Do Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy?

[Ravi]

No.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton

I always love that 70-91% tax rate myth. The REALITY was virtually EVERYTHING was deductible and there were no AGI limits on deductions. In 1983 before the Reagan rate cuts took effect, I was in the 70% tax bracket...and i paid less than 10% after deductions! I pay a higher percentage now in the 35% bracket than I ever did under the pre-Reagan days of 70%+ rates. Reagan lowered rates by closed virtually all the loopholes.

I didn't realize the military paid that well. Did you work less because you had to pay more in taxes?

 

[jeffrockit]

Wealth envy is one of the top 10 attacks of the left.

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

Though I'm not sure what a soundbit is


Who do you think creates the jobs. I don't know anyone working for a company owned by the middle or low class. Trickle up definitely doesn't work. Let's punish the ones that took chances and worked to grow a company so that it would be able to hire the middle class.

Yeah the evil rich are to blame for "economic inequity" (talk about a soundbite. Did you get the from the daily Kos or the Huffington Post?). Have you ever thought that some people just aren't motivated to improve their way of living, with some exceptions, your great government perpetuates this with all of their wonderful social programs such as welfare. Why work when having babies will get you a steady paycheck and housing. if you continually give people handouts, what is their motivation to better themselves?

It has been proven time and again that most rich folks earned their wealth so I don't see why liberals have such hatred for something most worked hard to get. I guess it is because a lot of leftist work in fields where there is no competition (ie: teaching) and they don't have to worry about losing their jobs to someone more motivated.

 

[wimpy77]

people like warren buffet and bill gates earned their money. i dont understand why everyone wants to kill rich people. they earned their money and they shouldn't be ashamed.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wealth envy is one of the top 10 attacks of the left.

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

Though I'm not sure what a soundbit is


Who do you think creates the jobs. I don't know anyone working for a company owned by the middle or low class. Trickle up definitely doesn't work. Let's punish the ones that took chances and worked to grow a company so that it would be able to hire the middle class.

Yeah the evil rich are to blame for "economic inequity" (talk about a soundbite. Did you get the from the daily Kos or the Huffington Post?). Have you ever thought that some people just aren't motivated to improve their way of living, with some exceptions, your great government perpetuates this with all of their wonderful social programs such as welfare. Why work when having babies will get you a steady paycheck and housing. if you continually give people handouts, what is their motivation to better themselves?

It has been proven time and again that most rich folks earned their wealth so I don't see why liberals have such hatred for something most worked hard to get. I guess it is because a lot of leftist work in fields where there is no competition (ie: teaching) and they don't have to worry about losing their jobs to someone more motivated.

You just don't know many people.

 

[jeffrockit]

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

Though I'm not sure what a soundbit is


Who do you think creates the jobs. I don't know anyone working for a company owned by the middle or low class. Trickle up definitely doesn't work. Let's punish the ones that took chances and worked to grow a company so that it would be able to hire the middle class.

Yeah the evil rich are to blame for "economic inequity" (talk about a soundbite. Did you get the from the daily Kos or the Huffington Post?). Have you ever thought that some people just aren't motivated to improve their way of living, with some exceptions, your great government perpetuates this with all of their wonderful social programs such as welfare. Why work when having babies will get you a steady paycheck and housing. if you continually give people handouts, what is their motivation to better themselves?

It has been proven time and again that most rich folks earned their wealth so I don't see why liberals have such hatred for something most worked hard to get. I guess it is because a lot of leftist work in fields where there is no competition (ie: teaching) and they don't have to worry about losing their jobs to someone more motivated.

You just don't know many people.

Really. Care to share the names of these companies owned by the middle/low class because that response you gave means nothing and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wealth envy is one of the top 10 attacks of the left.

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

Though I'm not sure what a soundbit is


Who do you think creates the jobs. I don't know anyone working for a company owned by the middle or low class. Trickle up definitely doesn't work. Let's punish the ones that took chances and worked to grow a company so that it would be able to hire the middle class.

Yeah the evil rich are to blame for "economic inequity" (talk about a soundbite. Did you get the from the daily Kos or the Huffington Post?). Have you ever thought that some people just aren't motivated to improve their way of living, with some exceptions, your great government perpetuates this with all of their wonderful social programs such as welfare. Why work when having babies will get you a steady paycheck and housing. if you continually give people handouts, what is their motivation to better themselves?

It has been proven time and again that most rich folks earned their wealth so I don't see why liberals have such hatred for something most worked hard to get. I guess it is because a lot of leftist work in fields where there is no competition (ie: teaching) and they don't have to worry about losing their jobs to someone more motivated.

