|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:31:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. really? can you? tell you what. find me someone here in the US w/o health insurance who can change his provider, OK? 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. and how long do you wait in americ a w/o insurance? and where's the proof that 'longer waits' have ANY effect on healthcare? meanwhile milions dont have it in the US. For many it is about priorities. the right wing bull**** continues. a cliche lin lieu of the facts guess he doesnt know that.e 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. ah. he comes up with a little readers digest bull**** story about why the middle class needs to be dstroyed. we're all lazy you see....only the guys on wall street work hard 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. let's see. in america govt run healthcare....medicare...is MORE efficient and less costly than PRIVATE heathcare but the facts dont deter the right and the right wing IGNORES the fact WE HAVE RATIONING in the US he's completely unwaware of the fact WE RATION HEALTHCARE 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. a reader's digest anecdote in lieu of a response...typical of the right 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? more attacks on the middle class...also typical of the right... 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. no response about why healthcare in canada s as good as in the US...even though it's cheaper... in the US it's an insurance grab. govt medcial care is better AND cheaper than the free market Doubt it. Just fleabagger bull****. HAHAHAHA let's see...he's right wing so has NO CLUE about FACTS. he makes up BULL**** and doesnt even know he's WRONG!! he has his MYTHS so the facts dont matter. that's WHY he's right wing let's look at US vs canadian healthcare costs, shall we? http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00...a62f970c-popup 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.. and he comes up with a nice little reader's digest bull**** story. he's wrong. he wont let facts get in his way. he's coppletely WRONG but he's right wing so is totally stupid |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:53:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 5:06 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:56:25 -0600, wrote: 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. HAHAHAHA they reported the ppi went up 0.8% in april. he believed THAT because it fit in with his right wing myth NOW the numbers are all wrong! ROFLMAO. that's EXACTLY how the right wing operates! 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%. unions?? the US HAS NO UNIONS!! HAHAHAHAA 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. companies are not making money???? HAHAHAHA the right winger doesnt realzie that corporate profits are the HIGHEST IN HISTORY!! ROFLMAO. EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS WRONG. THAT is why he's right wing! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:56:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 5:08 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:36:00 -0600, wrote: 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. reagonomics worked? he raised taxes. he deregulated and laid the foundation for the rape of the US economy by the banks and it worked?? HAHAHAHA and, because obama's black, the racist kluxer blames HIM for what BUSH did |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:01:18 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: 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. let's see. let's look at germany, shall we? 30% unionized work force unemployment is 7% vs 9% here their manufacturing base is stronger. as it is with much of the OECD. 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. yep. and here in the good ol' free market US, CEO's get HUNDREDS of times what the average worker gets 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. i did. the first thing hitler did was to kill the union leaders you dont know **** about history |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 6/15/11 7:43 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on? Look it up. Two people posted the link. Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work. Typical conservative: not enough smarts to look things up. -- 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
In article ,
says... 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. Wrong, wealth is the issue. Without generating new wealth you are just moving the same money around. Do you know where wealth comes from? It comes from natural resources. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... 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 progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given government assistance. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
|
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:27:36 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:33:44 -0400, wrote: That would encourage more long term investment. I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive. let's get one thing straight we dont need more INVESTMENT we need more CONSUMPTION. although investment is a form of consumption, ONLY MIDDLE CLASS CONSUMPTION can pull us out of the depression and wall street is NOT gonna let that happen You can't get consumption without jobs and the only way we get that is by expansion. It is clear the stimulus money just went into rich people's pockets and not much actually got invested in expanded industry. (thanks for a "no stimulus" stimulus bill) There are plenty of stim projects underway, even if you don't believe it or think they're working. They are working. We need more of them. Name 10 of them. Look them up yourself. http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/ Pick 10 that were not already in the planning stages before 2008. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article , payer33859
@mypacks.net says... 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. Do you have any proof of that, or just another lie? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
"wf3h" wrote in message ...
