Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Is it?Clinton was able to raise taxes because of the Dot Com Boom.
You see any Dot Com Boom on the horizon, Old Rocks? I don't. So you want to raise taxes in the middle of a down economy? Gee, that's a recipe for "instant recession"! How intelligent of you.
[...]
The way FDR raised the U.S. out of the Great Depression was by substantially raising taxes on the upper income levels, most of which was hoarded by those who managed to manipulate and exploit the system not unlike the way its been done during the Gilded Age by the banks and Wall Street. The money derived from the tax increases was used to create make-work projects (CCC and WPA) to employ the jobless. Those who earned that money spent it (including my own father) which jump-started and fueled the stagnant economy.
This approach is called demand-side economics. The root of our existing economic problem is the consequence of Ronald Reagan's supply-side approach, which is precisely the Milton Friedman approach that led to the ruin of Chile's economy. It is a system that leads to siphoning-up a nation's wealth, rather than causing the "trickle-down" effect alleged by dimwit Reagan and it has transferred the bulk of America's wealth to just four percent of the population.
To restore balance and get the U.S. Economy back on track the same method must be applied. A massively progressive tax increase must be imposed and the revenue applied to repairing and renovating our Nation's badly deteriorated infrastructure. That approach will create millions of good-paying jobs and create many new industries, all of which will bring our economy back to life by re-circulating the Nation's wealth, most of which is being hoarded by a small number of money manipulators -- such as Mitt Romney and others who refer to manipulating the System as "hard work."
The problem is obvious. It isn't new. The way to repair the problem is equally obvious. It was done before in the 1930s. All that remains to be done is to do it. The real problem is we know Romney won't do it and I don't believe Obama has the balls to do it. He says he will -- but Obama says a lot of things.
Chart showing the tax rates during times of boom and bust: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/toprate_historical.gif
Bull shit. What got us out of the Great Depression was WWII
Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.
Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.
so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.
Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".
and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?
So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?
Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.
Why not?
That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.
Is it?
The way FDR raised the U.S. out of the Great Depression was by substantially raising taxes on the upper income levels, most of which was hoarded by those who managed to manipulate and exploit the system not unlike the way its been done during the Gilded Age by the banks and Wall Street. The money derived from the tax increases was used to create make-work projects (CCC and WPA) to employ the jobless. Those who earned that money spent it (including my own father) which jump-started and fueled the stagnant economy.
This approach is called demand-side economics. The root of our existing economic problem is the consequence of Ronald Reagan's supply-side approach, which is precisely the Milton Friedman approach that led to the ruin of Chile's economy. It is a system that leads to siphoning-up a nation's wealth, rather than causing the "trickle-down" effect alleged by dimwit Reagan and it has transferred the bulk of America's wealth to just four percent of the population.
To restore balance and get the U.S. Economy back on track the same method must be applied. A massively progressive tax increase must be imposed and the revenue applied to repairing and renovating our Nation's badly deteriorated infrastructure. That approach will create millions of good-paying jobs and create many new industries, all of which will bring our economy back to life by re-circulating the Nation's wealth, most of which is being hoarded by a small number of money manipulators -- such as Mitt Romney and others who refer to manipulating the System as "hard work."
The problem is obvious. It isn't new. The way to repair the problem is equally obvious. It was done before in the 1930s. All that remains to be done is to do it. The real problem is we know Romney won't do it and I don't believe Obama has the balls to do it. He says he will -- but Obama says a lot of things.
Chart showing the tax rates during times of boom and bust: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/toprate_historical.gif
Bull shit. What got us out of the Great Depression was WWII
WWII caused a huge government spending program funded with borrowed money.
If you're claiming that is what got us out of the Depression, then you must believe that would get this economy going.
Is that what you want? A huge government spending program funded with borrowed money?
Bull shit. What got us out of the Great Depression was WWII
WWII caused a huge government spending program funded with borrowed money.
If you're claiming that is what got us out of the Depression, then you must believe that would get this economy going.
Is that what you want? A huge government spending program funded with borrowed money?
Your dishonesty is showing yet again.
Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.
Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.
so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.
Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".
and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?
So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?
Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.
Why not?
That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.
Eh... Buddy... You are an idiot. I would explain why, but I really don't care if you stay that way or not considering your past posts.SO what the...f...K??? ARE YOU guys totally ignoring the REALITIES of dot.com bust, 9/11 and worst hurricanes and how that AFFECTED the economy?>?:?
HealthMyths wouldn't know a fact s/he disliked if it ran up and bit the HM on the toe. Silly goofball.
HealthMyths wouldn't know a fact s/he disliked if it ran up and bit the HM on the toe. Silly goofball.
OH the IRONY!
so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.
Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".
and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?
So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?
Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.
Why not?
That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.
are YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING A THING I wrote when you write:"Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts."
A) Dot.com/9/11/hurricanes ALL caused $8 trillion in losses written off against TAX PAYMENTS of $262 billion a year... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
B) WE had 850,000 people lose their JOBS because of dot.com bust/9/11/hurricanes!!
C) IN SPITE of that and even paying for losses to NYC, airlines, and lost revenue Bush had:
5 million MORE people working at the end of 2008 then beginning of 2001!
GDP grew 16% or $2 trillion!
SO what the...f...K??? ARE YOU guys totally ignoring the REALITIES of dot.com bust, 9/11 and worst hurricanes and how that AFFECTED the economy?>?:?
Who says transferring wealth to the top 2% will create jobs?
Oh yeah, nobody says that.
So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?
No we just had the tech bubble and set the foundation for the real estate collapse in 2008
The stock market boom in the nineties was caused by overzealous investment. How could that be,
since it followed the Clinton tax increases on the Rich? I thought raising taxes on the Rich killed investment?
Seems like you have the problem of romnesia.That is all that comes out of the rightwing/teaparyt camp.
They are the job creators and the risk takers. WHEN!?
Who says transferring wealth to the top 2% will create jobs?
Oh yeah, nobody says that.
When are you going to give us something, and connect that to our cost of living.
Moron.
Increase in SS = 3.6 percent
Increase in peanut butter = 40 percent
NEW YORK (AP) Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.
Seems like you have the problem of romnesia.That is all that comes out of the rightwing/teaparyt camp.
They are the job creators and the risk takers. WHEN!?
Who says transferring wealth to the top 2% will create jobs?
Oh yeah, nobody says that.
Get back to us when you are sober please, because you're making no sense.
Nice try but you are the one with the romnesia. You forget all of what you have been told by your rightwing cronies
Seems like you have the problem of romnesia.That is all that comes out of the rightwing/teaparyt camp.
They are the job creators and the risk takers. WHEN!?
Get back to us when you are sober please, because you're making no sense.
When are you going to give us something, and connect that to our cost of living.
Moron.
Increase in SS = 3.6 percent
Increase in peanut butter = 40 percent
NEW YORK (AP) Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.
(suck suck suck)
Cost of living increase in SS = 3.6%
(print print print)
Cost of living / buying / eating peanut butter = 40%
The reason the two % aren't comparable:
Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.
If it's the peanut butter that's throwing you off, we could do gasoline..........
You over think shit.
Jake wrote to get TIR's comments below in context "You don't get it. How much is that $175 million in contrast to the SS budgent. Give us percentage comparisons. And while you are at it, why weren't you doing this to the Bush admin that was fighting two wars and running two large-scale expanision programs in drug prescription and public education? Come on, give us something worthy."
No Jake, You don't get it. No contrast.
If Obama would quit redistributing our wealth to his Muslim brothers, our cost of living might have a chance of keeping up with his printing worthless bills and causing inflation:
According to the country's top newspaper, the newly Islamic-controlled country would like to buy a pair of high tech U-boats from Germany. With them, they'd be able to strike at the shipping routes, and offshore energy facilities, of nations throughout the Mediterranean. Yes, including Israel. The problem is that two of the submarines will cost the cash-poor country almost a billion dollars.
Fortunately, they've got an ally willing to help them out.
Barack Obama's surrogates are currently negotiating with the Egyptian government, in the hopes of sending them an aid package worth -wait for it - exactly $1 billion dollars.
What a coincidence Jake..
