Shattering political myths

[Votto]

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?

 

[Dante]

Ronald Reagan was a true conservative. MYTH

 

[Votto]

Ronald Reagan was a true conservative. MYTH

What is a "true" conservative?

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[Votto]

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.

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?

 

[Votto]

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

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?

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

 

[healthmyths]

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.

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 !

 

[Votto]

.
Which is a bigger tax revenue... $100 billion or $55 billion?? DUH!!!

!

Assuming this is all correct, this is what all the fighting is over? We are killing ourselves for $50 billion in increased revenue? That is like even spitting in the ocean when it comes to the deficit.

 

[Votto]

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.

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?

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

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?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

RR was the first to cut taxes in a very long time.

That led to 25 years of vast growth.

All at historic highs, that have never been seen in any country.

 

[occupied]

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?

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

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?

Willful negligence is hard to prove, people can put it down to simple incompetence. I feel Obama decided like Ford that going after the crimes and misdemeanors of his predecessor would be bad for the country, I disagreed but who am I to say? In any case it's pretty clear that the Bush administration told the Wall Street cops to go home. I wonder where we would be today had the big banks not felt they had a license to steal? If Countrywide and the other sub-prime lenders had been closely scrutinized or if derivatives actually had some kind of oversight? Certainly the housing bubble popping would have been a much earlier but far less destructive event.