Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[boedicca]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

 

[Rigby5]

Marx did not believe that capitalism could make adjustments to help those who need a hand up. The United States has a mixed economy that is tempered by the fact that it expected that you provide for yourself and pursue gainful employment. We have a social safety net to help you through the hard times. We also regulate Wall Street (SEC) protect people’s money in the bank (FDIC) and have Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. But that’s where it stops. Europe has a socialist economy that puts a tremendous tax burden on those that work the hardest. Why should government provide power, lights, health care, and school for you? What would Europe have become if back in the Renaissance era people had to wait for one of the king or Popes workers to come start a fire for them because the nobility and Church paid 90% taxes so self starting a fire was forbidden.

Good points, but I disagree.
Things like the government giving away mineral/oil rights for almost nothing, instead of collectively pumping and refining it ourselves, is just corrupt profiteering in my opinion.
There is no huge tax burden in Europe, and the actually cost of living are far less because tax money is spend on benefits, like free health care. If you add in the private expenses in the US, like health care, mortgage interest, etc., Europe has a much lower cost of living, even including what appears to be high taxes. In Europe you get back benefits when you pay taxes. In the US, when you pay taxes you just get more wars that make life more dangerous.
Government should provide power, lights, health care, and school for you because it can and does provide it much less expensively, and much more equitably, which results in more motivation and less crime.

The Renaissance era was still totally capitalists, with kings and Popes being totally and completely being profit motivated.
Socialism did not start until the capitalist monarchies were defeated, like the French Revolution.
Democracy essentially is tied to socialism, and the way to tell if you have a democracy is by how much socialism you have.
Your argument would have been better if you had reminded that too much democracy could result in people just voting themselves too many benefits. That is a danger that never happened yet, but would have been your best bet as the danger of mob rule.

 

[Thinker101]

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

Yes, we do have socialist programs. Having socialist programs doesn't make us a socialist country. Where the issue seems to be is many liberals want more socialist programs.

A Socialist country is a country where the government or the public as a whole has control over the economy. In a socialist country, the producing and dispersing of goods is owned by the government. Socialism is placed in between capitalism and communism.
Socialist country - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A socialist country only has production and dispersing of goods owned by the government if private means have failed so badly that the people demand it.
Socialism likely is between capitalism and communism, but capitalism is absolute feudalism of the wealthy, and communism is absolute feudalism of the politburo.
Both capitalism and communism have little or no choices.
Only socialism is democratic and allow choices from either, as people decide is more beneficial in any given circumstance.

Sigh....guess you overlooked the fine print, there are no private means. Capitalism provides much more choice than socialism and/or communism.

 

[Rigby5]

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

Technology is almost always funded by government using pooled resources for the social good.
For example, Edison would never have been known if not for government subsidies and contracts for community street lights and home power.
Look back at the history of anything great, like the Roman aqueducts, and you will see that was socialism.
The greatest increase in US technology came from all the federal land grant universities.
DARPA and war technology all came from federal investments.
Do you think capitalism results in things like the Saulk Vaccine for polio?

 

[boedicca]

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

Technology is almost always funded by government using pooled resources for the social good.
For example, Edison would never have been known if not for government subsidies and contracts for community street lights and home power.
Look back at the history of anything great, like the Roman aqueducts, and you will see that was socialism.
The greatest increase in US technology came from all the federal land grant universities.
DARPA and war technology all came from federal investments.
Do you think capitalism results in things like the Saulk Vaccine for polio?

Your logic circuits are completely fried.

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

 

[boedicca]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

Historically illiterate much?

Trying reading this:

Financial crisis of 2007–08 - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

 

[Bush92]

Marx did not believe that capitalism could make adjustments to help those who need a hand up. The United States has a mixed economy that is tempered by the fact that it expected that you provide for yourself and pursue gainful employment. We have a social safety net to help you through the hard times. We also regulate Wall Street (SEC) protect people’s money in the bank (FDIC) and have Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. But that’s where it stops. Europe has a socialist economy that puts a tremendous tax burden on those that work the hardest. Why should government provide power, lights, health care, and school for you? What would Europe have become if back in the Renaissance era people had to wait for one of the king or Popes workers to come start a fire for them because the nobility and Church paid 90% taxes so self starting a fire was forbidden.

