![]() | |
This is a discussion on Lies about our national debt, W, Clinton and Reagan (its just accurate information) within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Shaman Quote: Originally Posted by JRK Quote: Originally Posted by Dr.Drock Is the average middle class income american better off ...
| |||||||
| Politics Discuss government policies and candidates... |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. .....Yeah, let's totally-disregard.... Quote: ....the Obama tax-cuts. Quote: .....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!! Quote: "The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers. The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax." I made 70,000 in 01 and in 03 and it made 4000 in difference look you want to give the govt that much more go for it, dont lie so i will have to |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
| |||
| what you think 9% UE with 3 trillion dollars in additional debt is funny? You living off of the tax payer? you got kids? I do not see anything funny about this situation we find our selves in Let me add that W had a 5% UE rate for 8 years on avg he added less debt in 8 years than BHO did in 18 months historical data? By the way that debt W had included 3 tax rebates how much money did you get from Obama's stimulus? Last edited by JRK; 03-25-2011 at 02:00 PM. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to JRK For This Useful Post: | ||
Jroc (03-25-2011) | ||
| |||
| "My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978 that information your using cannot be accurate" It's straight from the Department of Labor. I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying? its called common sense You ask for it Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07 Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx. And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased". Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No! let me add that 1/2 truths are 1/2 truths every where you look I agree that yu cannot just say that 1978 has anything to do with 2004 40 million jobs where added that alone is a information that cannot be ignored I agree heritage is 1/2 truth, but thats the 1/2 that makes that story a whole |
| |||
| Quote: The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. and if you take UE avg of 5% from the mid 80s till 2009 I am unsure how anyone can say that Regan's policies created the largest transfer of wealth The hi end tax rate went from 39% to 35% (basically). So how hard would it be for the "rich" to increase the amount of wealth they have? I mean if I get to keep 4% more wealth every year and I make 250,000 per year, thats 10,000.00 the Liberal media have wrote 1000s of columns calling that a transfer of wealth [/url] THIS is what "trickle down", deregulation of the banking industry and the "conservative" corporatism disaster has wrought: News Headlines But we have a whole bunch of new millionaires, so all is good, right? bullshit? more millionaires because they keep more of there wealth De regulation in the banking industry was in 1998 "Mr Bull Shit" Glass Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall faulty as seen today Written on March 17th, 2008 in Government Positions This is just one of our articles referencing the financial crisis, crash of the housing market, subprime, and more: Even as the Fed helped to stabilize the situation over the weekend, the stock market is down again on Monday morning. What is alarming from our standpoint is that CIT, Lehman, and National City Corporation all are down – by 25 to 31 percent as we write this. Liquidity questions surround Lehman after what we learned from Bear Sterns. Even JPMorgan needed help and considerations from the Fed to buy Bear Sterns for a reported $2 a share. This issue now goes far beyond the mortgage blues of some lenders. There is no way that crazy wild-eyed mortgage brokers with lax standards could cause worldwide problems like this. President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Economists have criticized the action. WHAT DE REGULATION DID GWB DO? IF YOUR GOING TO VOTE DO SOME FUCKING HOME WORK PLEASE Gee.....you (almost) got that one right!! Clinton (no doubt) signed-off on the appropriations bill (where Gramm-Leach-Bliley was BURIED).....'cause Phil Gramm couldn't get the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PASSED....on IT'S OWN MERIT, much EARLIER!!!!! (You don't do a whole-lotta-research, do you?? )@ 6:25 thru 12:00 * Ya' got NOTHIN'!!!!!! |
| |||
| My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978 that information your using cannot be accurate Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more? I would have to make 28% more And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact? There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004 no way you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978 Women? part time jobs? Legal aliens? Thats pure spam that information your using cannot be accurate" It's straight from the Department of Labor. I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying? its called common sense You ask for it Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07 Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx. Inequality Statistics and Poverty Facts | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. |
| |||
| One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits. ....And, he was using S.S. bucks to pay-down The Debt, as well.....right?? ![]() Quote: (You REALLY wanna compete with JRK, for ZERO credibility???? |
| |||
| One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.
