Why the GOP should never rule Warshington

[editec]

And the tax burden didn't shift from rich to poor. The poor aren't paying anymore in taxes then they were so you are wrong to say the burden shifted.

Yes it does.

It shifts to every person in America because in order for the superwealthy to enjoy those tax cuts American has had to go further into debt.

And with that debt a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar follows.

And the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar falls most heavily on those with fixed incomes and those living from paycheck to paycheck.

Did you really not know that, Bern?

Is this really news to you?

 

[Shogun]

HA!

good luck waiting for that to sink in, edetic.

 

[sealybobo]

This is exactley what I was talking about in another thread. You see two things happening at the same time and from that believe you can conclude one caused the other. It is a naive, convenient, disingenuous type of thinking.



Because the rich pay proportionally more taxes, duh. That isn't some unfair system, that's math. And the tax burden didn't shift from rich to poor. The poor aren't paying anymore in taxes then they were so you are wrong to say the burden shifted.



Again depends on how you define fair. Personally I don't see it as fair for 10% of the population to be burdened with the bulk of tax revenues especially when their wealth insulates them from haveing to use many of the services those taxes pay for.

This is all spin. I could reply but then I know what you will reply and this will never end.

The poor rich people

 

[Bern80]

Yes it does.

It shifts to every person in America because in order for the superwealthy to enjoy those tax cuts American has had to go further into debt.

And with that debt a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar follows.

And the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar falls most heavily on those with fixed incomes and those living from paycheck to paycheck.

Did you really not know that, Bern?

Is this really news to you?

Are you that intellectually dishonest that you believe this is really the case? The argument was did TAX burden shift to the middle class and poor because of the tax cuts to the wealthy. The answer is no, it did not. The middle class and poor did not wind up paying more taxes.

What you are stating is true as to the shrinking value of the dollar and its effect on people. The cause of it isn't. The tax cuts did not cause that. The high availablity and easy access to credit coupled with not curbing government spending (which Bush does deservedly get blame for) caused that.

 

[Bern80]

This is all spin. I could reply but then I know what you will reply and this will never end.

The poor rich people

Now who is avoiding the topic? What part of what I said is spin? What part of what I said is factually untruthful or even a distortion of the truth?

You want to see spin, editec's post is a better example.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is my conclusion wrong? The GOP is the party of the super wealthy and the Federal Reserve is owned by the super wealthy.

FRB: FAQs: Federal Reserve System

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

The same people that own the oil companies. Started by Rockafellor, JP Morgan and Carnege. Three ruthless businessmen.

What party do you think these families belong to? Who do they push/lobby to do away with the Death Tax?

Who cares what party they belonged to? last time i checked, they were all still dead.

 

[sealybobo]

FRB: FAQs: Federal Reserve System

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

what party they belonged to? last time i checked, they were all still dead.

Tell me more about the private aspect.

Henry Ford: "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

FOREIGN BANKERS OWN MAJORITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE

More that half the shareholdings in the Federal Reserve Bank are controlled by large New York City banks, including National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, First National Bank, Chase National Bank, and Marine National Bank. When Rockefeller's National City Bank merged with J.P. Morgan's First National Bank in 1955, the Rockefeller group owned 22 percent of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which in turn holds the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System - 53 percent. But who really owns what? Here are the top controllers of the Federal Reserve Bank

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

 

[sealybobo]

FRB: FAQs: Federal Reserve System

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.



Who cares what party they belonged to? last time i checked, they were all still dead.

No Congress, no President has been strong enough to stand up to the foreign-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. Yet there is a catch - one that President Kennedy recognized before he was slain - the original deal in 1913 creating the Federal Reserve Bank had a simple backout clause. The investors loaned the United States Government $1 billion. And the backout clause allows the United States to buy out the system for that $1 billion. If the Federal Reserve Bank were demolished and the Congress of the United States took control of the currency, as required in the Constitution, the National Debt would virtually end overnight, and the need for more taxes and even the income tax, itself. Thomas Jefferson was concise in his early warning to the American nation, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

The Federal Reserve Bunk

 

[sealybobo]

Yes it does.