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 Reply: No the war on the middle class is the insane overspending by almost all the Congress's for 50 years. And the inflation that it has caused. 1968, a middle class family had an income of about $14k. Could buy a house and car and decent vacation. 43 years later, that is 1/2 of poverty level. The Contract with America was to allow those middle class to have the value of the money they earned. Not having to keep sending more to Washington, D,C. to pay for bloated government. One of the only places in the USA that has not seen a housing bust is the DC area. Lots of money there. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:00:24 -0400, BAR wrote:
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. Look them up yourself. http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/ Pick 10 that were not already in the planning stages before 2008. Huh? What difference does that make? Never heard of "shovel ready" projects? Now they have funding, and they're creating jobs. That's the point moron. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:12 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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... With all of the current government spending around the US at the federal, state and local level why is the unemployment rate at 9%? Because 2.5 years isn't enough time to fix the problems created by the last administration. Unemployment numbers typically take quite a while to recover. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:43:51 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work. Just like a moron, wants someone else to think for him. I know you're afraid to look it up, but man up. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:28 -0400, Harryk
wrote: On 6/15/11 7:43 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on? Look it up. Two people posted the link. Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work. Typical conservative: not enough smarts to look things up. Lazy ass is more accurate. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:47:42 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. Wrong, wealth is the issue. Without generating new wealth you are just moving the same money around. Do you know where wealth comes from? It comes from natural resources. So, someone who's barely able to feed his kids is interested in creating wealth? Hardly. That's a long term goal, not a short term reality. Wealth has little to do with natural resources in the modern world... only by association. Wealth has to do with ideas, innovation, business acumen, and moral and ethical integrity. Try again. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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 progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given government assistance. The progressive movement has little to do with "people need to be taken care of." That's the right-wing talking point on the subject. As typical... screw the poor and the middle class. The only people who really count are the billionaires. Well, screw you and the right-wing agenda. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 6/15/11 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. 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 progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given government assistance. The progressive movement has little to do with "people need to be taken care of." That's the right-wing talking point on the subject. As typical... screw the poor and the middle class. The only people who really count are the billionaires. Well, screw you and the right-wing agenda. BAR had it with education after high school, and took the alternative intellectual route with the marines. -- 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 6/15/2011 3:10 PM, Harryk wrote:
BAR had it with education after high school, and took the alternative intellectual route with the marines. The real Harry Krause wouldn't need a crutch to establish his intellectual superiority. Who are you? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 8:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. 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. So like a dumb**** you keep voting for the same old BS.... You know what Einstein says about doing the same thing and expecting different results right? -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 14/06/2011 6:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:38 -0400, wrote: In , 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 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. -the US has the lowest social mobility of any country in the OECD except the UK Social mobility? What does that mean. I get invited to diner with the Vanderbilt's and the Mellon's? -the US has lower social mobility than SWEDEN Again what is social mobility? -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. 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. If you asked him for help he would do whatever he can to help you. But, he is also motivated by money. 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! Did you lose money on a stock deal some time in the past? You sure do have a hard-on for wall street. 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? Yeah, you probably invested $10,000 and lost it and now you are soured on the stock market. Too bad you were too stupid to read the prospectus. Do you think he had that much? LOL. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On 15/06/2011 5:59 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:40:50 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0400, 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? Did my father's income predict my income. Did the fact that his salary and benefits (BAS, BAQ and pay) predict that I would be earning the same as him when I was only 25 years old? I am just trying to understand what you are saying. -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 Did you get turned down for membership at "the good marina?" Was your lineage from the wrong side of the tracks? -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? I have succeeded in the American dream. I have done better than my parents. 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**** The guy is really interesting. 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!! I just checked my 401k and it is up 6% for the year. Mine is only up 4%, but I moved a lot to cash anticipating the market was going to reverse, and by the looks of the last 3 weeks.... Obama-debt bubble is breaking. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:48:03 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. Take all your money and buy tomorrow's newspaper. If that won't cover it, ask a friend (sorry, I didn't mean to bum you out, since I know you don't have any), or perhaps find some loose change on the sidewalk. Then, look for a job. Who knows. Someone might be dumber than you and hire you. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Jun 15, 1:51*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:12 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Jun 15, 1:55*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:47:42 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Wrong, wealth is the issue. Without generating new wealth you are just moving the same money around. Do you know where wealth comes from? It comes from natural resources. So, someone who's barely able to feed his kids is interested in creating wealth? Hardly. That's a long term goal, not a short term reality. Wealth has little to do with natural resources in the modern world... only by association. Wealth has to do with ideas, innovation, business acumen, and moral and ethical integrity. Try again. So, D'Plume. by applying your logic (or rather, lack of; ) The CEO's of the oil companies are highly ethical and moral. Obviously you praise the Enron hierarchy! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Jun 15, 7:13*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:46:31 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/06/2011 8:41 PM, wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, *wrote: In , says... 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. 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. So like a dumb**** you keep voting for the same old BS.... *You know what Einstein says about doing the same thing and expecting different results right? So, like a dumb****, you don't know what to do, so you blame the black guy. The good news is that you can't even get into this country no less vote. The *black guy* D'Plume? You're racial prejudice is showing. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Jun 15, 7:15*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:48:03 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, *wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. *Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. . Someone might be dumber than you and hire you. Are you offering to accept his application, D'Plume? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
"Canuck57" wrote in message ...
