Q for USMB Progressives

[CrusaderFrank]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for the deregulation depression and for gutting the nonrich and our infrastructure. Time for intelligent gov't again....Your party is batshytte crazy....

 

[auditor0007]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

Let's think about this for just a minute. During the last 60 years, tax rates have been higher than they are now. We are now in the middle of the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. If it weren't for all the government programs supporting those out of work, this would be Great Depression II.

In truth we got here, creating the largest economy in the world, with higher tax rates and even greater redistribution of income than we now have. And now that we have taken a step backwards by letting everyone keep more of their money, now our economy has tanked. Now, the truth is that it has very little to do with redistribution of wealth. However, paying for government programs without going into debt to do so, has created wealth over the years. Government spending money on this project and that, has put money into the private sector. Granted, first that money was taken out of the private sector, but then it was actually put to good use.

The problem with letting everyone keep more, and this holds the most truth with the very wealthy, is that the money does not end up back in the economy. It is held off to the side and left to do nothing. And this has been proven out by the fact that US businesses are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash that they refuse to put back into play. Now just think what would happen if half of that money was put into government revenue and then put back into the economy where it was actually in play. There would be more money floating around, people would be spending more, and companies would have to start hiring again to meet demand. You see, demand is what drives the economy. Investors do not invest unless there is demand, and since all the money is being hoarded and kept out of play, there is no growth.

Now there are other ways to put that money back into play, however none of them are realistic. For example, American businesses could give everyone of their employees a big raise, or they could just hire more people to get people working. Problem with that is that they won't do it if the demand is not there in the first place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The idea that we got here with out creating debt is hilarious. We haven't had a balanced budget in 60 years. The debt was at 5 trillion before the wars. We increased our debt with 2 wars and unregulated Government social programs. It did not happen over night, or did it happen just under Bush or Obama.

By the way Obama is running up the debt twice as fast as Bush did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

Why not ask when did they stop beating their wives, as well…

I know of no liberal/progressive who believes in ‘redistribution’ of any kind.

We have the number one economy on the planet as a result of both the public and private sectors working together: government regulation and oversight protects business from its darker side as well as providing the foundational infrastructure needed to allow businesses to succeed and flourish; tax dollars and sound public policy are as much contributors to a given business’s success as the hard work and dedication of that business owner.

That’s the essence of progressivism – a pragmatic approach rejecting blind dogma from both the left and right, having nothing to do with ‘redistribution.’

 

[B. Kidd]

A good old fashioned war will put the money back into the economy, for awhile, at the least. I'm in my winter retreat back in Yuma, and last month, the Army Proving Grounds, 20 miles north of my RV, set off some mega bunker busters. My RV shook, so did my neighbors RV's to the point where they were scratching their heads and talking about how did you hear and feel that, etc.
Now, they didn't figure it out, but I have, and our Gov't may not like me posting this, but if I lived in Iran I'd be very afraid, and I will frankly be surprised if Iran is not attacked by the end of 2012!!!

 

[B. Kidd]

And, when it occurs, you can always say you heard it at USMB first!
That's whatz cool about the so far unrestricted Interwebz, foreign Gov't's and our Gov't monitors it simultaneously.
But B. Kidd has already been audited by the IRS this year and I had to pay........so whatever Gov't wants to take me down, domestic or foreign.......have at it Mofos!!!

 

[MeBelle]

Med cart please!

 

[B. Kidd]

Med cart please!

Meds can't take the place of direct house current!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thanks for the deregulation depression and for gutting the nonrich and our infrastructure. Time for intelligent gov't again....Your party is batshytte crazy....

You really should take your meds, it does no good to only pretend.

I asked about redistribution as economic philosophy and I'm sorry you and reality had such a bad falling out and are no longer on speaking terms

 

[Big Fitz]

Med cart please!

Med cart nothing! Crash cart for sure.

 

[konradv]

A good old fashioned war will put the money back into the economy, for awhile, at the least. I'm in my winter retreat back in Yuma, and last month, the Army Proving Grounds, 20 miles north of my RV, set off some mega bunker busters. My RV shook, so did my neighbors RV's to the point where they were scratching their heads and talking about how did you hear and feel that, etc.
Now, they didn't figure it out, but I have, and our Gov't may not like me posting this, but if I lived in Iran I'd be very afraid, and I will frankly be surprised if Iran is not attacked by the end of 2012!!!

I'll take that bet. America isn't going to stand for you bozos talking us into a war again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

Let's think about this for just a minute. During the last 60 years, tax rates have been higher than they are now. We are now in the middle of the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. If it weren't for all the government programs supporting those out of work, this would be Great Depression II.