Good points, but I disagree.
Things like the government giving away mineral/oil rights for almost nothing, instead of collectively pumping and refining it ourselves, is just corrupt profiteering in my opinion.
There is no huge tax burden in Europe, and the actually cost of living are far less because tax money is spend on benefits, like free health care. If you add in the private expenses in the US, like health care, mortgage interest, etc., Europe has a much lower cost of living, even including what appears to be high taxes. In Europe you get back benefits when you pay taxes. In the US, when you pay taxes you just get more wars that make life more dangerous.
Government should provide power, lights, health care, and school for you because it can and does provide it much less expensively, and much more equitably, which results in more motivation and less crime.

The Renaissance era was still totally capitalists, with kings and Popes being totally and completely being profit motivated.
Socialism did not start until the capitalist monarchies were defeated, like the French Revolution.
Democracy essentially is tied to socialism, and the way to tell if you have a democracy is by how much socialism you have.
Your argument would have been better if you had reminded that too much democracy could result in people just voting themselves too many benefits. That is a danger that never happened yet, but would have been your best bet as the danger of mob rule.

Point well taken.

 

[Rigby5]

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

Yes, we do have socialist programs. Having socialist programs doesn't make us a socialist country. Where the issue seems to be is many liberals want more socialist programs.

A Socialist country is a country where the government or the public as a whole has control over the economy. In a socialist country, the producing and dispersing of goods is owned by the government. Socialism is placed in between capitalism and communism.
Socialist country - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A socialist country only has production and dispersing of goods owned by the government if private means have failed so badly that the people demand it.
Socialism likely is between capitalism and communism, but capitalism is absolute feudalism of the wealthy, and communism is absolute feudalism of the politburo.
Both capitalism and communism have little or no choices.
Only socialism is democratic and allow choices from either, as people decide is more beneficial in any given circumstance.

Sigh....guess you overlooked the fine print, there are no private means. Capitalism provides much more choice than socialism and/or communism.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, because obviously there are private means of producing and dispersing goods.
That is WalMart, Sears, etc.
Capitalism deliberately tries to reduce choices since eliminating competition increases profits.
While socialism not only increases alternatives by providing another source, but you get to vote as to how they go about doing it.
Socialism is always more efficient and costs less because you don't have profits being skimmed off the top by the capitalist investors.

 

[Thinker101]

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

Technology is almost always funded by government using pooled resources for the social good.
For example, Edison would never have been known if not for government subsidies and contracts for community street lights and home power.
Look back at the history of anything great, like the Roman aqueducts, and you will see that was socialism.
The greatest increase in US technology came from all the federal land grant universities.
DARPA and war technology all came from federal investments.
Do you think capitalism results in things like the Saulk Vaccine for polio?

So you're saying Edison received a government subsidy? Gotta link on that?

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

Historically illiterate much?

Trying reading this:

Financial crisis of 2007–08 - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

Anyone can write anything they want.
Does not make it remotely true.
If the mortgage payments had remained the same, then no one would have suddenly been defaulting on mortgages, and it was the foreclosures from defaults that ruined the real estate market, not speculation.

You really need to do your own research and not just parrot propaganda.

Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi | Reuters

{...
BONDS NEWS
OCTOBER 7, 2008 / 7:34 AM / 10 YEARS AGO
Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Defaults on U.S. adjustable-rate mortgages will likely jump by 10 percent based on the rise in short-term lending benchmarks to record levels, according to Citigroup Global Markets.

Increases in London interbank offered rates (Libor) as of Sept. 30 following turmoil in global financial markets will increase monthly payments on loans with rates due to adjust as much as 13 percent over what they would be based on Libor two weeks earlier, Citigroup analysts, led by Rahul Parulekar, wrote in a research note.

Higher defaults will increase losses on loans by 1.8 percent, they said in the note dated Oct. 6.

“A sustained dislocation of Libor will affect more borrowers further down the road, worsening prospects for housing, (mortgage bond) valuation, and therefore, interbank lending once again,” they said. (Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by James Dalgleish)
...}

 

[boedicca]

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

Technology is almost always funded by government using pooled resources for the social good.
For example, Edison would never have been known if not for government subsidies and contracts for community street lights and home power.
Look back at the history of anything great, like the Roman aqueducts, and you will see that was socialism.
The greatest increase in US technology came from all the federal land grant universities.
DARPA and war technology all came from federal investments.
Do you think capitalism results in things like the Saulk Vaccine for polio?

So you're saying Edison received a government subsidy? Gotta link on that?

In RealityLand, Edison was privately financed - and endured a lot of competition in the DC vs. AC battle.

 

[boedicca]

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

Historically illiterate much?

