Bernie and Reagan's political positions are very similar

[Skylar]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

It demonstrates that higher tax rates for the wealthy don't result in the economic calalmity you salivate for. The tax burden for the wealthy is proportionately among the lowest in recent history. And you've already lamented about how bad things are.

Disproving your reasoning. And affirming the opposite. Lower taxes for the wealthy doesn't produce prosperity. Higher taxes for the wealthy doesn't produce calamity.

 

[Meathead]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

 

[Skylar]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

 

[Meathead]

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

Prove it and prove how much. I'm dubious and I'm not going to prove a negative. The ball is in your court.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh right being born with a silver spoon up his ass and going bankrupt multiple times is truly impressive.

Donald Trump has never gone bankrupt.

And neither he, or I, anyone nor anything else requires you to be impressed by his lifetime of wealth creation.

The simple fact is that Trump understands how it's done... and does it as well as, if not better than any other person on earth.

And in terms of general prosperity, there's no secret to that... the only thing standing between the US and prosperity is the exponential growth in the costs of sustaining the US Federal Government... and the exponential growth in socialist policy that prohibits economic growth.

But that doesn't take a Donald Trump to figure out... as that is common knowledge among every American.

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Yes.. In 1950, the US saw the highest qrtr of GDP at over 16%... which the US Federal government summarily shut down through the application of dizzying tax rates, which lead to the lowest recorded qrtly US GDP of -10% in the first qrtr of 1958.

It was this to which John Kennedy spoke in his historic speech in 1959, wherein he pointed out that 'a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity'.

Now... will there be anything else?

 

[MikeK]

...one could say Bernie is also a loopy kunt

You're quite right.

If one is an uneducated low-life one could say something like that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...one could say Bernie is also a loopy kunt

You're quite right.

If one is an uneducated low-life one could say something like that.

Bernie Sanders is an imbecile. He's not qualified to do a dam' thing, which of course explains why his life 'accomplishments' are a round ZERO!

 

[Rustic]

...one could say Bernie is also a loopy kunt

You're quite right.

If one is an uneducated low-life one could say something like that.

Bernie Sanders is an imbecile. He's not qualified to do a dam' thing, which of course explains why his life 'accomplishments' are a round ZERO!

The goal of socialism is communism...
-Vladimir Lenin-

Pretty much says everything needed to know about progressivism/socialism.

Silly bleeding hearts...

 

[Skylar]

Oh right being born with a silver spoon up his ass and going bankrupt multiple times is truly impressive.

Donald Trump has never gone bankrupt.

And neither he, or I, anyone nor anything else requires you to be impressed by his lifetime of wealth creation.

The simple fact is that Trump understands how it's done... and does it as well as, if not better than any other person on earth.

And in terms of general prosperity, there's no secret to that... the only thing standing between the US and prosperity is the exponential growth in the costs of sustaining the US Federal Government... and the exponential growth in socialist policy that prohibits economic growth.

But that doesn't take a Donald Trump to figure out... as that is common knowledge among every American.

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Yes.. In 1950, the US saw the highest qrtr of GDP at over 16%... which the US Federal government summarily shut down through the application of dizzying tax rates, which lead to the lowest recorded qrtly US GDP of -10% in the first qrtr of 1958.

We saw GDP growth rates of over 100% during WW2 only half a decade earlier. What you're describing is a wartime bump. With your '16%' being at the opening of the Korean war.

What you describe as the 'US federal government shutting it down' was the Korean war ending.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

The Catastrophe born through the application of addled-socialist policy follows it like a shadow. One look no farther back than 2008 to see the consequence of removing sound, actuarial lending principle from the mortgage markets... and replacing that natural law with the addled notion of 'Fairness', proffered by the Left.

You may recall that such created the total collapse of the international financial markets, from which the US markets have not recovered and which to this day represent a massive anvil over the economic head of the nation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh right being born with a silver spoon up his ass and going bankrupt multiple times is truly impressive.

Donald Trump has never gone bankrupt.

And neither he, or I, anyone nor anything else requires you to be impressed by his lifetime of wealth creation.

The simple fact is that Trump understands how it's done... and does it as well as, if not better than any other person on earth.

And in terms of general prosperity, there's no secret to that... the only thing standing between the US and prosperity is the exponential growth in the costs of sustaining the US Federal Government... and the exponential growth in socialist policy that prohibits economic growth.

But that doesn't take a Donald Trump to figure out... as that is common knowledge among every American.

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Yes.. In 1950, the US saw the highest qrtr of GDP at over 16%... which the US Federal government summarily shut down through the application of dizzying tax rates, which lead to the lowest recorded qrtly US GDP of -10% in the first qrtr of 1958.