Yep, ol' Madof worked so damned hard, hands with callouses like leather. And then there is good ol' boy Kenny Lay. Really one hard worker there. And you have the eight and nine digit a year CEOs that ran their companies into the ground. Such a damned hard working lot, my heart bleeds for them.

 

[jeffrockit]

Is that the new soundbit to add to "class warfare?" How about duped dupes, servants, lackeys or feudalites?

Economic inequity might be a closer definition.

But, without your soundbites, what fun would this be?

The left talks more about penis or vagina envy. Leave it up to the right to be so typically puritan.

Trickle down, the sparrow and the oats doesn't work. Get the middle class, the 80% of the population working and you will have economic prosperity. Only get the upper 5% of the rich spending and you (I mean you then non rich) won't have crap.

80% of 300,000,000 is 240,000,000 spending on goods and services.

This is a hell of a lot more money that will generate jobs that 5% of 300,000,000 spending on extra things they want.

Though I'm not sure what a soundbit is


Who do you think creates the jobs. I don't know anyone working for a company owned by the middle or low class. Trickle up definitely doesn't work. Let's punish the ones that took chances and worked to grow a company so that it would be able to hire the middle class.

Yeah the evil rich are to blame for "economic inequity" (talk about a soundbite. Did you get the from the daily Kos or the Huffington Post?). Have you ever thought that some people just aren't motivated to improve their way of living, with some exceptions, your great government perpetuates this with all of their wonderful social programs such as welfare. Why work when having babies will get you a steady paycheck and housing. if you continually give people handouts, what is their motivation to better themselves?

It has been proven time and again that most rich folks earned their wealth so I don't see why liberals have such hatred for something most worked hard to get. I guess it is because a lot of leftist work in fields where there is no competition (ie: teaching) and they don't have to worry about losing their jobs to someone more motivated.

Yep, ol' Madof worked so damned hard, hands with callouses like leather. And then there is good ol' boy Kenny Lay. Really one hard worker there. And you have the eight and nine digit a year CEOs that ran their companies into the ground. Such a damned hard working lot, my heart bleeds for them.

I am in total agreement about those people...they were evil. No need to lump everyone who has earned wealth into one category .To use a term the left love...that would not be fair. There are many examples of ones who have worked, and still do, incredibly hard to earn everything they have. They do not need to be punished to get even at the ones that did not play by the rules.

 

[Maple]

I think that you have answered your own question, but I have one for you. How in the world would the government keeping more of my hard earned dollar help me to stimulate the economy? Ir's just plain common sense. The more money the government takes from me the less I have to spend it on the stuff that I need. The less I spend, the less I invest, the less I save. Multiply that times many millions of people not spending, saving or investing and business's are forced to cut back on the number of employees because they have less money to spend, invest and save. This in turn creates a snow ball effect and pretty soon no one has a job so they can't spend, invest or save either. The government can't collect taxes on people who have no money to pay them. So where are you going to live when no-one is working to pay those taxes, when business's have shut their doors because no one is buying or investing and when the government goes bankrupt because they can't find any business or people to tax and collect their revenue? Answer - under a bridge. Government produces and sells nothing to make money, business and people do.

 

[Meister]

I think that you have answered your own question, but I have one for you. How in the world would the government keeping more of my hard earned dollar help me to stimulate the economy? Ir's just plain common sense. The more money the government takes from me the less I have to spend it on the stuff that I need. The less I spend, the less I invest, the less I save. Multiply that times many millions of people not spending, saving or investing and business's are forced to cut back on the number of employees because they have less money to spend, invest and save. This in turn creates a snow ball effect and pretty soon no one has a job so they can't spend, invest or save either. The government can't collect taxes on people who have no money to pay them. So where are you going to live when no-one is working to pay those taxes, when business's have shut their doors because no one is buying or investing and when the government goes bankrupt because they can't find any business or people to tax and collect their revenue? Answer - under a bridge. Government produces and sells nothing to make money, business and people do.

Eh...Maple...common sense doesn't work with the hard left. Also, I would like to inject into this conversation, that the jobs this stimulus package demands are union wages. That won't create as many jobs as it could have. Just sayin....

 

[sealybobo]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

 

[glockmail]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

The dyke and the monkey are wrong. Keynesian economics has never worked.

 

[editec]

You guys keep looking for hard and fast rules for the economy that cannot possibly exist.

SOMETIMES a tax cut will stimulate the economy, ESPECIALLY if the supply side is wanting.

SOMETIMES, like when the supply side is healthy, all tax cuts do is create bubbles in the markets.