In truth we got here, creating the largest economy in the world, with higher tax rates and even greater redistribution of income than we now have. And now that we have taken a step backwards by letting everyone keep more of their money, now our economy has tanked. Now, the truth is that it has very little to do with redistribution of wealth. However, paying for government programs without going into debt to do so, has created wealth over the years. Government spending money on this project and that, has put money into the private sector. Granted, first that money was taken out of the private sector, but then it was actually put to good use.

The problem with letting everyone keep more, and this holds the most truth with the very wealthy, is that the money does not end up back in the economy. It is held off to the side and left to do nothing. And this has been proven out by the fact that US businesses are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash that they refuse to put back into play. Now just think what would happen if half of that money was put into government revenue and then put back into the economy where it was actually in play. There would be more money floating around, people would be spending more, and companies would have to start hiring again to meet demand. You see, demand is what drives the economy. Investors do not invest unless there is demand, and since all the money is being hoarded and kept out of play, there is no growth.

Now there are other ways to put that money back into play, however none of them are realistic. For example, American businesses could give everyone of their employees a big raise, or they could just hire more people to get people working. Problem with that is that they won't do it if the demand is not there in the first place.

If the government had the $2T they would spend it in 6 months and it would be gone for good with no return on it. Your economic philosophy has failed so badly that even Communists flee from it in horror.

 

[Cammmpbell]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work when Ronald Reagan started it and quadrupled the national debt and when George W. Bush cut taxes twice and began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks it didn't work any better. He doubled the national debt again. RESULTS......low taxes for the wealthy while 80% of all the debt accrued by this country in 232 years was borrowed by Reagan and the Bushes is a no brainer.

 

[Big Fitz]

We have the number 1 economy on the planet and got here in a relatively short time by adhering to free markets.

My question: Why do you think Redistribution is a better deal?

Trickle down has never worked. It didn't work when Ronald Reagan started it and quadrupled the national debt and when George W. Bush cut taxes twice and began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks it didn't work any better. He doubled the national debt again. RESULTS......low taxes for the wealthy while 80% of all the debt accrued by this country in 232 years was borrowed by Reagan and the Bushes is a no brainer.

Note how this chart also disproves the idea that the economy is a zero sum game. The poor do not have enough wealth to raise the income as much as that chart claims. So where is this excess wealth coming from, if not the pockets of the bottom 80%?

Oh that's right! It's called increased value through work and investment!

 

[Cammmpbell]

The idea that we got here with out creating debt is hilarious. We haven't had a balanced budget in 60 years. The debt was at 5 trillion before the wars. We increased our debt with 2 wars and unregulated Government social programs. It did not happen over night, or did it happen just under Bush or Obama.

By the way Obama is running up the debt twice as fast as Bush did.

Obama inheirited an annual interest payment of about $450 billion because of the money Reagan and the Bushes borrowed. Three years of that comes to about $1.2 trillion. Kindly subtract that from Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Trillions of that borrowed money ended up in the pockets of those in this country who least needed it:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[DiamondDave]

And yet again, this troll bozo neglects to continue the numbers for when Obamalama took over, spending at record rates...

Filthy progressive scum

 

[Big Fitz]

The idea that we got here with out creating debt is hilarious. We haven't had a balanced budget in 60 years. The debt was at 5 trillion before the wars. We increased our debt with 2 wars and unregulated Government social programs. It did not happen over night, or did it happen just under Bush or Obama.

By the way Obama is running up the debt twice as fast as Bush did.

Obama inheirited an annual interest payment of about $450 billion because of the money Reagan and the Bushes borrowed. Three years of that comes to about $1.2 trillion. Kindly subtract that from Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Trillions of that borrowed money ended up in the pockets of those in this country who least needed it:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

well SOMEONE is hitting his favorite cut-and-paste links.

 

[Cammmpbell]

And yet again, this troll bozo neglects to continue the numbers for when Obamalama took over, spending at record rates...

Filthy progressive scum

I told you....he started off having to pay $450 billion a year of interest on the Republican's debt. Three years of that is more than a trillion dollars.

In case you don't reali e how much $450 billion is we spend about $100 billion on education and less than that on the infrastructure. I don't blame you...I'd be desperate for a way to hide the reckless spending and borrowing of Reagan and the Bush family myself.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The idea that we got here with out creating debt is hilarious. We haven't had a balanced budget in 60 years. The debt was at 5 trillion before the wars. We increased our debt with 2 wars and unregulated Government social programs. It did not happen over night, or did it happen just under Bush or Obama.

By the way Obama is running up the debt twice as fast as Bush did.

Obama inheirited an annual interest payment of about $450 billion because of the money Reagan and the Bushes borrowed. Three years of that comes to about $1.2 trillion. Kindly subtract that from Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Trillions of that borrowed money ended up in the pockets of those in this country who least needed it:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

well SOMEONE is hitting his favorite cut-and-paste links.

I'll kiss your ass in the middle of times square and give you thirty minutes to draw a crowd if you can find that to cut and paste it. Don't forget to look for the color.