We saw GDP growth rates of over 100% during WW2 only half a decade earlier. What you're describing is a wartime bump. With your '16%' being at the opening of the Korean war.

What you describe as the 'US federal government shutting it down' was the Korean war ending.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

ROFLMNAO!

Economic Ignorance ON PARADE!

 

[Meathead]

This is what sunk Greece. How much money stayed in Greece. Every Greek millionaire from Onassis on moved themselves and their money out of the country. How much do you think would remain in the US if Sanders looked like he could actually win?

 

[Skylar]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

The Catastrophe born through the application of addled-socialist policy follows it like a shadow. One look no farther back than 2008 to see the consequence of removing sound, actuarial lending principle from the mortgage markets... and replacing that natural law with the addled notion of 'Fairness', proffered by the Left.

You may recall that such created the total collapse of the international financial markets, from which the US markets have not recovered and which to this day represent a massive anvil over the economic head of the nation.

So you've completely abandoned any discussion of the 50s. Good. Your argument was nonsense, mistaking a war boom and a post war recession with taxation policy effecting the economy.

And how would the banks have collapsed without being able to risk their banking capital on risky bundled real estate debt instruments?

They investment side of these banks would certainly have taken a tumble. But not the banking side. The removal of Glass-Steagal eliminated most of the firewalls between investment and banking. Without the removal of those protections it would have been virtually impossible for the banks to have achieved that level of risk.

Capitalism the way you insist it should be practiced is wildly unstable and prone to severe crashes. With government intervention in banking and investment dramatically reducing the odds, length and severity of economic downturns.

Compare the 80 or so years before the New Deal to the 80 or so years after....and the rate of recession and depression are about HALF. Why would we want to return to the era of unregulated capitalism and DOUBLE the years in recession and depression that you advocate?

Again.....you don't actually know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

 

[Skylar]

Oh right being born with a silver spoon up his ass and going bankrupt multiple times is truly impressive.

Donald Trump has never gone bankrupt.

And neither he, or I, anyone nor anything else requires you to be impressed by his lifetime of wealth creation.

The simple fact is that Trump understands how it's done... and does it as well as, if not better than any other person on earth.

And in terms of general prosperity, there's no secret to that... the only thing standing between the US and prosperity is the exponential growth in the costs of sustaining the US Federal Government... and the exponential growth in socialist policy that prohibits economic growth.

But that doesn't take a Donald Trump to figure out... as that is common knowledge among every American.

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

Yes.. In 1950, the US saw the highest qrtr of GDP at over 16%... which the US Federal government summarily shut down through the application of dizzying tax rates, which lead to the lowest recorded qrtly US GDP of -10% in the first qrtr of 1958.

We saw GDP growth rates of over 100% during WW2 only half a decade earlier. What you're describing is a wartime bump. With your '16%' being at the opening of the Korean war.

What you describe as the 'US federal government shutting it down' was the Korean war ending.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

ROFLMNAO!

Economic Ignorance ON PARADE!

And predictably, when I cite specific reasons on how your argument was garbage......with the 'boom' the quarter after the beginning of the Korean War and the 'bust' being the quarter after it ended.....

......you predictably abandon your entire argument and start with silly insults. You can't carry your argument on taxation policy, as the neither the boom nor the bust follow changes in taxation policy. They follow the Korean war.

You're simply not informed enough to discuss this topic. And you know it. As demonstrated by your abandonment of your every argument.

Remember that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh please the tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth.

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

The Catastrophe born through the application of addled-socialist policy follows it like a shadow. One look no farther back than 2008 to see the consequence of removing sound, actuarial lending principle from the mortgage markets... and replacing that natural law with the addled notion of 'Fairness', proffered by the Left.

You may recall that such created the total collapse of the international financial markets, from which the US markets have not recovered and which to this day represent a massive anvil over the economic head of the nation.

So you've completely abandoned any discussion of the 50s. Good. Your argument was nonsense, mistaking a war boom and a post war recession with taxation policy effecting the economy.

And how would the banks have collapsed without being able to risk their banking capital on risky bundled real estate debt instruments?

They investment side of these banks would certainly have taken a tumble. But not the banking side. The removal of Glass-Steagal eliminated most of the firewalls between investment and banking. Without the removal of those protections it would have been virtually impossible for the banks to have achieved that level of risk.

Capitalism the way you insist it should be practiced is wildly unstable and prone to severe crashes. With government intervention in banking and investment dramatically reducing the odds, length and severity of economic downturns.

Compare the 80 or so years before the New Deal to the 80 or so years after....and the rate of recession and depression are about HALF. Why would we want to return to the era of unregulated capitalism and DOUBLE the years in recession and depression that you advocate?