Is this really all that hard to understand?

The economy isn't like a static machine, with hard and fast rules for maintanance, it's more like a constantly changing organism.

Sometimes the organism gets hungry and needs feeding.

Sometimes the organism is overfed and feeding it more gives it cramps.

duh!

 

[sealybobo]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

The dyke and the monkey are wrong. Keynesian economics has never worked.

Trickle down never worked.

And why can't a dyke be right when a fag like you is so wrong?

 

[Meister]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

 

[sealybobo]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

Yes it does. Just because you don't know it does, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It is a fact stupid. Spending one dollar gets you $1.80 back and giving a $1 tax cut only gets you back $1.03. I don't remember the exact dollar amounts, but spending is way more stimulitive than tax breaks. You are a fool for not knowing that. Continue to say the wrong thing until someone else comes and corrrects you. I love it.

And we need to spend on America now anyways. Bush ignored America and waged a war for $10 billion a month for 6 years. What a fucking waste. All that money went to Haloburton and Blackwater, who both moved their HQ's to Dubai. You republicans are so dumb, you don't even realize the GOP sold America out in the last 8 years. And you defended them all until the last year, then you distanced yourselves from Bush, and now you are falling back in line. What a little bitch you must be.

Time to pay for the Iraq war.

PS. If you really want "less spending", then we must end the Federal Reserve. If you aren't on board with that yet, then it is time to wake up and get on board. Because the interest we pay on the debt puts us further and further into debt.

Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed.

Last week (the week of February 23, 2009) was a very productive one for Ron Paul. On Monday he posted, "On Transparency of the Fed," which applauded the Fed's recent initiatives to enhance its transparency and accountability. However, Paul went on to say, "But with so much of the Fed’s business cloaked in secrecy, these latest initiatives will not even scratch the surface of the Fed’s opaque operations." Furthermore, according to Paul, "People are demanding answers and explanations for our economic malaise, and we should settle for nothing less than the whole truth on monetary policy."

Therefore, Paul announced:





"The first step is to pass legislation I will soon introduce requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve so we can at least get an accurate picture of what is happening with our money. If this audit reveals what I suspect, and Congress has finally had enough, they can also pass my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve and put control of the economy’s lifeblood, the currency, back where it Constitutionally belongs. If Congress refuses to do these two things, the very least they could do is repeal legal tender laws and allow people to choose a different currency in which to operate. If the Fed refuses to open its books to an audit, and Congress refuses to demand this, the people should not be subject to the whims of this secretive and incompetent organization."



HR 1207- Auditing the Federal Reserve

 

[sealybobo]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

PS. The Federal Reserve is not Government, it is rich bankers. They only pretend to be government. Plus, both GOP and Dems don't have the balls to take back the treasury from these rich bankers, who took over our country in 1913.

 

[editec]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

PS. The Federal Reserve is not Government, it is rich bankers. They only pretend to be government. Plus, both GOP and Dems don't have the balls to take back the treasury from these rich bankers, who took over our country in 1913.

The RNC and DNC will do that the very moment the BANKERS tell them to do it.

They know which of their bread the butter's on.

 

[Care4all]

Well it was rich people who gave us the current mess. Those who can't operate with self conscience rather than regulation. Those who played the pricing games to drive home prices and oil to gouging and unsustainable levels knowing all along that the prices did not mesh with reality. They tapped the average consumer dry where they could no longer afford to buy more stuff.

Funny thing ... the rich people were forced to give loans to the poor people who had no chance (and many no desire) to pay them back. Also ... many poor people live on credit cards. The unsettling fact is that it wasn't just the rich, as a matter of fact this time I see that the rich have much less to be blamed for considering most of the "super rich" are donating money willingly to support programs that feed and clothe, and even house, the poor. Really ... so instead of them funding programs that show they work you would rather the government take the money and use it in more programs that haven't worked while still forcing them to give out loans to people who don't even want to pay them back? Same shit, different president.

They were not forced kitten....that is such a crock of crap that they would just love you to believe...and you have too much thinking ability up there in your head to buy in to this crapola!

Allow me a shot, as briefly as possible, at convincing you of the ''otherwise''! (pretty please? )

Common sense says otherwise.

-I say this because these banks had fiduciary responsibilities of sorts, to their stock holders. This should have been their primary concern...doing what was best for their companies and their stock holders, and not for the short term, but the long term viability of their investment, in these companies/corporations.

-There is no evidence that these banks approached their board members with concerns of being sued due to redlining.