Trying reading this:

Financial crisis of 2007–08 - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

Anyone can write anything they want.
Does not make it remotely true.
If the mortgage payments had remained the same, then no one would have suddenly been defaulting on mortgages, and it was the foreclosures from defaults that ruined the real estate market, not speculation.

You really need to do your own research and not just parrot propaganda.

Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi | Reuters

{...
BONDS NEWS
OCTOBER 7, 2008 / 7:34 AM / 10 YEARS AGO
Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Defaults on U.S. adjustable-rate mortgages will likely jump by 10 percent based on the rise in short-term lending benchmarks to record levels, according to Citigroup Global Markets.

Increases in London interbank offered rates (Libor) as of Sept. 30 following turmoil in global financial markets will increase monthly payments on loans with rates due to adjust as much as 13 percent over what they would be based on Libor two weeks earlier, Citigroup analysts, led by Rahul Parulekar, wrote in a research note.

Higher defaults will increase losses on loans by 1.8 percent, they said in the note dated Oct. 6.

“A sustained dislocation of Libor will affect more borrowers further down the road, worsening prospects for housing, (mortgage bond) valuation, and therefore, interbank lending once again,” they said. (Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by James Dalgleish)
...}

Clearly, you either did not read or do not comprehend the item you quoted.

Higher defaults on mortgages led to the collapse of the derivatives market and financial crisis.

 

[Thinker101]

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

Yes, we do have socialist programs. Having socialist programs doesn't make us a socialist country. Where the issue seems to be is many liberals want more socialist programs.

A Socialist country is a country where the government or the public as a whole has control over the economy. In a socialist country, the producing and dispersing of goods is owned by the government. Socialism is placed in between capitalism and communism.
Socialist country - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A socialist country only has production and dispersing of goods owned by the government if private means have failed so badly that the people demand it.
Socialism likely is between capitalism and communism, but capitalism is absolute feudalism of the wealthy, and communism is absolute feudalism of the politburo.
Both capitalism and communism have little or no choices.
Only socialism is democratic and allow choices from either, as people decide is more beneficial in any given circumstance.

Sigh....guess you overlooked the fine print, there are no private means. Capitalism provides much more choice than socialism and/or communism.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, because obviously there are private means of producing and dispersing goods.
That is WalMart, Sears, etc.
Capitalism deliberately tries to reduce choices since eliminating competition increases profits.
While socialism not only increases alternatives by providing another source, but you get to vote as to how they go about doing it.
Socialism is always more efficient and costs less because you don't have profits being skimmed off the top by the capitalist investors.

You're sounding a bit delusional.

 

[Rigby5]

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

Technology is almost always funded by government using pooled resources for the social good.
For example, Edison would never have been known if not for government subsidies and contracts for community street lights and home power.
Look back at the history of anything great, like the Roman aqueducts, and you will see that was socialism.
The greatest increase in US technology came from all the federal land grant universities.
DARPA and war technology all came from federal investments.
Do you think capitalism results in things like the Saulk Vaccine for polio?

So you're saying Edison received a government subsidy? Gotta link on that?

Good point. Generally almost all individual inventors can only get widespread through government contracts of investment. But looking a the details of Edison, it might have all been private. But if you notice, J. P. Morgan seems to have also stolen everything from Edison eventually. And eventually it all became Westinghouse and GE.

{...
After devising a commercially viable electric light bulb on October 21, 1879, Edison developed an electric "utility" to compete with the existing gas light utilities.[65] On December 17, 1880, he founded the Edison Illuminating Company, and during the 1880s, he patented a system for electricity distribution. The company established the first investor-owned electric utility in 1882 on Pearl Street Station, New York City. On September 4, 1882, Edison switched on his Pearl Street generating station's electrical power distribution system, which provided 110 volts direct current (DC) to 59 customers in lower Manhattan.[66]

In January 1882, Edison switched on the first steam-generating power station at Holborn Viaduct in London. The DC supply system provided electricity supplies to street lamps and several private dwellings within a short distance of the station. On January 19, 1883, the first standardized incandescent electric lighting system employing overhead wires began service in Roselle, New Jersey.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

Historically illiterate much?

Trying reading this:

Financial crisis of 2007–08 - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

Anyone can write anything they want.
Does not make it remotely true.
If the mortgage payments had remained the same, then no one would have suddenly been defaulting on mortgages, and it was the foreclosures from defaults that ruined the real estate market, not speculation.

You really need to do your own research and not just parrot propaganda.

Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi | Reuters

{...
BONDS NEWS
OCTOBER 7, 2008 / 7:34 AM / 10 YEARS AGO
Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Defaults on U.S. adjustable-rate mortgages will likely jump by 10 percent based on the rise in short-term lending benchmarks to record levels, according to Citigroup Global Markets.

Increases in London interbank offered rates (Libor) as of Sept. 30 following turmoil in global financial markets will increase monthly payments on loans with rates due to adjust as much as 13 percent over what they would be based on Libor two weeks earlier, Citigroup analysts, led by Rahul Parulekar, wrote in a research note.

Higher defaults will increase losses on loans by 1.8 percent, they said in the note dated Oct. 6.

“A sustained dislocation of Libor will affect more borrowers further down the road, worsening prospects for housing, (mortgage bond) valuation, and therefore, interbank lending once again,” they said. (Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by James Dalgleish)
...}

Clearly, you either did not read or do not comprehend the item you quoted.

Higher defaults on mortgages led to the collapse of the derivatives market and financial crisis.

Wrong. Higher defaults on mortgages were the result of the much higher ARM payments, due to deceptive bank mortgage lending fraud.
Mortgage defaults can't cause anything, but were the result of something else.
Bush caused credit to dry up, which caused a recession, which then caused the LIBOR ARM rate to greatly increase.

 

[boedicca]

No, it was caused largely by the collapse of the real estate bubble which made derivatives worthless...and the financial panic which ensured.

No, there was no collapse of demand for real estate.
The collapse of the real estate market was not at all a bubble because it was not because of speculation inflation.
It was due to deceptive ARM rates tied to the British LIBOR instead of the US prime rate, so that when the US economy went down, the ARM payments almost doubled.
And there should not have been any derivatives in the first place, as they were an illegal way of defrauding people as to the security of the shares.
People still wanted and needed to buy housing, but were unable to because banks were no longer willing to give mortgages.
The collapse was caused entirely and deliberately by banks, even though it reduced their own holdings value, temporarily.

Historically illiterate much?

Trying reading this:

Financial crisis of 2007–08 - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

Anyone can write anything they want.
Does not make it remotely true.
If the mortgage payments had remained the same, then no one would have suddenly been defaulting on mortgages, and it was the foreclosures from defaults that ruined the real estate market, not speculation.

You really need to do your own research and not just parrot propaganda.

Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi | Reuters

{...
BONDS NEWS
OCTOBER 7, 2008 / 7:34 AM / 10 YEARS AGO
Record Libor to boost mortgage defaults 10 pct-Citi

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Defaults on U.S. adjustable-rate mortgages will likely jump by 10 percent based on the rise in short-term lending benchmarks to record levels, according to Citigroup Global Markets.

Increases in London interbank offered rates (Libor) as of Sept. 30 following turmoil in global financial markets will increase monthly payments on loans with rates due to adjust as much as 13 percent over what they would be based on Libor two weeks earlier, Citigroup analysts, led by Rahul Parulekar, wrote in a research note.

Higher defaults will increase losses on loans by 1.8 percent, they said in the note dated Oct. 6.

“A sustained dislocation of Libor will affect more borrowers further down the road, worsening prospects for housing, (mortgage bond) valuation, and therefore, interbank lending once again,” they said. (Reporting by Al Yoon; Editing by James Dalgleish)
...}

Clearly, you either did not read or do not comprehend the item you quoted.

Higher defaults on mortgages led to the collapse of the derivatives market and financial crisis.

Wrong. Higher defaults on mortgages were the result of the much higher ARM payments, due to deceptive bank mortgage lending fraud.
Mortgage defaults can't cause anything, but were the result of something else.
Bush caused credit to dry up, which caused a recession, which then caused the LIBOR ARM rate to greatly increase.

It is actually becoming physically painful to attempt to penetrate your ignorance.

But you do get 10 Points for consistently displaying your complete and utter lack of even a passing acquaintance with economics and history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it is illegal to cut social security.

Liar

It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.

Liar.​

Over half the federal spending is military,

Liar.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?
If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?
Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military. It is actually over 75% once you include things like VA, GIBill, and interest on past military borrowing.
If you do not agree, then come up with some reasons.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?

You're not legally entitled to your Social Security benefit.

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later your union drove the company out of business, you'd be fucked, right?

Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military.

I look at Trump's budget and I see you're really bad at even simple math.

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.
You are a secured creditor, and you can bequeath your pension in a will, but other than a few small difference, social security is very similar to a private pension.
You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

If the company providing a negotiated pension plan went under, you likely would get very little of it back at the bankruptcy proceedings.
Social Security would be the same, if the country went bankrupt. That is just less likely to happen because the country is bigger.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%, without even including hidden military spending like VA, GIBill, interest payments on past military borrowing, etc.?