Again.....you don't actually know what the **** you're talking about.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Once again the socialist comes to condemn the banks... (which is Leftist code for "JEW"), where it succumbed to the socialist policy that was foisted upon it over decades of coercion by the Leftists in Congress, Jimmuh Cawtuh, William the Bubba and his hag.

Granted, the Banks are at fault for their failure in not telling the Left to shove it and forcing them to sue them, forcing the left to take responsibility for the inevitable catastrophe ... and for trying to exploit the foolish policy.

But at the end of the day, it was the Ideological Left that caused the policy and which caused the wars that brought the would-be War-Booms... which BTW... took far more FROM the Economy, than it ever 'produced', and we can know this because the US Federal Government has never produced a dam' thing but PUBLIC DEBT!

 

[Meathead]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

She has absolutely no knowledge of the United States, its history or traditions... she is here solely to foment Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

In truth, the US did not see 100% gains in US GDP during WW2 or any other period.

Oh God, a British socialist who would have sunk the country if it weren't for Thatcher. They make dumbed down Democrats look bright by comparison.

 

[Skylar]

Reader... Skylar is a Mouthy British Socialist posing as a US Citizen.

With the 'reader' being you talking to yourself. And your claims that I'm a 'British socialist' being you quoting yourself.

Again, you can't carry your argument with reason or evidence. As I have a better command of both. The moment I get specific, citing specific protections, specific laws, rates of recession and depression before and after the protections you denounce, or the actual causes of the 1950 boom and the 1953 bust....

........you abandon all of your arguments and begin making up fantasies about me personally. Its the textbook Ad Hominem fallacy.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have needed to abandon it in favor of predictable fallacies. Yet you had no other choice.

 

[MikeK]

Trust me I want Bernie in the White House, but the comparison to Reagan is interesting to consider.

Billy,

The gimmick this plainly absurd comparison uses is the hope its readers won't realize that Ronald Reagan's actions behind the scenes were diametrically opposed to his artfully scripted rhetoric and cleverly constructed deceptions.

Ronald Reagan was above all else the Great Pretender. And because he was capable of presenting an exceptionally convincing Presidential persona for the camera he was able to dazzle a wide percentage of committed conservatives and impressionable moderates.

Just keep in mind he sold them on "trickle-down" economics, which obviously has turned out to be siphon-up economics, and he managed through a sequence of surreptitiously repealed controls (regulations) on the finance industry to turn the future of America over to Wall Street and the banks.

Ronald Reagan became President mainly because he looked Presidential. That is the same reason why Dennis Kucinich, a man who would have made a superb President, couldn't even get nominated because of his looks.

 

[Skylar]

ROFL!

OH! Then you can show us the data from those prosperous days... when the government stripped 90% of the product of one's labor, which inherently stimulated consistent, prolonged prosperity.

Here's a clue: Such a period doesn't exist.

No one ever paid 90%. It was purely theoretical.

No one would.

The wealthy paid a greater proportion of their income then than they do now. And yet the economic catastrophe preached by their sycophants never materialized.

The Catastrophe born through the application of addled-socialist policy follows it like a shadow. One look no farther back than 2008 to see the consequence of removing sound, actuarial lending principle from the mortgage markets... and replacing that natural law with the addled notion of 'Fairness', proffered by the Left.

You may recall that such created the total collapse of the international financial markets, from which the US markets have not recovered and which to this day represent a massive anvil over the economic head of the nation.

So you've completely abandoned any discussion of the 50s. Good. Your argument was nonsense, mistaking a war boom and a post war recession with taxation policy effecting the economy.

And how would the banks have collapsed without being able to risk their banking capital on risky bundled real estate debt instruments?

They investment side of these banks would certainly have taken a tumble. But not the banking side. The removal of Glass-Steagal eliminated most of the firewalls between investment and banking. Without the removal of those protections it would have been virtually impossible for the banks to have achieved that level of risk.

Capitalism the way you insist it should be practiced is wildly unstable and prone to severe crashes. With government intervention in banking and investment dramatically reducing the odds, length and severity of economic downturns.

Compare the 80 or so years before the New Deal to the 80 or so years after....and the rate of recession and depression are about HALF. Why would we want to return to the era of unregulated capitalism and DOUBLE the years in recession and depression that you advocate?

Again.....you don't actually know what the **** you're talking about.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And your tell. Your admission that you can't discuss the topic, can't counter my arguments, and have no recourse but to run.

I broke you after only 3 posts.

History just doesn't match your assertions. You mistook the Korean war boom and post war bust as 'changes in tax policy'. And you ignore the dramatic reduction in the years in recession after the New Deal than before.

To HALF their pre-New Deal levels.

These aren't subtle numbers. And yet rather than discuss them specifically, you start your predictable Ad Hominem nonsense, discussing nothing but me.

And demonstrating elegantly that you know you can't carry your argument factually.