And even if there were concerns of such, there are procedures to follow at corporations in risk management that puts a dollar figure to it, and it would take very, very, very big numbers of estimated lawsuits to outweigh the benefits of doing business the way they had been doing business and get the corporation to change their poven sound business practices.

It would take rewriting their Mission Statements as companies, there would be minutes showing such meetings and discussions and this surely would have come out as the defense of these corporate head actions.

-There is no evidence that these banks approached their board members with concerns regarding the buying of these mortgages from the Countrywides and the Quick Loans and every fly by night Mortgage Broker out there in the world.

-There is no evidence that these banks tried to sell these individual mortgages after they had bought them, to Fannie and freddie, meeting their HUD standards for conventional mortgages sold to disadvantaged people in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

How they handled themselves and their payscales say otherwise.

-I say how they handled themselves, because these are highly paid CEOs, in the tune of hundreds of millions a year....they don't make this kind of money because they are the average Joe's, and are powerless, meek people, that can be pushed around....

they do the pushing on to regulators, ratings agencies and our Congress to make changes in regulations that they want like new bankruptcy laws weighted heavily in their favor, to think otherwise is naive imo.

-Beginning with this premise, to think that these CEO's made the decision to loan money to people who could not afford it, and in addition would not even qualify for a Fannie underprivledged underwriting... is beyond reason.

They decided to go this route, because they decided to take on the Mortgaged back security market of their competitor, Fannie Freddie.

When they began in 2002 they had 27% of the market place on them, when we crashed, these non GSE banks created near 60% of these Mortgaged Back Securities. At one time, Fannie and freddie created 70% of these MBS's with primarily sound Conventional Mortgages and some below prime mortgages.

The banks, when they created their MBS's, they created them with alot of B quality mortgages stuck in with some A quality morgages, making them much RISKIER than the mbs's of fannie and freddie, but for some reason their risk management teams calculated that they were prime, and ratings agency of whom are paid by these banks rated them as triple AAA prime mortgages with virtually no risk of anyone defaulting, and sold them off to Pension funds, Retirement funds, foreign governments, foreign investment companies etc because they were rated AAA, SAFE. And pensions etc, can not invest in risky securities, only AAA/Safe ones.

They did not have to sell them to Fannie and Freddie, they did not need Fannie and Freddie backing (though they sought it in 2005 I believe, on some of their securities), which means they did not start this process because of fannie and freddie and the Community Reinvestment act.

They began this process because money was cheap to get.
They began this because they could, without regulation or monitoring.
They began this because they could sell off their risk.
They began this because it was a quick way of becoming rich.

They began this because of nothing but greed,

not with common sense,

not with practical business procedures in play,

not with long term finality in consideration...the housing market would not go up forever, they had history of such and knew such...the ponzi scheme would fall but they did it anyway...they loaned to everyone and anyone, from Ed Mcman, to the mom and pop store, to the parent refinancing for kids college to the poor who could afford it to eventually the lowest of the lowest credit rated people, and then to people who were not even required to show they worked, to show their income or assets or any kind of working stability at all....etc etc etc.... all so they could keep their little ponzi scheme going, selling off these MBS's as TRIPPLE AAA rated safe, securities.

we have a 9 trillion dollar mortgage mess out there....these are not all poor people buying homes in poor CRA neighborhoods for 100k....

Care

 

[Meister]

Rachel Maddow said it best last week. She said something like, why should obama bend and make his plan less effective just to make the GOP happy? Because spending stimulates the economy more than tax breaks do.

Anyone want to argue this fact?

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

Yes it does. Just because you don't know it does, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It is a fact stupid. Spending one dollar gets you $1.80 back and giving a $1 tax cut only gets you back $1.03. I don't remember the exact dollar amounts, but spending is way more stimulitive than tax breaks. You are a fool for not knowing that. Continue to say the wrong thing until someone else comes and corrrects you. I love it.

And we need to spend on America now anyways. Bush ignored America and waged a war for $10 billion a month for 6 years. What a fucking waste. All that money went to Haloburton and Blackwater, who both moved their HQ's to Dubai. You republicans are so dumb, you don't even realize the GOP sold America out in the last 8 years. And you defended them all until the last year, then you distanced yourselves from Bush, and now you are falling back in line. What a little bitch you must be.

Time to pay for the Iraq war.

PS. If you really want "less spending", then we must end the Federal Reserve. If you aren't on board with that yet, then it is time to wake up and get on board. Because the interest we pay on the debt puts us further and further into debt.

Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed.