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.

Excellent! I'm glad I could educate you in even the tiniest way.

You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

You're wrong. The government could vote tomorrow to reduce your Social Security by 50%.
And you'd be shit out of luck.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%

If you took the defense budget last year and divided it by total federal spending, you'd see your error.

Of course that's assuming you know how to divide. And that you know what "more than 50%" means.

Originally Congress was not supposed to be able to vote to reduce SS payments by any amount, and while they can now, they also would be out of office and strung up if they tried. SS is still more like a private pension plan is supposed to be than even private pension plans actually are.

As for federal spending, it depends on things like if you count the interest payments on the national debt as part of federal spending or not, but really, anyway you look at it, the military actually is about 75% of where our tax money goes.
There is no way around that. We are still even paying off borrowing for SDI, which was totally military.
Even NASA likely was really mostly military spending in order to develop weapons systems like ICBMs.
Costs like VA are there at all because of the military.
When I went to college, there was lots of land grant funding, but it was all for ROTC, DARPA military research, etc.
Even the interstate highway system by Eisenhower, was actually motivated by the need for the military.
The $5 billion a year we give to Israel actually is returned in weapons research for the military.
The War on Drugs actually was to increase military profits by cutting out competition to the Laotian heroin the military was bringing in to finance its covert operations.

The Military Industrial Complex is far more powerful and in control much more than you realize.

{...
On this day in 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

Before and during the Second World War, American industries had successfully converted to defense production as the crisis demanded, but out of the war, what Eisenhower called a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions emerged. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience Eisenhower warned, [while] we recognize the imperative need for this development.we must not fail to comprehend its grave implicationswe must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
...}

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

Originally Congress was not supposed to be able to vote to reduce SS payments by any amount,

Baloney. Anything they vote in, they can vote out.

As for federal spending, it depends on things like if you count the interest payments on the national debt as part of federal spending or not, but really, anyway you look at it, the military actually is about 75% of where our tax money goes.

If you look at reality, your claim is bogus.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do you think our country would be better off if nobody made over 10mil? Why do you want to punish people that are successful to support people that are a drag on our economy?
What the 70% tax would do is make sure people getting close to the 10mil mark is guarentee they would go on an extended vacation or move. Why would they continue to risk investing or work hard for 30c on the dollar.
Let the rich keep their money, they buy things that keep millions employed. How many lose their jobs if the rich don’t buy a new yacht or plane or all the other things the rich buy.
I guess progressive think the wealthy just put money in the bank and let it set there. Without the investments the wealthy make most people would be unemployed or working for the government, which is what the progressives want anyway.

Since when is putting money in a bank NOT an investment? Have you heard of interest?

Putting money in the bank is not an investment. It is savings. The trouble with conservatives is that have no damn idea the difference between saving and investing. Purchasing a stock is NOT investing. It is saving. Now, buying a brewing kit to brew your own beer to save money on your beer purchases, that is an investment.

"Investment vs Savings Key Differences. Savings means to set aside a part of your income for future use. Investment is defined as the act of putting funds into productive uses. ... Savings do not have any risk of losing money, whereas In Investing there is a risk of losing money."

Investment vs Savings | Top 6 Differences (with infographics)

If you put money into a interest bearing bank account you've put it into a productive use.

.01% interest bearing bank account isnt productive. Thanks Obama.
Taking the money and put it into stocks paying 6% to 10% annual dividends is very productive, since inflation is below 2%.

Putting retirement monies into today's stock market is beyond foolish. tRumps trickle-up policies are putting the country into recession. I've been all-out of the market for two years placing my investments private in booze and cannabis.

 

[OnePercenter]

Addressing climate change is a national security issue, but renewable energy is also a jobs issue, a health issue and a pocketbook issue for each American family.

throw in the trash the 44 separate energy tax breaks, anchored by advantages for big oil companies that get billions of dollars in beneficial tax treatment.

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

We have addressed "climate change" which has been happening for billions of years. When does the rest of the world act?

What advantages do "big oil companies" get that is not available to other businesses?

Depletion allowance

How many people do big oil companies employ? How many counties do these big oil companies work in? Idiots like you, only think about you, and how much a victim of liberalism you are, because you are a miserable wretch who cant make it in the world....

How many people does big oil employ?

I'm not seeing them......List of largest employers in the United States - Wikipedia