On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. -- Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem. Easy. Just invest in what the Pelosi family invests in. Their net worth is up 62% in the last year. |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:54:58 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. Therefore, Pelosi is evil? |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:00:24 -0400, BAR wrote: 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. Look them up yourself. http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/ Pick 10 that were not already in the planning stages before 2008. Huh? What difference does that make? Never heard of "shovel ready" projects? Now they have funding, and they're creating jobs. That's the point moron. Even Obama admitted the "shovel ready" was a big lie... He gave the finger to the country and admitted he just paid a bunch of voting blocks off... None of it created jobs, none of it created anything but fat happy donors... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article , payer33859
@mypacks.net says... On 6/15/11 2:57 PM, wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, wrote: In , says... 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. 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 progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given government assistance. The progressive movement has little to do with "people need to be taken care of." That's the right-wing talking point on the subject. As typical... screw the poor and the middle class. The only people who really count are the billionaires. Well, screw you and the right-wing agenda. BAR had it with education after high school, and took the alternative intellectual route with the marines. At least he did something.. You never did anything after High School, that's why you lied about a Yale degree, and secret missions for Presidents, with secret Generals in Vietnam.. snerk -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
In article ,
says... On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:48:03 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/06/2011 5:20 PM, wf3h wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, wrote: In , 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 I have money to invest. Tell me how I should invest it? I need a laugh. Take all your money and buy tomorrow's newspaper. If that won't cover it, ask a friend (sorry, I didn't mean to bum you out, since I know you don't have any), or perhaps find some loose change on the sidewalk. Then, look for a job. Who knows. Someone might be dumber than you and hire you. How the **** do you know that? Oh yeah, you just made it up... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:12 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:16:47 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: 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... With all of the current government spending around the US at the federal, state and local level why is the unemployment rate at 9%? because consumer debt is high, wages are low and consumption isnt enough to drive teh economy in addition, local govts have cut about the same amount as the feds have spent\ |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:51:53 -0400, BAR wrote:
The progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken care of has gotten us into this mess. ono really? how? specifics? what got us into this mess was 30 years of deregulation of the banks and the raping of the economy by wall street. the right ignores what the rich did to the country in favor of the mythical welfare queen there are welfare queens alright. they're known as hedge fund managers People need to be told that they are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given government assistance. more right wing bull****. the only people that got taken care of were on wall street. the middle class paid for that AND got nothing |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:45:39 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:56:34 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: 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 Reply: No the war on the middle class is the insane overspending by almost all the Congress's for 50 years. And the inflation that it has caused. 1968, a middle class family had an income of about $14k. Could buy a house and car and decent vacation. 43 years later, that is 1/2 of poverty level. The Contract with America was to allow those middle class to have the value of the money they earned. Not having to keep sending more to Washington, D,C. to pay for bloated government. One of the only places in the USA that has not seen a housing bust is the DC area. Lots of money there. funny the rich seem to be doing OK. they had a 500% pay increase in the last 30 years. so why are they doing fine and the rest of us are headed for poverty? answer: that's what the right wing wants for the US |
the success of the bush tax cuts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:53:43 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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: You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us. gee. the answer is obvious they dont rule us You only know how to pick up rocks and throw them. someone has to start the ball rolling. you sheep wont |
| 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