Last week (the week of February 23, 2009) was a very productive one for Ron Paul. On Monday he posted, "On Transparency of the Fed," which applauded the Fed's recent initiatives to enhance its transparency and accountability. However, Paul went on to say, "But with so much of the Fed’s business cloaked in secrecy, these latest initiatives will not even scratch the surface of the Fed’s opaque operations." Furthermore, according to Paul, "People are demanding answers and explanations for our economic malaise, and we should settle for nothing less than the whole truth on monetary policy."

Therefore, Paul announced:





"The first step is to pass legislation I will soon introduce requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve so we can at least get an accurate picture of what is happening with our money. If this audit reveals what I suspect, and Congress has finally had enough, they can also pass my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve and put control of the economy’s lifeblood, the currency, back where it Constitutionally belongs. If Congress refuses to do these two things, the very least they could do is repeal legal tender laws and allow people to choose a different currency in which to operate. If the Fed refuses to open its books to an audit, and Congress refuses to demand this, the people should not be subject to the whims of this secretive and incompetent organization."



HR 1207- Auditing the Federal Reserve

You can call me stupid all you want...but your wrong...We are not spending just money...we are spending...(I will put it in bold again for you to see) borrowed money Sealy...that means we don't even have the money OK? Next you think that it will work...It's been tried before, and hasn't worked...now my question to you SEALY is show me where spending without reducing taxes has brought any country in the world out of a recession?...Come on Sealy you said it...now man up and show me. I did that with being civil to you Sealy..no name calling...just civil...try it sometime.

PS in my earlier post didn't I say that it took tax breaks, and less spending??? Didn't I say that Sealy???

 

[sealybobo]

Spending borrowed money does not stimulate the economy. Tax breaks and less spending does stimulate the economy, Sealy. That was economics 101 for you.

Yes it does. Just because you don't know it does, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It is a fact stupid. Spending one dollar gets you $1.80 back and giving a $1 tax cut only gets you back $1.03. I don't remember the exact dollar amounts, but spending is way more stimulitive than tax breaks. You are a fool for not knowing that. Continue to say the wrong thing until someone else comes and corrrects you. I love it.

And we need to spend on America now anyways. Bush ignored America and waged a war for $10 billion a month for 6 years. What a fucking waste. All that money went to Haloburton and Blackwater, who both moved their HQ's to Dubai. You republicans are so dumb, you don't even realize the GOP sold America out in the last 8 years. And you defended them all until the last year, then you distanced yourselves from Bush, and now you are falling back in line. What a little bitch you must be.

Time to pay for the Iraq war.

PS. If you really want "less spending", then we must end the Federal Reserve. If you aren't on board with that yet, then it is time to wake up and get on board. Because the interest we pay on the debt puts us further and further into debt.

Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed.

Last week (the week of February 23, 2009) was a very productive one for Ron Paul. On Monday he posted, "On Transparency of the Fed," which applauded the Fed's recent initiatives to enhance its transparency and accountability. However, Paul went on to say, "But with so much of the Fed’s business cloaked in secrecy, these latest initiatives will not even scratch the surface of the Fed’s opaque operations." Furthermore, according to Paul, "People are demanding answers and explanations for our economic malaise, and we should settle for nothing less than the whole truth on monetary policy."

Therefore, Paul announced:





"The first step is to pass legislation I will soon introduce requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve so we can at least get an accurate picture of what is happening with our money. If this audit reveals what I suspect, and Congress has finally had enough, they can also pass my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve and put control of the economy’s lifeblood, the currency, back where it Constitutionally belongs. If Congress refuses to do these two things, the very least they could do is repeal legal tender laws and allow people to choose a different currency in which to operate. If the Fed refuses to open its books to an audit, and Congress refuses to demand this, the people should not be subject to the whims of this secretive and incompetent organization."



HR 1207- Auditing the Federal Reserve

You can call me stupid all you want...but your wrong...We are not spending just money...we are spending...(I will put it in bold again for you to see) borrowed money Sealy...that means we don't even have the money OK? Next you think that it will work...It's been tried before, and hasn't worked...now my question to you SEALY is show me where spending without reducing taxes has brought any country in the world out of a recession?...Come on Sealy you said it...now man up and show me. I did that with being civil to you Sealy..no name calling...just civil...try it sometime.

PS in my earlier post didn't I say that it took tax breaks, and less spending??? Didn't I say that Sealy???

Can you show me when cutting taxes got us out of a recession? You first.

And what about FDR's New Deal?

And why didn't you bitch this loud about all the Iraq spending?

You thought it was necessary? Will you admit now that you were wrong about Iraq?

Because that's why we don't have the money.