It shifts to every person in America because in order for the superwealthy to enjoy those tax cuts American has had to go further into debt.

And with that debt a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar follows.

And the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar falls most heavily on those with fixed incomes and those living from paycheck to paycheck.

Did you really not know that, Bern?

Is this really news to you?

Editec, here is what he isn't telling you. The rich got tax breaks and thus made a lot more money over the last 8 years. So of course that means more taxes go from the rich to the treasury.

Also, we make less today than we did 8 years ago. So, we pay less in taxes today than we did in the 90's.

Oh thank you George Bush! Oh thank you John McCain!!! Maybe we were wrong. I dind't realize I paid less in taxes when I stand in the mother ******* unemployment line!!!! How kind of the GOP!!!! Those kind considerate rich people have been picking up the slack for us losers all these years and I didn't realize it. What a schmuck I was.

 

[dilloduck]

Tell me more about the private aspect.

Henry Ford: "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

FOREIGN BANKERS OWN MAJORITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE

More that half the shareholdings in the Federal Reserve Bank are controlled by large New York City banks, including National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, First National Bank, Chase National Bank, and Marine National Bank. When Rockefeller's National City Bank merged with J.P. Morgan's First National Bank in 1955, the Rockefeller group owned 22 percent of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which in turn holds the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System - 53 percent. But who really owns what? Here are the top controllers of the Federal Reserve Bank

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

BINGO--here are the main culprits along with those who allow them to continue screwing with taxpayer money.

 

[editec]

Are you that intellectually dishonest that you believe this is really the case? The argument was did TAX burden shift to the middle class and poor because of the tax cuts to the wealthy. The answer is no, it did not. The middle class and poor did not wind up paying more taxes.

What you are stating is true as to the shrinking value of the dollar and its effect on people. The cause of it isn't. The tax cuts did not cause that. The high availablity and easy access to credit coupled with not curbing government spending (which Bush does deservedly get blame for) caused that.

Well..partial credit for that.

Remember the much ballyhooed Regan tax cuts?

Do you ALSO remember the Reagan tax INCREASES on Social security?

Apparently not.

 

[Bern80]

Editec, here is what he isn't telling you. The rich got tax breaks and thus made a lot more money over the last 8 years. So of course that means more taxes go from the rich to the treasury.

Also, we make less today than we did 8 years ago. So, we pay less in taxes today than we did in the 90's.

Oh thank you George Bush! Oh thank you John McCain!!! Maybe we were wrong. I dind't realize I paid less in taxes when I stand in the mother ******* unemployment line!!!! How kind of the GOP!!!! Those kind considerate rich people have been picking up the slack for us losers all these years and I didn't realize it. What a schmuck I was.

If you want to respond to me, respond to me directly, not via someone else, chicken shit.

You continue to pile on the excuses. To recap: You said the tax burden shifted to the middle class and poor. By no measure is that true. Everyone under the Bush tax cuts received a tax cut. You piss and moan about this, but when you do the math one can only conclude that nothing short of the wealthy paying ALL of the taxes would satsify you.

 

[Bern80]

Well..partial credit for that.

Remember the much ballyhooed Regan tax cuts?

Do you ALSO remember the Reagan tax INCREASES on Social security?

Apparently not.

I was pretty young then so I really can't say that I 'remember' them. Unlike Bush however I believe Reagan was a bit more of fiscal conservative. Tax cuts are really the only comparison I believe that can be made between Bush and Reagan. Many of the other variables were so different (economic growth, government spending) different that I don't see how the two really could equate.

 

[sealybobo]

If you want to respond to me, respond to me directly, not via someone else, chicken shit.

You continue to pile on the excuses. To recap: You said the tax burden shifted to the middle class and poor. By no measure is that true. Everyone under the Bush tax cuts received a tax cut. You piss and moan about this, but when you do the math one can only conclude that nothing short of the wealthy paying ALL of the taxes would satsify you.

