On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:58:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

I know more than you, your just a piece of trailer trash pretending to
know much more than you actually do. We can see your ignorance.

Sorry, but I don't think we'll take your word that you know more than
anyone. You're a moron with very little (feel free to find the pun)
going for you.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:52:13 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:43:03 -0400, wf3h 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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:34:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:29 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:06:27 -0600,
wrote:
where does he live?t

canada. what does canada have?

oh. socialized medicine....

shall we compare costs to see how SOCIALIZED medicine compares to FREE
MARKET medicine?? guess which is cheaper?

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00...a62f970c-popup

Just know how screwed up it left Canada and Obamacare is just a huge tax
grab. Dumbsh1t Obama doesn't seem to get it.


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

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

what an idiot.
\
And dumbsh1ts like you don't either. Want to double your taxes and add
rationing and long waits? Then you should move to Canada. But wait,
you can't get into Canada. US insured care is far superior to Canada's
HC in many ways.

we already HAVE rationing. dont have a job? you're rationed. workng
poor? you're rationed. young? rationed. etc etc

what a moron


Pretty obvious Obamacare was a knee jerk CF.

and look at what the free market did. rousing success

which is why you live in socialized canada

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:37:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

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

how they doing? what cuts have they made?

oh. none.

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

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


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

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

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

uh huh. more faith based economics.

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

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

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:59:52 -0400, wrote:

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

I did hear one idea on capital gains that sounded interesting. Tie the
tax discount more closely to how long the investment was held.
You wouldn't get the full tax break until it was held 5 years and make
it a higher percentage ending at the regular income rate at 1 or 2
years.
That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

The more the money moves through the economy the better off the economy
is. If I have to wait 5 years to get the full tax benefit then the money
becomes stagnant and it doesn't help any one.



The idea of the stock market has historically been a way for people to
inject capital into industries and the money is supposed to be made by
operating that industry. The stock holder gets paid in dividends from
the profits of that industry. When it degraded to the idea of money
simply making money, the model breaks down and you get bubble/bust
stock cycles. It also does nothing to provide jobs for anyone but the
guys who empty the shredder baskets at the hedge funds to hide their
frauds.

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

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:05:46 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:04:44 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:33:44 -0400, wrote:


That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

let's get one thing straight

we dont need more INVESTMENT

we need more CONSUMPTION.

although investment is a form of consumption, ONLY MIDDLE CLASS
CONSUMPTION can pull us out of the depression

and wall street is NOT gonna let that happen

You can't get consumption without jobs and the only way we get that is
by expansion. It is clear the stimulus money just went into rich
people's pockets and not much actually got invested in expanded
industry. (thanks for a "no stimulus" stimulus bill)

the only way we get expansion is with more money going to consumers,
NOT to the richest 1%. the american right wants ONLY increases in
capital for the already rich.

and the wall street excesses of the bush years amounted to a MASSIVE
transfer of wealth from the productive middle class to the non
productive capital gains class.

and the right wants to continue this. look at what the morons said in
last night's debate....eliminate capital gains taxes on the
wealthy...that's their ONLY economic program.

it's a failure

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

AKA govt spending.

thanks. i already knew that

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

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

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

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

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:58:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 13/06/2011 3:41 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:
should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

I know more than you,

uh huh. and we know that's true because you said it