shortfall to the beneficiary. Pensions not in your name and personal account are usually a big scam, government included. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 5:06 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:56:25 -0600, wrote: On 14/06/2011 9:25 AM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:57:58 -0400, wrote: You already heard what I think about capital gains taxes. It should reward long term (several years) investment and very short term investments (flash trading) should actually be taxed higher than ordinary income. That already happens. And big huge tax increases coming after 2012 already on the books. If you have long term gains, you may want to realize them early just to avoid the 20% tax rate hike coming. more pipe dreams tax increases? where? oh. none. we NEED more taxes, especially on the rich, but americans will never let the rich be taxed. Government is trying to end the depression with bu11sh1t. They generate 4.5% inflation, GDP grows by 2.25% and they say the depression has ended. Only with fleabagger math, as inflation adjusted the economy still shrank. And in shrink, it also generated less government revenue. A real vicious economic cycle caused by government debtors denial and mindless statism. 4.5% inflation? where? ppi index went up 0.2% last month Don't believe the government numbers. Find a government CPI and check out cars, homes, gold, silver even flour say from 1914. You will find CPI is bogus. Keeps unions happy to BS them down. Ponzi number, make you think a 2.5% raise is good if they tell you inflation s 2%. OK, radios are cheaper. CPI is just BS. and the teabaggers think we have to cut taxes on the rich because their income only went up 500% in the last 30 years. and federal taxes are at a 40 year low but the right knows none of this Tax reciepts are but not net tax load. Because over 20% are unemployed and company are not making money like they used too. No profit, no/low wages means less taxes. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 5:08 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:36:00 -0600, wrote: You cannot create wealth with debt. sure you can. businesses do it every day. they borrow and invest. DUH...the right wing moron doesnt even know basic economics Same problem exists today. Far too many on the consumption side and not enough on the producting wealth side of the fence. This is causing the economic breakdown as no value o the producers to continue losing welth to a failing empire of government and consumption greed. HAHAHAHA far too many on the consumption side?? ROFLMAO!!! the problem is NOT ENOUGH consumption! he's SUCH a moron and he's right wing! And can't have consumption if your credit is bouncing and your working for less. That is why Reagonomics worked and Obamanomics screwed up. Reagan left the month 100% efficiently in the peoples pockets. Obama, he redistributes it to big corps, banks corruption and fleabaggers on welfare. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 5:10 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:17:35 -0600, wrote: On 14/06/2011 4:07 AM, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:48:46 -0600, wrote: and why the right wants to destroy it. the right is an elitist, property based ideology that hates the middle class Screw unions, they are just the other side of the greed coin. really? then why do countries that have strong unions have strong manufacturing? You mean like Japan? Lets examine that. Unions in Japan DEMAND loyalty or management will not run you off, the unions will. Unions are also responsible in helping management make a modest, sustainable profit, and to address employee issues. Hell, they are more like a HR department than a union. CEOs are expected to resign when they lay off people for issues not involving the laid off persons performance. And very rare to see a CEO get paid more than 10 times the lowest wage they pay. Strikes rare too. As government will step in and tell the unions to get back to work or quit if demands are not reasonable for the type of work. You do know socialist worker unions started the Nazi movement right? uh...no they didnt. you lying sack of **** nazi lover. since when did you start loving hitler? Look it up, they did. -- 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 22:49:48 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:01:26 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: 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?? Greg has filled your stories full of holes on this one several times.. Give it up... and proof of that is you've said it. uh huh. hell, rush lies a million times a day and is well paid. and you aint no rush |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:50:19 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote: In article , says... 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 You keep changing your story.. you really don't have a leg to stand on do you? \ HHAHAHAHAA change my story? your short term memory seems to have the retention of a sieve no doubt the pain of the truth about right wing failures is too hard to bear |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:56:34 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:25:48 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: The people who got rich were the ones who knew when to cash in before both bubbles popped. And the only politician to call it right on, Ron Paul. you should have been a standup comedian. the kluxer has no more understanding of economics than he does of his love affair with the KKK Reply: Actually Ron Paul was the only one to call several economic disasters correctly of all the Pols. meaningless. and he IS a kluxer He seems to have a better understanding of Econ 101 than 95% of the rest of the politicians and most of the public also. He will not be President, but would make one hell of an advisor. Probably the best candidate and will also not get the nod, is Newt G. He was the one who balanced Clinton's budgets. The Contract with America was one of the best things that happened to WJC. the contract ON america you mean. the continued war of the right against the ameircan middle class |
| 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