Thanks for my $300 6 years ago George.

And I was talking to Editec, not you.

And you are a house slave.

 

[Bern80]

Thanks for my $300 6 years ago George.

And I was talking to Editec, not you.

And you are a house slave.

You are becoming less insightful and more baseless by the post. You attribute something to me while responding to someone else and it comes as a shock to you that one might take offense and see that as a bit cowardly? It is interesting that you are calling me a slave when it is you who are claiming victim status for everyone. No more sure fire to be a slave than that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me more about the private aspect.

Henry Ford: "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

FOREIGN BANKERS OWN MAJORITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE

More that half the shareholdings in the Federal Reserve Bank are controlled by large New York City banks, including National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, First National Bank, Chase National Bank, and Marine National Bank. When Rockefeller's National City Bank merged with J.P. Morgan's First National Bank in 1955, the Rockefeller group owned 22 percent of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which in turn holds the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System - 53 percent. But who really owns what? Here are the top controllers of the Federal Reserve Bank

1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin.

2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York.

6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York.

7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks.

8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

Foreign? You said that rich republicans owned the fed.

 

[user_name_guest]

What will be the consequences of Obama raising taxes on the top 5% (why not top 10%?)? Has Obama answered the effects on jobs, inflation, and whether it will increase or decrease government revenue?

 

[editec]

I was pretty young then so I really can't say that I 'remember' them. Unlike Bush however I believe Reagan was a bit more of fiscal conservative. Tax cuts are really the only comparison I believe that can be made between Bush and Reagan. Many of the other variables were so different (economic growth, government spending) different that I don't see how the two really could equate.

Back before Regan took office the Social security tax rate was 2% for employees.

Now its about 7.5% or so, isn't it?

Now I don't entirely blame Reagan for increasing those taxes because the system (thanks to COLAs) was going broke, but understand that the working class had huge tax increases because of social secuirty while at the same time the wealthy had huge offsetting tax cuts to their Federal taxes.

As I recall thanks to Regan, my paychecks actually got smaller, because of his so called tax cuts.

Had I been making a lot of money at the time, I'd have enjoyed an increase in money I kept, of course.

Class warfare has been around a long time, dude.

 

[Bern80]

What will be the consequences of Obama raising taxes on the top 5% (why not top 10%?)? Has Obama answered the effects on jobs, inflation, and whether it will increase or decrease government revenue?

I don't know how significant it would be, but it seems to be something people want both ways. If you decrease a companies revenues via a tax increase it makes it harder for them to hire people, invest in themselves and give raises.

 

[Bern80]

Back before Regan took office the Social security tax rate was 2% for employees.

Now its about 7.5% or so, isn't it?

Now I don't entirely blame Reagan for increasing those taxes because the system (thanks to COLAs) was going broke, but understand that the working class had huge tax increases because of social secuirty while at the same time the wealthy had huge offsetting tax cuts to their Federal taxes.

As I recall thanks to Regan, my paychecks actually got smaller, because of his so called tax cuts.

Had I been making a lot of money at the time, I'd have enjoyed an increase in money I kept, of course.

Class warfare has been around a long time, dude.

yeah that's about what the rate is now. Class warfare and the actions Reagan took imply that you believe he is it out for the poor and that just isn't the case. In theory (fun word) one perfectly legitimate way to stimulate the economy is to give rich people and corporations a tax break so they have more money free to invest in their company, hire people and give raises. It is what is referred to as trickle down economics. The flaws in it is that it is open for the overly greedy to take advantage up. I tend to believe people like that are the exception rather than the rule.

Regardless of the mechanism the intent is the same; to help the middle class and the poor. I don't see it as a rich vs. poor. I see it as differing views on how to best help the middle class and poor. Obama believes the middle class and poor will be best served if their taxes go down and the taxes of corporations go up. I don't know maybe he thinks the extra money saved by these people will more than offset the difficulty many businesses will face with tighter budgets. Personally I don't see that happening.