__________________ "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds." — Daniel Goleman Last edited by beowolfe; 03-25-2011 at 03:00 PM. |
| |||
| But the ability of the Conservative to recognize how math works..is very limited. Think of it like faith. They have "faith" in the "invisible" hand of the deregulated "free" markets. you mean The repeal of glass/sea gall? Hmm that would be Clinton's de regulation, which i happen to agree with The greedy caused the mess, the repeal of this legislation allowed the greed to have a place to go to cause it. .....And, then the greedy moved up to UBS!!!! Quote: "Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. In 2003, Gramm left the Senate to join UBS, which had acquired investment house PaineWebber due to his deregulation bill. At UBS, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Fed and the Treasury Department." ![]() |
| |||
| To start with your link is no good I have no idea what your trying to say are you saying during the worst inflation we have ever had in our countries history that people made more money than we did during the same time when gas was not much different than it was in 2008 at the end of Ws term and inflation was 18% That people where making more per week when we had no inflation? What the hell is this information mean? with respect you act like that information means something Do i understand that in 1978 with inflation @ 18% I would make 310.00 and in 2004 with inflation @ < 3% I would make 277.00? HUH? thats 50.00 SWING THERE As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living. Read more: Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME Now in addition my tax rate from 2001 to 2004 allowed me to bring home about 4,000 more a year in my pocket now that was on a 65,000 year vs about a 70,000 My friend that information you have provided is worthless there is no truth to it I do not care where you got it and more than that I would like to know what its suppose to mean What I was trying to say is, in fact wages have not gone up in "real dollars" since the 1980and that's despite excellent worker productivity and good overall profits. So it's pretty hard to be better off now than you were in 1980. Also, the tax cuts to corporations, the wealthy and with Capital Gains/Dividends did not make the lives of the middle class any better at all. In fact, the middle class has lost wealth while the top percentage has gained wealth. The source of the numbers is the Department of Labor via the Bush Administration. Try this: http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wage...ges+(1964-2004) EDIT: Copy and past the link to Google's "all these words" or go to this link: File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's the same story,,,working class wages have not improved and life for the working class has gotten worse. that information your using cannot be accurate Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more? I would have to make 28% more And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact? There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004 no way you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978 Women? part time jobs? Legal aliens? Thats pure spam
__________________ There are none so blind as those who will not see |
| |||
| The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. and if you take UE avg of 5% from the mid 80s till 2009 I am unsure how anyone can say that Regan's policies created the largest transfer of wealth The hi end tax rate went from 39% to 35% (basically). So how hard would it be for the "rich" to increase the amount of wealth they have? I mean if I get to keep 4% more wealth every year and I make 250,000 per year, thats 10,000.00 the Liberal media have wrote 1000s of columns calling that a transfer of wealth REAL WAGES 1964-2004 Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars) For all private nonfarm workers Year Real $ Change 1964 302.52 1965 310.46 2.62% 1966 312.83 0.76% 1967 311.30 -0.49% 1968 315.37 1.31% 1969 316.93 0.49% 1970 312.94 -1.26% 1971 318.05 1.63% 1972 331.59 4.26% 1973 331.39 -0.06% 1974 314.94 -4.96% 1975 305.16 -3.11% 1976 309.61 1.46% 1977 310.99 0.45% 1978 310.41 -0.19% 1979 298.87 -3.72% 1980 281.27 -5.89% 1981 277.35 -1.39% 1982 272.74 -1.66% 1983 277.50 1.75% 1984 279.22 0.62% 1985 276.23 -1.07% 1986 276.11 -0.04% 1987 272.88 -1.17% 1988 270.32 -0.94% 1989 267.27 -1.13% 1990 262.43 -1.81% 1991 258.34 -1.56% 1992 257.95 -0.15% 1993 258.12 0.07% 1994 259.97 0.72% 1995 258.43 -0.59% 1996 259.58 0.44% 1997 265.22 2.17% 1998 271.87 2.51% 1999 274.64 1.02% 2000 275.62 0.36% 2001 275.38 -0.09% 2002 278.91 1.28% 2003 279.94 0.37% 2004 277.57 -0.84% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wage...ges+(1964-2004) Your table makes claim that the average pay in 1978 in a 40 hour week was $7.75 an hour and that in 2004 it was 6.92 an hour? Cater had the 18% inflation? so what ever this thing is trying to say then its Carters fault we are where we are? Dude this is information that makes no sense what was minimum wage in 2004? a car in 2004 being bought with a 14,404 annual salary? and why is it I am not a millionaire by making 310.00 a week the year I get out of high school? 25.00 hr today may only be 7.00 an hr in the first year in the same dollar figure. Otherwise hes saying that you can't buy anymore today then you could then, even though you may be making a hire amount per hr today. Prior to the Vietnam war we used to run a family on one income, now we can't do it on two. We have definitely lost value to the middle class, which has went to the top 20%, no doubt about it and it's going to get worse. Under Ike we were at 100% of GDP to debt. Ike raised the tax brackets to a high of 91% and paid off half the national debt. Does anyone know who lowered the tax rates the most for any president? |
| |||
| and let us not forget that was done with a republican congress Oh-yea that 400 billion that W had that was more than Clintons? Tax rebates Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion here would be Ws http://diplomatdc.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=400&h=330 For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit. The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above. The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. BULLSHIT!!!!! BUSHCO's DEBT started skyrocketing in 2006.....when Medicare D kicked-IN!!!!! (diplomatdc.com/??? Really?? Someone's private, little Go Daddy domain??? ) ![]() Last edited by Mr. Shaman; 03-25-2011 at 03:26 PM. |
| ||||
| I did its called common sense You ask for it Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07 Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx. And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased". Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No! let me add that 1/2 truths are 1/2 truths every where you look I agree that yu cannot just say that 1978 has anything to do with 2004 40 million jobs where added that alone is a information that cannot be ignored I agree heritage is 1/2 truth, but thats the 1/2 that makes that story a whole Here's a link to the Labor Participation Chart, just for a FYI. File:US Labor Participation Rate.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
| |||
| .....Yeah, let's totally-disregard.... The FACT is.....if we drop-back to the CLINTON-RATES..... Quote: .....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!! Quote: "The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers. The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax." I made 70,000 in 01 and in 03 and it made 4000 in difference look you want to give the govt that much more go for it. You've got some OTHER "trick" way o' paying-down Lil' Dumbya's Credit Card balance??!!! ![]() ![]() |
| |||
| Lemme guess.....you're hyper-text challenged, right?? ![]() Here......try this one: ....Seeing-as-how we're STILL talkin'-about "....what many see him as....". |
![]() |
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|