Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[bedowin62]

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid ****?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol

That's called respecting a new Pres's mandate, compromise, and good gov't. You wouldn't understand, "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) CHUMP.

but he didnt have a mandate loser

his electoral victories arent anywhere near the top margins

try again

 

[bedowin62]

LITERALLY telling people to "go sit in the back of the bus" arent the words of somebody wanting to compromise

you're an idiot lying to yourself

 

[bedowin62]

LITERALLY saying "I won" and "Elections have consequences" also arent an indication of a person looking to compromise. compromise takes two sides you idiot

stop lying to yourself

 

[francoHFW]

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

YAWN
the Left's open border ideology is more likely to bring us to banana republic status

keep tryin dullard

The deporting more than ever, good SS ID to END illegals, solution party? You morons are led by greedy idiot Pubs who LOVE illegals, Terminal chump. This would never end with them. Tough talk, an un-American wall, and plenty of fake IDs for the illegals. YOU'RE a functional MORON. Never learn...Keep the hate, shyttehead. later much

 

[thanatos144]

Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.

Oh come on. You know how it works by now!

Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.

Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.

Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.

We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.

Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.

Whoops! ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops. That's Bush's fault.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking



"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are showing more and more how young and stupid you are. The savings and loan scandal was about congress not the president. Jesus it is sad how misinformation the young are fed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama. That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking

Actually he spent very little while your democrat congress spent a lot.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized world. Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

US economy one of the slowest? lol


Sure Bubs, sure

That could be because it didn't do as you say

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

Yup, he increased SS rates from 5.4% for individuals in 1983 to 6.06% in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
Just awful, eh comrade?

 

[sealybobo]

We have a spending problem. Our tax problem is that our taxes are to high.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

BS. When I'm making good money my taxes aren't too high. People who make good money get cocky arrogant and greedy after a while and start resenting the taxes they pay. Trade with someone who's just getting out of college. They will gladly pay those taxes and they will save.

You/We have a corrupt government. It isn't the poor that are bankrupting the country. It isn't the poor who get richer every time the god damn national debt doubles. Wake the **** up people.

I laugh when I hear someone say their taxes are too high. Are you rich? The **** you winer. Are you middle class? Then stop voting GOP. They aren't going to lower your taxes dummy. And are you poor? Then why listen to you? LOL

 

[sealybobo]

We made
Weve made lots of austerity cuts in the last 15 years. Hasn't made a dent in the debt. We need to cut military spending and corporate welfare

Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.

We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.

Didn't say we didn't, did I.

And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.

I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.

Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs

Waahhhh. Tissue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid ****?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

 

[Dad2three]

Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.

Oh come on. You know how it works by now!

Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.

Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.

Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.

We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.

Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.

Whoops! ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops. That's Bush's fault.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking



"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are showing more and more how young and stupid you are. The savings and loan scandal was about congress not the president. Jesus it is sad how misinformation the young are fed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Don't understand how Gov't works huh? ANOTHER low info right winger that doesn't understand the Prez has EXECUTIVE Administration *SEC, FBI, HUD, FDIC, ETC)?




Mr Gray (Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board) STARTED warning him in 1984 of problems with the deregulation and oversight of the S&L industry. It's been estimated that 90%+ of the S&L crisis would had been stopped, IF Reagan 'believed in' Gov't over the 'free markets'.








The federal government -- taxpayers in the end -- were guaranteeing a fast and loose industry. Almost from the day he assumed control of the federal bank board on May 1, 1983, Mr. Gray had raised the red flag. But no one -- not Congress, not the Reagan administration, not the industry -- listened.

"I was the messenger," Mr. Gray said. "But they didn't like the message."

S&l Meltdown








A very bad situation turned into a disaster when the Reagan Administration and congressional leaders refused to tackle the problems and instead decided to let S&Ls with poor management and little or no capital grow their way out of their problems. In the five-year period from 1984, when I warned Treasury Secretary Jim Baker of the looming S&L crisis, to 1989, when the first Bush Administration and Congress moved to clean up the S&L mess, the cost of resolution increased nearly 10-fold from an estimated $15 billion to nearly $150 billion (or roughly $450 billion in terms relative to today’s federal budget).


The Financial Panic: Never Again














"The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery: The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry by Martin Mayer

 

[Dad2three]

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama. That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking

Actually he spent very little while your democrat congress spent a lot.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Mythology of Ronnie being fiscally conservative? lol

 

[Dad2three]

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized world. Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

US economy one of the slowest? lol


Sure Bubs, sure

That could be because it didn't do as you say

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

More right wing nonsense/babble.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid ****?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!

 

[Dad2three]

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid ****?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion. So far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

Yep, Reagan TRIPLED the debt of EVERY other US Prez. Obama walked into a sinking ship (and Dubya/GOP policies) and righted it, slowing down the debt bubble Dubya/GOP created!

I know, $1.6 trillion added to the debt.
Obama added $7.5 trillion.....so far, but he's black and smart, so that's okay, eh comrade?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.

59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.

Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!

Tissue?