Shattering political myths

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Votto, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
    I've often heard certain political myths that people buy into that they either don't think about or are simply trying to demonize a particular political party or politician.

    I will start with "W". I'm no fan of "W". In fact, he was one of the worst, if not the worst, presidents of all time. But I have to say that I constantly hear people blame him for the credit crisis and I think it is unfair. He may have been an idiot, but for the life of me I don't see how he was even remotely responsible. He was just the dufus in power when it all hit the fan, hence the American people blame him.

    If not, what did he do to deserve this label?
     
  2. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Ronald Reagan was a true conservative. MYTH
     
  3. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
    What is a "true" conservative?
     
  4. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,456
    Thanks Received:
    2,251
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,767
    He's mostly just the poster child for a party that still thinks we should be totally hands-off the banking industry no matter how badly they are damaging the economy. He does have much personal responsibility for appointing the very worst kind of people to key regulatory posts. There were so few legal actions against banking and investment fraud it was almost like the SEC had clocked out and went home.
     
  5. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
    So the credit crisis was caused by Bush appointing the very worst kind of people at regulatory posts?

    Like who and how did they allow the credit crisis?
     
  6. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
    I have one for conservatives.

    How exactly does lowering taxes improve the economy? I want data to back that claim up and have yet to see any.
     
  7. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,456
    Thanks Received:
    2,251
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,767
    Here's a pretty much random link that nevertheless outlines the deliberate dysfunction at the SEC and the should be criminal negligence of one Christopher Cox, a Friedmanite evangelist who was bent on nothing short of destroying the agency he was charged with heading.

    A quote from the article:
    ------------
    Seeing one’s work undercut at the final stage, swayed investigators away from taking up difficult cases of big financial fraud, and towards easier cases, such as small Ponzi schemes and insider trading. For example, cases of naked short selling — an illegal practice rife for big fraud — were not pursued, with 5000 complaints over 15 months resulting in zero enforcement actions.24 Under these conditions investigators left the agency, further slowing enforcement.
    ------------

    The Paragraph » Blog Archive » Bush II Slowed SEC During Financial Fraud Fury
     
  8. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,239
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,854
    A) NO ONE IS TALKING AbOUT LOWERING TAXES do you understand!!! The question is should taxes go BACK UP instead of staying the same??

    B) PRETTY FU<<K ING SIMPLE ... IF you understand the market economy ,GDP and tax revenue sources...which obviously you don't!!!

    The GDP you know what that is?

    Today the GDP generates TAX revenue constitutes 17% of GDP...
    Proof? You won't understand this because it is simple math!!!

    In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!
    • Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
    • Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
    • Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
    • Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
    • Excise taxes 72 3.1%
    • Estate & Gift 7 0.4%
    Total: $2,302 100%
    Federal Revenues by Source

    HEY don't be a lazy shit... download the above for your self AND Prove it dummy!!!

    The GDP for 2011 was:In 2011, U.S. GDP, at over $15 trillion
    The Last Years of America's Historic GDP Reign - Businessweek

    Total Tax revenue: $2.3 trillion (total revenue see above...) is 15% of the $15 trillion GDP.

    If the GDP grows by 4% and the revenue % stays at 15% that means GDP grows to $15.6 trillion and 15% of $15.6 trillion is $2.4 trillion - $100 billion more!

    But if Bush tax cuts EXPIRE goes back to 39.6% or 4.6% more.. that means personal $1.015 trillion and corporate $181 billion adds just $55 billion to tax revenue!
    Then when 4.6% is taken out of the GDP and paid in taxes that lowers the GDP.
    Which is a bigger tax revenue... $100 billion or $55 billion?? DUH!!!

    NOW for the "economic multiplier"!!!

    Again this goes WAY over your head so you should not read any further!!!
    The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows.
    &#8226; $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
    &#8226; Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
    &#8226; Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS) ($80 billion equals 726,880 jobs!
    www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

    So if you take $55 billon in more tax revenue (4.6% increase due to Bush cuts expiring) that means $64 billion REDUCTION in the GDP!
    Instead of growing the GDP it reduces that means LOWER tax revenue !
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
  9. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
     
  10. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,597
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,873
    Sorry, but all of these accusations are rather vague.

    In the end, no one paid any kind of a price for the credit crisis, yet people get blamed politically?

    I would think that if enough proof were to be found on either side of the political spectrum, then someone should pay the price.

    Do you think that those at the highest level in the federal government are that untouchable, or do you feel that there is not enough proof to go after them?
     

Share This Page