Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Tehon]

We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?

 

[danielpalos]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

Why not? US expatriate Firms should Only get tax breaks for labor costs, for hiring US labor not Any foreign labor; if they file taxes with the US, IRS in the US.

 

[danielpalos]

https://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/****-that-shit.jpg

I am learning to "love" practicing tolerance and indulging, right wing propaganda, simply for the sake of political morals in modern times.

 

[Skull Pilot]

try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything

Plato and Aristotle came up with freedom and govt
Jesus and Caesar came up with freedom and govt
Jefferson and Hamilton came up with freedom and govt
Clinton and Trump came up with freedom and govt

What does skull pilot PH.D come up with???

you really are dense aren't you?

 

[danielpalos]

. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Let's keep it simple and refer to expatriate subsidiaries of US Firms, that went "foreign", for their bottom line.

 

[danielpalos]

try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything

Plato and Aristotle came up with freedom and govt
Jesus and Caesar came up with freedom and govt
Jefferson and Hamilton came up with freedom and govt
Clinton and Trump came up with freedom and govt

What does skull pilot PH.D come up with???

you really are dense aren't you?

He really is, just special.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the ******* government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't ******* rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS.


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain and read a link

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

so then why whine about debt increasing after tax cuts?

and it doesn't matter how they perform what matters is it's the government encouraging people to take on debt and easy debt at that so along with the government manipulation of interest rates that encourages banks to give loans to people who ordinarily wouldn't qualify and the 3% down payment requirement you get the same set of circumstances that was a major factor in the last housing market bubble

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the **** should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't

Again, more BS right wing OPINION without a single rebuttal to the argument.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

so where was the causation proven in the post?

 

[Skull Pilot]

tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big ******* deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.

If they are US firms they do

Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya ******* idiot!

Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country. The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country. If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations

Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business

Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?

It is more complex than that due to Congressional fondness for micromanaging our tax codes. Some ex-pat Firms are US subsidiaries.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?

Sure. It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, capital Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law.

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line. Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?

 

[danielpalos]

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).




Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.


According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.


And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the **** should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?



Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't

Again, more BS right wing OPINION without a single rebuttal to the argument.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

so where was the causation proven in the post?

Cutting taxes is mere speculation that something useful will happen; solving simple poverty and infrastructure development, helps improve the efficiency of our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big ******* deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

He got to "bail out the rich and not blacks"?

 

[JonKoch]

https://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/****-that-shit.jpg

I am learning to "love" practicing tolerance and indulging, right wing propaganda, simply for the sake of political morals in modern times.

Not me, right wingers are morons who deny facts and history and ALWAYS have collective amnesia on their past stances!

 

[JonKoch]

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.


They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.


The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't ******* rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS.


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain and read a link

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

so then why whine about debt increasing after tax cuts?

and it doesn't matter how they perform what matters is it's the government encouraging people to take on debt and easy debt at that so along with the government manipulation of interest rates that encourages banks to give loans to people who ordinarily wouldn't qualify and the 3% down payment requirement you get the same set of circumstances that was a major factor in the last housing market bubble

GOV'T? Oh right you meant Dubya/GOP and their "home ownership society" BS because they had less than 1% growth a year every year without home owners using their homes as ATM's during the WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREDIT BUBBLE. Too bad we didn't have a party in charge who "believes" in REGULATOR OVERSIGHT. Same thing happened with Ronnie Reagan and the S&L crisis


Gov't backed loans plummeted under dubya's home ownership society bubs, biggly!

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

....The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



WHY POINT OUT DEBT INCREASES EVERY TIME THE GOP CUTS TAXES THAT BENEFIT THE RICHEST LARGELY AS THEY EXPLODE DEBT BY RAMPING UP SPENDING????

NEXT

 

[JonKoch]

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).




Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.


According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.


And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the **** should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?



Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't

Again, more BS right wing OPINION without a single rebuttal to the argument.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

so where was the causation proven in the post?

Sorry Bubs, that's NOT how you ATTEMPT to refute something. Try again to explain how and why it's not relevant *shaking head*

 

[JonKoch]

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big ******* deal

Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY.

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity

OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years

Weird you continue to say it's Obama's policies yet can't point to a single thing that created the policies that created the debt like I did showing Dubya took Clinton's 20% of GDP in revenues AND spending and dropped it to 14.6% and blew up spending to almost 24%??? Almost like you're a typical right winger who doesn't understand what drives policies???

 

[JonKoch]

No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.

Not sure why you believe that. It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".

To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.

You simply don't understand the social dilemma. It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".

I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?

Sure. It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, capital Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States. Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law.

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line. Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?

No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

I thought we were formed as a republic??? Did you know that composite government is the majority shareholder of every Fortune 500 corporation and subsidiary? This corporate government takes in more from their investments than what is even required to run this corporate entity. They simply give us their credit card bill and keep their profits in offshore accounts which is why Puerto Rico will never be a state...neither will the Cayman Islands. Learn to read a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. They have been skimming off the top since the Bretton Woods agreement and investing while pleading empty pockets. Not one dime of your income tax goes to fund this corporate entity...it goes to pay interest to the foreign owned central bank that extends credit that they create from the stroke of a pen.

That false. Governments don't own stock in Fortune 500 Companies. They got some stocks in the auto companies during the bailout, but those stocks were sold when the companies were profitable again.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"then what's the ******* point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the ******* point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?

Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*

Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!

I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO

You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.

Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?

You're lying.....again.